Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Would anyone find this useful?

User:SDY/BLPN review is just something I've been kicking around to attempt to bring some data to the previous discussion. I may do it anyway for my own amusement, but any feedback on the proposed data to be collected would be helpful if anyone else wants to use the information. SDY (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. I don't know of any previous attempts to do this, but I also haven't been around all that long.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Starting, and it's fairly slow going for now. At about an hour per archive page, it's going to take a while. One of the big questions I wanted to "ask" the data is whether changes in policy, such as the "all BLPs must have at least one reference" requirement, have any effect on the noticeboard reports. The "red flag" BLP problems (i.e. someone perceives an article to be actively damaging) are sometimes reported directly to the foundation, so tracking and trending on those may be difficult. Ultimately I'm looking to generate some background data so if any of the proposed changes (i.e. default semi-protect for BLPs) are actually implemented, we can actually assess if there's any evidence that they worked. I do QA stuff in real life, and the concept of corrective action without an effectiveness check seems dubious. SDY (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Bias Categories and BLPs

FYI, per Recent Categories for discussion, individuals and organizations should no longer be added to the various "bias" categories (racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, anti-Islam sentiment, etc. I don't know if anybody will be running a bot through such lists to remove BLPs and organizations or if it will happen haphazardly as people feel motivated. The admin who made the decision did put a template on the top of the talk page of each category. I also don’t know if this point needs to be added to the category section of this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Carol: you ask "if this point [bias] needs to be added to the category section of this article". I was thinking the same thing. The bias categories (I would call them bigotry categories) arguably fall under the WP:BLPCAT policy already, because it covers "categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light)." In fact, user NickCT started a draft update to WP:BLPCAT at User:NickCT/sandbox. With Nick's permission, I made some modifications, and you'll see I explicitly listed the bias/bigotry categories as examples of the "poor reputation" policy. (at least, that is how it is until someone else modifies it :-) --Noleander (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I get further clarification here? I'm made a suggestion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(words_to_watch)#WP:LABEL_and_categories and been told, from one reading, that concerns about bias (including BLP?) shouldn't apply to categories, because they are not content, merely organization, and more like "See also" than article body. There doesn't seem to be a section of WP:CAT that would deal with this. Thoughts? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have not followed the details, but have noticed a couple of related discussions: see WP:EGRS and VPR (and CfD mentioned above). In some cases, I think the comment you refer to is reasonable, but I have seen lots of discussion where strong arguments were made that adding a category is not a simple matter of "you might like to see this". Examples where the addition of category is rejected include adding a category with an unsourced claim about sexuality to a BLP, and categories relating to creationism to Evolution. Johnuniq (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out those related discussions, Johnuniq. I suppose the reason that I see a parallel between someone's sexuality and these biased labels in categories is that, they could (theoretically) be disputed by the person or group in question, who may not see themselves as a cult(member), racist or terrorist, even if many other reliable sources assert that they are. In fact, I'd suggest that very few people/organizations would describe themselves that way, even if a majority of the general public perceives them as such. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The minority report

Here it is: The whole idea of WP's BLP is intrinsically evil, from the get-go. And yes, that includes BLPs of George W. Bush and Barach Obama, on down to the BLP of your local soccer/football goalie. The idea of assisting in making any site in the internet a central repository about personal information about living people, with strangers deciding what goes into their information "file" or not, is a very bad idea. The fact that other sites (newspapers, blogs, what-have-you) do some of this, just amounts to the argument that OTHEREVILEXISTS, and thus it's okay for us to be evil too, because standards are falling everywhere. Wrong. The fact that other websites do evil doesn't mean WP needs to help. If WP's 400,000 BLPs had been crowd-source compiled on-line by a site that ended with ".gov," everybody would be having a fit, right now. Instead, we permit it on WP-- in fact it drives some of the interest in WP, because BLP is a constant 12% of WP's articles (a fact that never seems to change much).

This whole sub-categorization mess with ethnicity and gender is a side-effect of a larger issue that everybody refuses to address.

WHY do they refuse to address it? Because BLP is gossip, and it's fun. The defects of dead people don't generate much drama. And most of the people who participate on WP don't think it will ever apply to them, because they don't even have a BLP. Indeed, many are anonymous, because they prize their privacy-- how hypocritical is that? They tell themselves lies, such as all BLP victims are public figures who chose to promote themselves, even when that's not true (or is undecidable), and that they DESERVE to have BLPs (wrong, nobody deserves a BLP unless possibly the matter is decided by judge and jury and appeal). People who control Wikipedia, and who should know better, divert the issue by simply controlling their own BLPs, and by controlling their friends and lovers' BLPs, or having them deleted entirely (you'll never see a BLP of WMF's criminal COO who went to prison, since she embarasses WMF). So the board of WMF and those who make money from it, have no personal reason to care.

In case some of you have forgotten how to tell that something is immoral, unethical, or (that unpopular word) evil, and have no help from your rabbi or pastor or priest or parents, allow me to remind you of something that you know already, unless you're a sociopath. Don't do anything to somebody else unwillingly, that you'd be unhappy if they did to YOU. That's called the "golden rule" for a reason, because it serves for all ethical systems, in all capacities. There is no WP:GOLDENRULE policy, and I think there's a reason for that, also. WP couldn't abide it. Even though WP:GOLDENRULE should be the ONE pillar that controls the other five. Actually, as you see by its fundamental hypocrisy when it comes to BLPs, Wikpedia is seriously morally deficient.

I realize that these words have a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of making any difference in the present debate. But they still need saying. Many of you reading are uncomfortably aware that I'm right, but still you do nothing.

Well, shame on you. SBHarris 18:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. I'm 100% for having a well defined BLP policy that is restrictive enough to protect living people, hence my support of the proposal above, but what exactly are you proposing? NO BLPs on Wikipedia ever again? If you really want to start and RFC or other community discussion about that be my guest, but I'm not sure ranting like this is the solution, especially not when you are insinuating that people who don't share your ethical principles would have to be sociopaths. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

It's as likely to be a start to the solution as anything else. All change starts from somebody in the streets of Tunisia, or in Boston Harbor, saying: "This is wrong!" NOTAFORUM simply translates to "somebody said something on a TALK page, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT." Also, NOTAFORUM doesn't apply to advocating for or against WP's own policies; it's meant against using WP as a soapbox about the world. Yes, people who don't get the Golden Rule are sociopaths. How you reconcile BLP with your own understanding of the Goldern Rule is your own business. I observe that you've very private about your own life, though. Is your BLP up on Wikipedia anywhere? Which one is it? SBHarris 19:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to quibble over the definition of sociopathy and what is meant by "getting the Golden Rule" because that was not my point. Your rant suggests that if people don't agree with you they are either completely self-serving because they "get the Golden Rule" but don't apply it, or sociopaths. That perspective is self-righteous and demeaning. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a WP:NOTFORUM issue, it's just so WP:SNOWBALL that it's not worth discussing. WP:NOTFORUM is for talk page discussions unrelated to actually writing an encyclopedia, and this discussion is about writing the encyclopedia... albeit one that is so ridiculous that I think the proper reference is WP:FACEPALM. SDY (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTAFORUM, because Sbharris is not actually suggesting any changes to be made to the policy, but instead is opining in a very general (though extreme0 manner on the very existence of BLP articles at Wikipedia. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So we're arrived to the point that talking about living people on the Internet is unethical. Thank you for your outstanding contribution to our daily Facepalm dose, SBHarris. Now you can leave this place of sin and let us continue our job of documenting notable subjects (which include, incredibly enough for humans, other notable living humans). --Cyclopia^talk 12:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You have enough scientific publications to have crossed WP's notability-threshhold yourself, Cyclopia. So take the plunge and start a BLP on yourself. At least use your name and a picture on your userpage. It's immediately obvious from published sources who you are, so all this is referenceable. I even find on the internet a photo of you in clown makeup (hilarious! Did you do that?), though that might not be verifiable, so I presume would not be includable (we must follow the BLP rules). The internet forgets nothing. You appear to be (like other some editors here) an example of a person who wants to do unto others what they would be most displeased to see done unto themselves. Why is that, do you think? Is there something about the prospect of needing to check your BLP every day to see if it's been vandalized, that makes having one, a bit unappetizing? As a scientist, why do you have so much difficulty generalizing a hypothesis from a good specific case, plus many other reports? You are too modest, perhaps? SBHarris 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• If you think Sbharris's concerns are totally off the wall, read this article, or spend some time answering mails from aggrieved BLP subjects in the OTRS queue. --JN466 01:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Look I fully recognize that there are BLP problems on Wikipedia that still need to be sorted out, and I fully support any measure that would help us write BLPs more carefully, but SBHarris' remarks are off the wall.Griswaldo (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• One possible solution short of deleting all BLPs: Make BLP editing a user right that must be earned, and can be lost. This wouldn't solve all problems, but it might diminish the problems we (or rather, our BLP subjects) have. --JN466 01:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how that would work, but it is an interesting suggestion to only allow established accounts to edit BLPs, and as such to take away the privileged even from such accounts if they cannot handle the responsibility.Griswaldo (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • See [1]. --JN466 10:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Sbharris employs some hyperbole to good effect, but his point looks valid to me. There are people among us who, despairing of ever attaining self respect on their own devices, have resolved to steal it from others. They will try every possible tactic to impute dismerit, and BLP's have been great arenas for them. More does need to be done about it. Maybe the idea of turning BLP editing into a privilege might work. Rumiton (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The hyperbole just makes the argument look like a temper tantrum over a broken toy, and steals any viability it might have had. While I agree that there are problems with the BLP process, accusing the entire project of bad faith is a non-starter. As for the "BLP userright" why not just semi-protect all BLPs by default? Either that or have a "recent changes" exclusive to BLPs so that the mop and bucket brigade can whac-a-mole more efficiently? Either would be simpler to implement than a new userright. SDY (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Default semi (and/or default flagged revs) on BLP would be an excellent solution; the problem is that every time it is proposed nobody of the hardcore BLP "ethicists" shows up to support it, while they bend over backwards to support much more destructive measures with much less substantial impact (read: BLPPROD, "default to delete" suggestions, etc.) --Cyclopia^talk 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because it is a worthless piece of junk, as I've pointed out on countless occasions. Its only utility is that it is thrown up by BLP "non-ethicists" as a token nod to "doing something" any time an ethical issue is raised, only to be killed off by insisting on yet another round of discussion, process and feet-dragging. I've been hearing the "flagged revisions will solve this" mantra for five years now. Implement it or don't implement it, I really have ceased caring. It will not solve the BLP problem, indeed it won't really do much at all.--Scott Mac 16:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(undent) The arguments against these "pre-emptive anti-vandalism" are mostly driven by trying to be open and friendly to new users. Are there any other suggestions as to how to empower admins and the people who fix this kind of garbage? Recent changes patrolling is how we handle most of the "could be protected but isn't" problems, and making that mechanism work more efficiently can only be good. Honestly, there will always be errors, malcontents, and vandals, and in a "golden rule" scenario, I wouldn't expect anything more than due diligence in fixing it. Errors in basic information about any number of topics can have far more important impacts on the real world than someone being offended about what's being written about them online. SDY (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

This misses the point utterly. We're doing our best and remember there's people dying in Africa is not an adequate response to the fact that we are allowing anonymous people to write encyclopedia articles about living individuals and we are utterly unable to prevent a large amount of libel, bias and other hurtful things being passed of as encyclopedic content. Saying "what else can we do?" misses the point to. Try not hosting material on living people! Don't like that solution? OK, now work out the way of doing it that makes the risk of bad material on living people low enough that it is reasonable to ask our subjects to live with it. Frankly, it is obvious that "due dilligence" isn't enough here, so we need to do things differently. But that's a discussion that's simply anathema to those who deny any problem and assume a God-given right to do what we do.--Scott Mac 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

We can't write an encyclopedia without writing about living people. An article about American Airlines is inevitably going to involve living people, as is an article about South Africa. Virtually any article is open to "libel, bias, and other hurtful things." Other than giving up on the entirety of the project, we're going to have to accept that some errors and bad faith will take place. Unless we shut down the project entirely, there will be "libel, bias, and other hurtful things" in BLPs somewhere in the encyclopedia. A Conservapedia-style police state might stop 90% of it, and even then you'd still have some absolutist claiming that "we aren't doing enough" to stop these problems. There's a question of what we can practically do, and reasonable proposals like semi-protection or tools for improved vigilance can help, but unless we want to give up on an "encyclopedia anyone can edit" we're not going to implement much else. SDY (talk) 17:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no God-given right to have an encyclopedia where anyone can write about living people. If you want to have one, then you need to think about how you do that in a way that minimises the chance of harting people - and the onus is on you to come up with it. (Unless you take the view that you are legally entitled to be reckless here, so who give a fuck about anyone else.) The argument that you can't entirely eliminate the risk of harm is not an argument for not trying your damnedest to eliminate as much of it as possible. And there is lots we could do here - semi-protection and flagging are at the very low end of a spectrum that goes up to doing things like, removing all lower-notability BLPs, only letting established users edit BLPS, even to requiring people editing BLPs to use their real names. Of course, if you start by assuming Wikipedia's right to do what it is doing, and not really seeing the harm as being your responsibility, then you'll not entertain any of this. Which makes arguing with you pretty pointless.--Scott Mac 18:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

What is meant by "harm" here? What are we referring to when we refer to "hurting people"? Policy can be abused. WP:BLP is abused, or at least it is not unheard of for WP:BLP to occasionally be abused. The crux of the question pertains to what sort of "harm" we are trying to prevent. As I read the above, I think I see an emphasis on how to prevent that "harm". I think attention needs to be drawn to what "harm" we are trying to prevent. Bus stop (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There are various harms. See User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem for an analysis of harm. The greatest harm to a living subject is the plausible untruth: the edit which is false or misleading, but to anyone who don't check the facts, or know the subject, would look possible (i.e. it would not be reverted as obvious vandalism).--Scott Mac 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(undent) There's a difference between "being reckless" and "being obsessive-compulsive." The chance that someone will suffer actual physical harm because of what is written about them on Wikipedia is very, very, slight. The most likely thing is that they'll be offended, and hurting people's feelings is not exactly genocide. The world will not end if Wikipedia is naughty, and treating the existence of BLPs as a crime against humanity is just nonsensical hysteria. SDY (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not read this as carefully as I should have but I have seen some suggestions offered. One suggestion that I have not seen but would offer is a more strict enforcement of the reliable sources policy. If an article is not sourced properly, it should be deleted. For a very long time, this was ignored. Then along came the idea and a nifty template that said that BLPs that were created after a certain date in this year (I have forgotten that detail) must have at least one reliable source. I have only seen the template in action, I have not studied its history or rationale. I am merely a little frustrated every time I see it. The reliable sources policy is fairly clear that every article must be reliably sourced and that statements that do not have sources should be deleted.

As for the suggestions there are two that I believe I have read that I believe have merit and a possibility of being adopted.

• Only registered users should be allowed to edit BLP articles. IPs can make suggestions for changes on the article's talk page and a registered user could act on the suggestions.
• I think that a re-vamping of the Reviewer process is in order. Editors should have to earn Reviewer status. I should not be a Reviewer, even though I am. No one should be a Reviewer ex officio, such as Admins. There should be a process for granting Reviewer status which would include provisions for removal of the status. Self-nominations for Reviewer status should be suspect and subject to greater scrutiny that a second-hand nomination. This is not to say that they should not be approved or that their terms (if it is decided that the status should be subject to renewal) shoulc be shorter, merely that Reviewer status should not be a coveted feather in ones cap.

JimCubb (talk) 18:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading the Doc Glasgow essay, it appears that semi-protection is not viewed as a viable solution since the problem is not in vandalism (rapidly recognized and blocked), but in tendentious editing (usually recognized but rarely blocked). One suggestion that's floated there that's worth discussing is bumping up the notability requirements for living people, which I'd strongly endorse. Borderline notable people where Wikipedia is the only readily available source (e.g. if it's the only source in English) are the obvious class to be protected. Anyone who's unquestionably notable has bigger PR problems than some cranks writing an encyclopedia and will likely have counter-cranks to defend them. SDY (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe we are still talking about how to prevent harm without identifying that harm. What are we trying to prevent? Give specific examples, please. In the absence of an articulated identification of the sort of "harm" we are trying to prevent, this discussion is about setting up structures and procedures that are prone to abuse. We want to avoid the unintended consequence of whatever procedures we are proposing putting in place resulting in an overall deterioration in the quality of our biographies of living people. I am not a gossip-monger, I don't think, but the free inclusion of sourced material should not be hampered. I think that the free inclusion of sourced material is the lifeblood of the project. We should be clear about what it is we are trying to combat. Setting up barriers and tests can hamper article production. I think it is reasonable to assume there can be disagreement about what constitutes "harm". Can we even identify "harm"? Bus stop (talk) 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely this qualifies as "harm". --JN466 20:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Surely it does. But the next supposed instance of "harm" is going to take on a different form, is it not? When it is in the mature and thoroughly articulated form that we see in that article it is not difficult to identify. My question is—how do we identify "harm" in its incipient stage? Wouldn't there be likely many false alarms, in which editors suggest that an individual—the subject of a biography of a living person—is in danger of being "harmed", when that may not be the case at all? Identifying "harm" is the key here. I'm suggesting that identifying harm in its early stages is difficult and that setting up structures to combat it may be futile and even potentially counterproductive. Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yet another manufactured reason to do nothing. Perhaps a sandbox would be useful - to bury your head in.--Scott Mac 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Despite what you're claiming, Mac, the sky is in fact not falling. There have been some isolated incidents of seriously problematic BLPs, but is there any evidence whatsoever that this is a widespread issue? With 400,000 BLPs, even with 3.4 defects per million opportunities we'd expect more than one to fail, and Wikipedia is nowhere near that good. SDY (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

So, the odd bit of collateral damage is fine then. I mean as long as the sky don't fall on your head. Can't have anything like concern for the odd person or two get in the way of our anonymous little hobby can we?--Scott Mac 23:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Wikipedia's open editing model has generated oceans of useful content and provided accessible knowledge to huge numbers of people. Benefits means that yes, there are some acceptable risks. I still drive to work in the morning, even though I know it's possible it will kill me or other people, even though I've personally been involved in an accident that very well could have killed me, because there's a clear benefit and the risk is very small. SDY (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is that the risk to you here is zero - when you drive you (at very least) share the risk to like and limb with the person you might hit - that tends to encourage more responsible driving. But, as it stands, you seem incapable of considering that you might wish to drive at a significantly lower speed to reduce the risk to others (because slowing you down is an unacceptable price to pay to reduce a statistically small risk to someone else). That is the essence of moral irresponsibility - or to put it another way selfishness. Maybe if we insisted people edit under their own names, and thus they shared the risk to reputation and of harassment with the subjects they write about, then your analogy might work. --Scott Mac 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Are we discussing any proposal here or is this a meta disagreement? It's not a moral issue, not if phrased in that way. It could be an ethical on. Wikipedia does a lot more good than harm to the world and its living human inhabitants, and refusing to spread knowledge about people for fear that one person could be harmed in the course of helping countless others would be abdicating our important role in society. Of course we should try to get it right, but we have to balance that against a lot of other concerns. Absolutism isn't a good way of doing that. Instead we have a lot of mechanisms - the content policies, administrators, BLP, OTRS, and so on. I sometimes think that we should all have confirmed identities, or at least accounts, but anonymity seems to be a fundamental tenet around here. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a moral issue. But it is not "absolutising" to say we should do a hell of a lot more here. The fact that roads are a good thing doesn't mean that speed limits should not be lowered or red-lights introduced. And the fact that something seems to be a "fundamental tenant" is part of the absoluiting language of those who reject change. I'm rather sick of being called an absolutist by people who think that Wikipedia would be destroyed by "absolutely" any change, and that we should do no more to prevent harm.--Scott Mac 08:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(agreeing) As long as WP has editors who think as one did (examples of his opinions are anonymously contained at User:Collect/BLP, the need for strong controls over BLPs is self-evident. Yes - we do need "red lights" here. And the fact that we only have a choice now for "yield signs" does not mean we should have no controls until someone invents "red lights." Collect (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm . We do have strong controls for BLPs. They could be stronger, but they will never be strong enough to appease absolutists, but unless we WP:SALT the entire project they might not be satisfied. Heck, absolutists would probably require that we delete any cached copies that exist on any hard drive anywhere in the world. I'm going to stop feeding the trolls and de-watchlist this page. SDY (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I apologize for the inflammatory nature of this comment. The intent was to express concern that the conversation had become unhelpful and any further comment would simply result in more insults and accusations rather than any useful discussion. SDY (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are the only one bringing in absolutist arguments - it seems as an excuse for doing absolutely nothing more. Others are arguing to do a LOT more, sure. But the notion that "it won't satisfy hypothetical absolutists" is simply your straw man. And who are these trolls you are referring to? People who disagree with your rhetorical nonsense?--Scott Mac 13:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's anything we're actually talking about here, or any real problem that needs a solution, it would help to lay it on the table. Meanwhile, the extremist meta-statements are absurd. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Jayen had an interesting suggestion above, but the rest of this is beginning to look a whole lot like a pro v. anti BLP pissing match. But then again it started with a rant that offered no workable solutions to any of the known BLP problems -- just the claim that BLP articles are inherently evil. I guess the suggestion that we all edit with our real names was also made, to be fair, but if you ask me that would be a death blow to this project. It is an impractical suggestion because a vast majority of volunteers would no longer edit here. At the end of the day, the project needs these volunteers. Now I fall firmly in the camp of people who think that more needs to be done to protect BLPs. How about we do discuss some actual proposals to change the policy or to change the way we regulate BLP editing more broadly (e.g. like Jayen's proposal)? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hybrid suggestion

While I do not support the notion that all editors should edit under the real names, what about taking that idea and melding it with Jayen's suggestion? What if we did only allow certain editors to edit BLP entries? What if those editors had to disclose their real life identity, not to the general public, but at least to the foundation? This way we don't ruin the project by chasing away all the editors who will only edit anonymously while setting a higher standard for BLP editing that includes a certain level of accountability, but still ensures the more general anonymity that some would not want to do away with. Thoughts?Griswaldo (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems here:

1. We have no way of identifying BLPs until they have been created - so a new account could create a new article on a living person, then a tagger would tag it as a BLP, and the author would then be unable to edit it even to add a reference or fix their own mistake.
2. Many of our worst BLP violations take place in articles that are not themselves BLPs.
3. One reason for not disclosing editors identities to the foundation, is that when people send legal letters to the foundation demanding the identity of particular editors the Foundation can reply that they don't know those identities. As the Foundation is located in a litigious country I think that is a useful precaution.
4. This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and we get our best improvements when we remember that. ϢereSpielChequers 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of argument I'll answer your points.

1. I don't understand where the problem here is. If editing BLPs was something not everyone was allowed to do, and if such new accounts fall into that category then we wouldn't want them to be able to edit even entries they authored. Also, there would be nothing preventing them from using the talk page, and otherwise discussing the entry with others who were BLP worthy.
2. This is a good general point when it comes to talking about BLP problems, but let's not judge the merits of a proposal to help solve some BLP problems based on the fact that it might not prevent all BLP problems. If you have a better alternative then let's hear it, but if the alternative is to solve none of the problems then how can that be better?
3. While you've spun this in a negative way, that's exactly the point of making people accountable for their edits in the area of BLP. Ethically speaking, it is this objection that gets the BLP enthusiasts going on their "moral" arguments, and I have to say they have a point. You know other authors, who do not hide behind the anonymity that Wikipedia editors have, write about living persons all the time. Why should our editors have more protections than they do against possible lawsuits? You're simply advocating for less accountability here than we would all agree that people should have when the publish materials in the real world outside of Wikipedia land.
4. Yes, and wouldn't effect that much at all, with the very minor exception of the BLP arena. I think it would be an improvement if the process of getting BLP entries up and running were a bit slower than it currently is. Patience is a virtue that very few Wikipedians have mastered.Griswaldo (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't currently have a mechanism to stop people creating BLPs and no-one here has proposed a method for doing so. Every proposal for treating BLPs differently relies on editors identifying BLPs and tagging them as such. In my view it would be at best an unworkable mess if the author of an article wasn't able to fix their own typo ten minutes later.

This isn't choice between doing something slightly positive and doing nothing, this is a choice between different ways of improving BLPs. The risk of doing something for the sake of making a change is that you could repeat the mistake of the Jan 2010 BLP deletion spree and do more harm than good by diverting volunteers to lower risk areas. There are improvements going on re our BLPs, I've worked on various things myself, including the Death anomalies report which now runs uncontentiously here and on half a dozen other languages. I'll make some more suggestions in a new section.

As for making people accountable for their edits, if you are going to bring ethics into it then one has to cover the issue of to whom you are accountable to, I'm not convinced that publicly accountable editing is as good as our current model. I think that the amount of time I spend deleting attack pages and resolving other BLP violations makes me a net positive to our BLP processes, but without the shield of anonymity I would have stopped after my first death threat.

If you want to slowdown the article creation process then the most effective ways would be to limit it to autoconfirmed accounts, or to put a prompt in the software that asked people for their source. I'd support a trial of the latter. ϢereSpielChequers 16:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Again I have no idea why you think that is a problem
2. By diverting some volunteers to lower risk areas, how does that do more harm than good? Not clear on that.
3. So the type of person who (I'm assuming anonymously) emails a death threat to you because of your work protecting BLPs, that's the type of person you worry could subpeona your name from the foundation? I don't see it. Remember I am not proposing completely public editing.
4. I don't want to slow down article creation, I'm merely saying that if something that helps protect BLPs and helps us write more reliably sourced articles also slows down the process then that's not a bad thing. I'm not 100% wed to this suggestion, it was just meant as a point to discuss, but I have to say I'm rather unconvinced by your various objections.Griswaldo (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Our existing new page creation process is a complete minefield for newbies and very close to institutionalised newbie biting. Already if you create a new article on a living person you are liable to find it proposed for deletion within minutes of creation. At present that proposal does at least spell out how you can edit the article to add a reference, if it also said "and I've tagged it as a BLP so only certain approved editors can edit it" then in my view we have an even less welcoming article creation process.
2. One should always be careful when choosing what to prioritise, diverting volunteers to low risk area risks diverting them away from high risk areas. I put a lot of time into the uBLP cleanup last year, and as a direct result was finding and deleting far fewer attack pages per month than in 2009.
3. I live in a country where authorities are relatively trustworthy. We don't all, and even then I hesitate before getting involved in certain areas of editing. Sometimes we fall into the trap of envisaging a solution which would be perfectly normal for people in our own particular culture but not such a good idea on a global scale. But there is a wider issue, we have a shortage of editors and we want these BLPs to continue to be updated and improved. We currently have half a million BLPs, even if we dropped the requirement for "trusted BLP editor" down to autoconfirmed I'm not convinced we would have enough editors to make up for the loss of IP edits. If we also required identification to the office then I don't believe we would have more than a fraction of those editors, and the talkpages would be permanently backlogged with IPs and other editors saying that Grandad has now died, X has now signed to Spurs, Y has won an Olympic Gold for something sporty and <redacted> is having a messy divorce due to infidelity and upcoming court cases.
4. My comment about ways to slowdown article creation was a response to your comment "I think it would be an improvement if the process of getting BLP entries up and running were a bit slower than it currently is." If that doesn't mean you want to slowdown the creation of BLP articles then I'm happy to stop that particular thread.
5. I'm sorry you find my objections unconvincing, getting consensus for change here isn't always easy. But it does require understanding and trying to resolve other editors concerns. But I've now made some alternative suggestions and you are more than welcome to pick holes in them. ϢereSpielChequers 17:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, I did propose a "fix," and that was to delete all BLPs. How they are maintained in off-line memory for the time when the person dies (to be returned 1,3 or 7 days later-- a time to be decided) is another issue. The Wayback Machine net site already does some caching, and WP could do more. Indeed, a simple delete and salt keeps the last version where it can be fished out by an admin, I believe, and that's probably good enough. Just so the thing no longer shows at the top of a google search, which after a few months it does not, if deleted from WP.

Secondly, just because I'd like to delete all BLPs, doesn't mean I'm not interested in any vehicle which keeps them harder to change or start. Automatic semi-protection comes to mind. Whatever you want to do, I'm for. This is like discussion of what conditions to maintain aboard a slave ship, so that not so many slaves die on the voyage. I'm in favor of any improvement, whatever! Count me in! But in any argument over number of slaves per square foot and how much drinking water they should get, somebody needs to occasionally step in and remind everybody that we really should step back and discuss the institution itself, not only the nitty-gritty details of how it's maintained.

Incidentally, I edit WP under my birthname (5 years now and more than 20,000 edits). From the first it appeared to me that no responsible adult should want to write anything here on WP that they were not willing to be personally responsible for, under their own reputation and name. How many of you-all can say the same? SBHarris 23:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Been kicking this idea around for a while, and honestly I think it's because as a volunteer project, there's a "safety first" mentality and potentially placing our users in danger of frivolous lawsuits (and other things like stalkers) would leave only people who are extremely confident of their own invincibility. Given that many users are minors (i.e. not "resonsible adults" by definition), exposing them to risks is not acceptable. Wikipedia attracts volunteers because the anonymity allows users to be bold (which is the only reason much of anything gets done around here) and because it's open to, and again with anonymity, protective of its users. This isn't just applicable to BLPs, it's also relevant for medical articles and other content that's honestly dangerous if wrong and taken seriously. SDY (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that minor users should use their real names. But on the other hand, minor users should not be editing on BLPs or adult subjects, either. I wouldn't suggest that minors drink alcohol or work as security guards or cops or judges or doctors, handle high power lasers or radioactives, or do all kinds of things without heavy constant supervision by adults; they simply don't have the judgement for it. On Wikipedia, since we don't have the supervision (no flagged revisions) we have plenty of jobs for minors to do that don't involve them pissing somebody off like an overzealous paparazzi. For that matter, I don't suggest minors try to make money as paparazzi, either.

