Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

Historical perspective and stability and a BLP namespace

One of the major problems with biographies of living people is an inability to gain historical perspective. This is true of all articles about modern and contemporary culture, but is particularly obvious in the case of a living person whose life story is, quite literally, neither finished nor written (though you could argue that for retired people this is less of a problem). Look through the biographical articles we have about people from the 19th century (only a few of whom are now still alive), and consider how the BLPs issues change. This issue of historical perspective is related to the problem of stability. One of the reasons some articles on living people are so unstable is not just because of POV pushing, but because the verdict of history and calm analysis at a distance in time is not yet possible. This alone, makes a good argument for not having articles on living people at all. Obviously that will never happen, so why not put the living people articles in a separate namespace, with a process to move them into the main namespace as and when needed. Maybe based on the number of links to an article from other articles, or a discussion process to nominate articles to be moved into the main area? When someone dies, their article automatically moves into the main namespace. Would that be at all workable? Carcharoth (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the advantage of this? All it would do is bring problems, factionalism and elitism ("I edit in the BLP mainspace more than you, I'm more qualified than you, this edit is wrong"), and script-writing to fix the thousands of broken links that would result. Celarnor Talk to me 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't see what that would bring us except more bureaucratic process. All articles are potentially in a state of flux anyway; BLPs aren't that much different from others in that regard. --Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Another option: how hard would it be for the developers to write some code which automatically semi-protects articles in Category:Living people? Then we could escalate to engage full protection at a subject's request. Hiding T 09:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice there seems to be a certain circularity about this discussion page: every discussion eventually comes back to a proposal to mass semi-protect BLPs. I see it was proposed in what is currently the very first thread on this page. Maybe we should be debating and voting on that, rather than these heavy-handed proposals to start deleting borderline articles without consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Maybe we should just implement it. Hiding T 10:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I thought one of the problems with semi-protection was that it stopped the subjects of biographies making corrections. Most read their articles and try and correct them, through IP addresses, before they have registered accounts. Carcharoth (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Isn't that a good thing? I understood that you aren't supposed to write about yourself on WP. Letting people "correct" their own articles is likely to lead to disinformation in the other direction (removal of valid criticism and inconvenient facts). The main downside I can see to semi-protection is that it prevents authors of articles from further improving them; but perhaps pushing such authors in the direction of creating a proper account wouldn't be such a bad thing. --Kotniski (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I thought you had to create an account now to create an article? Or did that change again? Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No, looks like you're right. Although even account holders still have to wait so many days before they can edit semi-protected pages.--Kotniski (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No. While it's difficult for someone to be neutral about themselves, we also want to enable them to identify and remove libel and the like. The harm done would outweigh the good by some margin. WilyD 13:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how you reach that conclusion. If people want libel removed they can ask us to do it for them. Meanwhile this system would make it much more unlikely that any libel would get in in the first place. I would expect the overall amount of libel-type harm to fall significantly. Meanwhile the other type of harm (good encyclopedic content being removed or altered just because the subject doesn't like it) would incidentally get reduced too. And compared with the delete-if-no-consensus proposal, we also avoid the harm of deleting (in practice almost irrevocably) potentially notable content. The downside is of course the same as with any semi-protection - we make it harder for casual users to improve the article - but given that the BLP problem needs to be solved somehow, I don't see any less destructive solution than this.--Kotniski (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Designated agent 2

Why is information provided here about a designated agent? That's for dealing with copyright infringement, not defamation. --Michael Snow (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether "designated agent" is the right term or not, people who don't like an article can use that contact info to request a WP:OFFICE action which deletes the "questionable" material. I might add that all the hand wringing about "our" supposed responsibilities is rather overdone given that WP:OFFICE up on Olympus are doing just fine deleting stuff without any input from us. The presence of WP:OFFICE is yet another reason why WP:BLP, WP:HARM, etc are unnecessary.
Consider the Ruud Lubbers article. The OFFICE came in and edited it last November, and left it under protection until March. Which of those edits could not already be covered off by WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOTABLE such that a WP:BLP is necessary?Bdell555 (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the foundation does not expect us to be lawyers, and that if there was any real legal danger that OFFICE would step right in an fix it. (1 == 2)Until 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I suggest replacing the legally defined "designated agent" information (which is out of date, but can not be legally changed without a specific government process) with a non-legal term and what the Board thinks is appropriate contact data for this page. Go for it Michael Snow!
"We recommend that you contact [...] for these concerns: [...]" WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are two sets of contact information. The designated agent stuff (which also lists an email address that is not in use), doesn't belong here. The other one could stay under a different heading, just identifying it as contact information for the Wikimedia Foundation. As for office actions, we would prefer to keep those to a minimum, and judging by the way people react on the rare occasions when it is invoked, I believe the community would prefer that as well. --Michael Snow (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. Please fix the content of the policy. Are you uncertain as to what to change it to? If so, post here a proposed change and we can discuss it; otherwise be bold and fix it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt once again up for discussion

Posting as this has extreme relevance for Wikipedia and specifically for BLP, and is being held in an area that few watch and less interact on: RFD.

