|
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 28
Self-published sourcesI would like to change the wording of this, because the current wording has opened up a loophole. It says:
Because it says "about a living person," this has been interpreted to mean that it's okay to use self-published sources in BLPs so long as the material in question is not about a living person. The particular situation is about a climate-change group blog partly controlled by a Wikipedian. It was being used as a source in a BLP about a climate-change skeptic that the same Wikipedian has criticized on and off-wiki. The use of this blog as a source is being defended because the material it was used as a source for was not directly about the BLP. [1] (It was rejected as a source in this BLP several weeks or months ago, by the way, so this proposal to change the wording isn't related to that decision; it was raised again recently only as an example on the talk page.) I would therefore like to change that sentence to clarify that self-published sources are never allowed in BLPs unless written or published by the subject:
SlimVirgin talk contribs 15:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
proposal to prevent "sideways" avoidance of BLP bans"Anyone barred from any specific articles concerning any individual or group, or any topic where BLP concerns might reasonably be seen to exist, is also barred from making edits referring to that person, group, or topic in any other articles or associated talk pages where the same person or group, or same topic where BLP concerns have been raised, is mentioned." (Italicized emendation to avoid claims that this is over-broad) The purpose of such an addition would be to prevent "sideways" avoidance of any article or topic restriction by either adding a person, or group, to another page not directly mentioned in such a ban, or by adding or deleting material in any such page. It is thought that this is best suited for an addition to WP:BLP as policy, as then it would be applied uniformly across WP, rather than trying to add such language one person at a time. This would also clearly not be used as an ex post facto change of any current bans or restrictions, but would apply henceforth. (in other words, it is feasible to state "after 1 July 2010" or the like in the text) Collect (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's an |
| Examples | Suggested action |
|---|---|
| The names of the wife and children of Ihava bin Hidin, a wanted terrorist who has orchestrated suicide bombings that have resulted in deaths, are published in a newspaper article. | Applying criterion 1, the names of Ihava's wife and children should not be disclosed in the article about him. There is a risk that people may try to harm them because of their hate for Ihava. |
| It is disclosed on an established website reporting entertainment news that Betty Boomz, a well-known porn actress, has an adult daughter who is training to become a nun. | Applying criterion 1, Boomz's daughter's name should not be mentioned in the article about Boomz. Consider also whether the information, which is trivial, belongs in the article at all. |
| Actor John Doe has lent his name to a campaign for tough criminal sentences for heroin addicts. Newspapers report that his adult son was arrested for possession of heroin. In spite of the irony of the public allegation, the son is not notable in his own right. | Applying criterion 2, it is permissible to mention that Doe's son has been arrested, but his name should not be mentioned in the article about Doe. |
| A news report states that famous sportswoman Waheeda Ismail has been seen in the company of a man who is otherwise not notable. | Applying criterion 2, the fact that Waheeda is dating may be mentioned in the article about her, but the man should not be named. However, consider whether the information, which is trivial, belongs in the article at all. |
| Peter Chen is the education minister, and has frequently stated that educational standards in government schools are the same as those in private schools. He has always kept his wife and minor children out of the limelight. A journalist tracks down Chen's children and discovers that he has sent them to an exclusive private school abroad. | Applying criteria 2, 3 and 4, the fact that Chen has sent his children to a private school abroad may be mentioned in the article about him, but the children should not be named. |
| Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is married to Michelle Obama and has two daughters, Sasha and Malia. As of 2009, Obama's daughters are minors and are not notable in their own right. | Applying the exception, they may be named in articles about Barack and Michelle Obama. |
| Actor John Doe and his wife Jane have given an exclusive interview to Gossip Magazine about the birth of their daughter Booboo Happy Flower. Despite the novelty factor of her name, the child is not notable in her own right. | Applying the exception, Doe's daughter's name may be mentioned in the article about Doe. |
Thanks JackLee for updating me and reposting this. I'm sorry to have left that last conversation hanging a few months ago. Based on that discussion Gigs changed the then BLP Names policy back to its original one (see diff) and then just recently excised the n-word (see diff). As I said back then, I personally don't think we should be wading into privacy debates, and definitely support a permissive approach. However, I think we can get some compromise language that is clearer than the current policy. Possible draft:
- Names of living people may be included in articles so long as their inclusion is in accordance with Wikipedia policy, especially that such names are verified by reliable sources and judged relevant to the article. In cases where a living person is tenuously related to the article, related for mostly negative reasons, or a child, the quality and/or quantity of reliable sources must meet a particularly high standard. If there is doubt over inclusion, the issue should be discussed on the article's talk page.
Joshdboz (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- This wording seems OK to me. Fences&Windows 12:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Strong oppose the rewording. In most cases it would make it impossible to add verifiable information from reliable sources, which is at odds with the aim of an encyclopedia. In general, the whole concept of hiding information which is already widespread on reliable sources is pointless and ridicolous. I agree that if names are revealed only in obscure sources, we can apply a presumption of privacy, but once the names are on newspaper articles, by appling such a rewording we're just closing the barn door after the horse and, in doing so, we also do a disservice to our readers. --Cyclopiatalk 20:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Cyclopia. Although I'd taken the distinct lack of support for a bunch of collective facepalming at how monumentally bad an idea this is, I suppose calling it out is worthwhile. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you do not understand the objective of my rewording. I am all for no policy at all in this dept, but a number of people are genuinely concerned about privacy; my writeup merely reaffirms they general BLP principle of paying particularly strong attention to sourcing; it adds no other new barriers, indeed it removes the confusion wrought by the existing wording. Joshdboz (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- We have some confusion now on this topic. User Jacklee tried to be helpful to a discussion going on on this page - in the section above this one - by re-posting his suggested rewrite of BLPNAME from some time back - for which as he noted "there was no consensus at that time". Meanwhile the debate about this topic - and some other suggested re-writes - continues in the section above this. With people offering support or opposition to those suggested re-writes too. Result: Two threads on the same topic on the same page. Two lots of re-writes being looked at. Two lots of responses to those. Overall result: confusion.
- Proposed solution: Let's at least try and gather the proposals together so that all those concerned can at least be discussing the same things in the same place.
- Meanwhile - I am in agreement with points made above by Cyclopia. I am baffled as to how something as benign as simply mentioning the names of children of people in the public eye (such as entertainers or politicians) who have referred to their own kids by name in direct reported speech in profiles in major national newspapers (quotes of the sort "my son Peter likes football" "my daughter Lydia likes pop music") can be regarded as a prospective breach of BLP on the grounds of privacy. The names alone (no identifying details of schools attended, exact birthdate or address etc) if already in the public ether via mainstream national press - especially from the lips of the article subject - just doesn't seem to be content that should be excluded under any interpretation of BLP. Is there any credible interpretation of BLP that justifies the suppression of just basic names in such circumstances? Davidpatrick (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, sorry bout increasing the confusion. As to your question, yes, the way it's written now, it can definitely be interpreted as you described ("The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects..." and "its publication in secondary sources other than news media...should be afforded greater weight"). If we clear up the wording, I think we can remove some of the confusion. Mentioned on BBC? Include. We don't need to wait till it makes the pages of Nature. Mentioned on random, non-connected blog? No. Joshdboz (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Meanwhile - I am in agreement with points made above by Cyclopia. I am baffled as to how something as benign as simply mentioning the names of children of people in the public eye (such as entertainers or politicians) who have referred to their own kids by name in direct reported speech in profiles in major national newspapers (quotes of the sort "my son Peter likes football" "my daughter Lydia likes pop music") can be regarded as a prospective breach of BLP on the grounds of privacy. The names alone (no identifying details of schools attended, exact birthdate or address etc) if already in the public ether via mainstream national press - especially from the lips of the article subject - just doesn't seem to be content that should be excluded under any interpretation of BLP. Is there any credible interpretation of BLP that justifies the suppression of just basic names in such circumstances? Davidpatrick (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
BLPprod
There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people to broaden the sticky prod process to any new BLP without a reliable source, However that proposal is still under discussion at the RFC, so I've brought this policy into line with current rules for sticky prods. ϢereSpielChequers 18:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Self-published sources as external links
What are editors' views? Are self-published sources acceptable as external links in articles on living persons? I mean here sources not published by the subject(s) themselves, but self-published sources discussing living persons from a critical perspective, or fan pages. --JN466 13:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Those are not what we desrcibe as self-published sources, but plain unreliable sources. The relevant policy is WP:ELNO, points 10 and 11. Large fan fora may sometimes be acceptable (e.g. Leaky Cauldron for JK Rowling), but in general should be avoided: there is no reason to link to the opinion of one or two people, certainly not when it is about living people. Fram (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Self-published sources aren't allowed in BLPs, including not as external links, unless written or published by the subject, and even then with some caution because of the danger of linking to BLP violations. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with you. However, the present wording of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources is, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[4] See below for our policy on self-published images." There is no reference to their use as external links. Is this something we should address? --JN466 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Self-published sources aren't allowed in BLPs, including not as external links, unless written or published by the subject, and even then with some caution because of the danger of linking to BLP violations. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- My memory is that the EL issue used to be much clearer in this policy, but somehow got watered down. I've tweaked the EL section to make it clearer, I hope. It now says (diff):
External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.
- Where we say "see above," it links to the "Avoid self-published sources" section, which explains when they're allowed. Does that work? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Slim, sounds good to me. --JN466 15:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out that it wasn't clear. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Slim, sounds good to me. --JN466 15:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Where we say "see above," it links to the "Avoid self-published sources" section, which explains when they're allowed. Does that work? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good work.Momento (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Images of signatures.
While these images may be okay for people as notable as the president of the USA, or the queen of England, surely they shouldn't be on the BLPs of minor politicians? A good criteria would be that if it's featured in a non-primary, verifiable, reliable, published, 3rd party source - it can go into the BLP. I suggest we specifically add this to wp:blp#Misuse of primary sources or wp:blp#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources.
See also Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons and previous discussion.-- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-07t07:37z, -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-07t09:57z
- Comment - Some peoples' signatures are used on public legislation, renowned documents, or are of historical note. Most peoples' are not. If the signature has note in its own right then sure. But for most people it's closer to "non public information". The fact X is a member of some legislative body or that Y's signature is available publicly, does not mean we need to have it on their article any more than their home address or phone number (which is usually similarly public). Not convinced that "use in a 3rd party source" should be the sole criterion - will think about this. FT2 (Talk | email) 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just add a single sentence to the policy allowing editors to "generally" remove signatures at the request of the subject. Done. Anything else in the public domain is fair game. Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Or maybe just amend: "Wikipedia includes full names, dates of birth, and (where noteworthy | for historical figures) signatures where these have been widely published by reliable sources and..." ? FT2 (Talk | email) 13:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Requiring opt outs puts us in the same camp as spammers. This will mostly affect people who aren't notable enough for any other encyclopedia, but is for Wikipedia - they shouldn't have to jump thru hoops. See also Commons discussion. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-07t14:11z
- "Other encyclopedias don't do X" doesn't work for me as a rationale. I'm not sure an opt-out is required, it's more that most signatures just don't have much value from an encyclopedic viewpoint. Like home address or many other things - verifiable but not needed. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just add a single sentence to the policy allowing editors to "generally" remove signatures at the request of the subject. Done. Anything else in the public domain is fair game. Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Notable people who edit Wikipedia: 2 essays
When notable people edit Wikipedia, to add detail or fix errors in articles on themselves or their work, they often do so in unawareness of our rules, and the end result is a lot of upset to them and others. Whenever situations like this aren't resolved amicably, it potentially leads to bad press for the project.
To help mitigate the problem, I've written a pair of essays, one addressed to Wikipedians, and one addressed to notable people coming here to edit Wikipedia articles related to them. They are
Please link to them in cases where you feel they might be helpful, and feel free to improve them or leave feedback on their talk pages. --JN466 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Cool essays, thanks! --Cyclopiatalk 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Survival kit - nicely styled, but put some subheadings in the "Good things to do" section, it's too much like a "wall of text" right now.
- Hazing - not so sure I like it. I've never seen anyone taking a "chance to show them how insignificant they really are compared to us" or "giv[ing] them a hazing just because you can". So these speak to matters that most people will feel don't apply to them. Plus, "hazing" usually implies a ritualized rite of entry which is the wrong term here. FT2 (Talk | email) 10:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with FT2, "Hazing" doesn't work as a title, I think something similar to Please do not bite the newcomers would be better, the message after all is very similar, "Don't give celebs a hard time just because they are notable", the essay could probably also include some of the points in WP:BITE or at least refer to it. Roger (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. There's a ref to WP:BITE in the "See also" section, and I've added a link to it in the text as well. I've also inserted some subheaders in the survival kit.