As for adults, when you work as a paparazzi or invade somebody else's life, you take your chances. It's just better to treat other people as you'd expect to be treated in a civil society, and that's the end of it (no, not everybody does this; standards are falling). Wikipedia doesn't always do that, but occasionally they pull back, because they know they're at the brink.

Let me be specific: there are public records that few of us would like to see pop up at the top of Google search for our names. Wikipedia even recognizes that when it refuses to publish addresses of people, even though these are quite often public records (does your state have public voter rolls and real estate records-- it probably does). If Wikipedia can voluntarally back off from re-publishing THAT, it can just as easily (and with exactly as much justification and the same argument) back off of publishing ANYTHING about anybody that even MIGHT make them uncomfortable. And that would be the end of it. You can't really be sure, without abandoning BLP completely (ESPECIALLY if not edited by certified adults). As noted, there are plenty of things for us to do in making WP, besides construct the details of the lives of the semi-well-known. (Porn actors? Come on). Really. Leave that for somebody else, and get to making something to be proud of. Something that lifts the world's standards, instead of simply reflecting the lowest common denominator of the crowd. SBHarris 05:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm very much a deletionist when it comes to obscure BLPs (especially borderline WP:BLP1E cases) but I'm kind of excessive on the WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE vs. WP:NOTPAPER compared to the community's average. I strongly agree we should be using a lot more editorial discretion about what is just not encyclopedic and should be left out. I strongly disagree that we should shy away of publishing anything at all about anyone that might make them uncomfortable. There are a lot of things that are said about Muammar Gaddafi that might make him uncomfortable, to grab an item from today's headlines, and obviously those are going to be included. The right to free speech is at least as sacrosanct as the obligation to not be a "dick", and when two imperatives conflict we're going to have to make a judgment call, and people will disagree on which is more important. Going to a Conservapedia-style police state will make Wikipedia a far less useful encyclopedia, and if we're not writing a useful encyclopedia we may as well all go home. SDY (talk) 02:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP user right and newbie users

I agree with User:WereSpielChequers that it would be invidious and bitey for new users to be able to create a BLP in good faith, and then immediately lose the ability to edit and expand it as soon as it's classified as a BLP by a new-page patroller. We'd have to find a way of addressing that.

The only way I can think of at the moment is that users who have created a good-faith BLP should be given the BLP user right as a matter of course, before the BLP is classified as such. This is only feasible if the requirement for real-name registration with the Foundation is dropped from the proposal. (I'm not sure I'd be in favour of that part of the proposal anyway, at this time.) --JN466 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This may not be possible but I think users should be allowed to edit any articles they create. If an new user creates an article about a living person then the user should have the right to edit that article but not a blp article that was created by someone else. To give a blanket blp user right to anyone who writes a blp would severely dilute the effect of the right. However, after a user has written a certain number of blp articles the blanket blp right could be granted. JimCubb (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of JimCubb's solution, but yes if editors were able to continue to edit the articles they had created even if they were subsequently tagged as BLPs then that would resolve that particular objection of mine. However that doesn't address all my concerns, I think there are much better ways to proceed that could achieve far more. ϢereSpielChequers 19:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming none of this would be difficult to code. Honestly, though, how is this different from auto-semi-protecting except as a formalized topic block for users who have had the right removed? I'd prefer the auto-semi-protect to a new userright mostly because it's a simpler solution that provides almost exactly the same protection. Could the "page creator loophole" be added for an auto-semi-protect situation? Seems like it could work easily enough. SDY (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to stave off those who might think that my idea smacks of ownership, it does not. Even though I spend most of my time with Category:Biography articles without listas parameter and have seen far too many stubs about truly minor sports participants that will never get to Start class, I have hopes that there are also articles about very important people in various fields who are little known to the public. These are the articles where the author would be the best person to supply the missing bit of information or the missing reference. Yes, these authors might skirt close to conflict of interest problems but they would be clearly identified and able to be contacted before they got too far. JimCubb (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Are newly tagged BLPs flagged in some convenient fashion for monitoring or is there a report that's run? SDY (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There are several reports that cover the problematic ones, Category:Unreferenced BLPs from March 2011, refimprove and Category:BLP articles proposed for deletion. But I don't think we have a report of new ones. ϢereSpielChequers 07:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Elected BLP committee with the ability to remove the BLP user right from editors

The removal of the BLP user right from an editor would be in the hands of an elected BLP committee, similar to the arbitration committee. Editors would lose the BLP user right after repeated tendentiousness and minor policy violations, or immediately after very gross violations (actual libel or defamation). The arbitration committee would be available to editors for appeals.

Having an elected BLP committee might actually be useful for another thing as well: editors could ask the committee for advice before adding potentially controversial material to a biography, and the committee could rule on whether the material is appropriate, because the controversy has been discussed in those terms in top-quality sources, or whether it would slant the article unduly against the subject. --JN466 19:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that we need a separate BLP committee, I'd rather that we set guidance that in certain scenarios admins could put restrictions on accounts. We sometimes have an issue with editors who repeatedly add unsourced BLP information to articles. If the information turns out to be bogus then I'm happy to see them blocked, I'm less comfortable with the idea of blocking editors who add accurate but unsourced information to articles, though it might be useful if we could put some sort of account restriction that stopped an account from creating new articles. ϢereSpielChequers 13:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If someone is careless with BLP articles to the point that they need a userright removed they should probably be blocked in general. Additional bureaucracy will just confuse users, and the complexity of Wikipedia's policies is cited as one of the reasons we scare new editors away. SDY (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, no kidding. The last thing Wikipedia needs is another Arbcom. Resolute 16:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't we have a central meeting place for issues of this sort at WP:BLPN? Bus stop (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Basically, yeah, we do, Bus stop. I can and do understand that there might be some basis for thinking that having a body designated with the specific task of overseeing BLPs (and biographies of the recently dead, related articles, etc.) has an appeal, but I also have reservations to the establishment of such a bureaucratic entity which would be given the obligation of being the court of last resort for all BLP related articles. The amount of material such a group would have to deal with is even greater than that of the ArbCom, and, presumably, it would require an even greater amount of dedication from its probably comparatively few members. No objections personally to seeing BLPs placed under discretionary sanctions or something equivalent, but that would be a separate matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi John Carter. In my opinion the appeal that the Noticeboard (WP:BLPN) holds is that it is constantly being replenished with fresh eyes. That means that current thinking is being brought to bear on problems being brought there. (Committees, I think, tend to become stale soon after they're formed.) Why not add a feature to the WP:BLPN Noticeboard that lists all newly created BLPs for a period of 7 days? A section at the bottom of that Noticeboard could contain a running log of BLPs no older than 7 days. Interested editors could check in on those articles to spot troubles. There is no perfect solution to the problem of misuse of Wikipedia at BLPs. I think we should aim to divert activity to where the danger is most likely to arise. That would be newly created articles. The Noticeboard already has the interest of knowledgeable and seasoned editors, who can elect to put some of these new BLPs on their Watchlist. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Presumably limiting the scope to those articles which are true BLPs, as opposed to, say, an article about a company which includes biographical info on the living founder. that doesn't sound like a bad idea. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion

I think that most people watching this page would like our protection of BLP information to be more stringent. Though we are clearly unable to agree on some changes there are others that I would hope would be less contentious.

1. We know from DE wiki and others that flagged revisions, pending changes or some such system that means every newbie edit is looked at least once is better at screening out vandalism than our current system at recent changes whereby most edits are looked at many times but some slip through unchecked.
2. Huggle and similar systems have algorythms to prioritise the article that hugglers check, if BLP was added as a positive in the default setting then it might result in more protection for BLPs (though the trial would be interesting and you'd have to check to see if this extra protection for BLPs justified any less attention elsewhere)
3. Researchers analysing Wikipedia for wikitrust type software now reckon they can identify >99% of the vandalism if we accept a sizable minority of false positives. I wouldn't support reverting edits automatically if they contained a large minority of good edits, but if we implemented pending changes or tweaked huggle etc to use such software to prioritise such edits we should be able too get a step change improvement in quality.
4. User:DeltaQuad has recently taken over poop patrol from Botlaf, so once again we have the ability to check for highrisk phrases to remove the unsourced BLP violations. I'm working through various searches such as Punched him and adding the legit ones to User:Botlaf/Punched him. But now the technology is working I've started queries such as a list of articles using the word Mafiosi, does anyone fancy checking those articles and adding the fictional characters and reliably sourced statements to User:Botlaf/mafiosi? Or alternatively add your own search to the bot. I would like to extend this to check for unsourced allegations of working in the porn industry. ϢereSpielChequers 17:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

There is also the "possible BLP issue or vandalism" tag. I used to find quite a few several hours old unreverted problem edits there, but nowadays it seems quite well patroled. Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a little bit of a concern about making that a tag. Editors that find possible libel or vandalism should be doing something about it or reporting it to WP:BLPN. Might be interesting to have a script associated with that tag that auto-notified Huggle users or automatically posted to a subpage of the noticeboard, but this kind of thing should be challenged rapidly even if there is a high false positive rate. SDY (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Tags are assigned to edits automatically, by the MediaWiki software. See Wikipedia:Tags. Regards, HaeB (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Child members of religions

Should a living person be categorized or listed as a "former member" or "child member" of a religion if the following conditions apply:

1. He or she was born or raised into that religion by a parent (or parents) who followed that religion;
2. He or she no longer is a follower of that religion; and
3. It cannot be verified through reliable sources that he or she was a follower of that religion at any time during adulthood.

Personally, I think that the answer should be "no", since a "yes" would effectively mean categorizing people as members (former members, but members nonetheless) of the religion of their parents, but I would like to solicit others' opinions. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You can obvoiusly be a member of a church or a religious organization, but I don't see how you can be a member of a religion. "Mr. X is a member of religion Y" seems not to be the words you want to use for your idea. Chrisrus (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPCAT states: "Categories regarding religious beliefs... should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief... in question; and the subject's beliefs... are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." I'd say this was clear-cut: unless they had self-identified as a "former member" or "child member", and unless it was relevant to their notability (which seems on the face of it unlikely), they should not be included on such a list. Perhaps it might be better to link to the list in question though - as Chrisrus says, the category/list may be misnamed in any case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Chrisrus, you're correct, of course. I should have written "member of a religious organization" or "follower of a religion". The two pages which prompted this line of thought are Category:People raised as children in the Children of God (discussion) and Template:Family International (discussion), so in this case we are talking about membership in an organization (a cult). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protecting BLPs as a matter of course

A while back, we discussed semi-protecting all BLPs—permanently. It was a great idea; whatever happened to it? And if it's dead, is there mileage in a more modest proposal: A revision of the RfP guidelines to require admins to be less parsimonious about granting semi-protection on BLPs (requiring that it be granted for up to a month on request by any registered user at RfP, for example, or reducing the threshold of how much vandalism it takes)? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The concern was for new editors not being able to work on the articles they had just created. One possibility there would be to semi-protect by default all established BLPs (i.e. anything that's already at least C-class by at least one project's rating scale, which a bot can figure out without much trouble). This might prevent a lot of the silly vandalism but wouldn't impede the flow of new articles. SDY (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's much of a concern, to tell you the truth (it doesn't affect new editors, but new editors who decline to register). Even if it is, I agree that restricting it to established BLPs will get the job done. What about the other approach, loosening the standards for accepting requests at RfP?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

My experience is that the mop-and-bucket brigade is pretty quick about locking down BLPs, and the only ones where there's been some pushback is on high profile articles where permanent semi is almost inevitable. Usually in those cases there are enough people watchng the page so problematic edits are challenged promptly and protection is an overly blunt way to prevent problems. Another possibility is that for BLPs, maybe allow any relatively established user to add the semi-protection template, maybe as part of the reviewer userright. This would seriously lower the barrier for getting BLPs protected, though there is some potential for abuse (probably a "non-admin page protect template" should generate an auto-notification at ANI or BLP/N). SDY (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Permanent semi-protection (or more) will be used on any BLP-relevant article currently under pending changes if the ability to use the facility is removed. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

What percentage of BLP articles are currently involved under pending changes and what percent would be expected to be affected long term? It doesn't seem like very many are covered there. SDY (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Courtesy deletion revisited?

Hi all. It's been about four years since we debated Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion. Since then, our feelings about BLP issues have moved on somewhat and I wondered if there was any appetite for reviving the idea in principle. Interested in your views on the idea as a whole, not the nitty gritty details. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the current compromise to treat requests for deletion from the subject as a kind of tie breaker in otherwise no-consensus AfDs is fine. Gigs (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Granted, but that's quite a specific set of circumstances. It doesn't cater for, say, the circumstance where the proposer of an AfD is the subject of the biography. --Dweller (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Gigs, but I think that's precisely the situation he was addressing. --Avenue (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the idea is that if notability is marginal, as demonstrated by the lack of a clear keep consensus, then we may defer to the subject's deletion request and delete something we may have otherwise kept. Gigs (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That's my interpretation as well, but it's possible that it's not as clearly documented as it could be. For instance, the "courtesy delete" page should maybe go into more detail about how the topic relates to AfDs in a practical way. (That is, explicitly state in the lead § that no-consensus BLPs default to delete, unlike all other articles.)

On a somewhat related note, I'd like to point out a recent discussion about a non-notable LP's mention in an article. I believe mrsuperk (talk · contribs) makes some good points in this discussion, that are worth consideration by anyone working on BLP issues: Talk:KORC (AM)#Names removed -Pete (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Followup -- I think the section "assessing marginal notability" addresses a rather fringe case (where a Wikipedia article is likely to have a substantial effect); the more general point (what constitutes marginal notability) remains unaddressed. I think defining this term prominently, rooted in the concept of a "no-consensus" AfD, would dramatically improve the WP:BLP courtesy deletion page. -Pete (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hereditary Democracy vs Infobox

If a child should inherit an elected office from a parent, should this relationship be noted in the "Preceded by" and "Succeeded by" infobox fields? Hcobb (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate image of a living person?

Wikipedia policy on original research, which links with policy on biographies of living people, states that

Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light.

How do we know if a given image presents a subject in a false or disparaging light? The image on the page for Athanasios Orphanides, Governor of the Central Bank of Cyprus, was recently changed from [2] to [3]. I reverted the change because I felt the second photograph might portray Orphanides in an undesired way. But another user reverted back. And I'm not Orphanides, so I don't know his viewpoint. How to decide?

Note: according to the corresponding information pages, both these images were personally generated by Wikipedia contributors. The first is due to User:Kyproula. The second was uploaded by an anonymous user at 212.31.102.140. However, the information page claims that the provider was a person named 'Athanasios'. Advice please!

One more point: the image provided by User:Kyproula, which Kyproula claims as his/her own work, is the image of Orphanides that appears on the official web site of the Central Bank of Cyprus. Therefore we can conclude that Orphanides finds the image acceptable, but we might doubt whether User:Kyproula is in fact the author of the image. Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sort of image is exactly what the section was about. Showing a politician holding a beer with a goofy look is one thing, but a similar picture of a club DJ who is known for goofy antics might be completely appropriate. It's all contextual, but I agree fully with your revert. Gigs (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I would avoid the beer image, but if I had no alternative, I'd use it. Politicians who go out in public and pick up a beer accept the risk someone is going to take images of them. That being said, as there is a better free use and I don't think this image adds to the reader's understanding of the subject, I do not think it satisfies our image policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I've read more. Yes, I have no idea what Cypriot policy is on copyrights, but the odds are that official shot is not in the public domain. If that one were deleted, I'd take the beer shot, but I'd trim the beer from the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion of this particular case at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Appropriate_image.3F.Rinconsoleao (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

White Latin American

Could someone weigh in on the discussion regarding the image gallery here and the WP:EGRS policy. None of the people in the image gallery are sourced as self-identifying as "White Latin Americans" so the inclusion is basically OR.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Feketekave (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is basically racist crap anyway, and of no encyclopaedic merit. Anything other than the dubiously-sourced collection of statistics for 'whites' would be perfectly-well discussed in general articles on immigration and ethnicity in Latin America, and this attempt to suggest that there is anything of general significance to 'whiteness' (whatever that is), can only be a breach of NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge whatever is salvageable to Demographics of Latin America at best. Remove all the stuff trying to categorize individuals to the trash heap. Collect (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It would be great if you guys would come to the page and help work it out. I have argued that the article is inappropriate but have not been met with much responsiveness.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Non-English BLPs

I happened to go through the translation request pages recently looking for help on incorporating foreign-language Wiki information into English versions of articles (yes, I'm familiar with tagging for those, but that's not my issue). While at WP:PNT, I noticed a disturbing trend. Articles that are written in a foreign language but are also BLPs are being treated, in my view, in a less than ideal way.

Before I go on, let me first clarify that I agree with BLP being perhaps the most important policy for editing on Wikipedia. With the possibility for libelous content, it makes it especially important that we have accurate articles on notable BLP subjects.

With that out of the way, during my visit to WP:PNT, I found that any BLP pages being requested for a translation are also being tagged for having no references. This is counter-productive to the project. First off, when a translation is requested, the translation template says that a translation must be provided within two weeks or the article will be eligible for deletion or removal to a native Wiki. Good policy, no problem on that. The problem is that someone may come to the article a little late in the period to do a translation, and the page is already deleted. The reason is because Prod blp is already placed on the page...and the expiration date for that is usually several days shorter if placed on the same day or at the same time. Even if placed the next day, it makes the article eligible for deletion before the translation allowance period is expired, thus making the entire process counter-productive to the translation team if they take their time (for lack of better wording) and only come in on the last day of the two week period.

So my concern is this. I wonder whether it might make more logical sense to have the "Prod blp" template only applied to pages in an English language. Why? If the page is not translated, it's going to be deleted no matter what from the English Wiki. We don't need multiple deletion processes on a single page; that makes it look like we're trying to find an excuse to remove something. I'd look for references myself, but I don't know Spanish, Italian, Cantonese, or any foreign language (even not as much French, and I'm Canadian).

I'd therefore like to discuss how foreign language pages already under a translation tag are being treated under this policy. While BLP is, as I stated, our most important policy in my eyes, it's rather pointless to use the related prod. tag on pages that are waiting for translation under another prod. tag. I can't reference something I don't understand; however, once in English, I'd be able to determine whether an article is notable for inclusion or able to try to find a reference. Failing those, THEN I would prod it for deletion. Comments? CycloneGU (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Information about ethnicity in biography for a living person

I will appreciate some clarification from users with significant experience and expertise on the following:

1. In the biography of a living person (personality in the field of music) an editor added information concerning the ethnic origin of the subject.

2. The personality publicly denied the allegation and repeatedly requested the removal of that information from wikipedia.

3. The personality has never made any comments either pro or against any ethnicity whatsoever to make such a topic relevant to be included in his biography.

4. Some editors have listed sources they deem credible to document the personality's ethnic origin.

5. Other editors contest the credibility of the sources listed at pt.4. on the premise that those sources are mainly discussing other topics and only once mention the personality in a list of people allegedly sharing the respective ethnic origin, the sources do not cite any reference in support and that the personality itself rejected the allegation.

My questions are:

A. Is it appropriate for the biography to include the controversy given the above?

B. If the answer to question A is "yes", what will be an acceptable standard for the sources used? Can we accept an obscure newspaper article that lists no references?

C. Is this policy expected to be the same in any other language or it is possible that wikipedia in language "X" will in effect permit editors to google personalities and forcefully include in biographies percentages of their ethnic origin based on questionable sources?

Thank you for any authoritative clarification on this issue. Gigi marga (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been considerable debate on the question of ascribing ethnicity to living persons, and currently the issue is anything but resolved. With regard to the case you discuss, without any indication of which article it relates to, it will be difficult to assist. Can you let us know the article name? AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Each language Wikipedia has its own rules. Whatis done on enWiki may well be substantially different from policies and guidelines on other ones. Collect (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to thank for the comments received so far. However, I prefer to disclose the article in question only after I understand what is an authoritative opinion on this problem as a general WP policy. Unfortunately I cannot present the case any clearer than that. I would hope the wp policy will not be biased with respect to the relative importance of the personality nor with respect to the ethnicity in question. Gigi marga (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As I have said, this issue is somewhat contentious, and as such it would be impossible to give an 'authoritative' statement - in any case, this isn't a bureaucracy, or a court of law, and decisions tend to get made in regard to specific cases, rather than by over-literal application of policy: indeed, this issue is probably covered by 'guidelines' as much as by policy. I should also stress that we can only deal with the issue here in as much as it applies to this Wikipedia (the English-language version) - other versions may have different policies. You could usefully look at WP:BLP if you haven't already - this gives a general guide to policy regarding biographies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally, the standard of what gets included is what is notable about a subject of a BLP. Ethnicity is not normally an aspect of that notability, although it might be generally noted to assist in categorising subjects. Where a subject objects to such categorisation, on the rule of "least harm", it appears best to remove such a categorisation. However, if that persons objection to categorisation becomes notable in its own right then that "controversy" may be cited - I am thinking of the debate about whether Michael Jackson was distancing himself from his ethnic background at the time when his skin colour lightened and his hair straightened - but not necessarily having their ethnicity otherwise recorded. I am just thinking on how we should treat BLP subjects in respecting their wishes without ignoring any well source notable issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again for the comments.

I am afraid the door opened for including the "controversy" if it becomes notable (LessHeard vanU comment) can potentially lead to a vicious circle where the starting and ending point is wikipedia. For example, the WP biography includes information the subject finds questionable and because there is no simple way to correct the situation (stubborn wp editors) the entire thing becomes a public scandal with press releases and therefore "notable" enough to be mentioned in wikipedia.

The Michael Jackson case does not fit into my description because he took obvious steps to distance himself from his background. The distancing was also an integrated part of his stage performance, impossible to ignore, and therefore relevant to his career, personality and biography. In the example I gave, the personality has done nothing at all to distance himself from any ethnicity, the ethnicity does not play any role whatsoever in his career and simply considers the ethnicity assigned by wikipedia wrong. There is also the detail about the quality of sources. In the example I gave, the sources are largely in the category of "gossip" but this is always open to interpretation.

I did read the BLP policy in detail and in my interpretation, the case I described should not make any mention at all about ethnicity under the existing BLP policy. I am also taking in account that ethnicity is not a "verifiable" fact under currently accepted moral and ethical standards. To make it simpler, lets assume that a gossip newspaper casually mentions that the father of a personality is a different man than the personality recognizes (and eventually grew up with). Wikipedia picks up the fact in the article and editors refuse to remove the disputed statements because "we have sources". The only way to verify for sure who is who and who fathered whom will be to conduct a DNA forensic investigation on the personality and his immediate family to "find out the truth". Such an endeavor not only goes against several wp policies but will be morally and ethically unacceptable in our society. I take it that because such an issue being impossible to verify, the opinion of the personality should be respected. Clearly, if the ethnicity has played a role in the personality's career (for instance Michael Jackson distancing himself from his), or if the personality has made notable comments about ethnicity (such as Bobby Fischer) then it becomes relevant to mention it even if they deny it and even if ethnicity is not a central part of his career (Bobby Fischer chess playing career does not have anything to do with ethnicity but because he made outrageous comments about ethnicity it becomes relevant to talk about his).

I believe that BLP cannot diverge significantly in spirit with respect to dealing with ethnicity no matter what language it gets translated into. Clearly other components of a biography may reflect local customs that differ from culture to culture but ones ethnicity is a universal concept. To do otherwise will open a door where wikipedia in non-English languages may decide that gossip or even random google searches are "good enough sources" to write down that "there is a 'controversy' where personality X denies having 25%, 13%, 37%, 21% and 4% ethnic origin y, z, q, r and respectively t" and the personality X be a United States citizen. While I may have exaggerated percentages here for the sake of the example, this is precisely the case I am talking about. I may add that I hope in the end, there will be authoritative support for my interpretation of the BLP which in my opinion is very clear and does not give any room for mentioning about ethnicity for the type of example I presented.Gigi marga (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly feel that Wikipedia has failed in a duty of responsible reporting of sources relating to notability if the inclusion of ethnicity by WP is a cause of controversy, noted by reliable third party references. Simply, WP should not have noted the matter of ethnicity if it had not already been reliably sourced as being notable. The MJ issue, as exampled, is where the ethnicity issue was already in the public domain. Where there is "controversy" or even dispute, WP reports reliably sourced references on the issue and should never create an issue in the first instance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

My position in this debate, for what it is worth, is that we should refrain from determining the "ethnicity" of any given person, alive or dead, and that categories, in particular, have to go. Details about ancestry or background can, on the other hand, be potentially relevant and interesting - in an already relatively long biographical article; however, we should ask ourselves what level of detail is needed (if any) and we should refrain from describing backgrounds in ways that are clearly geared towards defining or categorising a person in any sort of binary, unalterable way - or claim them for any particular club. In the case of a living person, these concerns are especially serious, and we should have a much higher bar for what is included.

In the case of the person you mention, I would probably favour a consensus that elided that person's ancestry entirely, and focused on whatever makes him or her important enough to merit an encyclopaedic article. This would avoid any arguments as to whether the person is X or not X, and would also keep a non-mention of X from being construed as an affirmation of non-X (whatever X is). Feketekave (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Gigi marga, as I have already explained, anything we say regarding policy can only relate to the English-language Wikipedia, and the sort of precision regarding the question that you seem to want simply isn't available. If the article in question is on English Wikipedia, you will have to let us know which one it is to get further help, and if it is on another Wikipedia, you must seek assistance there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Feketekave—I have to express disagreement with you once again on this issue. You say that we should refrain from writing about any individuals in a way that might "...claim them for any particular club".

I disagree, because what I think we should be doing is adhering to what reliable sources have to say concerning any such matters.

This would mean that if sources ascribe an attribute of identity to an individual we should probably pass that information along to the reader.

Exceptions can be found—but such exceptions I believe should require the supplying of convincing arguments as to why we should omit such information from articles—provided of course that such information is well-sourced.

I believe that the standard operating procedure should be to include information pertaining to attributes of identity, provided of course that assertions in that regard are adequately supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily so - if the individuals ethnicity is unrelated to their notability, then just because a RS comments upon it (for reasons that may well be appropriate for the RS) does not mean the WP should. An example may be that there is an Indian chemist, where the RS notes what caste or state they come from - per WP:Notability criteria the fact that the source notes they hold the appropriate credentials and comment upon the subjects work is what the project requires; other issues regarding them do not, and need not be included in the article. Where there is some issue, on the part of the subject, about these details then WP should absolutely not be reporting them, reliably sourced or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU—you say, "Not necessarily so", and I agree with that, to the extent that I agree that there can be exceptions.

In the same vein, you additionally say, "Where there is some issue…"

I think you are pointing to what would have to be seen as an exception to the general rule, and I think that exceptions require that special arguments be presented. The general rule should be that reliably sourced information can be included.

We do not find that the general content of biographies has to be related to the reason for the individual's notability. The reader is understood to be interested in even that information that is only tangentially or tenuously related to the individual's core reason(s) for notability. The reader is even understood to be interested in that material for which no connection to notability can be found.

We find at WP:NOTE: "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list."

We also find the following language at "This page in a nutshell" at WP:NOTE: Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence.

I think that the more general understanding is that attributes of identity can be included in a biography. All sourced information doesn't have to be included in an article. But the general rule is that it is certainly permissible to include such information.

I think attributes of personal identity can be included whether or not that attribute bears a strong relationship to the subject's reason(s) for notability. Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Most so far here disagree. Collect (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bus Stop, this isn't an appropriate place to push your ethno-tagging POV. We were asked to clarify policy, not debate what we think it ought to be. If you want to convert Wikipedia into the Ministry of Ethnic Truth, you'll need to argue elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—you say "We were asked to clarify policy, not debate what we think it ought to be."

Indeed. That is why you will find in my above posts that I am referring to policy. I think that we all should be trying to refer to policies. Also available for reference are guidelines and essays.

I feel that attributes of personal identity can be included in articles. Do you find language in any Wiki policies, guidelines, or essays that would indicate that such information should be left out? This is of course assuming such information is not highly defamatory, especially as concerns living individuals, or in the case that such information is simply not reliably sourced. Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy, Avoid victimization, second sentence, "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic" (my underlining). Where ethnicity does not impinge upon the subjects notability it need not be included, and for that matter any other detail. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU—you refer to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy, in particular the section under the heading, Avoid victimization.

You quote the "second sentence", but you fail to quote the rest of the paragraph. This is that paragraph in its entirety:

"When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization."

Note that the above paragraph is largely about a person who is a victim of "another's actions."

You additionally say, "Where ethnicity does not impinge upon the subjects notability it need not be included, and for that matter any other detail."

Can you please tell me from where you are deriving that? I do not find that language, or any language close to that, at the page you link to.

I do not find that expressed in policies. Nor do I find support for that sort of notion in guidelines. Nor do I find support for that in essays.

Can you please point to where you find support for your above quoted (underlined) sentence? Bus stop (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Since Bus Stop has once again hijacked a thread to push his ethno-tagging POV, rather than to deal with the subject raised by the original poster, and since it appears that said poster has been given all the useful information available relating to the question (unless he/she can be more specific), I'd propose that this thread be considered closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—the original poster has chosen to address this issue in the abstract. I respect that. The OP has chosen to discuss the question without reference to a specific article. That may in fact be a good approach to sorting out this issue. I think such an approach has the virtue of separating everyone from any vested interest they may have in seeing any piece of information included in any particular article. This is of course an issue about which much debate has been swirling. The above has been a fairly objective treatment of the issue at hand, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I propose that this thread be considered closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Yworo (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all again for all the comments on my questions. I feel that most agree with my interpretation of the existing policies. Even those advocating for a more intrusive depiction of ethnicity still call for reliable sources. I also agree that this thread can be closed. However, I still need help to deal with the situation created for the actual example I started from. The situation is this:

1. The article is about a living personality in the Romanian Wikipedia and can be read here: link

2. The story of the article can be summarized as follows:

2.1 An editor inserted details about the personality's ethnicity more than one year ago without citing any sources.

2.2 After some time, the personality found about the wikipedia article and requested the information be deleted. Not having the experience needed to understand how wp works, the editors who tried to act in the personality's behalf did not follow the wp etiquette and ended up being banned indefinitely.

