Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Information supplied by the subject

I would like to add a bulletpoint to the list of information that is acceptable if supplied by the subject, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_source:

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:

• It is simple biographical information, such as birthdate/location, employment history, schools attended, names/occupations of parents, and other elements which help to improve the article concerning non-notable parts of the subject's life.

Does this sound acceptable? --Elonka 23:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that not already implied on the other bullet points? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The list of criteria reads as an "if all" list, not an "if any one" list. That is, you can include information only if all five criteria are met. Adding this would either impose a further restriction (if it remained an "if all" list), or would require some rewrite to the rest of the list. Also, some reference to privacy issues would seem appropriate. Gimmetrow 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to be dense but how would adding trivia about "non-notable parts of the subject's life" help to improve the article? Why would we want any of that data added to an encyclopedia article? I don't think we should be encouraging subjects to add content to articles about themselves. I worry that it will just encourage disputes and will lead to ill will when other editors remove the content as irrelevant. If it really is critical to the article, post it on the article's Talk page and let someone else decide whether and how to add it to the article. Rossami (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change re primary sources

I want to make a change to the portion of this guideline that says

Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources.

I don't think it makes sense to exclude primary sources. One does not improve informaiton by passing it from ear to ear. I do think there are specific things that should not be taken from primary sources, including a person's home value or vehicles owned. Court cases should be allowable as these are often part of what makes the person notable enough to be in Wikipedia. This is not the case for the value of their house or their income tax records and the like. I propose changing this statement to:

Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations and home or business addresses. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publically available.

I would like to get consensus to make this change. Johntex\^talk 04:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Here by the way is just one example of a primary source document [1] which could be useful in a biography of a living person, Jeff Bezos. It is an FAA report for his planned new space tourism venture, obtained directly from the federal government (the primary) source, and considered to be public domain. I don't think "primary sources" are the problem, I think revealing "certain types of informaiton", such as a person's home phone number or address is the problem, regardless of whether we are citing a primary or secondary source. Johntex\^talk 07:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see (at the moment) a flaw with your example case, but I oppose your wording. If nobody has written about something, we should definitely not cover it at all, even if primary sources can verify the facts. For instance, even if a famous person's criminal record is accessible on a public web site, we should not write about it, if nobody else has. Often "public records" are "hidden in plain sight". Often nobody has put the pieces together. It's not our role to discover/expose things. I don't want the enemy of a person to come to Wikipedia, to tell the world about a court case, that no newspaper saw fit to print. Rather than us deciding what should be notable, we should find what reliable sources have found to be notable (by writing prose about the subject). However, if reliable media has covered something broadly, but failed to give the "low level details" we want, than certainly, it's ok for us to go "straight to the source". Also, for trivial/uncontested things, like an alumni lists at a college, primary sources can be fine.--Rob 07:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Rob. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOVand WP:RS must be considered along side WP:BLP. Wikipedia needs to rely on mainstream reliable publishers do the original research for an article in their publication. Primary sources such as court records might be used to provide clarity about a particular topic if the topic is already addressed in the published article. IMO, other uses of primary sources is likely to be against the spirit of WP:NOR. FloNight ^talk 13:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

With repsect, I think that the two of you are misinterpretting WP:NOR. I would say that WP:NOR would prohibit attending the court-room to write your own story about what happened during the proceedings, and it would prohibit calling up the lawyers involved or e-mailing the judge and then using those conversations for the article - but I don't see it at prohibiting any type of online research. If the records are in plain site, then I think they are fair for us to research. Johntex\^talk 14:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Flo et al. First somebody else should become convinced enough it is notable to publish it. Then WP can pick up on it. Midgley 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

All facts reported by reliable sources are welcome in all articles including biographies of living people. The WP:BLP guideline was created to curtail libel and defamation, to protect living people from these, and to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from lawsuits related to the possible abuse of their web servers in this respect. What is asked of editors is to take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A special issue with biographies and primary sources such as court records is assuring that the reference concerns the subject and not a similarly-named person. Another concern is with court papers, such as divorce filings, which make unrebutted and unsupported accusations. Otherwise, I agree with the principle that primary sources should be usable for BLPs in accordance with our other policies. -Will Beback 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In seeking to change an existing rule, it would be nice to see an analysis of why the rule came to be as it is. Can anyone supply that background? Midgley 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the veiled threats, personal bios, and long diatribes. Please stick to discussing the policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Families

I would like to propose the addition of the following section to the guidelines. In part this has been prompted by a number of complaints and comments coming in via OTRS which, I believe, have merit and support the "do no harm" of the current policy.

Privacy of family

Wikipedia includes details of siblings, children, and life partners for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' family relationships are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With issues about chidren's security, and with identity theft on the rise, the privacy of such details should be carefully considered prior to their inclusion in an article. In general please err on the side of caution and simply list the number of siblings and of children rather than their names and ages.

Comments? --AlisonW 09:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The concept makes sense but it seems awfully wordy. Could you accomplish the same goal by tweaking the Privacy of Birthdays section? Rossami (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to upgrade this guideline to policy

This guideline has been stable for a while now, and given its importance, and comments made here and in the mailing lists, I would want to gauge if there is sufficient support for such upgrade. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I support this being upgraded. People regularly refer to this page and it seems to have wide acceptance. I don't see anything controversial or problematic in it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree also. AnnH ♫ 16:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Me, too. IronDuke 16:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. BLP is important both in protecting us from liability, and in preventing WP from being used as a tool to wage private vendettas. It needs the status of policy. Guettarda 16:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

To pile on, I also agree. Garion96 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea to me. •Jim62sch• 20:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, frequently cited guide. Used by Arb comm in many of their decisions. FloNight ^talk 22:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree also. -Will Beback 22:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Support KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, overdue. -- Kim van der Linde ^at venus 14:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks fully baked to me. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Make it so. I've been citing it for some time. -MrFizyx 01:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. If anything, should be stronger on privacy. I'm amused what happens when "common folk" become afraid they might gain, via Wikipedia, a tiny fraction of the loss of privacy as the average TV or screen actor. SBHarris 03:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Soooo... are you supporting the upgrade, suggesting changes or working out something for a blog? -MrFizyx 02:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that was a bit strong. Have fixed it so not so offensive.SBHarris 03:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

OK then, all is well. -MrFizyx 03:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Upgraded. Anyone cares to write a "Policy in a nutshell"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've given it some thought. No inspiration so far. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Criminals

Maurreen, the reason I reverted your edits is that we do need a conviction before we can categorize someone as a criminal. Also, I feel it's important to point out that Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, because it's a mistake that a lot of editors make, particularly new ones, thinking that everything about a person's life has to be recorded by us. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For starters, I agree that "we do need a conviction" or a guilty plea "before we can categorize someone as a criminal". Did you mean to say "we don't need"? Maurreen 16:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Then we agree, but your edit removed that, which is why I reverted. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, was it my edit that removed it? I'm going to check again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What about? "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Slim.

And yes, please, "tabloid" is much more appropriate than "newspaper" in the context. Maurreen 16:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, that's a good idea. Maurreen, I have to apologize about my revert of your category edit. I was sure we had the conviction requirement there already (I seem to remember either writing it or seeing it), and so when I saw the diff changing it, my scrambled brain told me it was being removed, not added. I vaguely thought it was a bit odd that it was you doing it, but I wasn't thinking clearly. My apologies! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate the explanation. You're forgiven! Maurreen 16:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Policy in a nutshell

Nice one, Jossi. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of BLP

What is going to be the process for reporting misinterpretation or abuse of WP:BLP? Since editors employing it are exempt from 3RR, where will removal of material referenced to reliable sources be reported?

I understand the necessity of aggressively combatting unsourced innuendo and negative criticism about living persons, but this policy is being used to remove text, referenced to reliable sources, from Criticism of Hugo Chávez. It is impossible to re-add referenced text without engaging in a revert war, since the editors deleting the text are convinced they are exempt from 3RR.

Here are some short examples:

A program called "Mission Identity", to fast track voter registration of immigrants to Venezuela — including Chávez supporters benefiting from his subsidies — has been put in place prior to the upcoming 2006 presidential elections.

Bronstein, H. (June 14, 2006), "Colombians in Venezuela thank Chavez for new life". Washington Post, Accessed 22 June 2006. (An online copy can be found here.)

Human rights organization Amnesty International has catalogued a number of human rights violations under Chávez.

Amnesty International. (AI, 2005). "AI Summary Report 2005: Venezuela". Retrieved 01 Nov 2005.

Amnesty International reports that Venezuela lacks an independent and impartial judiciary, and the U.S. State Department says there is unchecked concentration of power in the executive and the legal system.

Amnesty International (2006), "AI Report 2006: Venezuela". Accessed 22 June 2006.

U.S. Department of State (December 1, 2005). "The State of Democracy in Venezuela". Accessed 18 June 2006.

So, where are questions about the applicability of WP:BLP raised, and where does one take 3RR issues if the editors believe they are exempt from 3RR? Strong application of this policy is unquestionably necessary; but the potential for abuse in order to stifle referenced criticism is also a problem. Can the wording be tightened up to make it clear that text referenced to reliable sources is not subject to 3RR, and will there be a means of addressing misinterpretation of WP:BLP? Sandy 15:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The 3RR exception on BPL refers to criticism that is "unsourced or poorly sourced". The examples you provided do not fall within the scope of that exception. Note that the first example needs attribution, otherwise it reads as an assertion of fact. You could NPOV that as follows:

According to an a newspaper article that appeared in The Washington Post, a program called "Mission Identity", to fast track voter registration of immigrants to Venezuela — including Chávez supporters benefiting from his subsidies — has been put in place prior to the upcoming 2006 presidential elections.]

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the help and suggestions. But, I still have the question: if the editor persists in reverting, and believes he is exempt from 3RR, where does it get reported? At 3RR? I can see this becoming a tricky policy question, if editors claim exemption from 3RR. Sandy 16:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Report at WP:ANI/3RR, or pursue the actions outlined in the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Sandy 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What about excessively positive information?

The policy says, in different ways in in different places: "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page". OK, but what about unsourced or poorly sourced positive material, especially if it amounts to cheerleading a controversial figure? I can imagine a fan putting fulsome praise in a bio, without balance (the current policy would discourage an attempt to provide balance, although it would allow toning down the excess); it could even be specifically objectionable when the subject has a well-known antagonist who is implicitly referred to. For the policy to focus on negative material seems so...asymmetrical (apart, of course, from the practical concerns of unsourced negatives attracting libel claims). Sorry to come to this late; I came here from Signpost. David Brooks 02:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced material on a controversial issue is always bad. However, I understand this is specially bad for negative remarks on LPs. In this case agressive deletion is better. Other cases can be handled by asking for sources and discussing in talk pages. JRSP 03:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of talk page comments

So how does one go about removing Talk comments which contain biographical information? I'm right in thinking that you're not allowed to edit Talk comments, right? Or is this an exception? Mr Bluefin 10:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

refactoring of material from talk pages is permitted when it is unsourced criticism Read: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_criticism ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Proposed change re primary sources

Note: I am restoring this archived talk information in order to continue the discussion and reach a consensus on this. I want to make a change to the portion of this guideline that says

Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources.

I don't think it makes sense to exclude primary sources. One does not improve informaiton by passing it from ear to ear. I do think there are specific things that should not be taken from primary sources, including a person's home value or vehicles owned. Court cases should be allowable as these are often part of what makes the person notable enough to be in Wikipedia. This is not the case for the value of their house or their income tax records and the like. I propose changing this statement to:

Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations and home or business addresses. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publically available.

I would like to get consensus to make this change. Johntex\^talk 04:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Here by the way is just one example of a primary source document [2] which could be useful in a biography of a living person, Jeff Bezos. It is an FAA report for his planned new space tourism venture, obtained directly from the federal government (the primary) source, and considered to be public domain. I don't think "primary sources" are the problem, I think revealing "certain types of informaiton", such as a person's home phone number or address is the problem, regardless of whether we are citing a primary or secondary source. Johntex\^talk 07:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see (at the moment) a flaw with your example case, but I oppose your wording. If nobody has written about something, we should definitely not cover it at all, even if primary sources can verify the facts. For instance, even if a famous person's criminal record is accessible on a public web site, we should not write about it, if nobody else has. Often "public records" are "hidden in plain sight". Often nobody has put the pieces together. It's not our role to discover/expose things. I don't want the enemy of a person to come to Wikipedia, to tell the world about a court case, that no newspaper saw fit to print. Rather than us deciding what should be notable, we should find what reliable sources have found to be notable (by writing prose about the subject). However, if reliable media has covered something broadly, but failed to give the "low level details" we want, than certainly, it's ok for us to go "straight to the source". Also, for trivial/uncontested things, like an alumni lists at a college, primary sources can be fine.--Rob 07:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Rob. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOVand WP:RS must be considered along side WP:BLP. Wikipedia needs to rely on mainstream reliable publishers do the original research for an article in their publication. Primary sources such as court records might be used to provide clarity about a particular topic if the topic is already addressed in the published article. IMO, other uses of primary sources is likely to be against the spirit of WP:NOR. FloNight ^talk 13:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

With repsect, I think that the two of you are misinterpretting WP:NOR. I would say that WP:NOR would prohibit attending the court-room to write your own story about what happened during the proceedings, and it would prohibit calling up the lawyers involved or e-mailing the judge and then using those conversations for the article - but I don't see it at prohibiting any type of online research. If the records are in plain site, then I think they are fair for us to research. Johntex\^talk 14:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Flo et al. First somebody else should become convinced enough it is notable to publish it. Then WP can pick up on it. Midgley 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

All facts reported by reliable sources are welcome in all articles including biographies of living people. The WP:BLP guideline was created to curtail libel and defamation, to protect living people from these, and to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from lawsuits related to the possible abuse of their web servers in this respect. What is asked of editors is to take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A special issue with biographies and primary sources such as court records is assuring that the reference concerns the subject and not a similarly-named person. Another concern is with court papers, such as divorce filings, which make unrebutted and unsupported accusations. Otherwise, I agree with the principle that primary sources should be usable for BLPs in accordance with our other policies. -Will Beback 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In seeking to change an existing rule, it would be nice to see an analysis of why the rule came to be as it is. Can anyone supply that background? Midgley 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

new proposed wording

In consideration of the above discussion, I would like to offer the following ammended wording:

Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations and home or business addresses should not generally be used. Where a fact is verifiable by a notable source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publically available.

