Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

Reason for distinction between living vs. dead people?

Sorry if this is an obvious question but what's the reason for treating living and dead people differently? Does Wikipedia have different responsibilites under the law?

Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 20:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In a word, yes. Also, dead people complain less. SBHarris 21:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue also came up in Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_5#Biographies_of_Dead_People and, strangely enough, Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_5#When "living" is disputed. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifying an identity?

How does one go about identifying an identity? An admin claims to be contacted by a extremely well know conspiracy theorist on his talk page. The person posts solely from an IP address, that is not from the college they are known to be at, but a DSL line in another part of California. The admin has been in edit wars over the article, and the article ended up protected. One could even say the admin has been arguing that people that believe in conspiracy theories are "not all there." Which makes them an odd person to have been contacted if the theorist was looknig for a sympathetic ear. The admin edits the protected article according to the request the anon left. Oddly enough the anon did not leave any proof, register an account with their known email at their affiliated college or anything. Do you remove the paragraph? is this a COI? How does one go about verifying this, its kinda odd timing, and the persons homepage and articles they write on a known site have not been updated to reflect this "new view" they claim to have. While I am sure people change their ideas, how do I verify this? is an anon message enough to edit a protected article you had been in edit wars over? --NuclearZer0 21:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Diffs

Tom Harrison Talk 22:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Admins have no special protection from following the same edit rules we all follow. Being "contacted" by person x personally is not a reliable source. I'm fairly sure the admin is not a "widely-known journalist". Feel free to revert and file a complaint against the admin if you feel they are acting improperly. Wjhonson 07:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Does WP:BLP justify the removal of talk page sections where someone expresses a personal opinion?

I would like to hear input on the following question. Suppose someone on an article talk page expresses a personal opinion that a particular public figure is "crazy and bad". That's it. There are no facts being alleged, which could be right or wrong, or well-sourced or poorly-sourced or unsourced, it's simply one person's opinion that that public figure is "crazy and bad". I will stipulate, by the way, that article talk pages are not for the sharing of such opinions and that someone who posts them should be gently informed to save such opinions for a personal blog or some other forum; the poster in question was in fact so advised.

My question is this: Is an editor who sees someone expressing a personal opinion of this nature entitled to remove the entire talk page section, or even just to edit the other editor's words to eliminate any reference to the public figure, claiming that WP:BLP entitles them to do so immediately? I would appreciate hearing opinions on this. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Any unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, whether opinion or purported fact, should be removed from articles and talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Are Wikipedia editors considered to be living people for the purposes of this discussion? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I would consider the action to be on a par with the redaction of a personal attack - possibly appropriate but only to be done with caution and only for the most serious of inappropriate comments. Rossami (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
A distinction should be made between notable LPs and Wikipedia editors as it pertains to the application of various policies. For the former, WP:BLP applies for articles, talk pages, etc. For the latter, as Rossami says, WP:NPA applies, and WP:REFACTOR is always an option. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It's appropriate to remove the offending words, but only the smallest amount should be censored, and not a whole section, if it's not necessary. We shouldn't let people use a few bad words, as an excuse to wipe out an entire thread of mainly legit conversation. We should try to preserve the historical record of our discussions on talk pages, to the extent practical, and safe. --Rob 03:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would say so, Antaeus. If you mean can we removed unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about ourselves, yes we can, certainly if someone uses our real names. If someone were to write "SlimVirgin's a moron," I'd be less inclined to claim BLP if I removed it, and anyway there aren't enough hours in the day. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Does this also apply to negative comments made about an individual during an AfD? I have seen several prominent individuals get pretty well trashed during AfD discussions, as Wikipedia editors unfamiliar with the field pop in and say things like, ""Delete: I've never heard of him, he's just a nobody," or ""Weak keep: His book was trash, but looks like it's pretty well-known trash." "Delete: Thoroughly not-notable," etc. Can or should those types of comments be refactored, after the discussion is completed? I agree that it's worthwhile to keep older AfDs for future reference, but perhaps if they contain personal attacks, they should be sealed away for view only by admins, and unsealed only if needed for future AfD discussions. --Elonka 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose the refactoring or blanking of those kinds of comments during deletion discussions. "Non-notable" is not a personal attack at all. It's not even a negative comment. It's a simple assessment of how well known the person is by others. "His book was trash" is also not a personal attack. It is a negative opinion but it is inherently self-sourced - "I thought his book was trash". As a reader, I would be entirely entitled to that personal opinion. It wouldn't be appropriate to include my personal opinion in an article but it may well be relevant and appropriate in other contexts like deletion discussions. Furthermore, it's a negative opinion about the work, not the author. Books can't have their feelings hurt (and if an author's feelings are hurt by a single negative review, well, he/she is in the wrong line of work.) Applying this principle to AFD discussions should be done only in the most egregious of circumstances. Normal editorial discussions don't come close to the BLP line. Rossami (talk) 04:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it time to Make WP:SEMI the rule for WT:BLP?

I've noticed a lot of anon vandalism on BLPs lately. Since we have this policy that holds those articles to a higher standard, I wonder if it's appropriate to make semi-protection become the norm for BLPs. Users that aren't logged in could still post new info to the talk page, but not touch the bio itself. I don't think it's too high a barrier to ask someone to create an account before they can edit BLPs.

I don't want to create a bunch of work for admins here, so maybe I'm asking for a template that nonymous editors can use to tag an article as being a BLP and automatically protect it against anonymous edits. And that implies that a logged-in editor could also remove that template. But doing so would leave an audit trail, and unless there was a good reason to do it (the subject of the bio died, or the template were originally applied in error), it would affect the reputation of that editor, so it isn't something many people would do lightly.

There. I said it. Now tell me why anonymous edits to BLPs should be allowed. The Monster 05:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that from the perspective of legal liability, anons are less problematic than editors with handles. If an IP-anon defames someone, they can see the IP directly, which takes them one step closer to finding them for retribution. semper fictilis 04:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
It could be. However if it's a proxy or a shared IP without good records (whether they never existed or they were deleted coz it's been a while) or the ISP refuses to cooperate or whatever it'll be of limited use. On the other hand, if it's a registered editor with a resonable number of edits they could force wikipedia to hand over out logs related to that editor maybe. From there, there may be multiple IPs (including different ISPs), more recent IPs as well as multiple edits from the same IP at different times and it'll probably be more likely to be they may be able to track the person down. Nil Einne 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I personally think that anonymous edits shouldn't be allowed at all (and yes, I know we'd lose thousands of valuable editors... I know a guy IRL who makes very good contributions to the Phillip Glass article but refuses to register, for example). But, those folks who run Wikipedia have a very idealistic notion of how a Wiki can work, and right now they are the ones signing the checks :D I seriously doubt the WP:SEMI will become the norm for any type of article, because it runs contrary to that same idealism. --Jaysweet 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed courtesy deletion for persons of borderline notability

Please review and comment at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_%28people%29#Proposed_courtesy_deletion_for_persons_of_borderline_notability . Kla'quot 07:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed the main policies to reflect change to WP:A

Since attribution is not the result of merging WP:V and WP:NOR, I believed it to be prudent to update this page to reflect that. DanielZimmerman 23:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Blogs

I've added to the section on reliable sources that self-published sources should not be added as an external link in BLPs, unless written or published by the subject. We already say that self-published sources should not be used as a source unless published or written by the subject.

I added this because I've noticed in a few articles (e.g. Patrick Holford) that, when prevented from using criticism in a blog as a source, editors are adding it as an external link instead, so I feel we should close that loophole. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But the wording could use help. See if this sparks some ideas for improving the wording: Self-published books, zines, websites or blogs should never be used as sources or included as further reading (external links), unless written or published by the subject. WAS 4.250 21:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
That would work, WAS. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I, too, agree. semper fictilis 04:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Public vs. Non-public people

Further to This discussion on the Daniel Brandt article, WAS posted this bit from Florida law (where the servers are...):

[1] says "One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public." Separating people into public versus nonpublic is for convinience. Privacy issues are actually decided by the specific encroachment of privacy alleged. But we should get nowhere near the line, so simplifying by dividing people up into private vs. public will work most the time. Anything controversial about a private living person that is "not of legitimate concern to the public" should not be in Wikipedia.

There is also now this hidden message on that same article up top. At first it was publically visible. The question is should the BLP policy take into account a person's status as public individual vs. private individual? to go with that, a 'private person' would have even some un-controversial material removed, while the public people would not. The problem is... who decides who is public vs. non-public? is Ben Affleck public or non? is Bill Gates public or non? is Scooter Libby public or non? is the Unabomber public or non? since it's all so subjective (our take, the media's take, the subject's take)... who decides? A famous actor deciding everything is private? What is a private person becomes the textbook def of public, then tries a 'take back'? Or someone that fate makes famous... who decides?

I think we should have a section on this in the BLP policy, and a distinction of who is which that will hopefully non-edit-warrable... simplifications are bad (agreeing with WAS there on the Brandt page) but at the same time, people really either are or aren't. My thought was that if you meet x, y, and z criterion, you are public and we can add a {{PublicBLP}} or {{PrivateBLP}} template that links back to the appropriate section/rules. George Bush and Oprah Winfrey for example are clearly public... and once info is out, it can't really be taken back. thoughts? - Denny 23:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Brandt is unequivocally a public figure, as are all the examples you cited. As such, any verifiable information about them is fair comment. It seems to me the BLP policy covers this pretty well already. Jokestress 23:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
my concern based on the chat with WAS is that 1) we need perhaps something different (more stringent?) for non-public people should be considered, and 2) that we need a clear policy definition of what makes someone public vs. private, and 3) a criterian for changes to those conditions (public to private, and private to public). To avoid messes like this ever coming up again. - Denny 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you may be misconstruing what "public" means in this legal sense. Plenty of public figures are reclusive or would prefer to be private, but that has absolutely no bearing on their legal standing. Someone who is not a public figure should not have an article. If they do, it will be deleted. There is no doubt that Brandt would meet any legal threshold for being a public figure, and this "non-public" argument is being advanced by people making groundless claims based on a misinterpretation. If someone is notable enough to have an article, and they are doing something that gets them mentioned in the national news many times, they are almost certainly a public figure. Since we already have a reliable source requirement, anyone following that policy is writing about a public figure. Whether they are "notable" is another matter and is a more arbitrary and non-legal definition used internally. Jokestress 00:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that distinction. One thought I had come up with was that it might make sense to only include bios of people when there is enough material in secondary sources to build a proper and encyclopedic biography of the person's entire life. That is surely a higher standard than we have now but, seems to me, might not be a bad idea. So, in this case we'd definitely "lose" Daniel Brandt but we'd keep Google Watch. Lots of links to individuals would be broken but I think WP would survive and would be stronger in the long run. Making articles about living people of marginal notability can really piss them off and engender an incredible amount of focused bad will.MikeURL 22:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixes

I have fixed links to WP:V so that these point to WP:ATT and its different sections, where applicable. Another pair of eyes could be useful to check that I have not missed anything. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Cause I fixed 2 of them myself! I guess I needed more eyes as well!DanielZimmerman 04:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

has to be shown contentious to remove without discussion?

