Should Peter Hore be primarily described as a "criminal" both here and at the Peter Hoare disambiguation page? His misdeeds are relatively minor and there is a suggestion that he might have a mental illness.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Convicted criminal is the correct term. The difference is small, but the difference per BLP is significant. Adding the qualifier "convicted" emphasizes that his status is a result of a legal proceeding rather than an innate attribute of his person. It also clarifies that the description is justified by a reliably sourced fact about his documented history. Just writing "Criminal" alone appears more personal and alludes to the concept that he may commit crimes in some unspecified future. We cannot be seen to be accusing him of the potential for criminal behavior. I have made this change to the article text already. Edaham (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Edits pertinent to ongoing RfCs are generally not advisable – it's best to wait for the issue to be resolved through discussion first (see WP:RFC § Suggestions for responding). In any event, the phrase convicted criminal is still vague – convicted of what exactly? – and in this case appears incidental to the reasons for Hore's notability. The sources I've seen label him as a "pest", "prankster", "troublemaker", etc., indicating that those are the things he is known for, rather than for being a "criminal" per se. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Strongly suggest you change it to "convicted criminal"(with a citation) until the RfC is resolved. We should of course look at articles on a case by case basis, but the policies in WP:BLPCRIME(suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. A conviction is secured through judicial proceedings) strongly support referring to and clarifying that criminal status is the result of a conviction. Compare verbiage in articles like:
All of which explicitly mention the judicial status of the previous conviction(s) - and articles which use the current verbiage, "is a criminal" which refer to fictitious characters as having criminality as one of their significant attributes.
I am very reluctant to revert after having been reverted, but since this is a BLP issue, I really think its best that we use a version which errs on the side of more conservatively following BLPCRIME until we have had the RfC closed, at which time the term may be replaced altogether. You are right that we shouldn't generally edit articles while RfCs are in progress but I hope you can see eye to eye on this one, as having been called over as an outside editor, the disparity between the verbiage in the lede of this article and of other convicted criminals was immediately apparent and disconcertingly close to an BLP faux-pas. Edaham (talk) 10:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Given the notability issue I raised above, I really don't see how convicted criminal is any better. Yes, Hore was convicted of something (what was it again?), but labeling him as such in the first sentence gives that conviction undue weight, in my opinion. That's a BLP concern as well. The other problem is that simply putting convicted in the text doesn't actually demonstrate that a conviction has been "secured through judicial proceedings", per WP:BLP. That requires a citation to a reliable source. Feel free to provide a citation that demonstrates the noteworthiness of any criminal convictions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:30, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not trying to provide a definitive solution to the ongoing RfC. I am still reading the article to assess the question raised and am not yet sure in which direction to cast my support. What I do want to do is make sure that the page as it is does not contain a BLP violation and would rather err on the safe side until it is resolved, please. The term convicted criminal refers explicitly to judicial status whereas the term criminal is taken to mean people who commit criminal acts which may or may not be associated with convictions. Edaham (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to raise the issue at WP:BLP/N, but I don't think that it's necessarily a BLPCRIME violation to call a convicted criminal a criminal, as long as a verified conviction exists (it may very well be unduly sensationalized and thus counter to the spirit of BLPs more generally, which was my earlier point). It's the facts that matter. But I'm wary of entrenching the epithet further via the serious and official-sounding phrase convicted criminal, especially absent reliable sources demonstrating the noteworthiness of any "crimes". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I've actually raised the issue as a proposal to adjust the policy at TALK:BLP as I think the policy ought to better uphold and support the qualification of "convictions" vs "criminal or potentially criminal behavior" when referring to criminals. In the meantime, if the other editors here can agree, I think if we cannot agree on the qualification of the term, "convicted criminal" I would support removing it temporarily until advice is given at the policy page where I raised the issue. I'd like to not be the one to make this edit, as I've already been reverted. Edaham (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
In a currently open RfC regarding terminology of the lede section of Peter_Hore, a living Australian person, a group of editors are debating the use of the word "criminal" in the lede, where he is referred to as: Peter Hore (born circa 1960), is an Australian-born criminal. In almost every article I have come across, criminals are referred to as "convicted criminals". A term explicitly alluding to their convicted status. I have always felt that if we are to use the term "criminal" at all, specific mention (preferably supported by citation(s)) of their conviction is essential to mentioning their criminal status, while avoiding an unwarranted accusatory tone. In the RfC I have compared several articles which refer to persons as convicted criminals, alongside an article which refers to a fictitious character described simply as a criminal. The editorial subtlety relevant to our policy, is that.
If we call someone a convicted criminal it is readily apparent that they have been through the process of having been accused, charged and convicted, and it is possibly acceptable under BLPCRIME to refer to them as a convicted criminal.
If someone is referred to as a criminal the term could be read as meaning a person who commits criminal acts for which they may or may not have been convicted, or is simply prone to criminal behavior, which constitutes an accusation.
I would like to include the advice in the policy that any reference made to a person as a criminal, should distinguish between the implications of calling someone a criminal and calling someone a convicted criminal.
The sentence I would suggest including is:
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured. A conviction is secured through judicial proceedings; accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, include all the explanatory information. + Editors should consider not using terminology which refers to a person as a criminal without mention of their judicial status of having been convicted.
My proposal purposefully does not make mention or recommendation of a specific term, but would make this policy more useful in upholding disputes regarding clear terminology, such as the one cited above, in which adherence to BLP is paramount and all other editorial preferences secondary. Edaham (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Edaham, I'm of the opinion that saying "is a convicted criminal" in the first sentence of the lede is harsh even if it is factual and supported with an inline citation because it implies "career" behavior as would John Doe is an engineer. I would support something a bit more descriptive in the lede so readers can make their own assumptions based on the facts such as John Doe is an unemployed auto worker who was convicted of grand theft auto [citation needed], or John Doe is a computer technician who was convicted of felony theft and sentenced to yada yada. I cringe when I see "is a criminal" when it's an allegation per WP:PERP, or a first and only offense. Note: I'm here to provide my opinion to Ed only, and will not participate in the actual RfC. Atsme📞📧14:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the concern Edaham raises and with the verbage being proposed. I would even take it a step further (the issue is somewhat similar to what I brought up in the previous section). Expressions even like "convicted criminal" have a very judgemental tone, whether they are accurate or not. Ideally such language should be used carefully when referring to BLPs, especially in the lead. Words like "convicted" and "criminal" tend to evoke a perception of an individual as dangerous and immoral even if what they were convicted of was merely jaywalking. If the person has not been convicted of a truly serious crime, ideally the article should limit use of such terminology. Even if the crime is serious the article should be careful about over-using such wording. Certainly there are cases where somebody is convicted of a serious crime even though they are widely believed to be innocent and falsely accused (which does not make the conviction invalid but still points to a reason to be careful).
This proposal to add a sentence, BLPCRIMECLARIFY: Do not refer to a person as a criminal without making it immediately apparent that they are a convicted criminal and that that status is the result of a judicial conviction, is not gaining traction and has not been answered for a reasonable period of time. Rather than leave it no consensus I may open an RfC on the matter after reviewing the request for comment documentation. Edaham (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment: This proposed sentence needs to be modified to say "Do not refer to a LIVING person as a criminal..." Because if the perpetrator is dead and never came to trial, but law enforcement has identified them as the perp, IMO it is OK to refer to them as a criminal - both in the article text and in the infobox. Our BLP policy covers both living and recently deceased persons, so it is important to clarify that recently deceased criminals who died without being tried or convicted can be referred to as criminals without violating BLP.
And in response to the original proposal here, I would oppose requiring the word "convicted" before "criminal." The article text and infobox should make their conviction clear. We wouldn't be calling them a "criminal" unless they had been convicted or there was some other very strong evidence of their guilt. No need to beat them over the head with it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:11, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Continuing Enthnicity
Since my suggestion above generated little feedback (thank you at least to Richwales), let me perhaps offer a more concrete suggestion.