Here by the way is just one example of a primary source document [3] which could be useful in a biography of a living person, Jeff Bezos. It is an FAA report for his planned new space tourism venture, obtained directly from the federal government. Johntex\^talk 00:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a danger of encouraging people to do original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This would not allow original research. This would be relying on information from public sources. Saying "I saw Joe Blow growing marijuana in his back-yard." would be original research. Citing sources that say he did it is not original research. All this does is clarify that it is OK to use primary as well as secondary sources to get more detailed information. Johntex\^talk 01:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I specifically include mention of "verifiable by a notable source". I put this in in response to Flo Night and Rob's suggestion that someone else should have decided that the information is notable before we include it. We can specifically link to WP:V if you like. Johntex\^talk 01:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The proposal opens the door to too much possibility for people to engage in original research, connecting the dots inaccurately. Sandy 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide an example or a revised set of wording? Primary sources are always the most accurate. We should be using reputable primary sources when they are available. Johntex\^talk 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

'Original research' refers to publishing a novel theory, it does not refer to going to the primary sources to look something up. In fact, WP:NOR specifically states "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.", so I don't see why this raises any concern about original research. What we are talking about here is not against the policy. Johntex\^talk 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide an example or a revised set of wording? Primary sources are always the most accurate. I don't feel qualified to propose wording, but I can show where I see problems. I've already seen (along with cleansing of referenced criticism in the name of BLP) examples of primary documents being used as OR by editors connecting the dots, in ways that damage living persons. Something is needed to account for: Material from primary sources should almost never be used. For example, public records that include any details not attached to or verified by a reliable source reference, is needed. We can't have people getting hold of a public document and drawing their own conclusions. Sandy 03:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

We will be opening to big of a gap here for original research. The current wording has served us well so far. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

But WP-no original research does not define original research as looking at primary sources. It specifically says "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.". Johntex\^talk 15:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the next paragraph of WP:NOR implies that secondary sources are preferable, by saying that only in rare cases can an article be based entirely on primary sources. --Allen 15:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My proposal is that primary sources of this type should be used only once a secondary source has reported the information. I will try to make that come across more clearly. Johntex\^talk 16:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Johntex, I don't think there is a way to word your proposal that doesn't open the door to original research. I'm sorry the example that I can provide is in Spanish, but it's the best I can do. This pdf is allegedly a "list" of people who signed "some version of something" in Venezuela. Defining exactly what these people signed under what circumstances is where it gets tricky, and OR comes in, as some of these signatures were attached to blank pages of what appears to be a "guestbook". This is a public document. It is used now in at least 3 articles on Wiki to disparage the character of a living person. Yet, there is no journalistic or reliable source commentary which explains what this "list" was, how some people came to sign it, provide context for this list, or provide the signers' explanations for how, when or where they signed this "list" (which was actually a guestbook, according to some accounts). The same editors who are misinterpreting WP:BLP in a way that allows them to cleanse Criticism of Hugo Chávez, are using this "list" – not discussed in any journalist context – as criticism of María Corina Machado, a pro-democracy advocate in Venezuela. WP:BLP is already being used incorrectly: your proposal allows for further misuse. I agree with others above who say this proposal has no wings. If anything, the wording on BLP needs to be much tighter to help stem the extent of abuse that is already occurring. Sandy 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Third attempt

Thanks again to everyone who has commented, I have tightened up the wording again to make it even more clear that primary documents should be used only after a notable, verifiable seconday source has reported the information originally:

Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations and home or business addresses should not generally be used. Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source. Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publically available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable seconday source

I think this makes very clear that we are encouraging use of primary sources only once a secondary source has deemed the primary material to be relevant. Johntex\^talk 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This wording seems fine to me. Using a primary source to double check a fact or provide clarity is a good idea. FloNight ^talk 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with FloNight. But -- and I know this is not the main issue here, but since we're talking about wording -- how about changing the two instances of "verifiable, notable" to "reliable" or perhaps "verifiable"? My impression is that we generally avoid saying "notable" in official policy, because it's a less well-defined concept than reliability or verifiability. Please correct me if I'm wrong; partly I bring this up to test my own understanding... --Allen 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I will change it to just "verifiable". WP:V makes clear what we mean by that. I'm changing it in place above, rather than making yet another version taking up room here. Johntex\^talk 23:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: No first biographies

Pardon me if this has already been suggested elsewhere, but, I have what seems like a excellent guideline to determine if an article on a person should be permitted in Wikipedia: Only allow an article if it cites an existing, published biography of the subject. That's it. We could add it to CSD. It would allow articles on anyone famous enough to have biographies already written on them, but would stop people like Angela from having to have articles on them (at least until someone writes a bio on Angela). And it leads to a perfect reply to people who object to having their articles deleted - "Go get this published elsewhere, and then come back. We'll be happy to have the article then." Thoughts, objections, massive outpourings of support? JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What is considered a biography? A paragraph in a news paper article or a full book? Garion96 (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I second the question. Is this resume a bio,[4], or this "about us" profile,[5]? Is an obit a bio? (though that'd be a different policy, I suppose) What about spouses of notable people who are included in a partner's bio? Would the bio have to be published in a reliable source, or just anywhere? I'd guess, offhand, that a policy like this would effect half of our articles about living people, possibly much more if constructed strictly. That's not to say it isn't a good idea, just that it'd have a radical effect. -Will Beback 19:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

These are good questions. I would answer them as follows: A news article (or a full book) on the person would be a bio, but a paragraph on them in an article (or book) on something else would not be. A resume is not a bio, because it is written by (or on request of) the subject; neither is an "about us" profile for the same reason. An obit is a bio as it is a news article on the person. A spouse would not have a seperate article unless there was a seperate bio about them. Bios would have to be published by reliable sources, although we might be gentle about that at first. I do believe that this might affect a large number of our existing articles, but I think a large number of our existing articles should not exist as seperate articles, so that's a feature, not a bug. ;-) I think I'll pick 20 random entries from Category:Living people and see what percentage I think would be unacceptable under this policy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

For clarification, does this article meet the on a person clause or is it instead on their earning an award? [6] You do have to be a member to access the link, but it is free and you could use a disposable email address to do it. GRBerry 20:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I am unable to view that article, even when I log in - please summarize it here, or post it on a paste site, or email it to me, and I'll be happy to answer. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It is one of the sources used in Seth Finkelstein, and about 6 times as long as are biography on him. It discusses Seth's winning one of the 2001 Pioneer Awards from the Electronic Foundation and the work he did to merit the award, with some of the larger context. I would describe it as being primarily about the work he did to merit the award. Biographical content other than that specific work is this paragraph "Mr. Finkelstein grew up in the Bronx, where his interest in cryptography was fostered by Sherlock Holmes tales and newspaper cryptograms. He studied mathematics and physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology with the goal of becoming a theoretical physicist. When he was rejected by all the top graduate physics programs, he said, he turned to computer programming as a job that paid the bills. But he finds that his technical skills have more meaning in urgent social debates." It also gave his age and what city he lived in at the time. GRBerry 02:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Way too restrictive. Anything we need regarding living person bios is already covered in excruciting detail here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. You do realize that people said exactly the same thing about nearly everything else on WP:BLP when it was first proposed, right? (I think - please correct me if I am mis-remebering things.) JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be shocked, much of this is quite overbearing as well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I did my own quick survey, picking the last name on the first column of the BLP category for each letter of the alphabet. Excluding official websites, very few have 3rd-party bios listed. Quite a few articles are about performers or athletes whose works or stats are (presumably) published on IMDB or relevant sports pages (some of which label their player stats pages "biography"). Several more look like there must be a bio somewhere (such as the current head of government for a tiny nation, a past U.S. state governor and ambassador, and the deputy prime minister of a major country). I found one person with a long profile of his profesional career in a reputable journal, but which didn't have anything about him outside of his work. Lastly, I came across some criminals with official indictments, etc. So, there are many notable people who do not have their presumed bios cited, there are many notable people for whom we only have information on their professional careers, and quite a few for whom we have reliable info, but no bio. Out of 26 entries I'd say only about five would qualify under strict construction. I didn't see any biographies that were obvious candidates forAfD under current policies. -Will Beback 20:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm currently about halfway through my similar search (I'm also using the top entries in each column, but I'm using the 2nd and 3rd columns of each letter, rather than the first), and I'm doing what I can to find bios even when they arn't listed. But I have also noticed this - there are many people generally considered "notable" where there is no easily available bio that I'm aware of. I'll publish my results here when I've finished them. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A minor, but very significant point: is it intended that this proposal only be applied to biographies of living people? (Its placement here would suggest so, but this wouldn't necessarily be the case if it were made a CSD or something similar.) If not, it will basically obliterate our coverage of ancient and medieval figures; very few of them have their own dedicated biographies, and most get only sections in a larger work, at best. Kirill Lokshin 22:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

First, I hadn't intended it to apply to dead people. Second, you remind me, "sections in a larger work" would count as a biography, assuming they were about the person; i.e. if there was a book on "Major Afgahani Religious Leaders", each of the leaders who had an entry would be considered to have a bio for purposes of this. Thanks for provoking me to clarify this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think it is too restrictive. Sometimes, what makes a person worth an article may be a paragraph here, half an article there, appearance in 10 different lists, etc. They don't need to have one whole biography on them to be notable. Johntex\^talk 00:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am saddened to see this comment. If the only reliable sources available about a person are "a paragraph here, half an article there" and "appearance in 10 different lists" - then we don't have enough to write a good article on them without doing original research, i.e. synthesizing the fragments of sources into a meaningful whole. Such a synthesis is the essense of original research, and something we should specifically avoid doing. To write about Dale Earnhardt, Jr., there is no need to create a novel synthesis; to write about someone who cannot be documented except in "a paragraph here, half an article there" requires such. Someone like that certainly may be notable, but we can't write a good article on them without breaking our principles. If you want to write about such people, please do - elsewhere. Again, it saddens and depresses me to see such a comment. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's a novel synthesis if we find the name of a politician (for example) in the alumni lists of his alma maters and to use those to say that he attended X, Y, and Z. Nor is it novel synthesis if we use other sources, that don't mention his schools, to reference that he divorced his spouse in 1998, or yet other sources to say that he voted in favor of a budget measure, source which neither mention his divorce nor his education. It isn't novel synthesis to list the events in a person's life, so long as we don't make unsubstantiated leaps, such as assuming that the John Smith who graduated from LSU is the same as the one who received the Medal of Honor, or other unsourced conclusions. Every featured bio we have synthesizes numerous sources, and probably every one synthizes the material in a novel manner (without engaging in original research, of of course). Saying, on our own account, that A + B =C is a violation of original research. But concatenating A=B, A=C, and A=D is not. This view of biography would require that each subject have a totally-complete published biography already available. -Will Beback 08:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• I fear that the new proposal will reinforce existing problems related to systemic bias. I think our existing policy is very good. It is still new. Let's give it time to work. --FloNight ^talk 00:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While I am very sympathetic to efforts to deal with our systemic bias - we cannot and should not do it by making novel systheses of sources that have not been previously analysed by secondary sources - that's original research. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're mixing two very different things. We are allowed to create "novel synthesis", that's what an "Editor" does, they "Edit". We are not allowed to use primary sources that "have not been previously used in secondary sources". Wjhonson 16:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I mispoke above. We are certainly allowed to use primary sources which have not been previously used in secondary sources. The bar on primary sources is that they "have been published by a reliable publisher" as stated on the WP:RS guideline page. Although it also states we *should* not use them, it does not forbid their use, except in requiring publication by a reliable publisher. So I'm allowed to quote the facsimile edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls (in Hebrew) since they were published by a WP:RS for example. Wjhonson 17:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As for the many sports stats, and factoids about band members - this proposal is not to remove them, but merely to change how they are indexed, moving them from names (through which they are very unlikely to be found) to the groups of which they are a part, teams, bands, etc. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am one hundred and twelve percent against this proposal. In fact I can't think of a single page I've worked on (extensively) where I cite a published bio. And to address a misunderstanding of WP:OR, synthesis is not original research in the wiki-sense. It is merely "editing" which it what we're supposed to do. Our job is not a strictly mechanical one of cutting-and-pasting with an occasional "and", "after", or "but" thrown in. We are also supposed to be weaving various sources together into something coherent. We are, as I see it, allowed to create bios on people who had no previous bio, from synthecizing the various materials we find, into one whole piece. Actually a overly simplistic reading would be fairly close to plagarism unless our articles are to be filled with quotation marks and footnotes. I would also point out that the Encyclopaedia Brittanica itself has some bios for people who had no previous bio, so there's your standard Wjhonson 06:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• I very much SUPPORT the proposal of "no first bios (of LIVING persons)." (though I dont't think it goes far enough, still, it's a long way down the correct road). It helps automatically take care of the notability problem, as has been pointed out. And in doing so it helps against the tendency for "notability creep," which is rapidly making Wikipedia a central repository for personal information on any person who is mentioned in more than one place in the media, which soon enough (nod to Andy Warhol's 15 minutes) will include just about all of us. And newspapers are only as immortal as their morgue files, electronic or otherwise. Wikipedia (by whatever name it's many progeny come to have) is forever. Kindness standards need to be set NOW. Otherwise, folks, what goes around, will come around. To a town near you. To your families. And yes, to your own precious, quiet lifeSBHarris 17:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Slam dunk, mega-hard support this proposal. Add an absolute veto to the subject (if living), and my support burns brighter than an A0 star. The current framework will inevitably lead to Wikipedia being hammered hard by someone who will not accept the usual "give us a chance to make it right" platitudes; it is a system (accidently) designed to fail, despite the best efforts of everyone here. This proposal reduces these risks tremoundously, and (as Sbharris notes), resolves many other issues in this touchy area ... and we obtain all these results at negligible cost. What is there to dislike about it? mdf 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• I very much oppose this proposal. As compared with any other reference work, Wikipedia has many, many more contributors. As compared with printed works, Wikipedia has virtually no space problem. These differences allow us to, in some cases, be the first or only source with a biography of a particular person. This is an advantage. The proposal would exclude from Wikipedia all articles in which we exploit this advantage to provide more comprehensive information to our readers. JamesMLane t c 18:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

See below. You've also identified the primary problem-- a downward notability creap due to the bio space expansion.SBHarris 16:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• This proposal is quite unnecessary. If there is enough information to produce a sensible article consistent with WP:V and WP:NOR, there is no reason not to do so.--Runcorn 12:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, no reason why the students shouldn't do a lauditory one on their principal, whether he approves or not. No reason not to do one on you. Don't you know somebody who might like to, for some reason? Or will, in the future? Aren't you ever planning to do anything at all notable in your life? Ever? As available space for bio material expands, notability criteria falls to allow expansion of bio material to meet it. Parkinson's law in action. Which has already been operating here, as has been noted correctly by opposing factions, to produce many, many bios on WP (100,000 and counting) which there is simply no space for, in Britannica (and therefore which have been left out of Britannica because they aren't NOTABLE enough to go there). See the creap in standards? It will only get worse.SBHarris 16:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Of course this is a bad idea. If neutral, verifiable information from reliable sources can be worked into an article, then I can't imagine why we'd say, "No, we're too scared of neutral, verifiable information to have an article on that person". Terror seems to be reigning among those who snuggle up to this policy. -Splash - tk 21:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What an odd comment for somebody who edits anonymously to make. I'm here in California and use my own name. Are you perhaps "terrorized" by something out there in Bristol, that you don't use yours?