The consensus on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 5 is challenged by User:JoshuaZ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_22#Daniel_Brandt_.E2.86.92_Public_Information_Research. As we need to get a final end one way or another to this, please do not remove this notice. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying hard not to conclude this is trolling, or at least disruption of some strange point. Either way, discussion rightly terminated.--Docg 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it wasn't, and I've opened the discussion again. Believe it or not, allowing the community to decide these matters is not disruptive. Treating users like trolls because you personally disagree with them is shameful.-- Ned Scott 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
certainly not trolling. The initiator of the RfD is an altogether respectable editor, although he has the opposite view on BLPs from DocG. Many of us--I hope the consensus at Wikipedia-- have the opposite view on this from Doc, and we are not trolls either. So far from being terminated, it has been closed with a move to Deletion Review. It will be terminated, when it is finally accepted that NPOV and COI requires equal treatment of those who annoy us, and that deletion is not the solution to editing difficulties. This article has been deleted because it embarrasses us. It may, but whose fault is that? We must become mature enough to cope with it. DGG (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Different opinions than your own do not equal trolling or disruption, no matter how active you are at BLP. Celarnor Talk to me 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
So Wikipedia will engage in "Courtesy blanking" of something if that something "may potentially cause ... emotional distress"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Courtesy_blanking
Facts are potentially distressing, certainly. And Wikipedia contains a lot of facts, most of them true. Perhaps Wikipedia will one day "blank" itself as a "courtesy" to humanity, which has been plagued throughout its existence by distressing facts! Now if we could just go one step further and "blank" all of human knowledge, after all... ignorance is bliss Bdell555 (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
To characterise pro BLP people as against education and the spreading of knowledge via wikipedia is to distort the reality of the situation completely. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I understand "pro BLP people" aren't against knowledge full stop. They are just against knowledge that "harms". WP:HARM had to come to existence because otherwise articles that causes "distress" couldn't be reverted if they were neutral and consisted of notable facts cited to reliable sources. I think it is quite possible that the acquisition of knowledge is inherently "distressing", however.Bdell555 (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain what this D Brandt issue is all about? Even the deletion discussions seem to have been censored. On what grounds was his article deleted? The information available gives the worrying impression that WP has simply decided to censor itself due to threats or hysteria from this guy. I know you're probably all fed up talking about this, but if someone would be good enough to fill me in (by e-mail if really necessary), I'd be grateful. --Kotniski (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond to this on your talk page. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the links. Unfortunately they just confirm my earlier suspicions. Well, I can't judge the original article (maybe it was POV enough to be deleted), but deleting the redirect??? Has part of WP gone mad? This sort of thing quite alters my beliefs about what this encyclopedia is - I agree that we should respond to genuine concerns from living persons, but just giving in to their every whim means we can no longer claim any kind of objectivity.--Kotniski (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we even have consensus that there is no consensus to "default to delete with a no consensus BLP AfD"?

After reviewing much of what has been argued over the last few days I wish to make a sounding. From what I can see, there is only a (sizable though it is) minority that it generally happy with the current "Default equals keep in BLP AfD's" - but those who are not happy with the current scenario are generally split between what is the most appropriate way to handle these BLP articles. Might I suggest that the recent participants indicate whether or not they consider the current method of closing no consensus BLP AfD's as needing improving/repairing/replacing, or as not requiring changing. If there is a majority that currently believes the process to be the best available, then there is no point in arguing what should replace it. If there is a majority that thinks it no longer fit for the process then everybody can join together to propose an alternative. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Needs repairing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • See my comments above re the possibility of implementing a change on the most troublesome types of BLP's and using the experience gained from monitoring that change in practice to extrapolate on whether it should be expanded to the broader universe of BLP's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No change to the deletion process should be made. --SSBohio 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No change is needed to the AfD consensus. You would need an overwhelming majority to make a big change in important policy, particularly to institute a policy that would change the rules on when articles can be deleted. I would oppose any attempt to encourage deletion of encyclopedic articles about notable people. I just haven't seen that it is a problem worth turning such an important policy on its head, and we have plenty of other remedies available if there are BLP issues in those articles. There are a number of things I disagree with about BLP policy but ease of article deletion is rather far down my list. 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I would say there is a distinct lack of consensus from this discussion, though others may see it differently. I think things should stay as they are until a consensus to do otherwise forms. (1 == 2)Until 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree no change is necessary. Admins already have the discretion necessary to interpret AfD discussions in light of BLP, and everyone has the discretion to remove BLP-violating text on sight. Powers T 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The only "change" that's needed is to make it more clear to the closing admins that AFD is not about counting votes. If the closing admin reads and understands the discussion, and then does what he thinks is the right thing to do based on the arguments brought forward in the discussion, and based on policy. If 99 people say "delete, no proof of notability", and then the 100th person comes in with proof that the subject is indeed notable, no sensible admin would call the discussion consensus to delete, regardless of whether the article is about a living person or a minor classical school of philosophy. Likewise, if 20 people say "keep, should be notable enough but I'm too lazy to look up sources", and 1 person says "there's no proof that this is really that notable, and nobody's going to watch it, and it's very likely to cause offence", a sensible admin would either delete or semiprotect the article, not call it consensus to keep. Again, the same principle works for BLP or a minor religion in the Amazonian rainforest. Zocky | picture popups 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Addresses