- Let me think about "haze" a little longer. The definitions Webster's gives for it are 1 a : to harass by exacting unnecessary or disagreeable work 1 b : to harass by banter, ridicule or criticism 2 : to haze by way of initiation.
- I still think it may fit; the treatment notable people have received here has sometimes seemed quite heavy-handed to me. The fact that they are notable people creates a temptation to pull them down a notch. --JN466 18:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- Does it? I've not seen that. I know it can be hard to find examples in retrospect, but can you think of any cases where someone finding they had an article was given an unreasonable hard time apparently because they were a celebrity rather than on an exact equal footing to other non-celebrity cases? FT2 (Talk | email) 16:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- WP:DOLT describes a typical scenario. You might argue that what is described there is insensitivity rather than malice, but to the person at the receiving end of it, they're indistinguishable. :) I'll see if I can come up with something more specific; it'll require a bit of research. --JN466 01:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Another editor just reminded me of this ongoing situation, for example. While I don't know exactly when and how it started, and the subject bears some of the responsibility for the acrimonious nature of the dispute, it is a rather undignified dispute for an encyclopedia to have. --JN466 13:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- The page actively suggests Wikipedians may engage in "roughing up" BLP subjects because they are celebrities and cautions they should not do so. The point is this page asserts a claim that I can't find any evidence for. Even in the cases stated (WP:DOLT, insensitivitiy, recent ANI) there is zero evidence of bad faith or negative activity on that basis and to write an essay as if there is... it's a bit as if someone were to go write an essay tomorrow that chastised Wikipedians for accusing politicians of spousal abuse in their biographies "just because they are politicians" and explaining we really shouldn't pick on politicians. I don't think this essay stands. WP:BITE says it all. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- The essay argues that we should approach notable people who come here to edit, to add detail or fix errors, with humanity and sensitivity, bearing in mind that their Wikipedia entry is likely to be the top google result for their name, having a real and lasting effect on their lives, while most of us are shielded by a cloak of anonymity. Quoting Wikipedia rules at people in that vulnerable position, rules which we are familiar with and they are not, is a subtle abuse of power. It is not the same as throwing the book at an anonymous newbie who does not have a Wikipedia article. Deletion discussions like [15][16][17] may cause significant emotional distress to our subjects, and harm the project. I stand by what the essay is trying to say; it is only an essay, after all.
- However, I'll continue revising it and will think about the points you made. The phrasing "Of course, this is our chance to show them how insignificant they really are compared to us, right?" was actually meant to be tongue-in-cheek; I appreciate it may not come across as such. I've reworded it to "Of course, this is our chance to throw the book at them, right?" I'll think about the title too. If you have suggestions, I am open to that. --JN466 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- The page actively suggests Wikipedians may engage in "roughing up" BLP subjects because they are celebrities and cautions they should not do so. The point is this page asserts a claim that I can't find any evidence for. Even in the cases stated (WP:DOLT, insensitivitiy, recent ANI) there is zero evidence of bad faith or negative activity on that basis and to write an essay as if there is... it's a bit as if someone were to go write an essay tomorrow that chastised Wikipedians for accusing politicians of spousal abuse in their biographies "just because they are politicians" and explaining we really shouldn't pick on politicians. I don't think this essay stands. WP:BITE says it all. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Does it? I've not seen that. I know it can be hard to find examples in retrospect, but can you think of any cases where someone finding they had an article was given an unreasonable hard time apparently because they were a celebrity rather than on an exact equal footing to other non-celebrity cases? FT2 (Talk | email) 16:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with FT2, "Hazing" doesn't work as a title, I think something similar to Please do not bite the newcomers would be better, the message after all is very similar, "Don't give celebs a hard time just because they are notable", the essay could probably also include some of the points in WP:BITE or at least refer to it. Roger (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd add something to your survival kit that says how someone can submit photos of themselves for use in an article about them, specifically that such photos are generally welcome, they must be released with a license we can use and can be low resolution version of publicity photos if they prefer not to release a full resolution version under an open license. --agr (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good idea. --JN466 01:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
MPs' scandals covered up on Wikipedia (UK Telegraph)
 | This Wikipedia policy has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
(MP refers to Members of Parliament)
| “ | Now there are suggestions that some have tried to rewrite history by deleting mentions of their career low-points from Wikipedia, the user-edited online encyclopedia.
An investigation has uncovered dozens of cases where MPs' biographical pages on Wikipedia were altered to remove details of past humiliations which had been added by members of the public. Embarrassments which have been deleted include an MP who employed a male escort, an MP who lost his front bench job in a row over racist language, and a female MP whose ex-husband was arrested and deported. On every occasion, the change was made either by someone working within the parliamentary estate or by a user who appeared to have links to the MP. |
” |
Obviously, there are on-going editing disputes in the individual articles talk pages in which I have not participated, but I raise this here because of its prominence globally and because I think in the normal process of editing WP:BLP and WP:COI would be handled routinely, and here it seems to have failed. patsw (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- Without knowing the articles in question, it is almost impossible to comment on. But if the information is negative, then it needs to be sourced or removed. Ideally people might look to see if it sourced, but if it looks like it is just a negative comment, I could see people removing that type of stuff as a BLP violation. The key is, was there a reliable source for the material.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- According to the article, it was sourced, most of it coming straight from the expenses documentation. The article implies in some cases, and does slightly more than imply in others, that the edits came from the MPs or their parties. It wouldn't be too hard to just go through and check some of these, but I would be surprised if most hadn't already been fixed. Indeed, the article specifically says editors have been reverted and warned already. -Rrius (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
- The Telegraph article does list all the various articles involved. I think we should have a look at these articles to see which deletions were BLP violations, which of the deleted controversies and embarrassments were so notable that they should be in a politician's BLP, and so on. --JN466 16:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is no requirement for an embarrassment to be notable to appear in an article. patsw (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Very true. I was involved with one article in this topic area, Malcolm Rifkind (though it was not mentioned in the Telegraph article). Although MR had a very minor brush with the expenses controversy, an editor - SteamedTreacle (talk · contribs) - was seeking to make a big splash of it in the article [18]. Other editors agree on the talk page that this was grossly undue weight on what was essentially a non-issue.[19] Clearly, expenses were a significant issue for many MPs, but we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that every removal of expenses-related info from MPs' biogs was improper - at least in the case I was involved in, there was a good reason for doing so. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Funny you should point the finger at that editor re the Malcolm Rifkind article, which currently has not a word on expenses, when that editor was tangling with 194.60.38.198, an IP address assigned to "parliament.uk", in other words the very thing the Telegraph wanted to apply some transparency to. Both this Bloomberg wire story and this Daily Mail story feature Rifkind's photograph, such was his prominence in their stories, and you people have evidently backed up that editor inside the Parliament to suppress these reliably sourced stories totally such that there is now not the slightest hint of any expenses issue in Wiki's Rifkind article. This when the Scotland Herald suggests this politician's expenses over the years might have created such an issue as to push him to resignation: "... the sitting MP announced he would stand down at the next general election after allegations over his parliamentary expenses claims." On top of this, this case which you hold up to be the model, featured an editor you evidently agreed with saying that the whole discussion "should now be removed from this talk page"! Such is the commitment to transparency, that the issue is not just purged from the article, but it is supposed to be purged from the Talk page as well, apparently so that other editors (like myself) can't re-open the issue unless we come to the article with advance knowledge from other sources that there was ever a dispute. Not that I can really point the finger at the editor, given that concepts like "courtesy blanking", which is arguably just spin on the simpler concept of "cover up", have been thrown around at the highest levels of Wikipedia.Bdell555 (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, re-read the story you're citing. The story is from 2003 - six years before the expenses scandal - and the sitting MP it refers to is not Rifkind but Michael Trend, the then MP for Windsor (UK Parliament constituency), who had his own expenses scandal in 2003. Please take more care with your sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll grant that but I will not grant that I am citing "the story" because I am citing three, not one (and one could add another one if one included the Evening Standard's reference to Rifkind's expenses last November, and yet one more if one notes that the Sun thought these expenses worth at least passing mention). I can only marvel at the irony of you calling attention to the Michael Trend article, because all references to expenses in that article have been deleted! Now what was your argument again? That we should downplay concerns that articles about these politicians are being whitewashed? This is not the first time the Telegraph has called attention to the chicanery going on on Wikipedia and that the BLP crowd seems to instinctively defend.Bdell555 (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion of expenses from the Michael Trend article is indeed odd. I can't justify it, given that it was a major issue in the MP's career, with widespread coverage and lasting effects. But please do note that it is the polar opposite of what happened with Rifkind, where it was mentioned in passing by a handful of sources over a couple of days, with no findings of wrongdoing and no persistent consequences. That is where the WP:UNDUE calculus comes in. If an event has a significant and major impact on a person's life or career then it's worth mentioning; if not, then probably not. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'd cordially remind you to "take more care with your sources" because whatever your source is for "couple of days", it is contradicted by the fact that the Daily Mail story came out April 1 and the Bloomberg story was May 21. Rifkind's expenses got further mention in the media on Nov 26. If this is a non-issue why does it appear that "malcolmrifkind" wrote paragraphs explaining himself on a Telegraph blogpost? A commentator calling himself Brian Tomkinson addresses "Sir Malclom" and says "this was not a legitimate expense" to which Rifkind replies "You make a fair comment." Where in Wiki policies does it say "significant AND major impact"? If that WERE the policy, it is no more workable than a policy saying editors have near unlimited discretion to delete, as a deletionist could drive a truck through such a vague criterion. It says in Barack Obama that in August 2006 Obama visited his father's birthplace, threw out the first pitch at the 2009 all-star game, is a Bears fan, and that his great-uncle served in the 89th Division. Did any of those things have a "significant and major impact on his life or career? If not then why don't you go over to that article, delete that material and anything similar to it, and then come back here point to the edit diff so we can see if you are truly prepared to universalize this standard of yours, as opposed to just applying it selectively to material you don't fancy.Bdell555 (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- The deletion of expenses from the Michael Trend article is indeed odd. I can't justify it, given that it was a major issue in the MP's career, with widespread coverage and lasting effects. But please do note that it is the polar opposite of what happened with Rifkind, where it was mentioned in passing by a handful of sources over a couple of days, with no findings of wrongdoing and no persistent consequences. That is where the WP:UNDUE calculus comes in. If an event has a significant and major impact on a person's life or career then it's worth mentioning; if not, then probably not. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll grant that but I will not grant that I am citing "the story" because I am citing three, not one (and one could add another one if one included the Evening Standard's reference to Rifkind's expenses last November, and yet one more if one notes that the Sun thought these expenses worth at least passing mention). I can only marvel at the irony of you calling attention to the Michael Trend article, because all references to expenses in that article have been deleted! Now what was your argument again? That we should downplay concerns that articles about these politicians are being whitewashed? This is not the first time the Telegraph has called attention to the chicanery going on on Wikipedia and that the BLP crowd seems to instinctively defend.Bdell555 (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, re-read the story you're citing. The story is from 2003 - six years before the expenses scandal - and the sitting MP it refers to is not Rifkind but Michael Trend, the then MP for Windsor (UK Parliament constituency), who had his own expenses scandal in 2003. Please take more care with your sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Funny you should point the finger at that editor re the Malcolm Rifkind article, which currently has not a word on expenses, when that editor was tangling with 194.60.38.198, an IP address assigned to "parliament.uk", in other words the very thing the Telegraph wanted to apply some transparency to. Both this Bloomberg wire story and this Daily Mail story feature Rifkind's photograph, such was his prominence in their stories, and you people have evidently backed up that editor inside the Parliament to suppress these reliably sourced stories totally such that there is now not the slightest hint of any expenses issue in Wiki's Rifkind article. This when the Scotland Herald suggests this politician's expenses over the years might have created such an issue as to push him to resignation: "... the sitting MP announced he would stand down at the next general election after allegations over his parliamentary expenses claims." On top of this, this case which you hold up to be the model, featured an editor you evidently agreed with saying that the whole discussion "should now be removed from this talk page"! Such is the commitment to transparency, that the issue is not just purged from the article, but it is supposed to be purged from the Talk page as well, apparently so that other editors (like myself) can't re-open the issue unless we come to the article with advance knowledge from other sources that there was ever a dispute. Not that I can really point the finger at the editor, given that concepts like "courtesy blanking", which is arguably just spin on the simpler concept of "cover up", have been thrown around at the highest levels of Wikipedia.Bdell555 (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Very true. I was involved with one article in this topic area, Malcolm Rifkind (though it was not mentioned in the Telegraph article). Although MR had a very minor brush with the expenses controversy, an editor - SteamedTreacle (talk · contribs) - was seeking to make a big splash of it in the article [18]. Other editors agree on the talk page that this was grossly undue weight on what was essentially a non-issue.[19] Clearly, expenses were a significant issue for many MPs, but we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that every removal of expenses-related info from MPs' biogs was improper - at least in the case I was involved in, there was a good reason for doing so. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- There is no requirement for an embarrassment to be notable to appear in an article. patsw (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- Rrius, when you say "straight from the expenses documentation", do you mean a primary source? Because that would be a BLP violation -- we shouldn't access court records etc. directly, unless they have been discussed in secondary sources. (Otherwise we are doing investigative journalism, rather than encyclopedia writing.) --JN466 09:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is unlikely that primary sources were used in any of the cases related to expenses. The expenses primary source data was leaked to the Telegraph, which then analysed and published a series of stories over many weeks. The Telegraph had a near monopoly on the expenses story, so few if any Wikipedia editors would have access to primary source data not published by a secondary source. Road Wizard (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the Telegraph did publish some of the primary source data on its website, if I remember correctly. That may be what Rrius refers to. A redacted version was certainly published by the Parliamentary authorities some time later. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- It is unlikely that primary sources were used in any of the cases related to expenses. The expenses primary source data was leaked to the Telegraph, which then analysed and published a series of stories over many weeks. The Telegraph had a near monopoly on the expenses story, so few if any Wikipedia editors would have access to primary source data not published by a secondary source. Road Wizard (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank goodness the media in general does not have a WP:BLP policy, or the electorate would never be properly informed. You would think this story would get some people to question whether Wikipedia should continue to serve the interests of incumbent politicians against unknown challengers by allowing the bios which exist for the more well known incumbents to be tilted with the WP:BLP policy, but given the excuses being provided here for deleting the scandals that Fleet Street found noteworthy, I see this bias is likely to continue.Bdell555 (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- The story on Nigel Waterson seems a clear breach of BLP. No context and no charges brought. Not a notable encyclopedic incident. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Only two sentences in that article are cited to reliable sources and those two are the two you want deleted? Why don't we just turn the articles over to the political staff of these MPs for them to write? According to the Telegraph, in a number of cases that is basically what is happening on Wikipedia already so why not just call it what it is.Bdell555 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
List articles according to religion or sexuality
We've come across an interesting conundrum at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#People_sometimes_described_as_Scientologists_who_deny_they_are_Scientologists. In the specific case being discussed at the noticeboard, it's about a list of people according to religious affiliation. WP:BLPCAT says self-identification should be the primary criterion in categorisation according to religious affiliation or sexual preference (without commenting on list articles), and WP:NPOV says we should reflect reliable sources. That creates a problem where living people have been described in reliable sources as belonging to a particular category, while they themselves say they do not belong to that category. As I see it, we have two options:
- We could argue that WP:BLPCAT should be extended to list articles, so people should only be included if they self-identify as Scientologist, gay, Christian, Jewish, bisexual etc.