What does my username have to do with anything? If someone wrote an article about me (they wouldn't, and it'd be an A7 speedy if they did!), there would be no connection unless you were very good between the title of that article and my username. The increasing reason for people to edit under pseudonyms (and even to change to using them) is that the fear being targetting off-Wiki for their editing trends on Wiki, not because they don't want an article about themselves, which their choice of username has no impact on. I don't see what relevance my choice of username has to this policy, or to my opinions on it. Furthermore, I reserve the right to be inconsistent at any point. -Splash - tk 23:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you reserve the right to be inconsistent on any point, then what is your purpose here? The entire notion of "policy" is to establish consistent rules. mdf 12:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Didn't you guess that my purpose here is to voice my dislike of this proposal? -Splash - tk 12:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the value of your disapproval if, as you admit, you can be inconsistent at any time? Everyone else here is at least trying to defend their positions. mdf 12:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You didn't spot that I have done just that? I'm not going to bother arguing philosophy with you: I do not have to have a completely uniform opinion across all things I have an opinion about. Foolish, consistency, minds, hobgoblins etc. -Splash - tk 13:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, just because Emerson said something, doesn't mean it's necessarily real wisdom. It might only just sound like wisdom. E. sometimes liked to jerk chains with wise-sounding paradoxes. He was the Kahil Gibran of his time. SBHarris 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse the philosophy then: an argument that effectively ends with a disclaimer that you don't care if it is right or wrong or consistent or (presumably) anything is hardly an honest argument. mdf 13:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the issue should be less terror that treating other people as article subjects, as you'd like to be treated if YOU were the article subject. Most Wikipedians would NOT want to be the targets of an unauthorized net biography, even a totally bland one. If they don't EVEN edit under their real names and general locations, you know that they value privacy a LOT. But even so, strangely, most Wikipedians are not supporting the idea of authorization of bios because it's not their ox being gored. They wouldn't like it themselves, but they feel safe due to lack of notability, and if it's happening to somebody else, so what? Jimbo, of course, has total effective control and veto over the content of his own Wiki bio, so he lives in a bubble on the issue. In effect, he ALREADY benefits from the policy which I think should extend to everybody. So, given this state, we're destined to see "notability" (whatever that means) drop in criteria toward the point that 51% of Wikipedians still don't feel threatened by an unauthorized bio which they have no control over. Of course, I also predict that long before that, the feces will contact the rotary air circulation device, and policy here on BLP will need to be changed. I read in the Wiki on libel that the A.P. press has calculated the 95% of libel suits toward newspapers come not from high profile stories, but from local criminal and business reporting. Which I take it to mean that they arise because somebody found out they were more "notable" locally than they'd counted on. SBHarris 23:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with how I want to be treated as an article subject, since that question is beyond the academical, as I mentioned above. Painting this as a 'privacy' suggestion is misleading. If I can collect information from good, reliable, neutral sources this information has thus already been published and their privacy with regards to that information is already moot. Not having a Wikipedia article on it doesn't change that an inch. -Splash - tk 23:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I don't want to repeat myself: the synopsis is that "public" information is not a black and white thing. Something "published" in an obscure newspaper years ago, or some public record only available in a court building and not accessable to google, is not PUBLIC in the same way as something that gets into your Wiki bio and is available in 10 seconds on an internet cellphone. Ordinarily it takes work to find out if you said something indiscrete to the officer while being arrest for drunk driving. But that info wound up in Mel Gibson's Wikibio in about 24 hours. That kind of loss of privacy is coming to all. Very slowly, like RFID tags, and in a "top down" sort of way. Like having to be finger or thumbprinted for some reason. But coming. Remember how they told you your SSN would never be used as an ID number? They changed their minds.

Jimbo has experienced this. His involvement in the ahem "erotica" business would not be "public" knowledge if it weren't in his Wiki and if he hadn't tried to screw with it, and got caught. He had to put it back or face hypocrisy charges, but his Wiki treatment still isn't as vicious as Gibson's is, or that yours or mine would be, if we happened to become "notable" for ANY reason (even a good reason). In fact, as Jimbo should well know, this kind of thing feeds on itself. Jimbo's porn question wasn't notable (or really PUBLIC in any way that mattered) UNTIL it got to his wiki, and magazines and the standard publication industry picked it up as a controversy. NOW it IS too notable not to leave out of his Wiki bio, but that's BECAUSE of the Wiki bio ITSELF. Wups. But there's a LESSON there. Alas, it seems not to have been learned institutionally. And I can't seem to get it across, either. So I'm going to quit, now. SBHarris 17:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

You may wish to recall that there is a big, wide, world beyond Wikipedia's server farm. Said world has rules and laws and men with guns to back them up, and no amount of editing here will change this (let alone the rules). What this means is that, in effect, what you (or anyone else here) thinks about "privacy" (or similar) doesn't really amount to much. All that matters is what will happen in court, the day WP manages to piss off someone who (a) will not be sweet-talked by Jimbo Wales or the army of anonymous editors bleating their refrain "give us a chance!" and (b) has the means to sue Wikipedia into peonage. BLP's are so wickedly important for this single reason: just one (1) successful suit can destroy the entire project, not just a single biographical article. Or are you proposing to indemnify Wikipedia re: legal liability? mdf 13:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sbharris I think you've made your point pretty clear. Welcome to the world we actually live in today, instead of the world we used to live in 20 years ago. You can be a Luddite but I don't think you're going to get much sympathy unless you unplug your computer and start making your own cheese in a barrel. Your exaggeration is that my bio is going to start announcing when I brush my teeth, how much I weigh, and whether I've ever kicked my dog. This simply isn't going to happen. However if I've ever done hard time in prison, writen a phamplet on overthrowing the government, or been attacked in an newspaper op-ed from 15 years ago, simply *is* relevant to my bio. Attacking editors for doggedly citing sources is a bit disengenious. That is exactly what we *want* this wiki to become. Tiredly rehashing information that everybody already knows from their history book is what we dont want it to become. I found the exact date on which Anna Roosevelt divorced her first husband... *gasp* Oh no! Her loss of privacy! Self-spank. I didn't include that it was on grounds of "extreme cruelty". Self-censorship! Wjhonson 17:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, my answer to you seems to have disappeared into the aether. Wikipedia already practices personal-veto for a lot of bio material of "marginally-notable" people, such as birthdays:

Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information. When in doubt about the notability of the person in question, or if the subject of a biography complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth rather than the exact date.

Note that the reason given is "identity theft," which is silly given the stakes, here. You can lose worse than your money by being the target of a bio with well-documented negative info (look at Mel Gibson). To quote Iago in Othello:

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands: But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him And makes me poor indeed.

SBHarris 20:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

And by the way: given that we have 100,000 wikibios already, with no sign of slowdown of the exponential increase, please cure my Ludditism by suggesting to me where this log-growth curve will begin to tail over? Where will this process end? What % of people are inherently less than "semi-notable", meaning they've never been in the news or had enough public documentation about them to make a short bio interesting? 90%? 60%? 51%? This is not a rhetorical question. I'd like you to consider it seriously. SBHarris 21:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There are currently 8 billion people living. In all history there have been perhaps 20 billion people. Conservatively, if even as little as one out of one hundred of those did something "notable", that would be 200 million biographies. Wjhonson 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has grown at an even exponential pace since Jan 2003, with an 11 month doubling time. If bios keep up with that (and I have no reason to assume they won't), that means we reach your 200 million bio count in 10 years, in 2016. Of course, that's global and the % of people bio'd will be far higher than the mean 1% in many countries, just as it's far out of proportion from the global mean % number now. In any case, I want a hard number from you. At what point, if the pace of of bio article creation fails to break from exponential, will you admit that you are wrong, and that this is going to go "all the way" unless actively stopped? SBHarris 23:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

One in a hundred is not conservative. It's more like "wildly, incredibly, liberal" and, at best, a figure without any foundation at all. Better to ask what the biographical articles:other articles ratio is at Britannica, and state why the ratio should be remarkably different here. But even if we accept your figure, let me be the first to point out that it will be impossible to police 200 million articles for WP:BLP violations: the current policy framework simply will not scale. mdf 13:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

General information about the person

The current policy says

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has fist been mentioned by a verifiable source. (see above)."

I believe the wording,"include only information relevant to their notability", if interpreted too literally, would be damaging to the idea of presenting a rounded view of the person. For example, we would have to exlude things like what they do for a living if it is not what they are famous for, maritial status, where they grew up, where they went to school, awards they have won if they are not the primary reason the person is notable...etc. If the person is best known because of something negative, we would be running the risk of biasing their article too far to the negative.
Theefore, I propose changing this to:

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should be particularly careful about using Verifiable sources. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has fist been mentioned by a verifiable source. (see above).

If the information meets WP:V, then that means a reputable source has thought it notable. I look forward to everyone's thoughts. Johntex\^talk 00:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Johntex, there are good reasons to exclude some of the information you listed. Many of these non-public notable people are flashes in the pan. They will not have ongoing coverage of their lives. The details about their employment, marital status, residence will be outdated in short order. I think having outdated information is worse than no information. --FloNight ^talk 00:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Flo Night - even in today's topsy-turvy world where people change jobs frequently and divorce is common, most people are only married once or maybe twice, and they may change jobs but they don't tend to dramtically change careers (at least not often). Some things, like what state they grew up in, will never change. I think the best way to address your concern is to encourage the use of year-specific qualifiers: "Born in 1965, Janet Blow attended Harvard University in the 1980's and was working as an accountant for Exxon in 2006." - Johntex\^talk 00:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Non notable people who wish to remain anonymous, famous for a specific incident and dropping out of sight thereafter, do not deserve to have their personal details documented. In particular, I object to documenting possible sexual assault victim's biographies when they wish to remain anonymous. For example, see Crystal Gail Mangum and its associated Talk page. Abe Froman 00:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Crystal Gail Mangum article is a perfect example of what is wrong with the wording of this policy. The article currently mentions that she is a mother, that she used to be in the Navy, that she is a good student... None of that information is strictly related to the scandal resulting from the allegations she has made against these alleged criminals. Surely it is not in Mangum's best interest or the reader's best interest to remove this information, yet a literal interpretation of the wording could lead to someone trying to do that. That is why the wording needs to be tightened up. Johntex\^talk 00:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:LIVING implies it is not our place to make an anonymous victim's mind up for them. Anonymous victims are non notable except for some horrible incident the press is interested in. Other than carrying the details of the specific situation reported in the press, WP:LIVING is right to deny editors the right of documenting a sexual assault victim's life against their wishes. We are not a tabloid. Abe Froman 00:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We would still be sticking to verificale sources and only reporting what has been published in them. It is to the subject's advantage and the reader's advantage that we try to present a rounded picture, without focusing in too narrowly on a single event. The sources we are citing generally gives a wider view of the subject than that, and we should do the same. Johntex\^talk 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Addresing Abe's point, we shouldn't have articles about non-notable people. The answer to that problem may be to change the notability standards so that flah-in-the-oan types are excluded, or are only mentioned in articles about the broader topic in which they've achieved their limited attention. On the other hand, our articles about notable people should be real biographies, including the verifiable details common to all biographies. -Will Beback 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and a good way to avoid having articles on non-notable people is to require that an external, third-party source has considered the person notable enough to write directly about, i.e. the No First Biographies proposal above. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Some people are notable even though their notability is flash-in-the-pan (or "ephemeral" as it's sometimes called on AfD). I think that both Douglas Corrigan and Jennifer Wilbanks should have articles, although in each case the person's notability is derived from one brief episode that had no lasting impact on world affairs. JamesMLane t c 22:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: No Wiki BLP at all if the living person objects. A veto option. No exceptions.

As it is, Wikipedia's policy is partly driven by a morally questionable principle, which is that people who go into politics (even to run for city council or dog-catcher), or who decide to be actors (rather than, say, painters), somehow "agree" thereby to give up major rights to privacy. And therefore don't (and shouldn't) get any. This policy, which has evolved over many years of court cases, has basically come about because the average person has some gossipy interest in personal details in the lives of "celebrities" and has decided that, what the heck, they'll never be on the short end of this anyway, so what does it matter if somebody else gets hurt? Especially if the "somebody else" has money or fame, which are things the average person is jealous about, anyway. Thus the genesis of taboid journalism, and the legal system that supports it.

I don't particularly see any reason why Wikipedia's standards need to be this low, simply because it's legal. I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't take the high ground and simply have a policy to prohibit Wikipedia biographies on any living person who objects to a Wiki bio, from the President of the United States, on down. No exceptions. Shocking? No, not really.

I see little reason why Wikipedia as a whole would be greatly harmed by such a policy. Many people, particularly people who crave public attention, would certainly NOT veto a biography (and if they didn't, all the present WP:BLP would continue to apply). So for them, nothing would change. And with such a policy, how many biographies of living people that we really MUST have, would be lost (or more exactly, not available until the person's death)? I think not many. The price is low and the gain is high.

What's the gain? The gain is that Wikipedia treats all people as you would want yourself and your family to be treated. I happen to edit here under my real name, but I'm in a minority. I've made a habit to ask people who support the present WP:BLP policy, who do NOT edit under their given names, WHY they don't. The results are vastly entertaining. Usually they reveal people who simply think loss of privacy should be a concern for other people, even though they themselves regard if very highly. I had one person tell me seriously that they did edit under their own name until they became an administrator and started to get threats, following which they decided that personal information wouldn't be a good thing to have collected on the net. But failed to then take the next logical step and add 2 plus 2.

Hey, folks. Give this some thought. Consider raising the standards of this whole place, and give living Wiki bio targets a veto. And even if they choose NOT to exercise it, continue to abide by the very strict guidelines already in place.SBHarris 04:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A) We're only (or should be only) compiling information already published about the bio subjects. B) The task of verifying the identity of someone asking to have a bio could be difficult. C) The OTRS system, though not publicized, allows anyone but especially the subjects to complain about an article resulting in very careful scrutiny of its contents by a senior editor. D) I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have an article about George W. Bush, even if he objects. Newspapers don't ask the permission before they run stories. E) Dogcatchers shouldn't be considered notable. If we're invading the privacy of non-notable people then that can be handled by simpling raising the notability threshold and enforcing the verifiability standards. F) I appreciate your concern about the privacy of individuals. It is an unfortunate fact that some in some professions (actor, politician, athlete, etc) there is an inverse proportion between amount of privacy and success. Encyclopedia editors are in a very different profession (or hobby), one that until recently attracted little fame. We should all be sensitive to who and what we write about. -Will Beback 05:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm proposing a bio veto, but would not object to one after the fact (ie, you don't have to seek permission in STARTING a bio (provided you have a reference to one that already exists somewhere -- I like that proposed idea a lot, see above), BUT you'd have to delete it, if the subject turns up on Wiki to object. Now, comes the question of how do you verify true identity? Answer: there are several obvious ways, but first let me point out that none of them will likely be used very often. If a person A turns up claiming to be the subject of the bio X, you can default remove it, presuming they ARE. What harm? The only problem you ever have is when person B turns up, saying "Hey, what happened to that nice bio I had? I'm the REAL person X". In which case somebody has to submit a notarized request somewhere. That can be done by FAX and takes 1 hour (I know many package delivery and fax centers with licensed notaries on staff--, but all major banks have one). Only if TWO people do that (fax in notarized requests for opposite actions-- HUGELY unlikely), do you have to resort to original copies. And in that case somebody is breaking the law, and it's a case to refer to the local cops. Which should be fun, because people who do identify theft things like that are a menace, and probably crazy or ciminal or both. If you don't have time for that, I hereby volunteer to handle any case that get that far, and I will make sure that the proper authorities do the proper thing. So you don't have to be bothering about the time it will take. I think the time demands will be very small.