My thought is to add a sub-section to WP:BLPSTYLE with something like the following content:
Problematic specificity in the lead
A particularly thorny issue related to balance is drawing too much attention in the lead to relatively minor things, especially in ways that can create bias or in some manner be offensive. One particular example of this is pointing out a person's ethnicity unnecessarily. For example, the article on Nikki Haley could lead off with
Nimrata "Nikki" Haley is an Indian-American politician who is the 29th and current United States Ambassador to the United Nations.
This wording is superficially straight-forward. The problem here is that calling her Indian-American in this context implies that somehow this is part of what makes her notable. The reality is that she lived in the U.S. all of her life and mentioning her ethnic background so prominently in the lead could be interpreted as being slightly racist (akin to saying "Some of my best friends are black"). It is better to say simply
Nimrata "Nikki" Haley is the 29th and current United States Ambassador to the United Nations.
The details of her ethnic background can be discussed in the body as appropriate but do not need to be given such prominence in the lead.
Some general rules of thumb in this regard:
If a detail about a person is not especially relevant to why that person is notable, it is probably best to leave it out of the lead.
Particularly with respect to ethnicity/nationality it is generally best to simply indicate where that person spent most of their life and leave other details about their background (birthplace, ethnicity, citizenship, sexual orientation, etc.) to an appropriate sub-section in the body, unless some of those details are directly relevant to why they are notable.
Whenever their is debate about whether a detail should be included in the lead, notability should be the first consideration and avoiding being unfairly offensive to the person (even subtly) should be a close second.
EEng, re: your revert, the recent situation at the Minneapolis article was caused by the editor not searching for the names of the accused. It sounds obvious, but people might find what seem to be current sources using other search terms. SarahSV(talk)04:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure that addition is entirely necessary. It's fairly at-odds to the above discussions which are against adding instruction creep to policies. Stickee(talk)07:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Pseudonyms, stage names, nicknames, hypocorisms, and common names
Should we refer to living former politicians as statesmen?
Consensus is to use "statesman" or "stateswoman" on a case-by-case basis depending on how reliable sources describe the person. Sandstein 11:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am currently in a dispute with a couple of editors over whether or not the following living persons should be referred to as a "statesman" instead of "politician" in the lead section:
Lloyd Axworthyis a Canadian politician, statesman and academic.
I have found during my time at Wikipedia that living politicians, regardless of whether they are respected, are not usually referred to as statesmen (e.g. Merkel and Obama). In December 2016, I launched an RFC over whether Ronald Reagan should be referred to as a statesman in his lead section. The consensus was (to quote Cunard) to refer to Ronald Reagan as "an American politician", not "an American statesman". Editors supported "politician" per WP:COMMONTERM and WP:NPOV since "statesman" is a subjective term, while "politician" is an objective term. As articles subject to WP:BLP are held to arguably higher scrutiny than articles of dead politicians, should editors take caution over whether to refer to living politicians as statesmen (especially if unsourced)? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert20:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Case by case Each case has its own merits. This is a matter to be determined by the aggregate at each individual article. This is not a matter to enforce on BLPs across Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk)18:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:GUIDELINE, Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Besides, this is not even a proposal, it is merely a question.--Nevé–selbert18:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Statesman. I would say it has a much higher bar than "politician", even if they aren't of the same meaning (statesman is more inclusive), i.e. Reagan and Gorbachev are statesman, a mayor of a town of 150 is a politician. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum18:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I've been reading more about modern (19-21st is only really modern compared to my previous focus on ancient history, but whatever) history now-a-days; and much of what I've read seems to use statesman as I've suggested above. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum15:00, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I generally avoid using the term "statesman" both in Wikipedia and in real life, as I find it to be a rather annoying euphemism for "politician". I find the term politician to be far more accurate for anyone holding positions of authority, either by appointment or election. I have opposed using the term "statesman" in every previous discussion that I was involved in. By the way, we don't even have an article about the term "statesman". Dimadick (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh god. This again. I continue to believe that wikt:statesman is an appropriately neutral term, but I have no strong feelings on that matter. The "WP:COMMONTERM" argument was then and continues to be nonsense. WP:COMMONTERM refers explicitly to article titles, and not to opening paragraphs. AlexEng(TALK)19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Not a neutral term (and Wiktionary is not a source). The word has a lot of implications, which Wikipedia cannot project in its own voice. Sources on historical figures may agree in the aggregate to use such a term for a particular someone, but for a living person it's unlikely to be anything but partisan punditry. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping. This is something that should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but it should not be based upon whether or not an editor "likes" the page subject. "Politician" is not inherently a pejorative title, but rather, a name for a career based upon seeking and serving in elective (or sometimes appointed) office. "Statesman" is often used as a superlative by supporters of politicians (and, I suppose, by POV-pushers who support those politicians), but it really just means someone who is primarily noted for promoting international cooperation. So encyclopedia editors need to keep the, um, politics out of such an editorial decision. The default choice for individuals who have served in elective office should be "politician". "Statesman" should be reserved only for those individuals who are primarily notable for international diplomacy, and who are less notable for their service in elective office. Offhand, I would say that makes Reagan a "politician" for our purposes, and Dag Hammarskjöld a "statesman" (although, interestingly, his page does not use the term in the lead sentence, but rather in a quotation at the end of the lead). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Tryptofish, of course, the case-by-case basis must be emphasized. If we treat your definition as a line in the sand or anything close to that, we thus exclude Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, who no rational person can deny their right to the title of statesman, even as their work can be considered to be more domestic than international. Dschslava Δx parlez moi22:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I did not, in fact, mean what I said as a line in the sand, and we agree that this very much comes down to case-by-case analysis, and I would even add WP:IAR to that. It's worth pointing out, however, that just as many editors would regard Roosevelt as a statesman, there are editors who would insist on the same for Reagan. Once we go down that road, it gets difficult to draw the line. Like some other editors responding to this thread, I think that "statesman" needs to be used cautiously; indeed, nothing would be particularly wrong with saying that Lincoln and Roosevelt were politicians, and for each of them, there are better ways than either politician or statesman to sum them up in the lead. I do think that what I said is useful as a guide, and that is how I intended it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I would initially like to point out that using a script to insert the label "politician" for people like Clarkson, Michaëlle Jean, Powell, and Schultz, who served in Western systems and never sought elected office, is a misuse of the term "politician" and an abuse of WP scripting capacity. And Gorbachev is widely described as, and even used as a paradigmatic example of, a statesman (including in the Reagan RfC). Each case should be judged on it's merits, and nobody should be using scripts to impose nonexistent BLP terminology "rules".
I would also venture that the term "statesman" or "stateswoman" has a fairly value-free meaning associated with the practice of "statescraft", having to do especially with the practical exercise of public roles in foreign policy, which is why (rather than any PEACOCKery) the term is found in these articles and not those of other politicians (q.v.).
Finally, I would point out to SMcCandlish and others that all of the examples given by the OP are changes made to articles on living but retired statesmen and stateswomen. I recognize that it could be inappropriate for WP to move too quickly to recognize statecraft of active politicians, but I also believe that there is no reason to wait til death to use the title. Reagan dying before Gorbachev did not make him more of a statesman than the latter. Case by case, please.Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Regarding Canadian governors-general, I agree that in retrospect referring to them as politicians is suboptimal. Therefore, I personally propose we replace the term "statesman" with vicegerent or "public servant" for the governors-general you have mentioned. For Colin Powell and his predecessors, the term "diplomat" should be used instead. Unless you can provide me with secondary sources referring to these figures as statesmen, I remain of the opinion that they should not be referred to as statesman as long as they live, as presumably their eventual obituaries will settle the matter once and for all.