2.3 About 6 months ago the editor cited a book in support of the alleged ethnicity. At that point I questioned the credibility of the book given the public denial from the personality. However, several high ranking administrators (including the highest ranking) defended the book rather than demonstrating why it is credible.

2.4 After some more months, the author of the book in question, found about the issue and publicly denied that he ever wrote anything anywhere about the personality! This also demonstrated that the administrators defending the book as a source never read it!

2.5 After I presented one of the administrators with the fact that the book does not contain any information with respect to the ethnicity of the personality, in a haste, another administrator started google-ing for new evidence and obviously found some obscure reports and newspaper articles that do not reference the information they publish (please note that this is Romania and the newspaper cited is not The New York Times).

3. At this point I consider that the administrators who took responsibility on this article violated several WP policies in particular with respect to demonstrating the reliability and credibility of the sources they defended. They did not even read the sources and for such a violation I respectfully requested them to step down from their administrator roles in the Romanian Wikipedia. However they refused to do so and continue to maintain the information about ethnicity for the personality.

4. As a result of the repeated attempts from the personality to correct the wp article with respect to the ethnicity, the press got involved, a public scandal resulted with press articles of the sorts "look what delicious scandal can we entertain ourselves reading wikipedia" (between other things, the discussion page of the article was proposed to be printed as a book). In the end, the personality was so distressed it decided to stop any interaction with her fans and close indefinitely her blog and facebook accounts.

5. I have to repeat once more that other than contesting the accuracy of the wp article with respect to her ethnicity, the personality has never made any comment whatsoever that will make it relevant to discuss ethnicity in her biography.

6. I have to mention that I am not acting on behalf of the personality and she did not even answer my messages when I tried to contact her. I came to know about all this because, as a hobby, I am interested in the music from Romania and I wanted to write an article about the personality in the English Wikipedia. She certainly deserves such an article because of her jazz career which is unique in Eastern Europe and notable at least from the point of view of jazz influence in that part of the world. I ended up reading WP policies and trying to have them enforced.

7. Please note that I am not mentioning the personality's name here. I believe that her name is not relevant or notable for this discussion and to include it here would raise the scandal at an even higher level as she currently lives in an English speaking country. What is notable here is the abuse conducted in coordination by several high ranking administrators (including the top one) on the Romanian Wikipedia who are showing disturbing disregard for the Wikipedia policies in this matter.

My understanding is that there is not much more I can contribute and I want again to thank to all comments I received which are a living proof that Wikipedia is alive and doing well. I don't understand exactly why but I feel confident that even the Romanian Wikipedia will emerge even stronger from this situation. Thank you.Gigi marga (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As has already been stated, this is the English-language Wikipedia, and we have no control whatsoever over the Romanian Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Should I understand that nobody here would care if on the Romanian wikipedia a group of individuals will assume dictatorial powers, bully anyone who disagree with them, ban editors at will and disregard basic wikipedia policies? I was assuming that users with the rank of steward are expected to intervene in such situations. If not, I really don't know where to turn for help. Please note that this is not a ordinary dispute. I consider this similar to the Nazi practice of profiling peoples ethnicity by using informants and facial measurements. Here "sources" are being used. To be aware of it and not intervene on the grounds that the "English wikipedia has no control over the Romanian Wikipedia" does not stand the test of accepted contemporary moral standards. I would like to point out that the Romanian administrators are referring a lot to the wp English written policies - there should be a mechanism through which, when they misinterpret those policies a correction be possible without having to write books about it. Gigi marga (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether we care or not is beside the point. We have no power over Romanian Wikipedia, any more than they have power over us. If you cannot resolve your issues by discussing them with Romanian Wikipedia, you could possibly try contacting the Wikimedia Foundation, though whether they will assist is of course up to them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation does not want to intervene to preserve its "safe harbor" position. The administrators involved don't want to listen and treat anyone who disagree with them as "absurd" even as they disregard basic Wikipedia policies. I apologize for insisting on this issue but there must be some way to deal with a situation where the highest level administrators in a given non-English Wikipedia misbehave. The powers associated with administrator rights are so high that "discussing" is no longer an effective tool to solve a dispute. This issue has been discussed for more than a year. Now the issue has changed! The issue is whether or not Wikipedia has an effective policy to deal with top ranking administrators in non-English versions who disrespect basic Wikipedia policies. I can certainly understand the separation of powers between English and non-English Wikipedias but I understand "power" in a larger sense not just administrator power to ban someone forever. You certainly have an influential power by setting a standard and educating followers who occasionally don't understand what you meant. Please note once more that I have no criticism to the BLP policy. The standard is good (probably could be better but for my ability in English and understanding of the contemporary society this is as perfect as it can get). I just don't believe you would let this standard trashed through translation. We are not talking about a parody which for the sake of having fun would be acceptable. This is serious. Gigi marga (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It may well be serious. There is nothing we can do about it however. For one Wikipedia to try to pressurise another would not only be unethical, but it would probably be counter-productive. If the Wikimedia Foundation has looked into the matter and has chosen not to intervene, I'm afraid that you will probably have to let the matter rest. Posting here is unlikely to achieve anything further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Gigi marga, I am sympathetic to the difficulty of your situation, but I can also see that English speaking Wikipedians can't assist you. If the situation is as dire as you describe, with all dissenting voices being arbitrarily banned, I think your best course of action is to go public. Why not try to get some Romanian speaking journalists and bloggers interested? Romanian speakers will have a stake in opening the resource to a broader group of editors, and since any Wikipedia is only as good as its reputation amongst its user base, they are better placed than non-speakers to apply pressure for a solution. If you can't get a discussion going anywhere, then it's probably not the best site for you to worry about. Rubywine (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Rubywine. The reality is that this thing is already gone public with press articles on both sides. Unfortunately, people from other cultures fail to understand that the same principles lead to wildly varying results when applied to the Romanian culture. To take as an example the idea of "democracy", you should know that the communist regime had very similar policies to the western ones. There were elections, rights, freedom of speech, debates, consensus, etc but the actual application of all this in Romania was always twisted beyond recognition. It was simply impossible to correct the system and the only possible change was through a dramatic showdown. The same thing is happening with the wikipedia principles and policies. While I can understand the non intervention concept between democratic countries I really do not understand why it is not possible for the English wikipedia stewards to intervene when the translated policies into Romanian lead to gross misinterpretations. Nonintervention is not without consequences. I may point out that recently, another editor who had a clash with the same abusive administrators about a year ago, just came up with a book for sale on Amazon, directly in English (forget about Romanian), where just the title is thrashing wikipedia to a significant extent (see the book here: http://www.amazon.com/Wikipedia-Pseudo-encyclopedia-censorship-misinformation/dp/1456556606/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_5). I wonder what might be inside and what potential wp donors might think about it. It will be much simpler to deal with the abuse before becomes a bestseller. In all honesty, I read your message as a direct encouragement for me to start writing a book describing the situation - I just don't want to do that because I will have to discredit wikipedia in the process. Truly, wikipedia deserves better. Gigi marga (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumption in favour of privacy / Public figures

I think that the guidelines on presumption in favour of privacy with respect to public figures would benefit from further elaboration. Today I have engaged briefly in a discussion on whether or not it is appropriate to include a discussion of Kate Middleton's virginity in her biographical article. Beorhtwulf does not accept that the BLP guideline on privacy can apply to Middleton, since she is a public figure who is marrying into the British royal family. I believe that considerations of privacy, especially sexual privacy, should apply to all living persons, and I would like this point to be addressed explicitly by the BLP guidelines. I don't think that this is likely to be an isolated dispute. Rubywine (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here, as there are indeed wider implications. I would like to stress to anyone who's just come upon this debate that they ought to read the discussion at Talk:Kate Middleton#Virginity before jumping to any conclusion that someone wanting to include discussion of her virginity is motivated by prurience. I've made what I hope is a good argument there that this is a special case. Now let's consider the wider BLP context. If someone wanted the article on Tim Berners-Lee or J. K. Rowling or Usain Bolt or Jürgen Habermas or whoever to include information on when they lost their virginity (assuming such information was available) I think we would be perfectly justified in telling them it was prurient and unencyclopaedic.

Kate Middleton is different because virginity has traditionally been a requirement for royal brides, certainly up until the wedding of Charles and Diana in 1981, when Diana's virginity was trumpeted by her own family (rather than, say, being the subject of unwanted tabloid gossip), and it was publicly reported that she had been examined by a gynaecologist. Diana's virginity is mentioned in her article, for good reason. If virginity is relevant in the case of Diana, it is even more so in the case of Kate Middleton, as it in her case that the tradition has been departed from - Diana was simply subject to the same requirements that had always applied to royal brides. I would hope that we do not apply different standards to the living and the dead, such that those who might be in a position to sue are treated deferentially, while the deceased are not. This would not be becoming of a neutral, objective encyclopaedia. To give a further example, our article on Elvis Presley practically accuses him of marital rape (second paragraph in the section "Marriage breakdown and Aloha from Hawaii"). I wonder if that would be allowed to stand if he was living. I hope so: it seems relevant and encyclopaedic, and cites its sources. He probably wouldn't want the matter to be public knowledge, but since it's discussed in external sources Wikipedia would be failing if it chose not to include it on privacy grounds, given its relevance.

Now to proceed to the living: we do not have by any means a cast iron rule against including information on the sex lives of public figures in Wikipedia. Our articles on Ted Haggard and Mark Foley, to give a couple of examples, include highly personal information. We include it, against their likely wishes, because it is relevant, encyclopaedic and discussed in the press. Kate Middleton is not accused of any wrongdoing. There is nothing embarrassing or shameful about not being a virgin on marriage: her and her future husband seem happy with the situation. But she is a public figure who has put herself in the public eye by choosing to marry a prince. Her sex life is relevant because the royal family was very keen on Diana Spencer as a bride for Charles because of her virginity, but seems to have quietly dropped the requirement for Kate Middleton. This is interesting when you consider that the British monarchy is presented, and presents itself, as a paragon of traditional morality, stability, continuity and respect for the old ways of doing things. This apparent fluidity in what they consider a moral standard is eminently worthy of encyclopaedic discussion.

Finally, the article notes that in contrast to brides in her position over the last 350 years, Kate Middleton is not from a royal or aristocratic background. Nobody bats an eyelid at this, but when sex is brought into the picture (by the royal family and by the press), BLP is invoked to keep it out of Wikipedia. I don't think that's merited. If the consensus view is with Rubywine, that "considerations of privacy, especially sexual privacy, should apply to all living persons", we will have a lot of censoring to do to get Wikipedia into that state. Rubywine's position is not the status quo, but a proposal to exempt sexual information, however relevant to an article, from matters worthy of encyclopaedic discussion where the subject is living. This is arbitrary and unjustified. If a person's sex life is irrelevant to their public persona then we should presume against discussing it. But where it is relevant, neutrality, objectivity and sensible encyclopaedic coverage should trump privacy, as it does for all the BLPs that currently include legitimate and relevant information about people's private lives. Beorhtwulf (talk) 18:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP guidelines do not apply to people who are deceased unless they have living relatives who will be affected by the questionable material. See WP:BDP.

I view the proposal to discuss Kate Middleton's sexual history in the context of her biographical article as prurient and unencyclopaedic. Your arguments for the proposal are rambling, speculative and unsourced. The only examples you've cited of living people whose sexual history has been mentioned in Wikipedia biographies are Ted Haggard and Mark Foley, who have both been accused of sexually immoral conduct and sexual hypocrisy, and are arguably best known in relation to those accusations. There is no analogy to be drawn between them and Kate Middleton, and there is no external source which justifies your insistence that the British royal family has an interest in Middleton's sexual history. If another article were to be created on their past history of preoccupation with the virginity of royal brides (last in public evidence 30 years ago) then it would be appropriate to mention that this issue was not raised in relation to Kate Middleton, but in my opinion, only if that observation itself were externally sourced. Wikipedia should not contain original research. Rubywine (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded as written. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it seems unnecessary to discuss her virginity or otherwise in our article on her, at least as it currently stands. The parallel with the mention of her not coming from an aristocratic background doesn't convince me, because that is mentioned within the context of a four-paragraph section about what title she might receive upon marriage, and I don't see any section that the topic of her virginity would naturally fall into.

However, reliable sources have been presented that discuss at length the issue of her virginity as it relates to being a royal bride (e.g. Royal bride's virginity no longer an issue, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 April 2011). In my view, this means we could mention it in articles where this was directly relevant and significant, if there are any; we would not be further invading her privacy by doing so, and it would not violate our BLP policies. --Avenue (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Stephan Schulz and Avenue, thank you for your input. I'd appreciate your views and those of other editors on my original point, which has a broader scope. I suggest that the BLP guidelines should state that considerations of privacy (sexual and medical, at minimum) apply to articles on all living persons, unless the issue is directly relevant to public persona. I also suggest the guidelines should clarify the determining criteria for establishing such exceptions. Would you agree with me, or am I being overly optimistic to think it might be helpful? Rubywine (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The BLP rules apply equally to princesses, actors, athletes, entrepreneurs and even politicians, murderers, lawyers and child molestors - no exceptions should ever be allowed. The only RS cited in the entire debate that discusses the traditions around virginity of royal brides and Miss Middleton in the same article does so in order to point out that it has become a non-issue, a quaint historical curiosity. Nobody cares about Middleton's virginity or lack thereof, so we shouldn't either. Roger (talk) 12:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course BLP applies to everyone living, and I don't think there's any need to change the guidelines. Whether or not Kate Middleton is a virgin is nobody's business but hers. She has not made it an issue and neither has anyone else. (Contrast Britney Spears and the coterie of purity ring-wearing pop stars[4] who have voluntarily publicized this issue.) However, Beorhtwulf has presented an solid set of sources showing that the change in attitude is itself notable. I'd think an appropriate place to discuss this would be at Virginity, perhaps in the existing section Virginity#Perceived value and "technical virginity". --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that does look like a good place to discuss the change in attitude and protocol. If a paragraph was added there discussing virginity requirements for royal marriages, including this recent change, then I think mentioning Kate Middleton there as an example could well be appropriate. As I said before, I don't think this would violate her privacy, nor would it violate our BLP policies. Our guidelines seem to indicate how to proceed here clearly enough. --Avenue (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I also thought it was a case saying "of course BLP applies to everyone living" but in this instance, citing BLP and the requirement to consider privacy elicited blank incomprehension. The rigid belief that a public figure has relinquished all entitlement to privacy is increasingly common, particularly in the UK, and that's why I think the guidelines should be more explicit. I predict this type of discussion will take place again in future, but I accept the consensus here is against elaborating on the guidelines. Rubywine (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately Rubywine was absolutely right: Currently the discussions are about whether to discuss Philippa Middleton's posterior and its reception history in detail, and whether to mention cross-dressing and Google games involving the word gay in connection with her brother. Admins are currently not able to quickly block editors who insist on such unencyclopedic and potentially damaging crap. That's a serious problem of the type which this policy is supposed to address. Hans Adler 18:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

PS: I think this is really a situation where WP:NPF should apply, but it doesn't because it's worded incorrectly. I think the reason for the restriction to "people who are relatively unknown" is that for these we generally have less complete material. However, if we have a complete high-quality published biography about such a little-known person, this doesn't really apply to the same extent. On the other hand, Philippa Middleton currently does not fall under "relatively unknown", but as there is basically no good reason why she is so well known, we cannot write a proper article about her and tabloid crap is bound to get undue weight if it is mentioned. I propose adding the following after the first sentence of WP:NPF: "This makes it hard to write a fair and full biography that does the subject justice. (The same problem can also occur for other subjects such as persons who have been written up or down by the tabloid press.)" Hans Adler 18:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I notice all of the above comments are making the assumption that there is no relevant sourced material available about wither the specific matter or its implications, or that such material, should it exist, would necessarily be gossip. I'm not going to try to track it down; academics will study anything, especially relating to anything trendy, and, as I do with a number of topics we denigrate here on similar grounds, I am going to continue smiling & waiting for it to be discovered, or, more exactly, written about it a way that is easily discovered. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC) .

Super-injunctions

Super-injunctions as have recently been issued by British courts,[5] most, apparently to protect the "privacy" of footballers, are a no-brainer as such material is both negative and unsourced by definition. Either serious invasion of privacy or libel is involved or a British court would not have bothered. Even a spurious report has the effect of ascribing scandal to a possibly innocent person. I think information which contains a reference to a super-injunction should be removed from articles and can be routinely deleted with oversight applied in cases where the information is not widely published throughout the internet. Of course, oversight of libelous information can be had on Wikipedia without hiring a lawyer and spending thousands of pounds on a super-injunction simply by emailing User:Oversight. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

refer also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive690#edit violating worldwide U.K. injunction.3F MilborneOne (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand it seems not every part of these injunctions has to involve privacy or libel, like the one that apparently prevented the UK's best known banker from being identified as a banker.[6], or the Minton Report. Parliament is awash with concerns about judges applying these injunctions where they should not have bothered. I'd suggest UK editors don't touch these topics with a barge-pole, but I'd hope in cases where privacy and libel are not involved that editors in other countries use our usual policies rather than thinking in terms of injunctions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

By taking out a super-injunction, a person is more or less admitting that the claim is true, or the law of libel would apply. Many of these UK injunctions would not last five minutes in a US court on First Amendment grounds, provided that:

• The information was accurate.
• There had been no attempt at blackmail using the information.
• There was no obvious risk to life or limb in publishing the information.

Unfortunately, the London courts are now interpreting Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to gag the media, even when none of the above scenarios have occurred. While I am not itching to know which footballer or B-list tv star has shagged which bimbo, this is a worry, as it creates a loophole for the rich and powerful to exploit. It also creates a nightmare for Wikipedia if everyone on the web knows what the information is, but cannot publish it in the UK.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd say WP:V applies as usual. The fact that a UK court limits publication in its jurisdiction does not imply that no reliable sources worldwide report on the issue. Wikipedia is not here to enforce any particular judicial systems decisions, it's here to form a repository of "all human knowledge". If the issue is of any encyclopedic value, or if it violates WP:BLP, is an independent issue. But the mere fact that a super-injunction has been issued is not grounds deletion and much less for over-sighting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• I see no reason why we should accept the judgement of UK courts on whether material is libel. We can certainly report their view, whether or not they like it, if there are Reliable sources. If they execute UK law in such a fashion with as it prevents any RS worldwide from saying there is a superinjunction, leaving only gossip to that effect, then we'd have problems in saying there was one, but I do not think that very likely, nor is it the case in recently discussed instances. Certainly it would not prevent us from reporting the underlying matter if there were reliable sources and it met our BLP policy. Emphasis on our. Obviously individual editors subject to UK jurisdiction should take care--in fact, that's one of the reasons why we should report it, to protect our editors. I assume the foundation will say that they're immune by US law--if they for some inexplicable reason make what to me would be the astounding misjudgment that it is not immune, we'd have to obey them, but I don't think that of them. In other words, I completely reject Fred B's view. I understand from the Signpost that oversight has in fact been used for such cases. I assume the oversighter can justify to his colleagues that the removal met our BLP policy; it not, it's a matter for the Audit subcommittee & arbcom and I urge those knowing of such examples to refer them accordingly. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Libel and privacy are two completely separate issues. Most of this has stayed out of the international news because the people involved are B-list (and in some cases C-list) UK celebrities. When Tiger Woods took out a UK super-injunction relating to this in December 2009, it collapsed almost immediately.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

rightly or wrongly, B list celebrities are generally well covered in Wikipedia; I'm not sure of the distinction between B or C, but in many fields, our actual cutoff might be better said at just above completely unknown. There is nothing more likely to make a relatively unimportant person newsworthy than to do something really stupid--and there is nothing more stupid than doing something one wishes to hide, and then trying to use the courts to hide it. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

negative comments by editors on Talk pages

Does WP:BLP prohibit expressing the opinion, on a Talk page, that Mel Gibson is a jerk? Mindbunny (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

For context, please see this ANI thread.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 05:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Better sources of context are the block of an editor for expressing a critical opinion (in Talk) of a living person--on the ground that he didn't reliably source his own opinion (huh? wtf?) [7] and the RFC/U on that admin [8]. The ANI you started is irrelevant. However, it might be better to preserve this space for a straight up discussion of policy, and keep the particular conflicts in their respective places. Mindbunny (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Franklin CPRing ArbCom case

With any luck, ArbCom will come forth with a principle or two which will impct how any policy should be worded to reduce what what has termed "trial by Wikipedia." I suggest the Tabloid bit be temporarily redacted until such a principle is forthcoming. I still note that the current wording may well harm Wikipedia with carges that any given source is "sensationalist" leading to endless discussions about whatever source someone dislikes for any reason. Let's wait per WP:DEADLINE. Collect (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would not object to rewording this, but some clarification was needed after the Philip Mould affair. It is clear that we have run into an impasse on what is a "tabloid source". Without naming names (which would set off a fresh round of problems), it is hard to say what a tabloid source is, but WP:DUCK applies.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward what Collect is saying here. I don't really agree with the new change that seems to editorialize too much for a policy such as this one. I don't think we need to add so much about why tabloid journalism is bad. Gigs (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

To some extent I agree here. The Philip Mould affair would not have happened if BLP best practice had been followed, but not everyone has a knowledge of the finer points of UK newspapers (or American newspapers etc), and may not have realised why some sources are unsuitable. There is a consensus that some BLP material should not have a single source if that source is likely to be unreliable. The problem is identifying these sources so that they are flagged.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is up to the community to make policy, not ArbCom, and so it is inappropriate to wait for their decision on a seemingly irrelevant case which some of them seem disinclined to accept. See Franklin child prostitution ring allegations and WP:Arbitration/Requests#Franklin child prostitution ring allegations.

In any case, I don't think that any policy change is appropriate for this. The question isn't whether tabloids should be treated specially, but whether some so-called tabloids (and which) are reliable sources. What is needed is not more policy, but better indexing of the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and/or a bot running to tag about potentially unreliable tabloid sources. This is a practical problem, not a policy problem. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Would not the following suggestion fully deal with all of the actual problems? Collect (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Using Encyclopædia Britannica as a source

Is Encyclopædia Britannica or any other encyclopedia considered an reliable source?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

For what? I don't think it helps to have general rules about what is a RS. Context is everything.--Scott Mac 14:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Specifically it is being used to reference Kenneth Branagh's English nationality in the lead of the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It is reliable, that doesn't mean it is definitive, especially in the slippery subjective area of nationality. The subject's self-description is generally to be preferred.--Scott Mac 15:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

EB is a highly reliable tertiary source, but no source is perfect.   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This is really a question for WP:RSN or WP:BLPN.   Will Beback  talk  01:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

EB is a general interest tertiary source. Its online version uses suggestions from any user, so is one step ahead of Wikipedia (think "pending changes"), but several steps behind the WP:RS standards. Collect (talk) 15:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor point - no such thing as English nationality so unlikely to be referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:UKNATIONALS would apply here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Tabloid journalism

See the current discussions at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Mayfair_art_dealer_Mark_Weiss_in_disgrace_after_admitting_poison_pen_campaign_on_Wikipedia.

In light of this case, several editors have suggested that, as one editor put it, we might want to "add a rule to WP:BLP and/or WP:RS that negative material about living people or details of their personal life should not be solely sourced to sources with a reputation for sensationalism, gossip or tabloid journalism". Please discuss. --JN466 08:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

"Negative" is a value statement. How about "Nothing in a BLP should be sourced to tabloid trash"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in a BLP should ever be "solely sourced to sources with a reputation for sensationalism, gossip or tabloid journalism". The only exception would be if the subject had given an interview directly to that particular newspaper. Although, as I've pointed out in my essay Wikipedia:Otto Middleton (or why newspapers are dubious sources) quality newspapers have a nasty habit of regurgitating unreliable tabloid trash under the "it is being reported" weasel. In all cases, one has to ask "how does the newspaper know this, is this based on good investigative journalism, and primary interviews, or is it reheating gossip?"--Scott Mac 08:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes the tabloids get it right, and sometimes the "respectable" newspapers lazily repeat gossip. Compiling a list of "good" and "bad" newspapers would be almost impossible, and the existing guidelines are fine when interpreted sensibly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The existing guidelines are patently not fine. Sometimes the gossip down at the local grocers gets it right - and sometimes a peer-reviewed academic survey gets it wrong. That doesn't stop us ruling that one is always an acceptable source and the one other never is.--Scott Mac 08:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Until it stopped printing recently, the Christian Science Monitor, one of the most respected newspapers in the U.S., was a tabloid. Even so, "tabloid" has come to be synonymous in the U.S. with the National Enquirer which is known for sensationalism and gossip. But what does "tabloid journalism" mean? For that matter, what do we mean specifically about "gossip" and "sensationalism"? Is it gossip to report that a relationship or marriage has ended or begun? Sometimes, yet even the best biographies routinely include that information. Does Fox News have a reputation for sensationalism? Yes, but that doesn't mean they're necessarily unreliable or unusable for biographies. These are vague terms that are better avoided if we can define the actual problem more clearly.

WP:V calls on us to use "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" for all articles. What does that fail to cover? Why is this proposal limited to BLPs? If they are bad then why would we use "sources with a reputation for sensationalism, gossip or tabloid journalism" for any topic? I think we just need to do a better job of enforcing the existing policy rather than adding vague language.   Will Beback  talk  09:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

When put into practice sensibly, the current guidelines are OK. There is already a presumption against using tabloid sources for negative or potentially libellous material. There are no magic bullets, and it would be a form of snobbery to ban tabloid sources altogether when some of the "quality" newspapers repeat the same gossip.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I stopped some speculation and that was printed all over the web and all over so called wp reliable sources from getting into a BLP with the simple line - "get back to me when the BBC reports it and I will add it myself." - The BBC never did report it and to this day the content remains out of the BLP. Not all so called quality sources repeat gossip, speculation and suchlike. I support adding this simple and straightforward and although not perfect, its a step in the right direction.... Nothing in a BLP should ever be "solely sourced to sources with a reputation for sensationalism, gossip or tabloid journalism".... Its a good pointer for users to update their perception of the projects standards and will assist in removing the idea that seems to proliferate amongst a section of users that are of the opinion that they can add whatever they want that they can find in such external sources as are discussed above.Off2riorob (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but how would this be defined? Would the Daily Mail be on the list after it reported something about Philip Mould's marriage which turned out to be wrong? (for anyone who has just joined the debate, this is what set it off) The Daily Mail is a mid-market tabloid and usually avoids excesses like "Freddie Starr ate my hamster", but it is not infallible and neither is any other newspaper.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Daily Mail should be on that list. We have to weigh the personal damage to BLP subjects and to Wikipedia against the encyclopedic benefit of broadcasting something inaccurate on a subject's private or sex life – in that person's top Google hit – that is only sourceable to a piece of tabloid journalism. Encyclopedias are encyclopedias, tabloid journalism is tabloid journalism (and "tabloid" has nothing to do with the format of the newspaper's pages here). --JN466 09:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We agree on generalities, but for a policy we need to be more specific. What is "tabloid journalism", exactly?   Will Beback  talk  09:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We could draw up a list, but such lists are always likely to be contentious and incomplete. Another approach would be to just leave it like that and leave it to editors at article talk pages. We could give a few representative examples in a footnote (Daily Mail, National Enquirer, The Sun, the Perez Hilton celebrity blog come to mind). --JN466 09:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't prohibit something we can't define.