I noticed that the Jeremy Edwards article listed his address (not the house number, but the street). I've removed the street name but I was wondering if there's a policy on this anywhere? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I think that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information is the most relevant policy in this type of situation. While it's generally useful to note in what city a person resided or currently resides, the name of the street of their past or current residences is not something that generally belongs in an encyclopedia article. (Aside from privacy concerns, a living person's physical address may change at any time, meaning that information in the article could become inaccurate at any time.) There are, of course, some exceptions, such as the articles about Michael Jackson and Neverland Ranch, where the address has become a well-known part of the historical record. Black Falcon (Talk) 21:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Makes sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

a request for some eyes and ears.....

It's somewhat tangential - but ultimately related to the discussions above - and I'd certainly appreciate some eyes and ears at a new page I've setup up at User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard - all thoughts and feedback most welcome! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP policy proposals

PLEASE NOTE: To reduce the current size of this page, I have transferred a number of connected discussions, including several still open proposals aimed at strengthening BLP policy by having more BLP articles deleted or semi-protected, to this subpage.--Kotniski (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic categories

I added ethnic to the categories that should not be added in the absence of evidence that they are significant to the subject's notability. Hope that isn't controversial with anyone. Some of the ethnic categories are in an awful mess, and maybe this change will help people realize that these need to be reliably sourced. --John (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But some of ethnic categories are not mess at all, and I don't see a need to stop people from adding categories when there is no controversy. -- Taku (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Ethnic categories need to be treated in exactly the same way as their beliefs, sexual orientation, etc. The test should not be whether it is controversial but whether it can be reliably sourced. --John (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why? Like I said above, on quite many occasions, one's ethnicity isn't a controversial topics at all. I can understand one's religious beliefs and sexual orientation are sensitive information and should never be mentioned unless supported by multiple reliable sources, but ethnicity isn't (most of the time). Ethnicity is, to my mind, akin to birth date or birth place. -- Taku (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, ethnicity can be just as controversial as religion or sexuality. Are you following the US presidential election at all? There's a candidate called Barack Obama whose ethnicity is somewhat significant. As it is easy to find reliable sources discussing his ethnicity, we are right to mention it in the article. Someone on whose ethnicity no reliable sources can be found should not be categorized ethnically. It's just WP:V, nothing unusual, but in the spirit of BLP I think we need to apply extra rigor to categories of living people. Even birth place and birth dates can be challenged and removed if no sources can be found, although I would say there is a basic difference; race and ethnicity, not being scientific concepts but social constructs can be subject to controversy and dispute, and our default should be not to include it unless we have evidence it is noteworthy, significant to the subject's notability. Objective facts like birth details are less likely to be controversial. --John (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, that's why I put "(most of the time)". Of course, the ethnicity "can" be a big issue in some biographies. But on some other occasions, it isn't. I agree that the ethnicity "could" potentially require to be treated differently from other hard facts like ages. By the way, some birth dates on actress and models are controversial matters, requiring throughout sourcing. Every bit of biographical information can be "subject to controversy and dispute", and so I don't know why the ethnicity has to be singled out. I think we have the language on religious belief and sexual orientation in BLP because they don't, in our belief, constitute part of a basic biographic information such as birth details or nationality. Not because of the potential for dispute and controversy.