Your argument that the term has a fairly value-free meaning is dubious. Take the Oxford definition that a statesman is "a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure". I would argue that the term "statecraft" is just as subjective as "statesman" in that it refers to the "skilful management of state affairs". Powell is controversial for his rationalising of the Iraq War, and whether one can consider him a "statesman" is a debate that is best left for history, i.e. after the obituaries are written.
Reagan dying before Gorbachev did not make him more of a statesman than the latter. Bit of a red herring. There was an RFC over whether Reagan should be referred to as a statesman and the consensus reached was negative. There has not been a similar discussion for Gorbachev. I would note that his lede on the Russian Wikipedia translates as "a Soviet and Russian state, political and public figure." Gorbachev is not regarded as highly in Russia as he is among the West, and that's putting it nicely.
"Waiting til death to use the title" is a reductive way of interpreting the purpose of this discussion. As I have said before, if you can provide me with reliable sources confirming that these living figures have been widely referred to as statesmen, I have no problem. The thing is, the key component of what makes WP:BLP tick is neutrality and, as it has been noted by others on this page, the term "statesman" can easily be interpreted as a peacock term. That is the source of contention, especially in regards to WP:BLP.--Nevé–selbert22:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You certainly may, but I would then like to point out that the first definition of "Statesman" in the American Heritage Dictionary is "A man who is a leader in national or international affairs", and the second definition in Collins is "(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person active and influential in the formulation of high government policy, such as a cabinet member". So in fact there is a fairly value-free meaning established for statesman in reliable (dictionary) sources, in addition to the quasi-honorific. The same, by the way, is true of other terms such as "leader", which carry both normative and descriptive meanings, and WP does not shy away from using them.
As far as the sources go, it is certain that most of those you autocorrected, as are mentioned above, are typically referred to in reliable sources as "statesmen" or "stateswomen" - indeed, Gorbachev, for example, is seldom referred to as anything else, at least in English-language sources. Finally, my point about Gorbachev's longevity was that you are using BLP arguments but piggybacking your whole intervention - including this RfC - on the Reagan RfC which was about a specific dead leader and was therefore not subject to BLP in any way. Your whole argument in that sense strikes me as artificial and disingenuous, and I am happy to observe that the developing consensus appears to be in favor of case-by-case treatment. Newimpartial (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Your assertion that the term has a fairly value-free meaning is contentious and potentially WP:OR. You claim that it is certain that most of those you autocorrected are typically referred to as statesmen, yet you provide no evidence to back that claim up. Your assertion that Gorbachev is seldom referred to as anything else other than statesman is also unfounded. In Google Books, "Gorbachev" AND "Soviet politician" renders about 2,470 results versus "Gorbachev" AND "Soviet statesman" with about 1,670. I am not "piggybacking" on anything at all, your choice of language is inane. I am only using said discussion as an example precedent, for it is up to fellow editors whether they would like to it into account or not. Again, as long as there are reliable sources that are cited confirming that these living persons are considered statesmen, I have no problem. If my argument strikes you as "disingenuous" and "artificial", you have clearly not been bothered to read what I say. I cannot but help feeling that you are being deliberately rude in an effort to illustrate a WP:POINT.--Nevé–selbert14:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Now, now, Neve, please WP:AGF. I have read everything you have said about this - even cases where I neither reverted nor commented - and you did not use the Reagan RfC as an "example", you clearly used it as a precedent (those are not the same thing). You used this discussion of a particular dead leader's legacy even though you were citing BLP as the governing policy, and BLP did not apply to the Reagan RfC - this illustrates the extent to which the discussion of Reagan was a discussion of Reagan, and not a general discussion of the ways "statesman" is to be used which is how you repeatedly interpreted it in your edit summaries and comments. Do I really have to go back and quote you to yourself?
As far as the Google Books search is concerned, considering that Gorbachev was clearly both a statesman and a politician, and that the results for both terms can appear in the same text, what you have actually done is verify that both terms are in use by most sources, as indeed the WP article itself uses both (in spite of your silly "disputed" tag - disputed by exactly one person). In another case you take particular issue with, Colin Powell, the term "statesman" is so preponderant over politician that it dominates at least two published (non-contributory) encyclopedia entries on the subject, as well as being the title of one of the major books about the subject (and not a PEACOCK piece). If you look for yourself, you will see that the term "statesman" is supported by reliable sources in all of these cases, and it is not my job to find them all, since you are the one who scripted away consensus terms in favour of often-inappropriate ideosyncratic terms of your own devising.Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I did not attempt to use the Reagan RfC as a precedent in terms of the outcome of this discussion, that is a false charge. I merely presented the RFC as a precedent in terms of whether one can consider the term "statesman" as neutral or not. There is no need to quote me, for I remember what I said. You state that Gorbachev was clearly a statesman and politician. I don't dispute that, the only thing I take issue with is whether the former term is used more often to refer to him, and as the Google Books results indicate the latter is used just as often if not more. The {{disputed}} tag was intended to alert readers to my concern (especially so as there was no inline citation corroborating Gorbachev's being a statesman). You have still not provided any sources in particular confirming that Powell is indeed regarded as a statesman, and as the term is clearly contentious as this discussion has shown, the term ought to be supported by an inline citation for said living person. Regarding consensus, can you point to me any discussions at the talkpages of said articles where there was a consensus that these individuals be referred to as statesmen? If you can I would be very interested. I am perplexed as to how "diplomat" and "politician" are often-inappropriate ideosyncratic terms of my own devising. I also find it strange how many Canadian governors-general have been referred to as statesmen. The Australian GGs referred to as such in their lede include only Paul Hasluck and Richard Casey, Baron Casey and of New Zealand there is only Arthur Porritt, Baron Porritt (all dead persons). I don't mean to come across as confrontational, but I would just like to see some consistency over the issue of calling BLP politicians as statesman. Obama in my view passes the duck test for a statesman (such a contrast to Trump), yet he is referred to as an American politician in his lede. If Clark and Giscard can be referred to as statesman without WP:INCITE, why not Obama too? There is an inconsistency here that should be addressed one way or another.--Nevé–selbert00:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Describe governors general as "public servants"? You give the impression they're bureaucrats who sit in a dingy Gatineau office taking orders from the deputy-assistant to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. These are representatives of the head of state, who frequently represent the country abroad, that we're talking about here.--₪MIESIANIACAL04:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Case-by-case. Statesman should generally be avoided because it can be used to gloss over someone's true legacy, yet sometimes it fits better than politician. Opposed to living/dead dichotomy, because NPOV problems with the term is more widespread and relevant for dead politicians, who are often unduly praised for political reasons (notably nationalism). Uglemat (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Case-by-case - I think this is from my remarks in [Talk about Reagan. I would generally say there is no position or functional measure that would have this. I would require WP:COMMONTERM that it appear in Google as usually said in association with the person for it to appear in a BLP lead and that individual cites alone will not do. I still look to definitions such as Oxford "skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure" or Cambridge "politician or government official who is respected and experienced", indicating a major part of their life in public service, and often the 'senior statesman' compliment of someone no longer active in politics but still consulted and influential thus demonstrating the wisdom and respect. I would say that something like 20+ years in service might be taken as a minimum but not a guarantee, but think the Google measure is the only clear indicator I have. Markbassett (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Case-by-case, obviously. First of all, this is not a BLP issue. Second, usage by reliable sources is what controls, not some test dreamed up by Wikipedia editors. Third, it was completely inappropriate to engage in mass editing to replace the word with "politician," especially in bios that are clearly not of politicians at all (e.g., Powell, Canadian governors general). Neutralitytalk02:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Politician by default. In most cases I have seen it used, "statesman" is a fluffy term used to avoid any imagined negative correlation with "politician". Per Tryptofish, if an individual is primarily known for international diplomacy (those politicians that later served as UN officials may be a good example) "statesman" might be appropriate, though even in such cases, I think "diplomat" should be the preferred term. Vanamonde (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Case-by-case Reagan didn't do jack after his presidency, and neither did Ford, or Bush the Lesser. I think you get to be a statesman if you actually do stuff that are, you know, statesman-like. Bush the Elder, Clinton and of course Carter certainly qualify for the descriptive. The status of having been president does not - and should not - instantly qualify any politican as a statesman. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Depends on the person, per the reliable sources. The definitions of statesman imply someone is making a decision/judgement, that a person is a statesman. Wikipedia Editors don't make the decision, the sources do.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Case-by-case. It might be justified if reliable sources use the term. Otherwise, politician is fine. However, in certain cases, statemsan is better when the position is not a political one (e.g. Governor Generals are netutral and non-partisan). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Case-by-case Only some former Canadian governors general were politicians. All, as representatives of the Canadian head of state, were statesmen or stateswomen. A secretary of state, on the other hand, is neither a head of state nor representative of one. Whether or not a former secretary of state could be considered a statesman would depend on his activities and achievements. --₪MIESIANIACAL04:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree completely on the part "A secretary of state ... is neither a ... nor representative of one." The very job description of Secretary of State is to represent the United States (and, by extension, its leadership) in diplomatic contexts. That's the very essence of what a statesman/stateswoman is. And only some secretaries of state have been politicians. The position, of course, is an appointment, not elected, and as with Canadian governors-general, not all secretaries of state have been career politicians. Hilary Clinton, of course, was a politician having been a senator (and later seeking the presidency itself), but Kissinger as far as I'm aware never sought nor held elected office, for example. 136.159.160.7 (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes in answer to the original question, should editors take caution over whether to refer to living politicians as statesmen (especially if unsourced)? "Statesman" is not a neutral term, so it should be used with care on a case-by-case basis. Phlar (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
If and only if they will be given a state funeral. That is not entirely unpredictable, but in the meantime, if and only if reliable sources call them statesmen. or stateswomen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RfC about mentioning a persons criminal status (BLP CRIME)
The consensus is against including the proposed text.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
regarding the proposal above, Should this policy include a sentence with the title
BLPCRIMECLARIFY: "Do not refer to a person or subject of an article as a criminal without making it immediately apparent that they are a convicted criminal and that that status is the result of a judicial conviction" Edaham (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Survey
Support As the proposing editor I'd like policy to enable editors to speedily correct the usage of the standalone use of the term "criminal" to avoid an unintentionally accusatory tone. Edaham (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Support with qualifications - you can say they were indicted for perpetrating a criminal act, and if found guilty, they can be described as a convicted criminal. Atsme📞📧04:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose There are several versions of "criminal". Accused, suspected, admitted, known, convicted, identified. A great many known criminals are never brought before a court, much less convicted. As long as these phrases don't originate at Wikipedia but prevail in reliable sources, that's good enough for me. Any policy that separates Wikipedia from reliable sources is a bad thing. Dougmcdonell (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose as being overly specific. There are many ambiguous descriptors which could and should be either avoided or clarified by context. A potentially relevant essay (not policy or guideline) appears at Wikipedia:Ambiguous words. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Some people who commit crimes are never convicted (or never charged) because, for example, they flee the jurisdiction, or they cut a deal with the prosecutors to inform on a worse criminal in exchange for immunity for their criminal acts. bd2412T01:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Comment. The example you give below of a BLP starting with "X is an Australian-born criminal" should never happen, but adding "convicted" would be just as bad. SarahSV(talk)01:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
SlimVirgin In that case it would be just as bad, yes. That's why we agreed that the term be removed entirely. I supported this. In other cases where someone is notable for being a convicted felon and is almost always referred to as such by reliable sources, saying felon without any qualification is worse than saying convicted felon - however per the discussion below, this is not really about specific wording and the underlying issues is: how do we make policy at BLPCRME more robustly uphold the removal of potentially libelous or defamatory terminology? This has actually already been addressed. The policy at BLPCRIME has been adjusted and I'm satisfied with both the wording and the level of specificity with which it addresses the issue. I see no further need to continue the RfC per this amendment and welcome its closure on the grounds of its having been addressed. Edaham (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
As has been mentioned, enforcing terminology through policy is not the intent here, it is to avoid a defamatory tone and have policy better uphold the removal of defamatory text, making it necessary to work harder (but not make it impossible) to support its inclusion if an editor feels that it is important to put it into the article. CM is recently deceased and I support what the policy now reads, which is that effort should be taken to ensure the veracity of the criminal's status. I would possibly further amend the policy to state that having taken such effort, verification of the status - I.e. Mentioning the when where and why of the conviction(s) or any other valid material which supports the use of what ever term implying criminal activity - should be included in the body of the article and not just in citations. This has been done in abundance in the article you are using as an example Edaham (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
An article should not start with, say "Charles Milles Manson was an American criminal and cult leader". It's uninformative and it's juvenile. If someone is a career criminal, mafioso or yakuza, say so. If someone is primarily notable due to the commission of crimes, mention those crimes. "Charles Milles Manson was an American cult leader and convicted mass murderer" is vastly more informative. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.'
Oppose per WP:CREEP, as above. Prefer Do not refer to a person or subject of an article as a criminal., or explicit addition of "criminal" to WTW (though, WTW not being exhaustive, I would regard it as implicitly there already), with reasoning as per Sangdeboeuf below. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.'17:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Threaded discussion
I have concerns that the terminology or label "Criminal" has been used in BLPs] from time to time and have sought to amend it based on policy, but found that policy was not explicit enough to support an immediate correction. I'm concerned that simply calling someone a criminal without using the term "convicted" along side it constitutes a form of accusation or an implication of that person's inherent disposal toward criminal behavior rather than a indication that they have committed a specific crime. Edaham (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The proposed wording "Do not refer to a person or subject of an article as a criminal without making it immediately apparent..." suggests that we should ever label a living subject as a "criminal". The term convicted criminal could mean anything from jaywalking to serial rape/murder, and so is unduly vague. There's a moralizing/opprobious ring to it regardless of the seriousness of the actual crime, and so verges on propaganda or character assassination (compare with convict, ex-con, etc.). Nor does a conviction by itself imply actual guilt – wrongful convictions do happen, especially in countries with weak legal protections for citizens (see Show trial).
Even in the case of career criminals, a more specific term such as mobster or crime boss is a better choice, since it gives the reader some context. Rather than calling someone a convicted criminal, we should describe the crimes and any relevant judicial action, as in "X is a former widget maker from North Anytown, who was convicted in Year Y for the crime of Z", etc. In other words, show, don't tell. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
You'll have to explain the basis on which you think this is creep, or in conflict with NPOV. NPOV already contains info on innocent until proven otherwise. This proposal only asks that if it is absolutely necessary to mention the criminal status of a living subject in an article, that it be made clear that it was the result of a judicial proceeding against the person and not a claim. I'm happy to pull up articles and edit them on a case by case basis, but I think that it would be good to have a policy which supports clarification. What I would like is for the policy to advise that it can be acceptable to refer as a criminal for some reason, but not to refer to a person generally as a criminal as it accuses them of criminal intent outside the scope of their conviction.
I don't necessarily suggest promoting the term "convicted criminal", or any specific wording. What I do suggest, per BLP crime, is that people's criminal status not be referred to without making it quickly clear as to why they are being referred to as such. I agree with you that the most specific term is preferable, i.e. mob boss, gangster, bank robber and so on - if they are unanimously referred to as such by reliable sources.