Yes, this would mean George W. Bush could request his own Wiki be deleted. So what? Do you seriously think he would? And what harm if he did? Do you think Wikipedia would implode from the information vacuum if it wasn't the repository of a George W. Bush bio? Lack of one would probably save Wikipedian editors more TIME than this entirely policy enforcement would.

The OTRS machanism allows the subject to complain, but also allows them to be ignored. And I know of at least one case (a cop who shot a serial mass-murderer on a berserk rampage 40 years ago) where the request was denied. This guy merely didn't like the idea that there was a separate bio on him. He didn't object to his name being used in the article on the guy he killed. Lots of relevant bio material could continue to exist on Wikipedia, and this policy would not prevent that. Mentioned as been bio material on band members which is revevant to the band. Or bio material on an actor which is relevant to a particular work (Actor Gert Froebe's history of belonging to the Nazi party prevented the film Goldfinger from being shown in Israel until an Jewish family thanked him for sheltering them during WW II. Etc. But that info apears two places in reference to the Bond book and film, so loss of the Froebe bio (assuming he were living) would be no great loss.

Newspapers do things we shouldn't. Journalists can be SOB's. Dog catchers can be notorious enough to rate an attack article in the local papers from their opponent in the dogcatcher election, mentioning details from their dirty divorce, and there you are. Yes, encyclopedia editors can be a ticklish buisness trying to decide if somebody is "notable" enough to have their birthplace and age published on the Web. But I don't think any of this is really any of their BUSINESS. So I suggest we fix it with policy, so they can get back to what they're supposed to be doing.

Finally, Bill B. Back, why are you not editing here under your own name? Privacy concerns? When the shoe's on the other foot, how conservative people become!SBHarris 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Although it's correct that we should only be publishing material already published, we're making it available in a very accessible format. We had an unfortunate situation recently where a marginally notable figure had a 15-year criminal conviction dragged up by an editor who went back and found the original newspaper stories about it. The subject said that it was ruining his life to have it displayed around the Internet, because his current friends didn't know about it. But because it passed WP:V and he was just about notable enough for an article, the information stayed up, until the Foundation blanked it when he complained.

It would be good to have a policy in place that would mean the Foundation didn't have to keep stepping in and doing our job for us. But tighter enforcement of V wouldn't have helped in this case. Raising the notability standard might have, but how in practise do we do that, and is there the will to do it (given the "Wikipedia isn't paper" attitude)? It would be nice to have some sort of "kindness principle," but I'm not sure there's a will for that either. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a proposal(No first biographies), a few sections above here, that would do exactly what you are suggesting - raise the standard for a article on a person to require that someone other than us has decided the person is notable enough to write about as the central focus of a piece of writing. I encourage you to comment on it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, in large part, establishes the notability of persons based on the availability of reliable sources that refer to them. In most cases that is a good rule of thumb. However court cases are very reliable, by and large. That may tend to give criminal and civil cases, and those involved in them, excessive prominence. However, even if reliable sources are available about them, the hundredds of thousands of crimnals in the world do not merit articles. Perhaps the problem lies with the admissability criminal convictions? This is a tricky issue, no doubt. -Will Beback 08:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No. As long as we're following basic verifiability issues, we're a-okay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, badlydrawn? Where's your last name? Posting here anonymously? But surely your birth name or whatever apears on your driver license, is merely verifiable information? What's your problem with having it here? I ask you to consider this carefully.SBHarris 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've had my full, real name with plenty of identifying info at my userpage for over 6 months now. In fact, I've been in enough newspaper articles in the last few years that I might actually meet the standard policies and guidelines we have here. I don't want or need an article, but I also know that when I put myself out there and allow myself to be involved in newsworthy issues, I don't get to choose how that information is used. If you made an article about me, I shouldn't be able to "veto" it, quite simply, assuming that the article is verifiable. It's not what other people want. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you reverted my deletion of the request, after I noted the above. Still, now that you've commented further, may I suggest that the reason why there's no article about you is not because it's "not what other people want" but merely because nobody has gotten around to it, yet? Sooner or later, as "media" expands, we're all going to have Wiki bios unless we live as hermits in cabins in the Ozarks. And no, I'm not about to research you and post a bio on you against your will, to make a point. Not only is that probably against wiki policy (deliberate nastiness to make a point about how some bad behavior is actually just as nasty as the claimant says it is), but it would also violate my deeply held believe that this is really one of the peaks of incivility--- far worse than calling somebody a dirty name or comparing them to some noxious item. Most of us value our privacy a great deal. The reason you see Entertainment Tonight on TV is that most of us do not value the privacy of our neighbors nearly as much as our own. Office gossip abounds with info most of the gossipers would die of shame of have talked about, involving THEM. This may be the single greatest hypocrisy of modern society. You see the tip of the iceberg of the question here on WP:BLP. In any case, don't kid yourself. Your bio will be "up" one day. I have two acquantences who are both bio'd, and it happened entirely without malace. Person A bio'd the other as an act of semi-complement, putting only lauditory stuff in about his science accomplishment. But forgot to tell person B, who was really pissed, and tried to get it removed, and even more pissed when he got voted down. His response to was to write a scientific bio, full of compliments, about person A. Now they're both unhappy, but have had to resort to nothing more than "when rape is inevitable, at least do what you can to minimize how unpleasant it is." Not a good place to be.SBHarris 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it got removed improperly/accidentally, my bad. Regardless, what I want is irrelevant. If there's enough verifiable material for me to have an article, I can't complain that people are able to use it. This policy bends over backwards to balance privacy with public knowledge, and to say that an article about me would automatically violate my privacy is wrong. I can't really stress it enough - as long as we're not publishing information that isn't public knowledge, we're a-okay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Two points I can't overemphasize myself. One is that "public knowledge" is not a yes,no binary thing. Stuff in your high school yearbook which I can find by going to your highschool and asking the library for a copy (or one of your classmates that year, if they still have one), is "public knowledge". As are the official accident reports if you ran over somebody accidentally years ago, like Laura Bush did. And so on. But when we collect a hundred such items and synthesize them into an easily read article anybody can access at the hit of a key, at home, it's MUCH MORE public than it was. It's also MORE THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS. So loss of privacy is not only not a binary thing, but it's an emergent property (or system property) of a collection of dug up facts. Have we not gotten to the point that non-binary logic and system properties are part of general consciousness? Not all things are black-and-white. The sum is very often far more than the sum of its parts--- sometimes shockingly so.SBHarris 19:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to understand your side of this here at this point, even though it's unlikely we're going to agree. You're talking about a loss of privacy that doesn't exist. If I ran someone over, was in the newspaper because of a USENET flamewar, said I enjoyed polish loaf on my blog, and was photographed demonstrating against unfair labor practices at the Oompa Loompa factory, that's all public information. Combining it together doesn't make it "more" public, it just compiles it in one place. If it's verifiable, what's the deal? In the age of the internet, especially, there's no such thing as "more public." You either are or are not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? So if you ARE or you're NOT, when which are YOU? Got to be one or the other, no? Could you please post your home address here and on your user page? It either IS or ISN'T public knowledge. No excluded middle. Love you Aristotelians. SBHarris 21:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Badlydrawnfeff. We need to follow WP:V and rely on the outside world of primary and secondary sources to write things first before we introduce them. As to us publishing things in an easy-to-find place, I think it is easy to forget that we found the info. If we found it, it is likely someone else would have found it as well. There will always be special cases, but for the most part our policies like WP:V are sufficient. Johntex\^talk 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Weren't you one of the people whom I asked why they post anonymously? If not, would you like to comment?SBHarris 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to comment. If a verifiable media source writes about me and someone wants to make an article about me, that is fine with me. Perhaps they have already done so and my biography is already here? I think that you are trying to draw some sort of parallel between a non-notable editor writing under a pseudonym and a notable person being the subject on an encyclopedia article. They are not the same thing. If someone is notable, they can have an article here, whether they want one or not. If they are not notable, then they can't have an article here, whether they want one or not. It is really quite plain and simple. Johntex\^talk 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those who think that we should use more restricitve notability standards for living people than for dead people. This is not a trolling/liability/vanadlism concern. The nature of wikipedia makes it suffer from a systemic bias toward excessive inclusion of recent events and currently living people. This is similar to the concerns discussed under at Wikipedia:Recentism, but more general - that is about specific content within an article, my concern is whether we should have an article at all. It is also a lot harder to have an encyclopedic perspective on currently living people.

I've been thinking about this ever since the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (3rd nomination), where several people indicated a desire to have tighter standards for living people than we currently do. I like, but have some boundary testing concerns on, the no first biography proposal above. If nobody else has taken the time to write biographical content about someone, it is a good sign that we don't need a biography of them either, because they just aren't that important. I haven't come up with a workable alternative yet. (Only using material first published or republished (not merely still available) 5+ years after the event(s) in question is unworkable in practice, but would address my concern.)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that a living person has a veto right. I'm not sure if we should give them extra weight in AFD discussions. We currently don't. If their argument is that they do not have historic importance, that should be evaluated seriously. If their argument is that they don't want an article for vandalism/trolling concerns, I don't think it should get much extra weight. This policy, in current form, already adequately addresses negative content within an article. GRBerry 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can phrase this to my liking. If there is "biographical content" but no "complete biography", we can take that "biographical content" and nip and tuck it with various other sources which also give *other* "biographical content" on the person to create a full biography. See for example, my recent page on Gus McLeod. I have by no means done an exhaustive search, but I was reading an old Smithsonian and thought he had an interesting article. Of course it did not mention that he was on The Amazing Race because that happened *after* the article. The article was on his other adventures. So I added some more details on a few more recent things. Since that article gave some "biographical content", they found him notable enough, and that should allow us to have an article on him, with updates from other sources. Do you agree with this ? Wjhonson 16:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While many problems with this proposal have already been brought to light, I will share some more:

• Many subjects of biographical write to Wikipedia asking that the articles be taken down. We get many such requests each day and in general don't comply with them (though there are exceptions when the article is irredemably bad).
• We also get many requests to either rewrite a biographical article to a subject's liking, or else take it down. While again there are cases where an article is so bad that we agree, in general we don't act on these requests. In partcular, many cases involve controversial public figures who don't want NPOV biographies of them to be available. Leaving Wikipedia with a choice between a Bowdlerized biography and none at all would neither serve the public interest nor the goals of the project.
• The best biographies have involved significant expenditures of effort by Wikipedians and it would be most unfair for the labors of the editors involved to come to naught merely because the subject preferred obscurity.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're another anonymous user making arguments against protecting privacy of individuals. Would you like to comment on why you yourself post anonymously?

The goals of wikipedia are far larger than maintaining biographies of living public figures, which they object to the existance of (sorry about that preposition). If we lose those, it's no great loss. What we gain is the unlamented LOSS of many bios we have, of people who wouldn't be nearly as close to being "public figures" if they didn't have a bio on Wikipedia! "Public figure" is not a binary thing, as I've pointed out. I'm floored by the suggestion that our primary concern should be the "unfairness" of loss of the work editors did to make a bio the target is unhappy with, and not the "unfairness" of the fact that the person has had a bio constructed invading their privacy, which they never asked for and do not want! There's enough "unfairness" to go around here. A primary question is "Whose business is all this?" The world used to have a well-developed sense of that whose proper business things were. Nobody knew Rock Hudson was gay, except all of Hollywood. But the public didn't. I think our sense of "fairness" and kindness to public figures died right after the Kennedy administration. Now, if I look at TV, I can hardly change the channel fast enough to keep from finding out that some famous actor's older sister is really his mother, and his mother is really his grandmother. This, I didn't want to know. And I can't fathom the bloodimindedness of whoever made this into public knowledge. What has happened to us as a society. But it's bleeding over into wikipedia, and I hate itSBHarris 20:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why these are problems. If the subject wants it taken down, why not just take it down (and permanently)? If the subject wants it re-written, then why not let it be re-written? (A second re-write request could be considered a permanent take-down.) The business about work ultimately amounting to nothing is something every single editor labours under: where is the guarentee that any of my pictures will be decorating their respective articles tomorrow? I can't know for sure about these un-named editors you mention, but I've spent literally hours in the field obtaining some of these images ... and many times returning with nothing of value to this project. It's the way of the wiki; I've read and understand the little ditty near the bottom of every single submit page here that reads: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." mdf 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Two years ago, a group of german Wikipedians was invited to meet the editors of the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie. It was an interesting visit and we discovered that the production of a professional encyclopedia was not so different from Wikipedia in many aspects and that we had a lot in common to talk about. We talked about our controversial discussions about inclusion of biographies. The answer the Brockhaus people gave us was very simple: "First, the person must be dead." Of course they weakened this rule a bit, to include the Pope, George Bush and Michael Jackson but in general they only include people after their death. If I look at how much damage a wikipedia article can do to a minor notable person, it might not be the worst course of action. --Elian ^Talk 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is one, huge, monstrously huge, difference. We already have 1.3 million (yes million) pages on wikipedia. That German encyclopaedia, if they even approach a ten-thousand pages, I'd say "Wow what a huge encyclopaedia!" So we are already one hundred TIMES larger than any other encyclopaedia. We've left the "they have to be dead" far far behind. Wjhonson 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Because Wikipedia contains already more articles than the 30 volume brockhaus it should be allowed to slander people and ruin their life? --Elian ^Talk 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The post I was replying to (direct above mine) stated that the person must be dead. I was responding to that issue alone. The Brockhaus people have a limited resource, we do not. What that has to do with slander I have no idea. Perhaps you do. Wjhonson 06:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So this would mean that if we got word that Osama Bin Laden didn't want a biography we'd have to take it down? Giving people a veto over their own biographies would be a big mistake and would seriously undermine Wikipedia's credibility as all we'd be left with as far as living person biographies is laudatory crap. What do we do when notable or semi-notable figures start saying "I'll only allow you to have a biography of me if you don't mention..."? Our only considerations should be notability, verifiability NPOV and legality. Full stop. Joshua Tree 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Haven't looked, but is your real name on your userpage? If not, why not?