- We could argue that per WP:NPOV, we should simply follow reliable sources; so if a reliable source describes someone as a Scientologist, or gay, etc., that satisfies the inclusion criterion for the corresponding list article, and balance can be restored by representing the individual's self-identification along with the characterisation in reliable sources (described as "X" in RS1, says he is not "X" in RS2).
Any BLP specialists who want to chip in at the noticeboard discussions would be welcome, but is this something we should also address in the policy? --JN466 04:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- If we follow self-identification, we should also honor self-disassociation. I don't think that "reliable" sources should trump what a subject directly states in matters of religion or sexuality. As we all know, even the most reliable sources are sometimes wrong. Yworo (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree. If a heterosexual person says, "I had a homosexual experience when I was at school, but I am not bisexual", then they shouldn't be listed in List of bisexual people, for example. For that matter, if all they say is, "I had a homosexual experience when I was at school", they shouldn't, on the strength of that statement alone, be listed in List of bisexual people, either. Similarly, if someone says, "I did a Scientology course once, but I never became a member", they arguably should not be listed in List of Scientologists. But it's a tricky question, as I pointed out over at BLPN, and I'd welcome further input. --JN466 16:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Coming from BLPN I agree we should follow BLPCAT here when it comes to lists. However mentioning any relevant widely discussed and well sourced disputes may be okay in the article Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you think we should handle religious affiliation and sexual preference the same here? For example, if there have been allegations that a person is gay, or bisexual, and the person has denied it, should that person be listed in articles like List of bisexual people and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and the controversy discussed there in detail? --JN466 00:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Right, that's the nub of the issue. If there are several sources categorizing in terms of sexuality/religion/political affiliation/race/etc, but the person has denied it (again, from a good source), does WP represent both sides of the debate, giving weight to the various opinions? In my experience, usually no: if this or that celebrity is reported reliably as stating "I am not gay," for example, their article doesn't include a section preserving a debate about it. Why should affiliation with a cult/religion/group (whatever, I don't have a view) be treated differently?KD Tries Again (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- but a list does not appear on that persons page, and the self identification clause comes with a very very specific qualifier that it is only used in categories because "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers". Lists however do carry disclaimers and modifiers...and in the case of list of scientologists quite a lot of information about what the sources say. Catagories in WP:BLP refers to actual categories, not categorizations like scientologist, Jaden's above statement is awkwardly worded in this case.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Check out the very first sentence of [[20]] WP:BLP. The policy covers information about living persons added to "any Wikipedia page," as it obviously must. To take an easy example, speculation about the sexuality of living persons can't evade the policy by being moved from the persons' individual pages and added to a "list."KD Tries Again (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- but a list does not appear on that persons page, and the self identification clause comes with a very very specific qualifier that it is only used in categories because "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers". Lists however do carry disclaimers and modifiers...and in the case of list of scientologists quite a lot of information about what the sources say. Catagories in WP:BLP refers to actual categories, not categorizations like scientologist, Jaden's above statement is awkwardly worded in this case.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Right, that's the nub of the issue. If there are several sources categorizing in terms of sexuality/religion/political affiliation/race/etc, but the person has denied it (again, from a good source), does WP represent both sides of the debate, giving weight to the various opinions? In my experience, usually no: if this or that celebrity is reported reliably as stating "I am not gay," for example, their article doesn't include a section preserving a debate about it. Why should affiliation with a cult/religion/group (whatever, I don't have a view) be treated differently?KD Tries Again (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- Do you think we should handle religious affiliation and sexual preference the same here? For example, if there have been allegations that a person is gay, or bisexual, and the person has denied it, should that person be listed in articles like List of bisexual people and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and the controversy discussed there in detail? --JN466 00:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- Coming from BLPN I agree we should follow BLPCAT here when it comes to lists. However mentioning any relevant widely discussed and well sourced disputes may be okay in the article Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree. If a heterosexual person says, "I had a homosexual experience when I was at school, but I am not bisexual", then they shouldn't be listed in List of bisexual people, for example. For that matter, if all they say is, "I had a homosexual experience when I was at school", they shouldn't, on the strength of that statement alone, be listed in List of bisexual people, either. Similarly, if someone says, "I did a Scientology course once, but I never became a member", they arguably should not be listed in List of Scientologists. But it's a tricky question, as I pointed out over at BLPN, and I'd welcome further input. --JN466 16:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I know that the BLP policy extends to any page, what I am saying is that WP:BLPCAT is a policy specifically for categories because when a person is placed in a category that title appears on their page without further elaboration. this is the reason why categories use self decoration as the standard rather than WP:V which is the standard for WP:BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- A fair point, but it then seems that List articles, which indeed aren't covered by WP:BLPCAT do need policy consideration. You will argue that List articles can include disclaimers and modifiers, so there is no problem. I don't agree: for one thing, WP:BLPCAT says that Category names do not include disclaimers and modifiers; neither, necessarily, do List names. [List of Scientologists] - no disclaimer or modifier there. If there are modifiers in the article? Well, if we're going to say that someone who has specifically denied being gay/a Mormon/whatever, can nevertheless be listed by Wikipedia as such if a source can be found, that seems to be a big change in the approach to BLPs, and one which should only be made by community consensus.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- well categories are strictly a name with no additional information which appears on the person's page, which is why they need greater consideration. Lists, when done right (and I know that there are many lists out there that need some major readjustments in this area) have an area of explanation in the lead as well as within the list (as we see in the scientology list). more explanation occurs after the name when it comes to the sources and what they contain. so a reader would have to be really reallllllly dense to just observe a name on the list and ignore the rest of the information. more importantly their name on that list would only come up for people interested in the list itself, it doesn't appear anywhere else that they are on that list (so the audience actually has to read the article to get to the name) so there is a lot more needed to get to the persons name than just reading the title of the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- The rest of the information in the cases under discussion is the individual denying on the record that he or she belongs in that list or in that category. You won't, I think, find the statement that X is described as gay in X's main article once X has categorically denied it, no matter whether the allegation can be sourced here and there. Should the statement then appear in a list featuring X, protected by some sort of disclaimer? Would WP host a list of celebrities "described as gay"? There's a muddy area here, and it's not just about scientology.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- I guess it depends on how notable the controversy is. Let's assume the New York Times asserts its belief that governor X is gay, or bisexual—because he is alleged to have had sex with rent boys (see Telegraph article linked in the previous talk page section), or was seen exiting a gay porn cinema or whatever—and there is a controversy about it, because governor X has always been an outspoken opponent of gay rights. X subsequently makes a statement in which he denies being homosexual, and says that he is considering suing the New York Times for libel. All the major papers report the case. In this case, because the controversy is notable, it will likely end up being mentioned in governor X's biography here. On the other hand, we probably should not list governor X in our "List of gay/bisexual politicians" unless and until he himself describes himself as gay, or bisexual, just as we should not apply the gay or bisexual category. --JN466 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Take Kevin Spacey. His bio page records media speculation about his sexuality, and his own response. But he doesn't then get included on the [List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people], albeit with a disclaimer. I think it would be consistent with Coffeepusher's position to include him, but I think that's a change of policy (in spirit, if not in letter, as there isn't explicit policy re List articles) and requires community consensus.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- We are in full agreement then. Should we draft something to address eligibility criteria for list articles based on religious affiliation and sexual preference? --JN466 09:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with that. Take Kevin Spacey. His bio page records media speculation about his sexuality, and his own response. But he doesn't then get included on the [List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people], albeit with a disclaimer. I think it would be consistent with Coffeepusher's position to include him, but I think that's a change of policy (in spirit, if not in letter, as there isn't explicit policy re List articles) and requires community consensus.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- I guess it depends on how notable the controversy is. Let's assume the New York Times asserts its belief that governor X is gay, or bisexual—because he is alleged to have had sex with rent boys (see Telegraph article linked in the previous talk page section), or was seen exiting a gay porn cinema or whatever—and there is a controversy about it, because governor X has always been an outspoken opponent of gay rights. X subsequently makes a statement in which he denies being homosexual, and says that he is considering suing the New York Times for libel. All the major papers report the case. In this case, because the controversy is notable, it will likely end up being mentioned in governor X's biography here. On the other hand, we probably should not list governor X in our "List of gay/bisexual politicians" unless and until he himself describes himself as gay, or bisexual, just as we should not apply the gay or bisexual category. --JN466 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- The rest of the information in the cases under discussion is the individual denying on the record that he or she belongs in that list or in that category. You won't, I think, find the statement that X is described as gay in X's main article once X has categorically denied it, no matter whether the allegation can be sourced here and there. Should the statement then appear in a list featuring X, protected by some sort of disclaimer? Would WP host a list of celebrities "described as gay"? There's a muddy area here, and it's not just about scientology.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
I'd suggest amending the language in WP:BLPCAT for this purpose. A very rough draft:
"The case for inclusion in a List article must be made clear by the main article text and its reliable sources. Lists grouping individuals by religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with inclusion in Lists that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, List of Criminals [I made that up] and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."
KD Tries Again (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- You all are talking about putting this in the list guidelines right? Gigs (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking of incorporating a reference to list articles in WP:BLPCAT. The current wording is:
Categories (current wording)
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.
Here is another proposal for how we could amend it:
Categories (proposed wording)
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. These principles apply equally to the creation of lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, as well as lists and navigation templates which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation.
What are editors' views? --JN466 23:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Looks good.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- Simpler wording, try something like this:
- Contentious and sensitive categories - Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so contentious categories or categories not directly relevant to the subject should not be applied unless verifiable from very reliable sources, appropriate for BLPs (if applicable), and does not give undue weight. At a minimum the matter must always be sufficiently relevant to merit adding the category and broadly agreed by reliable sources. It is usually not enough that it is true, it must also be relevant or significant in the context of the subject's biography or article.