Strongly suggest reading the quoted talk page discussion which I included in the collapsed text above. If you've fully understood this distinction and still think it's not something which could be included in either BLP or possibly WTW, then I'm happy to continue editing case-by-case per BRD Edaham (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:NPOV, we should avoid "expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd". Criminal seems unduly vague and is often used disparagingly, as is convicted criminal. I have read the earlier discussion, and as I stated at Talk:Peter Hore, I disagree that there is any great distinction between criminal and convicted criminal, as far as impartial tone is concerned. As for establishing some kind of guidance, I do think that criminal should be added to WTW under contentious labels to be avoided, just like terrorist, extremist, etc. I think the suggested BLP wording will only muddy the waters. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
well then we are actually kind of in agreement, in that a) I argued alongside you for the removal of the word criminal from that particular article (after a brief disagreement, in which I was trying to first qualify the term to correct an accusatory tone), and b) that we both think policy should make it easier to resolve contentions of that nature quickly in the future. As to the exact working we cannot conflict with NOTCENSORED but I'm happy to consider alternative. It should be kept in mind that my primary aim is to aid the quick removal or alteration of potentially libelous or defamatory material, and not to limit editors to a particular form of phrase. Edaham (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
See my comment in the previous discussion, that if approved this new requirement should apply only to LIVING persons. People who died before they could be brought to trial, but have been identified by law enforcement as perpetrators citing strong evidence, can be called "criminal" but not "convicted criminal". --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the page relating to living (and recently deceased) persons. But I don't see how to justify labeling any recently deceased person a "criminal", no matter what the evidence. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
BLP applies to the recently deceased. A dead suspect is still only a suspect until the authorities make their determination. Unliving living suspects, there likely won't be a trial, but there will be an final statement made by authorities. And we should follow that as we would if they were still living. --MASEM (t) 04:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I had just commmented on this at User_talk:The_Vintage_Feminist#WP:BLPNAME. TLDR: I think we should apply policy regardless of what the rants by this IP user / new editor say; so we need some argument why the children's names are "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" (WP:BLPNAME). Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I have an editor who is reverting an image (albeit accidentally uploaded as a non-free image) in the 6ix9ine article, saying that WMF policy forbids the use of fair use images in BLP articles, but they have not provided any specific links to the policy. Are they correct? I am somewhat new to editing and am still figuring out the intricacies of fair use. Etzedek24 (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
This subject may have been discussed earlier - if so please excuse this posting here....
An anon editor changed data (birth date and place), claiming to be the mother of the article's subject. I first removed the disputed data altogether (as it was unsourced either way). Searching around the internet there a numerous depictions of the person's passport, almost all of them with the DOB/POB/Passport number blanked. I have been able to find one image (here), which - if it is genuine as it appears to be - lists the date and place of birth in line with the claims of the anon editor.
So there question is: can/should we use very likely illegitimately obtained pictures of the internet to source BLP data on Wikipedia?? Travelbird (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
You should ask this on WP:BLPN - this talk page is for proposing changes to the policy.
Presently, I think it is very likely that the article would be deleted in its entirety under WP:BLP1E, as the current text gives the impression she seems to be known for one event, not even a particularly notable event as they go. It might be mergable, in reduced form, into some general article on cocaine prohibition in Australia.
The mother's IP address maps to South Australia. I see no particular reason to disbelieve her; nonetheless, since anonymous trolls can and do try to insert random errors into Wikipedia just in order to make their competing commercial sites more desirable by comparison, we can't just take the IP account's word that it is really her. Does the subject have an official web page? If so the mother could arrange to get the data published there, and then we could cite it per WP:SPS as a subject talking about herself. Wnt (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Disputed content
Guidance about achieving consensus for disputed content is currently stuck way down under "Role of administrators". I believe this should be mentioned more prominently, since some editors don't seem to follow WP:BRD in this area. See for example Linda Sarsour(edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
The view of the Arbitration Committee is that "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm.' This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached". This is also reflected under WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content".
When material about living persons has been deleted* on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
...since there is a lot of verified material out there that may be unsuitable for a given encyclopedic biography, such as celebrity gossip and the like. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
No, no, no, no. The bit about changing "deleted" to "removed" is a hint how drastic this change would be. Undeleting or recreating whole articles without significant revisions is one thing -- adding back a sentence that you think is well supported by sources is something altogether different. The proposed change would create a Superconsensus of One where any editor determined to keep an inconvenient fact from being mentioned (and there are many, of both) would merely need to filibuster the talk page until everyone else gave up on having open and honest Wikipedia coverage. I should also add that "do no harm" is open to interpretation -- if a politician is in a big company's pocket and we don't print that and they get elected, did we really do no harm??? Wnt (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
This seems like a sensible proposal. I don't agree with Wnt above that this would create filibusters. It's just a common-sense tweak. Coretheapple (talk) 01:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose removing it from the admin section. The word "delete" is used, not removed, because it's about admins deleting BLP violations. I have no objection to a similar section being developed elsewhere, but we do already have the section "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced". I oppose adding: "The burden to achieve consensus rests with the editor who adds or restores material." It isn't clear what it means. SarahSV(talk)01:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with SarahSV, this is unclear. It also, I think, provides too much opportunity for gaming, if for example something has already recently been consensus supported, but one or a small group of disruptive editors keep removing it and insisting on new discussions. In that case, the burden would be on the remover to establish that the previous consensus has changed. So I would oppose this as worded. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Support the first proposal (moving text from Role of administrators to Writing style), and oppose the second ("burden of evidence" revision). I think the first proposal would add clarity, but there's enough confusion already (above) about what the edits in the second part mean. I also don't think changing "deleted" to "removed" changes much, since the section as currently written already refers to deletion of "material", not "articles" (and thus already means removal of content within a page). Shelbystripes (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose. There is a specific reason why its 'deleted' and under admin section. Its to make sure admins before undeleting material are aware they are responsible for any BLP violation that makes it back in, rather than in many other cases, merely exercising their tools on behalf of another. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Contradiction
The section on this page about primary sources seems to make them essentially forbidden, yet WP:PRIMARY says, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Is there any reason why this verbatim quote from that policy page should not go here? I believe it would end the contradiction and make the policy clearer. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Primary sources are indeed allowed. The point of this section is to stop people from, say, digging up someone's divorce details from a court and publishing them here. We currently urge caution and say "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source ..." SarahSV(talk)01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Nothing here contradicts primary. We use things such as academic CVs and university websites all the time in BLPs, and that is not contradicted by this policy. We can't use an online court docket as a reference for saying that a celebrity has a drunk driving charge, however. For that we'd need a news report. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
You might be right. It was mostly the date-of-birth prohibition that's throwing me, since that's non-contentious. Whether for current celebrities or historical figures, birth certificates / census records cited in sources such as FamilySearch are often the only reliable way of confirming that important biographical fact. But I guess those would be secondary sources citing primary, then, come to think.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
That's a privacy thing. DOBs are often used like ID numbers. We'll oversight them for minors under a certain age. I've asked Risker what our policy is in this regards in terms of hiding it for adults on her talk page. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
We don't really use secondary-cite birth records except for adults, so, fortunately, in my experience, it hasn't been an issue with minors. (There was a RfC about kids in 2015, I think, and after at least a month of discussion there was a consensus that if the parents or their representatives publicly release children's birth, name and gender, we can include it. I know in cases like Ginnifer Goodwin where the parents do not release that information, we don't. And heaven knows when Kim Kardashian releases that information in magazine stories, we do!)--Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Is buzzfeed a reliable source for biographies of living persons?
I would like to propose BLP make some more explicit guidance on mentioning the previous names of trans persons. Deadnaming is overwhelmingly a harmful practice to be avoided. I think the privacy expectations of BLP need to be balanced in a more explicit way with NPOV and the goal of exhaustively covering encyclopedic topics. My initial suggestion is as follows:
Previous names of living persons should generally not be included in the lede or in info boxes. Instead, previous names should be listed in the sections related to their notability. For instance, an author would have their previous name published on their previous works, and so their Works should include a written under the name XYZ or similar statement for clarity. A famous athlete who won medals or set records under a previous name should say as XYZ prefacing their list of achievements. Their previous name, if notable, should have a redirect to the article with their current, correct name.