Would we use those sources for any article? If not, this is more a WP:V issue than a BLP issue.   Will Beback  talk  12:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Tabloid journalism defined. We should be compiling a list. When the word "reliable" falls off, we shouldn't use it.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Tabloid journalism "tends to emphasize topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, gossip columns about the personal lives of celebrities and sports stars, and junk food news." "Tends to"? That's kind of vague. In the U.S., the local TV news routinely plays up sensational crime stories. Virtually every newspaper carries an astrology column. "Junk food news"? I think we need a better definition than what's in that article.   Will Beback  talk  19:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that people are apt to say "it is sourced from newspaper x, and x is a reliable source". However, even quality newspapers carry different genres of journalism, and we need to take care. A frontpage story in a reputable paper is very likely to have been well fact-checked. It may include good investigative journalism and first-hand information via interviews with the subject. An article by a qualified correspondent, with their ear to the ground in the appropriate field carries some authority. However, even quality papers are now printing celebrity and personal stories with little research - and by non-specialist journalists. I've seen people say "but it was in the Times", only to look at the story and see words like "it has been reported" or some such, which indicates no more than the journalist read it somewhere. The source is not given, and may well be a crappy tabloid, internet gossip, or even Wikipedia itself. But our lazy demand for sourcing says "but the Times is a reliable source". A lot more care is needed with newspaper sources - and whilst we don't exclude them, a huge big flashing warning should be used on all BLP material sourced from newspapers. Journalists are often lazy and sometimes dishonest. "It is reported" is a big flag saying "and we've no idea if this is true".--Scott Mac 10:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Philip Mould affair is not in the same league as the Seigenthaler incident, but there are still lessons to be learned. The article on Philip Mould was flagged for potential WP:COI in October 2009 after irregularities in editing had been detected,[9] which shows that editors were awake. The real problem was the addition of the part about Mould's alleged extra-marital affair, sourced to the Daily Mail story at Antiques Roadshow star Philip Mould values mistress more than marriage as he leaves wife (since removed from the Mail website, wonder why). Should this have been added? Probably not, as it was dubious WP:BLP material from the start. Since Philip Mould is not super-famous, his BLP may have been undersupervised, but the information about his marriage was the result of deliberate disinformation that deceived at least one national newspaper. The lesson is that tabloid newspaper reports of extra-marital affairs, visits to massage parlours etc probably fail WP:BLP even if they are true, and should not be added if the only source is a tabloid.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What was detected was that the subject, or someone close to them, had deleted the spuriously sourced material. [10] So our editor accused the person trying to clean up the article of COI, not the person who added the poison pen material. Here is the accused editor's talk page: User_talk:Emmahenderson. So the actual irregularity, poison penmanship, remained undetected, and our policies were used to nullify efforts to undo its effect. One can only imagine how the subject may feel in such a situation. None of this need have happened and could have been avoided by adhering to a bright line: no salacious details sourced to a single tabloid. It's the minimum we should do. --JN466 14:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• The wording of WP:BLPSOURCES has been tweaked. It could open up a can of worms to place a ban on specific named sources, but in response to Jimbo's concerns about this, some clarification was needed. After a long look around the web, the Daily Mail seems to have been the only source to publish the claim about Philip Mould's marriage. This meant that it fell below the generally accepted standards of verifiability and notability, and should not have been added without firmer sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I would go further though. If the only source that can be found is tabloid journalism, telling editors to exercise "particular care" is ambiguous and too weak. They should not add it. --JN466 14:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Done--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Thanks, much obliged. --JN466 14:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I've changed it to "sensationalism and gossip" from "tabloid journalism", so the actual definition is in the policy. "Tabloid" is too vague.   Will Beback  talk  19:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
      • 'Disagree. We will end up having people challenge, for example, Fox News for every single edit using it. Let's stick to the less broad bit rather than open the floodgates. Collect (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
        • If Fox News is known for sensationalism and gossip, then that's a separate issue. Whatever it is that we're trying to keep out, let's define it in this policy.   Will Beback  talk  20:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• I support keeping the wikilink to tabloid journalism, as it contains a useful explanation of what this term means, and an unofficial list of publications that fall into this category.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's define the issue here rather than rely on an article which could be changed. "Tabloid journalism" has no clear definition, even in that article. If the problem is with sources known for sensationalism and gossip, then let's simply say that. If there's more to it then we can add to that. What is missing from that formula?   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of the material from tabloid journalism could be summarised and incorporated into WP:BLPSOURCES. Eg: "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing that can be found is tabloid journalism, which often relies on sensationalism and gossip to boost its popularity, and has been held liable for defamation after publishing inaccurate material. When material is both verifiable and notable, it will have appeared in a broad range of sources." What Wikipedia should not do under any circumstances is to set off a war with Fox News, the Daily Mail etc by stating or implying that they are tabloid sources --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, let's add the definition we want to this policy. If I'm not mistaken, the impetus for adding this material is to prevent the Daily Mail from being used, though I understand we shouldn't say that in the policy itself.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

And it ought not be. Collect (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It is unfair to single out the Daily Mail when all of the UK tabloids have a questionable track record. Whether it is the Sun, Mirror, Star, Mail or Express, they should not be the only source for a BLP claim, particularly if it is potentially libellous.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, support for this Ian - we are not singling out any external in particular, only additionally protecting our articles from such inclusions generally, the daily mail is one but there are multiple others that this addition will assert removal and move to discussion to require consensus for afddition to the article. Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections to Ianmacm's proposed text then let's add it in. "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing that can be found is tabloid journalism, which often relies on sensationalism and gossip to boost its popularity, and has been held liable for defamation after publishing inaccurate material. When material is both verifiable and notable, it will have appeared in a broad range of sources."   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Will, I can go with this if you add "a broad range independent sources". Unfortunately, I increasingly find qualities regurgitating tabloid gossip with the hypocritical "it is being reported" or "according to the Sun".--Scott Mac 21:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

[E/C] Looking at it further, I'm concerned about the sentence, "When material is both verifiable and notable, it will have appeared in a broad range of sources". That implies that any assertion in a BLP must appear in at least two sources. Maybe it'd be better to say "... will have appeared in more reliable sources." A single citation to the New York Times, for example, should not require proof that the same assertion has appeared in other sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad that comment took legs :) Any formulation referring to tabloid journalism, sensationalism or gossip is fine by me, so long as it captures the idea that some sources can be OK for some things but are not to be relied upon for reporting on private or negative aspects of people's lives (let's not wikilawyer about "negative", eh?). Fences&Windows 21:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Just want to add (probably hopelessly, based on past experience) that attempted improvements in source quality like this really should apply to articles on organizations as well. If nothing else, Wikipedia is getting used as a source by the media so much these days, without attribution, that (if it hasn't happened already) some false but poorly sourced rumour or opinion will end up in an article then repeated in a reasonable quality media source, giving it the credence to no longer be removed from WP, no matter how poor the original sourcing. I have numerous times seen stuff I've written on various company articles in Wikipedia repeated word for word in news media. I continue to fail to understand the WP community consensus to offer a level of BLP protection to individuals, but not large groups of individuals under the banner of an organization. --Icerat (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You could draft a corresponding guideline for extant organisations and propose it for community adoption. BLPs may in a way be the tip of the iceberg. --JN466 01:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Attempts have been made before without success, but perhaps wikiculture has ... ahh ... matured a bit since then :). I'm working on content guidelines for companies at the moment, once I manage to drum up some more comment and progress there I'll certainly look at your suggestion. --Icerat (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

reverted

I don't know where to put this but WillBeback added this with a claimed - see talkpage consensus? which I can't see here.... this comment "is tabloid journalism, which often relies on sensationalism and gossip to boost its popularity, and has been held liable for defamation after publishing inaccurate material. When material is both verifiable and notable, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. " - .... this is one of my main objections to his desired addition - and has been held liable for defamation after publishing inaccurate material - that the source has to have been legally found to defame is not at all what we are looking to assert here. Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever it is we want to tell editors to avoid, let's put a concise definition in this policy. Relying on an unsourced section of an article for a key policy issue is inviting trouble.   Will Beback  talk  22:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The material at "tabloid journalism" is almost entirely unsourced, so I'd be justified in deleting it outright, which would have th effect of leaving this policy pointing to an empty section. Collect keeps reverting my efforts to get a sensible definition in this policy, yet I don't see him here in this discussion. Can anyone here please define what we mean by "tabloid journalism"?   Will Beback  talk  03:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ad homs seem silly considering the large number of my comments on this page. Did you miss all of them entirely? <g> Collect (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Put another way, can anyone tell me what's wrong with saying "Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing that can be found in tabloid sources, such those which are known for sensational and gossip." Do we not want to include sources known for sensationalism and gossip among tabloid journalism?   Will Beback  talk  04:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It is predictably difficult to come up with an "in a nutshell" definition of a tabloid source. The problem with the phrase such those which are known for sensational and gossip is that it invites the reader to fill in the dots, and could lead to endless debate about which sources are "known for sensationalism and gossip". While regular Wikipedians should know by now which sources are trouble spots, the wording of a policy has to be clear and simple enough to be understood by a first time reader. Most people have a rough idea of what "tabloid journalism" means without rushing off to the dictionary, so this can be used without further detailed explanation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

"Most people have a rough idea of what "tabloid journalism" means" - that's exactly the problem. Most people have a rough idea of what it means but no one has a precise idea. It's like Stewart's definition of "obscenity": I know it when I see it.   Will Beback  talk  12:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The easiest thing to do would be to compile a list of sources that should not be used in BLPs, and would set off reverts if they were. Let's suppose the Daily Mail goes on this list. It is then furious, and runs a range of articles attacking Wikipedia. The Philip Mould affair has shown why some claims should not have a single source, but defining what these sources are is difficult.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If the Daily Mail wanted to get huffy about this, they might as well quote Jimbo:

Chzz, an editor in good standing added an outrageous and false statement from a notoriously salacious and unreliable tabloid. That's not ok at all. It should be a blocking offense to use the Daily Mail - and similar sources - to add negative information to BLPs. It's really really really bad. Pending Changes would put a stop to this immediately and perfectly, at virtually no cost. You ask "How can the reviewer be expected to perform fact-checking on each news item?" - Reviewers should be experienced editors who are familiar with BLP policy, and can be expected and trusted to not do outrageous things like this. It's not that hard. The Daily Mail is not a valid encyclopedic source in most cases. (There are a few rare exceptions, but even those should be subjected to the strictest possible scrutiny.) In particular, relying on a single tabloid source of known low quality to post outrageous accusations of salacious personal details of people's lives is wrong, wrong for Wikipedia, a violation of BLP policy, and not something that anyone should accept cavalierly. It is easy to solve this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The cat's been out of the bag about the Daily Mail for a long time. [11] Wikipedia should not carry this type of inflammatory content from a publication that has lost so many prominent libel cases over similar content, and I don't think is is in their interest to make a big deal about how unreliable they are viewed as. It would backfire. --JN466 18:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually statistically no more libel cases than other newspapers in the UK. [12] gives some reasoning as to why the UK in general has so many libel cases. In 1972 alone, The Times had 16 libel cases. See also [13] for why libel has become a polite form of getting money from regional newspapers - it is too costly to defend them. So we are faced with: the UK has a major problem with libel cases and even The Times gets a large number of them. Even the Guardian buckles [14] Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical proposal

I propose that we change the grammar of this policy from the passive to the active, and from the hortative to the imperative. So, for example:

Current	Proposed
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page	Take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page
All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.	Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.	Please write biographies of living persons (BLPs) conservatively. Have regard for the subject's privacy.
the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment	please consider the possibility of harm to living subjects when using editorial judgment

There's no intention to change the meaning of any sentence, just to use a simpler and more streamlined style.—S Marshall T/C 23:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do it. Fences&Windows 23:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestions.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It reads better that way, but some of the proposed reformulations ask the editor primarily to look at their own work, rather than that of other editors, which is a concern to me. For example, if we say, as we presently do, All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation., that states the requirements clearly, and the editor will look at an article in that light and (hopefully) check to see if it is policy-compliant. On the other hand, if we say, Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation, the editor may well take that to heart and do that in their own work, but we are no longer encouraging them to check what state other editors have left the article in. Thoughts? --JN466 01:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I prefer it the way it is, with the passive voice. It's slightly more formal, more general, and it's important with some of these points not to say "please," because all editors must do these things. They're not optional. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

My position is that because we're addressing volunteers in a collaborative project, and because editors aren't necessarily highly literate and don't necessarily have English as their first language, what's not optional is phrasing our policies simply, clearly, politely and respectfully. I would like to thoroughly de-formalise and simplify this policy, and add a basic approach of courtesy and respect for editors, without changing its essential meaning.

As an example of one of several changes I'll propose at a later stage, I will seek a consensus to replace all instances of "biographies of living persons" with "biographies of living people", because "persons" is archaic and formal. The plain English is "people". But at the moment, all I'm after is a consensus-based mandate to simplify, streamline and clarify the sentence construction.

Jayen466's concern needs to be taken seriously, although I don't personally see it as accurate. Does anyone else find that using my proposed constructions makes it seem as if it's unnecessary to improve other people's writing?—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Overusing the active voice makes it sound as though we're talking down to people, as though they're children. The subject of the sentences shouldn't be individual editors. This is the point of using the passive voice. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone else find that using my proposed constructions makes it seem as if it's unnecessary to improve other people's writing?—S Marshall T/C 19:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) I prefer the active voice version (passive voice begs the question if the policy is spineless), but I'd second SV's exhortation to ditch the "please" and equally the "editors should consider." Policy, especially critical policy like this, must be "do this" or "do not do this" instructions. Being nice is great and all, but sometimes you actually have to put your foot down and say "this is not acceptable." There is always room for interpretation but clear policy is more important than friendly policy, and "I don't understand what to do" is as much an issue for new editors as "these people are mean." SDY (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm reading this as a WP:Rough consensus in favour of the active voice, except for SlimVirgin, but insufficient consensus to use the word "please". In deference to Jayen466's concern I'll be clearer about the need to apply BLP to other people's edits. If there are no other objectors then I propose to make these changes shortly.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't agree that active is always better; it depends on where and how they're being used. SV's point about the policy not addressing individual editors is valid. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I don't agree that it's valid at all. My claim isn't that the active is always better, it's that the active is better in this case.—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
      • I understand your point, but disagree with it. I think the current writing, using the passive, is better. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• I prefer the current version as well, it's more authoritative, objective and very clear - which is what we need in Policy. And I agree we need to make it very clear that unsourced contentious material absolutely has to be removed. Dreadstar ☥ 05:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I certainly don't agree that the passive voice is "authoritative". The word I would use is "bureaucratic". People tend to use the passive to avoid taking responsibility (e.g., where what's meant is, "the directors decided to fire half the sales staff" becomes "it was resolved to explore the possibility of rightsizing the sales department"). If you listen to a genuine authority figure, they won't use the passive when giving instructions. A president wouldn't say, "Citizens are requested to do more for their country". He would say, "My fellow Americans, I need you to do more for your country." A general wouldn't say, "The army is required to prepare for battle". He would say, "Prepare for battle!"

    When you say "objective", it's precisely as objective as the active voice, and when you say "clear", the passive is generally less clear, because it contains less information per word. That's why bureaucrats use it to avoid taking responsibility.—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

    • I disagree that the role of the passive voice is so restrictive and limited, it really depends on construction, purpose and use. I think there's actually too much focus on "active vs. passive" in these discussions, some of the proposed changes are to passive elements, others are to active elements. We need both passive and active elements in Policy. Regardless of which voice is under discussion, the current versions of both policies are superior to the proposed changes. Dreadstar ☥ 02:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that the proposed version could be read as not requiring the reader to improve other editors' work. I prefer the current version. --Avenue (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
• Case by case - many sentences will be improved. A few won't, or will have their meaning and implications changed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

proposed addition

Wikipedia is not a place for any "trial by Wikipedia" for any person, and claims which are viewed as "sensational" in nature require more than a single reliable source, lest such claims be given weight which may not be supported by facts presented in other reliable sources.

Making clear what the problem is, and not trying to label any sources as "sensational", only the claims as such. Collect (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A first-timer reading this might wonder what "trial by Wikipedia" is. What is clear is that a media story along the lines of "Celebrity X has a mistress/visited a call girl" will fail WP:BLP unless the sourcing is rock solid, and leaving it out would lead to a significant loss of context.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I know <g>. The term was used by an Arbitrator, hence was used here -- but I think the intent is clear -- reduce the bad claims rather than have long controversies about "bad reliable sources" on any sort of gray/grey list. Let's just make sure the bad content is dealt with, no matter the source. Collect (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Again the question might be "what is a sensational claim?" The usual suspects are related to sex and drug use, but they are only sensational in the sense that some newspapers repeatedly try to hype up this type of material. Me, I hardly care who some B-list celebrity has shagged or what went up their nose. The real issues are the potential for libel and damage to Wikipedia's reputation for reliability if the material is inaccurate. Material like this is usually unnecessary anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That phrasing wouldn't make it sufficiently clear to editors that content like that in Mould's biography is not welcome here. --JN466 18:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This proposal seems pointless, even counterproductive. A single reliable source should be good enough. You're talking about making editors back up the New York Times with USA Today. The outcome of such a policy change is that the bibliography is padded out with references devoted to negative material. Then it turns into a war of people adding more and more references versus those crying that so many are "undue weight". There is much drama, and the articles get whitewashed even while the discussion pages get longer and bitterer and even more devoted to negative material. A lose-lose outcome. Wnt (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. One high-quality source could be enough, depending on context. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

One source is enough, but we should honestly be asking the question "does this really belong in an encyclopedia article?" If an item is "sensational" it should not be in the article, regardless of how many sources you can gin up for it. When it is an awkward but accepted fact, then it can be included. If that means Wikipedia lacks "superimportantscandal" information for a few days, so be it, we're not the news and if we get "scooped" who cares? There's a mindset that "if it's sourceable, it should be in the article" that's caught on that just doesn't make any sense. That's just an indiscriminate collection of facts, not an encyclopedia article. Having a second source does not change whether something should be included at all. SDY (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree completely, but how do we legislate for that? People want to add every factoid, for vanity reasons, or attack reasons, or "just because we can" reasons. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the challenge in front of us, I guess. I don't have any easy answers, and it's an inherent problem of the model that Wikipedia uses to generate content. I think the only thing we can do is make it clear, in policy, that the removal of sensational content is fully supported by policy, and when it comes to "is this OK?" and editors disagree, the default answer, especially for BLPs, is "no." Giving editors who want to remove this content a policy-based argument to use in content disputes seems like a solid start (we sort of have this, but it could be stronger). Helping editors determine which publications are known for unencyclopedic content also seems like a useful step, since I have no idea what the gossip mags are in Mumbai. SDY (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it help to strengthen the section we already have on gossip? (addition in bold)

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. When adding material that could be described as sensationalist, especially if it could damage someone's personal life, be particularly careful to use high-quality sources. Tabloid-style newspaper articles will rarely be acceptable as sources in BLPs. If contentious and potentially damaging material exists only in lower-end news outlets, do not add it.

Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably phrase it "do not add unless ironclad sourced" rather than "be careful." The focus is on empowering and encouraging people to take the stuff out, and "policy says no" is a big hammer. I think we get back to the problem of defining terms: what do we mean by "low-end" or "tabloid-style" and such? Maybe define it as "publications whose primary business is sensational content and gossip?" SDY (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

You can say the same thing about video games. I think we should accept that if something truly isn't important, then no one will add it. Conversely, (or technically contrapositively) if someone cares enough to add it, we should accept their opinion that it is important. Wnt (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOT is actually part of policy, even more than a little important. Indiscriminate is a hard standard, certainly, but "sensational" implies news and/or gossip, two more things that Wikipedia is not. I think a lot of the BLP issues could be handled if we were more serious about saying "no" to that kind of content. My new small business selling bridges in Brookyln may be important to me, but I think most other editors would agree it isn't important and shouldn't be in any article. SDY (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is always misused when it is mentioned, without exception. It actually says that breaking news is treated no differently than other news. True, it mentions celebrities - but in terms of routine news reporting, like that X will be in town to give autographs. Nothing in it says that news about celebrities that is important enough to appear in reliable newspapers as a story should be omitted. Now as for gossip, let's be clear: gossip is stuff reported as "rumor", or as WP:BLP says, "not presented as true" by the source reporting it. Wnt (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec)You appear to feel that WP must have some sort of "grey list" and I demur. I and others feel a single source for a "sensational claim" is not enough, and you demur. The "libel" issue is pretty much non-existent in the US for any noted figure, so that is a straw issue. The "but articles will be whitewashed" is also a straw issue - if a charge is covered by more than one reliable source, it will get covered in Wikipedia. The issues have generally been where a sensational claim is made by a single source (no matter whether it is on a green list, grey list, or purple list) and which is made for the specific sake of being sensational -- frequently for political purposes. As long as we deal with the sensational edits, it is foolish of us to propose "approved lists" and "unapproved lists" on the basis of biases held by any group of editors. Collect (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) I would consider a "scandal du jour" to be "routine news reporting" in this age of 24-hour-desperate-for-a-story news. I'm operating from a different definition of gossip, I guess. As far as I'm concerned, gossip need not be false or unconfirmed. Talking about other people's private lives for entertainment purposes is gossip. Sometimes people's private lives are historically relevant (e.g. Monica Lewinsky) and important material for an encyclopedia article, but the "scandal du jour" is really only relevant if it has some sort of enduring effect. The take-home message from WP:NOT is that this is an encyclopedia. Sensational "scandal du jour" content is not encyclopedic, even if it doesn't meet some narrow definition of not being news-as-defined. SDY (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way you would suggest to tell when a "scandal du jour" is major news and when it is "gossip"? How do you define an "enduring effect" on a person? I've watched footage of Supreme Court confirmations that dived into talk about pubic hairs on a soda can, to the exclusion of whether the guy believes in the Bill of Rights. I've seen a president impeached over a game with a cigar and the definition of what is is. A wardrobe malfunction turns into a huge federal censorship case. And half the country became convinced that Obama had to release copies of a long form birth certificate for them to believe he's an American. In the ongoing Pippa Middleton debates, after one day it sounds like the MI5 and Buckingham Palace have been called in over pictures of her in a bra, which the rascal news media call "topless". Who can tell what is significant or not, when the most insignificant things are treated most seriously? The only thing available to guide you is personal prejudice. I say, we should summarize whatever the reliable sources say and that's the end of story. Wnt (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that it's not "the end of the story" because we are editors, not transcribers. We do, in fact, make decisions about what to include, and when those decisions aren't in unison we have methods to resolve our disagreements. This is, in the end, the old deletion-vs-inclusion debate, and just because we can cover and source any topic under the sun doesn't mean we should, especially when it comes to BLP's, where there are explicit exhortations under current policy to not be a dick when it comes to documenting other people's lives on the internet. We don't have to determine an "enduring effect" at the time of the event. If it becomes historically relevant later, the same sources will still be there and we can write the article then. SDY (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That essay has no policy standing (it's been mooted around for deletion altogether), and this must be the strangest use of it I've seen yet. Editing the encyclopedia to summarize reliable sources is not being a dick, or if it is, then dickishness should be a virtue. Wnt (talk) 18:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm arguing that indiscriminate inclusion of non-news garbage that reliable sources publish to fill pages and keep their advertisers happy is not a service to anyone. If it's lurid but important, that's not a problem, it's this attitude of "we should include anything and everything" that bothers me. Verifiability is not the only threshold for inclusion, and just because a source is reliable doesn't mean it has anything useful to say. If the number of page views on Wikipedia go down because we no longer have the hot gossip, I'm just fine with that, we don't rely on advertising revenue. SDY (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If you concede that the editors want to put it in, and the users want to read it, why on earth exclude it? The "sum of all human knowledge" includes a lot of trivia. We don't need to have a problem with that. Wnt (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Does WP:NOT mean anything at all, then? SDY (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it has a meaning that has been greatly exaggerated in some areas. I think all NOTNEWS was originally supposed to mean was that you don't start an article about somebody because his obituary ran in the hometown paper, or he was named there as part of the high school sports team. I think "routine news coverage" can be apprehended as something fairly distinct from what I would think of as "real" news coverage, simply by asking, can you imagine a newspaper from the next town over mentioning the story? I don't believe it's some kind of suicide pact whereby Wikipedia condemns itself to be out of date, and not to compile facts from news coverage until after that coverage has become all but impossible to search through by date and much of it is available only in pay archives, on microfilm or in newspaper morgues. Wnt (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) Obviously there's a level of interpretation involved, and I agree that WP:NOTNEWS involves a bit of WP:Notability, but I'm talking about a lot more than WP:NOTNEWS. WP:NOT is an attempt to define by exclusion what it means to be an encyclopedia, and prurient details are not content that I expect to find in World Book nor ones that I expect to find here. Arnold's love-child and Strauss-Kahn's legal problems (to borrow from current events) are likely to have long term impacts and are reasonable to include in articles: they're well-reported, easily confirmed, are likely to have long-term effects on the lives of very public individuals, and will be easy to confirm two years from now. If there is content we're struggling to confirm two years later, that might be a red flag that it's just something we shouldn't include. SDY (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if someone were adding biographies from old microfilmed newspapers at the library, I wouldn't complain about it - it would be heroic. Most often Wikipedia editors stick with the lowest-hanging fruit, the articles that are freely accessible by WWW. That makes sense when there is so much material still to be added, but it isn't really a virtue. Wnt (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a vice when it starts running into problems of WP:UNDUE. For BLPs, especially for controversial or defamatory content, more is emphatically not better. Overzealous inclusionism is part of why we have BLP problems: people are not challenging content that has no place in an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

"UNDUE" refers to giving more (or less) weight to something than the reliable sources do. It doesn't mean suppressing controversial content because you personally decide it's not suitable. Wnt (talk) 00:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, and when reliable sources don't even mention something (i.e. it's hard to find sources), that's a big indication that the due coverage is none at all. I don't think we should be relying on news coverage, within the news cycle, as a sole indication of the due weight because of recentism. This is especially true for content on scandals (and violence), which are given undue weight because they sell the Wonderbread. I guess I'm biased, the primary project I work with consider the mainstream media to be weak and undesirable sources of last resort. Following reliable sources, sure, but follow actually reliable sources, not ratings-chasing infotainment. SDY (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• What makes me really uncomfortable about this conversation is that so much of it consists of Wikipedians dismissing editorially-independent sources as if the Wikipedians know better. I don't think that's appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 07:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We are all "editorially independent" as well, so that's not much of a qualifier. In some cases, we do know better, because the people at the Daily Mail (and such) don't know Wikipedia's policies and practices. They're writing for a different audience and for different expectations, so when it comes to "should we include this in a Wikipedia article?" their opinions are not meaningless, but they are far from conclusive. Reliable sources are not religious icons, they're just tools we're using to write an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• No, individual Wikipedians certainly don't get to decide they know better than the reliable sources do. I think that's a very unwise road to go down.—S Marshall T/C 17:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Mindless veneration of sources blessed as "reliable" is just as unwise. Just because a source meets WP:RS does not make it the sole arbiter of inclusion of content, especially when it comes to the news and giving WP:UNDUE coverage of WP:RECENT events. Our editors are, for the most part, responsible and intelligent, and saying "you cannot think for yourself" is just ridiculous, especially for nebulous judgment calls like WP:UNDUE. SDY (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't quite espouse mindless veneration. The position I was moving towards was that if material's published in a reliable source, then the fact that that source is a smaller-format newspaper is not in itself sufficient justification to remove it. I agree that our editors are for the most part responsible and intelligent but policies and guidelines aren't addressed to responsible and intelligent people, who by and large resolve things by intelligent discussion on the talk page. Policies and guidelines are addressed to the kind of person who has to be referred to policies and guidelines. So basically, we have to aim policy wording at the small minority of editors who're irresponsible and stupid.

The proposed wording is a gift to tendentious editors who want to remove reliably-sourced content from the encyclopaedia. They should not be allowed to say they know better than reliable sources.—S Marshall T/C 08:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Strongly opposed to this change, and strongly disagree with the proposer's statement saying "The 'but articles will be whitewashed' is also a straw issue". Given that I've seen him insist on describing a political candidate having sent these (don't miss the video at the end of the list of the naked woman in missionary position under the horse) only as "improper e-mails" I'm not inclined to minimize the likelihood of the "whitewashing" that this change could be used to help effect as being any sort of "straw man" at all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • • Gosh why am I not surproised to see your ad homs here? See User:Collect/watchlisted articles to see the narrow range of my edits LOL. And note also that, for some odd reason, you elide the fact that my position is the 'consensus position on the article. Guess it is more fun to jump into dozens of pages to make the ad home <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Addition: Current Events

I'd like to propose adding the following item to the BLP policy; I'm just testing the water at this stage to get input. I think these reflect the general majority opinion of BLP editors, but are specific cases that can be contentious so having them in-policy would be beneficial:

Under Presumption in favor of privacy:

Criminal charges

When an individual is subject to allegations, criminal investigation or formal charges treat the events with care. It is recommended to avoid:

• implying guilt - carefully identify any allegations and their source
• undue detail of the event, especially prior to a conviction
• forking a biography into an event article, unless the event is independently notable (n.b. remember Wikipedia is not a newspaper)

Once convicted remember to follow the idea of summary style and weight the content proportional to the rest of the article. Events happening today will naturally obtain more coverage and care should be taken not to let it overwhelm a biography. If charges are dropped it is appropriate to reduce the summary of events to the bare minimum - avoid details which might imply allegations were true.

Thoughts? --Errant ^(chat!) 13:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Would prefer stronger and simpler wording: Allegations of criminal conduct which are not under specific investigation do not belong in any BLP. Allegations which are being investigated should be worded in a conservative manner which makes no implications about guilt. Where a person is going to be tried (has been indicted), the "presumption of innocence" reasonably requires that the wording of the charges be neutral, and that inflammatory press releases about "potential sentence" be left out as it may imply guilt. Convictions of misdemeanours generally do not belong in any BLP. Convictions of felonies may be mentioned provided the wording is neutral, and claims of other crimes which were not prosecuted must be avoided. Acquittals and reversals of court decisions are to be fully weighed, and any implications of guilt must be removed from any BLP. Does this cover all likely problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs)

Sounds good to me overall, but this wording is inappropriate in situations in which criminal conduct cannot be investigated because the perpetrator is a head of state or has diplomatic immunity, or when the system for criminal investigations is not functioning properly in the relevant country. Hans Adler 09:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Slight rewrite:

Criminal allegations

When an individual is subject to allegations, criminal investigation or formal charges and the allegations are widely reported:

• Do not imply or suggest guilt until there is a robust conclusion that the subject is guilty, typically a conviction. Carefully identify any allegations and their sources.
• If there is a robust conclusion that the subject was innocent and there is no persistent coverage of the topic, consider deleting the entire section from the article.
• Do not give undue or speculative detail of the event.
• Do not create an event article unless and until there is sufficient independent coverage of the event, by itself, that editorial consensus indicates a split is necessary. Only create an event article at first if the subject is not otherwise notable.
• Ensure that new content is given proper weight in the article and not undue prominence just because it is recent.

Trying to keep it in a "do" or "do not do" format. SDY (talk) 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like either of these suggestions. What problem are you trying to address? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Strong support for this in principle. I have vague concerns that it is possible to go too far and thereby exclude relevant information (although the original proposal does not do this). False allegations or refuted charges often influence political careers, for example, and should likely be included if they are relevant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed about that second sentence. We have more than enough people deleting entire sections without specifically encouraging them to delete sections. If the material otherwise survives the existing gauntlet to make it into the BLP as reliably sourced relevant material, it should not face further obstacles. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand the intent, and have some sympathy for that, but I don't think this is necessary; I think we're better off leaving what we present to consensus based on existing policies. Further, Collect's suggested alternative would work to circumvent WP:WELLKNOWN, a longstanding policy and the result of mountains of debate and careful scrutiny over every word. I oppose that entirely. And SDY's alternative just introduces too much ambiguity, in my opinion; I really think we're better off sticking with existing policy on this.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is tbat we face regular issues with editors reading the latest hot news story, then descending on a BLP and spinning our reams of content. This usually ends up with a) a really lengthy section full of undue detail on the biography and b) a spun off and crappy article full of all the mundane trivia about the event. a) can eventually be addressed by copyediting over time as it becomes historical - but the interceding period leaves a big BLP problem on the article. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Why are you limiting this to just criminal charges? This happens with any controversy. Just check out Charlie Sheen. Same thing happens. But if editors aren't following existing rules such as WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, what makes you think they're going to follow the new ones? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"WP:WELLKNOWN" does not refer in any way to allegations of criminal misconduct, and is not "circumvented" in any way whatsoever. (The examples it gives are a "messy divorce" etc., not allegations that a person is a murderer or rapist <g>). One might note that Wikipedia corporately has removed allegations upon complaint from parties involved (OTRS), as it is required to do. I should think that the parts dealing with criminal allegations are conservative in nature, as is supposed to be the major guideline for BLPs in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I presume that well-known criminal accusations, like the OJ Simpson or Dominique Strauss-Kahn cases, would be exempt from these rules due to the clause, "unless the event is independently notable".   Will Beback  talk  22:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Once an investigation is started (see wording above) neutral wording thereon is reasonable. In the OJS and DSK cases, the indictments or arraignments occured almost instantaneously. The proposal above would have held up current events reporting on Wikipedia by a whole day at the very most <g>. Kindly note the precise wording I gave - which would prevent no reasonable reporting on Wikipedia, but would slow down the "he is guilty of thus-and-such" implications sometimes found in BLPs. It is that sort of allegation, and most especially "guilt by written implication" which is evil IMO. Collect (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Convictions of misdemeanours generally do not belong in any BLP." That seems too explicit. There are very notable misdemeanor convictions, and less notable felonies. Further, it's often impossible to tell from sources which category a crime falls into. to complicate matter further, someone may be charged with a felony but plea guilty to a misdemeanor as part of a deal.