- For very personal matters such as religion, ethnicity, and sexuality the subject should have self-identified, or the matter widely agreed by reliable sources and significant in their biography. For implied criminality, the matter must be significant to their biography and the crime actually convicted and not (yet) overturned. For other matters that tend to be seen negatively (affairs, scandals), the matter must be significant to the biography and well attested in reliable sources. (See false light)
- These principles apply equally to lists and navigation templates based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included have a poor reputation.
- FT2 (Talk | email) 14:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't like the grammar in some of the above sentences. :) That wording would also change current categorisation practice, by removing the requirement for self-identification. There have been many sources, for example, stating that Kevin Spacey is gay; even a government source: [21]. (They apologised a year later, and removed him from the list.)
- As we seem to be agreed that lists and navigation templates should be governed by the same principles as categories, I propose that we add the final sentence stating so, which in your version is more or less the same as in mine. We can then look at whether BLPCAT requires other changes, but there seems to be agreement that categories, lists and navigation templates are different versions of the same thing, and that the same BLP considerations apply. --JN466 16:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sentence added, subheader adapted: [22]. --JN466 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah this is what I was thinking, just adding another sentence that says "and the same goes for lists". Looks good to me. Gigs (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Me too. Self-identification is a bright line which it would be a pity to lose. The discussion here really came out of examples where individuals specifically denied a categorization but editors suggested giving equal weight to sources affirming it. I think consistency between categories and lists reflects the spirit of BLP policy.173.2.230.224 (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- Yeah this is what I was thinking, just adding another sentence that says "and the same goes for lists". Looks good to me. Gigs (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with this because the category offers a reason for why it differs from WP:V and WP:BLP, while adding the list to it is placed in there with no real justification. the category modifies verifiability and BLP because there is no way of identifying why they are identified as such in third party sources, but BLP prefers verifiability and WP:RS over primary sources. if the sources can be identified (which they can't in categories, but can in lists) then we should stick to WP:BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe I am just slow, but I quite sincerely don't understand your point. Categorization does require justification in the main article and its sources, so I don't see where it departs from WP:V.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
- I disagree with this because the category offers a reason for why it differs from WP:V and WP:BLP, while adding the list to it is placed in there with no real justification. the category modifies verifiability and BLP because there is no way of identifying why they are identified as such in third party sources, but BLP prefers verifiability and WP:RS over primary sources. if the sources can be identified (which they can't in categories, but can in lists) then we should stick to WP:BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I explained it poorly. WP:BLP uses verifiability as the touchstone for all inclusions. anything printed about a living person must be backed up by secondary sources. an additional requirement is added for categories dealing with religious and sexual orientation being self disclosure not because they deal with religious or sexual orientation, but because "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers." Lists do carry disclaimers and modifiers, and are able to bring quite a bit of information to the table which categories do not. additionally if someone's name is on a list it does not appear on their main page, rather it only appears on the list. I am all for verifiability and the requirement that reliable secondary sources be used, but this addition does not provide any justification for why it is employing a different standard than the one used for WP:BLP, it just states as a matter of fact that this policy also applies to lists and templates when the justification for the stricter requirements for categories does not apply to lists and templates.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- justification refers to "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers" that should clear up the confusion.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I do understand, but I think there may be some confusion - and note, we're not talking about list articles in general. The problem lies not with including someone in a sexual/religious-identifying list when the evidence reaches the high standards expressed by WP:BLP, but rather with including someone when the evidence is such that a disclaimer or modifier is needed (e.g. when the individual has to be sub-categorized as a "disputed" such-and-such). I think we'd be on the same page as WP:BLP entirely if we all agreed that X should be in such a list only when a disclaimer isn't needed. The disclaimer itself should be a red flag that WP:BLP standards of verifiability aren't being met.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again
(outdent) ok,while I am not completely satisfied that does make sense...and I am willing to be the minority opinion since that appears to be the consensus through many many pages...and it is a middle of the road approach.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
This policy article needs to specify when to go to other noticeboards?
I have found over the years that sometimes when the issue is very specifically WP:OR or WP:RS or even WP:NPOV that one gets a more timely and definitive opinion from those noticeboards than from the WP:BLPN one recommended by this article. Or one gets no real opinion here so one has to go to another board, like Admin Assistance. Does the article need to clarify when it might be better to go to another notice board or that it is (is not) forum shopping to go to another one if the answer is ambiguous. Issue just was raised yet another time so thought I'd finally bring it here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's probably best to avoid giving the impression that forum shopping would be appropriate. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 00:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- The main question is when is it best to go to another forum first? Sometimes it's very obvious, as in a WP:RS issue or even a WP:OR issue. (Though even then it can be ambiguous, depending on level of negativity of the information rendered.) Sometimes not as obvious, as in a WP:NPOV issue. Admitting that sometimes another noticeboard is best place to go first is good. Only if there is no response or one that is non-responsive or obviously prejudicial does one have to consider another forum. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Suggestion regarding the Biography of Living persons statement on article talk pages
I would like to recommend a change to the way we identify articles as biographies of living persons. Currently we have a parameter in the Wikiproject biography banner and in the wikiprojectshell template (and possibly others) to identify an article as being about a living person. I would like to recommend that this logic be placed in the Talk page header vice these 2 templates, for several reasons.
- Currently the logic for the BLP statement is built into at least two different places; the WP Biography banner template and the Wikibannershell template. From a policy standpoint, neither in my opinion, is the right place to put a "Corporate Wikimedia" policy regarding something as contentious as blp (no offense WP BIO). Having this blp statement under bio implies some ownership of the blp statement by that project, which they do not have. Same applies to the WPBannershell. As I understand it, the "blp policy" is/was established and owned by the Wikimedia foundation as a way to deal with problems related to blp violations. The Talk page header is a more WP generic template and in my opinion offers a more WP Corporate ownership of the BLP policy to the general population.
- The talk page header offers links and guidance on conduct and policy regarding behavior on article talk pages. Something that in my opinion is extremely important to blp articles arguably above all others. Adding the BLP statement to that template seems inline with its purpose.
- Currently logic must be maintained in at least 2 separate locations, the WP Project banner and the WP wikiproject shell template to display the blp banner. By adding the logic to the talk page header the logic would only need to be maintained in 1 place vice 2 or more. Reducing/simplifying the logic and maintenance for the other 2 or more templates.
- Current policy states that the Talk header should be given top billing on the articles talk page. Another policy states that the blp statement should be on the top. In order for the blp statement to display on the top, the talk header must be moved down, causing a conflict in our own policy. Adding the logic to the talk page header would eliminate the differing rules we have in place and would force the blp statement to be on the top of the page (assuming the talk header is at the top which in most cases it is).
- The verbiage in the talk page header is such that it disrupts the flow of the talk page heading when banners are on top of the talk page header. Adding the blp statement to the talk page header will allow a more appropriate flow than currently exists by allowing the talk header template to remain on the top. --Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Makes some sense but not all talk pages have talk headers. –xenotalk 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your right but it should be relatively easy for a bot to plant it if it doesnt already have it in a blp article. --Kumioko (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- According to Jarry1250's Toolserver Tools there are 145,228 transclusions of {{talk header}} but 481,012 transclusions of {{BLP}} (note the numbers gap is even bigger than implied there as the header is used on non-BLP pages too). The only way your proposal will work is if the header becomes mandatory on all BLP articles, which is a major shift from the current position. In answer to point 5, I don't see how incorporating BLP will fix the problem; the point of the BLP template is that it is visibly separate to other banners, so the "flow" will be the same even if the code is combined. Road Wizard (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that count, thats an excellent point and your right it would be a major shift, but we have "shifted" before so at least the precedent has been set. As for the flow comment what I meant was that the flow should look something like BLP banner, talk page, then probably WP Biography banner (I think this should be top billing for banners on blp's but thats somewhat of a minor thing), then other banners or talk page templates as appropriate. Instead of the current way which is BLP banner, WP Bio, then talk page (so the template that would provide the introduction/help to newbys has know been buried in the banners, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- One possible way around the problem without changing current practice too much would be to have a new template with calls to both {{talk header}} and {{BLP}}. Transclusions of either template could then be activated or deactivated as needed for each page (e.g. {{new-header|blp=yes|talkheader=yes}}). Road Wizard (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thats definately a possibility too, but there are several parameters available in talk header and well have to incorporate BLP other as well, so I think it might be easier in the long run to just use talk header rather than create a whole new template. Either way well have to add one to the page. --Kumioko (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that count, thats an excellent point and your right it would be a major shift, but we have "shifted" before so at least the precedent has been set. As for the flow comment what I meant was that the flow should look something like BLP banner, talk page, then probably WP Biography banner (I think this should be top billing for banners on blp's but thats somewhat of a minor thing), then other banners or talk page templates as appropriate. Instead of the current way which is BLP banner, WP Bio, then talk page (so the template that would provide the introduction/help to newbys has know been buried in the banners, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- Seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. The parameter for the BLP notice is in {{WPBiography}} because {{WPBiography}} is intended to be on the vast majority of pages {{BLP}} would be on. The parameter is also in {{WPBS}} because when {{WPBiography}} is inside {{WPBS}} then the BLP notice from {{WPBiography}} would not be visible. There's not any "ownership", it's just convenience. Re your point #3, the "logic" isn't really maintained in two places, as both {{WPBiography}} and {{WPBS}} simply transclude {{BLP}} when instructed to do so. Re your point #4, links to these "policies" would be helpful. Anomie⚔ 00:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Talk page layout is were it says that the Talk header should be on top (after skip to talk) but I can't seem to find the one that mentions that the blp banner needs to be on the top at the moment, I just saw it earlier today though. True about the WPBiography template being on most pages but I would argue that the logic for the BLP banner in the WP biography and WPBS templates is quite complicated. I also think that having the instructions available on the talk header present on the living people bios would be beneficial. But as I mentioned before thats just my opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note that Wikipedia:Talk page layout is an info page, not a policy or guideline. It also says "This is not a prescriptive list, but rather an observation of how the banners of well-structured talk pages are ordered". Anomie⚔ 01:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your absolutely right but at the risk of sounding argumentative it further states "While it is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies. Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." Since most of the information isn't located anywhere else, it shouldn't be inconsistent with much else, the exception being the blp banner. I agree that this would be a significant change and I admit that there would be some effort involved. I just think this would be better in the long term. --Kumioko (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note that Wikipedia:Talk page layout is an info page, not a policy or guideline. It also says "This is not a prescriptive list, but rather an observation of how the banners of well-structured talk pages are ordered". Anomie⚔ 01:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Talk page layout is were it says that the Talk header should be on top (after skip to talk) but I can't seem to find the one that mentions that the blp banner needs to be on the top at the moment, I just saw it earlier today though. True about the WPBiography template being on most pages but I would argue that the logic for the BLP banner in the WP biography and WPBS templates is quite complicated. I also think that having the instructions available on the talk header present on the living people bios would be beneficial. But as I mentioned before thats just my opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Anomie that this looks like a solution in need of a problem. I'd also be very wary of treating {{talkheader}} as a ubiquitous tool to bolt bits onto as needed; yes, it's rather ended up that way, but we needn't further encourage that. Is there a particular problem with the current setup, other than the redundancy when a bannershell is used on BLPs? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Only the 5 reasons I mentioned above especially the implication that WP Biography owns the blp policy. --Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't personally see that attaching a BLP warning to the BIO banner implies ownership; it's simply a prudent way of ensuring that the BLP warning appears on every BLP talk page. And the BIO banner is used on every single BLP, while {{talkheader}} isn't, so there's no saving there because you'd still have to maintain a separate BLP banner for when articles didn't use {{talkheader}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Or rather than creating a new one you could just add the talk header template to the article. And then along with the BLP banner statement you would also get the links that are available on the talk header template such as Avoid personal attacks!. --Kumioko (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are you under the misconception that {{talk header}} actually belongs on most talk pages? It's only recommended for use on those pages where newbies would actually need that information. A good number of the 145390 current uses of that template could probably be removed (especially of the 7927 on non-mainspace talk pages), if anyone cared enough to actually do so. Anomie⚔ 23:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, no misconceptions, but it seems appropriate to use it for BLP's as well. I'm not quite sure why so many editors seem so vehemently opposed to the use of the talk page template but I think it would be helpful for BLP's as well as the highly contentious articles. --Kumioko (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm actually a big fan of {{talkheader}} and would rather it saw more use, but I didn't think we were talking about massively increasing {{talkheader}} deployment here (not least because there are people who can't stand it, and very vocal ones at that). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- While I agree that this is a solution in search of a problem and seems to be replacing one set of parameters with another, a much simpler solution would be to use {{BLP}} at the very top of the page above everything. A bot run to replace every
|living=yes and|blp=yes with any other method of identifying a Biography of a living person would take quite a while, however.