I haven't looked at this page in a while, and I'm surprised to see that the edits one should remove immediately and without discussion are now described as "unsourced... contentious material, whether negative or positive". Is this a change of policy? Does this mean that we have to demonstrate that an unsourced negative claim is contentious before removing it? Thanks. --Allen 01:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It used to say "unsourced negative" material. This change just points out that contentious material does not have to be negative. When did it only say "unsourced"? In any case, if it's merely unsourced, this policy doesn't apply. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow for an examination of this very issue. -- Jay Maynard 04:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
(to Allen) You have to demonstrate that unsourced positive material is contentious before removing it, if you want it protected by this policy. Unsourced negative material should be assumed contentious, so you don't need to. -Amarkov moo! 04:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
One needs to make some kind of reasonable argument for it being contentious - such as it is negative or self serving or you don't believe it or it seems unlikely. If others accept it as a reasonable argument then no problem. The problem is we had one person insist that every unsourced claim was contentious and the point is use reasonable judgement on a claim by claim basis or at least on an article by article basis as when stubbing a whole article due to some article-wide concern. WAS 4.250 10:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. So if I'm reading things right, all three of you agree that negative material on living people is assumed contentious. I can understand this, but I feel like the article could use clarification. As it stands now, I think it opens the door for people to argue, "No, you can't summarily delete that sentence I wrote, because while it is negative and unsourced, everyone knows it's true, and therefore it isn't contentious." Though it would be awkward in terms of prose, how about adding a parenthetical "(All negative material is assumed to be contentious)" to the article right before reference #2? --Allen 17:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
"negative material on living people is assumed contentious", if unsourced or poorly sourced. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion

I've created the first (very rough) draft of a proposal to delete some BLPs if the subject requests it. Input, suggestions, and help with the writing would be much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

First sentence

"Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons". Perhaps add, to emphasize the point off the top: "or adding biographical information about a living person to any Wikipedia page." Marskell 13:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The most problematic articles aren't really biographies anyway, but instead are notable things organized on a page with the title of a living person's name. How about this for the first sentence: "Editors must take particular care adding biographical information about a living person to any Wikipedia page." WAS 4.250 14:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I've tried that. The page is actually something of a misnomer. It should be "Biographical information" and not "Biographies of living people." Marskell 14:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's rename it to "Biographical information on living people" and keep the existing shortcuts. WAS 4.250 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, but let's wait for a third and fourth opinion. Marskell 15:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
"Biographical" is redundant. How about "Information on living people" and "Editors must take particular care when writing about living persons". Kla'quot 17:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, redundant. But I hate killing the "B" in BLP, given how widely used the shortcut has become. Hm. Marskell 19:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Biographical information on living people, looks good. Support the move. Let's not change the wording of the policy, and discuss possible implications of any changes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

the B is redundant? how about the L? How is it acceptable to have bogus claims in articles about dead people? And how about the P? How is it acceptable to have bogus claims in articles about anything? I am sorry, but this whole page is just a glorified corollary of WP:ATT. We can well have a "living people" taskforce for people who are interested in the living in particular for some reason or other, but I really don't see why this should have the status of a separate policy. I know this is a consequence of the Siegenthaler case. But then, why not be honest and call it "biographies of influential US media people who have the power to give Wikipedia hell if we mess up their articles"?? dab (�) 17:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The L is not redundant; the point of it is that Wikipedia must be protected from accusations of libel. Under the law of the US and many other nations, negative information about a living person which is false or unproven may be classed as libel. The Wikimedia Foundation is a charity, and can't be expected to deal with expensive lawsuits from offended biographees. I agree that having "bogus claims" in other articles is not acceptable either; but false or unsourced statements in articles on dead people or non-current organisations are much less likely to cause offence. This is why unsourced controversial claims in BLP articles must be deleted immediately, while such claims in non-BLP articles should be tagged with a {{fact}} tag. Walton Vivat Regina! 09:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I would strongly support such a page move. Indeed I've been thinking of something like this for a while. While I'm not sure, it appears to me some people make the mistake of thinking BLP applies only to biographies and only to the person who's biography it's about probably partially because of the title. I often remind people to remember the principles of BLP in articles where there is a significant LP factor. Nil Einne 15:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Db- I don't think this policy has only affected biographies of influential US media people. It usually becomes an issue in nearly all living people biographies and in fact has been quite controversial in some like Sathya Sai Baba. Also several areas of application of this policy are usually more severe then in non-biographies like the in the removal of irrelevant commentry & other potentially defamatory material from the talk pages of LP. And issues like privacy and controversy surrounding living people tends to be handled differently. So all in all, I don't think this policy just replicates other policies, it has made us a lot more strict around living people which I personally think is a good thing Nil Einne 16:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion we have a consensus for a move to Biographical information on living people. Will someone back me up on this by making the move? WAS 4.250 23:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I decided it's best to follow normal procedure and list this in proposed move, add a header and I've also mentioned in the village pump as it's likely many people have not noticed this. It appears I made the right decision since we already have one person who has objected Nil Einne 16:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh & also I think this move may require a fair amount of work as it's likely to affect several templates. Probably a job for an admin and someone who has the time neither of which are not me Nil Einne 16:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
If we keep the shortcuts, there is no much work to do. I am not sure we need a poll to effectuate this move. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal websites

Yesterday, within the articles for deletion, I have found an article about a businessperson that had My family's website under external links. It is surely not my duty to protect others from their own lack of brain, but due to problems with stalkers, identity theft and others I want to propose that websites of that type should be deleted ASAP if they are not within the scope of notability of the person. AlfPhotoman 15:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If the business person put up that personal website online, and it can be found via Google or other search engine, what would be the problem linking to it from a WP article's EL section? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
We don't have to be aiding and abetting , besides, we would take the word of that person that it is in fact his family which would 100% fail WP:ATT AlfPhotoman 15:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideas from Wiki mail

Wiki mail gave me two ideas.

  1. The application of this policy to Essjay's user page could have been interpreted to mean he must remove or source his Ph.D. claims if anyone contested them,
  2. The application of this policy to things like "this user is a vandal" on a user's talk page could be interpreted to require a link to evidence. 4.250.138.162 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (WAS 4.250)
Ehm...why did this not occur to anybody before? Elemental my dear Watson AlfPhotoman 18:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Situation 2 is already solved by the link on the user's page to his/her contributions. Anyone may review that history and confirm or challenge the assessment of the user as a vandal for him/herself. Rossami (talk) 00:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

An attempt guage community support on situation1 and related proposals is going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. Please participate. Thank you. WAS 4.250 11:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Designated Agent

This page contains a section explaining "designated agent" of Wikipedia.

But if I understand it correctly, it is the point of contact for deletion request based on copyright concern (DMCA takedown notice), not for libel or other legal problems that biographies of living persons tend to have.

CDA 230 gives pretty good immunity to Wikimedia Foundation when it comes to libelous posts on Wikipedia, as I understand. I am not sure if it is a good idea to give impression that the designated agent will take care of non-copyright legal concerns. I am not saying that libelous stuff should remain in the article or such complaints should be ignored. But I suppose if Jimbo or others act to remove libelous or other objectionable material, that is out of courtesy and their sense of moral obligation, not out of some legal duty.

So why not simply offer contact address?

Tomos 14:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Exception needed

Shouldn't there be an exception for user talk pages where the information has been added by an administrator following standard Wikipedia administrative procedures? The rule as it is says that if an administrator puts "this user is a suspected sockpuppet" or "this user has been warned about vandalism" on a user's page, anyone can remove that statement because that is unsourced negative material about a living person. (Except in the unlikely case where the vandalism warning has also been published in a book or magazine.) This is absurd and is clearly not what the rule was intended to say, but it is what the rule *does* say. Ken Arromdee 04:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is why we have IAR, so we don't have to make exceptions for things which are obviously not the intent. -Amarkov moo! 04:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
IAR is intended to be used for occasional exceptions. If it has to be used for hundreds of times in the same way, we're better off writing down the exception instead of forcing people to rely on IAR for it. Ken Arromdee 13:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Administrators making a contraversial claim such as you descibe should back it up with a specific attribution per BLP. This adds to transparency and accountability. WAS 4.250 23:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No exception is needed nor is a specific source needed for an accusation of vandalism based on actual vandalism conducted by the subject here on Wikipedia. The alleged vandal's contribution history is already linked on the page for all to see and to review. It provides all the documentation necessary to either support or refute the claim. Please do not stretch this policy inappropriately. It can not be allowed to be used to disrupt the normal editing processes. Rossami (talk) 04:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true that a vandal's contribution history is already linked. But the vandal's contribution history isn't a reliable source, because we don't allow Wikipedia links as a reliable source. The administrators comment about the vandal is unsourced negative information about a living person no matter how many links there are to the vandal's contributions. Moreover, claiming that the contributions are vandalism is original research.

Why can't we just fix the policy to allow for administrative comments made on talk pages? If I did add this to the policy, would anyone object? Ken Arromdee 15:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I disagree. (Not with your proposal but with your assertion in the first paragraph.) Wikipedia articles can not be used as sources for other articles but actions on Wikipedia are a self-evidencing primary source of knowledge. The qualification of "reliable" does not apply. You are confusing the rules for the product with the administrative rules for the process of creating the product. Go ahead and amend the page if you think you have to - I just think it's unnecessary and a little creepish. Rossami (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Actions on Wikipedia are only primary sources for claims that the action happened. If I want to write "so-and-so said so-and-so on Wikipedia", I can refer to Wikipedia. If I want to write "so-and-so committed vandalism on Wikipedia", I need a reliable non-Wikipedia source which characterizes his Wikipedia activities as vandalism; the Wikipedia activities are not themselves a source. This rules quirk happens because BLP, by applying to user pages, also brings in a lot of baggage (such as reliable sources) which user pages normally don't have to conform with.
Also, the way the attribution policy (particularly the FAQ) is currently written, Wikipedia may not be used as a source *at all*, regardless of any other reasons why it might be included--primary source, self-published source about the author, whatever. This makes no sense, but I tried to change it and couldn't. Ken Arromdee 15:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of people who are banned from Wikipedia

I, perhaps foolishly, wandered into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination). I don't wish to start a discussion of the merits of that case here. But one issue that came up is that the subject of the article is permanently banned from Wikipedia. Presumably few people in the world are notable enough for a Wikipedia article and hopefully few people are banned. The intersection of these sets should be quite small. But I think a fairness issue arises when someone is in both. I think there needs to be some mechanism to allow such people to comment in an AfD on their biography and on the biography's talk page. Without some transparent mechanism for them to allege errors in what has been written about them or weigh in for or against deletion, our neutrality is open to challenge. --agr 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The mechanism for that to for the person to make their comments from a library computer or other computer with a nonblocked IP# and for the comment to be relevant enough to not be deleted. WAS 4.250 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
if the poster identifies themselves as a banned user from any computer, though, shouldn't they be deleted/rv'd out and reblocked? I thought that was policy... - Denny 23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
sometimes, for the sake of fairness, we have to let even banned users have their say if it is relevant AlfPhotoman 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
fair enough. - Denny 23:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
In the recent Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Brandt_(13th_nomination), Brandt (or at least an anon IP claiming to be him... how is one supposed to prove or disprove that?) posted a comment, then another editor deleted it on the grounds that he was banned, but somebody else restored it. My opinion is that this should be an exception to the normal rule that banned users aren't supposed to write anything anywhere in the site; if it's an AfD debate on the article about him, he should have the right to comment on it, at least if he refrains from violations of rules such as WP:NLT. *Dan T.* 23:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
as this seems to be precedent/procedure now, should this be added to the Blocking Policy? How many times can they post? Once? Reply to everyone...? - Denny 23:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
if you ask me they should be able to add their opinion to the AfD in a more or less lengthy fashion and that is it. Unless there is another point of relevance there is really nothing they could add to the discussion being banned. Maybe we should, in as far as possible, notify the person asking them for their input. AlfPhotoman 00:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd say we give the individual as much latitude as possible, up to the point of abuse. And in any case I think we need some written guideline. Without commenting on any of the specific situations in question, (about which I know little) I think it's reasonable to speculate that a person in this situation might be in poor emotional health. If there were some bad outcome in their lives, we would want our treatment of the person to be defendable as fair, impartial and humane.--agr 01:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Personally I don't see the point. What they will add is simply "I don't want you guys writing about me!" Any journalist worth their weight would say... um No? The only valid reason to not have an article is that the person isn't notable. Not liking what we dig up isn't a valid reason. The people already on here, sans the banned user, can decide that pretty fairly it seems. Wjhonson 03:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Excluding the person most affected from a discussion on the presumption that they couldn't possibly add anything useful does not seem fair or defendable to me. And I am not just talking about AfD. There is also the biographical article's talk page. We imply to our readers that they can trust our BLPs, in part, because the subject can always weigh in to correct errors. If the subject is completely banned, that isn't true. --agr 09:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Any journalist who would not take into account the opinion of the subject of his article would be fired and in most countries you can force any media outlet to print/divulge you opinion if they had/have an article about you. If need be in a separate article. AlfPhotoman 12:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be handled in the following manner: The user in question should leave a comment on his talk page, together with some category to attract other users to notice it. Any user may then do the following:
  1. Leave the message in the AFD discussion, as it was written, together with a link to the relevant diff.
  2. leave a message on the user talk page along the lines of I've copied your comment to the AFD discussion, and remove the category.
This wouldn't require any changing of the software, and would allow such people to leave comments which can be proven to have been left by them. Eli Falk 13:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Posted this to WP:AN to draw more attention to it... - Denny 12:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • People are banned for good reason. At any rate, article content is determined by good sources, not by opinion, so we can do without their particular opionions. Imho. >Radiant< 16:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Can't this be decided on a case by case basis? Seems easier. — MichaelLinnear 22:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
everything can be decided on a case to case basis but I feel that it is better to solve the fighting/hard feelings problems between the admin that decides no and the users that decide yes right from the beginning. AlfPhotoman 23:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
While it's true that article content is not determined by opinion, nevertheless, the fact that someone is the subject of an article can affect their motivation and access to information. They are much more likely to care about inaccuracies and about the article's effect on the subject rather than dismissing them, and they are somewhat more likely to recognize inaccuracies on sight. It may be true that anything Brandt or Schwartz says could be said by another person, but *would* it be said by another person? Ken Arromdee 04:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
which is why their opinion should be taken into account despite being banned. AlfPhotoman 14:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP vs. WP:LEAD

Okay, I want a ruling here. Time and time again, I have seen articles where a living person has a notable controversy surrounding them, and half the folks want to put the controversy in the lead (citing the guideline WP:LEAD's advice that any notable controversies should be included in the lead text), while half the folks want to push it down to the bottom of the article (citing that WP:BLP is a policy and therefore trumps WP:LEAD). Examples: Mel Gibson, Tim Hardaway, Michael Richards.