"Any implications of guilt must be removed from any BLP". That would seem to exclude a quotation by the father of murdered Denise Brown accusing OJ Simpson of guilt, for example, or other evidence or allegations of his guilt.

We also need to account for fugitives, such as Polanski, and other complicated cases. Overall, I think Errant's more general language is more practical.   Will Beback  talk  03:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

We have articles referring to misdemeanours which are not notable in themselves - that is why the word "generally" is used. It does not say "never" but the aim is to reduce the gratuitous stuff like "John Doe got a $50 speeding ticket when he was 18" sort of stuff which is not rationally encyclopedia material. And, amazingly enough, often "plea deals" result in the correct charge - prosecutors always go for the highest level when seeking indictments, Will. If the prosecution allows a misdemeanor plea, then that is what counts, not that an earlier press release said "John Doe faces up to 2000 years n prison if convicted on all 1000 counts in the indictment" sort of rubbish. The aim, recall, is to write an encyclopedia, not a laundry list of the evils done by "evildoers." Polanski was, indeed, indicted, so that has naught to do with this one whit - it goes in his BLP. And straw arguments do not help the encyclopedia either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Collect, and the issue is primarily a formalization of WP:UNDUE so that the people who want to stuff these articles full of irrelevant and petty trash have a direct "policy says no" so that they cease including trivial and potentially defamatory garbage. If the conviction is a part of the notability and notoriety of an individual it's obvious not "trivial garbage." OJ is more famous for his legal troubles than his career, so obviously that goes in the article. Detailing every one of a notable recovered alcoholic's troubles with traffic police would be ridiculous when that is not what most people associate him with. SDY (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing for adding parking tickets to biographies. However the precise details of indictments and categorizations of the crimes is too legalistic for practical use. Some misdemeanors, or even dropped charges, are noteworthy. A more sensible approach looks at the notability, as determined by the depth and breadth of coverage. Otherwise we might have editors insisting that we can't mention Hugh Grant's widely covered misdemeanor conviction for hiring a prostitute. We need to be careful with WP:UNDUE, it gets cited for many issues which it doesn't address.   Will Beback  talk  23:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of "straw man" arguments, I'd say the notion that there's an epidemic of people trying to insert "John Doe got a $50 speeding ticket when he was 18" entries qualifies. One of the problems I have with this is that certain editors, as many have remarked, already inappropriately cite BLP policy to scrub correct, relevant, and well-cited information from articles of (primarily) right wing politicians as a major part of their participation here. I don't think we need to give them any additional basis on which to do so. Unintended consequences, and all that, you know.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You mean like my "scrubbing" of the Alex Sink, Huey Long, Charlie Crist and Chris Huhne biographies? I suggest that trying to insert any ad hom attacks into this discussion is incredibly silly. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you ask, no: I mean things like claiming that BLP policy supported your fight to keep Sarah Palin's support for the Bridge to Nowhere out of Wikipedia, things like trying to keep Linda McMahon's interference with a federal investigation out of her article, and the real doozy, trying to prevent the death threats that tea-party darling Carl Paladino made and repeated at the top of his lungs against a reporter, on video, no less, out of his article.

Of course, I already alluded to your repeated characterization of your attempts at keeping all mention of Paladino's having circulated the "Run, Niggers, Run" poster and the horse-fucking bestiality video out of his article as being required by BLP policy. And then when you found that impossible, you warred to prevent reliable-source descriptions of those e-mail attachments as "racist and pornographic" from being included, on the same BLP grounds, trying instead to dismiss them as merely "improper e-mails". I suggest that trying to pretend such whitewashing activities on ostensibly BLP grounds don't comprise a large part of your participation here, or that you wouldn't use the changes you've proposed to support and extend such activities, is "incredibly silly", to use your own description.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

When you go over the top, you really do so. I did not try to keep the bridge out of the Palin article - I made zero major edits to that section! Diffs at [15], [16], in fact not a single one of my edits supports your absurd contention about the Palin article as I made no substantial edits to the section you claim. By the way, BtN is now about 21 lines on my screen. It had been 29 lines. Note that the current Palin article (stable) conforms to my position. The material abut McMahon was removed by many editors who actually abide by WP:BLP and that is also a silly example to cite if you wish to convince anyone of anything here. My edits on Palin were generally on the order of [17], [18], as well as a bunch of WikiGnome edits. The Paladino article has folks posting on my UT page that I supported bestiality of all things! [19] was done in conformance with talk page discussion. [20] shows the nature of the retorts to such an edit. Note that consensus has been clear - and I was on the side of consensus there. Note that Scott Mac, Off2rio and others have the exact same position on BLPs as I have - care now to retract your silly attacks? This discussion is about making BLPs better - not to engage in personal disparagement. Especially when the facts, ain't. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh huh, go with the boldface; that's always convincing. One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that people can review the history for themselves. They can see when someone claims that RS reports of severely limited press access are expunged as a BLP violation, for example. They can see for themselves how long this kind of thing has been going on. Re Paladino, "Run, Niggers, Run!" is not "racially insensitive", as you've asserted, it's racist, just as multiple sources said. Nor was it remotely proper to expunge the RS characterizations of the racist and pornographic/bestial nature of Paladino's e-mail attachments as merely "improper", claiming BLP policy gave you the right to do so. But I'm not interested in continuing this debate with you; users are savvy enough to examine the evidence for themselves if they want a clue about how the policy changes you proposed above and that you're supporting here would be put to use by some editors.  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And making ad homs in dozens of pages is convincing as well. My position on the Palidino page - where some insisted on referring to animal fucking - is the consensus position. I fear you forget that Consensus is a tenet on the project. I note you forget your weird charge about me removing the Bridge to Nowhere material on the Palin page at least, all you are left with is the charge of Paladino supporting bestiality! And did you look at my "whitewash" of David Copperfield (illusionist)? At some point, O Cataline, you should stop with the ad homs and stick with the discussion. Please! Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think where the disagreement comes is in what's considered "relevant" and from the sake of policy specifically for BLPs, we should err on the side of omission rather than inclusion. If an event is well known, certainly it's reasonable to include it an article, but one of the WP:BEANS that isn't mentioned on WP:NOT is probably "Wikipedia is not for muckraking", and piecing together a criminal history for a subject in order to paint a picture is, more or less, synthesis, obviously a problem. If it's part of the subject's notability (e.g. OJ), a defining event that has had a significant effect on their life (e.g. Polanski) or career (e.g. Bill Clinton), then by all means include it. If it's information that's not well known (compared to the notability of the subject, of course), then it really shouldn't be in the article unless there's a compelling reason to include it. SDY (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

DSK is a good example; clearly this has a wid ranging impact on his life and career prospects (whether convicted or not). So mentioning it is fine - and the associated fall out. I can also be convinced (though I think it is way too early) that a forked article may one day be appropriate. But I can't see a reasoned argument to support detailed information about the events in his biography because that is incredibly undue - we do not place his achievments under the microscope. I know that reflects what the RS's are doing, but this is where editorial judgement comes in. When 30% of a 60 year old guys biography consists of what he one week in 2011 you have to admit that is a bit of a balance problem :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be willing to accept a policy against featuring an article about DSK in "In the news" on the Main Page beside his photo (which Wikipedia did) based solely on the word of a hotel maid and a hurried arrest before he got on a plane. Nonetheless, such material belongs in the article. As a rule, a serious criminal charge - not a parking ticket, but something worth reporting in a newspaper - is going to have a serious effect on a person's life for at least several months, and is as significant to a biography as it is in the press. Even a false charge, if widely reported, will tinge how a person is treated for decades after. Wikipedia's role is not to revise history, but to look into it more closely. We must not try to make reports of a criminal charge go away, but we definitely should try to cover the defense - to read through the statements by his attorney that the press ignores or puts into a one-liner about "denied all involvement", and make sure they get fair coverage in the article. When people are innocent, we can show the world why, and thereby help them to begin to reclaim reputations wrongly destroyed by other media. Wnt (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia, unlike a news article, is quasi-permanent. Once a false allegation moves out of the news cycle, it will eventually be forgotten. Including it in an encyclopedia article is a permanent reminder of the event. If DSK is acquitted (as opposed to merely found not guilty), should we still have comprehensive coverage of the event in the article? That he left his job because of the allegation is obviously relevant biographical information, but the "he said she said" simply wouldn't be appropriate. We don't "clear their name" by raking around in the muck and giving all the gory details - we just pour salt in the wounds. SDY (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, by all means, we should continue to describe the allegations in full detail if he is exonerated. The other notion of propriety is like some kind of childish peek-a-boo game. You think we should detail the allegations in the article now, show it on our front page, and later make them disappear and pretend it never happened? If something is worth having in Wikipedia now, it's worth having it always. I'm not suggesting we "clear his name" solely by "he said, she said" blow by blow coverage of the primary trial transcript (though at times that can be illuminating); if he is acquitted there will probably be statements by DSK, his lawyer, possibly the judge, and many sympathetic press sources. Wnt (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one, but if I were a famous person with an akward court case, I'd want the article to be about why I'm famous, not endless rambling about discredited allegations that were someone else's fifteen minutes of fame. This is the whole "Trial by Wikipedia" problem, where editors try to prove or disprove someone's innocence/guilt with dueling reliable sources until the article becomes nothing more than a battlefield. Eventually, we have to say "this was a nonstarter and really didn't matter" and delete the lot of it as WP:UNDUE. What you're talking about is WP:NPOV, portraying the sources accurately, but there has to be a point, somewhere, where we say "no, enough is enough about this meaningless drivel." If we keep the undue coverage out of the article when it starts, we won't have to "balance" it later by including lots of additional undue coverage later. When we have half the article about the guy's legal battle, we become People magazine instead of an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 02:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that there's a reasonable middle point between completely deleting the court case and having a so-called "trial by Wikipedia". Though I dislike this phrase, because in practice what you're proposing is a trial by Wikipedia, in which we step in and decide when and if the charges were really unjustified. I think that certainly when someone is now known in much of the world primarily for a criminal case, there should be no doubt that we cover it in detail. "Undue weight" refers to when people don't believe or pay attention to an idea, not when they showcase it in the world's media and just a few people at Wikipedia don't think it seems like a nice thing to talk about. In the end, remember, Wikipedia is supposed to be a project dedicating to looting all the knowledge of the world and summarizing it in a freely redistributable encyclopedic format. When we don't reliably deliver this information to the reader, we fail in this fundamental mission. Wnt (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What you're advocating is explicitly discouraged by WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. We aren't just collecting random trivia and stuffing an article, and unfounded and forgotten (by everyone but Wikipedia) accusations are exactly that - indiscriminate fluff. If we fail to catalog all of the popular culture references about undershirts we are also "failing", as you so overdramatically put it, but we are writing a better encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 05:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why I feel strongly: I ran into an editor (now banned for socking) who wrote the comments (anonymized) now kept at User:Collect/BLP. I excised some of the worst comments he produced. Nothing to do with accusations that Alex Sink is somehow "right wing" or David Copperfield (illusionist) or any of the more than five hundred BLPs I have edited with precisely the same viewpoint. For those who wish to heed aspersions, I present User:Collect/watchlisted articles which is missing a few more recent BLPs I have edited. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) Noting now [21] as an example of CANVASS of a specific person with an "interest" in my edits. Cheers again. Collect (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC) .

I would prefer that biographies of living people under criminal investigations to include only a standard template indicating briefly the standing accusation and pointing to a Wikinews link where live coverage is supposed to be made, in a more news-like fashion. Only after a conviction or facts proven and likely to remain permanent, the respective information should be included in the BLP. So basically, I am in favor of a stricter policy. The proposed one I believe is still open to interpretations and I would prefer to avoid that. (Note: I just changed my signature from Gigi marga to kARom) kARom (talk) 14:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's too much like a disclaimer template for me. As well, our articles should include relevant information that has permanence whether or not they result in a conviction or are proven in court. Gigs (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I was not considering the template as a disclaimer but rather as an attention mark to indicate that more up to date information on an event currently in development can be found elsewhere. I was even thinking the template to be blinking/be color coded and have a level scale of warning (like 10/10 for accusation of murder, 9/10 rape, ... 0/10 parking violation...) to only indicate the gravity of the charge and point the user to follow the news as they develop. On the other hand, this separation will allow the news section (Wikinews) to include more volatile information and maybe not well sourced to allow the reader to follow the event as it unravels. The way it is right now, the biography articles are pushed to the limit to include up to the minute information and that is not doable without disputes. I think a typical user comes to wikipedia to find the background, stable information about a personality and gets confused if that information changes every minute or so. Please note that I am not proposing to censor anything but rather to separate the stable from the volatile information and clearly inform the reader where the two can be found.kARom (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Blinking? You must be kidding. However, I think that it might be appropriate to have a template to mark low quality news-based BLPs, with a statement like "This biographical article is not a balanced biography of the subject, but is based on news stories about a small number of events. It may contain sensationalistic claims whose sources should be evaluated carefully." Wnt (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am not kidding. If a high profile personality is accused of a serious crime (murder), I see no problem having a blinking templates pointing to the news. I agree that many biographies are of low quality. However, a template pointing to that fact would have the disadvantage of discrediting to some extent the less experienced editors who tried their best. rather than having a negative message in a template we can inform, the reader through the existing system of naming "quality articles". kARom (talk) 03:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would discredit the editors at all. We've had a stub template from the beginning - doesn't mean a lousy editor, just an incomplete article. We shouldn't try to pretend that we can write a complete, balanced biography given a flurry of news coverage, some tell-all books, and editors who don't even contact the subject to do an in-depth interview (and are essentially prohibited from doing so by policy, since as I understand it even laundering via Wikinews doesn't really remove the WP:OR taint). We can't, and we shouldn't be ashamed that we can't. We can just provide a comprehensive article about what coverage is available, recognizing our limitations. Wnt (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need any more pointless general content disclaimer warning templates. We recently killed {{expand}} and for good reason. The only reason the concept of stubs was kept around was because of the hundreds of hours that people have put in sorting the stubs which does make the system a little more useful than a general note that just say "fix this some day". We already have too many templates that basically say "FIXME", we don't need another one. Gigs (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ajalorungbe, 25 May 2011

Dele Okenla, full names Kehinde Omodeleola Okenla is a Nigerian-born politician and was a Senatorial candidate in the 2011 General Elections in Nigeria for the Ogun State East constituency. He is a co-founder of the the National Transformation Party, a new vibrant and growing opposition party in Nigeria. He is a poet and a jurist. He is at present the Vice-President (Law & Psychology) of the University of London Students Union. He was born on the 4th of October, 1965 in Ijebu-Ode, Ogun State of Nigeria. His mother Chief (Mrs) Alice Olayinka Okenla (nee Adebowale) was a princess from the ancient town of Ososa where the notable theatrist Hubert Ogunde also hailed from. His father Chief Olanrewaju Adesina Okenla was a Barrister. Dele Okenla has published several poems including an anthology called 'The Forgotten Verses'

Ajalorungbe (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC) http://www.emnnews.com/2010/10/30/dele-okenla-urges-the-youths-to-rise-up-to-the-coming-challenges/</ref>

Ajalorungbe (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)ajal

• Not done: This page is the official policy regarding biographies of living people. To create an article please use the Article wizard. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Secrecy of names

The issue of secrecy of names has been in the news recently with the whole Ryan Giggs debacle. This could have the effect of weakening the WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy section of this article if people apply the reasoning that it's OK to out a professional footballer accused of philandering to more serious matters such as criminal cases.

The example I have in mind was the secrecy order surrounding the Death of Baby P case a few years back. The names of the accused were protected in the UK, but the press in other countries published the information and there was a push (which I resisted and was fortunately supported by various moderators) to include the names in the Wikipedia article. Various reasons were given for including the names from arguments that the order didn't apply to the US-based Wikipedia and was already publicly known, to being respectful to the dead, to free speech/censorship.

These are sensible points, but I don't think any of them override the fact that dissemination of these names on blogs and websites almost prejudiced a separate trial involving the rape of a 2-year-old.[22] It should be pretty obvious that the success of Wikipedia means that including such information here would make it significantly more easily accessible to the public so great care should be taken about what is reported. Also, despite objections from some quarters, the secrecy order surrounding the names was lifted once the rape trial was over and Baby P's siblings had been taken into care. The information is now in the Wikipedia article, so it was only a temporary restriction.

In general, I think the current policies on privacy are reasonable. When it comes to privacy of names that have been deliberately withheld as part of criminal proceedings, however, I would like to see the section on privacy strengthened; but I am not quite sure how best to proceed. GDallimore (Talk) 16:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't have "moderators". I don't see a need to rehash these debates yet again here. Gigs (talk) 21:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't talk down to me like I'm some newbie. I meant oversighters, OK? And I don't see where the particular point I'm raising has been hashed over before. Maybe you could be helpful rather than rudely dimissive. GDallimore (Talk) 23:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The British government had some line of reasoning by which suppressing names is thought to be good for the country. Likewise China has some line of reasoning by which suppressing discussion of Tibet as a separate country is thought to be good for the country. The two theories deserve equal respect. But Wikipedia is supposed to be not censored --- that's not supposed to be a make-believe policy, but a real policy. We are supposed to loot all the information from reliable sources and get it out into the public domain for people to read about. We should not leave people thinking they need to check Google or Bing or Knol or Hudong to get the real facts. When they think that, it means they have to have the permission of some copyright holder to get the information, and even though, remarkably, Google never turned its market dominance into an excuse to charge people for the right to search, they could have at any time. We should not take the availability of other easy means to get the information for granted, but work to have a Wikipedia that is complete in its own right.

Now it is tolerable, in a few cases, to leave out mention of certain names to "avoid victimization" when they have no independent notability and are associated with some more famous event. For example, if you're standing in the middle of the Library of Congress and you find out the name of the maid who accused rape in the recent case with that IMF official, what are you going to do with it? She has (at the moment) no independent notability, and there's nothing to search for that you wouldn't find otherwise. Note how different the situation is from the case in which you know the name of a footballer and by having that name you instantly have access to a Wikipedia article full of information, and can do further more detailed research in media archives. Now to be clear, however, I do think that at least one of the accusers of Julian Assange should be named, as some media accounts have suggested that she is associated with a CIA-backed organization. Whenever someone emerges, even potentially according to one point of view, as the main player in an event, and the news reports are about their actions, they become a more public figure worthy of proper coverage. Wnt (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you read either what I wrote or the BBC article I linked to. I'm not talking about government suppression. I'm not talking about victimisation. I'm talking about courts making secrecy orders to protect the integrity of ongoing criminal investigations and trials. I'm afraid I can't see how what you just said is relevant to that point? And I've already mentioned that some vague desire to avoid censorship even for a few months should not trump the potential to prejudice ongoing trials for serious criminal activities. What sort of irresponsible attitude is that? GDallimore (Talk) 23:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read your article. What it said was that your grand censorship scheme didn't work, and the jury found out everything anyway. That the judge - like more and more others - had to trust the jury to avoid online research make an impartial decision based on the limited data given them. This is not a compelling argument against Wikipedia covering what the rest of the Web is saying. Wnt (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It needs to be said once again, that the question of suppression of names in the UK by the courts is not the result of some conspiracy by the government. It arises in part from established rules for the protection of children and the integrity of the criminal process, but also from the direct application of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (and the Conservative Party oppposed its direct importation into UK law when in opposition). Jumping up and down and saying you may have a legal right to this but I don't care isn't necessarily something to be proud of in any context. --AJHingston (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

• I certainly wouldn't want to see a criminal walk free because Wikipedia had prejudiced his trial. I agree that sometimes, good judgment requires us to remove names from articles (or not to put them in in the first place), and it may be necessary to fully-protect a BLP, and/or delete revisions, in such cases. But I think we can probably decide these things on a case-by-case basis and I don't see why a rule-change is necessary.—S Marshall T/C 23:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Controversy sections in BLPs

For some reason I have thought mentioned in the policy that we discouraged "Controversy" sections in BLPs like we do Criticism sections. Am I mistaken in thinking we did at one point? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 13:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Back in February 2008, UK police chief Norman Bettison's BLP set off all sorts of fun and games after a "Controversy" section was added.[23] This led to claims that his staff had been ordered to monitor the article.[24] BLPs should not have criticism/controversy sections, as they can easily become troll magnets, but the current version of Norman Bettison still has a "Controversies" section.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As an exercise I reworked this article.^[25] I've done this according to my understanding of BLP, which differs from that of several others here, but I think that I have shown appropriate consideration for the subject. Wnt (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

We should avoid separate controversy or criticism sections wherever it's editorially possible—and not only in BLPs. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Is this a BLP violation?

User:Kingjeff consistently added a cited allegation by an opposing teams' commentator alleging that Jose Bautista uses a corked bat. After repeatedly being reverted, he then added a similar statement to the page of the commentator. Is this a violation of BLP or a fair statement to include in an article? See these edits as well as this one.--TM 00:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I vote Yes. If he's IP 9.233.160.166, which made the initial edit, he's also edit warring. Mindbunny (talk) 01:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I also vote yes. The accusation is completely baseless, and has no place on the page or anywhere on Wikipedia. Trut-h-urts man (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Make that a hat trick. - Me too. Its just a partisan attack on a living person and clearly unworthy completely of inclusion. Off2riorob (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As Cubs fan, I have to admit of having some strong personal biases (I hate Harrelson's announcing style, but Stoney's great), but I'm not sure I'd go as far as saying that it's a BLP violation except in the sense that it seems like WP:UNDUE weight is being given to what was probably just an off-the-cuff comment made on air during the game's broadcast. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight is probably a better principle of objection, since the material would be inappropriate even if the subject were dead. WP:BLP magnifies the problem, tho. Mindbunny (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, BLP simply requests we write conservatively about a living person and unconfirmed allegations of this type would imo fall well upside of such a request. There is a big difference between informed and constructive criticism and accusatory speculation of what would be a quite serious sounding allegation if proven. Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with others here—this violates both BLP and undue weight. Accusing a professional athlete of cheating is a serious allegation, and in this case it is by someone who is employed by an opposing team. Not exactly a neutral source. First Light (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Where an author or political leader is associated with being a "conspiracy theorist" in a reliable source, is it proper to cite their theory on a WP:BLP covered article? If the theory is substantially "self-published" (vide LaRouche's magazines) is the wording of that theory germane to an article on LaRouche, even thogh the theory is about other people? If one of his articles is used as a source, would it be proper to link to such a description of the source? Is the link to the theory proper in articles not on LaRouche? Positing that reliable sources use "conspiracy theorist" with regard to LaRouche, would it be proper to call him a "conspiracy theorist" in other articles using his work?

Conversely, if something has been described in reliable sources as a "conspiracy theory" or an author described as a "conspiracy theorist" is it improper to include that categorization when referring to that theory in an article? Or is the fact that the theory exists sufficient to place it in articles without so describing it for the benefit of the reader? Consider [26] which has been described in reliable sources as "conspiracy theory" and its author as a "conspiracy theorist." Would such material properly be so described in an article on Bush? Or do BLP and RS require that the sentiments be cited without comments by others thereon?

This type of issue has arisen on more than a dozen articles so far (including a number in the Scientology and Climate categories) and it would be nice to get some reasoned input thereon. Thanks. Collect (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find any universal answer to questions like those. It's a question of relevance, which should probably be on a case-by-case basis. Gigs (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP "cheatsheet"

WP:BLP is largely redundent with WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. What would be nice would be to create a BLP "cheatsheet" - a quick reference for experienced editors to refer to. The cheatsheet would contain a list of extra rules which aren't already mentioned in WP:V, WP:OR or WP:NPOV. I don't think, for example, the rule about catagories is in any of the other major 3 content policies. What does everyone think? It obviously wouldn't be a policy or a guideline, just an essay. What does everyone think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a query - what do you mean by this "WP:BLP is largely redundant with WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV." - and also the word cheatsheet seems incorrect, do you mean like a simple guide to complying with BLP policy? Also you say "a cheatsheet for experienced editors" - can "experianced editors not just read and understand the WP:BLP policy? Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Most everything about article content in WP:BLP is also in WP:V, WP:OR or WP:NPOV. For example, BLP's WP:BLPSPS is largely redundant with WP:V's WP:SPS. The section on Writing style is just a restatement of NPOV. The section on Reliable sources is just a restatement of WP:V. What would find useful is a way to quickly find out what’s in BLP that isn’t in the other 3 major content policies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling that although they have some similarities none of them could be deemed to be largely redundant. I will check back in a few days to see if this idea has any legs, so to speak, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I just went through BLP and here's list of what's not in the 3 major content policies regarding content:

• BLPs should not have trivia sections
• 3RR does not apply to BLP violations
• Categories regarding religion and sexual orientation should not be used unless a couple conditions are met
• WP:BLP1E
• Caution should be used regarding the names of WP:BLP1E
• People 115 years old or older are considered dead unless they're not
• Caution should be used regarding dates of birth, address, phone numbers, etc.
• Don't use mug shots

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You missed "People under 115 years old should be considered alive unless a reliable source says they're dead." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And "BLP does not apply to legal persons or sufficiently sized groups." 24.177.120.138 (talk) 07:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The recent court case regarding "trade defamation" of a clothier (a case of some note regarding WP) may mean that we ought to treat them as persons. Collect (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Given the potential for abuse I think some of the points in the WP:CRYBLP article should be added here:

• "Contentious" should be narrowly construed
• Assuming Good Faith applies.
• Use the least disruptive means to solve the problem.
• Egregiousness must exceed involvement for involved administrator action.
• If you think it's a valid BLP issue, raise the issue without threatening an edit war
• Invoking BLP in clearly inapplicable cases has a chilling effect on discussion

BruceGrubb (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Restraining orders

What exactly is the section on restraining orders trying to tell people? Also, this section seems to be in the wrong place. It under "Presumption in favor of privacy". It seems like it belongs in "Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I was bold and moved it.[27] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have a restraining order and something on Wikipedia is going to give the stalker information to use against you I guess. Gigs (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Practical suggestion on tabloids

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – Suggestion for a "gray list" of sources of dubious reliability has consensus support. The few opposes that exist mostly are requests for some refinement to the idea, rather than an outright "this sucks don't do it" sort of oppose. When this proposal is enacted, as a practical matter, the concerns of the opposers should be considered in implimenting a good working process, but at least conceptually, the idea of the gray list has consensus support. --Jayron32 01:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

---

We may not be able to agree on an outright ban on tabloid sources, but I think everyone would agree that there are some sources that should seldom be used, especially on BLPs, and the use of which will often indicate a problem with the article. I'm wondering whether we could do something to fix the articles in question, remove any poor material, and encourage other sources to be used (on most occasions).

Here's my thought. We have a spam blacklist for a few sites that are always no-nos. But what if we have a "source grey-list" - a list of newspapers and other common medium which are often highly problematic. We would not be outlawing these as sources, we'd just be discouraging them (except in exceptional cases) and flagging articles that use them for review.

Someone programmes a bot to find any BLPs that link to, or reference, those publications that are on the greylist. The bot puts a warning on the article's talk page - merely saying "this article contains a sources that is generally regarded as questionable. Please examine whether it is appropriate, and replace it if possible. See the BLP or RS notice boards with any questions". At the same time the article is put into the hidden category of "BLPs with questionable sources" - which will encourage checking.