- While I agree that this is a solution in search of a problem and seems to be replacing one set of parameters with another, a much simpler solution would be to use {{BLP}} at the very top of the page above everything. A bot run to replace every
- I'm actually a big fan of {{talkheader}} and would rather it saw more use, but I didn't think we were talking about massively increasing {{talkheader}} deployment here (not least because there are people who can't stand it, and very vocal ones at that). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, no misconceptions, but it seems appropriate to use it for BLP's as well. I'm not quite sure why so many editors seem so vehemently opposed to the use of the talk page template but I think it would be helpful for BLP's as well as the highly contentious articles. --Kumioko (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
- Are you under the misconception that {{talk header}} actually belongs on most talk pages? It's only recommended for use on those pages where newbies would actually need that information. A good number of the 145390 current uses of that template could probably be removed (especially of the 7927 on non-mainspace talk pages), if anyone cared enough to actually do so. Anomie⚔ 23:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Or rather than creating a new one you could just add the talk header template to the article. And then along with the BLP banner statement you would also get the links that are available on the talk header template such as Avoid personal attacks!. --Kumioko (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't personally see that attaching a BLP warning to the BIO banner implies ownership; it's simply a prudent way of ensuring that the BLP warning appears on every BLP talk page. And the BIO banner is used on every single BLP, while {{talkheader}} isn't, so there's no saving there because you'd still have to maintain a separate BLP banner for when articles didn't use {{talkheader}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Only the 5 reasons I mentioned above especially the implication that WP Biography owns the blp policy. --Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- Another point to consider is how to identify pages that lack identification. The Category:Biography articles without living parameter does that quite well. By making
|living=a requirement and collecting the pages that lack the parameter, it is possible to tag the ones that are living. Some editors are making a career of doing so. - I do not mean to convey that I think that this is a really bad idea. I think we have all seen some really bad ideas become part of policies and guidelines. I do think, for all the reasons stated, that this is not a particularly good idea. JimCubb (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- Another point to consider is how to identify pages that lack identification. The Category:Biography articles without living parameter does that quite well. By making
Edit request from 70.245.209.94, 19 July 2010
{{editsemiprotected}} The instances where the phrase "so long as" appears should be replaced by "as long as". Even though it has become popular in recent "So long as" is very loose grammar, bordering on slang. Compare the wording of "as short as" or "as fast as", etc... and it becomes clear "as long as" should follow this logical pattern.
70.245.209.94 (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. -- Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. "So long as" is perfectly proper, especially when it introduces a prerequisite rather than a length of time. However, since "as long as" is also acceptable, I'm not going to revert / edit-war over the issue. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 16:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Naming spouses etc
A section was recently added, I don't when, but it was restored by Patsw. [23] I can't quite see the benefit of it, but I can see its potential for misuse. Does anyone mind if I remove it?
In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name.
SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Even with a court seal of the name, we're not a court. If it's public it is public. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- I agree. It's just that it follows a paragraph where we ask editors to consider not naming people frivolously.
Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.
- Followed by the new sentence about spouses. If I were an editor coming here for advice, I wouldn't know what to make of it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Was there an ulterior motive by who added it? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- It was inserted here after discussion at Editor assistance/requests, Village pump (Policy) and here, by User:Patsw. Seems redundant to me, but I know nothing about BLP or privacy issues. Anthony (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Was there an ulterior motive by who added it? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- I see after reading the above discussions from 2008 that this should stay, simply because there was so much kerfuffle to add it. Significant people also had differing opinions so it is important to keep it for clarification. However, it should be reworded. Suggest "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." The part about being sealed by a court is absolutely not relevant to Wikipedia. In the United States neither the press nor a web site like Wikipedia can be gagged without being party to the suit, and Wikipedia is not subject to the laws of other countries (including our neighbours to the North, Canada, where courts regularly gag the press to not release individual names involved in court cases.
- IMHO, close friends and family members are basic genealogical information that interests people; but many, if not most, of our marginally notable biographies don't need to include it.
- I'd like to hear from patsw and SlimVirgin. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- I'd support your wording, Schmucky, though I'd add "if reliably sourced," and I'd probably remove the italics. So it would read: "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Italics were my addition for discussion. I did think about adding "if reliably sourced" but thought it was too much no-brainer. :) I have no problem with that addition at all. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- I'd also suggest a clause which says something along the lines of "no harm, no foul", that if you list the name of family members and are satisfied that doing so does no harm to them, you include them. After all, is it really necessary for complete understanding of say Obama that he has two daughters?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Basic genealogy is critical information to many readers. For Obama, and any other politician, having a family and trotting them out at every photo opp is part of the electability formula. The reason I also added significant, is that sometimes uncles or cousin are particularly important to a biography. The David Lee Roth article, for instance, notes the importance of his uncle, Manny Roth, for his interesting in the entertainment industry (which would be true even if Manny were not independently notable). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- "Complete" may be excessive, and possibly a ticket to include everything. Anthony (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Editorial discretion. Trust editors to come to smart decisions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- I was thinking "...provided such information is relevant to a reader's understanding of the subject" rather than "...subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" because it's 5 words shorter and says the same. But I'm not going to burst into flames over it. Just my opinion. Anthony (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Editorial discretion. Trust editors to come to smart decisions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- "Complete" may be excessive, and possibly a ticket to include everything. Anthony (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. Basic genealogy is critical information to many readers. For Obama, and any other politician, having a family and trotting them out at every photo opp is part of the electability formula. The reason I also added significant, is that sometimes uncles or cousin are particularly important to a biography. The David Lee Roth article, for instance, notes the importance of his uncle, Manny Roth, for his interesting in the entertainment industry (which would be true even if Manny were not independently notable). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- I'd support your wording, Schmucky, though I'd add "if reliably sourced," and I'd probably remove the italics. So it would read: "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
National/ethnic identity lists
| Part of a series on |
| British people |
|---|
| United Kingdom |
| Eastern European |
| Northern European |
| Southern European |
| Western European |
| Central Asian |
| East Asian |
| South Asian |
| Southeast Asian |
| West Asian |
| African |
| Caribbean |
| Northern American |
| South American |
| Oceanian |
The section of the BLP guidelines on "categories, lists and navigation templates" states the following:
Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. These principles apply equally to lists and navigation templates based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation.
My question is whether BLP applies to lists of people by national or ethnic origin (such as those for the UK, summarised in the template to the right)? Religious beliefs and sexual orientation are mentioned in the guideline but not ethnicity, which can also be subjective, so I wanted some guidance on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Family name as link please
Can we make the family name (last name in American English) a link in the title or first paragraph that goes to a page listing all of our pages using that name please? I'm sure I'm not the first person to follow a search and say, oops, that's not the Medvedev I meant. Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
And what's with these page titles? Vladimir Vysotsky (Admiral) Huh? What would be so bad about Russian Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky? Hcobb (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
A correction that concerns the text of the actual document WP:BLP
Attributive adjectives such as "high-quality" should be hyphenated in English. Not to do so can easily lead to confusing the reader. (This rule does not apply to predicate adjectives" because in that case, it is not necessary.)
For more examples of this take a look: {high-altitude, high-credibility, high-current, high-density, high-endurance, high-grade, high-inclination, high-maintenance, high-performance, high-poverty, high-power, high-powered, high-resistance, high-retention, high-sensitivity, high-tension, high-turnover, high-velocity, and high-voltage.
For example: "Lt. Jones took his high-performance aircraft on a high-altitude test flight. That was when his squadron found out that his aircraft is a high-maintenance bird. Its high=performance turbojets have a way of accumulating large amounts of graphite on its vital parts."
Likewise: {low-altitude, low-ceilinged, low-credance, low-ductility, low-efficiency, low-grade, low-impact, low-maintenance, low-poverty, low-power, low-rpm, low-resistance, low-sensitivity, low-turnover, low-urgency, low-velocity, low-voltage}. 98.81.23.222 (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
David Johnston dispute
Could we please get some additional input at a dispute at Talk:David Lloyd Johnston#Daughters' jobs, which centres around the retention or removal of detail about the subject's daughters' current specific employment and positions therein. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- We've run into a problem regarding references previously used to substantiate details about non notable familiy members that has subsequently been removed in terms of the "Presumption of privacy" clause. One editor is arguing that the ref should be retained because it contains the information that has been removed while I am of the opinion that such a retention can be seen as a (possibly bad faith) attempt to retain the "forbidden" information via a "back door". Please help. Roger (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's not quite correct. I'm stating that the removed reference contains more information than the others and should therefore be retained. Obviously I didn't explain that very well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. Roger (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- That's not quite correct. I'm stating that the removed reference contains more information than the others and should therefore be retained. Obviously I didn't explain that very well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Confessions of a celebrity biographer
A celebrity biographer, Jonathan Margolis, made some interesting comments in the Grauniad on Wednesday about writing about people without their permission, which I thought would make interesting reading. Excerpt:
[P]erhaps everyone – me, my wife, Angelina, Tony Blair, Mick Jagger – should have the right to put their side of things when gossiped about publicly. Because maybe, just maybe, contrary to all the squawks of journalists and unauthorised biographers, a person's own version of events does have validity. And even then, perhaps a person's words shouldn't be taken – to use that expression loved by politicians, but perhaps true after all – "out of context".[24]
Fences&Windows 23:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Sharon Johnston date format
Talk:Sharon Johnston lists the issues. 3rd Opinion has been requested. I feel that whatever the 3O offers will not bring the subject to conclusion. Feel free to add to the discussion there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Conflict of interest/notability
- User:Hobbs777, User:Mary anne hobbs edited her own biography Mary Anne Hobbs
- User:Quaranj is probablu 1.8.7 herself
--Obese Civil Servant (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- The relevant rule is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which doesn't prohibit people editing their own biography, just sort of discourages it and recommends care to comply with various policies if done. Often however I find that COIs lead to violations of policy of some kind. Mary Anne Hobbs is notable enough for an article, though I have serious doubts about 1.8.7. Maybe you could list it at WP:Articles for deletion? Christopher Connor (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- The OP has been blocked. 1.8.7 is clearly notable, though the press coverage mostly dates to years ago. Probably safe to ignore this. Fences&Windows 15:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- p.s. I've added some sources to 1.8.7's talk page. Fences&Windows 16:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Organizations
Do these guidelines apply to organizations? Are we allowed to repeat hatchet jobs done on one organization by another, a campaign of admitted lies and over-the-top, blatantly false accusations, a planned ambush of accusations of racism and threats; is that ok because an orgainization is not a person? They are run by living people of course. Living people are maligned and their lives are effected when lies and distortions are printed about them, their actions, and their motivations even if they are not mentioned by name and only referred to by the organization which runs them. Chrisrus (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I imagine that some organizations are more controversial than others. If you stick to reliable sources, does that help?Jarhed (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- The nearly unanimous consensus at the article is that, in this case, telling the whole story in the reliable sources would violate BLP guidelines. Chrisrus (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC) So the answer to your question is, no, that doesn't help, thanks for trying. So my question remains, do these quidelines apply to the actions of organizations when there are living people behind those organizations? Do these guidelines allow us to say, for example, that Organization A is has been accused when there is proof that accusations are baseless? Please remember, the sources are all reliable. For example, could we say that the ASPCA has been accused by PETA of torturing puppies (I'm just making this up for rhetorical purposes) if sources say that it's true? What if the sources agree and PETA admits that the accusations are totally baseless? Chrisrus (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Reliable reports of unproven criminal charges
David Copperfield (illusionist) was accused of sexual assault in 2007 and the charges were dropped in 2010. In the intervening years, there was a pitched battle fought on this article to keep the lurid charges of the accuser out of the article. Even after the charges were dropped, there has still been a fight to prevent the original accusations from being repeated. Is there a reason that the policy does not provide specific guidance in a case like this?--Jarhed (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think the reporting in the article as it stands is neutral and given due weight. The case was widely reported in the media, so a mention of it is reasonable, as it did have an impact of Copperfield's life. We do have guidance on this in policy: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Fences&Windows 16:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are commenting on the state of the article after the exoneration. My question is about unproven criminal charges. And further, there is still an argument on that article as to whether to include the original charges. After all, those are notable, relevant, and well documented, despite the fact that they were dropped. I would like to know WP policy on this if there is one.Jarhed (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Conviction or exoneration doesn't matter, if the event was meaningful to the individuals life/career, then it MAY be worth mentioning---especially if it was widely covered. BLP doesn't prevent negative reporting nor does it preclude reporting on notable events that prove to be untrue. Coverage of the event is perfectly acceptable. Think of it this way. I've heard something about David Copperfield and allegations of sexual assault. I come to WP to find out the story. Will WP be doing it's job if it didn't at least mention that he was exonorated? Or from this perspective, you are David Copperfield. You've just won a major decision that exonorated you from a nasty allegation of sexual abuse. Wouldn't you want something in your article showing your fans that you were innocent all along?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I had been exonerated, I would want all mention of the false charges removed from my bio. If I had not had a chance to defend myself against the charges in court and I had the presumption of innocence, I would want all mention of the charges removed from my bio. My point is that there are a bunch of editors that spend a ton of time arguing about this very issue. I would like the BLP policy to provide more explicit guidance if possible.Jarhed (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- THe guidance is that if it is well covered/documented, that the incident can be mentioned. As for the allegations, you would rather that they had never been made in the first place, but once they are made, if you are exonorated, then the article can cover that fact. The allegation may have been proven wrong, but the existence of a court case, which took years actually happened. If the case was a significant event, then it is worth mentioning.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- If I had been exonerated, I would want all mention of the false charges removed from my bio. If I had not had a chance to defend myself against the charges in court and I had the presumption of innocence, I would want all mention of the charges removed from my bio. My point is that there are a bunch of editors that spend a ton of time arguing about this very issue. I would like the BLP policy to provide more explicit guidance if possible.Jarhed (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- Conviction or exoneration doesn't matter, if the event was meaningful to the individuals life/career, then it MAY be worth mentioning---especially if it was widely covered. BLP doesn't prevent negative reporting nor does it preclude reporting on notable events that prove to be untrue. Coverage of the event is perfectly acceptable. Think of it this way. I've heard something about David Copperfield and allegations of sexual assault. I come to WP to find out the story. Will WP be doing it's job if it didn't at least mention that he was exonorated? Or from this perspective, you are David Copperfield. You've just won a major decision that exonorated you from a nasty allegation of sexual abuse. Wouldn't you want something in your article showing your fans that you were innocent all along?---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are commenting on the state of the article after the exoneration. My question is about unproven criminal charges. And further, there is still an argument on that article as to whether to include the original charges. After all, those are notable, relevant, and well documented, despite the fact that they were dropped. I would like to know WP policy on this if there is one.Jarhed (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
<== Mentioning notable and reliable coverage of unproven criminal charges covers a lot of ground. Some editors want to repeat every lurid detail that can be found about the incident. Some editors think that doing this is a violation of BLP. This is a serious issue for some editors, and I would like the BLP to specify more specific guidance on this issue if possible. This is not an idle issue. I am aware of it because it comes up on the BLP noticeboard all the time.Jarhed (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- IMHO, failure to mention it might be negligent on our part, but I don't think you need to go into much detail if the person has been exonorated (or more accurately, found "not guilty.")---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, if there is no final conviction, mention the fact of the charge, but don't go into the alleged gory details.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The curse of BLPPROD
Zafar Nozim was BLPPRODed on 31 July; he died on 3 August. Spooky coincidence. If nobody had looked for sources and it had been deleted, the rationale would have been invalid even though the tag was correctly placed! Fences&Windows 18:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
- While this is certainly interesting, it also sounds like a great place where IAR would have been appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
External links
To prevent editors arguing that links to self-published sites may be inserted in BLPs as long as they are not used in Further reading or External links sections, I would propose the following amendment to the "Further reading and external links" section:
Further reading and external links (current version)
External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.