Osama: as if Osama would object to his wiki entry, anway. I don't think wkipedia should be in the position of deciding who's notorious enough to rate a bio. Osama's at the end of the scale, but most people are not. And if by a uniform policy we miss out on bios of living people like Osma, so what? A man that famous is the subject of many web bios and books, so no loss. Anybody only notable enough to have a web bio on wikipedia BUT NOWHERE ELSE (save Wiki mirror sites like Answers.com), is probably having his or her privacy being abused by wikipedia in the FIRST place.SBHarris 20:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I support this proposal; I've had the same thought myself. And a note to you eventualists out there: everyone dies eventually; we'll have the article someday. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is instruction creep and really needless. Right now we have WP:BLP which makes it abindantly clear that normal policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V (from WP:RS) must be applied particularly rigorously. If there are no reliable secondary sources, or if those available are all highly partisan, the biography should be deleted. What the individual concerned thinks is really immaterial unless they can provide evidence that the material "out there" is partisan and NPOV cannot be followed. There are a few people for whom the sum total of verifiable information amounts to maybe a couple of police reports or one story in the paper; I think these people should not have entries. Without a reasonable corpus of secondary material we cannot follow WP:BLP, an existing guideline. No new instructions are required. Just zis Guy you know? 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, zis Guy states things well above. We should not restrict editors to writing only articles that will please their subjects. What other information source does that? How would this raise standards and allow for the presentation of the neutral viewpoint? -MrFizyx 19:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, because if adopted it would greatly shrink knowledge available on Wikipedia and possibly restrict articles on public figures who need close scrutiny (politicans, for example) to only their positive points. It might be fair to allow a "veto" if the article is a "first biography" (as defined by someone else above). In other words, allowing all articles about people who are absolutely public figures, while in any case where the "public figure" status is arguable allowing a veto then. But in no case should a politician or O.J. Simpson or anyone like that be allowed to expect his biography to be deleted at his request.PhilO837 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Another anonymous editor who supports loss-of-privacy. Mind commenting on your choice to edit without using even your real name, connecting your public comments with your public name?

As for the matter of WP:V and WP:NOR your bio article on my life can never be neutral, or truly informed. Nor mine on yours. It's an insoluble problem. Once I've died, my viewpoint can't be accessed, so you're free to do the best you can. Meanwhile, I remain the ultimate expert on me, which you cannot trump. The idea that WP:V attempts to trump the expertise problem in BLP by ignoring it, is a symptom of wikipedia's general problem of not paying any attention to real experts in a small field (like their own lives!) who don't publish. Which truly is a problem. Because there is such a thing as objective truth, even if official wikipedia policy is that there isn't, but only public opinion. Nowhere else but WP:BLP does this stark disagreement stand out so clearlySBHarris 20:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your can point to the edit where I supported the loss of privacy, in this forum I've generally promoted there being more respect for such things. Yes, I am anonymous, at least for now. There is a lot of detail in the wiki edit history. It is possible to get a sense of one's schedule and so forth. Maintaining some level of anonymity is prudent and I choose to do so. I don't understand your need to repeatedly attack editors for reasonable behavior.

While I suppose that individuals may have better access to the "objective truth" about themselves, they often have good reason not to propagate such infromation. There are many places where the 'pedia needs to be more sensitive to living people, but should we remove the article on say Tonya Harding because she doesn't like the way that she is being represented? No. Should we wait until she's dead? No, she is only 35, and her story is one that has had great impact. Again what reasonable information source restricts itself to only information that its subjects will find pleasant? -MrFizyx 21:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should remove Tanya Harding's article if she doesn't like it. That would mean people would have to read about her someplace else other than Wikipedia, and so what? You may feel that it's a good thing to maintain your own privacy, and that you deserve to have it maintained, simply because you didn't hire somebody to break somebody else's kneecaps. But that's a slippery slope, and we've all done something we're not proud of. Having a Wikibio really IS a binary thing (you either have one or you don't), and I don't think Wikipedia is in a position to be able to clearly draw a line on who is or who isn't "notorious" or "notable" or "famous" or "public" enough to rate one, even if they don't want one. So let us just not go there at all. We can leave Tanya to the tabloids and other websites, and be none the poorer for it. Really. And we gain immeasurably in respect before the world, and immeasurbly in safety for ourselves and our families. The John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy incident hurt Wikipedia badly (how badly can be seen by the fact that the page is locked), and I think worse is to come.SBHarris 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know I haven't hired somebody to break some kneecaps? There are those who characterize the Seigenthaler situation differently, but I'm not sure that I agreee with them either. That page is locked to sockpuppets of banned users, I think we could go edit it if you want to. -MrFizyx 22:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do you intend for it to work in practice? When some guy claiming to be Fidel Castro calls up Jimbo and asks for his article to be taken down, how exactly do you propose that we verify that the caller is, in fact, the subject of the article? Kirill Lokshin 22:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As explained, if Fidel logs in and asks that his bio be removed, we remove it, with a tag stating that Castro has requested it be removed. If we get a second user claiming to be the real Castro who wants it put back, we ask for two faxed notarized notes to a phone number in Florida, and Wikipedia honors the one from Cuba. Time expended, 5 minutes. For very famous people, like heads of state, you might have to START with the request for the notarized notes (or mail from the embassy or State Department Rep or Ambassador, or something). But 99+ % of the 100,000 people wikiBioed, the problem of verifying identity will have stopped long before this. And I can think of other way to do it if you don't like notaries: you can have your bio removed at a cost of 25 cents, fee to be paid by personal check only. Or by credit card, exactly as you'd make a 25 cent donation to the WikiFoundation. Come on. These problems have largely been solved out there. I'm not asking anybody to re-invent the wheel.SBHarris 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just asking for massive abuse from anyone with some free time and a desire to make us look like utter idiots. I guarantee that, were we to do this, we would suddenly find that every head of state, CEO, and major celebrity had not only discovered how to edit Wikipedia, but had, with identically formatted notes, requested that their article be deleted. The real individuals, however, would neither know nor care about this, and would therefore not take the time to ask that these bios be replaced. The outcome: a dramatic—and unneeded—loss of coverage for 20th century personalities. Kirill Lokshin 00:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep it short. The electronic world has learned how to work out identity and money transactions, or otherwise there'd be no online banking, stockbrokerages, Ebay, B2B transactions, etc, etc, etc. Your claim is essentially equivalent to saying that the world as we know it, cannot (or does not) work, because identity cannot be verified except by fingerprint. I reject it. I don't even know where my online brokerage is located, and we've been happy with each other for years. It DOES work. SBHarris 03:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you any idea how much working out said identity and money transactions costs? (And it goes up by orders of magnitude as soon as you want to deal with countries where information is not electronically available to the outside world.) Wikimedia simply can't afford to do this sort of thing. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And you know this, how? The Wikimedia Foundation already takes credit card donations and no doubt also bank wire transfers. If they have a minimum, they don't say it. Bank card use companies usually charge as a % rather than as transaction cost, or otherwise it would inhibit small sales. What does the system COST? Ultimatly, how should I know? All I know is that if you use it, you don't have to pay the startup costs. International banking and wire-transfers verification stuff were assembled to fight international terrorism funding, drug-money laundering, and stuff I don't even want to think about. However, it's there available for you to be used for a pitance. As a Gold Club member of my bank, wire-transfers overseas are actually free to me, like my checks. And they identify me pretty well, as my account (like all US accounts) is linked with my social security number as well as multiple layers of password protection. Anyway, don't be telling me the system doesn't work, or is too expensive, or can be used by somebody pretending to be me. It does work. It also works internationally, though I don't know the details (how good are the bank ID systems in Ethiopia or Iraq? Search me). Many other countries also have passports and our equivalent of notaries, who work for fees that are typically small by U.S. standards. If you've traveled and banked in the civilized world, you've used this system, and you didn't have to be rich. And you probably weren't a victim of identity theft unless you did something really dumb. Can Wikipedia afford it? They might have to charge their expense, but it shouldn't be more than a typical overseas bank transaction. Most people really argry about their wiki bios would be more than pleased to pay a notary or the fee for a minimal wire transfer to fix the problem for good (or until they pay the same to undo it). Will this fix the problem for every country in the world. No. But why wait until the policy is implementable everyplace, where it's immediately implimentable most places where international business is done?SBHarris 04:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, all of that stuff is free for you because your bank is swallowing the price as a cost of doing business with you. It most certainly would not be free for some random non-profit (which is all Wikimedia is) to start conducting such checks. This would be particularly true of trying to verify notarized documents (something which is generally only done in the course of legal proceedings of some form).

Sorry, but you are mistaken. The purpose of a notary is to verify the identity of the person signing the document, and witness the signing (as well as testify that the person knew in general what they were doing). Lawyers do not get involved except in the document creation (which for Wikipedia would be only once), and after that, if somebody thinks some notarized signature, complete with notary stamp and notary license number, is fraudulent. But how often do you expect that to happen? Realistically.SBHarris 07:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

(Not to mention the public relations nightmare it would be. "Get rid of your Wikipedia biography for the low price of $9.99!") Kirill Lokshin 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a legitimate problem. The PR alternatives are worse.SBHarris 07:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP only recently became a policy. I think we should first wait and see if this policy helps in practice. I wouldn't mind stricter notability criteria though, although those are not that easy to define, and probably even harder to find a consensus about. But just the fact that someone doesn't want a wikipedia article is not enough reason to remove it. And yes, Garion96 is not my real name, and the reasons for that are obvious for me, which I am not going to explain. Garion96 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an absolutely awful idea. JzG has explained matters well, but if you want I can give an explicit list of people who would almost certainly not have bios here if they could make this objection and whom we would all agree are notable enough to have bios. JoshuaZ 22:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion. Somehow I missed your birthname on your USER page. Did you forget to add it, or do you like your own privacy? Start your own bio! We'll be sure only to put in well-sourced things about you; hope you don't have skeletons. Your list is welcome, but is likely to be met by me with a yawn. So what if I can't look up O.J. Simpson on Wikipedia, if that also means I never have to worry about looking up, and keeping perpetual track of, the page on anyone in my family, or myself? No contest there, for me. O.J. can keep his privacy, Johnny Depp his, and so on. SBHarris 23:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"So what if I can't look up O.J. Simpson on Wikipedia..." - Then we have failed in our mission to make the sum of the world's knowledge available to readers. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I just point out that contrary to Sbharris's attempts to cast it as such, there is absolutely no double standard involved in editors wishing to remain anonymous while maintaining that allowing article subjects to veto the existence of articles is a bad idea. There have been a number of cases of individuals being harassed at their home or workplace by editors who for various reasons disagreed with their practices on Wikipedia, and that's in addition to the huge number of other ways publishing personal information of the internet can be a bad thing. In the case of articles, however, the information is already available in public sources; if it isn't then it would be disqualified for inclusion as original research. In any case, the provision of information should always trump other considerations (with the exception of law and the goals of providing a wholly free encyclopaedia). There is simply no condoning removing an article on such a prominent and important figure as Fidel Castro simply because they request it. I would suggest in general that Sbharris concentrate on the issues rather than concentrating on the personal anonymity preferences of those opposing vetos; doing so is bordering on an ad hominem argument. --Daduzi ^talk 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that this talk page has become quite long since it was archieved just over a month ago (37+kB). Brevity is a virtue. If feel Sbharrris's repeated prodding of other users regarding their anonymity suggests that he might take a look at a certian other wikipedia guideline. -MrFizyx 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, now. I know there's been the suggestion that editing Wikipedia is one of the most dangerous and nutcase-attracting things a person can do, akin to being President of the United States, and so therefore of course editors might be more careful of their privacy than any Hollywood star (about which we write any verifiable thing we like). However, let me point out that there are many other ways to make nutcase enemies in the world, or even get into business or personal situations in which you don't want your life details immediately available to anybody with cellphone access to Google. And many of the 100,000 people you've never heard of who are bio'd here, are going to run afoul of some situation in which they really don't want their bios available at a keystroke, in 60 seconds. That may include even you, one day. And even if you never touched Wikipedia as an editor, so that's a nonstarter of an argument.

This request of mine is Socratic. It's not intended as ad hominem-- it's intended to make people think. So far, I've only gotten back the arguments which essentially translate to: "Well, I'm anonymous here because *I* am special. For reasons I won't tell you, or due to my high-danger editorical job. But who the *&%$ cares about Tonya Harding or Fidel Castro? Fidel already has security, and if Tanya doesn't, well, too bad." Or perhaps I've missed the gist.

As for what's PUBLIC INFORMATION and what's not, I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to that. Is your home address public? It probably is if you own the property. Those Hollywood Tours of the Homes of the Stars are probably not run with the Stars' consent. Somebody knows where they all live, anyway. Boats go by Bill Gates' house on the lake everyday-- that's the price he pays for his fame. Do you care, or do you hate the man for his money and his Windows? But does that mean YOU want your home address on Wikipedia? Or would you like it be harder to find, even if it's ultimately findable by somebody with some money and time? There are levels to information access ease. I'm heavily arguing against this idea that all information is PUBLIC (like George W. Bush's birthdate), and easy to find, or PUBLIC and hard to find (like your property ownership records). But should you become famous, or infamous, or run for public office, or even find yourself in the news a lot as a commentator, somebody will put in the work to find the hard to find. And it will go on Wikipedia, if you allow it.

I'm finding my case hard to argue, except in the way I'm arguing it. People seem genuinely not to care about other people's privacy, but they always have reason why their own privacy is something COMPLETELY different. How do we show this, except with real life examples? I'm arguing about privacy with anonymous people, and you're claiming I'm bordering on ad hominem. Well it must be a pretty wide border, because I don't even know your names. From my end, I'm arguing with a bunch of electrons on a screen. "Hominem" refers to people. :))) SBHarris 00:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're taking a reasonable example (the privacy of random Joe off the street) and trying to drag it to an absurd conclusion (the privacy of the POTUS). The first is a valid issue, and one which this policy is meant to address. The second is not a valid issue, since genuine public figures (and, gray areas aside, I think we can all agree that there are some people who are undisputably "public figures") are going to want their articles removed not because of issues of privacy—they don't, as a general rule, have expectations of such—but because they don't like the contents. Obviously, this will provoke a negative reaction here, as it's nothing more than on-request sanitization of our coverage. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Dubya's address even has it's own redirect--how unfair? -MrFizyx 04:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So far, I've only gotten back the arguments which essentially translate to: "Well, I'm anonymous here because *I* am special. For reasons I won't tell you, or due to my high-danger editorical job. But who the *&%$ cares about Tonya Harding or Fidel Castro? Fidel already has security, and if Tanya doesn't, well, too bad." Or perhaps I've missed the gist. I feel you've missed the gist. I can't think of a single response you've been offered that would fit that description, would you care to provide an example? I've seen people suggest that there's a distinction between article space and user space, perhaps your difficulty in understanding this distinction is what is leading you to this interpretation?

And many of the 100,000 people you've never heard of who are bio'd here, are going to run afoul of some situation in which they really don't want their bios available at a keystroke, in 60 seconds. That may include even you, one day. First of all, I don't think you get that the existence on articles of people I haven't heard of is a good thing (provided they meet notability criteria and aren't just somebody's great aunt Doris who's a wizard with knitting needles). What exactly is so terrible about providing encyclopaedic information? Or should it only be information people already know? Secondly, if I were to become sufficiently notable to have an article then you can be assured I would not seek to have it deleted. Again, your perception of double standard only exists because you seem to have difficulty comprehending the distintion between article editors and article subjects.