I, however, wonder if a theoretical discussion we've doing is worth engaging. I mean, for example, do you think it is fine to put an ethnicity category when the infobox notes ethnicity? -- Taku (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not without a valid reference. Which infoboxes have a field for ethnicity, as a matter of interest? --John (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a moot point, as no one should be adding anything without references. It doesn't matter if its their age, their hair color, their ethnicity, or their place of birth. It doesn't matter if its a BLP or an article on someone who has been dead for over 300 years. Celarnor Talk to me 02:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
First, to John. Template:Pageant titleholder bio has ethnicity as a parameter. From my experience, it seems ethnicity is usually noted in articles about models or actors. For figures like politicians or academics, the nationality seems to be used preferably. Since quite often free images are not available for them, ethnicity (like heights or weights) can be a good alternative, because clearly the nationality doesn't provide sufficient information about how they look. To Celarnor, in principle, I understand the argument, but that's not necessarily what is done in practice. We (at least I) still mention the ethnicity in the infobox when we are quite sure of it even when no reliable sources "explicitly" state the subject's ethnicity. For example, when I know a personal is a Japanese actress, and if she looks Japanese, (even when there is no free image, there are usually lots of images on the Internet), I fill the ethnicity parameter in the infobox as "Japanese", without any source. -- Taku (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a rather dangerous and risky thing to do, and is one of the reasons that Wikipedia has spawned the tome of evil and fail that is BLP policy. As long as we have notability, it shouldn't be very difficult to find an article that discusses the ethnicity of your hypothetical subject. It shouldn't be too hard; just go back to whatever source you first encountered that let you know that the subject is a Japanese actress from Japan and cite that. Celarnor Talk to me 05:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know it's really not about "me" per se. I'm just telling you that is a usual practice. Of course, I always cite sources I used to write articles. But I don't think it is either "risky" or "dangerous" to assume the ethnicity in some occasions, because sometimes it is just so obvious. Also, judging from your comment, I assume you have little experience contributing to bio articles. So, I don't think you are aware of difficulty finding sources that explicitly mention one's ethnicity. -- Taku (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It usually takes a bit more effort for subjects of marginal notability, but for the subjects that are genuinely and obviously notable, its seldom difficult. A while ago, when List of Anglo-Indians came up for deletion due to the fact that there weren't any sources, it wasn't a very difficult matter to source most of them. Maybe you should review your searching methods? Celarnor Talk to me 06:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is just a difference in types of articles we contribute to. For one thing, I usually consult sources in Japanese. The matter of ethnicity simply just doesn't appear in discussion in those sources, probably because it is so obvious. In my experience, it is much easier to find one's blood type :) -- Taku (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Context is important though. A JPOP star should probably have their blood type listed - a Japanese particle physicist, not so much. WilyD 12:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the original editor of this thread. I've worked on both David Archuleta and Jason Castro, both of American Idol fame. In David's case, from what I could see, Wikipedia was more or less the only place calling him a "Honduran American". People seemed to think that from ever piece of ancestry a person has, you can then apply a label to them here, regardless of any other reliable source, or the person themself, ever using that label. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the helpful comments. I have now cleaned up Category:Eurasian people, Category:Afro-Caucasian people and, most recently Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain. In all three cases, the majority of entries were category-only, followed by some where there was an assertion of ethnicity with no obvious reference to verify it. I removed all entries in these two cases. I did get a couple of false positives, and one of them has led another admin to question the value of what I am doing. As I do still believe that what I am doing benefits the project, let me recap what I am doing and why I am doing it. There is no implication that an ethnic category is automatically a bad thing to belong to, any more than it would automatically be a bad thing to belong to a religious category, a political one, or a LGBT one. However, all such categories are definitely contentious if not verifiable, which is the criterion that triggers the applicability of this policy. Thus, my proposal would be that I will continue to remove ethnic and religious categories where they are not clearly verifiable to reliable sources. In the case of living people, I will also remove any unsourced assertions from the article body. In the case of people who are no longer living I will instead add a {{fact}} tag. Does that sound reasonable to people? This issue has also been discussed here, here, and here. I'm keen to keep cleaning up the categories, which, it seems obvious, have in most cases been added with no justification whatsoever (see here for an apparent example of this), but I want to make double sure that people understand and agree with what I am doing first. Hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you're doing great work. We should absolutely NOT be categorizing people based on "well I think they look X"... I blogged about this problem here. I'll go further. I think it's not enough to have a verifiable source for the ethnic categorization... I think it's needful that (with perhaps some very rare exceptions) the source establish WHY it is notable that the person is a given ethnicity. An example of a good categorization, in my view, would be the Vin Diesel article. This article has material that describes why his ethnicity influenced his career. An example of a bad categorization, in my view, would be the Sydney Tamiia Poitier article. When this article had a categorization (it does not, now) there was absolutely no relevance within the body text of why her ethnicity matters, how it influenced her career, etc. This is a difficult job and I'm glad John (and others) are taking it on. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:BLP subject response, viewpoints of the BLP subject

Some week ago I made the proposal Wikipedia:BLP subject response. Discussion on it has pretty much ended, and the consensus appears to be against the proposal. However, User:FT2, while rejecting the proposal as it stood, did propose that we add the following text to the main BLP policy:

"The viewpoint of the subject of an article or section is always to be considered a significant viewpoint for the purposes of neutral point of view policy, in the context of biographical material on them."
"A web page containing the subject's views on encyclopedic factual matters may always be linked and cited for the purposes of this, provided this would not breach Wikipedia:No personal attacks and particularly, the section on external links."