This idea still leaves us checking on a case-by-case basis. But it may help us identify problems. The bot can update the category where sources are replaced or removed.--Scott Mac 21:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support. --JN466 21:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support This is a good idea. Numerous troubled BLPs superficially appear to be well sourced, because everything has a citation, so are unlikely to be spotted. This would help deal with that problem. --Rob (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• +1. This is partly what I was edging towards with User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources. Not all "reliable sources" are equal. Fences&Windows 23:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Any "grey list" will become public knowledge, likely to the detriment of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why would the grey list even be secret? It shouldn't show up as a "gotcha" to users, and we shouldn't be ashamed of saying outright "these sources are questionable" when we're talking about gossip publications when there's an obvious statement (WP:NOTGOSSIP) that their content isn't really welcome here anyway. SDY (talk) 02:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this will greatly enhance Wikipedia's reputation when it becomes public knowledge. First Light (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

A bot would be better than an edit filter, due to the performance issue with filters.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support We know that BLP problems slip past the RC patrol and the WP:NP patrol; we have automatic detection and flagging of copyvios - we need to do the same for questionable sourcing. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support a bot that merely tags and leaves the removal to a human is reasonable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support; this is an idea I previously suggested. The bot can have several activities - an inline tag to warn readers (most useful if no one gets around to looking more closely), a note to editors (in case they don't know what newspapers are tabloids, which is likely), and a category to aid outside reviewers. This does not mean I support other means of trying to "crack down" on tabloid sources. Wnt (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Excellent middle ground The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support If all of the titles mentioned in tabloid journalism were greylisted for use as BLP sources and automatically flagged by a bot, it would help the human editors. The final decision on whether to remove a link should rest with a human. In the age of 24/7 news, the tabloids are all too often taking the line "publish first, worry about the accuracy later." The list should be public knowledge, with a clear explanation of why the sources are greylisted.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

* listed on WP:CENT to encourage community activity in discussion

• Support The only question would be how do we decide which sources would appear on the grey list. I can see that there may be some fine judgements here that could end up controversial, so a clear process whereby there needs to be not only a consensus, but a quorum as well. There's no rush, and I would rather we got it right regarding dubious sources, than casting aspersions on newspapers or journals that take a different political stance to the person nominating them and the couple of others who agree. Difference of opinion does not make a source dubious, it is their fact checking we should be looking at. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 11:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose All sources need to be taken with a pinch of salt. For example, scientific journals have been shown to be wrong about a third of the time due to their preference for novel and sensational papers. One of the few remaining broadsheets in the UK - The Daily Telegraph - recently had a massive front-page headline which you can still read online: Osama bin Laden killed cowering behind his 'human shield' wife. This story was, I gather, quite false, due to the misleading statements of a White House spokesman. In the UK, the tough libel laws means that all of the press has to be quite careful what they say and so their standard of accuracy on BLP matters is subject to this strong check. This is perhaps less true of the US press because the libel laws are weaker there. Would we therefore bias such a grey list to highlight the risk of relying upon US sources or would US editors insist that US standards are higher than those of the press in other countries such as France? See the current Strauss-Khan matter for a case where there is a distinct national spin to the story.

Myself, I feel that, if we were to be serious about NOTNEWS, then we shouldn't be accepting any article or matter until it is at least a year old. It is only after such an interval that the dust has settled and we get the digested facts in sources such as books. A simple test which would resolve many arguments about notability and quality of sourcing would be to ask - "has a book been written about the topic?". Too late for that now though, I suppose. What we should look for in the current type of article is corroboration. Extraordinary or derogatory statements should have multiple sources which show signs of both reasonable quality and independence. If we do not rest upon a single source then the risk is spread.

Colonel Warden (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support as an Excellent Idea. This is simply using a new tool to support existing policy, by bringing questionable sourcing of BLP articles to the attention of editors. First Light (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support idea, although why not just have a bot collect a list of all pages using these tabloids in ref tags, and then individual editors can go through marking said refs with {{dubious}} when needed or just remove the content altogether? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'm open to a three-month trial and am reasonably happy with the idea as long as it doesn't turn into blanket removal of material, and that there is clear discussion as to why material is ultimately used, changed or rejected. I'd be happier still with some quantified analysis of every article the bot alert came up with in a three month period and the outcome of the page review. Agree this method way trumps an edit filter mentioned below, as the discretion about which sources to use requires human input. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. If only someone had told me about how unreliable Examiner.com was before I used it as a source. Guoguo12--Talk--  19:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This exact site is probably ideal for the grey list. Parts of it are/were perfectly reliable (a real newspaper). Most of it isn't. I think it's in the blacklist right now, which is sad (though reasonable) because some of the content is quite reliable (though the majority is not). Hobit (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This is a good idea...
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I think this is a great idea and would make compliance with our BLP policy easier to monitor than it is at present. doomgaze (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think it would be impossible to draw a line and state that certain publications are fine while others are not - a distinction between 'tabloid' and 'non-tabloid' really doesn't make sense. All publications are reliable to an extent and unreliable to an extent - if they are generally unreliable they shouldn't be used at all, which is what the blacklist is for. We would need to judge each article to determine whether it could be considered reliable in the context in which it is used, and I don't feel mass tagging would be helpful. A bot that identifies where a publication is used as a source and creates a separate listing that interested editors could refer to would surely achieve the same goal without the need to leave tags on articles and/or talk pages, and it could be set up to run for any source where there are concerns, removing the need for agreement on what should be on the grey-list.--Michig (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose without refinement. While the mere idea of a list could be useful, most regular editors know what these sites are anyway. More critically, putting templates on pages that contain these sites is problematic. What is a BLP if referencing a tabloid to show it's role in a controversy rather than using is as a reliable source for another claim. Tags like this would have to be much more closely tailored to a specific purpose, and would have to be removable once specific conditions were met, such as looking for a better source and examining the encyclopedic relevance of the content or claim. Otherwise it will throw into doubt thousands of articles with no clear way to resolve them. If this is done, there should be links on the template to WP:BLPN and clear instructions for checking sources and material. I'd suggest this as a trial on 1000-5000 BLPs before going through with it more broadly. Ocaasi ^c 23:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support In contrast to other opinions expressed, I believe that it is possible to say "these sources are bad enough that we want to look more closely at them" without lending an unavoidable invulnerability to anything that doesn't make the cut. There will always be unreliable sources not on a watchlist, but that doesn't mean we have to be blind to the more-problematic sources that we know about. Let's not make the (impossible) perfect the enemy of the good. --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• oppose for now until more details are spelled out. I'd like to know how we are going to populate the grey-list and what the process is for doing so. I think I like the idea, in particular I'd like to see at least one black-listed site moved the the grey list and I'd like to see the tagging for review. I'd also like to run a trial first. But I'm opposed to even a trial until we have a reasonable process for adding and removing things to the grey list. I'd want more than "some admin wanted it there". Hobit (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support a trial period - it sounds good it theroy; we need to check, however, that it will work in practice. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support In fact, there should be a warning to anyone who links to the grey-listed sites. Similar to what Commons does, asking the user if he still wants to continue with the upload and just ignore the warnings. Moray An Par (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support per users Resident Anthro. and Fences. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks like there is consensus to go ahead with the proposal, though it is a cautious support. I'm removing it from Cent, though I'm not closing as I took part in the discussion. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 13:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Is that very different than where this discussion is going? I'm for any and all ideas that tighten down sourcing tabloids. It seems that the two of these are related. The edit filter isn't yet taking any action but is in testing.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, but wouldn't an edit-filter automatically revert any additions from listed sources? The above proposal has some human component... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

An wp:edit filter can be asked to prevent edits, and even block the account which tried to make an offending edit, however an edit filter can also merely log instances for human inspection. An example is the "New article without references" log. That abuse filter has too many false positives to be anything other than 'logging only'. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The advantage of this, over an edit filter, is that it doesn't interfere with any legitimate uses of sources on the grey list. It does, however, flag them for examination. It also alerts people working on an article to the fact that their sources may be problematic, and encourages them either to their careful use, or to seek alternatives. So, it educates rather than being heavy handed. It will also flag up article that are already using such sources, which will help us to see places where there's a high chance of BLP issues. I suspect many articles sourced from tabloids could at least to with a good review. I also prefer it to changing policy, because writing a policy doesn't change existing articles, and only slowly impacts on content (if people are even made aware of the change). This suggestion pokes all editors who are working on BLPs and says "please think about this".--Scott Mac 14:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've wondered for a while if we shouldn't qualify "reliable sources" as a concept. By that I mean that too often reliability is treated as a binary variable (either/or), when it's really contextual, and a continuous variable (degrees of reliability). So why not take the basic idea here and run with it: assign different sources quality scores (meaning how preferred the source is; low score doesn't entirely mean "unreliable" in a bad way, just reliability not as securely founded, in Wikipedia terms)? A global list of these would need negotiating (continuously...), but we sort of do that anyway at RSN, and at least it would be centralised. And based on those scores, we could have a bot create a summary of an article's sourcing (with unknown sources given a 0 quality score). Sources known to be actively unreliable could even be given negative scores (though I'm not sure how common that would be). Yes, I know, it's probably pie in the sky; but does the concept make sense to anyone else? Rd232 ^talk 04:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, it doesn't make sense to me. Or at least, one of the inevitable side effects doesn't make sense. This will undoubtedly discourage the use of dubious information from 'low reliability' sources, but at the same time, it will give the 'high reliability' sources an air of 'infallibility' they may not deserve. As r2232 states, context is what matters, and an aside in a minor article in a high-quality source may be no more 'reliable' in reality than the front page headline in a tabloid. All sources can get things wrong, and everything taken from a source needs to be looked at on its merits. This is (in theory at least) what existing policy requires, but we still have endless debates over arguments that 'statement X is from reliable source Y, so we can include it in article Z'. A system of ranking will merely add ammunition to this sort of dubious argument, and distract from the real issue, which is usually actually about the reliability of 'statement X' in itself than about the general reliability of 'source Y', or even about the relevance of 'statement X' to 'article Z'. The real problem is frequently more concerned with the use to which a source is being put than with some abstract 'reliability quotient', and assigning such numbers merely distracts from the central issue, which is the lack of contextual analysis. You cannot automate editorial judgement, and should not imply that you can. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's well argued, and it's a line of thinking I share. I wonder if we shouldn't in fact follow the logic through to rename WP:Identifying reliable sources to WP:Reliably sourcing statements (with all the refocussing the rename would entail)? Rd232 ^talk 01:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Policies like WP:OR used to make it pretty clear that Wikipedia editing isn't supposed to be rocket science. If you see a statement from a source, you're not supposed to have to decide whether the reporter got the story wrong. You ought to be able to pick facts and drop them into an article like a migrant laborer putting oranges into a bushel basket - throwing out only the ones that are obviously rotten. A good bot should help by warning editors and users about the ones that feel a little squishy.

I believe that the best way for Wikipedia to defend the reputations of living persons from slander is to cover allegations and trivia, but to put them in their place with a proper skeptical review. I think it is far better for us to write that a tabloid ran an outrageous article and then retracted it, than not to mention it at all, because by giving the whole range of facts we immunize the reader against the article when he runs across it on the web. By contrast, some here have suggested we shouldn't report even true material if it seems generally nasty and trivial according to some reviewer's personal value judgment - but by doing so, we forfeit all power to oppose malicious rumors, which readers will assume have simply been censored from Wikipedia. When no more considered review of the facts has been done, I think that tagging facts inline with ^{[tabloid reference]} would provide a good warning for readers that a specific allegation may not be reliable, lessening any negative impact. Wnt (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is this the correct way to reduce an article's size?

The longest biography has just been arbitrarily split with this edit. We now have two rambling articles full of fan cruft instead of just one. The editor also made the spit at a crucial time in the subject's life. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely some serious issues there. For example, if United Airlines flight 215 in 1978 was an accident with injuries, why don't we have an article on it? I searched the NTSB accident database and there's no such reported accident. Anyway, you might have better luck reporting this kind of thing at WP:BLP/N, which is the proper place. Gigs (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the concern about the flight, but the subject has repeatedly claimed that he didn't feel the need to report the incident. May go to WP:BLP/N. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Too long. Way too long. Collect (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I trimmed a little - but when BLPs include factoids like whether a Christian then becomes a Baptist - that is over the top <g>. I suspect it can be trimmed to well under 100K without losing any real information. Collect (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum (neologism) RfC

Uninvolved eyes would be much appreciated at Talk:Santorum (neologism)#Proposal to rename, redirect, and merge content. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal on specific recommendations in BLP with respect to covering ethnicity, religion, and sexual orientation

While the current policy seems clear enough to me, the current practice shows a wide variation in Editors opinion about where and to what extent to cover in a biography information about the personality's ethnic origin, religion and/or sexual orientation. I propose the following tentative paragraph be added to the BLP:

.............................................................................................

1. Information about ethnic origin, religion and sexual orientation is to be considered a private matter not to be covered in a biography except in the following situations:

- the personality has made public statements disclosing some of those private matters;

- the official (approved) biography for the personality makes the disclosures;

- either the ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation has played an important role in establishing or enhancing the notability of the person.

Examples:

• A musician is notable because of religious songs in his/her repertoire (therefore becomes legitimate to talk about his/her religion but not about his sexual orientation or ethnicity).
• A politician notability is due in part by his/her views on a particular ethnic group - even different than his (therefore becomes legitimate to talk about his/her ethnicity).
• An artist becomes notable in part for portraying roles for a particular sexual orientation (therefore becomes legitimate to talk about his/her sexual orientation).
• The personality has made public statements expressing a point of view that is not neutral (it is either negative - denigrating or positive - laudatory) with respect to any aspect of a group or third party ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation, thus making it relevant to talk about his own because his notability would have been enhanced by his comments.
• A personality makes public disclosures indicating that either the ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation were an inspirational factor in his/her achievements - thus making information on those matters relevant.

2. Only in cases where the ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation has played an important role in establishing or enhancing the notability of the person can the following be considered for inclusion in the biography:

- Third party investigative reporting assertions with respect to ethnic origin, religion or sexual orientation that are different from the ones recognized by the personality in public disclosures or approved biographies.

- Categorization of the personality by the ethnic origin, religion, or sexual orientation.

- Include information about ethnic origin, religion, or sexual orientation in the introductory paragraph or in the infobox.

Examples:

• A politician has never made any comments, has not been involved in actively supporting or undermining legislation with respect to a particular sexual orientation. Overnight, investigative reporting publishes information contradicting the personality's statements with respect to his/her own sexual orientation. Such information should not be included in the biography because it is not relevant.
• An actor has a balanced history of roles portraying characters of diverse ethnic origins and has never made any comments either laudatory or denigrating any ethnicity. Overnight, investigative reporting publishes information contradicting the personality's statements with respect to his/her own ethnic origin. Such information should not be included in the biography because it is not relevant.
• A singer has a balanced repertoire with respect to religion and has never made any comments either laudatory or denigrating any religion. Overnight, investigative reporting publishes information contradicting the personality's statements with respect to his/her own religion. Such information should not be included in the biography because it is not relevant.
• A personality has established his notability as (for example) chess player at the highest international level. However, he/she also made defamatory comments with respect to a particular ethnic group thus enhancing his/her own notoriety. It therefore becomes relevant to include investigative reporting conclusions even when those are contradicting the personality's own recognized ethnicity.

.............................................................................................

I hope all Editors will treat my proposal as tentative and subject to improvement. I also hope that the inclusion of a clarifying paragraph in BLP with respect to the inclusion of such information in biographies will greatly reduce the contentious debates that plague many articles. Gigi marga (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Not even a tiny comment? In the mean time I came to realize that the list (ethnic origin, religion, and sexual orientation) needs to be expanded to include other criteria that are used occasionally to discriminate against people. (please note that I am in the process of changing my user name so basically Gigi marga and kARom is the same user) kARom (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - this is a very clear description and we've needed this kind of clarity for some time. Yworo (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support - though I suspect that as presently worded there is still sufficient room for Wikilawyering to largely defeat the objectives of the proposal. I think the real problem isn't the wording of policy, but instead is the culture of Wikipedia editing - far too many contributors don't seem to be able to distinguish between relevent information and unnecessary detail in BLPs, and there are also real problems with POV-pushing to boost a particular ethnicity, faith or whatever. That is the problem that really needs to be tackled. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - Creating special "rules" in Wikipedia just for ethnicity, religion, etc creates the impression that somehow mentioning the ethnicity (I'll use this one word as shorthand for ethnicity, religion, race, etc covered by the proposal) is somehow in itself something to be ashamed of. I think that sets forth a bad example for those out there reading Wikipedia. As we become more mainstream and more and more children use Wikipedia as a source we should be open about ethnicity and embrace that famous people throughout the USA and the world come from different backgrounds and can all grow up to do great things (or bad things). Ethnicity becomes something to be proud of but within the constraints of there are bad people in EVERY ethnicity as well. If a Reliable Source states someone is something, that is enough. That is the standard "rule" for all information in Wikipedia and it is sufficient on face value to stop rumormongering that would result from being published in the National Enquirer (not a RS). If someone is Jewish, Black, Hispanic, gay, transexual, and it has been published in a RS, what is the harm of putting in Wikipedia? In effect Wikipedia is saying, though not intentionally- "You should be ashamed your Jewish, so we wont let people know you are"Camelbinky (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

There are already stringent rules regarding 'race' in BLPs - basically, it is a direct violation of policy to state that individual X is of 'race' Y. There are existing 'special rules' regarding ethnicity, religion and sexuality too. What is being proposed here is a clarification of the rules, together with a direct extension to cover ethnicity more directly. As for the rest of your comments, they are entirely based on a spurious assumption that there can be a 'reliable source' for a persons ethnicity other than the person him/herself. This is just plain illogical - ethnicity is by definition self-identification, and anyone other than the subject making an assertion about somebody's ethnicity is expressing an opinion - and it isn't Wikipedia's job to present opinion as fact. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support even more stringent wording. Too often folks are categorized for minimal real reasons - often it appears just for categorization's sake. Unless a person is self-identified as belonging in a category of race, religion, etc. there is generally not a valid reason to categorize the person. Categorization on the basis of a third party's opinion should not be used in any biography. Collect (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. I entirely understand Camelbinky's views about not marking out ethnicity, sexual orientation or belief as something to be ashamed of. But privacy matters to people, and should any of us be so unfortunate as to become notable there will be things that we regard as nobody else's business. These may well include our sex lives, parentage and whether and where we worship. Another factor is that once the topic is admitted to an article, it opens the door to qualification and elaboration, with the consequence that all sorts of things may creep in about their personal history that would not otherwise be admissible under BLP policies. The right to privacy should not be seen as confined to these three areas, but a presumption of privacy here seems unexceptionable. --AJHingston (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Question - I understand the idea of a right to privacy, however- If the information regarding ethnicity etc has been already published in a RS, hasnt the privacy already been preached? It is not like we are investigative reporters putting out information that was not already out there. The idea that it isn't relevant is itself irrelevant because being published in a RS it is by definition relevant to someone with better qualifications than Wikipedians (one must assume that by definition to be a RS it is in some way edited and hopefully accurate, whereas all wikis, including Wikipedia and blogs etc are not RS). So where is the presumption of privacy end? Two of Ronald Reagan's sons are feuding publicly about the role of Alzheimer's during his presidency, can the one son force Wikipedia to not mention anything regarding the other son's position that his father had symptoms of Alzheimer's during his presidency because "it is a privacy issue". Having Alzheimer's is more personal than ethnicity, and in this particular case a lot harder to prove when Reagan had Alzheimer's than to prove whether someone else is Chinese or not.Camelbinky (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Relying on RS does not answer the problem here. There are editors who believe passionately that the right to free speech must and should override any right to privacy, and would say that the only qualification is whether it is true. Many different things may count as an RS, and they may not be as readily accessible as Wikipedia. And indeed even that is not a sufficient safeguard, as I have seen examples in BLPs of what I strongly suspect are deliberate uses of the old journalist's trick, for getting around restrictions such as the libel laws, of using a formula such as x has denied rumours, or persistent suggestions have been made that..... I do think that it would help to have a clear policy that Wikipedia will not go into certain areas, irrespective of whether the claim is true, without a very good reason. The proposed clarification makes a very good job of trying to define what those good reasons might be. --AJHingston (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up question' - Thank you AJ, very good answer and hope others may still answer as well. Here is a follow-up question for further clarification. What is the position of this proposed clarification of policy in regards to some specific examples- How would the BLP policy deal with declaring Sandy Koufax as a "Jewish baseball player" or Adam Sandler as a "Jewish commedian" or in just stating in the article that they are Jewish. Would the policy force us to not mention either's Jewishness? Adam Sandler has been very open about his Jewish identity and in a large number of his movies his character is Jewish even when it does not affect the plot. Sandy Koufax refused to pitch in a World Series game because it fell on Yom Kippur, would this policy then mean that that can get mentioned but we can't come out and say "Sandy Koufax is Jewish"? A third and harder example is Benjamin Disraeli, who was of Jewish birth but baptized at age 13, his Jewishness has very little if any relevance to his life and to the best of my knowledge never influenced him nor did he ever have any attachment to it; but yet just about anything written about him will mention he was of Jewish origin; do we ignore the fact that he was the first and only British PM to be born to a Jewish family as irrelevant? Or does that fact alone make it relevant, and if so- how many Jewish British PM's before it becomes not relevant? Does the fourth or fifth PM that is Jewish not get it mentioned that he (or she) is Jewish?Camelbinky (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

My opinion, as the one who formulated the proposed change, is that both Sandy Koufax and Adam Sandler, since they openly acknowledged their ethnicity/religion, have opened the inclusion of it in wikipedia. My proposal intent is to protect those who want to maintain their privacy not to interfere with those who are open. Concerning the third example you raised Benjamin Disraeli will not be covered by this policy because this is intended for living persons. To reformulate your example, if tomorrow a new British PM gets elected and there is a buzz in the press regarding a suspicion that he might be of ethnicity X but he formally denies that, I am in favor of not mentioning it in wikipedia. If in his policies he has an unbalanced view with respect to ethnicity, then it will become relevant to reveal his. Also, 100 years after his death is a different story. kARom (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

kARom—you say "...but he formally denies that, I am in favor of not mentioning it in wikipedia."

Any denial constitutes a reason not to mention something—whether denial by the individual himself/herself, or denial by a reliable source.

We should be discussing those instances in which no denial or contradiction is found in any source. Bus stop (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose—I would support a rollback from present restrictions. I also think sexual orientation should be considered separately from attributes of identity. As concerns attributes of identity, such as religion, I see little reason to require self-identification. I think reliance on suitably reliable sources accomplishes verifying this. Writers need not reveal all their raw notes. Writers digest material and present it to the reader in a readable form. Reliable sources would not be acceptable if they contradict one another. But in the absence of contradiction I think reliably sourced information pertaining to attributes of identity should be acceptable for our articles. This may not be the case concerning sexual orientation, hence I think they should be considered separately. As concerns notability, I do not think that an attribute of identity has to bear a relationship to the individual's reason for notability. I think it is sufficient that it be reliably sourced. Readers are interested in a wide variety of information. And as has already been pointed out by Camelbinky above, mention in reliable sources does establish a relation to notability. Wikipedia editors should not be presuming to know better than reliable sources as concerns what is relevant to a biography and what is not relevant. Bus stop (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment- Wikipedia editors should not be presuming to know better than reliable sources as concerns what is relevant to a biography and what is not relevant. Wikipedians make judgements of what's relavant and what's not on a daily basis. For some indivduals there are hunderds of books and thousands of articles about them. Including all this information from reliable sources in a wikipedia article is impossible and unnecessary, and editors have to judge what is important and relevant. Also RS are only reliable because the information is (usually) reliable. It can also be an invasion of privacy. Some countries, particularly the US, have very liberal laws in this regard, but an encyclopedia should have much stricter safegurads against invasion of privacy. For some individuals, the issues of religion or sexual orientation are deeply private, and should not be disclosed. Not sure how not to slide on a slippery slope of political correctness though. - BorisG (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Camelbinky. This would lead to absurd situations in which well-known characteristics of people may not be mentioned in their biographies. Element #2 would lead to endless arguments over whether something has enhanced a person's notability. Overall, it's too complicated.   Will Beback  talk  03:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per CamelBinky and Wil Beback. That said, I understand AJHingston's arguments, but believe current policy covers their examples. Nobody has the right to free speech on Wikipedia, so that is already out the door. Edits that go along the lines of "person has denied..." would fall under being weasel words and be ousted. I think something close to this proposal could be used as a guideline, but overall, a liberal application of WP:BLP as it stands coupled with common sense should suffice. Resolute 05:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose.per CamelBinky and Wil Beback. Many of these supporters are known as removers of ethnic identification of individuals. Religion for all public figures is always relevant. For instance, a Jewish American politician is often a Zionist and a supporter of Israel. Wikipedia is not about censorship. Judenwatch (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC) — Judenwatch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Um... if someone has the time can they do some research and make sure this user is not someone who is topic banned from Jewish related discussions and editing? Since the username and comment are both offensive. I am a Jew and I dont need to be watched and not all Jewish American politicians are "Zionists", which by the way Judenwatch welcome to the 1880s. As an opponent of this proposal even I will support the crossing out of the above comment.Camelbinky (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Judenwatch has been blocked as a sockpuppet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per CamelBinky. Persons with articles on Wikipedia, having been covered by public sources, are, in that sense, public figures. Information in reliable sources about them should not be censored. —Lowellian (reply) 21:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose. While he's no longer a living person -- under this wording, I'm not even sure that we could list Alan Turing's sexuality (it clearly played a major role in his life, and it would be nearly impossible to describe his death without it, but did it enhance his notability beyond where it already would have been? Did it appear in an authorized biography?) If we were writing an article about Alan Turing during his lifetime, while he was being actively prosecuted for his sexuality, my strict reading of the proposed rules are that they would forbid us from covering it at all, or to use circumscribed language without revealing what he's being prosecuted for. That is plainly absurd. I'm also extremely dubious about the part about excluding a politician's sexuality -- since those things can affect their political career, it is sometimes going to be impossible to write a coherent article about their political history that ignores it (and even rumors can influence them -- politicians have been done in by rumors over their ethnicity and sexuality in the past. If it is widely-discussed in the press that rumors about a politician's sexuality are harming their chances in an election, that does belong in Wikipedia.) Furthermore, on top of all this -- there's several situations where discussing a person's ethnicity, sexuality, etc is no more controversial than discussing their date of birth. A blanket ban on such information seems totally out of place to me -- an encyclopedia is exactly the right place to look up basic biographical information on a public figure's ethnic origins or sexuality, and it is absolutely encyclopedic to include that information in every place where it is clearly available from reliable sources. In a small number of cases, it may be potentially harmful, controversial, or defamatory to reveal these things about them, and in those cases (and only in those) BLP comes into play, especially if it's just a few unverifiable rumors... but those are also precisely the places where we must report on those things if they are being widely discussed by reliable sources (that is, constantly going around on the evening news), because at that point the very fact that widespread media discussion of their sexuality or whatever is, in fact, harming the article's subject becomes noteworthy enough that their article will never be complete without it. Wikipedia should, in other words, definitely avoid being the first (or even the second or the tenth) publication to discuss a politician's sexuality, if it could potentially harm them politically, but as an encyclopedia we have a responsibility to mention it in their biography if it's already widely reported and, as a result, is having or has had a major impact on their political career -- how on earth could we avoid discussing it, in that case? It should be given the proper weight -- if it's only one of a series of attacks against a major politician, it might only be appropriate for a subpage -- but I don't see the argument for excising information about such things entirely from an encyclopedia. --Aquillion (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the new wording, we should instead be enforcing more stridently the policies and guidelines already in place. Adding new restrictions like this makes no difference since we should already be doing what these restrictions state, and don't bother. Existing policy already allows for this, and not enough people are willing to stand up to the "Lets label everyone" crowd. --Jayron32 23:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that existing policy incorporates the proposed change. The reason I proposed the new formulation is precisely because I found impossible to enforce the existing policy. My hope is that the new formulation will help defend more effectively against the "Lets label everyone" crowd. kARom (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

kARom—I don't think there is a "'Lets label everyone' crowd". There are editors, such as myself, who wish to note attributes of identity in biographies, but we only try do so when precedent has first been set by reliable sources. You say "My hope is that the new formulation will help defend more effectively against the "Lets label everyone" crowd." It is extremely common for sources to make note of attributes of identity as may be applicable. I think our passing along that information to the reader can be an important aspect of writing a biography. Can you tell me any reason such material should be omitted, assuming reliable sources have established such material as being applicable to the subject of the biography? Bus stop (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Where BLP does and does not apply

Bruce seems to like these two essays under the heading "Where BLP does and does not apply"

See also: Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!" and WP:BLPZEALOT

While they seem to be OK essays, I have been a bit circumspect about adding them alone, particularly when Bruce added the edit summary of "BLP is being abused as a censorship hammer". This statement leads me to believe these somewhat anti-BLP essays are being added to sway the policy view against BLP concerns. While I see and sometimes argue that BLP does not apply, I don't see a need to introduce bias in a one-sided way. My view is that if we are going to have anti-BLP essays there, they need to be accompanied by pro-BLP essays as well. Thoughts anyone? -- Avanu (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Such as?   Will Beback  talk  19:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. Essays aren't policy, so...write one? I just think it needs balance. The section title isn't "Where BLP does not apply", so having 2 anti-BLP essays in a section that is inclusive doesn't seem to fit. -- Avanu (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

These essays are NOT "anti-BLP" but address the kind of nonsense regarding questionable WP:BLP claims seen in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive119#Juice_Plus.2FJohn_A._Wise where WP:BLP was effectively being used as a magical censorship hammer to remove any criticism about a living person.

We as editors NEED something to offset the "simply claim BLP and I can nuke from orbit" nonsense that required Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard to fix the problem.

"It's perfectly OK to block someone for unapologetically accusing a living person of manslaughter, even if you've recently edited that same article. It's not OK to block someone for citing the Washington Post in a matter with which you disagree. (...)

Because of the importance of BLP, and the extra sanctions administrators may invoke to enforce it, citing BLP in inappropriate circumstances can be seen as a Godwin's Law type of argument, which serves to alienate and bully other editors."(Wikipedia:Crying "BLP!")

"The BLP policy essentially states:

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

The policy also forbids the use of primary sources such as public records and court documents for contentious or privacy violating material. Neutrality in the description of living persons must be maintained, and original research avoided." (WP:BLPZEALOT)

Mind explaining how those points are Anti-BLP?