But does that mean YOU want your home address on Wikipedia? Why would my address be on Wikipedia? I'm a non entity, and even if I weren't what could possibly be notable or informative about my address? Would you care to give an example of an article (George Bush and Tony Blair aside) where the subject's address is included in the text of the article?

Haven't look at all articles, but I think since everybody knows where Tony Blair and Bush live, we should start with people who most people don't know the location of. Where's Martha Stewart, for instance? I dunno. Wiki says Bedford, NY. Golly. Wasn't that easy on Google using her name and "address". But if you enter Bedford and her name into Google you get [7] which has the street, housing division, into on names of nextdoor neighbors, and all info from the NY Times, so it's WP:V and subject to sticking in her article, if somebody wants to. Perhaps you could suggest some more names. The whole point is, if it's NOT in wiki but IS in Google (after hard search) it CAN be in Wiki. Which makes it an easy search. See the point?SBHarris 07:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't your efforts perhaps be better spent asking the New York Times to remove Martha Stweart's address, rather than advocating the removal of articles on individuals such as Martha Stewart (a noteworthy person by any criteria) on the basis that said articles could, possibly, be used to find information already prominently published elsewhere? In any case, given that your original question was "does that mean YOU want your home address on Wikipedia?" I'm still waiting for these examples of articles which publish the home address of their subjects. --Daduzi ^talk 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This request of mine is Socratic. It's not intended as ad hominem-- it's intended to make people think. Fine, you've made people think, you've gotten answers, can you now stop making the same point at every single contributor who disagrees with you? If you object to the term ad hominem perhaps another piece of Latin would better apply to your arguments: ad nauseam.

LOL. That remark actually WAS ad hominem. Congrats on the irony of the month award. SBHarris 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

An ad hominem would be me attacking you rather than your arguments. This I have not done. --Daduzi ^talk 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous status of an individual in discussion about a policy about specifically identifying individuals and facts of their lives seems highly relevant to me. No different (logically) from a prosecutor soliciting from the person on the stand he was (say) previously convicted of perjury: context counts, and it's good to reflect on the potential biases of those speaking. For example: who is some anonymous guy, from the safety behind their ISP, to say specific things about someone who is not anonymous? The target can't "return fire" -- and doubly so, since the subject of the biography is specifically forbidden from doing so anyways. Is this really fair? Not only is it fair to the subject of the article, but is it really fair to the project as a whole? Consider that later on in this talk page, the leader of this project is talking about the possibility of editors being personally named in libel suits. How would this happen if virtually all of them are anonymous? Is it realistic to expect Wikipedia to suck down the entire liability created by random, unknown, goofballs who speak any falsehoods it publishes? Will it try its best and pierce their veil of anonymity when the shit hits the fan? It is high time to consider not just the immediate, tactical, goals of this project -- the "sum of human knowledge by any means necessary" (or however it is said now) -- but more strategic matters that amount to its survivability to (predictable!) external threat. What do you think the policy changes will be when the "9/11" of lawsuits is filed against WP and a clique of "John Doe"'s? I think it is far better to anticipate them now, work to prevent the threat by implementing them, then to simply wait for failure to occur. By engineering for success, survival is more certain and the responses to failures become simpler, faster. If this means a few people remain undocumented at WP, who cares? If this means (say) the only people allowed to edit such articles are non-anonymous, we should read this as a statement of the seriousness of the responsibility being undertaken, not cry about "wholesale censorship". mdf 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this discussion is about deleting articles at the subject's behest, not the limiting the ability of anonymous editors to contribute. There's plenty of vaired proposals about that issue floating around (Wikipedia:The overuse of anonymity at Wikipedia and a proposal was the first I could find), none of them getting very far, but if you do feel passionately about the issue your comments might be better suited to those proposals. Secondly, if Wikipedia editors were to be cited in a legal case there are manifold ways that their identity can be readily established (very few people are truly anonymous on the internet) and even if they could not that would not mean the legal burden would instantly shift to the Wikimedia foundation; legal precedent is quite clear on that issue. Finally, and most importantly, there are many policies both in place and being developed which act as a means to combat libelous statements made against individuals, and permitting the wholescale deletion of articles on the subject's say-so would be neither a necessary nor a sufficient tool to prevent libel. Less drastic measures (such as strict inforcement of the WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS policies) are far more effective tools to prevent the spread of libelous falsehoods, and would no doubt be considerably more effective than depending on the subject noticing the libel. In any case, the subject can easily remove the statements as things stand, and if that is insufficient and legal recourse is taken on the basis of the prior existence of the statements then allowing subjects to delete articles would be equally ineffective. --Daduzi ^talk 13:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding my case hard to argue, Perhaps you should reflect on that fact.

--Daduzi ^talk 05:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons why an argument may be hard; I'd have a hard time framing it for six year-olds, to pick a random example. Which one would you like to imply? SBHarris 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess one conclusion would be that your current approach, focusing on the desire of some editors to remain anonymous, simply isn't persuasive. Perhaps you should offer a more convincing justification for your advocation of large scale censorship. --Daduzi ^talk 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I generally support the SBHarris proposal, with one reservation. The reservation is there should be an exception if a person is clearly notable beyond any reasonable argument to the contrary. Examples of clearly notable beyond any reasonable argument to the contrary: O.J. Simpson, Osama bin laden, and current and past Presidents of the U.S. In reading this discussion some things pop out that strain belief. Some people apparently take the idea seriously that Wikipedia has a "mission" to collect the sum total of human knowledge on a single website. Hello. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Nothing more. Any grandiose "mission" beyond that isn't attainable nor should it be. Some people also seem to have a skewed idea of what NPOV means, and seem to be operating under the belief that articles must contain a great deal of negative or derogatory information about a person or have a "criticism of *" section, otherwise it isn't "NPOV". Last I checked the N stood for neutral, not negative. There is also the argument that editors who have spent much effort on articles will see their efforts come to naught if articles are deleted. Well, tough. There are thousands of examples every day of editors who spend hours of effort writing only to see their edits instantly rv'd. That's how a wiki works. I don't see why BLPs should be an exception. The approach to sources which favors material on the Web as opposed to, say, books in the library, is a questionable one. This is an example of systemic bias that is rampant on Wikipedia because of its location on the internet. Related to all of the above is another form of systemic bias: marginal and non-notable people tend to get Wikipedia articles about themselves solely on the basis of them holding fringy views, while non-controversial but notable people are less likely to have articles. Sadly, Wikipedia editors tend to self-select from people with axes to grind, who see fit to start articles on people because they don't like something or other about that person. Wikipedia articles wind up being repositories of negative information and criticism of living persons, and create controversies about people where no controversy existed before. I take issue with that whole line of reasoning. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or is the Wikipedia "mission" to be an all-encompassing repository of gossip and controversy about people, some of whom would rather be left to get on with their lives? And are there some people who have invested so much time in Wikipedia that it has become a "mission" that they take far too seriously, as opposed to a fun and occasional hobby? KleenupKrew 02:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"The reservation is there should be an exception if a person is clearly notable beyond any reasonable argument to the contrary." How do we come to an agreement about that? Don't we already delete non-notable biographies per a set of criteria that the community has agreed to apply. Are you suggesting a second tier of notability? The examples you have given offer no illumination as to where the line would be drawn. I can see some truth in your description of the selection bias, I'm just not certain that the inclusion of an additional bias for balance would resove this. Also, I disagree with the characterization of All wikipedia authors as having axes to grind, I think you are talking about a very vocal and active (and thus still problematic) minority. -MrFizyx 07:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to come to an agreement: external reality can tell us via the proposed "no first biography" rule (see above). These two proposals can be modified slightly and combined into a policy that reduces to:

 if(external_biography_exists) {
     wikipedia_article can exist, subject has no veto
 } else {
     wikipedia_article can exist, subject has veto until an external biography exists
 }

While there are other ways, I look at the above and seriously wonder what the possible problems are going to be. Virtually everyone who qualifies for a biography will land in the first block -- because of the extant biography -- and everyone else has an option to say "no", until some external authority decides they become notable enough. mdf 13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To some degree the current policy already has this covered. Information (from criminal records, high school yearbook interests, whatever...) is not to go into a bio unless it has been published reliably elswhere. A "no first biography rule" would indeed require criteria. What defines an existing bio, AND how do we debate whether or not an article is in violation of that criteria IF a deletion was requested AND if that request could be varified as originating from the mildly obscure person who is the subject of said biography. This is not so simple as you might like it to be. I think we need to be more patient and see how this new criteria works as it stands. -MrFizyx 14:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am generally opposed to this suggestion. Anyone who's biography contains an error has recourse. If their biography is accurate then they don't need to veto it out of existence. If people want to read the article, then that is some proof of notability. If no one does want to read the article, then the subject has not been harmed by its being avaialble. Johntex\^talk 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• I am also generally opposed. I don't see the need to formally give people a means of getting rid of their biographies when our current means of fixing problems seems to work. I also see having to wait for a biography as a big hinderance to writing about people who suddenly become famous, or to people with lots of verifiable information about them who just haven't had a biography written about them yet. JYolkowski // talk 23:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Clause allowing knee-jerk deletions

Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule.

Yes I realize that we want to err on the side of subjects of the articles, but on Ann Coulter for instance, material is being deleted for reasons like "Bad source: Requires registration" without discussion... do we really want to allow knee-jerk reactions to legitimate edits? Can't we just add a clause here saying if you spend 5 minutes on Google and still can't find a source for the disputed negative passage, then you can remove it without discussion? --kizzle 22:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I think the current rule is perfectly sensible. If you want to insert negative information about a living person, particulary information that would be libel if it is false, then you run the risk, personally, of being named in a libel suit, and quite properly so. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of ALL KINDS, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. I take no position on the general suitability of sources which require registration (or a trip to the library). I think that's a matter which depends on several different factors and the overall context. --Jimbo Wales 10:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jimbo for your input. I know you have other things to do, so I'll try to be brief and limit this as my final comment on the matter. Incorporating protection against libel is absolutely vital to Wikipedia, but I wonder if the wording as it stands, especially the "without discussion" part is a bit too strong on the matter. Yes it is meant to strongly discourage unsourced negative material, but why the "without discussion" clause? The editor in mind, who is a fan of the subject of the article, began using a "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Unsourced. Delete immediately" boilerplate, even removing a properly cited passage from Salon.com because it was registration only and he thought it made the subject look bad. But can't we afford the same protections to the subjects by either requiring discussion as we do to non-BLP pages to stem such knee-jerk reactions? I can't see any protections for the subjects being given up by at the very least requiring a simple note placed upon the talk page, or anything else to stem someone from blanket removal of content they don't like, especially for such a lame reason as the source is registration only (though still satisfying reputable, notable, and verifiable). That's all I promise :) --kizzle 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new version:

Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion after spending at least 5 minutes on a search engine trying to locate a source for the disputed passage; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule.

--kizzle 22:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I gather your problem came up due to this edit. Does registration required qualify as "unsourced or poorly sourced"? There may be some problem with interpretaion here. I don't think knee-jerk removals are always a bad thing. Doesn't the information get put back into the article once proper sources are given? If unsourced claims are particularly negative I would rather they be removed than {{fact}} tags were added. Doesn't this lead to a better article in the end? -MrFizyx 23:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not too much of a problem, I just don't see the harm in adding my section above. Lou is a fine editor, but he sees the Coulter article as a "hit piece" on Coulter... therefore any section he doesn't like without an explicit source or even a "registration only" source he just removes. One edit is fine, but I see this turning into a pattern, as his edit summaries now simply have a template "WP:Biographies of living persons. Unsourced. Deleting immediately". Inserting this removes the potential for knee-jerk deletions on articles, and I don't see the addition causing any harm whatsoever. --kizzle 23:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A potential problem is that one can generate unsourced claims at a rate much faster than 1 per 5 min. -MrFizyx 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No. All unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person must be removed. If you have a problem with a particular editor applying the policy wrong then you need to deal with them. This section of BLP was suggested by Jimbo and has wide support. I do not think you are not going to have any success watering it down. FloNight ^talk 23:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Flo, do you think this section does include registration required sources as acceptable for these purposes? JoshuaZ 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If the source is a book that you have to get from a cross library loan, that fact does not make it a "bad" source. The New York Times is a vaild source whether you buy a paper version or register for the online version. WAS 4.250 01:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with WAS 4.250. If you have a reason to truly doubt the source then you should remove it. But this section of the policy is not meant to benefit established users that engage in editing wars by adding another reason to remove material. FloNight ^talk 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we somehow reflect what you just said into policy? --kizzle 22:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Your previous suggestion does not reflect what you just said. May I recommend that you introduce a new suggested replacement of text given your new understanding? WAS 4.250 23:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I for one would object to any wording which would suggest that web searches are an acceptable approach for determining the accuracy of a statement, as in spending at least 5 minutes on a search engine trying to locate a source. If you search the Web you are very likely to find all kinds of unreliable gossip and just plain inaccurate information from blogs and the like, with the end result that a lot of defamatory statements on living persons might wind up staying in articles when they should be removed. If Wikipedia is to be a reliable resource, there needs to be a lot more emphasis on using traditionally published material (books, and non-ephemeral periodicals) as sources. A Web search doesn't cut it. KleenupKrew 02:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And on the flip side, a web search, esp. on google books, can turn up a lot of well-researched, reliable sources, that would otherwise be overlooked by only being able to visit Podunkville library. Too much reliance would be placed on those editors able to use Harvard Library or the New York Research library to the exclusion of those using google books, or photoimaged copies of DNB or Complete Peerage. This proposal goes way too far to the other extreme. Wjhonson 03:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay, but Google Books isn't a web search, it's a Google Books search. Searching on www.google.com does not turn up the same content as on books.google.com and vice-versa. They're two different things. The problem I see with relying on web searches to justify inclusion of derogatory statements is there are a lot of left-wing and right-wing advocacy sites which can be - and are (unjustifiably, in my view) - being used as sources for criticism about living persons. There are also plenty of reliable sources to be found on the web. I don't think anyone is seriously contesting using the New York Times as a source. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I would go so far as to suggest that even if a critical statement can be sourced, it should still be removed if the only available sources are from political advocacy websites of either the left or right. KleenupKrew 03:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the policy is crystal clear, and is a good one. Finding a proper source is the responsibility of the person posting the material, not of the person deleting it in accordance with the policy. Lou Sander 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But a registration-only source is no less reliable than a printed source (arguably moreso, given the facility with which the web can be updated when information changes). Let's not increase our systemic bias toward the new and shiny any further than is strictly necessary. -- nae'blis 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KleenupKrew. The spirit of this policy is exactly about that specific issue. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should require strong, reliable sources for articles about living persons. The Ann Coulter article has lots of very negative things about her, many of them justified by referencing an opinion column somewhere. Some are flaky opinion columns, some are opinion columns in legitimate newspapers, but they are all just expressions of opinion. (Note that the Wikipedia entry for columnist points out that columns explicitly contain an opinion or point of view.) Using such things, IMHO, should be a very infrequent event where living persons are concerned.