I frankly don't give a damn either way, I'm just sick of an argument that doesn't seem to have an answer. So my request is: Can someone with authority (I invoke the holy name of Jimbo! ;D ) please make a ruling on this, and make it explicit in WP:BLP as to whether current controversies regarding a living person belong in the lead text? I would really appreciate that.... --Jaysweet 04:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Since I've recently been nominated for sainthood I will respond. If the controversy will be important for that person for a long time, then yes it should go in the lead. I arbitrarily define long as um... one year. Will most people remember in one year that Ann Coulter called what's his name a f--got ? Probably no. Will most people remember in one year that George W Bush invaded Iraq? Probably yes. So the controversy should be both broad and long-lasting, then it can go to the Lead. Wjhonson 04:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on the canonizing!  :) "One year" sounds reasonable. Now, tell me, does a saint have the authority to edit a policy page? hehe.... I'd love to be able to type something like [[WP:BLP#One Year Rule]] and end these debates. heh... --Jaysweet 04:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) Related to the Michael Richards controversy I posited the logic that because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball relative to how a controversy will play out in a give individual's life that in the short term it is logical per WP:LEAD's "notable controversies" wording that mention of the controversy in the lead made sense with respect to the notability of the incident. Obviously when an incident gains international notoriety like the Michael Richards Laugh Factory incident or theTim Hardaway homophobia controversy then relative to the currency of the event it is logical to mention it. I realize that some people are going to claim WP:Recentism but let's face it we do not have crystal balls and when an individual has continued notable references (ie: South Park's With Apologies to Jesse Jackson) being made to their controversies then of course such controversies should be included in the lead (commensurate with the size of their article that the controversy occupies). (→Netscott) 04:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Also good points. I just want something explicit in either WP:BLP or WP:LEAD about this apparent tension. --Jaysweet 04:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP which is policy must always trump WP:LEAD which is merely a writing guideline. Controversial negative material must always be treated with sensitivity, particularly when it could be damaging to a living person's career or reputation. A seperate, more clearly defined section regarding controversies needs to be added to the WP:LEAD guideline. The term "controversy" really needs to be defined. Are we talking about criminal convictions or inflamatory public statements? More importantly, how those controversies relate to an individual's basis of notability is key to inclusion in the lead. A notable stock broker who is involved in a controversy involving a criminal prosecution for embezzlement warrants mention in the lead - because it is relevant to the subject's notability. On the flip side, an actor's arrest for DUI should not be included in the opening. The person is notable for their acting career, not their ability to maintain sobriety. If the founder of MAD were convicted of DUI, then the incident would be worthy of inclusion in the lead.
The current controversy on the Michael Richards page is an excellent example of the flaws in the WP:LEAD guideline. At present a very vocal minority are attempting to define Richards' in the article's lead as being notable for only to things : starring in Seinfeld & shouting racial epithets. The very short lead would seem to define Richards as an actor and a racist. How can that not be considered defamation of character? There is a global problem with editorial bias on that page because Richards' biography is being treated differently than the leading paragraphs of other celebrity biographies. Barbra Streisand's "shut the fuck up" incident with a heckler isn't included in the leading paragraph of her biography. Why would Michael Richards' be treated differently?
Whether or not a "scandal" or "controversy" has affected an individual's career can only really be determined after that career has ended. I would propose that the scandals which are not of a criminal nature and do not directly relate to the individual's profession, should be excluded from the leading paragraph's of all biographies of living people. After a person has died, whether or not a scandal adversly affected their career (such as the Fatty Arbuckle prosecution) can be determined. By including scandals in opening sentences and paragraphs Wikipedia may be the cause of adverse effects on an individual's career. Cleo123 04:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead summarises the article. BLP does not come into play. Simply honestly summarize the article. WAS 4.250 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, right... "Simply," eh? Well then why was I able to cite three articles off the top of my head where WP:BLP vs. WP:LEAD is a problem? heh... I'll cite thirty more if I haven't yet made my point. The fact is that a tension exists between WP:BLP and WP:LEAD, and it is effecting dozens, if not hundreds, of Wikipedia articles. I want some concrete policy that can be cited which resolves the perceived conflict. --Jaysweet 05:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
There's always a problem when people make up their own policies and guidelines as they go along, instead of following ones established by consensus. WP:BLP shows how the article should be approached and the emphasis on properly sourced material is paramount. It does not seek to exclude negative or derogatory material, but to ensure any such material is justified by sufficient sources and is then dealt with from a WP:NPOV. The aim of WP:BLP was to stop a practice by some editors of inserting rumour, hearsay and the like willy-nilly. It was not to exclude properly sourced material, which should be treated objectively like any other material.
Once the article is established, the lead should be a summary of it, so that any reader who wants a quick grasp of the basics should be able to obtain them, without having to read the whole article. Obviously, as WP:LEAD makes clear, this also includes any "notable controversies". The main text should have already established the prominence or otherwise of any controversies, so the lead should follow that precedent.
The problem with the Michael Richards lead is that there is simply not enough material on Richards' other activities, so the mention of the controversial incident occupies a disproportionate space. Editors on that article spend all their time arguing over The Laugh Factory Incident, but do not add material to other aspects of Richards' life. This is a problem I have encountered elsewhere also, e.g. Xeni Jardin.
Tyrenius 02:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes priority

Addressing vandalism and libel problems: should there be a special priority tag for the Recent Changes Patrol on biographies? This is to minimize the time in between someone adding unreferenced material and/or defamatory content and the deletion of it (or reversion of the page). AlfPhotoman 15:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism and overwhelming clause

We seem to be having a policy dispute at Talk:Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais. There currently exists significant well-cited and verified documentation as to the virulence and extent of this man's antisemitism and anti-semitic comments. However, it is being reverted by a user claiming that it "overwhelms" the article. On the other hand, there does not seem to exist either the desire, or the ability, by editors to find neutral or positive things to say about this person; at least those asked have not delivered. Is that an excuse to then remove valid information from this article, or is the apathy of editors an allowance to engage in what I contend is bowdlerization and whitewashing. Thank you for responding. -- Avi 20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an individual who is notable for issues other than his antisemitism, so it should indeed be possible to find other material, and if some editors think the antisemitism is overwelming (the "near-demented judaic banking elite," the "rats of the world," the "scum of the earth," the "pigs and monkeys who should be annihilated" [2]), they should add other stuff to balance it out. On the other hand, the antisemitic statements are stunning, so it's not clear that that section shouldn't be somewhat overwhelming. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair is to say ALL the truth. If you have sources that are reliable it does not matter if the reader gets the shivers by reading the article. AlfPhotoman 20:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
But we try to be encyclopedic and not a sensation rag. There is no reason to say the same thing three different ways. He is antijew and here is evidence. Not: He is antijew and here is evidence and here is more evidence and get a load of this too. WAS 4.250 21:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
We (as Wikipedia) don't have an opinion, remember that. Surely I see no point in repeating someone's agitation over and over again, but one cannot exclude some aspects of it because it is "too much" AlfPhotoman 22:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
In the case of the article on Al-Sudais, I think the last section should be about the sermon that is quoted. "Al-Sudais in his own words in context" with extensive quotes and let the reader decide. The sermon as a whole is more about supporting Muslims than attacking Jews. He attacks Jews in the context of supporting Muslims and Supports Muslims in the context of supporting his God and all that is holy - might be a better way to say it. anyway, it should be about him and not about Jews. WAS 4.250 23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
In this case I concur AlfPhotoman 23:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand how one supports Muslims by attacking Jews. I also do not understand why his name is removed from Category:Anti-Semitic people if there is enough evidence that "He is antijew". I see attempts to sweep the evidence under the rug, but we do not allow such censorship in WP. If he is a public figure, he should be held accountable for his speeches and that especially includes hate speech. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Read his speech to see how he believes that "one supports Muslims by attacking Jews". Your belief does not matter as it is an article on him, not an article on you. As for the anti-semitic tag, I don't know, maybe he is not so much anti-jew as pro-muslim? Wikipedia is not for holding people accountable. You need to go elsewhere if that is the task you wish to perform. That's just not our thing. WAS 4.250 05:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I thank you for your lecture. Please do not make this personal. Al-Sudais's beliefs can and should be described in NPOV manner. Basing on the refs, he definitely belongs in the AS people cat, and my quick search revealed more evidence, I'll see if it may be added to the article to make it as uncontroversial as possible. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also comment on Martin Gilbert, where all criticism (every last word) was removed repeatedly (here is an example). Thanks.Bless sins 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I read Martin Gilbert your example and Joel Beinin and it looks like Joel is a bit of an activist and therefore not a reliable source for a balanced opinion on a book covering a subject he is an actist on. So that critisicm seems correctly removed. What do unbiased reliable published sources say about Martin? Maybe those could be added to the article. WAS 4.250 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Beinin is the professor of Middle East History at Stanford University, where he has taught since 1983. He also serves as Director of the Middle East Studies Department at the American University in Cairo. How is that not a reliable source? On the other hand the criticism of Sudais comes from a British journalist. How is a journalist a more reliable source than a notbale professor and director of institutes?Bless sins 17:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
It is a matter of evaluating the limitations of sources. As a rule, newspapers report on everything so the default expectation is that they lack both bias and expertise so they get the details wrong but the overall story right. Experts and organizations that work hard in a specific area can be expected to get the details right but have biases that may be minor or major. Wikipedia editors need to look carefully at all sources to evaluate their limitations. There is no such thing as a source that is useable as being reliable for all claims it might make even though our policies simplify the situation to make it sound that way. WAS 4.250 19:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:NPOV#Bias says that all sources have bias. Thus, we are to pick sources that are recognized as experts in their respective field. In any case, why is it wrong for us to have a paragraph of criticism by Beinin, but absolutely ok for us to devote half of the article on Sudais on criticism?Bless sins 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not ok for us to lack criticism of Martin Gilbert or to devote half of the article on Sudais on criticism. Perhaps you could create or find an appropriate statement to put on those articles warning readers of the limitations of those articles as they now exist? Wikipedia is a work in progress and not a completed work. WAS 4.250 07:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think tagging the article is the best way. IF removing criticism is wrong, then we should apply that to Gilbert as well.Bless sins 19:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Also please comment on the interpretation of "overwhelming the article".Bless sins 22:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a judgement call and the best you can do in an article that gets people emotional is to find neutral people to come to the article. You did that by coming here. WAS 4.250 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
How about trying WP:RFC/BIO, a request there will bring about a broader consensus than "just" the opinion of thos interested in this guideline. AlfPhotoman 22:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Such a "judgement call" allows double standards as we can clearly see on Martin Gilbert and Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais. I would like a better interpretation.Bless sins 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
How would "a better interpretation" prevent a "double standard"? As near as I can tell, everything we do is subject to our all too human failings. I can't see how words on paper or the screen are going to fix the problem that we are all human. WAS 4.250 07:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
A better (by which I mean clearer) interpretation would leave very little to the imagination. Currently, I have shown you what is happening: not a word of criticism is allowed on Martin Gilbert, yet more than half the article on Sudais is nothing but criticism. If a clearer interpretation was found then, users would be forced to obey it.Bless sins 19:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