Further reading and external links (proposed version)
External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading", "External links" or any other sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.
This may seem unnecessary, but some editors appear to be under the impression that inserting external links to self-published sources criticising the article subject is not against the letter and spirit of BLP policy, as long as such links are formatted as a <ref></ref> source reference, or as an in-text link. This amendment will address this.
Are there any objections? --JN466 13:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes in the situation that an RS mentions the external link (such as in the case recently discussed with JN a national newspaper mentions a presentation by an academic on their area of expertise which is not specifically about the individual or defamatory in any way) then it seems a shame to bar it just because it occurs within a BLP article. This is not the same as directly using it as the main source for a piece of text or just randomly sticking it in as a general external link. Polargeo (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is a slippery slope. Newspapers can and do mention all sorts of self-published criticism of notable individuals, whether by competent or incompetent commentators. This includes hate sites, attack sites, online vendettas and so on. It is incompatible with the letter and spirit of BLP to link to such self-published sites from the biography of the individual who is the target, whether it is mentioned in a secondary source or not. (Note that in the case Polargeo mentions, the individual concerned felt that the self-published material was defamatory, and threatened to sue. For reference, the material concerned was this presentation which an academic put up on his university homepage.)
- We should simply stick to the best sources when writing BLPs, and not involve ourselves in propagating self-published criticism. If the existence of the self-published criticism is mentioned in our article, then the correct approach is to cite and link the secondary source commenting on it; readers can follow up from there if they choose to, or google it. --JN466 13:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- In a way though the slippery slope has already been slipped down. In this case the primary source (publication by a scientist on his field of expertise through his university website) which the newspaper refers to is far better than the secondary source (the newspaper) and yet the newspaper is held up as a reliable representation of the primary source and is perfectly acceptable as a source within our rules. Therefore it seems to me that including a link to the primary source is not detrimental as long as it is not being used to defame or as a main source for the article text. Polargeo (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Self-published criticism simply does not belong in a BLP, whether it is written by Nelson Mandela or the Church of Scientology. Would you argue that we should link Monckton's self-published riposte in Abraham's BLP, too? After all, the same Guardian blog mentioned Monckton's riposte as well. Abraham accuses Monckton of mispresenting sources in his self-published critique, and Monckton accuses Abraham of "malice" and "mendacity" in his. No, Polargeo, we have no business getting ourselves involved in these feuds, and especially not when we are likely to be taking sides. Really. --JN466 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- In a way though the slippery slope has already been slipped down. In this case the primary source (publication by a scientist on his field of expertise through his university website) which the newspaper refers to is far better than the secondary source (the newspaper) and yet the newspaper is held up as a reliable representation of the primary source and is perfectly acceptable as a source within our rules. Therefore it seems to me that including a link to the primary source is not detrimental as long as it is not being used to defame or as a main source for the article text. Polargeo (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, there are objections. Basically the same that have been raised before. BLP covers all biographical material, no matter where it is located. But it doesn't cover non-biographical material. Of course ideally we should never have non-biographical material in biographies, but reality is different, especially when we are talking tiny-minority/fringe advocates, since the views and opinions expressed by these, is unlikely to have a place (because of undue) in regular articles about the topic of the views. In the particular case about Monckton, the material is entirely without personal remarks, its a professional criticism of the material that Monckton presents in his global warming tour. It follows SPS completely, and nothing in the material has BLP problems (ie. it would go 100% uncontested in all articles). The case is not one of BLP, but one of due weight (or not). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is simply a matter of principle: you do not link to self-published criticism of the BLP subject in a BLP, not even criticism written by an expert. There are all manner of private websites out there criticising scholars and politicians. If you are arguing that we should be able to link to such self-published criticism, this is a clear departure from BLP practice per this policy, as well as WP:ELBLP and WP:SPS. The scientist, Abraham, actually put his own case in an article in the Guardian environment blog as well. That is an acceptable source under BLP policy.
- If including self-published sources in the Further reading or External links section of BLPs is disallowed by policy, then for you to argue that it is fine to insert them in the article text, or as a reference, is simply an evasion of existing BLP policy. Policy as written is very clear: "In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline." "Never use self-published sources." --JN466 16:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is a misrepresentation of the source. The source is not "criticism of the BLP subject". The presentation is clinically clean of any aspertions. speculation on motives, personal comments etc. It is a professional critique of material presented by the subject, where the expert goes out of the way not to state who is right or wrong. And that is not BLP material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- <sigh> It is self-published and you want to use it in a BLP ... --JN466 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- <sigh yourself>There is no difference between material presented in a biography and material presented in a "regular" article with regards to BLP, it either is or isn't BLP-material (or biographical). [add: with the caveat of course that context matters, anything can become a BLP problem if misused] You are not looking at what the policy is intended to - but instead using it as a hammer. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's right. You're not supposed to use self-published sources as sources for material about a living person, whether in a BLP or elsewhere, and in BLP articles, you are not supposed to use external links to self-published sources. I still don't understand how you conclude from that that it is fine to use self-published sources in BLP articles, which are all about living persons. Arguing that a self-published source inserted in a BLP, all of which is about a presentation given by the BLP subject, and which the BLP subject has described as a "savage personal attack", is somehow "not BLP material", is an astounding bit of logic. --JN466 19:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- <sigh yourself>There is no difference between material presented in a biography and material presented in a "regular" article with regards to BLP, it either is or isn't BLP-material (or biographical). [add: with the caveat of course that context matters, anything can become a BLP problem if misused] You are not looking at what the policy is intended to - but instead using it as a hammer. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- <sigh> It is self-published and you want to use it in a BLP ... --JN466 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- This is a misrepresentation of the source. The source is not "criticism of the BLP subject". The presentation is clinically clean of any aspertions. speculation on motives, personal comments etc. It is a professional critique of material presented by the subject, where the expert goes out of the way not to state who is right or wrong. And that is not BLP material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree with this proposed change on two accounts. First, I feel that saying "or any other sections" waters down the original intent of the paragraph (which was to deal specifically with "Further reading" and "External links" sections). Second, I hesitate to put language here which would go beyond what is already said in the WP:ELBLP guideline, which says that "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links." Now, of course, if the consensus is that WP:ELBLP isn't strong enough on this point, all well and good, but in that case we should be sure of what we're doing and should revise WP:ELBLP to conform to the newly stated policy here. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 16:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- ELBLP is a guideline only. The original intent of the "Further reading and external links" paragraph is and has always been that external links to self-published sources, especially critical sources, should not be used in BLPs. --JN466 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think the wording of WP:ELBLP is fine, actually. But wouldn't you say that the change proposed here is in line with WP:ELBLP? ELBLP states, as you say, "should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links." An external link is not just an entry in a section called "External links". An external link is any link placed in an article that takes the reader to another site when clicked upon. Links placed in the body of an article like this are deprecated, but where they are used, they fall within the purview of WP:EL and WP:ELBLP. --JN466 18:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have been involved in arguments where editors have put the actual web address of an inappropriate website in an article (www.nastysite.com/) and claimed that it isn't a "link" and therefore the exclusion policy doesn't apply.Momento (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
- The name of a website is not a link. Sometimes websites which we would not use as sources have been noted in other, reliable sources as relevant to a topic. Just because something is unsuitable as a source does not mean that we should ban all mention of the publication. Will Beback talk 01:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Might want to clarify that such links as official campaign sites of politicians, and column archives of journalists, do not fall under the self-published sources exclusion and are acceptable in the External links section of articles about that specific person. Giving examples never hurts. Flatterworld (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
- The name of a website is not a link. Sometimes websites which we would not use as sources have been noted in other, reliable sources as relevant to a topic. Just because something is unsuitable as a source does not mean that we should ban all mention of the publication. Will Beback talk 01:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have been involved in arguments where editors have put the actual web address of an inappropriate website in an article (www.nastysite.com/) and claimed that it isn't a "link" and therefore the exclusion policy doesn't apply.Momento (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Two really novel ideas
Idea 1
I was looking at a highly contentious AFD today - 11 year old child, broadly negative reasons for possible notability, and the usual division between "notability and usual inclusion criteria" v. "delete it now to prevent harm and discuss afterwards".
I had a thought. There are BLPs which have considerable potential for harm while we discuss them at AFD, such as BLPs of minors who come to attention as in this case. If the article is ultimately kept then we are broadly okay, but if deleted we may have exposed a person to harm for a week while discussing. This concern puts pressure on participants and encourages out of process action and drama.
Is there any mileage to this idea? It's novel but it might help. May need fine tuning.
AFDs of biographical articles of a negative nature or affecting minors Biographical articles of minors (under 18) or that suggest a negative perception of its subject, may have special treatment at AFD. Any administrator with a concern that the duration of AFD would expose such an article to public view causing a significant risk of harm, may move the article to a subpage of its talk page (a non-indexed space), and blank the entire article from mainspace apart from the AFD template and any disambiguation, category and interwiki links while the discussion is in progress.
The AFD template will note the temporary location of the article, which may be referenced and worked on as usual during AFD.
Following a final decision (including any deletion review) the article may be moved back to mainspace (if kept) or deleted (otherwise).