This appears to be a reasonable addition which will help in providing the complete picture for biographies, and will also contribute to making the article more in line with WP:NPOV. Are there any objections to adding the text? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Any reason to apply this only to living persons? Shouldn't the same principle apply to the deceased, corporations, political groupings etc.?--Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd change the last clause to "the section there on external links." to make it clear we are not talking about WP:EL. Also I find the word "encyclopedic" problematical. It's meaning within Wikipedia is not the same as the dictionary meaning and generally boils down to "stuff I think is worthy." "Always" seems a little strong as well, since we then qualify it. Finally there is the question of how many such links are acceptable, say if the subject maintains several web sites.--agr (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This is generally common sense for pretty much all articles. There are exceptions such as when all the reliable sources strongly disagree with the person (see Kent Hovind for example) but overall this is more an NPOV issue. I'd also suggest removing the comment about external links since the consensus seems to be that within mainspace there are almost no cases where not linking should occur. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is too game-able to state that we must always link to a page under named conditions. We should encourage editors to link to appropriate pages and give some key relevant criteria for that. That way we not be gamed into providing a free link to something they wish to promote that is unrelated to the article. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP and 3RR

PLEASE NOTE AGAIN: For the same reason, I have transferred a lengthy set of discussions about the three-revert rule (3RR), and the BLP exception to it, to this subpage.--Kotniski (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Waunakee, Wisconsin

An editor has added Kyle Barman, on the strength that he is an Eagle Scout. I've removed the entry once, but it has been readded. I've posted a request on the talk page for comments re notability. Input would be appreciated on this one. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable alumni listed in articles about degree mills or otherwise problematic universities