This might be an ignorant question... but what if someone is just notable for negative things? I.e., their claim to fame is... well, nastiness, and all the ATT/RS material is hypothetically all critical/unfavorable. Would it be a problem for that to be the focal aspect of the article... if nothing significant on the other side (positive/balancing) existed? This is assuming the person isn't AfDable etc. as non-notable, so the article needs to be in... just in some form. Where do policy/practice stand on this? - Denny 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is simple, if there is nothing that we can attribute to a secondary source saying that X is a nice guy, but a lot saying that X is a nasty guy we cannot claim that X is a nice guy just to balance it. On the other hand, just because sources claiming that X is an ass are more readily available should we not stop searching for other sources. AlfPhotoman 14:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP tag for user pages

This user page has me wondering if there should be some sort of a BLP tag requirement for "articles" on user pages? This ANI post relates to this. (→Netscott) 06:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

hasn't Jimmy Wales personally ruled in previous disputes that BLP without exception applies to anything on our servers, no matter where? Maybe stand-alone pages should just have a simple template that can be popped on the top (even the BLP template of {{blp}} itself could work). - Denny 06:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, not the BLP template, it has warnings for when placed outside of Talk page. But something similar perhaps. - Denny 06:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How to tag a BLP talk page

Forgive me if I'm asking a question that has been answered many times. I was looking at the Angela Cannings article, and noticed that it didn't have that box at the top of the talk page, saying that it's about a living person, and that any controversial unsourced material should be removed immediately. So I went to some other talk pages about living people, to see what the box looked like in the source code. I found {{blp}} in some, and

{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}}

in others. I decided to use just {{blp}}, because the other box was more complicated. (Am I meant to fill in something after "class=" or after "importance="?) If I chose the wrong box, would somebody please fix it? And any link to a page where I could read up about how to fill in the fields in the more complicated box would be appreciated. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The WPBiography tag is also for placing the article into the Biography project. You can leave the class and importance blank, and a project member will come by eventaully and assess it. -- Avi 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll do that in future. ElinorD (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


Requested move

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons → Wikipedia:Biographical information on living people — to better emphasise that the policy applies to all information not just in biographies, see #First sentence Nil Einne 15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

  1. Support - per my earlier discussions in #First sentence Nil Einne 15:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Support AlfPhotoman 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Comment: At least it gets rid of that word "persons". We should not have gratuitous legal-sounding terminology in policies. Ken Arromdee 20:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    1. Um persons isn't legal terminilogy... Nil Einne 12:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. 100% Support It has already come up that other editors have argued with me that tagging a given article with the {{blp}} tag was unwarranted because the article wasn't a biographical article. (→Netscott) 21:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Support - per my earlier discussions in #First sentence WAS 4.250 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. SUPPORT 110% THIS IS AN AWESOME IDEA I TOTALLY SUPPORT IT!!--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Support in principle, per my above comments, but suggest Wikipedia:Biographical material on living people. Slim, amongst others, has argued that "information" may be a misnomer—if material is untrue, it's not actually information. Marskell 11:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    1. Actually you might have a point there. Nil Einne 11:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      1. Agree with Marskell. The addition of such wording also would immediately make clear that other content (photos, etc.) would be equally covered by the policy. (→Netscott) 16:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Support.Bless sins 02:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Support everything that moves us away from misleading page titles. --Conti|✉ 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Weak support I don't really care, but the suggested new title is slightly more precise. YechielMan 15:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Support If a name change will reduce quarrels over ambiguity, go for it. The shortcut BLP can certainly still be used, and I don't see any reason the old name couldn't be a redirect. --Minderbinder 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support for clarity of purpose. Keep old name for redirect. patsw 14:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Rossami (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC). I'm not opposed to changing the name but that destination is not enough better. All our best policy names are active - they describe the policy right in the title. For example: No original research, Be bold, Don't bite the newcomers, etc. Pick an active title and I'll support the move.
    While perhaps all our best policy names are active, there are obviously quite a number that aren't. Wikipedia:NPOV, Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Civility (Wikipedia:Be civil is a redirect) & Wikipedia:Consensus for example. If there were a suitable active title for this, I might support it but I can't think of any. Something like don't defame for example doesn't cut it because we're not just worried about defamation (arguably) and defamation is a legal term that many people may be confused by anyway. Be careful with information on living people is too long and doesn't sound good either IMHO. Nil Einne 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    I like Be careful with material on living people - I don't think it's too long at all. People will still use shortcuts but new readers will immediately understand the message when they get there. Leopold also suggested below that Biographical information affects lives. That works, too. Rossami (talk)
  2. Oppose. This name has stuck and is widely used. People realize it covers biographical material anywhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Though not necessarily opposed to a pagemove, I do not think the suggested title presently under discussion is the appropriate one (it's also somewhat unwieldy). Also, I am sceptical of the notion that the current title creates confusion. The first sentence clearly states that the scope of the policy extends to all "biographical material about a living person". -- Black Falcon 02:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. New name to unwieldy. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. BLP is well recognized and extends to all biographical info as per the wording in the policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. I think the confusion would outweigh any of the benefits the supporters might see, TewfikTalk 02:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm in favour of a move, since this policy just isn't solely about biographies anymore. But maybe we could discuss about a proper new name for the policy first? Wikipedia:Biographical information on living people sounds good, but I'm not sure it's the best possible name we can find. --Conti|✉ 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See the First sentence section in BLP talk. WAS 4.250 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not think we need a poll for this. The move requested in in alignment with the principles upon which the policy was designed, so it should not be a controversial move. We will need to keep the WP:BLP shortcut, though. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but now that this is started let it play itself out. WAS 4.250 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we didn't need a poll but I felt it was a good idea to follow the normal process and properly list it in proposed move and in the VP. That way, if there is an editor who disagrees for whatever reason, it's difficult for them to argue the move was out of process or without proper consultation or whatever. Having listed it, I decided to add the poll just as an easy way to make sure there wasn't significant objection. Nil Einne 13:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Since we have policies against any bogus information, this "policy page" is really redundant regardless of whether we widen its scope, hence the move is neither necessary nor harmful. We emphasize that we don't like false information in particular on living people, in particular in their biography articles. Does that mean that we like false information on anything else any better? no. As far as I'm concerned, this whole page could just be a brief corollary at WP:ATT. dab (�) 16:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

People keep saying that BLP is just a hard ass version of ATT. It is not. Sensitivity for living human beings is based on morality. Our libel and copyright policies are based on legalities. Our ATT policy based on credibility. These are very different motivations and thus very different policies. WAS 4.250 23:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe just call it 'Living People'. Lou Sander 02:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Very much agreed. Emphasisis that this policy is more extreme than WP:ATT out of moral respect to human lives is important. How does Biographical information affects lives sound? Its not in active voice grammatically, however its a relatively brief manner of insisting the tone of the policy. Leopold Stotch 10:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, this is not just a different version of WP:ATT. Everything should be verified, but that doesn't give people a license to remove things they know to be true just because there doesn't happen to be a source for it included, if there's a reasonable expectation it could be sourced. BLP not only allows that for information within its scope, it demands it, and exempts people doing such from any sort of edit warring sanction. No version of a sourcing policy could do that. -Amarkov moo! 02:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've already replied to the ATT=BLP argument in #First sentence if you haven't read it Nil Einne 13:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Other names

I think we might need to discuss the choice of name a bit better. While we discussed this in first sentence, with more people now involved (hopefully) and at least one alternative suggestion (Biographical material instead of information) which sounds good to me. Further, I've just realised we were going to change persons to people (show's how much I've thought about the move). Why was this? On consideration, I think we should stick with living persons. We should be emphasising persons as inviduals not people as a group. Nil Einne 12:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Candidates so far:

  • Wikipedia:Biographical information on living people
  • Wikipedia:Biographical material on living people
  • Wikipedia:Biographical material on living persons
  • Wikipedia:Biographical information affects lives
  • Wikipedia:Be careful with material on living people
Information is more accurate than material. Please read the articles. False information is still information and it is a completely mistaken notion to think otherwise. Information theory is not philosophy where you can wave your hand and make stuff up. WAS 4.250 14:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm still in favor of Wikipedia:Biographical information affects lives, as the title alone insinuates that the policy calls for taking care with biographical information rather than just describing the subject of the policy, which I think implicitly makes it a more accurate title. Although it does lack the specification "living people," I think that the notion that the policy is regarding living people is implied in the title (i.e. it can be inferred that the lives being affected are those that are the subject of the biographical data). Leopold Stotch 05:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure whether I support the proposed move yet, but would like to suggest Biographical content on living persons as an alternate title. My impression is that most Wikipedia policies reference the "content" of articles rather than the "information" they present. Perhaps it's a minor issue, but if we're going to consider choosing a new title, we might as well consider multiple options. -- Black Falcon 01:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest Wikipedia:Living Persons. Brief. Easily abbreviated. Covers it all. Lou Sander 20:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is there is opposition to this because it remove BLP as the primary shortcut Nil Einne 11:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blanking pages?

Hi.

Is it OK to blank a purely defamatory page about a living person? The policy says that all "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." So, if I sight this, do I have a right to blank the page? It says immediate removal. To me, that means no waiting around for CSD or AFD to take care of it -- blank first, get the article deleted (and possibly salted) later. mike4ty4 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Stubbing a page down to a single sentence is indeed sometimes the right choice. WAS 4.250 14:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes absolutely 100% Good for you!

We need a section prohibiting articles related to controversy about living persons

I noticed 3 articles existing for no other reason than to document controversy/criticism about living persons. One was about Hillary Clinton, the other about Michael Moore, and the third about George W. Bush. I don't care how controversial someone is or how well justified the criticism may be. Under no circumstances should wikipedia tolerate entire articles devoted to controversy and criticism about ANY living person under ANY circumstances. If we allow it for the president of the United States, pretty soon it will be the president of the PTA, and then it will be you. Editors should be forced to summarize only the most notable criticism in a subsection of the person's article, and even here it should be very brief, in fact there should be an explicit limit (i.e. no more than 10% of anyone's article should be criticism). If people want to cite criticism of the war they can do it in article relating to the war, not an article about criticism of Bush (which shouldn't be allowed to exist). Wikipedia is not the place to blather on negative material about ANY living person and this should be explicitally written into policy. Wikipedia has far too many editors that come here for no other reason than to trash living figures and we need to start weeding them and have very clear unambiguous policy to discourage them and make them very easy to counter. WPBio 22:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... think about the implications here. We now have to somehow get 90% of Osama bin Laden to not be negative. I'd love to know how you intend to do that. And even if that weren't the case, undue weight is an NPOV violation. -Amarkov moo! 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
His article doesn't even have a criticism section that I could see. I'm specifically talking about subjective criticism, the type the editors fight over. WPBio 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The above reasoning by WPBio is ridiculous. We already limit articles based on notability. YOU are not notable that's why we don't have an article about you, nor the fact that you may actually be a aardvark trying to pass itself off as human. Once you and your controversy becomes notable, then we should not bar any article about it. Wikipedia is to be the sum total of all knowledge, and Anna Nicoles' drug overdoes qualifies as knowledge, just as much as Ted Haggard's gay sex. Wjhonson 22:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
But there's a difference between knowledge and opinions. Saying Anna Nicole overdosed on drugs is a fact. Quoting somone calling her a bad role model because of it is opinion WPBio 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
ROFL! Heh, heh, gasp.