I'm also in favor of NOT allowing membership sites to be used as references for controversial information about living persons. Some users disable cookies, so can't get the sites. Some users don't want to give their identifying information to a membership site. Membership sites often impose unwanted advertising on their readers. And, most importantly, IMHO, all those things discourage users from looking at the reference, which may be something entirely different than is claimed by he/she who cites it. Lou Sander 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but using that as a reason to delete entire passages without discussion that rely upon a registration-only source is violating the spirit of this section. --kizzle 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone is missing the point here. As nae'blis says, the onus is very firmly on the person including content to back that content with high quality sources. If they don't, it should, as Jimbo says, be deleted immediately, without prejudice to its being brought back with proper citations or (better) after reaosnable discussionon Talk to determine the best way of presenting that information. Why should we reverse the burden of proof by requiring additional work of people who are protecting the project's best interests? It makes no sense. If it's not stated neutrally and with solid references, it should not stay a moment longer. Jimbo's comments on this are unequivocal. This is not the place to debate the reliability of individual sources, that would be WP:RS. Just zis Guy you know? 19:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Should passages sourced with membership sites such as the NY Times be allowed to be deleted without discussion? --kizzle 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Any wording that shift the burden on the person removing unsourced or poorly sourced material must be avoided. There really is no wiggle room here... if if should take only "five minutes" to come up with a source, let the person who wants the material added to take that five minutes. - brenneman ^{L} 08:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This comment begs the question as to whether a citation to the New York Times is "poorly sourced". It's available online to anyone who joins Times Select or who pays to read that particular archived article. It's available for free on microfilm at many libraries across the United States and, I would guess, some foreign ones. The Times certainly isn't infallible, as it demonstrated in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, but a citation to a Times article is much more substantial than a lot of the stuff that's available online for free and without registration. In addition, there are still these things out there called "books". They're reputed to have some information that isn't available online. JamesMLane t c 23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, I hate this passage, here's more knee-jerk fun! We now have deletions of a DailyKos post by Markos that is verifiable, a blog by George Stephanopolous hosted on ABCNEWS.com, a blog hosted on NYDailyNews.com written by an editor, among others, all without discussion. Why people? Say it with me, because this passage sucks. --kizzle 22:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is a blog hosted is not the issue, but the poster to that blog and the editorial control of what is written there may be. How is Chris Cillizza, the writer of that blog post? Is he a journalist? Is the blog monitored for fact checking by The Washington Post's editorial staff? Is it an op-ed? These are the questions that need to be asked to assess the reliability of a source for the purposes of including a cite in a BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why I mentioned where they were hosted: ABCNews.com isn't exactly going to let anyone post on their official blog. As for your questions, I think given a normal reading of WP:RS, that the NYDailyNews.com blog, written by an editor at NYDailyNews.com, satisfies WP:RS, at least as much as Drudge does. --kizzle 23:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, if ABC hosts a specific blogger-- not a comment on his blog, but the blogger himself-- they are not going to host anything that would open them to libel charges. That sort of deletion is completely inappropriate.

Any somewhat controversial source should be specifically stated. In other words, anyone using Daily Kos or Bill O'Reilly (to take opposite sides of the political spectrum) should have to say, "According to the liberal blog 'Daily Kos'..." or "According to conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly..." but that is quite different from saying the info cannot be used at all.

And if the source is a blogger employed by ABC/NBC/CBS/a credible newspaper and posting on their site, then not even that should be necessary. Those are not self-published. No organization like that will allow potentially libelous material on their site.PhilO837 02:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Blogs are not bad, and some blogs do follow normal journalistic practices. Calwatch 06:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC subpage for BLPs

After noticing several persons and a few questions about persons who may not fit cleanly into subpages "Politics" or "Media, art and literature", and sometimes get put into the default category of "History and geography", I am considering creating an RfC subpage for biographies of living persons. What do the people here think about that? Is there a better place to direct editors looking for input about BLPs? etc. —Centrx→talk • 19:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Maurreen 00:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Should it be just living persons or biographies in general? —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would go for bios in general. Maurreen 02:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why clog it with dead people? You'll have enough time to spend dealing with lives ones.SBHarris 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "contemporary" biographies could be grouped together for Rfc whether the person is living or dead. FloNight ^talk 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The original point of the question has nothing to do with whether the people are alive or not. Simplicity would call for one section for biographies. Maurreen 15:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A reason for having a "contemporary" biographies might be that historical figures would more cleanly fit into one of the present subpages. Someone who knows about George Washington is going to be looking in the history section Bach in the arts section, but those more history-oriented editors are not going to care about Britney Spears (or...who? who cares), and vice-versa. —Centrx→talk • 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Any idea when a biography RfC subpage might be created? I think it's a great idea! Dreadlocke 16:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, [8]. —Centrx→talk • 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful! Thank you! Dreadlocke ☥ 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead links

Somehow the four links that appear at the end of a BLP box have died. They're still there, but they don't work. IMHO they contain some good material. Lou Sander 13:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To what "box" are you referring? -- Fyslee 14:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. The box about "Biographies of living persons" that appears near the top of, for example, Talk:Ann Coulter (third box down). The links formerly took one to some wisdom from Jimbo Wales. Lou Sander 14:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this box may have several versions. I've seen it in this article without images and with drawings of a man and a woman. Lou Sander 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the the same box. You can find it here {{Blp}}, it's been a bit under construction lately. Garion96 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've checked it on several articles and it seems to be working. --FloNight ^talk 14:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not working at all for me on Talk:Ann Coulter. Neither the main link nor the references at the end do anything. There is an occasional flicker on the main link, but that's it. The same thing happens with the template, but maybe that's how it's supposed to be. This has been happening all morning. I'd appreciate it if you could steer me to some other talk pages where this box appears, so I can check them out. Maybe it's a local problem. Lou Sander 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha! What threw me off was calling it a "box." So many things can qualify. I see it's the Template:Blp you're talking about. Yes, it has been edited recently, but the links have been working find from this end. Maybe your ISP has been having some instability? Just a guess....

If anyone can help this problem with instability, please do so. -- Fyslee 18:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This thing is still acting up on me. "Instability" is definitely the word for it. Clicking links sometimes works, sometimes puts the image or the text of the links (the links themselves, not the stuff they link to) in seemingly random places around the template. I'd still like to look at it in some other articles, if somebody can steer me to them. (I'm ignorant about templates, but my gut tells me there's some sort of coding problem in the this one.) Lou Sander 21:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's stable today, but the links at the end are gone. Maybe they were the problem. Lou Sander 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fact tag

Statements of fact are made on this article page, about which no citation is given. These statements of fact are predujical to achieving a certain point-of-view, and therefore should have a citation. Do we not strive to achieve a higher level of excellence on the guideline and policy pages than what we attempt on the article pages? Or should guidelines and policies be based on uncited "facts" ? Wjhonson 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

First, this is Project space. Second, when Jimbo and Danny say these things arrive daily, it is reasonable to believe them: they are a reliable source for this information. Third, the people on OTRS can back it up. Fourth, the precise frequency of complaints is irrelevant anyway: one lawsuit could close the project down. Just zis Guy you know? 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly is this evidence that Jimbo or Danny said this? Where is the evidence that anyone on OTRS or anywhere else "backs this up" ? Wjhonson 19:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Multiple statements about the place, including WikiEN-l. But you missed point 4: the precise frequency of complaints is irrelevant anyway, one lawsuit could close the project down. Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Project space

Following a recent case where defamatory content was posted in an AfD, it seems to me that we should make it clear in the relevant section that this ruloe applies not only to mainspace and talk, but to related debates in project space. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I've taken the liberty of adding living=yes parameter to the new {{WPBiography}} tag to simplify things. It will include the language for the {{blp}} tag. See Talk:Lance Armstrong for an example. What do you think? plange 02:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

WikiProject Biography has been completely overhauled and reenergized and we are organizing task forces like the military history project. We invite anyone who works on biographies to cast your vote for different task forces. Task forces would get a parameter to our Project banner (for instance: politicians-task-force=yes) and a note would appear that says the article is a part of that task force (see example on military history article), plus having peer reviews and collaborations, and being able to grade articles by class and importance so that the articles can be part of the WP:1.0 project and much more... Come join us! plange 16:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

poorly sourced?

What does "poorly sourced" mean? Can we have some examples?

Justforasecond 15:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, could use some examples. Lou Sander 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• How about rewording it to "unverifiable"? That sounds more sensible. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 15:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• How about "Passages relying upon sources that do not meet WP:RS standards?" --kizzle 15:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Example: "Fred Flintstone, is an animated character from "The Flintstones" (hannabarbara.com). He is known to be a rabid racist (blog entry on isfredaracist.com by anonymous editor). One unreleased edisode has Fred having an orgy with a herd of brontasaurs (secret archives of the Vatican as related on www.conspiracynet.net)"

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary sources. "Fred likes bananas" is just silly and shouldn't be included. "Fred works for Mr Slade" should be part of his biography, but citing almost any episode will do. "Fred was married previously" demands a more exacting source. Wjhonson 16:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What about a reliable source like a major newspaper using unattributed words? I have an article (not an opinion column) where the paper says a particular politician has been described as "underhanded" -- but doesn't say who said so. Justforasecond 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And what about opinion columns (which, by definition, explicitly include a point of view)? It seems to me that when one uses them as sources for something in an article, one includes their point of view in the article. Lou Sander 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should maybe moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I think we need to establish some criteria to have a "source graduation scale", something a little more elaborate than just realiable/not reliable.--84.223.8.216 13:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to change "poorly sourced" to "sources that fail WP:RS"... anyone object? --kizzle 23:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

sounds good Justforasecond 01:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative information in Deletion discussions

Just checking, does this policy also apply to negative information or personal attacks posted in the AfD (deletion discussion) about a living person's bio? --Elonka 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The policy relates to article and talk namespaces. I would argue that this includes AfDs as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think so too; and the policy does say: "This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia". Dreadlocke 17:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd say just refactor the entire page to history, so it's easily accessible to Wikipedians, but stays away from the Google spiders. But I'm trying to be sensitive to the WP:AUTO guideline, as well as the WP:BLP policy, and I don't have any great desire to stir up a huge controversy. Perhaps someone else could take a look [9] and give me an opinion on whether it would be appropriate to invoke WP:BLP in this case? --Elonka 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and blanked the page. Garion96 (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It was reverted again recently. If you want it blanked, better ask an admin if they agree and let him/her do it for you. Garion96 (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, you received overwhelming support for keeping the article about you. In my opinion, apparent bad-faith comments reflect badly on the users who said them, not on you. --Zoz (t) 23:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Zoz's statement, but I also see no harm in blanking per your request. Garion96 (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Zoz, but against blanking. There are personal attacks against Elonka-the-editor in that AFD ("abusing Wikipedia", "very tasteless spamming"), but none against Elonka-the-article-subject. In other words, it doesn't say anything bad about ED's personal life or achievements other than as an editor of the Wikipedia. So I don't think BLP applies in this case, or it would apply to every personal attack against an editor. There is harm in blanking, as that 1) makes the article more vulnerable to another attempt at deletion on basically the same grounds, 2) hides our process, which in this case worked, and quite well (I've almost never seen an article kept with that many and that margin of votes before), 3) in general makes us look as if we had something to hide. However, as Zoz writes, this whole episode reflects much more on Danny than on Elonka. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you cannot separate out "Elonka-the-editor" from "Elonka-the-article-subject" since they are both the same person - even WP:BLP itself makes a distinction for article subjects who are editors: "especially when those subjects become Wikipedia editors". While blanking the whole page may not be a good idea, any unsubstantiated and unwarranted accusations, negative comments and other violations of WP:BLP should be removed or retracted in some manner. Dreadlocke 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What is so bad about blanking? Editors can always check the history for the discussion. Casusual readers perhaps can't, but project space is more for editors anyway. Plus, like Elonka said, blanking stops google spiders. Garion96 (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of what's on the page is fine, so there's no real need to blank the whole thing, and just targeting the specific statements that need to be removed makes for a much clearer history for anyone going back to read the results of the RfD. I'd just refactor it to get rid of the problematic statements. Unless the whole thing is bad...but I thought the support for Elonka's article was impressive. Dreadlocke 18:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Patent personal attacks ("User:Example is an evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet") are always removed immediately from discussion pages. In my opinion, everything else should stay. "What is so bad about blanking?" (1) It can become a bad precedent - in the worst case, users could cite this and demand that all negative criticism of them be removed from discussion pages. RfCs and RfArs are filled with negative comments / criticisms, blanking them all would be counterproductive. (2) It may be perceived as a bias in Wikipedia - Daniel Brandt was not allowed to edit out a sentence he didn't like from his bio; IMO long-term editors shouldn't be able to remove negative criticism of them either, even if it's on talk pages and the comment is harsh. (3) Replacing archived discussions with "Courtesy blanking" and having editors to check the page history is against the KISS principle, (4) against transparency, and unprofessional in my opinion, especially when the AfD discussion resulted in "keep" - in favour of the subject. So I think the cons of blanking the page clearly outweigh the pros (no google spiders). --Zoz (t) 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Note the difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll". "Very tastless spamming" is a harsh and probably unwarranted negative criticism but not a personal attack imo. --Zoz (t) 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I noticed in the past on some articles that I was interested in that were up for deletion some of the voting members made some very disparaging comments about the people some of the articles were about. I thought even then that some went beyond civility by accusing the actors or filmmakers as being the creators of articles etc. Some of these people were insulted and made fun of in other votes for deletion pages. These comments can still be found and are even found on Wikipedia mirrors. I suppose someone who is insulted one day could still have a problem with being trashed on Wikipedia couldn't they? Just wondering what might happen with these older insulting comments during past votes etc. Plank 23:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems one of the subpages I created got blanked, no reason given. If this gets prolific, there'll be smoke... the disappearin' kind. Mdoc7 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How does WP:LIVING relate to our linking policy

I've been trying to figure this out. I can tell from the policy that statements in an article about a living person which are controversial need to be especially well sourced. But how does this apply to external links? If, for example, an external site makes controversial claims about a living person, there is no official "verification" process I know of for information on an external site. Does that mean the link has to be to a site which is a reliable source in and of itself? Or is there some other rule of thumb? This is also a practical question. I'm involved in a dispute about a link to a site which claims (ambiguously) to be written and maintained by a specific famous person. What's written there is not stunningly controversial, but it does effectively link a large body of written work (the site contains fiction) with a known, published author, and contains a few offhanded "personal" remarks -- I believe the guy says his agent is worthless, for one. Is there a specific way I should interpret WP:LIVING as it applies to information on external sites? -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 22:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In general the same rules would apply for external links as content. Remember there is also a WP:EL policy that discourages links in favor of written content. the EL to each article needs to be determined on an individual basis, of course. --FloNight ^talk 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The link is in an appropriate place and not replacing real content -- it's in an external links section -- but it would seem the link I've described about is probably not usable in this case, since it fails to be verifiable. I ask in part because I've seen a lot of external links appear to be to fansites and similar; those seems to be generally considered okay even if they have a fair amount of questionable information, but the situation I'm dealing with now seems a bit more "controversial" than that instance. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 23:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We have WP:EL that advises on what to link and what not to link, but I would argue for extra caution when assessing external links in BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone wants to look at the specific situation, it would be incredibly helpful. The article is Stephen Colbert. I haven't been able to attract very much editor attention on the article's talk page, but the reverting situation is rather out of hand, and I don't exactly know what to do. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 03:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That link looks like a joke site to me. Just use reasonable judgment. This policy is about protecting the innocent...and protecting from lawsuits.[10] Justforasecond 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Editor comments

On the subject of removing unsourced negative comments about the subject of an article, would this strongly worded negative comment about the subject’s mother fall under that policy? [11] Or is that just "opinion"? I asked the editor to source it or remove it, but my request was ignored. [12] (second paragraph). Dreadlocke 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

public actions by public people

I suggest we need to explain that we are not limiting the analysis of public figures. Say:

This policy does not limit editors' analysis of the public actions of public people, such as politicians. If reliable sources indicate that action X has the specific results Y and Z, the article should state that reghardless of whether or not that can be construed as a criticism of the subject. (If other sources, also reliable, deny Y and Z that of course needs to be mentioned as well.) It is much better to explain the controversy than to not mention it. Rjensen 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This policy does not restrict criticism that is based on high-quality references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A compromise on DOB

Perhaps a month of birth as well as a year of birth would demonstrate that the author "knows what they are talking about" w/o revealing an exact date. -- 75.24.109.203 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To preserve NPOV

If negative information must be very carefully sourced (understandably, to prevent libel), positive information should have the same restrictions. Someone will say "but it's just the negative that can lead to libel." True, but to keep NPOV if you limit negatives you must also limit positives likewise. Someone else might say "But it's negative info that can be hurtful to the subject." Again, NPOV is more important.