The essays are clearly about potential abuse of BLP rather than against BLP itself. Mind explain how that is not relevant to when knowing when to use or not use BLP?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

These essays appear more like attacks on the policy than beneficial informative essays. BLP is not being used as censorship at all and referring to other users as Zealots is divisive and demeaning.Off2riorob (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

"BLP is not being used as censorship at all" SAY WHAT?!? I just provided two examples of BLP being used as a magical censorship hammer! In the case of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues BLP was being used in a manner that hampered discussion regard a reference meeting WP:RS as editor's comments were actively being deleted. If there is a poser child of how BLP could be abused it was that nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Per the original comment, does this not also mean it's wrong to add essays in order to sway the debate in favor of strongly upholding BLP? Surely many editors feel BLP policy has gone too far, and is subject to manipulation for purposes far removed from BLP. At any rate, adding essays in haphazard fashion is a bit of a mess. Could there not be a system for collecting all the good faith essays about this particular topic, and simply making a list? - Wikidemon (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

These essays were NOT added in a haphazard fashion but chosen because they best represent the kind of misuse BLP (Ie WP:CRYBLP) nonsense the community had to deal with in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive119#Juice_Plus.2FJohn_A._Wise.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

If blp zealot is ever to be included I would request a rename, the word zealot requires replacing with a less demeaning expression. People are wise to essays - they are valueless and recently it seems common to immediately reject them when mentioned. "that is an essay without any community support" - Mention policy not essays. A user referred to other users as BLP fascists the other day, imo that is a personal attack worthy of a block. Off2riorob (talk) 10:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

IMHO clear abuse of BLP as seen in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive119#Juice_Plus.2FJohn_A._Wise that appears to just another part of a long pattern of (mis)behavior is what is worthy of blocking. Since the community agreed that BLP was being misused in both those cases claiming the essays are "without any community support" is inaccurate. The use of BLP claims in those cases reminded me of the Game Overthinker's comment of "reacting with force and style equivalent of the Hammer of Thor as wielded by Stimpy" as it was effectively that bad especially in the first case.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone else objecting to the inclusion of these essays? The only suggestion I would make is that they might be better combined into one -- they seem to cover some similar ground. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree they need to be combined--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I see there was an attempt to delete WP:BLPZEALOT in the past. Honestly, I don't see how the essay is the least bit useful. The "Crying BLP" essay actually attempts to provide helpful advice on what not to do and is meaningful to include. The zealot article is just whining and invitations to personal attacks and I have no idea why it was retained. It appears the deletion discussion got mired in some tu quoque and obsession with a certain mid-20th century political group. SDY (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually that was involving Wikipedia:BLP Nazi and the problems were more regarding the title rather than the actual content. There are some good points in the essay though it is not quite as good as WP:CRYBLP but WP:BLPZEALOT has points regarding improving the article that WP:CRYBLP doesn't.

I again point to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive97#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues as the kind of thing WP:BLPZEALOT is talking about ("The essential point of the essay - that it is possible to overapply the BLP policy, and that people sometimes do this - is not unreasonable.") If there was poster children for both WP:CRYBLP and WP:BLPZEALOT is it was what went on in that discussion and at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/Problem_on_BLP_noticeboard.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental problem about WP:BLPZEALOT is that it talks about editors, not about content. Essays like WP:ACTIVIST talk about editors, but they give useful tips on how to deal with problems, where WP:BLPZEALOT is just a lot of whining. It's not useful advice to someone who wants to understand the BLP policy better, because there is no advice, just a rant. SDY (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(←) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP zealot has been opened. SDY (talk) 18:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

But doesn't this match your point of "There seriously is a problem if people refuse to recognize that editors can and do misuse BLP, but this essay doesn't really help with that issue since it's so bombastic and overblown that it becomes a straw man in itself." regarding the Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:BLP_zealot issue? In one of the examples I gave the talk pages of at least 5 different editors were effectively flooded with BLP claims and related material ("since the 20th I count 15 posts to BruceGrubb, 34 to Griswaldo, 31 to the Founders Intent, and 50 to me" (User:Ludwigs2)) and yet even self admitted BLP hawk administrator User talk:Scott MacDonald stated "In order to assess the reliability of a source, one needs to discuss the credibility of the person making the claims. Everything here looks like fair comment and justified discussion." with administrator user:Jclemens adding "Making edits and calling them "BLP" when no BLP issue actually applies is disruptive editing, as I've articulated in WP:CRYBLP." WP:BLPZEALOT and WP:CRYBLP both in a round about way deal with the unintended consequences of what is effectively Wikipedia's version of the Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Takedown_Notice DMCA's takedown notice--a well intention idea that has insignificant safegards to prevent abuse. You said that WP:BLPZEALOT was "bombastic and overblown" and yet by the standards of the real world example I and many other other editors had to go through it is effectively milktoast time. The point is if you give a nuke from orbit option to people there will be those who will abuse it and so any policy needs to address the possible abuse of that policy and BLP as it stand doesn't not.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see the need for two essays on the problematic direction that WP:BLP has taken but I just thought I would suggest terminology for a title for an essay on the topic. I would call it "Abuse of WP:BLP". Bus stop (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 96.41.104.165, 26 June 2011

The biography of Ron Freeman, Olympic athlete, incorrectly confuses him with an individual of the same name who was a teacher at Monte Vista High School and died in 2011. Ron Freeman, the athlete, is still alive, and this erroneous report of his death is causing great concern among his friends and classmates from Elizabeth, NJ. An error as severe as this cannot wait for the vetting cycle to allow me to be able to edit the page myself.

This is the current entry: Ronald ("Ron") J. Freeman II (born June 12, 1947) is a former American athlete, winner of gold medal in 4x400 m relay at the 1968 Summer Olympics.

Born in Elizabeth, New Jersey, Ron Freeman was third in 400 m and ran the second leg in the American 4x400 m relay team, which won the gold medal with a new world record of 2.56.11.

Following his Olympic career, Freeman taught Physical Education and World History at Monta Vista High School. He died of a heart attack in 2011.

The following is from MercuryNews.com:

Ron "Screamin" Freeman

Resident of Los Altos

Passed away suddenly on Jan. 21. He was 52. Ron was a cornerstone in the South Bay water polo community. He spent the last 30 years teaching and coaching at Monta Vista High School in Cupertino. He was instrumental in the USA Water Polo Olympic Development Program, De Anza Water Polo Club, and the De Anza-Cupertino Aquatics program. He was also involved with the Junior Olympics, serving as team lead on the 1997 U.S. World Champion Team.

For more about Ron go to the Face Book page "Ron Freeman was my water polo coach and History teacher".

Ron is survived by his mother and stepfather Miriam and Ken Clark, his brothers Richard, Dean, John, and Wayne Freeman, and his sister Cathleen Bridenstein.

Ron's Memorial will be at Monta Vista High School gym Friday, Feb. 18 at 3 p.m. In lieu of flowers donations can be made to the Ron Freeman Memorial Fund, care of Monta Vista High School, 21840 McClellan Rd., Cupertino, CA 95014. Published in San Jose Mercury News/San Mateo County Times on February 3, 2011

Please immediately correct this error. Thank you

96.41.104.165 (talk) 05:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This is something better taken to WP:BLPN not a request to edit this page. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Restoring deleted content

Does the section 'Restoring deleted content'—in particular, the requirement to obtain consensus before restoring, without significant change, "material about living persons [that] has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections"—apply to deleted content only or also to content that is removed via editing? I am thinking not of a situation involving "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material", but rather of one involving properly sourced material that is, nonetheless, believed to be problematic. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If the material is properly sourced and well written, then it's not "problematic" in a BLP sense. Gigs (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if someone is removing it, there's often going to be a disagreement over whether it's problematic... the essence of this part of BLP is that there is a presumption towards caution, so I don't think that people are supposed to be able to say 'nah, I don't think it's problematic, so I'm going to restore it without consensus.' If it's genuinely not problematic, it shouldn't be hard to bring in outside voices and establish a consensus to that end. --Aquillion (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Indded, if there is a good-faith challenge to a statement, remove the text temporarily and resolve the issue. If a dozen people quickly confirm the statement is fine, it can be easily returned. However, merely being referenced doesn't mean it is beyond challenging, because a) reliable sources can make mistakes which can be corrected or modified by other reliable sources and b) sometimes the initial source isn't reliable at all. Its best to leave some nugget of information out until due dilligence shows that it belongs in. This, of course, assumes "good faith" challenges. There are people who challenge stuff just to be WP:DICKs, and those people quickly become obvious as well. There is no harm to Wikipedia if a good statement is left out of an article for a short time while its validity is being checked, there is harm to Wikipedia if an improper statement is left in for any amount of time. --Jayron32 03:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Baptism dates vs. birthdays

Researchers may appreciate it if you use people's birth dates although they've been baptized. By all means, please include that date if you think someone would like that information, but folks are generally born before their baptism, so researchers maybe interested in that date too if you know it. 66.209.252.225 (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Shonuff. Is this in reference to specific events here on Wikipedia, or are you just offering a general observation? --Jayron32 03:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Regulation too blunt in "Misuse of primary sources" section?

Under the section "Misuse of primary sources" We have the statement: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Surly this is too sweeping a condition?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Prunesqualer (talk • contribs)

Why? (See WP:OR) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Well to give an example, if one followed that guideline to the letter, one could not quote "Hansard" (the UK government’s record of parliamentary business) when the relevant quote included information about a living person. This just doesn’t seem right. Prunesqualer (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I really don't understand this line of reasoning. If a primary source is making a relevant comment about a living person certainly a reliable secondary source would report it. If no reliable secondary source is even commenting on a particular point of a primary source there is likely a good reason for that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the reason why: Suppose a politician (or someone else) had some legal issue and it wasn't reported on on the media. Should Wikipedia be used to make an issue out of that? No. Claiming that a legal filing is 'notable' (which is implied by putting it in their article) is not an assertion that can be backed up solely by a primary source. Note that this doesn't mean you can't use primary sources -- it just means that you need other sources, too, to assert that a particular legal filing is noteworthy and to back up any statements implied by putting it in the article. If you had an editorial about "John Smith's parking citation problems", you could also link to the relevant legal filings in the article, but you couldn't just link to the legal filings, because that would be making the statement that these are relevant -- the statement that John Smith has a serious parking citation problem. That statement would be original research. You can quote Hansard in an article; you just can't use it to back up a nontrivial assertion not made by a secondary source, or quote it devoid of context in order to try and make a point that isn't backed up by a secondary source. --Aquillion (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability has nothing to do with article contents. Gigs (talk) 23:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not really about notability, it's about WP:UNDUE. If no one else thought it relevant, that should be strong evidence that it isn't ripe for inclusion in an article. If the amount of coverage in reliable secondary sources is nothing at all, that's exactly what Wikipedia should include: nothing. Primary sources are useful for confirming dates, amounts, quotations, and other mundane details when secondary sources don't provide them. They almost never have any bearing on weight, which is very clearly involved with inclusion or exclusion of material. SDY (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying that guys Prunesqualer (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Not to belabor the point, but undue weight is about the article taken as a whole, not about any one particular claim. Gigs (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Not so. Read section on undue weight again. Each claim must be given appropriate weight (and only appropriate weight). As it says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Taking one traffic parking violation and putting a link to the court records about it in a BLP (or anywhere, but we're talking BLPs here, which have a higher standard) would generally be a violation; you'd need secondary sources to support the implicit claim that this has a weight appropriate to the significance of the subject. --Aquillion (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's a novel, albeit increasingly common, interpretation of UNDUE, and was never the intention. The guideline on undue weight was written primarily with fringe scientific viewpoints in mind, and twisting it around to apply to BLP somehow is not really a good idea or appropriate. I agree that irrelevant details of someone's life shouldn't go into their article, but we don't need to twist some unrelated guideline around to say that. Gigs (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I would carve out an exception to the current wording. It is helpful to the reader to have access via a reference to the primary source which the also-cited secondary source is discussing. Take the cases where a secondary source is discussing a public speech, a public transcript, or a criminal indictment. It makes little sense for me as an editor to expose the secondary source and conceal the primary source when both are available and relevant. If I recall correctly, the motivation for BLPPRIMARY was to prevent an editor from creating their own summary of primary sources constructed as original research. The presence of a secondary source means that the summary is not a work of original research. My proposed wording "When an article summarizes secondary source which in turn refers to its primary source, a link to that primary source can be added as a reference". I'm not looking at this an wiki-advocacy issue, but an information accessibility issue. The WP:UNDUE aspect is handled by the variety and weight of the secondary sources. patsw (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There's an important issue here that goes wider than BLP articles themselves. For example, I came across an instance where an editor of an article about an air accident had apparently used secondary sources entirely and had summarised the cause in a way that could well have been interpreted as attributing blame to a particular individual. This was despite the fact that the press reports in question were all prompted by the release of an inquiry report which made clear that there was, as so often, a whole series of contributing factors none of which were described in the terms used in the Wiki article. Had the editor in question looked at the report itself it is highly unlikley that he or she would have written what they did even if they thought that was a reasonable summary of the news reports. That's only one example, and it is frequently the case that a statement, report, speech or whatever which is freely available is not cited. Clearly, secondary sources are valuable for reasons which include establishing notability and discouraging editors from introducing novel and possibly mistaken interpretation of fact. But on the other hand, a possibly POV laden brief summary in secondary sources will rarely have the weight of the source on which it is drawn, and by citing the source readers can be encouraged to make a judgement for themselves, not to mention encouring editors to use due diligence in the first place. --AJHingston (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Casey Anthony: Own article or not?

A discussion is going on at the above linked talk page about whether or not Casey Anthony should get her own article outside of the case. Some of you may want to weigh in. Flyer22 (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

image caption

"For how to complain to the Wikimedia Foundation, see here and below." I don't think WMF wants complainers. I think it would be better if it said "To report BLP issues to the Wikimedia Foundation, see here and below". Opinions? Spalds (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the WMF wants to know about complaints, and, of course, "issue" is merely an euphemism for "complaint". patsw (talk) 00:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think the WMF should consider how it can make clearer to people how they can raise their concerns. If an article is untrue or unfair then a person is entitled to complain, especially if they are the subject. The rule that contributors should not have a conflict of interest makes it necessary to have such a system and to channel aggrieved parties in that direction, and weasel words will not help. The reasons for not wanting to do so are obvious, but in the long run it has to be addressed. The Advertising Standards Association in the UK (a self-regulatory body) has run campaigns inviting complaints about adverts that are not 'decent, honest and truthful' and that is perceived as increasing public confidence and hence benefitting advertisers and clients. Much the same benefit could come to Wikipedia by inviting people to get corrected things that are untrue or unfair. --AJHingston (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Please see a few suggestions on the related WP:CAT/EGRS page. Debresser (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Tabloid journalism

For the purpose of this policy how is tabloid journalism defined? Its Wikipedia article is appallingly vague and lacks citations. patsw (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's never been well defined - I think common sense it supposed to be applied (which I think is reasonable). Usually it seems to be taken to mean gutter press, newspapers with a tendency for sensationalism and the sort of mass-hysteria type material "did X screw a goat?" :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You are interpreting the policy to be a disqualification of a publisher or publication and tainting all content it publishes. Is that the policy or is the policy to examine content summarized in a Wikipedia article as having the attribute of tabloid journalism on a case by case basis? patsw (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If no one is interested in defining tabloid journalism, I propose to substitute sensational, vulgar, lurid, or exaggerated in its place. patsw (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

If we were going to put transgressors in prison, we would need to define terms more precisely (but even expensive legal systems cannot always define terms in a consistent and sensible manner). However, tabloid journalism is the standard term and is best here, despite its vagueness. Any attempted replacement is going to leave wiggle room for wikilawyering, when the simple rule is that tabloid journalism is not suitable as a source for a BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 00:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Standard terms have definitions. If tabloid journalism is a standard term, where is it defined? patsw (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't. When the issue arises as to whether something is tabloid journalism, we decide on a case-by-case basis. This is how Wikipedia works. It is imprecise, but this is the best we can do. Until someone comes up with a better solution, we are stuck with it - though the lack of an exact definition of this particular term seems not to have caused the whole project to grind to a halt. We aren't trying to write a perfect online encyclopaedia - just a better one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem arises when text is deleted solely because it was published by a tabloid paper, regardless of the actual content cited. - BorisG (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

A guideline where its authors are obstinate in refusing to define it is not helping Wikipedia. It's already clear from this exchange that there's disagreement as to whether it applies to content or source or both. patsw (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

We can't write rules for every situation. It's how all our guidelines and policies are written, with a deliberate vagueness in a lot of places. This BLP policy is probably the most prescriptive one we have. Surely you've been here long enough to realize that Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Gigs (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not asking for a "rule for every situation", I'm asking what does "tabloid journalism" mean? patsw (talk) 02:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Why? You need a bright-line rule for when "particular care should be exercised"? That particular piece of advice is a word to the wise. It doesn't depend on being absolutely sure whether or not a given source fits some official definition of tabloid journalism. Ntsimp (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well we have a sensible definition for tabloid journalism; that would be journalism for a reputation for sensationalism, poor fact checking, bad journalistic practices etc. How this applies to sources on Wikipedia is a matter for discussion - for example, the Daily Mail in the UK is basically tabloid - however it is toward the top of the genre. Anything published by the Mail should be treated with caution, and compared against reporting from others sources. Certainly no BLP material should be recorded based solely on Mail content. However; for sport they can be quite good, and there is a modicum of semi-right wing opinion commentary that is worth reflecting with care. Taking a random "bottom of the pile" example - the Daily Star is a pure gutter press, and very little value can be found in using it as a source.

You talk about publisher vs. content. Both of these can undermine the source if tabloid in nature - clearly tabloid content is automatically treated with caution. And publishers with a reputation for being tabloid-y (is that a word? :S), such as the Mail, should have that reputation considered when using it as a source.

I don't think you will get any more specific than that; there is simply no way to prescribe what "tabloid journalism" means in a way that covers all of the bases, but if you look for the problem points I mentioned at the start of this comment, that should help :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So I conclude the consensus is (a) the policy includes a reference to "tabloid journalism" and (b) it is undefined. patsw (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I clearly outlined the pointers that identify tabloid journalism. Is it still unclear? --Errant ^(chat!) 20:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Mockery

How do editors feel about our articles mocking living persons? I've come across a few articles that have included mocking quotes from satirical websites, gossip columns, sites like Gawker and Radar, and so forth. In my view, mocking living persons is not the business of an encyclopedia—we should include information about mockery when the mockery has become notable, i.e. if secondary sources report about it (e.g. when the New York Times reports that a satirical website mocked someone), but we should not source mockery to the satirical website itself. I propose we add something to that effect. Views? --JN466 07:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Mockery, especially that of a defamatory kind, should be rigorously subject to WP:BLP. This is an encyclopedia, Jim, and not a repository for transient name-calling. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

By way of example, I've come across these cited as bona-fide sources in Wikipedia recently: [28], [29], [30]. My suggestion would be to add something like this at the end of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Misuse_of_primary_sources:

Parodies and satirical sources should be treated the same as primary sources.

Views?--JN466 13:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of applying any notability standard to content. Notability specifically doesn't apply, and never has applied to content. WP:Relevance was the failed attempt at coming up with that sort of standard for article content. I personally like WP:Editorial discretion. And no, I don't think we should twist the definition of a primary source either. We can't legislate common sense here, and we already advise people to write BLPs in a conservative way. No amount of policy is going to stop all violations. Gigs (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think when editors apply the term notability to content, they are really mean relevance, context, or due weight. There's a great deal of mockery, unkind, and embarrassing content in BLP's. Since people use the Wikipedia as a platform for political or cultural advocacy, the results in BLP's are almost always going to be unbalanced. Nevertheless, such articles are conforming to the guidelines and policies. The picture that currently accompanies the Anita Bryant article can be contrasted with the photos on the Bella Abzug article as examples of this sort of slant. patsw (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The job of an encyclopedia is to provide information about people, not to mock or satirise them. Where mockery is notable, having attracted attention in high-quality secondary sources, it should be included in the information provided, but Wikipedia should not be used as a vector to spread non-notable mockery. The policy should make that clear. --JN466 10:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think these satirical web sites are not reliable sources. - BorisG (talk) 16:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Me too, they are by their very nature, aving a larf, taking the piss, making demeaning comments about living people to sell their product.Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, then no need to modify the policy, just enforce existing policy on reliable sources consistently. - BorisG (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Which of our RS criteria do they fail if they have an editorial staff? --JN466 22:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

"Fuming", "furious"

There is a similar situation with reports in gossip publications that a celebrity is "fuming" or "furious". Examples: [31], [32]. It's one thing if the New York Times reports that President Obama was "angered"; it's another if Radaronline reports that Jacqueline Laurita is "fuming" over her daughter's budding romance with beau X. I propose we add something to that effect. Views? --JN466 07:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that the practice on Wikipedia about using "said" as a general word in articles instead of "asserted", "alleged", "claimed", "refuted" etc. could reasonably be extended to "fumed" etc. In fact, the word "upset" wuld seem to be quite sufficient, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

That would help some; but should we cite sources like [33], [34], [35], [36] at all? To my mind, it has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. --JN466 13:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, "entertainment gossip" sources are identical to "tabloid journalism." They ought not be used for anything remotely contentious. Collect (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the problem with characterizing someone as "fuming" if that is the characterization used by the secondary source, and that characterization is not being disputed by another source? (WP:NOTCENSORED) If there's genuine doubt about the "fuming", why does this source have any credibility with respect to the other reporting in the item? patsw (talk) 20:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The term "fuming" is intrisically an opinion. Opinions are valid in BLPs only when sourced as opinions. Collect (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes - according to the staff writer at the red-top publication jonny was furious. Its just not very encyclopedic is it. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If by encyclopedic, you mean an accurate, uncensored summary of a secondary source, it is. Would you also censor "delighted"? Could we have some transparency on this rule? patsw (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The issue concerns encyclopedic writing, and use of "censorship" in this context is incorrect. Ephemeral blogs and media fluff use excited terms like "fuming" for their audience, and in that context such language is reasonable, particularly as the article is generally written under someone's name so a term like "fuming" is clearly a statement of that person's opinion. The situation is different in a long-term biography at Wikipedia where it is inappropriate to say that X was delighted with the birth of their child or was furious that their teenager crashed the car—unless the emotions are part of X's notability. In the extremely rare cases where such terms might be appropriate, it would be necessary to phrase it as an attributed opinion, with a reliable source ("Y said that X was furious...[ref]"). Johnuniq (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Delight" and "fume" might be both, an expression of opinion, and at the same time an accurate and relevant part of the story. On a case by case basis editors can determine that, we don't need a new rule. If the proposed rule is to selectively strip BLP's of characterization of emotion depicted in reliable secondary sources, I oppose.

To the point that this only appears in blogs and media fluff, I have two responses: (a) Why are blogs and media fluff being used as sources in the first place? (b) The characterization of emotion can have a very important bearing on a biography. Here's an example from the official Churchill web site:

“ In December 1941, six months after Hitler had invaded Russia, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The war had now become a global one. But with the might of America on the Allied side there could be no doubt about its outcome. Churchill was jubilant, remarking when he heard the news of Pearl Harbor: "So we have won after all!" ”

patsw (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The Churchill web site is NOT a neutral encyclopedia. You will not find these words e.g. in Britannica. - BorisG (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't help your case because the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Winston Churchill is misleading with respect to his reaction to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and at variance with his own statement in The Grand Alliance, and 20 biographies as well.

We don't have a Wikipedia:Neutral language policy, we have a Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View policy. If a historian made the highly dubious assertion that Churchill would have preferred that the United States remain perpetually neutral in the war, that could be added to the article indicating a dispute over Churchill's reaction. Hypothetically, that would be the correct application of NPOV. patsw (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if there is any policy or guidelines about encyclopedic language, but if there is not, there ought to be. And not just for BLPs. It is absurd to suggest that anything and everything that appears in what we call reliable sources is admissible into Wikipedia. Emotions are not facts; by definition, third parties cannot know them for certain. They can have credible opinions about emotions, and these can be included but must be clearly atributed as opinions. - BorisG (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:SUMMARY and WP:BETTER. patsw (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Debating "Churchill was jubilant" is totally pointless since the US entry into WWII was an exceptional event. However, "X was jubilant" is someone's opinion and is not appropriate in any article at Wikipedia unless attributed ("Y [an acknowledged authority on X] stated that X was jubilant"). Opinions like that are very rarely appropriate in an encyclopedic article, and fortunately consensus clearly recognizes that. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I just picked a relevant example: Emotions can be stated by the subject (as Churchill did), or recorded in a memoir (as Churchill did), or revealed before several witnesses and then recounted by biographers (as Churchill's dinner guests did). I dispute that emotions = opinion. Emotions in some cases can be cited and verified to same extent that spoken words can be. In other cases it cannot be. It can be examined case by case. Accounts of emotional reactions to events are part of the story. We're humans.

To the point of the role that opinion has in Wikipedia articles, that is covered elsewhere. patsw (talk) 00:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Opinion pieces in BLPs

BLP policy says to insist on the use of high-quality sources. Opinion pieces appearing in reliable sources are numerous about high-profile BLP subjects (for example, US presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama). Shouldn't BLP policy directly address the use of opinion pieces, since they can easily overwhelm a BLP? Perhaps they should be disqualified for use in BLPs unless also referenced in straight news stories in other reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Right conclusion, wrong reason. It's really a question of relevance to the subject's biographical article. How much encyclopedic light about a biographical subject does a political ally or opponent shed in an opinion piece they wrote for contemporary political audiences? No policy change is needed. patsw (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC for the explicit auditing of DYKs for compliance with BLP policy

An RfC has been launched to measure community support for requiring the explicit checking and passing of DYK nominations for compliance with basic WP policies—including BLP policy—and to improve the management of the nominations page through the introduction of a time-limit after which a nomination that does not meet requirements is archived. Tony (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Decoding: RfC is Request for Comment and DYK is the "Did you know..." section from the Wikipedia main page. patsw (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Policy and/or guideline

While it is clear that the first part of this page (that above the table of contents) is a policy, the later sections are less clear about whether they are policies or guidelines.

The header strongly implies that everything on the page is a policy, but some sections (for example "Subjects notable only for one event") read far more like a guideline, and it was referenced as such by the closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anders Behring Breivik (please note this is not criticism of that closer, just an observation).

I think therefore there is a need to make the status of the sections of this page clearer. If all sections are policy, then the language needs to be reworked to reflect this. If some sections are policy and others guidelines, then I think we should do one of the following:

1. Explicitly label each section with its status
2. Reorganise the page to group policy sections at the top and guideline sections below them (the opposite would be messier and less intuitive imho)
3. Move the guidelines to a separate page (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons guidelines perhaps).

Alternatively we could leave things as they are, but as I don't understand what advantages the current ambiguity of status brings, please could anyone advocating this explain what I'm failing to see. Thryduulf (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Subjects notable only for one event" either is policy or it isn't, there is no in-between. The header states "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy" so it looks fairly explicit to me. If BLP1E is now to be regarded as only a guideline by the editing community then I agree it should be explicitly labeled as such but such a change to how Wikipedia treats BLPs would have to go through some type of consensus or review. Shearonink (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The only part of the page WP:BLP that has generally been accepted as a "policy" is the one listed at Wikipedia:List of policies#Content: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material—whether negative, positive, or just questionable—about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

WP:BLP1E is essentially a notability guideline listed on a policy page. It was added to the page in 2007 as an argument originally made by Uncle G. The archived discussion doesn't indicate that there was unanimous support to adopt this as gospel. utcursch | talk 21:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What difference does it make? It mostly functions in a guideline-like fashion, saying that some things may fall either way and requiring consensus in the interpretation. It does in fact permit the coverage in some cases of people notable for a single event (and of course, those who would not be notable but for a single event, a different question entirely), depending on the circumstances. How would that be different in practice if it is a guideline versus a policy? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Understanding how BLP1E works in practice

I think there's futile Wiki-lawyering over the light that's visible in between "policy" and "guideline". Where the policy needs some new thought is over some particularly high visibility (in terms of media coverage), crimes and the individuals accused, convicted, found not guilty, not charged, etc. The same table could be replicated for political scandal.

Year	Biographical Subject	Associated crime	Notes
1964	Winston Moseley	Murder of Kitty Genovese	murder took place before cable and internet, bio article is a redirect
1969	Charles Manson	Tate-LaBianca murders	in this case, the biographical article covers the crime (which is a redirect)
1991	Rodney King	Beating of Rodney King	the "beating" link is a redirect (1991 is pre-Worldwide Web)
1994	O.J. Simpson	O. J. Simpson murder case	not guilty in criminal trial, judged liable for the deaths in a civil trial
1995	Timothy McVeigh	Oklahoma City Bombing	intense coverage both on cable and the relatively new web.
1996	Richard Jewel	Centennial Olympic Park bombing	the FBI named him as a suspect on the basis he fit a lone bomber profile
2011	Dominique Strauss-Kahn	Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case	pending as of July 2011; the crime article was subject of an Afd

After a threshold is reached in terms of news coverage, there's an abundance of interest among readers, and editors, and, describing the Wikipedia as it is, not as one wishes it to be, there are both articles which describe that one event and the biographical subject.

Simpson are Strauss-Kahn were famous before their alleged crimes, the others were not. The typical pattern is that as more information is gathered by the media to fuel the 24-hour news cycle, and information becomes disclosed in the course of the hearings and trials, there's more than enough material to make two good articles, one for the crime and one for the biography. Ultimately, it's driven by the quantity and quality of available material and editor interest. Constraining this to a single article seems bureaucratic and futile. patsw (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I'd say User:Ohms law articulates it best here: BLP1E is "guidance on how to apply the BLP policy within a narrow class of articles". utcursch | talk 04:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Guidance on how to apply policy seems like a very good definition of what a guideline is to me. Of the options I presented above, option 2 would seem to give the greatest clarity to this situation. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E is policy. There does need to be some clarification about when it applies and when it doesn't, but it is not merely a guideline.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

All due respect to you Jimmy, but you seem a bit out of touch on this one with that comment. User:Ron Ritzman suggested an even better thought, on WP:BLP/N the other day. To paraphrase: BLP1E should consider whether or not the person involved in the event in question is "Actively" involved or "passively" involved. I don't see that as a defining characteristic to consider, but it's certainly something that could aid people's understanding of each other.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Wording tweak

Currently BLP1E says:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

It has been noted that this wording is a bit mouthy and is confusing some people in understanding the meaning. I propose a slight tweak to clarify the intent:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

This should clear up ambiguity nicely without affecting the meaning --Errant ^(chat!) 15:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a step in the right direction. While we're on the subject, I wonder about the second "is likely to remain" bit though. Do we really want people making this kind of subjective, crystal-ball prediction? It seems that BLP1E ought to apply until significant outside coverage actually occurs, not just when we think it might, hypothetically. Sorry if that derails your thread. :-) --causa sui (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Causa, the intended meaning is actually the opposite. Adding "...is likely to remain..." is a preemption of the claim there possibly will be on-going secondary coverage, to a stronger test if and until there is actual on-going secondary coverage of the subject. Also, I'm not in love with '"low-profile"' since we don't have calibrated measures of the size of a profile. patsw (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true. Perhaps we can rework the whole end of the sentence to be more specific without be prescriptive? --Errant ^(chat!) 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm. I read it as inclusive rather than exclusive. For example, someone who is not currently low-profile but (in the view of some editor) is not likely to remain that way (he's an up and coming rapper!) would not be "low profile and likely to remain low profile". Maybe this ambiguity is a rationale for another change, though I'm not sure what to propose. causa sui (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Anders_Behring_Breivik for an example of people using the "and is likely to remain" bit inclusively to argue that a BLP that is not yet high-profile ought to be included to to our hypothetical expectations that his notability will increase in the future. --causa sui (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well speaking for myself I would be happy to drop "and is likely to remain" from the policy - but that might need wider input. I'm implementing my original tweak into the wording, but we should keep the discussion going. --Errant ^(chat!) 08:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about BLPCAT

I couldn't find a clear answer to this in the archives, but I'm trying to verify my understanding of 'publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life'..