From Talk:Washington_International_University#Deletion_of_item_from_article it appears that there may be a general problem with listing non-notable alumni in articles about colleges and universities that have reputations as degree mills. I've become convinced that doing so creates insurmountable BLP problems. Furthermore, based on both BLP and NPOV grounds one can make a strong argument that we should not in general list alumni who are not notable in any article regardless of the quality of the school. Is there a consensus for such an attitude? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes sense. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I object to limiting this to "degree mills" as inherently problematic and POV. Broaden it to all institutions of higher education and their alumni and it becomes a potentially sensible and workable concept. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I weighed in on the talk page, but to repeat my point here, the inclusion should never be used to promote someone, or put someone in their place, thereby making a new level of fame/infamy regarding the person. This is, IMO, what is being indicated by the talk page, that the person in question has had an article written about him in the news on a subject unrelated to this university, that just mentioned where he got his "degree". The opinions stated by one editor is to basically knock him down a few pegs by including him on the uni article to counter mention of his degree (which doesn't appear to have been done by him, and is not our job regardless). On top of that, add the man has evidently asked his name to be left off the article. In a general sense, non-notable alumni shouldn't be listed any more than non-notable anybody (do we really need to know that Bob the gardener went to UofX, if Bob isn't famous in his own right?). Erring on the side of caution is a good thing, especially back to the diploma mill example, as it could cause harm to someone's reputation originating from WP. It would be like breaking a story about a person who has been marginally in the news as a previous porn star because some WP editor noted the name on the back of the box of a porn movie made in 1982; unless a RS breaks that story and unless it was notable, accurately portrayed, WP:V, etc., we don't include it. We should never act as the originator of breaking news stories. --Faith (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not really germane to this discussion, but I'd like to set the record straight on a couple of points about the WIU article. This was not a case of a clear-cut non-notable person whose degree had merely been mentioned in passing by a third party. Rather, the WP contributor who originally added the information was adding self-identified and published information from and about a person with a possible borderline claim to notability. This person was CEO of a company (the company still exists, but he's apparently no longer its CEO), and his short bio on his company's website (a page whose content he can be assumed to have controlled) listed him as holding a Ph.D from the institution that is the subject of the article. The same information also appeared in UK business news articles about his role in various financial transactions involving buying and selling of companies (one of which was the source cited in the article). Other news stories about him and his companies consistently identify him as "Dr.", apparently on the basis of that Ph.D. --Orlady (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with JoshuaZ and ElKevbo that we should populate the alumni lists of all schools by the same standards. This eliminates certain BLP puzzles automatically. I'd exclude people from any alumni lists if they don't have articles. I perceive that both JoshuaZ and DGG (from DGG's comments at the article Talk) would follow the logic of their position by *including* any notable graduate of a degree-mill in the list of their alumni, even though some of them might no longer be pleased at the connection. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree. Anything that automatically eliminates BLP puzzles is a good thing. — CharlotteWebb 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • For unaccredited institutions, I think it's less an issue whether the student is notable, and it's more an issue whether the student/institution relationship is notable. If a fake doctor kills somebody and there's substantial reliable coverage of how he got a degree at a fake university, that's a good reason to mention his name in the university's article, even if he's not deemed worthy of his own article (perhaps because he's known only for that fact). On the flip side, if some hugely famous person's name is listed in a bogus college's alumni list, but no substantial coverage of the fact exists, I shouldn't include that fact in Wikipedia, since I wouldn't have adequate sources to cover the fact fairly, even though I might technically be able to verify the singular fact. --Rob (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • We care about NPOV. Neutrality is not fairness and fairness is an inherently subjective and hard to define notion. Of course, someone can always repudiate a degree or make a statement on their personal webpage that they didn't know the degree was problematic if it is. Furthermore, an important point- not being accredited isn't necessarily bad. Many evangelical Christian colleges refuse accreditation because they say it will interfere with their mission. While some of those are using that as an excuse to run diploma mills others seem sincere. Indeed, if we use different standards for different types of schools then it will put us in the very difficult and POV situation of deciding just how degree millish different institutions are. That's not a good position for us to be in. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Applying two double standards in tandem would make us quadruply biased. Unworkable. — CharlotteWebb 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    (ec) I think Thivierr (Rob) is on to something important. "Is the relationship of encyclopedic significance?" is an important question that good editors will consider for both the individual's article and the institution's article. Thus Joshua Chamberlain (alum and later president of the college) and Robert Peary (museum associated with his expedition on the campus) almost definitely need to be on the Bowdoin College article, while DJ Spooky may not belong on the college article, even though he is clearly notable because there seems to be no relationship between his significance (rapper) and his time at Bowdoin (philosophy and french major). (Yet as part of a good biography of him, it definitely merits mention in his article.)
    There may well be some individuals who themselves are BLP1E subjects, but that event is associated with the institution and merits mention in the institution article. (Hypothetical and over the top example: an alumnus working as a technician in a campus nuclear reactor who was on duty when a reactor meltdown irradiated the campus and forced the college to close for a couple years while rebuilding elsewhere.) In that case, the lack of an article on the individual should not preclude use of their name in coverage of the event. So no hard and fast rule against mentioning the name of a person who will not have an article is appropriate - but such an individual wold not merit merely mentioning in a listing of alumni; the event has to be significant enough to merit significant coverage in the article. So such a person would never appear in a sub-article (or section) akin to List of Bowdoin College people.
    And even some individuals that lack articles currently will merit mentions in such lists. Sumner T. Pike is one such that is currently in the list of Bowdoin alumni; he was both a comissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and one of the first commissioners of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. We don't have an article on him yet, but he is notable enough for mention in the list.
    In general, I agree that being notable enough to merit an article, even if that article is not yet written, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion in a list of alumni. The standards for mention in prose coverage will be different, and generally higher than those for mention in a list of alumni, but there may be some who merit discussion in the text of the article yet not in a list of alumni. GRBerry 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
That all seems highly reasonable except for the part about DJ Spooky. It isn't clear to me how one can decide that Sumner T. Pike can decide which were influenced by their time at the school unless you have sources explicitly saying so. Listing them all in such cases avoids original research issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I strongly agree with JoshuaZ regarding the DJ Spooky example. All notable people who are known to have attended the school should be valid candidates for listing i these articles, regardless of whether or not their notability relates to their course of study. Additionally, it often will be appropriate for university/college articles to list non-notable alumni due to their significance to the institution. For example, the car dealer who donated enough money to Carson-Newman College that they put his family name on the football stadium and a music building is probably not notable, but due to his importance to the institution his name needs to be in the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
While it is proper to mention Lonas H. Tarr (and his donations) in the college article, it would misleading to list him as a notable alumnus (unless he is actually "notable", in which case an article should be written, so take your pick). — CharlotteWebb 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities asking for additional input. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about "some hugely famous person's name listed in a bogus college's alumni list, but no substantial coverage of the fact exists," that's not an issue. "Bogus colleges" don't publish alumni lists that include full names of real people, hugely famous or otherwise. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Well there certainly are unaccredited post secondary institutions that hand out degrees that proudly state the names of alumni. Whether to apply the word "bogus" to any of these is debatable/subjective, but not significant to my point. The point is, somebody may consider it defamatory to be associated with such an institution (particularity if it got lots of bad press), and like all potentially defamatory claims, we have to be especially careful about getting good reliable independent sources. --Rob (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this last point of Rob's. As in the above example about the reactor meltdown tech, that would surely be mentioned in connection with the school by RS, allowing us the means to include the person's name, i.e., they were famous/infamous for their connection to the school. However, alumni not tied to the school by a RS should be excluded per BLP to avoid doing harm (or at the very least violating WP:SYN). Listing none of them unless found in a RS avoids original research issues, IMO. When in doubt, leave it out. --Faith (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Routine semi-protection - ??