In cases where it is not reasonable to avoid deadnaming the subject because of their great notability, properly sourced and respectful statements may be included in the introductory sentence of an article. An example would be someone whose notability includes widespread recognition by the general public and prominence before and after their transition. For instance, the article on Caitlyn Jenner must take into account that many readers are looking for information based on their familiarity with her previous name. By contrast, notable (but not publicly famous) authors will be easily identified by properly documenting their published works. It is not necessary to mention previous names for a less famous person, provided their achievements are properly documented. Their previous names may also be mentioned in relation to properly sourced material related to their personal lives, activism, etc. where it is relevant.
If you want to call this guidance: The MoS does not specify when and how to present former names, or whether to use the former or present name first.Pawsplay (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
If someone was notable under a previous name, then that name should be included in the article. If a large part of what they were notable for was under that previous name, then it should be included as early in the article as possible. If author Jane Doe wrote a bunch of famous books, and later changed his name to John Doe, then readers who search for the author Jane Doe and get redirected to John Doe should be informed immediately that they are in the right place. The feelings of the subject are secondary to the goal of informing readers. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:BIRTHNAME. After contentious debate at WP:VPP, this was the result. Basically, if the person was notable prior to publicly coming out, mentioning the person's birth name is appropriate in the lead. Otherwise, it's not. I'd personally like to see this generalize more, but in practice we generally don't mention deadnames unless the person was notable as that name and it's important for the reader's understanding. EvergreenFir(talk)15:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
It may be that there's a local consensus "If a transgender person was not notable under a previous name, do not mention that name, in either the lead or body, even if it has been widely published by reliable sources." If this is the case, then it ought to be formally debated and adopted as policy. Personally, I would be against it, because it goes against the basic Wikipedia philosophy of "following the sources". RSs use transgender people's preferred pronouns, so Wikipedia does likewise. But RSs routinely report trans people's previous names (even when they were not well-known while using them), so Wikipedia should follow them as well. It may well be that in the future RSs will stop doing this, at which point Wikipedia should do likewise. But not until then. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
@NPalgan2: I suppose it would be case-by-case, but it seems most sources don't mention deadnames (in my experience at least). But even then, it would be an issue of DUE and BLPPRIVACY. EvergreenFir(talk)22:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I certainly strongly agree with the notion of avoiding non-notable details about a person (about any topic really) in the lead. This is especially true of details that could be hurtful or offensive in some way.
I am troubled, though, by the suggestion that non-notable details should be excluded from articles altogether. Certainly this has never been Wikipedia policy. Notability largely applies as a consideration regarding whether an article should exist, not what should be in the article. The article contents should be reasonably complete coverage of the topic, including details that are pertinent though not notable in and of themselves. Granted, there are and should be exceptions made for details that could be especially dangerous to be listed for the subject or are considered too wildly sensitive for the subject to be included. I certainly agree with the notion of some limited censoring for these cases but it is a very slippery slope.
If we say that we are going to censor anything that a subject might not like written about them then we are essentially saying that all BLPs are necessarily puff pieces that can only promote the subject. One could argue, for example, that Mark Wahlberg's arrests could be omitted since he was an unknown at the time they happened, and certainly they are a source of serious embarrassment for him, but we do not censor these and we do not debate the notability of those arrests. I do think the issue of deadnaming for the trans community needs to be treated with care, and while I would say avoiding deadnaming for minors is a reasonable guideline, in the case of adults there are many equally or more sensitive details about other people that are normally included as well (e.g. criminal convictions, accusations of impropriety, accusations of extramarital affairs, accusations of homosexuality for individuals who may be closeted, etc.). Again, it is certainly appropriate to say care should be taken regarding sensitive details, but saying simply that outright censorship is the right solution for anything that may be upsetting (even very upsetting) seems a very troubling way to go.
I have suggested before that we take a cue from what mainstream media does. If mainstream media seems to be intentionally avoiding discussing a sensitive detail and the only reliable sources for the detail are tabloids or other sources that, while credible, may be deemed to have low ethical standards, then it is perhaps appropriate to say the mainstream journalists know something we do not and it is best to just follow their lead to err on the side of caution. But if our only reason for censoring is that some WP editors are bothered by certain things, that is a problematic justification.
I have suggested neither censorship nor removing other uses of the name altogether. My suggestion mainly relates to the lead paragraph, infoboxes, and superfluous mentions. Thus, for instance, Jennell Jaquays would have her previous name mentioned under works. But I don't think that information belongs in the intro. It's disrespectful, hurtful, and unnecessary. Reuters suggests news articles should always use someone's chosen name. Here is a link for some reading: https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/deadnaming#media
Well, you are suggesting censorship, which is not necessarily always a bad thing, but I did not say that you had suggested removing all uses of the deadname. However others have.
Please do not lecture me as though I have said something I did not say.
The lead and infobox should obviously include the former names if they were notable under them. This is relevant biographical information that would be on the first page of any paper biography published about the subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
BLP aims to protect individuals from the spread of unverified claims about them, and to protect Wikipedia from defamation lawsuits. It is not there to protect subjects' feelings by hiding factual relevant information about them. Your proposal aims to do just that, shifting the goal and undermining Wikipedia's ability to achieve its primary goal of informing readers. You are essentially arguing that Wikipedia's mission is wrong and should be changed, that the power of words to harm others is so important that we should be hiding even relevant, verifiable information about public figures - nothing in BLP currently supports that position. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This is not merely about hurting someone's feelings; this is about the possibility of doing harm to actual human beings, which is a key component of BLP, as Sangdeboeuf pointed out below. The goal of "informing readers" is not the be-all end-all of what we do here, as the Wikimedia resolution on biographies of living people makes clear. That resolution explicitly states that we are to "tak[e] human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information". -- irn (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Comment: the "presumption in favor of privacy" is an essential part of WP:BLP, and is designed to avoid "the possibility of harm to living subjects". This is also reflected in ArbCom's decision on BLPs: "Wikipedia editors [...] have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions [...] the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm'". If there is a widespread opinion that "deadnaming" is indeed harmful, then it should certainly not be done gratuitously; it should be discouraged unless the person was especially notable under their previous name. For instance, the sociologist Raewyn Connell published some early works under the name Robert Connell; it should be valid to include a brief mention of this previous name in the lead section to avoid confusion. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not arguing any of that, nor am I arguing Wikipedia's mission is wrong. I'm just questioning how often it is relevant to deadname a person in the lede, especially when their notability is fairly narrow in scope. Pawsplay (talk) 21:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I think we sort of agree. If it's not relevant, the previous name shouldn't be used. But if someone was notable under a previous name, that name should be in the lead. The guide should be notability. If there's no reason to bring up the previous name, then we shouldn't bring it up. But if someone has a reason to search for a previous name, then we need to have it early in the article to show readers that they're in the right place. If you have a book with author written as Jane Doe, and you search Jane Doe and get redirected to John Doe, it could be very confusing unless the first couple sentences say "John Doe, previously Jane Doe". But if someone changed their name, and then later became famous or well-known, then the first name isn't important, and it's not an issue. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Any information that would be in a biography published by a reputable publishing house is fair game in my mind, of course using common sense. For some people a discussion of their childhood would never take place in a biography because it might focus solely on their professional career, etc. At the same time, it honestly would make us look like we were engaging in censorship if in the lead of Caitlyn Jenner's article we did not mention that her previous name was Bruce Jenner very quickly. The purpose of the BLP policy is to protect people from having their lives ruined by placing contentious material in Wikipedia's voice, which is a very powerful one given that we are always going to be the first Google result. The BLP policy does not exist to hide legitimate biographical information, and birth name is certainly that. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