Under no circumstances should wikipedia tolerate entire articles devoted to controversy and criticism about ANY living person under ANY circumstances. If we allow it for the president of the United States, pretty soon it will be the president of the PTA, and then it will be you.

You know, that's exactly the argument we used to try to ban all unauthorized bio articles about living people per se. It was roundly rejected, mostly by anonymous people who felt in no particular danger of ever having to fight one of those bios, themselves. Greater empathy hath no man, than was evidenced in those debates. I finally gave up in disgust. So will, in time, you also. SBHarris 23:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Not including subjective criticism where it exists still violates WP:NPOV, under the undue weight clause. To do this, there must be an exception to NPOV, which is not a trivial matter. -Amarkov moo! 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The Hillary Rodham Clinton controversies are a separate article because the main article got way too big. About five different sections were split out into subarticles, including controversies, political views, awards and honors, list of books about her, etc. As you can see there was no desire to highlight negative material separately, simply a desire to restrict the main article to only the straight biographical sections in order to make the article less long. Wasted Time R 02:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy I would like to add

No hateration

Wikipedia's no hateration policy reflects the fact that any controversial content about a living person should be factual and not opinions. So while it's encyclopedic to cite media reports documenting the fact that Britney Spears has been seen at various night clubs, it is considered pure hateration to quote a media critic describing Britney Spears as a "bad role model" because of how she spends her recreation time. Other examples of hateration include quoting critics speculating that acts of charity are simply self-serving self-promotion. Hateration should be removed immediately and repeatedly, even if doing so requires violating the 3 revert rule. In general, pettiness, and mean spirited commentary, even if attributed to a reliable source, is of little encyclopedic value and damages wikipedia's credibility, causes ill will towards wikipedia, and is hurtful to real people. Although such content has become increasingly routine, even in reputable media, wikipedia strives for the highest standars of quality information especially when discussing sensetive matters related to real peopleWPBio 00:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • Oppose. No violation of 3RR should be allowed. That policy would mean changing the 3RR too, and is not acceptable. Consensus is how to deal with content disputes. Arbustoo 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • So if we removed the 3RR part, would you still oppose? I think wikipedia leaves too much to consensus. It's very easy to fake consensus through sock puppets and meat puppets. It's also mob rule WPBio 00:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Depends. I don't the Spears example is good either. Let's see what others think. But I fail to see how this adds anything that isn't clearly spelled out in the section "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". Arbustoo 00:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It's useful because even petty criticism can be well sourced (i.e. come from a prominent person or mainstream media outlet) WPBio 00:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
          • If its well sourced what's the problem? "Petty" and articleworthy is something to work out on the talk pages. Arbustoo 00:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
            • So anything that's well sourced belongs on wikipedia? And people need to spend less time fanning flames on talk pages and more time building quality articles. It's very tedious to debate every little thing on talk pages and this will drive good eitors who don't have time or patience away. Much better to have clear explicit policy WPBio 00:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. You cannot require fact. Fact is the same as *truth* in this context, it's subjective. That is why we now have (or had until a few days ago) attribution. Statements can be attributed-as-facts to someone, but we cannot require them to *be* facts. I hope you can enjoy the subtle argument there.Wjhonson 00:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I get the distinction. It may be a fact that person X thinks person B is a slut but it's of little encyclopedic value. Hence I think facts, especially of a controversial nature when dealing with living people should meet a higher standard. So rather than reporting the fact that Fox news blasted Hillary for making comment B, it's better to report the fact that fox news conducted a polls showing Hillary's popularity among republicans declined after comment B. That's the kind of quality information upon which credible encyclopedia's are built. It's just too easy for anyone with an agenda to push to dig up any criticism on anyone and selectively quote it out of context WPBio 00:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Who judges pettiness? Who judges if it is mean-spirited? Much liberal criticism of George W. Bush is attacked as "petty and mean-spirited"; does that mean that it can't be included? -Amarkov moo! 03:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Negative statements of opinions should be removed even if they're well sourced. For example you might quote a business magazine noting that a person went bankrupt (a negative fact), however quoting a business magazine calling someone a bad business man (negative opinion) should be unacceptable. You might quote a source saying that a certain company never hires black people (negative fact) but we should not quote a source calling that company racist (negative opinion). The distinction between statements of fact and statements of opinion is a clear one, and made by newspapers every day who differentiate straight reporting from editorials. While everything in wikipedia should be well sourced, editorializing of a living person should only be doucmented if it is of a positive or neutral nature. Once we start reporting negative editorializing we harm living persons and become a sleazy tabloid WPBio 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You (WPBio) tried to remove the entire Michael Moore controversies article. Most of the entries in it are accusations that Moore engages in deceptive editing, staging, or scripting in his documentaries. Do you consider these accusations to be negative statements of fact or negative statements of opinion? And do you make a distinction between criticism of a person and criticism of a person's work? Wasted Time R 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Neologistic and subjective. The policy as it stands is already quite strong enough, and the balance of an article should reflect the balance of informed opinion, not the desire of the subject to be portrayed in the most flattering light possible. Some biographies cannot help but reflect the fact that informed opinion is against the subject. We cannot and should not promise that the subject will like the biography, only that they should, with appropriate levels fo self-honesty, concede its fairness. Some subject lack that self-honesty. We cannot fix that. Guy (Help!) 10:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Failed verification

The reason I put on that "failed verification" tag was because it *did* fail verification. The sentence the reference is attached to says that the policy applies to talk pages, user pages, and project space. The reference is a mailing list post by Jimbo which says nothing about talk pages, user pages, and project space. Ken Arromdee 18:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This is Wikilawyering. Jimbo's view is very clear: unsourced or poorly sourced negative material should be ruthlessly excised, not found a better home. Guy (Help!) 10:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's so clear that that's what he means, surely you can find a quote from him which says so. If this policy actually applied to user pages, talk pages, and project space, you wouldn't even allow an ArbCom decision against someone, since such decisions are usually based on a living person's Wikipedia posts and Wikipedia posts are not considered reliable sources. And the policy would require deleting almost everything from the talk page about just about every living person; for instance, around two thirds of Talk:Britney_Spears should go. It would also mean that you cannot discuss whether a person is a reliable source on a talk page, without giving references, and that your discussion could be removed immediately otherwise. This is not how Wikipedia works, and is not reasonable. Ken Arromdee 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

New category

I've noticed that a new, negative category has arisen Category:Purported spiritual mediums. The word "purported" carries a strong, negative bias according to it's definition:

Webster’s online definition of purported:

to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming (something implied or inferred) <a book that purports to be an objective analysis>; also : CLAIM <foreign novels which he purports to have translated -- Mary McCarthy>
Webster’s defines specious as:
2 : having deceptive attraction or allure
3 : having a false look of truth or genuineness : SOPHISTIC <specious reasoning>

With these definitions, there can be absolutely no doubt that “purported” is a word loaded with bias and should not be used – especially as a category.

It is being applied to WP:BLP's without citation and I believe this needs to be removed from those BLP's.

Comments anyone? Dreadlocke ☥ 22:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it's not a new category, it's a rename from the category formerly called "PsychicsMediums". The old one was obviously POV and unverifiable, so it needed to be changed to something else. And it's not being used without citation - someone like John Edward says on his website that he's a psychic medium, and his article cites that he purports that. Is the category being used on people who haven't been claimed to be psychics mediums? --Minderbinder 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
It's being used without citation. It would be better named "Professed Mediums", which is far less biased and loaded of a word than "Purported," which actually implies falsehood. Furthermore, categories are quite different than cited information placed in an article, one should not use a category that contains anything that needs citation - because a category cannot be cited. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
My bad on the category name, I updated my post above from "psychics" to "mediums". Where is it being used without citation? What's an example of an article where it is used and the subject of the article isn't said to be a medium by themself or others? "one should not use a category that contains anything that needs citation" is a bit impractical since in theory all info may need citation - it would mean you'd have to get rid of categories like Rivers in Africa. --Minderbinder 23:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking specifically about BLP's and negative comments made about them. Categories are not cited in any article, that's why it's not allowed. I know there's a guideline on that somewhere, I'll look for it. In the meantime, I'm hoping for some comments from other editors. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So do you have a specific example where this category is being used without citation (which would be an article that says someone is a medium but doesn't cite that info) or not? I understand your issue with the category name, I just don't see how the citation issue fits in. --Minderbinder 23:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
No, What I'm saying is controversial is the word "purported" and it's meaning, not whether they're claiming anything. The category itself can't be cited, and purported implies "falsehood", so we're essentially calling everyone who has that category applied to them a liar. You have to provide citations for each and every controversial statement. You can't do that with a cat. You'll understand better once I locate the guideline.Dreadlocke ☥ 23:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This may have been what I was thinking of: WP:BLP#Use_of_categories, right in this very article! So where do we have it sourced that all those purported psychics are liars? That's the real issue. Why can't we just use "professed" instead of something so controversial? Dreadlocke ☥ 23:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

One could also use "acclaimed mediums," as if we are talking about them here as mediums, then they are acclaimed. That eliminates all bias. Milo, is this an admission that Cats need citations? Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"Professed mediums" is what Dreadlocke has suggested before, and seems the most neutral compromise to me. There's some relevant discussion on my talk page (about the similar psychics categories), March 8 CfD (where consensus was originally to move from the unqualified "psychics"/"mediums") and March 18 CfD (and the one below it for purported psychics, both of which I closed as keep). the wub "?!" 09:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone certainly may propose a move to "Professed mediums", although editors have complained about "professed" as well in the past. Martinphi, I'm not sure if you're serious about "acclaimed mediums" since that's probably the most biased and least accurate name I've heard proposed, possibly worse then just plain Mediums. I'm not sure you even understand the reason we can't use just Mediums. And while I understand the concerns about "purported", saying that "Purported mediums" means "People who say they are mediums but are really liars" is a bit melodramatic. --Minderbinder 13:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not melodramatic if you understand the full meaning of "purported." It definitely won't be melodramatic when one of the subjects of an article that contains that cat decides it's the last straw and drops a lawsuit on our collective heads. I'll propose a name change to "professed". Before I do, though, who complained about "professed" and why? Dreadlocke ☥ 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
None of us are lawyers here, so it's pretty speculative to say that "purported medium" would attract a lawsuit while "professed" wouldn't, especially when WP:WTA recommends using purported and points out that the word is commonly used by newspapers. (Personally, I think a judge would laugh his ass off at such a suit) Looking back at the talk page for John Edward, the objection to "professed" doesn't seem to be against that word specifically, but more of a refusal to use any word along those lines. --Minderbinder 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And what do you know about the law backgrounds of anyone who's involved here - besides your own self? If you think a judge would laugh at a properly done defamation suit that includes this cat, you've got a lot to learn - that's quite a risk for you to take on behalf of Wikipedia. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
So are you saying you're a lawyer or not? I'm not the one advocating taking this alleged risk since WP:WTA recommends using the term. And for reference, a google search shows the NY Times website using the term eight hundred thousand times. You don't think they have lawyers who would have them stop using it if it was a lawsuit risk? If you honestly think it's putting WP in danger of getting sued, I'd encourage you to contact the WP legal team and see what they say. --Minderbinder 16:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm revealing no personal information to you. I'm just stating that your knowledge is limited and your assumptions are quite, shall we say, interesting. In any case, it will probably get changed to "professed", so the point will hopefully become moot. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
And I'm just stating that if you're not a lawyer, it's probably a poor idea to speculate on potential legal consequences. As I said before, wikipedia has a legal team and if you have a legitimate concern you should contact them. --Minderbinder 17:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Are you willing to support the change from "Purported Mediums" to "Professed Mediums"? Dreadlocke ☥ 17:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with either. My objection was to calling the category simply Mediums. --Minderbinder 17:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you. BTW, WTA doesn't "recommend" using 'puported', it outlines how it can be properly used. Even in it's current state of wording, WTA still lists it under words to avoid. I don't think anyone took into account the full definition of the word. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Simple is best Category:Mediums is neutral and does the job. After all, Categories are not to categorize within a POV (as per "lebeling" people) but as a navigational aid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with you, jossi, I don't even know how that change was allowed to get through. You want to know what’s really melodramatic? The very idea that categories named “psychics” or “mediums” are going to make readers think that either they’re real, or that Wikipedia thinks they are…or that it somehow violates NPOV. That’s not just melodramatic; it’s completely idiotic and insulting to the intelligence of our readers. That’s what’s truly melodramatic.
Further the whole idea that either “professed” or even “performs" are words somehow too vague to use is also completely idiotic, it shows a rather melodramatic understanding of those words, which is actually misuse of the definitions of those terms. Dreadlocke ☥ 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with unsourced significant statements

I want to check opinion on whether the policy page could say more about handling unsourced statements in articles. The line on contentious material is clearly established. My problem is with maybe-uncontestious-but-still-significant material that is unsourced, and my example here is Rosa Luz Alegría in aspects such as her claimed status as a role model. Deleting that as unsourced would change the balance of the whole article and IMO just worsen systemic bias. (I've used the same example in discussion at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion about bias and NPOV issues.) I'm wondering if there might be consensus about the steps to take in improving articles. Apart from tagging as citation needed what's in between ignoring an unsourced significant statement and deleting it?? Is it worth writing a few sentences on getting it right?? --VSerrata 12:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Our problem here would be that it could be interpreted as "our" opinion. We don't have an opinion (as WP) therefore whatever statement we make has to be attributed to a secondary source. Sometimes we could use a weak source ... but never no source AlfPhotoman 13:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Biographies on living people must actually be about living people (sigh)

In the wake of the Sinbad incident, which was summarized in the recent Wikipedia Signpost, multiple users have started falsifying the deaths of various living people. See the discussion here at WP:ANI.