Having seen the section that says the status is disputed, I was wondering should we routinely semi-protect them?? I know it's probably been discussed a lot in the archives of this page, but in my view, maybe we should use expiring semi-protection rather than lock out IPs completely (I have read arguments that IPs make up the bulk of our contributions amongst the 7million accounts we have).

There do seem to be a lot of indefinitely semi-protected BLPs, but I think they should be protected with a short-term expiry date rather than indefinitely. Just my 0.02 cents. Ta, --1qx (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed that section it was proposed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Proposals#Proposed changes to wording of policy but I opposed it then and saw little support come forward for it. The portection policy as is provides sufficient justification for smei-protecting where it is needed and flagged versions should be implemented soon as well. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Flagged revisions sounds quite good. I've actually seen it being used on another Wikimedia project (not the German Wikipedia) and it could be useful. It could also be good on articles like Monkey etc. Ta, --1qx (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles about people notable only for one event

What if that one event is for a Victoria Cross or a Medal of Honor? This section would suggest that we should not have an article for Rambahadur Limbu. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I have answered it myself by reading Wikipedia:Notability (people) because it covers the subject in much more detail and has a section called "Any biography" "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.".
So as Wikipedia:Notability (people) covers the subject in more detail I have altered the header note for that guideline from "See also" to "Main" as it has a more detailed description of what this section in this policy is saying. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The right thing to do in my view is ask whether you can write a biography about the person. Ann Eliza Bleecker is a biography. An article that essentially says "third lieutenant Jacob Smithers III won the VC for throwing a grenade back where it came from" is not a biography. It's a merge (to the VC article) waiting to happen. ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