FT2 (Talk | email) 15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Support the idea with several concerns. Userfying and noindexing the page isn't the most effective way to hide it, but we can't simply delete the page and let only admins participate in an AfD. Perhaps we should create a special projectspace subpage instead? Also, having to do histmerges routinely isn't really ideal, nor is having a blank article placeholder for a week. Why not just delete the original, move a noindexed copy for work during the AfD, and then remove back or delete that copy after the AfD is complete? This is more in line with the "delete it now and discuss later" concept, but there would still be one visible copy somewhere during the AfD. In addition, why does it matter if the person is a minor or not? All BLPs should be eligible for "protection" under this method. Obviously, children may be at an elevated position of vulnerability, but we can't just let other articles' discussions contain similar negative content and let that stand. Lastly, I think that, due to the nature of the discussions that would be covered in this, we should blank the AfDs as well. —fetch·comms 00:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Simplifying, the article could just be moved and noindexed (without redirect) to userspace and a standard bare template placeholder page in mainspace to inform of the AFD. Outright exclusion of non-admins seems inappropriate and undesirable; the vast majority of users and potential participants are not admins. It's also not needed. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the last bit, but what I don't understand is why we should use userspace (and if so, whose page, the admin's?), and why we should leave the placeholder rather than just delete the whole page and have a note in the deletion log, to make the AfD a bit more low-key (although that would hurt consensus, possibly). —fetch·comms 03:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quick reply: 1/ Mainspace is locked against NOINDEX so it can't be there; userspace is used for drafts including articles being worked on already and allows NOINDEX. So it's an existing norm people are used to and no real better namespace exists. 2/ Any page in userspace. It'll be linked for AFD participants anyhow so it doesn't matter. Moving admin chooses the spot, probably their userspace temporarily, it's not important. 3/ The #1 way people find out about AFDs is those users who visiting the page and see the template, the placeholder is to avoid affecting the AFD balance. I don't have a problem with the article being visible per se - after all we work on and review articles while at AFD and many userspace drafts have negative or unbalanced content while being worked on. The important thing is moving it out of mainspace keeps it accessible to review and improve but as far as the actual encyclopedia's mainspace and the outside world is concerned, the page has been deleted or replaced by a bare AFD template. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt I support all this, but can't you move the info to the talk page, or a sub page of the talk page, and no index it? Or is that considered main space? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, all talk spaces are noindexed (I believe) so a subpage of the article's talk page might be quite sensible. Draft edited to reflect this. Also makes it much simpler, therefore easier to apply to other situations if needed per Fetchcomms's comments. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I doubt I support all this, but can't you move the info to the talk page, or a sub page of the talk page, and no index it? Or is that considered main space? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Quick reply: 1/ Mainspace is locked against NOINDEX so it can't be there; userspace is used for drafts including articles being worked on already and allows NOINDEX. So it's an existing norm people are used to and no real better namespace exists. 2/ Any page in userspace. It'll be linked for AFD participants anyhow so it doesn't matter. Moving admin chooses the spot, probably their userspace temporarily, it's not important. 3/ The #1 way people find out about AFDs is those users who visiting the page and see the template, the placeholder is to avoid affecting the AFD balance. I don't have a problem with the article being visible per se - after all we work on and review articles while at AFD and many userspace drafts have negative or unbalanced content while being worked on. The important thing is moving it out of mainspace keeps it accessible to review and improve but as far as the actual encyclopedia's mainspace and the outside world is concerned, the page has been deleted or replaced by a bare AFD template. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with the last bit, but what I don't understand is why we should use userspace (and if so, whose page, the admin's?), and why we should leave the placeholder rather than just delete the whole page and have a note in the deletion log, to make the AfD a bit more low-key (although that would hurt consensus, possibly). —fetch·comms 03:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Simplifying, the article could just be moved and noindexed (without redirect) to userspace and a standard bare template placeholder page in mainspace to inform of the AFD. Outright exclusion of non-admins seems inappropriate and undesirable; the vast majority of users and potential participants are not admins. It's also not needed. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- ←Support using a talk page subpage. One other question—would we be deleting the history of the original page by moving it directly to the talk or do a copy-paste and histmerge later? —fetch·comms 01:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Both work. Page move without a redirect (or overwriting the redirect) would preserve all history and logs; cut-paste would require later edits to be merged in but we do that anyway for all other copy-paste moves and hostmerges (like you say) so this isn't anything difficulty or new. Overall page move is probably easier. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Alternative suggestion: If the 7 day duration of the AfD risks harmful further exposure, then edit the page (and AfD) to remove/abbreviate/disguise key search terms, including the subject's name. Editing the page in this way will obscure the keywords in the search engine caches, and will alleviate the cached exposure problem better than deletion. Moving the search-engine-interesting page to an existing no_index space will cause the search-engines utilising fuzzy logic to increasingly disregard our no_index request tags. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- This page would have been much harder to find if every occurrence of the name had been changed to "Jessi S.". Google would've quickly updated its cache, and lost the keywords. Now, as it stands, google can't find the old page, and so the cache version will linger. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Unsure of the technical accuracy of this. If Jessie Slaughter's article had been treated as proposed, as far as Google would be concerned the article would be replaced by a page containing a single template, and the actual text would vanish in its entirety. Using substituted terms for everything that might be key - places, people, nature of event isn't reliable enough. For example quite possibly google: gun massacre could have been enough to get you the Virginia tech massacre at the time of its media appearance, without names of the dead, the killer, the state, or the school. And it messes round with review and improvement at AFD - which would not be an issue on a noindex namespace. So not convinced obscurity is useful though it's worth suggesting. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with FT2 here--just not as viable an option as I think is needed for all aspects of a discussion. —fetch·comms 01:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it is not "viable", but I do think it inferior to Hobit's suggestion of blanking, and I then take FT2's point. This leads me to think that the idea should be opposed. If the content is so [anything] that it must be removed, then surely a CSD criteria should exist. If a discussion is desired, post-speedy deletion, then the discussion can be conducted with a blanked version available for review. But on the other hand, circumventing normal processes tends to exacerbate, not alleviate, problems. What damage is really done by leaving something live for a week that has not already been done by the article or by the available sources presumably drawn upon by the article? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Agree with FT2 here--just not as viable an option as I think is needed for all aspects of a discussion. —fetch·comms 01:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Unsure of the technical accuracy of this. If Jessie Slaughter's article had been treated as proposed, as far as Google would be concerned the article would be replaced by a page containing a single template, and the actual text would vanish in its entirety. Using substituted terms for everything that might be key - places, people, nature of event isn't reliable enough. For example quite possibly google: gun massacre could have been enough to get you the Virginia tech massacre at the time of its media appearance, without names of the dead, the killer, the state, or the school. And it messes round with review and improvement at AFD - which would not be an issue on a noindex namespace. So not convinced obscurity is useful though it's worth suggesting. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- If we do this I think the right way to do it is just blank the page and tag it, much like we do with DrV when an article's history is restored. There is no reason to jump through any other hoops that I can see though I'd be interested in hearing what people think. I am mildly opposed because A) I suspect the BLP crew will be arguing to do this with all perceived negative BLPs pretty quickly and B) I think this kind of protective action will greatly bias the discussion. So weak oppose for now. Hobit (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Blanking and tagging works for static content such as concluded discussions or pages held for reference only. It doesn't work well for content such as articles at AFD where ongoing editing is actually encouraged and may take place during the AFD process. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Good point. Still don't like having a single person make the call to remove an article from view that might be really important. Imagine, say, one of the president's children were hit in a terrorist attack. If one admin felt that having an article on the child (or the event as BLP issues reach into such things) we'd have no visible article for the duration of the AfD. Sure that one _might_ get snowed fast enough to get it back quickly, but still seems like a bad idea. Honestly I think this should just stay in the realm of IAR. If you are sure the community will agree with you, do the move, start the AfD and go from there. But expect to get slammed into the stone age if you're wrong. Is this such a common problem we need to address it otherwise? Hobit (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Blanking and tagging works for static content such as concluded discussions or pages held for reference only. It doesn't work well for content such as articles at AFD where ongoing editing is actually encouraged and may take place during the AFD process. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- I think we are all likely to agree that the general idea is good. I think the problem does occur for one or two articles a day, and for BLPs that's enough to have a procedure for it. I think the need for editing makes ordinary blanking usually not the best solution, considering that many such issues are resolved during the AfD by proper editing of the article. Nor am I worried about unbridled admin discretion when the article does, after all, remain viewable. Perhaps instances where this is done should be mentioned on the BLP noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Idea 2
Should we add a strong suggestion that users creating BLPs are suggested to check at WP:BLP/N in advance of writing, whether the article subject looks viable in principle? It's easy to sum up the proposed evidence of notability and the key reliable sources in 4-5 lines, to get a couple of quick comments.
Encouraging this would mean that for very little extra work, we filter out many unsuitable BLPs early, educate many would-be newcomer BLP writers, and people are less likely to be discouraged by expending a lot of effort writing an article only to see it deleted. (BLPs are often of non-notable people and end up deleted, more so than most articles, which probably discourages at least some good faith authors)
if you are not very sure, then before you create an article on (or closely connected to) a person - especially a minor, someone seen negatively in the media, or yourself or someone connected to you - please summarize in a few lines the reason for notability and some of the key reliable sources you will use, and ask for a quick opinion on the subject's suitability for a Wikipedia article.
FT2 (Talk | email) 20:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose because this makes more arguments amongst more experienced users (like AfD before the article is created) and many new users will not understand the gravity of BLPs and simply create non-notable articles for people without this extra step. —fetch·comms 00:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't it the job of AFC or the incubator? They already do it, every day. East of Borschov 04:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't about the incubator. It's about making it more the norm to try to find ways to get users unfamiliar with BLP and proposing to write a BLP to quickly get feedback first whether the BLP they are proposing actually looks viable in terms of valid sources and evidence for notability existing - before they spend a few days writing it only to see it deleted.
It would save editor discouragement but also greatly reduce the number of BLPs that get created only to be inevitably deleted (with possible harm in between from spidering), and educate new users in our way of working, with no negative impact at all on viable BLPs or capable experienced editors. FT2 (Talk | email) 04:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- … which, as East of Borschov said, is something that Wikipedia:Articles for creation does for a wide range of articles, not just biographies, on a daily basis, and which already has all of the mechanisms and standards for sourcing in place. Uncle G (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- This isn't about the incubator. It's about making it more the norm to try to find ways to get users unfamiliar with BLP and proposing to write a BLP to quickly get feedback first whether the BLP they are proposing actually looks viable in terms of valid sources and evidence for notability existing - before they spend a few days writing it only to see it deleted.
- A well intentioned but unaware Wikipedia reader with a few typo fixes behind them (typical newcomer) or a band or business owner, decides to edit, in order to create a page on their band, or for some news story they liked in the mornings tabloid. Articles for creation and the incubator, and all advice and help, are completely bypassed by that. This is about raising awareness of the value of quick-checking evidence of likely viability before wasting their and our time or causing other issues (BLP) creating a topic, and the pages mentioned are not visible enough to do that. This one is about finding somewhere prominent in the interface so that newish editors will be aware in some way when creating an article, and then trying to ensure more new editors do actually see it and take up the suggestion to ask before (not after) creating the possible COI article. We aren't doing that and it would be beneficial to the user and project if we started to consider it. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- The proposal, as it stands now, says "ask for advice if you want to ...". Otherwise... what?
- Perhaps articles about minors need a stricter rule, like mandatory incubation and pending-changes watch. But will it detect new articles any better than present-day patrol and deletion procedures? East of Borschov 07:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- This one's just about finding ways to catch more newcomer-authors before their comtemplated articles are created, and getting a friendly and useful message to them that makes them more aware of the benefits of seeking quick pre-writing eyeballs on the evidence and likely notability. It's not about anything compulsary.
- A well intentioned but unaware Wikipedia reader with a few typo fixes behind them (typical newcomer) or a band or business owner, decides to edit, in order to create a page on their band, or for some news story they liked in the mornings tabloid. Articles for creation and the incubator, and all advice and help, are completely bypassed by that. This is about raising awareness of the value of quick-checking evidence of likely viability before wasting their and our time or causing other issues (BLP) creating a topic, and the pages mentioned are not visible enough to do that. This one is about finding somewhere prominent in the interface so that newish editors will be aware in some way when creating an article, and then trying to ensure more new editors do actually see it and take up the suggestion to ask before (not after) creating the possible COI article. We aren't doing that and it would be beneficial to the user and project if we started to consider it. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- If more new editors were encouraged to ask "here's the basis and evidence, do people reckon this subject is notable" before writing, we'll avoid a great many avoidable deletion debates and CSD's, a great many non-notable BLPs that are added only to be removed, we'll educate new editors to our norms, we'll avoid an early source of discouragement to potential content writers,and the content writers will often save time by finding what people think of notability before investing hours in drafting.