Should WP:BLP contain language that explicitly prohibits this? Or is it already covered, such that warning against fictional murder would constitute WP:BEANS? YechielMan 05:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We already have adequate policies covering this. Thank you for your concern. WAS 4.250 07:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Flash in the pan notability

I don't normally deal with BLP type articles, but clearly come up agasint them sometimes. How does this area normally deal with those whose notability is brief and has little, if any, long term effect?

There are currently a handful of articles in the Military History area where the subjects hit the papers for a few days, therefore meeting the notability guideline, and thereafter have no media interest, so drying up the qualification.

Grateful if someone could advise on any approach that's been used in the past.

ALR 12:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the core problem that led to the WP:NOTNEWS discussion. The easiest solution is to merge-and-redirect the page into some larger topic. If none can be found, consider nominating the page for deletion with the very clear explanation that we thought the subject might be notable when we started the article but subsequent evidence (or more specifically, lack of evidence of continuing coverage) showed that we were wrong. Rossami (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

BLP/attacks on living persons on user talk pages

Could I get an outside opinion on this? I removed it as a personal attack, but the editor takes issue that it's a personal attack. --Minderbinder 22:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur that that's an unwarranted and unsourced personal attack on a living person, Robert Carroll. Based on the banner at the top of the page, it would also seem that this kind of comment is not an isolated occurrence. --Elonka 22:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
If indeed the first quote is from Caroll himself (which I think it is), then it appears that the comment by the Wikipedia editor is merely rephrasing that same sentiment. In any case, it's not sufficiently egregious to warrant removal. The right way to handle this would be for the author of it to be asked kindly to soften it, and to stick to editorial questions about the article, rather than opinions about the subject. I am not sure if I would delete it from the talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
So you think comments about living persons such as "Basically a self-confessed mud-slinging bullshit merchant throwing anything and everything at his pet hate." are fine to leave on a user talk page? --Minderbinder 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Like I said "The right way to handle this would be for the author of it to be asked kindly to soften it, and to stick to editorial questions about the article, rather than opinions about the subject." I have this on good authority about a much worse edit than Davkal's. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
You may consider that "the right way" but this policy certainly doesn't agree: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." Or do you consider calling someone "a self-confessed mud-slinging bullshit merchant" not to be contentious? Your response particularly surprises me considering that above you argued that referring to someone as a "purported psychic medium" was begging for a lawsuit. --Minderbinder 20:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Really? I guess you'll have to take that up with the authority I got my information from. You may know him: Jimmy Wales. Here's the full quote (and remember, this about a much worse edit - calling people crooks, thieves and criminals - when there was no proof - what I thought were very serious charges. Davkal, at least, is basing what he says on the subject's own quote - which you conveniently left out...):
I think such negative commentary on a talk page is unnecessary and undignified. I would recommend that the author of it be asked kindly to soften it, and to stick to editorial questions about the article, rather than opinions about the subject. I am not sure if I would delete it from the talk page or not... I would tend to say yes, delete it, but this will depend on the full circumstances and probably should not be done lightly depending on the personality and so forth of the counter-party.--Jimbo Wales 09:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't make these things up myself, dude. I get them from experience and asking the right people the right questions. And you really need to re-read what I wrote about the use of "purported". I don't think you quite got that either. Plus, yeah, I meant it to be a bit melodramatic - after all, it matches the melodrama around cats named merely "Psychics" or "Mediums". That's true melodrama. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Argumentum ad Jimbonem. I'll follow policy, thanks. --Minderbinder 20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you do that. I asked him that question for a reason. Perhaps you'll be lucky enough not to run into those very same reasons. Policy doesn't back you up here, either. From what I see, Davkal's quote is based on Carroll's own quote about his own work. You may not like the wording, but that's a whole different ballgame than being unsourced or poorly sourced. It's opinion too, not something to easily sue for in American or British courts (yeah, that mysterious law experience of mine again...heh...) Dreadlocke ☥ 20:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I do agree that there should be absolutely no personal attacks on anyone anywhere in Wikipedia. But I ran into stumbling blocks when I tried to remove a vicious, personal attack against a BLP on a talk page. I was overruled by several admins and other editors, even while I quoted the very same things you do, so that's why I went to Jimbo. After reading Jimbo's statement, the editor removed his own statement. So you and I essentially agree, but I went through a wringer with a similar attempt and was just giving you the benefit of my experience. Take it or leave it, I really don't care. Davkal can read this same stuff and make his own decisions. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, Argumentum ad Jimbonem doesn't back you up either because it clearly says you can't just ignore what he says. Dreadlocke ☥ 21:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition: no trivia

I suggest a very simple addition. "Biographies should not have trivia sections, as the bullet point list format of arbitrary information tends to accumulate unsourced claims, often of a damaging nature. Relevant, sourced claims from trivia sections which are present should be factored into the main article, and the remaining section content should be removed when present."--Eloquence* 02:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please. Jkelly 02:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well-sourced non-event

My gut instinct is that the last paragraph in the Janet Street-Porter article, which describes how the police have decided to take no action over an accusation against her of racism, shouldn't be there, particularly now that the incident's currency has passed. The trouble is that the paragraph is well-sourced, and so I am not sure I could get away with removing it. My feeling is that the paragraph, the best-sourced in this (poor-quality) article, is out of proportion to her life story as a whole and irrelevant to her notability. I also believe that it describes what amounts to a non-event. Should this woman (not someone I like, actually), a member of the Liberal Democrats who is always outspokenly liberal, have mud permanently stuck to her name in a Wikipedia article now that the minor newspaper kerfuffle has faded away?

Are there any grounds on which I could remove this paragraph? qp10qp 18:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there's a basis to remove it entirely, but it should at least be cut down to size - which I went and did. Metamagician3000 09:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone's since removed it entirely - I'm happy with that. Metamagician3000 05:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP recentchanges

A link to Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Living people has been added to the RecentChanges page under the "Utilities" row, titled BLP. This can facilitate the finding of vandalism to biographies of living persons to avoid a "Sinbad-type" incident happening in the future. Cross-posted to WP:VPN, WP:AN, WT:BLP, #wikipedia, and #wikipedia-en. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Does a BLP violation justify page blanking?

Through my time as an admin, I've told many, many people that blanking pages is never the proper way to handle bad content. That there are always other proper ways to handle the problems. Now I find myself facing a person repeatedly blanking a page out of a legitimate BLP concern. And finding myself in a bit of a quandary over whether my "no blanking" statements may have hit a snag. The page in question is Louise Lanctôt. Before blanking it was a very well formatted and wikified, but totally unsourced article that makes some fairly negative claims. So I guess I'm wanting extra eyes, and advice of how to proceed. I found this while on Short Pages patrol, and my major concern is that the page not be totally blanked, or even blanked down to the tags as it currently is. Any advice/assistance in getting past the impasse would be greatly appreciated. - TexasAndroid 22:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know blanking is considered vandalism, so NO. BLP issues should be first discussed on the talk page of an article. If that leads nowhere one can make a request for comment. If that still leads nowhere there are the arbitration bodies. AlfPhotoman 17:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Removing problematic material from a biography of a living person is never vandalism. If someone removes a BLP violation inelegantly, as happened in this case, the proper response is to help them out by, for instance, writing a one-sentence entirely uncontroversial stub. Calling their edit "vandalism", or reverting them, is just going to escalate the situation. Please think of solving the problem as being more important than obeying various Wikipedia guidelines. Jkelly 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a BLP violation justifies page blanking. If the whole article violates BLP, then there is nothing to left to remain. That article contains many negative statements that aren't sourced, judging from a brief look. You should not be reverting that blanking. Frise 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be either deleted or stubified in such cases, rather than blanked? *Dan T.* 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Whatever works, yeah. Frise 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that both BLP mentions page blanking should be handled with care and vandalism makes it clear page blanking of a BLP to remove malicious content is not vandalism. I'm pretty sure they've both mentioned this for a while so I just wanted to point out it's often helpful to check the policies. Ideally editors should try to either get an article deleted or stubify it instead of blanking. But blanking may be necessary in the interim and we can't expect all editors to be aware of how to handle such situations anyway (especially if the editor is an anon perhaps the subject of the article who just stumbled upon some crap article about a BLP). Nil Einne 12:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yep. the main point behind any BLP action is for the offending material to be removed. Some methods are certainly better than others, but the objective remains. Frise 19:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Jihad (song)

Hi folks. Just a quick question, hopefully. Whilst commenting upon the GA nom for Jihad (song), I suggested that the lead should contain cites, esp. in relation to the part where the stance of LP is advanced. Other editors at the 'review' don't seem to appreciate this? Although it is sourced elsewhere, surely a controversial topic such at this should be sourced at first mention: the lead, remember, is the first thing seen by the reader. The JPStalk to me 17:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP protections for editors

Do BLP protections extend to editors? If not, why not? Thanks! - Denny (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not. Editors are not (mostly) the subject of bios here and therefore they shouldnt come under the umbrella of this poluicy. Were they to do so it would mean a huge shift in what BLP means and would need widespread acceptance to keep the opening sentence of this project page, SqueakBox 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no. BLP is based on morality and not just law so legal liability is not the essence of the policy. But NPOV is the agreed on community standard so morality as in "don't say bad stuff about people" is also not the essence. Some feel that to the degree that BLP applies to editors, it is covered already in NPA, while others feel BLP can rightly be used here as well. We have the subjects of articles themselves talking on talk pages and so are we to have one standard for them because we have an article on them but not for us? That makes no sense. Many regular editors here have articles on them, so are they now priveleged characters? what would be the point of that? Also, I think it should apply to user claims on their user pages but the community soundly defeated that proposal so we know BLP does not apply to unsourced claims you tell about yourslf on your user page even tho it applies to content in article space. Does that help? WAS 4.250 10:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised to hear you say, "BLP is based on morality and not just law so legal liability is not the essence of the policy." I don't think that is true. (1) the policy was started in response to incidents that could have lead to legal problems (2) the moment we start taking a "moral" stance as an encyclopedia we run into all sorts of POV problems. Johntex\talk 15:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I started the WP:BLP policy proposal based on a plea from Daniel Brandt concerning our article on him in which he suggested that "living people deserve a special sensitivity" and this was fleshed out by SlimVigin and made into policy with the encouragement of Jimbo based on morality and not simply legal liability considerations. See User_talk:WAS_4.250/Archive_05#Talk:WP:BLP. WP:NPOV is not to be compromised by WP:BLP. But simple decency and privacy considerations do not compromise our NPOV mandate. WAS 4.250 18:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Better BLP template?