policy presumes "hurt" or "distress" impossible in afterlife

This BLP policy assumes, without argument, that the day after the subject of the article dies, the article can revert to "normal" (?) standards of neutrality, sourcing, and notability because although such standards could lead to an article that "distresses" the subject unless diluted and/or modified by a BLP policy, a subject who has "passed away" would no longer be distressed. That's a contentious metaphysical assumption! If "hurt" is to be construed as to the physical body, I would call attention to the "sticks and stones may break my bones..." argument. There are, of course, no "tears in heaven", but what if the subject went to hell? The eternally damned surely have enough problems dealing with fire and brimstone never mind an unflattering Wiki bio! Where's the sense of compassionate mission here? Mortals are being discriminated against in favour of immortals, as well, since apparently the unvarnished truth can eventually come out with respect to the former class but never for the latter.Bdell555 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I take this as a signal that serious discussion has ended here. --agr (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's harder for a dead person to start a defamation lawsuit or submit an OTRS ticket complaining about negative or wrong material in their articles. Celarnor Talk to me 22:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
True, but their surviving relatives tend to pick up the slack. - Jredmond (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Defamation doesn't work that way. Common law has long held that defamation is an injury to the reputation of a group or individual, and that the reputation dies along with the group or individual. The relatives would have to go a different route and show that some kind of harm was being done to them as relatives of that person/group via an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and that's much harder to accomplish. Celarnor Talk to me 22:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If we really believe that "Do No Harm" is what matters then yes saying bad things about recently deceased people can hurt their family members. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with JoshuaZ. I thought there was something in place to cover this for X# of years (???). Faith (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm sure we all agree that BLP problems can still occur in articles about the recently deceased, regardless of what happens in the afterlife. (FWIW, I happen to believe the afterlife is unverifiable.) But when BLP issues arise in such articles, they tend to concern survivors and others involved in the life of the recently deceased person. So while it's technically true that BLP no longer "applies" to the subject of the article, the policy still has implications, as it does on all Wikipedia pages. Looking for loopholes in BLP is a pointless exercise. szyslak (t) 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just use common sense here and evaluate articles of the recently deceased with a view to what harm they might do to the deceased, their friends and relatives, and our reputation for verifiable, neutral articles based on reliable sources... if we do that, it will be obvious when we should extend BLP like provisions to other articles. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily follow that BLP subjects (or the family of recently deceased BLP subjects) don't have problems with verifiable, neutral articles based on reliable sources. (See the Giovanni di Stefano AfD). Any harm caused by a NPOV article following sourcing policy is done by the sources and/or the actions of the subject themselves in the off-wiki world. We should follow policy with all of our articles, not just BLPs; that renders most of this kind of special treatment unnecessary. I guess I just don't understand why a verifiable, neutral article on a deceased person should be held to any less of a standard than an article on a living person. Their becoming deceased probably doesn't have any effect on the article other than a mention of their death, removal from the living persons category, etc. Celarnor Talk to me 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course every article should follow policy. BLP does not deny this. BLP says that for articles about living persons, the writer(s) must exert extra care to follow the content policies. Doesn't mean you can have no care for them elsewhere, it just means you must have more care when it comes to BLPs/BLP material. An example: Uncited material that is not BLP-related may be tagged with a "needs citation" tag when found, and one may wait a bit to see if a citation can be found. If one cannot/is not found within a reasonable time frame, the material should be removed. If, on the other hand, the material was BLP-related, and controversial, bam, it should be removed without question. Less uncited controversial information does not hurt -- Jimbo Wales even said something like "zero information is preferable to misleading or false information". The legitimacy of a revert war (remove unsourced controversial or especially negative BLP material, someone else adds it in, remove again citing BLP, etc. each readdition not having any citations) in the case of BLP is more open to debate than in other cases where such a war is usually considered entirely destructive. In this case it may have a degree of beneficiality, although it is by no means a permanent solution or substitute for good dispute resolution: it's just that one can be more lenient (not totally permitting of course, just a little more lenient) toward the behavior (on the side of the removals, not the readditions -- one would ideally come down harder on those). In other words, the approach to non-conforming material is especially stringent with BLPs, not that it is or should be weak everywhere else. There's a difference between "weak", "strong", and "really strong". Enforceent of content policy must be "strong" at least, and must be at least "really strong" when it comes to BLPs. I could be wrong, though, but that seems to make the most sense. mike4ty4 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"enforcement must be at least 'really strong' when it comes to BLPs" misses the issue. The issue is whether POSITIVE or flattering material should be subject to a different standard than NEGATIVE material. Whatever happened to neutrality?Bdell555 (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Legal threats happened. People generally aren't going to file suit against the Foundation for positive material. Celarnor Talk to me 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Has there ever actually been a court case? No, and there likely never will be, because WP:OFFICE has apparently caved every time, not just with respect to "illegal" material, but "questionable" material people have complained about. Are we here to build an enyclopedia or to advance the interests of the Foundation?Bdell555 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The person I was responding to seemed to be suggesting BLP was "unnecessary", I was countering that. Note who I responded to. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, not everyone believes in an afterlife. Second off, those that do do not necessarily believe something written about them on Wikipedia (an entity in this life) will have an effect on it. Third off, Wikipedia has a great deal of people whose beliefs vary considerably on this so it wouldn't really work. Better to just leave it out. mike4ty4 (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So you have no qualms about a Wiki article flipping from a favourable/positive POV of the subject to NPOV on the mere contingency of someone dying?Bdell555 (talk)
It should have been NPOV (Neutral point of view) before they died. To me, if it becomes NPOV that's good. If it's not NPOV now, then it should be made NPOV. Especially if the person is still alive. If they're dead it should still be made NPOV. Although perhaps there isn't quite as much of a rush. You say "on the mere contingency of someone dying", but that doesn't change that it became NPOV, and that it should have been NPOV beforehand. Favorable POV is not neutral either. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If NPOV is "good enough", then why does WP:BLP exist? Why not instead appeal to WP:NPOV and say, "this article is not neutral, it portrays the subject from a negative / unfavourable / non-neutral POV?" Fact is, articles CANNOT be made NPOV as you request because WP:BLP gets cited against neutralizing efforts by those who want an article that is favourable to the subject.Bdell555 (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Because "favorable" is not equal to "NPOV". Wikipedia requires NPOV. BLP exists because NPOV is especially important in the cases it applies to. What don't you get about that? What makes you think that "favorable POV" equals NPOV (calling favorable-POV-pushers' efforts "neutralizing" suggests you are equating "favorable POV" and "NPOV", which is not the case.)? mike4ty4 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The "wrong version"

I know when an article is locked due to edit warring we get stuck on a version where there is no real consensus but it's left there. It's usually no big deal in most cases but there should be a consistent approach in regards to blp issues. If an article is locked due to edit warring over potential blp issues shouldn't the content be left out until the issue is resolved. It is pretty dumb to have an article stuck with a potentially violating inclusion in it. This does not mean that content can't be put back in once the issue is resolved though. It is just better and reflects more competence to show a consistent approach on these matters. Also, you might ask: What if an editor is just using blp as an excuse to edit war with an incredibly unreasonable argument. Sure that could happen but the involved admin can use his/her judgement on that and make a decision accordingly. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the current policy makes BLP violations one of the few things that admins are supposed to eliminate when blocking pages "at random" during edit wars. (I tried proposing that such blocks not be placed randomly in general, but it seems the community prefers to allow chance to play a role in building our encyclopedia, so the proposal was blisteringly shot down.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)