- Mandatory incubation for new articles is a heavy duty stick, it's an option but not the one here. This one is an educational and "early inform" step. Hope this explains. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- From working at AfC, we: a. Cannot handle a lot more requests without more help and b. Many users don't listen to the "suggestions" and either create the article themselves separately or simply ignore the whole spiel in the article/AfC wizard about notability and whatnot and still submit obviously nonnotable subjects. I'm all for a solution, but it just doesn't seem viable to me, as people almost never listen. Sighs. —fetch·comms 01:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Looks like excellent advice, as long as it isn't a hard rule, and doesn't contribute to saturation of messaging to new users. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's key advice for new users creating their first couple of articles more than anything. Perhaps we could integrate this into the interface (with a small "dismiss" button) for a user or IP creating their first article or two? Not complicated - a simple script would easily do it. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose there are far too many BLPs for this to be practical. Checking for a clearly contentious case might have some sense, but usually it's much better to judge after seeing an article. Raising the issue on the noticeboard first will generally just result in two successive debates. There might be some purposes in advising writing such articles in user space first. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Idea 3
(Forked from a comment at Idea 1 by Hobit) - what about simply adding this:
In very exceptional cases for articles appropriately listed at AFD, it has been held that the ultimate end will be deletion and that the exposure during AFD while that conclusion is reached would be unduly harmful. In such cases administrators have in the past deleted out of usual process with an invitation to discuss reinstatement at deletion review, an approach which allows discussion but is less harmful if the article ends up being deleted. Since this process disenfranchises non-administrators, who cannot see nor improve the article once deleted, it should not be used except in serious cases. BLPs of minors and BLPs of uncertain notability with well sourced negative material are the two most common situation.
[Optional:] A courtesy copy of the article may be saved as a subpage of the article talk page to allow review without mirroring, or a WP:DRV placeholder left at the article page if the article's absence is likely to be widely noticed, both at administrator judgment.
FT2 (Talk | email) 22:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, same problem as idea 1. Further, you've expanded it to an additional category. I do very much worry that those admins who last mass deleted BLPs out of process and those that supported the same will abuse this. In any case, I've become of the opinion that expanded powers for admins should have a 6 month review window. Otherwise getting rid of bad ideas that a vocal minority supports is nearly impossible. So should this gain support I'd push hard for such a trial period. Hobit (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Deleting out of process is such a problematic matter that we shouldn't write this into the rules. Arb Com did enough damage by giving the admins the power to speedy in such cases without review except at Deletion Review--a process that inevitably gets more exposure than an ordinary AfD. Anyone relying on what is essentially IAR should know that they are chancing the consent of the community, as it's only supposed to be done when it's clear almost everyone would agree. Any horrible exception that arises will presumably be dealt with as it should, by OFFICE. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- We already have Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I'm not sure what this would add. If there are concerns about pages that disparage or threaten their subject then G10 may be used. Seven days for a reasonable and calm discussion on the notability of a subject without the moral weighting that a restriction may impose seems appropriate. While it is appropriate that we conduct ourselves at all times with due respect for others, it may be difficult for us to proceed if restrictions are imposed for the assumed and potential hurts our reasonable everyday actions may have. Delete inappropriate articles and inappropriate comments, yes - and have guidelines regarding civil and respectful behaviour, yes. But we might need a psychologist to give us some data on the potential harm a sober discussion on the notability of an article on a subject may have; my instinct would lead me to think that the deletion of the article may itself cause harm, as the subject may feel rejected. It is difficult to second guess what harm people may experience by us going about our reasonable everyday actions. It may be more appropriate to ensure we carry out our actions in a reasonable and respectful manner, than to impose restrictions on those actions. SilkTork *YES! 11:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if someone with some experience of BLPs could take a look at this article. We have a user adding uncited material that relates to living persons (and in addition making uncited remarks of a wider nature). I am now at the threshold of 3RR and don't want to make rash assumptions about what is and isn't acceptable. Thanks, Ben MacDui 18:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Subtly dodging BLP1E
Recently, I've come upon a few articles or proposed articles which skirt close to having problems with WP:BLP1E. As we know, we can't have an article on a person famous for only one event, as this tends to give undue weight to that one event in that person's life. There are exceptions, of course, for people like John Hinckley, Jr., whose one event (trying to assassinate a head of state) is exceptionally well documented and notable. The policy further states, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." All of this makes lots of sense to me. What concerns me is the case where the "event" is strictly focused upon that one person, and where the article further delves into great detail about that person but not necessarily other things. The most striking example I've found recently is Arrest of Bradley Manning (the person currently suspected of leaking the mass of documents to Wikileaks about the Afghan war). To me, if the event is really "that person's arrest," then it seems like the use of a different title is just a way of silencing people who are concerned that the article violates BLP1E. Furthermore, the article goes into fairly extensive detail about Davis' life, conversations surrounding the event he is alleged to be involved in, etc., none of which seem directly related to his life. This issue has been raised on the talk page, but consensus is still out. Now, I don't know if Manning should or should not have an article on him, but I don't think that we can avoid the very serious concern of BLP1E simply by taking on a title like "Arrest of..."
Now, I was just going to let this go, as I may very well be wrong, but I've also been following Steven Slater (the Jetblue employee who got into an altercation with a passenger and hopped off the plane through the emergency exit). In this case, I think the article is clearly a BLP1E, but that, too, isn't my concern. Rather, at the AfD for the article, someone has recently suggested that we can avoid the BLP1E basically by renaming the article (probably to something like "Jetblue incident involving Steven Slater").
So, I'm wondering what others here think. Is BLP1E so easily avoided? Is it really about article titles, or about the content of those articles? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Both seem to me to be a clear case of WP:COATRACK. Roger (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Look, you can't have it both ways: either an event should be covered per BLP1E, or the article should be focused on its main subject, per COATRACK. So which applies? Can't be both. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- IMO BLP1E is problematic. There are plenty of people who are notable for one event that makes them worthy of their own article. These are the people who played pivital roles in major events. Manning, IMO, is such a person. This incident may be a single event, but I can easily see this case being studied years down the road. There is a possibility of books or at least chapters in books being written about him. IMO, there are also people who are only notable for one event, but still deserve articles even though they didn't do anything beyond that one event. This includes people such as athletes and actors, the people who have tasted the fruits of their dreams only to fail to achieve them again. People where having an article to say, "This person was only a one hit wonder" is actually meaningful. So-and-so won a grammy award, but did they ever win anything else? So-and-so played major league baseball for the Texas Rangers, but did he do anything else? When it is an award/recognition for something that people think might be repeatable, then I think BLP1E becomes an obstacle. With Slater, his life is immaterial to the event in question and the odds of something similar happening are unlikely. He's in the news today, but in a month people won't care or remember his name. Slater will never achieve this level of fame again, it was a fluke. He is the poster child for BLP1E.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- One cannot predict how people will use their one time notoriety. Look at Joe the Plumber. Meanwhile an online encyclopedia looks silly if it doesn't cover such people/events. Over time if it comes to naught and especially if the person complains, the article can be removed. Bradley Manning will remain significant, no matter if he confesses, goes straight to jail, and we never hear from him again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- No, these one time people are text book definitions of NOTNEWS. If they can maintain their importance/significance, they sure keep an article, but right now he is in the news and that's it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed, Balloonman, the restrictive misapplication of BLP1E prompted me to write WP:WIALPI, since I've seen it misapplied so many times. BLP1E only applies to people who aren't celebrities of any stripe. Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- And unlikely to remain celebrities... my favorite example, because it is the area where I work mostly, are World Series of Poker bracelet winners. There are a lot of bracelet winners who never win another high dollar event. Technically, they fit under BLP1E, but in my opinion not having an article on them is incorrect. First, they won the most covetted non-monetary prize in poker that "defines" poker elite---thus the competed at the highest level of the sport. Second, If people are looking them up, it is likely they know that the person won at least one bracelet and want to know if they've won something else. In this case, having a link back to the event they won doesn't tell the reader anything. Does it link back because nobody has ever written an article on them or does it link back because it was the only event they've ever won. I firmly believe that when you stumble accross people like this, that it is better to have a stub to say, "he did nothing else in his career" than to hide behind beaucracy and deny an article on BLP1E, because the reader has a reasonable ground to suspect that they might have done something else.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- As the person who has recommended renaming and rewriting the article to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052, I don't think it's fair to say I'm trying to "subtly dodge BLP1E". I have made the point that we have a whole class of article devoted to aviation incidents and supported this with a list of precedents and a pre-existing proposed notability guideline. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- And unlikely to remain celebrities... my favorite example, because it is the area where I work mostly, are World Series of Poker bracelet winners. There are a lot of bracelet winners who never win another high dollar event. Technically, they fit under BLP1E, but in my opinion not having an article on them is incorrect. First, they won the most covetted non-monetary prize in poker that "defines" poker elite---thus the competed at the highest level of the sport. Second, If people are looking them up, it is likely they know that the person won at least one bracelet and want to know if they've won something else. In this case, having a link back to the event they won doesn't tell the reader anything. Does it link back because nobody has ever written an article on them or does it link back because it was the only event they've ever won. I firmly believe that when you stumble accross people like this, that it is better to have a stub to say, "he did nothing else in his career" than to hide behind beaucracy and deny an article on BLP1E, because the reader has a reasonable ground to suspect that they might have done something else.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies that I never followed up, and apologies if you thought I was referring to your move suggestion. I was more concerned with people who suggested (I feel like I remember) moving it to something like "Stephen Slater Incident," or to moving it to the article you mentioned but keeping all of the information about Slater intact. I agree that articles about flight incidents can certainly be notable (I'm not sure about this one, but that's neither here nor there); I also think that the way this particular article was handled was fine (by moving the info to a subsection of the Jetblue Airways article). I guess what really happened was that the Arrest of Bradley Manning article had been bothering me for a while, and then when I saw the suggestions on the Slater article, it tripped me over into trying to look for a wider point of view. I don't view your suggested move as a dodging of BLP1E (so long as the article focused on the event, not on Slater himself, which is I believe what you meant)--sorry for any implication bad faith on your part. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- One cannot predict how people will use their one time notoriety. Look at Joe the Plumber. Meanwhile an online encyclopedia looks silly if it doesn't cover such people/events. Over time if it comes to naught and especially if the person complains, the article can be removed. Bradley Manning will remain significant, no matter if he confesses, goes straight to jail, and we never hear from him again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Prod blp tag date not needed anymore
Does the date March 18, 2010 need to be included anymore? Currently you have this as a tag:
"All biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have references; this is to help prevent incorrect material from being added. Currently, this article appears to have no sources. A ten-day period will be given to allow the article to be sourced. If it is not referenced after ten days of this message being tagged, it may then be deleted"
Why not this:
"All biographies of living persons must have references; this is to help prevent incorrect material from being added. Currently, this article appears to have no sources. A ten-day period will be given to allow the article to be sourced. If it is not referenced after ten days of this message being tagged, it may then be deleted"
By this logic, are the articles created before March 18, 2010 that currently have no resources exempt from this rule then? Changing this would also be helpful as it would make:
 |
Not needed - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, that is the case – only new (after March 18, 2010) BLPs are eligible to be BLP-prodded. NW (Talk) 19:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- To me though that is pointless, why is there a BLP unsourced tag when people auto prod unsourced BLP's? Old unsourced articles made before March 18, 2010 can still be harmful as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- What the date is meant to mean is that articles created before March 18, 2010 are not subject to the "sticky prodding" process. They can still be deleted via other means if they are unsourced. –xenotalk 19:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay that is out then and I feel okay on that but why is the BLP unsourced tag needed then if new Unsourced BLP's are prodded? It is a tag that can be placed on an article for months verses a PROD that gives 10 days. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- For old unsourced BLPs? For users who wish to take a softer approach than prodding? –xenotalk 20:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Old unsourced BLPs I can see but looking at articles such as this It just seems silly to me and the PROD way basiclly says add a source and be quick about it verses a simple tag that can be placed on an article for more than 10 days. Im just trying to make heads and tails of this thing sorry if it is bothersome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- One is a deletion notice, one is an article maintenance notice. They are slightly redundant, but not mutually exclusive. –xenotalk 20:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Old unsourced BLPs I can see but looking at articles such as this It just seems silly to me and the PROD way basiclly says add a source and be quick about it verses a simple tag that can be placed on an article for more than 10 days. Im just trying to make heads and tails of this thing sorry if it is bothersome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- For old unsourced BLPs? For users who wish to take a softer approach than prodding? –xenotalk 20:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Okay that is out then and I feel okay on that but why is the BLP unsourced tag needed then if new Unsourced BLP's are prodded? It is a tag that can be placed on an article for months verses a PROD that gives 10 days. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- What the date is meant to mean is that articles created before March 18, 2010 are not subject to the "sticky prodding" process. They can still be deleted via other means if they are unsourced. –xenotalk 19:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- To me though that is pointless, why is there a BLP unsourced tag when people auto prod unsourced BLP's? Old unsourced articles made before March 18, 2010 can still be harmful as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)