Since the move request seems to have stalled without a clear consensus on the best name and whether to move, could we at least get a better template for non biography articles which predominantly deal with LP? I tried adding the template Template:BLP ({{BLP}}) to Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming but it was fairly quickly reverted (I haven't tried discussing yet). The template doesn't say it's only for biographies and indeed the template instructions says it's suitable for other articles dealing in information on living people like lists. But my concerns are that the template does say 'controversial material of any kind' (shouldn't we say 'related to living people') and it also adds the article to Category:Biography articles of living people (which doesn't seem suitable for lists and similar articles to me). I'm thinking of making a new template but seek feedback first Nil Einne 13:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"She has a right to her privacy." How do editors assert a third-party "right to privacy"?

How exactly do editors assert a third-party "right to privacy"? The editor has assumed that a relevant, verified, attributed fact regarding a public figure violates her right to privacy and should be deleted for that reason alone. This particular fact has over 10,000 Google hits from many media sources.

Can editors act with broad discretion to delete material from biography articles of public figures on the basis that widely reported, widely known information is private in the opinion of the editor? patsw 14:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I realized that this is a compound question:
  • Can information for which there are multiple, independent, published sources, resulting in over 10,000 Google hits ever be considered private?
  • Should information which is indisputably private but otherwise relevant, verified, attributed, etc. be added to an biographical article on a public figure?
  • If the answer to above question is ever No, what sort of discretion do editors have, and what criteria get applied regarding privacy issues to include or exclude?
  • For information which is indisputably public what sort of discretion, if any, do editors have, and what criteria get applied regarding privacy issues to include or exclude? patsw 15:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless there are other mitigating factors which you are not mentioning here, I would say "no". Whatever the fact is, it is not private and it should not be excluded on BLP grounds. Johntex\talk 15:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't know what specific case is being discussed here, but I cannot agree with this sweeping statement. There are certainly categories of facts that can be sourced and yet have no business being reported on Wikipedia, for example, embarrassing information about private matters concerning borderline public figures that has no bearing on the reasons for their notability. Remember the admonition in WP:BLP that we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Newyorkbrad 15:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you expand what you mean by bearing on the reasons for their notability (or "only information relevant to their notability" as the official policy states)? Using notability to mean satisfying criteria for having an article in the Wikipedia - no subject arrives here for a DUI or weapons possession arrest, or other public news items, yet these and other items of embarrassment are all over the Wikipedia. Are you saying that the only relevant information for biographical article for a musician is music? patsw 16:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There's always balancing involved. If a person is just borderline notable, and especially if he or she has become notable by circumstance rather than a voluntary choice, negative or embarrassing background details may merit omission either by editor discretion or, in an extreme case, as a matter of BLP policy. Where the person has voluntarily placed himself or herself in the limelight and has achieved prominence, that can be a very different matter. See generally Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad for my thoughts on some related issues. Newyorkbrad 16:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
That's not the case for either Gary Glitter or Pete Townshend, SqueakBox 16:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the policy needs to be tweaked to make it conform to long-standing practice. Could I have a volunteer? patsw 16:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Some of our policies are prescriptive rather than merely descriptive. We don't adjust our policies on NPOV, Copyright, Libel, or BLP to existing practice just because they are existing practice. WAS 4.250 19:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what the last sentence means. My first impression was that you wrote that policies here are actually practiced in some Wiki-alternative universe and that in our universe existing practice is existing practice. Is that what you meant? patsw 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I have added an edit for clarity on the matter of When the subject of the article is not a public figure and emphasis on only. This moves the question around to:

  • Who is a public figure?
  • What biographical information is relevant to the reason they are included in the Wikipedia?
  • What is the interaction between what is relevant according to one editor, and what an another editor asserts as a third-party in order to protect the right to privacy of the subject of the article? patsw 12:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The simplest way to look at it is wikipedia does not put it on the web first if it is about a non-public person; and even if it is on the web only if it is an encyclopedic fact covered by a reliable source. So no court records not covered by a widely published reliable source for example. WAS 4.250 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

For complex cases, one should go to the legal concept of "privacy rights" according to the laws of Florida; which I believe accually deal more with the concept of "private data" on anyone including public persons. WAS 4.250 14:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of a "public figure" is unclear to editors as it relates to privacy for the subject of an artice. For example, I had a disagreement with a couple of fellow editors insofar as I don't consider the fact that a particular subject (Amy Dumas) had a breast enhancement to be encyclopaedic and I think it enfringes privacy un-necessarily to mention it (plus I wonder at the mentality of someone who considers boob-jobs to be important for mention, but I digress). My clamouring did result in a watertight reference being introduced for the fact but a consensus was that the subject was a "public figure" and fair game. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in the policy: Presumption in favor of privacy - Public Figures

This section starts out with what I believe to be a contradiction:

  • Biographies of living people must be written conservatively and with due regard to the subject's privacy.
  • If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

Well, what is it? Exclude it for privacy reasons, or include it for being notable, relevant, and well-documented?

A well-written policy should indicate which instruction has priority.

By the way, does anyone know if there's a difference between regard and due regard? patsw 12:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction. Please provide an example for us to work with in identifying the contradiction you see. WAS 4.250 14:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I see these rules as complementary. Rule #1 tells us to be conservative regarding the inclusion of information that may have privacy dimensions; rule #2 indicates that we must do so as long as the information is not notable, relevant or well-documented by reliable published sources. Rule #2 instructs us to publish information regardless of privacy dimensions when reliable sources have done so before us.
Some aspects that come to mind:
  • We expect reliable sources to apply their own privacy guidelines, similar to our rule #1.
  • If something is already widely known, we cannot harm an individual by replicating that information.
  • We need sufficient reliable sources to determine the weight of specific information relative to the rest of the article, allowing us to prevent undue weight when deciding whether or not to include the information.
By the way, wouldn't it be better to change "reliable sources" to "reliable, secondary sources" here? AvB ÷ talk 14:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
WAS 4.250, I don't believe I can make the contradiction more obvious. As Avb wrote, the application of Rule 1 is exclude, the application of Rule 2 is include. Avb has the opinion that Rule 2 has priority. I agree with that interpretation, and if that agreement reflects the consensus of editors, then the policy should be amended to reflect that.
Some editors of biographical articles of public figures judge what is harmful, label it private and therefore exclude it, regardless of the wide publication of the information, verifiability, etc. They end any debate by giving Rule 1 priority over any other considerations. patsw 17:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with this. For public figures, I would say it's usually acceptable to have anything that is widely published. For private figures, I would say even if such information is resonably widely published, we should still consider whether it is necessary. Of course, public-private figures is not a black and white issue but I think it's one of the many issues on wikipedia that calls for an editor's discretion. BTW, one key thing to remember when it comes to public figures is that often private figures are involved. For example, if you're considering whether to list the names of a public figure's children, remember that said figures children may still be private figures themselves so we shouldn't ignore their interests. Nil Einne 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you remove the name Moxie CrimeFighter from the Penn Jillette article because it identifies the name of his daughter? The problem I would like the discussion to address is whether the privacy rule has priority over all other considerations that would otherwise have an allegation or actual incident included in an article of a public figure. patsw 23:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

(<---) patsw, you have several misconceptions that are causing your misunderstanding. First and most important, you are not understanding "right of privacy". This is not a wikipedia-land concept. It is a real word legal concept defined by law and used to make legal judgements. Wikipedia uses that same concept to first make sure we obey the law, but also to abide by the morality behind the existance of the law by being more strict than merely staying legal - but not so strict it hinders our mission of an unbiased free encyclopedia. If it is widely published then by definition it is no longer private in the context of "privacy rights". By definition. Wikilawyers are not allowed to redefine the English language. Second, no one aspect of this policy automatically overrides all the other aspects. Various considerations need to be intelligently balanced and not just used like a cookbook recipe to resolve an issue. The key is thoughtful reasonable analysis, not slapping a bunch of policy labels on an edit and saying "I won". Finally, you need to understand that there are degrees of a thing and a context to every issue. Is it hot or cold? Well what is the temperature (degree)? And hot for what purpose - what is the context? Same for privacy and reliable and public and other concepts. There are degrees of each. And specific contexts to each issue. These deserve actual thinking applied and not a non-thoughtful approach. This is an encyclopedia. A work designed to communicate understanding. We can not be successful in doing a good job creating understanding without first aquiring understanding and using that understanding in making editorial choices. WAS 4.250 15:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What I take from the above is the consensus is on this aspect of the policy:
  • If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.
It has precedence over considerations of privacy, because something can't be private if it has come to be widely published elsewhere. patsw 00:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Presumption of a religious identity

I have made a proposal on the page Talk:Bob Dylan to remove Bob Dylan from Category:Converts to Christianity. Please go there to discuss. Jewish is an ethnic identity as well as a religious identity, and thus it seems to be appropriate for Dylan. Converts to Christianity lacks such an ethnic identity. I question whether we can presume a religious identity or place somebody in such a category when we lack the evidence. This is especially a problem with a living person who is famously private. I've discussed the issue on Talk:Bob Dylan, but I think this issue applies to many living persons. --Metzenberg 21:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Chiba and Elliott Smith

I wanted to ask for advice here about these articles. I am concerned that they in effect, particularly the Jennifer Chiba article, advance the position that Chiba may have murdered Smith. The edits I have in mind would decimate the Chiba article and alter part of the Smith article which was accepted when it was featured; so I want to get a second opinion before I plunge in.

What strikes me is that Chiba has not been charged with Smith's murder, and that all there is to go on in that regard is rumours and amateur detective work. When I looked into the sources, I was struck by the fact that they are actually more balanced than the use made of them in these articles might imply. For example, we say that Chiba refused to speak to police, whereas the Guardian-article source goes on to quote her as denying that. This seems to me an example of misusing sources to advance a position. We have a quote from a bloke from a nearby record shop saying he didn't believe Smith killed himself, but, unlike the source, we don't have a balance of quotes in that section, even from that same interviewee; in fact a certain weight is given to the idea that Smith may have been cleaning up and happy. We have a quote from a bloke on the other side of the Atlantic saying they were a "Sid and Nancy" couple. The sources, which by the way are mostly not high-quality sources, are more cautious and balanced overall. The autopsy report which contains reservations about the death being suicide is solid and definitely worth quoting, but nowhere does it accuse Chiba; yet it is juxtaposed with the information that she was alone with him at the time, during an "emotional fight". Once again, the POV presentation of the evidence seems to me to advance a questionable position based on partial sampling of the sources. It is mentioned that the case remains open; but surely the police would have charged Chiba by now if they thought she had murdered Smith. There would be less innuendo in saying that they are no longer investigating the case.

My ideal solution for the Chiba article would be to delete it entirely, on grounds of non-notability, since the whole article is about the death of Smith, which is covered in his own article. And I would remove certain quotes from the Smith article, make the language more objective and neutral, and try not to hack it about in a way that would affect its featured quality.

Any advice? Am I judging this correctly? If any admins are reading, by all means carry out the necessary yourselves, if you agree with me. (I don't actually know how to put up an article for deletion.) qp10qp 02:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I see Metamagician has dealt with the Chiba article. Many thanks. I need to be bolder, I think. The Smith page has more subtle problems, which I should be able to address without major surgery. qp10qp 14:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


The Word Contentious needs to go if BLP's going to be enforced the way it is

Right now, there are folks who are claiming that emails from Jimbo give them the right to remove ALL unsourced information from articles, whether or not it's contentious.

The policy currently states several times,Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source.