I'm just using Jewish as an example because it's easier to phrase.. obviously this can apply to any religion

For a BLP, there is no source that the subject has said anything about identifying as being Jewish, nor have they done anything in their public life that has anything to do with being Jewish. However, do any of these scenarios merit a "Jewish ___" category?

• Properly sourced that was raised Jewish
• Properly sourced that married in a Jewish wedding
• Properly sourced that had a Bar/Bat Mitzvah (Jewish custom when someone turns 13)
• Properly sourced that had a Jewish funeral (I realize this is no longer BLP, but say it's a recent deceased figure, like Amy Winehouse)

Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all let me say that the example is actually a bad one. Because "Jewish" is considered an ethnicity rather than a religion in many instances. As in Category:People of Jewish descent by nationality. See also the first line of our article on Jews, which says "Jews are a nation and ethnoreligious group". Debresser (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok thank you for correction I'm confused though - since it is an ethnicity rather than a religion, does "publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life" as stated in WP:BLPCAT not apply? For example, what about Amy Winehouse?(I realize she isn't living, but...). The content states only that she was born to a Jewish family, and the reference does not say anything about the subject identifying with Judaism. Since it is an ethnicity, is the current Jewish Singers category ok? --CutOffTies (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the questions you ask. I think that in general a persons upbring is not indicative of his own convictions (including religion), rather his parent's. That would include a Bar/Bat Mitzwah, which is celebrated at 13 for boys and 12 for girl. On the other hand a wedding and likely a funeral are better indications of one's beliefs. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

All of those things could be covered neatly in the article (especially the Jewish ceremonies) if sourced. However you've answered your own question with: nor have they done anything in their public life that has anything to do with being Jewish. BLPCAT is intended for such a situation to say "there is no need to categorise them then" :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure why you're telling me that it can be covered in the article, as I'm asking only about the category. --CutOffTies (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

EGRS/BLPCAT

This page's statement that "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless ... the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life", is not echoed on WP:EGRS. It would also seem that if this is true of cats then it should be true for any statement regarding beliefs or sexuality. Why just cats, why just here? Have I missed something? Span (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic behind the following statement: if this is true of cats then it should be true for any statement regarding beliefs or sexuality. Why would that be the case? Categories serve a specific function within Wikipedia, and biographies contain plenty of information that would not necessarily be appropriate for categories. -- Irn (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Spanglej has posted this same commentary on WP:EGRS, where I have pointed out to him, that WP:BLPCAT is echoed there. See my reply. Debresser (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about BLPCAT

I didn't get an answer to my follow-up before it was archived, so I copied & pasted it here. --CutOffTies (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find a clear answer to this in the archives, but I'm trying to verify my understanding of 'publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life'..

I'm just using Jewish as an example because it's easier to phrase.. obviously this can apply to any religion

For a BLP, there is no source that the subject has said anything about identifying as being Jewish, nor have they done anything in their public life that has anything to do with being Jewish. However, do any of these scenarios merit a "Jewish ___" category?

• Properly sourced that was raised Jewish
• Properly sourced that married in a Jewish wedding
• Properly sourced that had a Bar/Bat Mitzvah (Jewish custom when someone turns 13)
• Properly sourced that had a Jewish funeral (I realize this is no longer BLP, but say it's a recent deceased figure, like Amy Winehouse)

Thank you --CutOffTies (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all let me say that the example is actually a bad one. Because "Jewish" is considered an ethnicity rather than a religion in many instances. As in Category:People of Jewish descent by nationality. See also the first line of our article on Jews, which says "Jews are a nation and ethnoreligious group". Debresser (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok thank you for correction I'm confused though - since it is an ethnicity rather than a religion, does "publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life" as stated in WP:BLPCAT not apply? For example, what about Amy Winehouse?(I realize she isn't living, but...). The content states only that she was born to a Jewish family, and the reference does not say anything about the subject identifying with Judaism. Since it is an ethnicity, is the current Jewish Singers category ok? --CutOffTies (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As to the questions you ask. I think that in general a persons upbring is not indicative of his own convictions (including religion), rather his parent's. That would include a Bar/Bat Mitzwah, which is celebrated at 13 for boys and 12 for girl. On the other hand a wedding and likely a funeral are better indications of one's beliefs. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

All of those things could be covered neatly in the article (especially the Jewish ceremonies) if sourced. However you've answered your own question with: nor have they done anything in their public life that has anything to do with being Jewish. BLPCAT is intended for such a situation to say "there is no need to categorise them then" :) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure why you're telling me that it can be covered in the article, as I'm asking only about the category. --CutOffTies (talk) 13:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

BLPCAT, religion and infoboxes

Can I interest any of you in participating in the following to help resolve both the specific and generic issue raised ?

• The discussion Bashar al-Assad and religion infobox value at BLP/N
• The discussion at the article page Talk:Bashar_al-Assad#Shia_or_not_Shia where further details and discussion are available. Further discussion is probably better held at BLP/N.
• The current status of BLPCAT with respect to the removal of infoboxes from the scope of BLPCAT in this edit. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed addition to BLPCAT

I believe the intent of BLPCAT has always been to constrain editors to follow BLP subjects' current public self-identification. If someone self-identified as a Baptist in 2000, but today self-identifies as a Buddhist, I've understood BLPCAT to mean that we should only categorise them as a Buddhist, and not as a Baptist, earlier public self-identification as a Baptist in a reliable source notwithstanding. However, this interpretation has been challenged at BLP/N in the case of an actor who made statements about his being gay in the early 2000s, but has more recently been reported to be dating a woman, and whose publicist now appears to want to distance him from his earlier statements, saying that those statements were made "when he was an inexperienced, young actor and now with maturity and hindsight, he has learned not to engage the press in his personal life again".

Now, I personally don't care whether the man is still privately gay, but wants to pass as straight for PR reasons, or whether he really is into a monogamous relationship with a woman he loves now, or anything in between—or just unwilling to publicly self-identify any more, whatever the case may be. The point to me is that, given how private such matters are for most people, sexual and religious categorisation should be the one thing where we religiously follow BLP subjects' current public self-identification.

I therefore propose amending BLPCAT as follows:

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, there are no reasonable grounds to assume that the subject's public self-identification has changed, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.

The green text is the proposed addition. Views? --JN466 17:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. If there are reasonable doubts whether a former self-identification continues to be valid, we should err on the side of caution, edit with a presumption in favour of the subject's privacy, and not categorise. Anything else smacks of having an agenda. If, as some LGBT publications have argued, the actor mentioned here merely wants "to return to the closet", it is not Wikipedia's job to drag him out of it by categorising him as gay. The controversy itself, of course, can be covered in the article, but we should not take sides in categorisation (essentially saying, "he is really gay"). Likewise, if a BLP subject changes their religious beliefs (that happens often enough, especially among celebrities), categorisation should be updated accordingly, with the labels that no longer apply dropped. --JN466 17:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not sure we should be voting, so I'm just commenting. WP:BLPCAT is hard enough to apply as it's presently worded. Jay's proposed amendment would make it even more difficult. What does "reasonable grounds" mean? It's clearly going to mean different things to different editors and will create even more trouble. The self-identification prong of BLPCAT is easier to work with than the notability prong, but if the proposed language were added, it would make the self-identification prong a mess. If editors agree that someone has self-identified, we should not start second-guessing subsequent events if the subject has not publicly changed the self-identification.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Although I agree with the content of the proposed addition, I dislike making all these rules so complicated. Wikipedia is becoming much like the Roman senate... in its bad days. Too much words, and not enough action. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The issue here is the word assume. In the case that you are discussing, the subject has not stated a change in preferences and we are all indeed assuming information that we have no real reason to believe is valid. Any assuming going on without proof from the subject is unequivocally original research. To continue your religion analogy (though to compare changing religions to changing sexuality is abundantly ridiculous), if the subject was a self-declared Baptist ten years ago and someone currently reported that they saw him go into a Buddhist monastery, would we then change his religion? I think not. Without a statement from him that his religion had changed, any changes on our part would be bared on mere assumption, and an extremely fallible one at that. Silverseren^C 19:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Stepping away from the Luke Evans case at hand, if the New York Times and CNN reported that your hypothetical Baptist was now a practising Buddhist, would it still be appropriate to list them as a Baptist based on the much earlier statement from the subject? Please note that I am not asking if it would be appropriate to categorize them as a Buddhist, I am asking if it would be appropriate, in your opinion, to continue to say that they are a Baptist. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • I know this wasn't directed at me, but. Every time we have a reliable source saying that someone is a certain religion or sexual orientation, we have to determine whether it qualifies as a self-identification. The same would be true in your hypo. If we determined it was a self-identification, then the subject should be properly categorized as a Buddhist. And I might add that what you're asking is based on policy as it is now and not really relevant to the proposed amendment, even though you're trying to hook it in.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • (You're comparing the Daily Mail to the New York Times?) If they stated that information without explaining where they got it from, without any information about how exactly the subject changed, and without any quotes or evidence that they had spoken to the subject at all, there would be cause for suspicion for their statement. Furthermore, if they made the statement in a sentence or two smooshed between a lot of other news in the article, it would be cause for more concern as well. Lastly, if that one (let's just say only the New York TImes, since we're just dealing with a single news report in this instance as well) news report with that smidgen of info on the subject was repeated by...3? I think it was, other news publications, but that there was absolutely no other independent reports on the subject with any more info than those few small sentences smooshed into that original report, I would say that the report is unreliable, or that we do not have enough info or verification to make any change yet to the subject. Silverseren^C 19:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm asking you a hypothetical question based on the scenario previously offered, but perhaps it was too subtle. Say the New York Times and CNN both run feature articles on how your hypothetical Baptist is now a practising Buddhist. No statement is offered by the subject which states that he or she is now a Buddhist. Is it still appropriate for Wikipedia to categorize them as a Baptist? To be clear, we are speaking about categories specifically, not the body of the BLP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
        • So now you're trying to use an entirely different scenario to force through this one? Well, my answer would be that, yes, we should still categorize them as Baptist. Taking from past arguments made on pages in terms of ethnicity, even when you have full length articles discussing a subject's ethnicity, if there were no active quotes from the subject, then there was always vociferous arguments saying that the cats don't apply because there is no self-identification. Therefore, the opposite is true as well, if there is no identification from the subject that brings into question the cats, then we shouldn't change it. News sources are prone to hyperbole and, often, utterly wrong statements, but their quotes can generally be considered reliable in terms of having gotten them from the subject's lips. Without such a quote of changing beliefs, then we shouldn't be changing our info. There's no problem with having our article based on an older version of a person. As is often stated, we are an encyclopedia that is forced to go off of the available sources, so we're often a tad out of date. It would be much better to wait for a statement/quote from the subject before changing their article from an old version of themselves. Silverseren^C 19:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
          • And, in terms of another scenario I was thinking of, in terms of labeling people as Scientologists. No matter how specific the source is or how lengthy on the topic, without a quote stating that they were as such, numerous people were opposed to and have continually been opposed to such an addition/removal. Silverseren^C 19:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
            • For our mutual benefit, I was trying to give a hypothetical scenario that was as clear as possible and required as few assumptions as possible. Now that you have answered, it is clear where we differ. I believe that we should err on the side of caution. I also believe this is clear from WP:BLP as well as from statements made by Jimbo and the WMF. We don't call people Scientologists unless they identify themselves as such. We should not call people Baptists if we have reason to believe that they may not be Baptists. Erring on the side of caution means that some people will not be included in a category which might be applicable, but no one will be included in a category which is not applicable. Do you see why this is a better way to approach articles dealing with living people? 20:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
              • But, see, you're conflating two different things. We shouldn't add a Scientologist cat to someone unless they identify as such, as also shouldn't remove a cat that a user has specifically identified as such unless we have verification that they identify as something else now. Erring on the side of caution would actually be to keep articles as they were before and not change them unless we have clear proof that things have changed. Because, if they identified as such before, keeping the article like that shouldn't be an issue until we have new info. Silverseren^C 20:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
                • You are mistaken. Erring on the side of caution avoiding falsely labelling someone's religion or sexuality. I hope we can agree on that? Erring on the side of caution does not mean keeping labels that may be false. We do that by removing categories if we have reason to believe that they may be false Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
                  • But our "proof" that they are false is extremely flimsy at best, which is often why we don't bother with anything besides self-identification. If we're dealing with a situation where there is solid proof, such as your featured stories comment above, then there is also going to be a quote in those features from the subject. That's why our level of verification is self-identification, because once you get to the level of outside proof necessary in the news, there's always going to be a quote, so it's irrelevant as it is. Silverseren^C 20:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
                    • Between your penchant for assuming things and the "if we don't label them as gay then they're straight" gaff below, I'm done arguing with you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
                      • Were you involved in the cat discussion a little while back about there being cats for all ethnicities except white? That started to branch out to other stuff as well and the ultimate decision was that whiteness, straightness, etcetera, is the norm, which is why we don't have cats for them, but instead specify when someone is outside of this norm, since this is, sadly, how the world works. So, no, it wasn't a gaff, it was a reference to that discussion. Silverseren^C 21:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
                        • I was not involved with that, but if someone told you that every BLP subject is white unless they are categorized differently, that person was wrong. I doubt that is actually what they said, but I'm not interested in looking at any links, thanks. Please, do me a favour and don't respond to this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Support I would, moreover, suggest that instead of the long wording that we insert: where no solid contention exists in any reliable source that the sexual or religious orientation has changed as being less able to be misunderstood and not requiring any interpretation of "reasonable grounds." Once any reliable source has raised a solid question, Wikipedia should act conservatively and remove the categorization. I add "solid" lest entertainment columns be used as sourcing for the elimination of a category. IMHO, it is better that a category be missing than that it be erroneous. Collect (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• So, essentially, you're saying that if a news source wants to get Wikipedia to remove certain info about a person, then all they have to do is run a story saying the opposite is true and we should then remove the info? Just because a single news source has run a countering argument doesn't mean that all other news sources are incorrect. This is going to be prone to gaming, as there are always opposing news sources. We should be following the same rule that we also used to, self-identification by the subject. If the subject publicly states their identification with a subject, then that's what we include in their article cats. Anything more than that is original research and prone to fallacious actions. Silverseren^C 19:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to posit that a reliable source would for some reason deliberately put a statement in an article for the sole purpose of getting a category deleted on Wikipedia from a BLP? I rather think such would be an absurdly long shot! Why would a reliable source do such a thing with a "solid contention"? Collect (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not in terms of just a category, but to get information added or removed from an article on a subject as a whole. And the reason for doing such would, obviously, be politics. News organizations are political things and they are not above making up information in order to smear their opponents. Especially not after that lawsuit Fox News won that states that news organizations can legally lie, thus opening the option for news organizations across the political spectrum. Silverseren^C 20:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) First, your wording is also "long". Second, editors would have to interpret "solid contention" rather than "reasonable grounds". I see very little difference, and I still see a mess.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I consider a "solid contention" in a "reliable source" to be a stronger standard than "reasonable grounds" without any requirement for a "reliable source" would be. YMMV. Collect (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Question -- use of a category requires self-identification, and I'm curious to know why, once self-identification is available, something less than self-identification for a different identity would trump self-identification itself. When someone says, I used to be a Baptist but now I'm a Buddhist -- then sure, remove the Baptist category. But this "reasonable grounds" business seems pretty dodgy in light of our usual standards. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Self identification is the bar for inclusion of a category. It need not be the bar for removing a category. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)The way I read it, the proposal is specifically about removing categories, not changing them, which I think is an important distinction. We need a high standard for inclusion in a category, and the proposed change simply raises the standard more. -- Irn (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

While that would be true in most cases, the issue in this instance is that removal of the cat isn't just going down the middle, it is actually stating that the opposite is true, because we don't have a Heterosexual cat, so removal of the LGBT cat is the same as saying someone is heterosexual, since we don't have any other method of expressing it separately from non-existence. Silverseren^C 20:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That's simply not true. An LGBT person who has never publicly identified as such will not be in the category, either. And this is not to say that said individual is heterosexual. -- Irn (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That's true, and it is because they have never self-identified. So people have no reason to believe that they are anything but heterosexual. The default belief is that someone is heterosexual until they state otherwise. Now, if you're dealing with someone who has self-identified as LGBT, then removing the cat is the same as putting them back into the obscurity of general belief of heteronormativity. Silverseren^C 20:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, I finally learned something from this discussion, there's a term called "heteronormativity" and it has an article on Wikipedia. It's amazing how flexible the English language is, isn't it? You can make words out of just about anything. Just so it's clear, I'm not disagreeing with Silver seren, just making fun of the word and of English generally.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read all of the above, but I am wondering why "religious beliefs" and "sexual orientation" seem to be considered both at the same time in all of these discussions. Wouldn't it facilitate thinking about what our options are if we thought about one of those subjects at a time? I did read the part, above, where Debresser says, "…I dislike making all these rules so complicated. Wikipedia is becoming much like the Roman senate... in its bad days." I think that the complexity comes not so much from the detailed nature of some of these rules but rather the difficulty of applying the same language to disparate considerations. I think there should be language in policy specifically tailored for each dimension of a given individual—religious and sexual. Bus stop (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That would definitely make it easier, yes, considering that religion and sexuality are completely different things to be discussing. Silverseren^C 20:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"Religion and sexuality are completely different things"—that is exactly what I was trying to say. Bus stop (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually they are far closer in regard to how people view them than you might note. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Collect—how they are viewed in oneself or how those dimensions of identity are viewed in others? Or both? Bus stop (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This turns the clause upside down. Right now we rely purely on the subject's self-declaration. IIRC, that rule was made at Jayen466's suggestion and I supported it. Replacing that bright line with the ability of Wikipedia editors to decide amongst themselves that a person's declaration is wrong and that they actually have a different religious view or orientation would be a very bad idea. Just yesterday I removed an LGBT category from a married politician who had hired a male prostitute. If this proposal were to go through, that category would have been justifiable. This can only lead to more disputes, as editors argue over what qualifies as "reasonable grounds" to say that someone is actually gay even though they deny it, or really Methodist when they claim to be Baptist.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You are misreading the proposal. That LGBT category would still be very much not okay in your example. Were there a "100% heterosexual" category that said politician was in due to his proclamations from years past, this proposal could allow for his removal from that category. -- Irn (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• (e/c)I think you may be confused. This change would not allow the LGBT category to be placed on a BLP - all it could do is provide the basis for a discussion about removing a category. Please read the proposal again and correct your statement. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Even worse.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Why? -- Irn (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
      • It opens up No true Scotsman arguments. "I don't know what he is, but no true Buddhist would own a fur coat so we should remove that category". The proposer wouldn't even have to suggest some alternative.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
        • It certainly was not intended to open up such arguments at all, Will. Public self-identification remains the only criterion, not editors' judgment whether or not behaviour is consistent with the self-identification. I am open to suggestions; the point of the proposal is to avoid using outdated categories where an earlier public self-identification by the subject in a reliable source is no longer supported by the subject, or has been withdrawn. We should be categorising individuals based on their current self-identification, not based on what self-identification we might be able to find in reliable sources from 10, 20 or 30 years ago. --JN466 02:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per Debresser.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose; too prescriptive, and with too much "door opening" to the prospect of original research (as opposed to editorial discretion). --Errant ^(chat!) 22:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose A Wikilawyer's dream, and draws attention away from the most important part of WP:BLPCAT - the requirement "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life". If this is met, then any change in self-identification is going to be notable in itself, surely? If this part of BLPCAT is properly applied, and a similar non-labelling of individuals except where actually relevant to notability is also maintained in article content generally, the problem disappears. If we stop applying arbitrary labels to people for no good reason, we needn't get ourselves in a tangle if it later appears that the labels are wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • • I think that is part of the reason why I suggested slightly different wording to prevent Wikilawyering ... but I also agree that too many people are placed in too many categories with too little solid factual basis for such categorisation and labelling. My own preference is to deprecate all such labels as being more of a problem than of a solution. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think we should use cats, but if we do, they should not expire and should not be an either or. If a person self-identifies as a Baptist for 10 years, then converts to Judaism, we should use both cats, as they have been in or are in both categories. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Good points. When people have lived in three cities, we list all three locations in categories. When someone is notable for having had three careers, each would get a category. A biography should cover the subject's whole life, not just their current status.   Will Beback  talk  00:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If someone publicly identified as a Catholic for much of their life, and then leaves the Catholic church—say, over the sex abuse scandals or some matter of doctrine—and gives multiple interviews about this, explaining why he is now deeply opposed to the Catholic church, then we should continue to categorise them as Catholic? That does not make sense at all. --JN466 03:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP and as insufficiently precise. We should not propagate false information. If something becomes dubious due to clear reports in reliable sources, we should remove it anyways. We do not need a new rule for that. However, in the concrete instance, the report that a gay actor may have dated someone of the opposite sex (according to a somewhat dubios minor news source) is not sufficient evidence to override his clear earlier statement. Even assuming the source is correct (and that is some assuming, given how routinely harmless meetings are elevated to "Harry and Pippa set to marry" level), there are plenty of reasons for such a date that do not include a change in sexual orientation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - I supported this when I first read it, but I am persuaded by Will Beback's point about No true Scotsman arguments. At the same time, something in this general vicinity if we can find the right way to say it, strikes me as a good idea. I mean, if someone self-identifies as gay early in their career, and then they go on to declare that they will no longer speak about their personal life publicly, but lives a life that is "openly heterosexual" - at some point it starts to be pretty silly and wrong for us to keep them in a category based on those early statements. No rule can cover every possibility, which is one of the points of WP:IAR. But the key is that all rules can have sensible escape clauses to prevent (or at least minimize) endless warring over some silly point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Only Jimbo Wales has the courage to invoke WP:IAR. We all should invoke WP:IAR more often. Bus stop (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a sort of does it make sense criterion here. Of course a former category may still be relevant, but it may not, and the subject may even say that they were wrong or misunderstood. In extreme cases that can even extend to something like ethnicity, as where a person was brought up believing themselves to have a particular parentage and finds out in adult life that their biological parentage was different. It is very difficult to legislate for all the possibilities, but WP:IAR covers it. As for the original question, the problem is that we have a category for LGBT but don't label people as heterosexual. So it's an either/or. On the other hand, Wendi Deng Murdoch was born Chinese and is a US citizen, so categorising her as both does not pose the same difficulty. --AJHingston (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Certainly an open declaration that one has stopped talking about one's (personal life, orientation) is a fact that one would want to weigh in exercising editorial judgment. Even the situation Jimbo describes is nuanced, though, as many monogamous bisexual-identified people will tell you, what appears to many people to be the practice of living a heterosexual lifestyle is, for them, bisexual erasure. Not trying to overcomplicate the rules, simply add to voices noting that these situations often are complex and require editorial judgment and IAR. --joe decker^{talk to me} 17:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:IAR is very important here, as two three editors above point out. When rules don't provide clear guidance, dialogue is the only recourse. Nor does dialogue translate into vote counting. Rather, arguments should be put forth, with an onus on disputants to respond to the arguments of those they disagree with, all transacted with a mindfulness to such key features of the project as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. In such an environment of open discussion, it can be hoped, an obvious course of action can emerge. Bus stop (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Question

Let's look at this from a different angle. If a person's public self-identification changes, or is withdrawn, would editors consider it a problem if we continue to categorise, infobox or list the person under their old attested self-identification?

To me, if a person publicly says "I no longer identify as X", it means that this is the self-identification that we now have to respect. If a person no longer identifies as a Catholic, and we categorise or list them as such, we are not actually in line with and respectful of their self-identification. Respecting people's self-identification is the entire point of BLPCAT. --JN466 03:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the point raised above is something interesting we have to consider. Since the rest of BLPCAT already states that it has to be self-stated and have some relevance in terms of notability to the subject, then that means, even if they change, say, their religion, that means that their old religion is still relevant to the subject, so the cats still organize people whose religion as such is relevant to them. So both religion cats should be added, if their new religion is considered related to some part of their notability. For example, if you have a famous pastor, who is notable because of his rank and what he does in his religion, and then he changes his religion to something else, his old religion is still relevant to his notability and his history, so the cat for his old religion should still be included, along with his new religion. Silverseren^C 04:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If someone lives in London, we categorize them as a person from London. If they move to Birmingham we add the Birmingham people category, but we don't delete the London category. If someone is famous as an actor we put them in that category. If they stop acting and take up directing we don't replace the acting category with the directing category, we keep both. Likewise, if someone adopts a new religion we shouldn't erase all mention of the old religious affiliation, but simply add the new one. If anyone finds that confusing we could make a "Former Catholics" category. Lot's of people identify themselves that way.   Will Beback  talk  07:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I find these examples confusing. Early in my adult life I moved to London. I lived there for a good few years. I have now lived in another city for as long as I lived in London. It would be very odd to categorise me as 'a person from London'. Or to use a religious example, Malcolm Muggeridge was famously agnostic for much of his life. Then he became a Christian. After conversion he would be placed in the category [Roman] Catholic, sub-category, [Roman] Catholic converts, but it would be very odd to see him still in the agnostic category, because the whole point was that he wasn't agnostic any more. You could have an extra category of former agnostics, and because MM had publicly proclaimed his position that would be quite valid, but it is not the same category and it is a fairly unusual example of where the change of category is relevant to the biography. In general I agree with the proposition that current self-categorisation should be the only relevant one - only in very particular circumstances such as Malcolm Muggeridge should a former categorisation be used. Sexuality gets us into very difficult waters - if somebody marries a person of the opposite sex, and later forms a partnership with a member of the same sex, do they count as formerly heterosexual, bi-sexual, or something else? They may give now a very different answer to what they said or did at the time. Even nationality and ethnicity may not be immutable - nationality may be changed, renounced, or taken away, ethnicity may turn out to be more complex than outward appearances or initial belief may suggest. --AJHingston (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If someone explicitly renounces their former embrace of an identity, then I think the category in question should be removed. But that's not what was originally proposed. The essence of BLPCAT is that we go by what people say about themselves; it's odd to see that approach being put in question (though JN466's question in this subsection seems to change course in this respect). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this choice is again not binary. If, for example, Elton John were suddenly to announce he was straight, got married and had kids we clearly would still have him in the LGBT artist categories - his prior self-identification as a homosexual covered in many many sources and linked directly to his career and style means that on the scale of "LGBT recording artists" (or whatever) he is of high note. In the case of someone who once said they were gay, then later says they were straight - well we shouldn't have the cats in that case anyway (assuming no link was made to their career), but if we did clearly they need to be removed.

Perhaps (thinking aloud) this merits a reconsideration of our category names - I mean, we are not overly interested in the intersection between X career and Y sexuality (otherwise we would have "Heterosexual X" categories and so forth) but instead in collating people noted for being LGBT within a field. So perhaps things like "Actors noted for being LGBT" makes a lot more sense - and avoids these round-and-about arguments. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not such a big problem for someone to be in a "wrong" Category provided that it is made clear why he/she is in a "wrong" Category—including mention of the "correct" Category, if such a "correct" Category exists. Thus a convert from Religion A to Religion B would be in Category:Religion A with a note next to his/her name stating exactly, but succinctly, what the case may be. Such a note might read: "Joe Smith formally converted to Religion B in 1945 thus can also be found in Category:Religion B." Such text could be styled distinctively in a way that is set by a template for just this purpose. The template would be used to provide clarification in instances in which a person needs to be placed in seemingly mutually exclusive Categories. I think it would be a good idea to indicate a person's previous status in this way also, thus clearing up all potential confusion before it arises. Bus stop (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

But categories are not used in that way - or at least are not intended to be - right? You don't go to an article and take a look at what categories they sit in :) (well, I don't think so anyway - happy to be proven wrong on that). Instead you think "I wonder if there is a group of X", and visit Category:X. This is why categorising by sexuality is so useless, because it is an intersection that has minimal interest to the reader. We are pretty bad at thinking up categories. If someone is in the "wrong" category this very much is a problem in a BLP, because people are very touchy about being categorised (I mean, people get really annoyed about being called deletionists or inclusionists here, and rightly so!). --Errant ^(chat!) 18:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you in the main, but clearly they are important to some number of editors, otherwise the discussions of what cat belong where would not be such a big deal. I do like notion of moving towards the "notable for X" categories. Richard Stallman is a good example, he self identifies as an atheist, is ethnically Jewish, but I don't believe he is particularly notable for either. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX—Categories are often not a perfect fit. In some instances the decision could be made that a person be put in mutually exclusive Categories. In such instances, part of the procedure that should be followed is to put an "alert" next to their name's listing in each of the mutually exclusive Categories explaining the name's presence in the other Category.

You raise the question as to how Categories are used. I think I generally first become aware of the existence of a Category by looking at the bottom of an article's page. You mention individuals getting annoyed by being in the wrong Category. That can serve as one of our considerations—categorization according to "fuzzy criteria" can be compliant with an individual's wishes I think. Bus stop (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)