I understand restricting negative info to force careful sourcing, but then the same must be done with positive info.PhilO837 00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, I think that instead of removing the supposed "poorly" sourced negative (or positive) text, we should attribute it to the source, using the formula: "according to X..." --84.223.8.216 13:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Similar points are made by user Rjensen above, I think we can merge the discussions.

So this is NPOV?

Up at the top of this page, "Speak ill only of the dead" is a NPOV? (Selah...) Newspapers/magazines don't do that, but on the other hand- Time's done it with Hitler and Hussein. Oh, that's right-- Hussein's still alive. Mdoc7 17:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if "speak ill only of the dead" is a proper way of putting it. So can we now lower the bar for Kenneth Lay since he's dead? Wouldn't his family have something to say about it? Being dead does not necessarily protect from libel. Descendants of famous figures could protest too. I'm sure Martin Luther King Jrs.' descendants would not be too happy if negative poorly sourced or unsourced material was put into his article. That term might need to be rephrased. MrMurph101 20:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your premise is quite wrong. It is a well established legal truism that the dead cannot be libeled. Libel involves actual harm due to false damage to one's own reputation. MLK's family has a financial interest in his "legacy" but if it is protectable by civil suits, it has to be under some other theory than libel.
--Jerzy•t 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but I think my point still stands. Libel may not be the right term for those not living but "speak ill only of the dead" is still not the best phrase to use. Even taking legalisms away, it seems to go against wikipedia's guidelines. MrMurph101 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

proposed policy change

seeing as no one seems to be able to define "poorly sourced" (see discussion above), i propose we either

1. ) remove this wording from the policy or
2. ) define this more clearly

any thoughts?

Justforasecond 01:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Poorly sourced means that the sources provided are not reliable enough to warrant their use. In an article about a non-lving person, we may allow sources that are not pristine. That is not the case in biographies of living people, for the reasons explaind in the policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The danger with trying to define it, JFAS, is that people will seek loopholes. Probably the only rule of thumb we should have, with negative material about BLPs, is "if in doubt about the source, remove the negative material." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Subjective labels

How should we address the labeling (most often political) of a particular subject? If a person describes themselves one way but is regarded differently, perhaps even in contradictory fashion, by many others, what is the proper way to address this? Should we even use them? Should we just cite the subject's self-description or include that and add what others say also? I personally think the labels should go entirely unless the subject's notability revolves around these labels. For instance, it is obvious that Ann Coulter is conservative and does not like liberals and that can be easily verified. However, Michael Moore may be liberal and may criticize conservatives but does not use these labels as overtly as Coulter does. Also, Bill O'Reilly describes himself as an independent but is generally regared as conservative by others.

All that said, what I am asking is if there is a clear policy toward this? MrMurph101 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you answered it. In your example, Bill O'Reilly's view of himself is sourcable. "is genrally regarded as conservative" would fit under weasel words. There are sources for these labels. If the New York Times calls Ann Coulter conservative, then the label should reflect the New York Times views and attirbuted to the New York Times. But if it's a vague "most people regard Ann Coulter as conservative" it should be avoided as an example of weasel words. Generally the label should be sourced and attributed to those believing it. Otherwise the label should be avoided. --Tbeatty 08:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe I understand. Just use direct, sourced statements and avoid generalizations (weasel words). MrMurph101 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Info about living people on non-biographical articles

Probably a note should be made in this policy page about information on living people that is written outside the main biographical article. Take for instance list of people with epilepsy and other similar articles/lists. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I have already suggested a change in the BLP template to reflect this matter. So far no one has commented. Please feel free to cast your "vote" there. -- Fyslee 10:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As Fyslee mentions on that other page, this is already covered by the line:

"These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles."

in the opening section. Perhaps you think it worth highlighting some more? Colin°^Talk 10:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it could use a little extra attention. While biographical articles work as magnets for those who are detractors of the person in question, it should be emphasized that Wikipedia doesn't have a double standard, where libel and other problematic edits are not allowed in a biography, but are allowed when slipped into other articles. There are already such problems regarding Stephen Barrett, where statements outside of Wikipedia, which are contested in court by Barrett, are placed on Wikipedia as another venue to libel him. -- Fyslee 11:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on Reliable Sources

The page says:

"Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject"

I'd like the "newspapers" and "websites" items clarified. The current wording gives the impression (to me) that all newspapers and websites should never be used. Also, why are we repeating text from Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Colin°^Talk 12:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- this policy should be changed to refer to reliable sources where possible. Justforasecond 14:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The keyword here is self-published. Self-published websites, blogs, etc. and not considered reliables sources (as per WP:RS. In this case, these cannot be used on a BLP unless written by the subject, and that with caution. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the English is ambiguous. It is not clear that you should prefix "self-published" before each of these words. Also, I don't think "self-published" is a useful term for a web site. Many web sites are self-published from corporate down to individual. The term is only useful for books. For web sites, the Reliable Sources page uses the word "personal".

I really don't see why this policy needs its own Reliable Sources section if the guidelines on people and sources are already covered in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Colin°^Talk 15:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. --kizzle 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A forum-site is set up to discuss a person, and has a section containing scans of old city newspaper articles, many of which contain negative statements about the person. An editor wishes to use the above policy text to exclude any link to the scans of original documents (and any link to the forum site) from a bio article on the person here. Common sense would say the policy text refers to attack-essays, not scans of original documents even if they are from "obscure newspapers" and only available on the web at a partisan forum/blog. Is this correct? (I believe the newspapers are archived at the public library of the city, so they are available with some difficulty off the web, if that matters.) Gimmetrow 04:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How to write a bio

1. Spend several hours writing it, including your references from neutral, verifiable, reliable sources.
2. Mail it into the Wikimedia Foundation office for approval by counsel
3. If approved, post a copy of the article to this talk page, along with proof of approval by counsel.
4. To save time, recommend one of the following options:
   1. That it be deleted because the person is alive, and they might not fancy it.
   2. That it be deleted because the person is dead and they aren't interesting anymore.
   3. That it be deleted because they are dying, and we don't have a date of death yet and anyway see option 1
   4. That is be deleted because they are being born, and we only have the name and date of birth and we can't possibly mention when they were born in case they don't fancy it and anyway see option 1.
   5. That it be deleted because it's about a person and they might not fancy it.
   6. That it be not deleted, but blanked and sysop-protected (on pain of admin death) because they and/or their lawyer doesn't fancy it.
   7. That it be not deleted, but truncated and sysop-protected because they and/or their lawyer doesn't fancy it but obviously we should have an article about them and because hey, why not sysop-protect something when you can — it's a wiki, after all.
5. Be aware that anything you add to the article might somehow in some universe under some linguistic system with a certain punctuation be construed as non-positive about the person and removed an infinitely large number of times.
6. It is generally better if you don't write an article about a person. They might not fancy it.

-Splash - tk 23:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(stands up and applauds). Considerations for slander and libel are important, but I fear we are way closer to the censorship end of the spectrum. --kizzle 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are willing to indemnify the Foundation's liability, then I withdraw all objections I have made on these pages. But I doubt you are. This is why I think that it's more important to squelch a bunch of marginally notable biographies, and offer real dialog to the remaining subjects (if they choose) ... if it reduces the likelihood of this project being sued out of existence. Engineer for success, not failure. mdf 14:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC

Why the sarcasm, Splash? Do you have any suggestions on how to improve upon this policy or its application? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a "no discussion" clause to removing negative information? How does that help in any way indemnify the Foundation's liability? Is it really necessary? By not having it, do we really place ourselves in any more jeopardy? Also, is it really necessary to delete entire pages along with the history and ask the editors to put the page back together with proper sources? This policy is definetely not perfect, nor close to it. --kizzle 10:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(Probably stepping into a wasp's nest) I think it means "Remove without asking on the talk page beforehand". Basically it seems to be a matter of reducing the time between noticing its negativeness and the committing of the edit that removes it down as close to 0 as possible. I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to discuss it with the original add-er or on the talk page (See below this for an idea of mine). 68.39.174.238 15:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See the knee-jerk section above as to why I want people to simply place a note on the discussion page before they remove the info. --kizzle 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Interpreting Poorly sourced materials/whats negative

This official policy states: "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. "

In practice this means that what is considered "negative" or what is considered "poorly sourced" will be left to the interpretation of an administrator when he reviews your 3RR violation report and that enforcing this policy in good faith can get you blocked, so there is no exception. --Paul E. Ester 03:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: "people" rather than "persons"

Why don't you change the name to Bios of living people? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you want to use "people" rather than "persons"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Argentino, but "people" sounds more like normal speech. -- Fyslee 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living people already redirects here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Persons is more accurate to what this is about. It is not about mass people in general, it is about specific persons, severally. —Centrx→talk • 11:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

severally appropriate :) Mdoc7 22:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion on preventing related misuse

I suggest that some section be added under "Remove ..." about how to discuss a disagreement of whether or not a source is reliable, something like this:

If you disagree about the legitimacy of a source used to back up an assertion, err on the side of caution and leave it out. Find the remover's talk page and ask them about their concerns. If they doesn't work, consider asking other's opinions on the talk page of the articel. If the disagreemnt continues, see WP:DR.

Mainly what I'm concerned about is a PoV/revert/edit warrior looking at the 3RR exemption and deciding to try and defend their warring by claiming that their opponents were "posting unsourced negative material", similar to the way some past pushers have by claiming their opponents were "vandalizing". I'm not seeking a change to the policy itself but the supporting framework to so everyone understands this can't be used to justify repeated reversions without discussion. 68.39.174.238 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Privacy of birthdays

I would like to question the rationale behind the whole "Privacy of birthdays" section. See this publication by The Florida Bar (Wikipedia.org is hosted in Florida):

John A. Bussian and Paul J. Levine: Invasion of Privacy and the Media: The Right "To Be Let Alone" (Updated August 2004)

This makes a very interesting read for a lot of topics discussed on this page. Quote:

While there are few clear rules, there are some guidelines as to which "private facts" normally should not be subjected to public view. The following list contains several trouble areas which give rise to potential liability:

1. sexual relations;

2. family quarrels;

3. humiliating illnesses;

4. intimate, personal letters;

5. details of home life;

6. photographs taken in private places;

7. photographs stolen from a person's home; and

8. contents of income tax returns.

Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 652D, comments (b), (g) (1977).

Likewise, it can be stated generally that matters of public record are not considered private facts and may be published freely:

1. a person's birth date;

2. the fact that a person is married;

3. military record;

4. admission to the practice of any trade or profession;

5. occupational licenses;

6. pleadings filed in a lawsuit;

7. arrest reports;

8. police raids;

9. suicides;

10. divorces;

11. accidents;

12. fires;

13. natural disasters; and

14. homicide victims.

Note that this refers to the first publication of such facts and makes no assumption about the notability of the person in question, whereas on Wikipedia we have WP:BIO and WP:RS as severe additional restraints, of course.

The only motivation for the "Privacy of birthdays" section seems to have been the fear that exact birth dates could be used for identity theft. While by now we have a lot of examples for the kind of damage that the other sections of WP:LIVING are designed to prevent (slander/libel, harassment if home or business addresses are published, etc etc), I am not aware of a single instance where the subject of a Wikipedia article has been the victim of identity theft because of his/her birthday date having been published on Wikipedia.

On the other hand it has been claimed that exact birth dates are of no encyclopedic value. I strongly disagree. Numerous arguments can be made that the exact birth date is relevant for a biographical article (for example, they are the basis of legal age limits which have a profound impact on a person's life). It is a venerable, century old tradition to record the exact birth date in biographies and remember them as anniversaries, see for example Chambers Book of Days. In the western world, birthday anniversaries have long been matters of great public interest and become relevant events themselves - example for today: Fidel Castro turning 80 being the topic of about 4,050 media reports according to Google news. Often they are not only triggering media reports, but also political developments, cultural events (how many Mozart evenings have been held on January 27 this year world wide?), scientific conferences and literary publications, etc. On de:, a biographical article is featured each day in the "selected anniversaries" section on the main page . Encyclopedia Britannica is doing the same, see the "Biography of the Day" on britannica.com (today it is Alfred Hitchcock, because he was born on August 13).

regards, High on a tree 23:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Information such as birthdays is relevant information, as long as it is properly sourced. If a birthday was published on the subject's web site, celebrated by the subject on radio or television, published in a newspaper article or profile about the person, or in court papers for the person (for example, if the subject was a defendant in a criminal trial), then that is relevant. I would object to digging out birthdays from birth and death records, from web sites like ZabaSearch and US Search, and from corporate records that are not publicly available.

On the other hand, Wikipedia should try not to be the first publisher of fact. The Florida Bar only makes a case that one should be careful when discussing items such as family quarrels, sexual liaisons, and tax returns. If a subject releases their tax returns to the public (as part of a political campaign, for instance), that is a relevant primary source. Wikipedia should not report first hand observations of person A having an affair, however, if details of person A's affair is published in a newspaper or magazine with normal journalistic standards, then that certainly should be included. If someone has a "humiliating disease" which is a "open secret" in that community, Wikipedia should wait until that is published somewhere else before exposing that information. Calwatch 00:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Academic biographies

...I have decided to turn this issue into an essay at Wikipedia:Academic and artistic biographies. Please see its talk page for the thread that started here, but that I move over to there. LotLE×talk