However, folks are claiming BLP gives them a inborn right to do things like this, where the material involved is not contentious at all. I will not call it vandalism, because obviously they think the policy gives them that ability, but this policy needs to be followed better either way (can you imagine what the Bill Clinton article looked like if this "Uber-BLP" policy was followed to the letter? Either remove the word contentious from the policy, and let the articles be eviscerated and be rebuilt, or bring back BLP to what it says in the policy. SirFozzie 21:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

While blanking like that is bad, material should still be sourced per WP:V. BLP doesn't justify removing it - the editor who objects should put citation needed tags on the material that is in doubt or an overall citation tag at the top of the page, then allow time for editors to add sources. Unsourced material should be deleted after a time, but not immediately if it's not controversial stuff. While a huge blanking like that should be reverted, you should make an effort to find sources for the material as well, or at least restore the material with {{fact}} tags. --Minderbinder 21:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That's been tried, the user in question, User:Burntsauce is claiming that letters from Jimbo Wales trump the BLP policy and has basically done that to a lot of articles. When the material is restored, doesn't matter if it's been fact tagged, he reblanks it per BLP. I know the WP:PW folks are trying their hardest to get this sorted and sourced, but the person in question is refusing to either work with them, or restore it with fact tags. SirFozzie 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
If he's revert warring and continually blanking major portions of pages, that's probably grounds to go to an admin and see what they say, it may be a situation where a block for disruption is appropriate. If you can't get a solution that way, you might want to try a user request for comment. This doesn't seem like a problem with the policy - it seems like regardless of how it might be worded, this editor just seems intent on ignoring (or misreading) it as well as ignoring consensus. In the meantime, I assume there's enough of a consensus to revert the blanking, although the sooner sources can be added, the better. --Minderbinder 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
That's part of the problem, some admins are praising him for his assiduousness in BLP enforcement. SirFozzie 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to the biography of a living person, sources must be provided ... PERIOD. Jimbo's word in this situation is law because its his reputation (as well as the foundations) on the line (and all over the news) when the lawsuit hits. This sort of unsourced commentary is why WP:OFFICE was established. Ask Danny, i'm pretty sure he'd back up the removal of unsourced commentary in the biography of a living person who could sue. Jimbo's commentary here is quite explicit as to what needs to be done. Stop pestering Burntsauce, stop bitching at me, stop the random "lets change the policy" bullshit. Burntsauce is doing what needs to be done, instead how about you get off your ass and start finding some RELIABLE SOURCES so the content doesnt need to be removed?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well not so much because Jimbo says, but because it is the right thing to do. Which is, of course, why he said it. Um yes. I think I'll shut up now, as we seem to be pretty much in agreement. --Tony Sidaway 23:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Fine, Then change the BLP policy to state that, period? I'm just following what the page says. Ok? SirFozzie 22:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
No. This policy does not stand alone. You need to comply and follow WP:NPOV and WP:V as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Burnstsauce is ignoring th policy, how is that doing what needs to be done? Especially since he refuses to discuss the situation with the Pro Wrestling Wikiproject. Fozzie is right, and Burnt should at least discuss it at WP:PW if he is going to ignor policy and blank tons of articles. 22:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
TJ, drop it, it's not worth the high blood pressure from it. If that's what the policy will be treated as (never mind what it was before all of this, because it's superseded apparently by Jimbo), then we have to deal with the way things are, not the way things ought to be. And no one was complaining about WP:V, or WP:NPOV. Look at every blanking. It's all BLP all the time, when that was NOT what the policy said. Anyway, I'm going to take my own advice and drop it. SirFozzie 22:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Looking at a specific example: earlier Burnt blanked Buff Bagwell which had been tagged as having no sources since February. While I don't agree with the blanking, the end result is that someone did put in the work and add sources to the article. Why can't sources just be added to the info in Skandor Akbar, which has been tagged as having no sources since December? --Minderbinder 23:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There are thousands and thousands of wrestling related articles, and some have a higher priority than others. Bagwell is not in the spotlight anymore and was never more than a mid-card wrestler. So he wasn't a high priority. Same thing with Akbar. TJ Spyke 00:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Low priority articles about living people which do not contain any reliable sources, and have been requesting sources for weeks (or months) should most likely be stubbed to prevent further embarrassment to the project. Yamaguchi先生 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
So adding sources to articles about living people isn't a priority for WP:PW, yet edit warring and arguing about whether "four way" has a hyphen is? I went through Category:American professional wrestlers up to the letter 'H', and over 90% of the article were unsourced or had no inline references. Some of the members of WP:PW have shown contempt for policies for too long in my opinion. One Night In Hackney303 11:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean "show contempt"? If Burnstsauce wants to help Wikipedia, he can aid us in sourcing articles rather than misinterpeting BLP and blanking articles (since BLP says to remove contentious material, not all material). TJ Spyke 05:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems a shame that some editors are more concerned with blanking and deleting than with bothering to help find references, but it all depends on one's perspective on the word "contribution" I guess. But anyway. Will I have the full backing of the Wikipedia community if I go ahead and apply BLP to the likes of Bill Clinton, Robert DeNiro and Babe Ruth? Or will I be recipient of a censure because they're not pro-wrestling articles? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 17:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Suriel, I wouldn't do that, ESPECIALLY since you've brought it up here, WP:POINT would hit you. SirFozzie 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why BLP wouldn't be applied on those articles. If there's unsourced controversial info, it should go immediately. And if there's info that needs a source, it certainly can be tagged and then deleted later if a source isn't provided although I suspect any source requests would be filled quickly on those articles. While BLP talks about contentious material, any uncited material, particularly material that has had a request for a citation that isn't filled can be deleted per WP:V. And unlike Bill Clinton which has over forty citations, Skandor_Akbar has zero even though a source request tag has been on the article for months. While blanking isn't the best way to handle an article, sadly in this case it looks like many of these articles may never get citations unless someone forces the issue like that. --Minderbinder 17:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the change that made removal of non-contentious material as urgent as contentious material. This is clearly not in accordance with long standing policy and Jimbo's writing on this issue and seems to be instruction creep. Any poorly-sourced or unsourced non-contentious material can either be removed, or tagged as {{fact}} and removed after a few days if no proper source if found, just like in any other article, and the removal is subject to 3RR. If there is any negative aspect to the item in question, or if the subject objects to it, it is almost by definition contentious, and falls under the contentious material exclusion. Crum375 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Show contempt" refers to the fact that from what I've seen, well over 90% of articles about American wrestlers were not properly sourced, and unsourced content continued to be added to them on a weekly basis. That has improved over the last couple of weeks admittedly, as a direct result of the stubbing of articles it has to be said. As Minderbinder states the issue has been forced, and the result is that articles are now being sourced. So in my opinion editors' time would be better employed sourcing the articles rather than arguing about the blanking. One Night In Hackney303 20:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that side anymore, ONiH, I just made the removal of the word contentious prevented a situation like this to prevent something like this from happening again. A lot of the information being removed was NOT contentious (as the policy states), but as was strongly pointed out to me above, it doesn't have to be contentious (like a list of wrestlers Skandor Akbar managed) to be removed, it just has to be unsourced. Anyway, I did my WP:BRD and will leave it alone. SirFozzie 20:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I know Fozzie, I was replying to TJ. I still think something positive has come out of this, although it could have been handled more diplomatically to begin with instead of the bull in a china shop approach. One Night In Hackney303 20:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet another modest proposal

I have argued long about the notability creep which, due to the infinite space in Wikipedia, allows the notability theshhold for living person biography to fall so low that eventually every one of us who does anything notable which is recorded in any local or verifiable source, will have our own personal bio stubs in Wikipedia, like it or not. I have proposed that bios be subject to approval by the living subject: the rule being "Accept present Wiki rules for your bio, or simply notify Wikipedia that you decline to be bio'ed at all." But this proposal has met with resistance by people who cannot stand the idea of no Wiki at all for a Bill Clinton or a George W. Bush. Okay. Fine. So now, I propose a more modest version: No wiki-bio without consent of the living subject, for anybody who is not ALREADY bio'ed in a standard paper encyclopedia. If they're famous enough or notable enough for THAT, they don't need to give consent. Otherwise, they do. That should stop notability creep dead in its tracks, and make Angela Beesley a happy woman, and Daniel Brandt(name corrected by User:SqueakBox) a happy man. What say you? SBHarris 01:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree (btw, it's Daniel Brandt, not David :D).. We already have Notability standards (the focus of third party, Reliably sourced articles). This is notability creep in the other direction. SirFozzie 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that notability creep is going in the other direction and am not sure if this good as there are far more people who want an article than there are people who dont and we are syupposed to be the encyclopedia of everything, SqueakBox 01:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If notability creep is going in the other direction, that would mean there are fewer and fewer biographies of living persons on WP each day. Are you claiming this? Support it with facts. My proposal, BTW, would also get rid of vanity biographies; leave that for Who's Who. WIkipedia was never supposed to be an encyclopedia of everything: see WP:NOT for the many things it's not an encylopedia of. Personal information on non-famous people would merely be one more addition to an already long list. At present, Wikipedia has stringent rules about self-promotion of either companies or persons, UNTIL the self-promotion becomes successful elsewhere. Then it's okay. There's something very odd or perverse about that, especially when it's combined with standards that allow profiling of people who would rather remain unprofiled. SBHarris 01:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
What I meant is that the criteria to have a bio here is getting harder, it may be that there are more bios because many failing the new criteria are slipping through the ropes but, eg, we didnt have BLP until reklatively recently and this a a trend I observe. As a side pouint there are IMO tens of thousands of notable people who dont have a bio here, mostly people notable in the Third World. I dont think the paper encyclopedia bit is even a starter but there is a core of good idea. Write an essay in the Wikipedia: space? SqueakBox 01:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll reframe and say wikipedia is about everything considered notable and sourceable, SqueakBox 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
But that isn't true! MicroSoft's ads for their latest software are notable and sourcable, but there's no rightful place for them on Wikipedia. I will note, of course, that "product user information" which is little indistinguishable from advertising can wind up on Wikipedia by indirect means, very much as political "press releases" (propaganda) wind up in your local paper, as "news". So there's an "ad creep" on Wikipedia, too. But one problem to be addressed at a time, and one nasty problem doesn't justify another. At least ad creap is by contrast less harmful to individuals than bio and notability creep. SBHarris 01:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Such a proposal may be controversial but I would encourage you to go for it but I think you need some other level of notability than a paper encyclopedia, SqueakBox 01:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a better suggestion. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a loose collection of information about the world and links to blogs, but if you go outside of other enclyclopedias and printed material which maintains restraint and accuracy by virtue of publishing costs, that's pretty much what you run into. Can't have it both ways.SBHarris 02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
If we get to open this debate up hopefully other people will have better ideas than a paper encyclopedia, and opening this up is what I would encourage (and what you are doing), SqueakBox 02:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, SBHarris, and have already proposed it on the mailing list. Either a no-first-biography principle, or an opt-out clause for borderline notables. There was a mixed response. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
IMO a policy proposal on opting out possibility from having a bio for non-public figures would be a good idea, SqueakBox 01:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
You have good intentions, but the specifics you've proposed so far are impractical. I have yet to hear a proposal that would actually make a useful deliniation and not end up with the same arguments we have right now. It seems like you'd either leave out people who are public figures and should be in, or still end up having minor people who don't want to be mentioned here. --Minderbinder 10:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Frise 02:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

You will absolutely never get consensus on allowing people to opt-out. This has been discussed over and over and over. It will never pass. We already have guidelines for notability, if you think they are too loose in particular respects those *specific* aspects should be taken up. If someone puts themselves into the news because they are a media whore, then they are fair game. End of story. :) Wjhonson 05:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Each time it gets discussed it gets a little bit closer. One day we'll get there. Soon, I hope. Frise 06:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, anybody such as your example, can easily remove themselves from the spotlight by simply stepping down from public and widely known positions and functions. They create their own situation, it's disengenious to complain about it now. Wjhonson 05:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Editors often dig up 40-year-old information on people so they can add it to an article. Dropping out of sight for a while isn't going to cut it. Frise 06:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't feed the troll if you can help it. It's a very good proposal, sane and reasonable. Absolutely no hope of passing here then. Grace Note 05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like good research. Infodmz 15:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If one person did it, we'd call it stalking. Frise 21:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a need for a BLP check?

There is a minor discussion going on over at the talk page of the article Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom murder about the necessity to have the BLP Check tag on the page. If a few more voices would like to come over and add their two cents so we can get a bigger picture of what the consenus here is, that'd be good. 72.69.111.117 00:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hal Holbrook

I am going to see him in his role as Mark Twain and wanted comments. At his age is his performance as I hope - Let me know what you think?

Felix

By all accounts he's still great. It's just that it only takes him 45 minutes to put on the makeup now, rather than the many hours it took when he did it first :) . SBHarris 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)