I think if a public figure's transition is part of their story, then it makes sense to include the name, just as it would be included in a biography. But if they didn't do anything notable under their previous name, then it doesn't need to be in the lead - it could just be part of their biography section. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed on the lead. But though the original question did not ask it, others have mentioned the question of whether a non-notable deadname should be included in the body at all. That is a separate question and needs to be answered as well. There was a large discussion on Talk:Danica Roem and no consensus was reached. -- MC 2605:6000:EC16:C000:90D9:9D6:6A14:20FC (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia's purpose is to collect information for the public. If the "deadname" is out there in reliable sources, we should have it. We don't have to wave it around in the lede if it seems pointlessly offensive to do so, especially when the other name is not commonly used now. After all, the first set of bolded lede terms are supposed to be synonyms and if a deadname is taken to be offensive then it is not really a synonym for the other name. (e.g. we do not have a bolded "nigger" in the lede of African American -- but we do mention it halfway down the page!) But we should certainly be ready to say when, where, and what someone was named at birth as part of a decent Early Life section. Maybe there are people who find that offensive ... there are people who find the name of Norovirus offensive because they're named Noro. But we're here to write history, not rewrite history. A lot of people want a brand new life with a brand new history ... we don't have that on tap. Being trans shouldn't give a special exception to that. Wnt (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
The BLP policy does not exist to hide legitimate biographical information, and birth name is certainly that. You say certainly with a lot more zest than I am comfortable with. It's potentially biographical information. If it's not readily available public information, it is certainly not appropriate to include that information in a biography of a living person. Anyway, I think "would this be in a paper biography?" is not a good criterion. Plenty of published biographies are not themselves reliable sources, many are libelous, they are often nosy. Whole biographies are rarely published about people whose notoriety is narrow in scope. If, for instance, you find a biography of a notable physicist, it is likely to be in an anthology of such biographies, not a book devoted to them. Exhaustive information about someone's early life is often written for people like Bill Clinton or Oprah Winfrey, but that's because their lives are a topic of public consumption. Writing the same level of detail about, say, your next door neighbor would not be appropriate. So, I conclude, BLP does, certainly, yes, exists to hide legitimate biographical information, if that information would be considered invasive of the privacy of someone who is not a famous celebrity to the public. BLP does not only cover what is encyclopedic, although it touches on that. The reason BLP exists, the reason it is distinct from the biographies of dead famous persons, is the potential for actual harm to a living person. Wikipedia aims to be complete and encyclopedic, but these policies are designed also with the consideration of not doing evil. Pawsplay (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Data about your next door neighbor would usually be ruled out because of a lack of notability, which is to say, our inability to cite multiple RSes for a fair and accurate portrayal. That is in accordance with our core mission. Deciding what is "harmful" is not in our core mission, because we're not here to make stuff up or propagate dubious data. If you're saying it is harmful to give a transsexual's former name, does this imply that it is harmful even to tell readers someone is transsexual at all? Would that really be less harmful than, say, telling readers that some announcer was fired from a TV network for making anti-transsexual tweets? Isn't that a part of his life he'd like to put behind him and have forgotten? Where do you draw the line about how much touch-up we're supposed to be doing here?
I say what is harmful is to degrade Wikipedia's aspiration to put the sum of all human knowledge into the hands of everyone on the planet, to make value judgments about what facts we should tell and what we should hold back, to impose our opinions of who is worth protecting and who isn't. Wikipedia is a resource the world is starting to rely on, and it should be a resource by the people, for the people, of the people, for the general good that comes from having a basic indexed view of all the published data available about every topic. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored, and someone's birth name is legitimate biographical information, especially if it has been published in reliable sources. The BLP policy does not exist to hide legitimate biographical information from public consumption. There is a significant difference between saying Politician X is a closeted homosexual and Roberta Smith (born Bob Smith) is a Canadian nobel prize winning Foobar-player. or the like. The BLP policy specifically would prevent us mentioning the first, as gossip that could have a serious impact on someone's life should not be reported on Wikipedia, but it should not prevent us from saying the second if reliable sources report on Ms. Smith's birth name. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
That style is useful when the names are approximately synonymous -- i.e. everyone knows (or will rapidly find out in reading RSes) that Caitlyn Jenner and Bruce Jenner are the same person. However, when the birth name is relatively obscure and the person is known primarily by their trans name, then it seems reasonable to leave it non-bolded and push it down to an "early life" section. I will not go further than that because if we have a biography it ought to be capable of having an "early life" section, and if we have such a section it is impossible to fill it out without reference to the original name, since such conversions are not generally done for some time. But there is no need to dangle a birth name as a true synonym in the lede when it is not used that way. To reiterate the example I gave above, we most certainly do not have an article that says African Americans, also known as niggers... Yet we definitely do have at least the second term further down in the article. Thinking about it, I think there may be/should be a general rule about non-synonymous redirects -- we shouldn't bold and lead off with redirects that are not true synonyms in any case. For example, I actually don't agree with the current text (oil of wintergreen) where it says Methyl salicylate (oil of wintergreen or wintergreen oil) is an organic ester naturally produced by many species of plants, particularly wintergreens. I mean, can you really get oil of wintergreen out of a plant that isn't a wintergreen? It is a related topic but not genuinely a synonym, and I would treat that with the same halfway approach. Wnt (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, I think that can be a valid concern, and an editor might decided to follow that style for any number of reasons. I don't think having a birth name in the lead is a BLP vio, however, nor do I think it should be. To use an example from history: Leon Trotsky has his birth name in bold in the lead. It has been used against him for anti-semetic reasons. It's still there, because it is important identifying information, even if he is much more widely known by Trotsky, the name he chose himself. No one knows who Lev Davidovich Bronstein, but we include it anyway. This is not saying that we must include it in the lead, simply that at editorial discretion and through consensus, we can decide where to place it in the article. At the very least it should go in the early life section. Deciding to place it more prominent, however, is not a BLP vio. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The point stands: it's valid biographical information. He's not living, but basic examples of how a biography is written don't change between the living and the dead. I'm sure I could find any number of other living examples, but that was the first that came to me since I'd been reading his article the other day. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I am concerned that you continue to participate in this discussion despite the completely mistaken statement you have just made about BLP. Pawsplay (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Except that some basic principles do change. The "presumption in favor of privacy" and ArbCom's "do no harm" rule apply to living subjects, not long-deceased ones. That could imply the omission of certain details of a subject's life. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
There is no presumption in favour of privacy when something is not private information and has been published as fact in high-quality reliable sources. It ceases to be private information. Information about someone's upbringing and early life is critical to their biography, and removing it would be a form of censorship, which is not what the BLP policy is about. The presumption in favour of privacy is very strong, but it is not absolute. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
In the case of Jennell_Jaquays the information was mined from primary sources. I find it highly inappropriate to prominently feature sensitive information which has been obtained without referring to reliable, verifiable, independent sources. Simply put, while this information can be quickly researched it isn't the same as information which has been published about a famous person. Being notable is not the same as being famous. Arguing for respect for persons is just as much a part of Wikipedia policy as arguing for completeness; they are different, sometimes competing concerns. I am suggesting the balance should be tipping at this point. Non-famous people should be able to change their names and not have them appear in the lede. This is not censorship, but emphasis. Undue weight is a cornerstone Wikipedia policy as well. What exactly is someone hoping to accomplish by deadnaming an author in the lede, rather than listing in their works previous names? Trotsky's Jewish origins, I note, do not appear in his lede. I really get the sense, perhaps mistaken, that some people feel it is somehow better and more encyclopedic to "out" someone in the lede, even if the article of the subject is known professionally and not primarily as a trans activist. Pawsplay (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Given that her own personal website specifically identifies her original name [1] it is moot if the information was from primary sources or not. If one had to dig into things like public records or the like, absolutely, but there is zero question that Jaquays had an original name before transitioning, and it is completely appropriate for us to include it. --Masem (t) 03:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No, and I haven't stated otherwise. In any event, this is all very abstract until someone provides actual examples where birth names are a relevant concern. But Information about someone's upbringing and early life is critical to their biography is not always true. See WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and WP:BLPNAMES: "In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability"; "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but in most cases those would apply here. If there is publication in high-quality reliable sources, we publish it. BLPNAME is also specifically dealing with BLP1E circumstances, not circumstances where someone has changed their birth name. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Maybe and maybe not. There will be borderline cases with every rule (see also WP:AVOIDVICTIM). The point is the spirit of the policy outlined under WP:BLP, WP:ARBBLP, and wmf:Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. All state in some form that completeness of information must be balanced against "human dignity and respect for personal privacy". None state that these concerns are trumped in any meaningful way by sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the desire for a notable individual not to have their birth name known to be a human rights issue or privacy issue. We give a lot of latitude when removing content on BLP grounds, and I am typically very supportive of it, but BLP is not supposed to be used to hide legitimate biographical information from the public. While this might make the individuals unhappy, there are many things in BLPs that the subjects aren't happy about that shouldn't be removed. I don't really consider this an edge case at all. The spirit of the policy would not have us exclude this information. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, many transgender people seem to think otherwise, according to The Guardian. But if we're just going by high-quality reliable sources, it's worth noting that according to GLAAD, the NYT instructs its writers: "Unless a former name is newsworthy or pertinent, use the name and pronouns (he, his, she, her, hers) preferred by the transgender person". Once again, this is all very abstract, but as a hypothetical example, if a transgender person were subject to a harassment campaign that insisted on using their "deadname", should we also continue to publish that name? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Wnt: Wikipedia is not censored, but neither does gratuitously invoking racial epithets to prove a point (twice in one discussion) help in the creation of a collegial editing environment. Unlike birth names, such terms epithets exist solely to intimidate and convey hostility. I would expect that anyone hoping to influence policy relating to living people would be sensitive to that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2018 (UTC)(edited 03:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC))
Agree with TonyBallioni, Wnt, and Pawsplay that a birth name — and there's no such thing as "deadname", not even to the government when you legally change your name — is important, relevant biographical information. This is particularly so when given in, for example, a major newspaper in a standard biographical article, as is the case with Peppermint (drag queen) and one of the two Pittsburgh newspapers. (I'd note that while the neologism "deadnaming" links to transphobia, that term does not appear in that article.)--Tenebrae (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Unlike birth names, such terms exist solely to intimidate and convey hostility. No. They exist to tell us the name a person was born under. William J. Blythe III was never notable under this name, and he chose to live life as Bill Clinton, but we keep it as a part of his biography because it helps us understand who the person is. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding. Sangdeboeuf was talking about Wnt's use of racial slurs as an example, and was not referring to the use of birth names in articles. In fact, in the line you quoted, they were deliberately contrasting the use of birth names to racial slurs, saying that the latter exist solely to intimidate, unlike the former. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sangdeboeuf: This is not gratuitous. There are a lot of words that people feel strongly about. I'm sure trans people feel strongly about this issue. There may be some who find it uncomfortable that the African American article actually does contain the word I used. Nonetheless, we are right to do so, and I find it important to call attention to that. If you like, I should be clear that I wish no disrespect to African Americans -- just as I wish no disrespect to the trans people we identify by birth name. But I would hoard the factual content of our articles like a dragon is said to hang onto gold. Still, not every piece need be at our lair's entrance. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Can someone please create a Wikipedia article for writer and producer Christopher Cantwell, who is different from the figure Christopher Cantwell? This is an important BLP concern. I don't have time now, but I've added a hatnote there to distinguish both persons. This came to my attention with this edit, and I think this needs to be addressed promptly to avoid any problematic confusion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)23:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Criminal allegations vs confessions or convictions by trial
Based on the policy, it's very clear that we use the word "alleged" when a BLP subject has been accused or charged of a crime (when the accusations or charges are documented in multiple reliable sources). Archives of this talk page, along with the 2nd example for WP:PUBLICFIGURE, provide adequate guidance for this. When there's any question as to use in a specific case, we can consult BLP/N. However, if the subject has confessed the crime in a trial, or been convicted of the crime (assuming adequate reliable sourcing), is it a fair practice to presume that use of "alleged" is no longer required under BLP? BusterD (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I certainly think to omit "alleged" has been our practice after conviction and I think that is appropriate. For a confession I would wait since a not guilty verdict could still result. Even when a possible miscarriage of justice is being discussed, I still think the word is not required. My question immediately below raises a very similar point where no conviction has taken place but there has been an award of punitive damages. Thincat (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
People where punitive damages have been awarded in a civil court
Following a discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Malka Leifer (a BLP article) I created a new article at Sexual abuse incidents at Adass Israel School, Melbourne (permanent link)which nevertheless names the perpetrator (am I allowed to use this word?). Loads of reliable sources over many years. There is a redirect now from the person to the new article on the events. The living person has been accused of serious crime but has fled the jurisdiction and has avoided extradition so far. However, the individual has been found liable in a civil court and AU$150,000 exemplary damages (punitive damages) has awarded against them personally. Explaining this aspect of the damages the judge said "Exemplary damages are damages over and above those necessary to compensate the plaintiff. They are awarded to punish the defendant. They are intended to act as a deterrent to the defendant, and to others minded to behave in a like manner. They are also intended to demonstrate the court’s disapprobation and denunciation of such conduct." I have written the article carefully but naming the individual on the basis that the person did indeed perform the wrongful acts and is not merely alleged to have done so. Have I been right? Would it have been acceptable to have kept the article on the individual? Is this worth mentioning in WP:BLPCRIME (we don't have an established crime here but we do have a judge deciding on culpability)? And, if so, would a note on terminology also be appropriate (perpetrator not criminal, liable not guilty, defendant not accused)? Thincat (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The "new article" is still subject to WP:BLP and all the strictures thereof. In fact, as the person is clearly a BLP1E, this new article has the exact same problems as the original had - and best practice is not to stress the name of the person, but the accusation regarding the place. "Civil court" is not a "criminal court", and the standards of proof are quite different. Stating that the person committed a "criminal act" is something which the article ought not do. Collect (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
(1) The new article acknowledges on its talk page that BLP applies, (2) WP:BLP1E does not apply because the topic of the article is not the individual, (3) the name of the person is not stressed, (4) the judge said the school was found liable not for its own acts or omissions but because it was directly and vicariously liable for the acts of the individual, (5) it is most definitely not stated that the individual committed a criminal act. I agree the standard of proof is lower and perhaps the article should note this. However, please improve the article or take it to AFD if it is intolerable. Thincat (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLPapplies to every article even mentioning the living person. An article which basically is only about one person, must adhere to all the rules about BLPs. Where there is a single event - that means that BLP1E applies to the person involved in that event. We can not say "this article, with every lurid detail about the single person, is not really about that person because we changed the title so we do not need to follow WP:BLP." Collect (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The AfD closer presupposed the change in title, but neglected to note that any article primarily about a specific person must still adhere to WP:BLP strictly. And note also that the fact a person did not know about the AfD (I only learnt of it here) does not make their later input pointing out the applicability of non-negotiable policy of nil value. Thanks. Collect (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Thincat, you wrote: "on the basis that the person did indeed perform the wrongful acts and is not merely alleged to have done so." That's a bit of a red herring, since, at Wikipedia, the question of "guilt or innocence" / "did or just alleged to have done", is mostly irrelevant. It's about what RS say. If we're beyond the "not news" stage, and it's notable and multiple RS have discussed the issue, we should usually document it, even if (especially!) the person might be innocent. (Confirmation of innocence is more important than confirmation of guilt.) We just have to do it carefully. Be bold. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thincat, I would normally have said don't include the name, because the accused is not a public figure and therefore WP:BLPCRIME applies. However, that ship has clearly sailed, given that the article, as a BLP, was kept at AfD; one argument was that, considering two prime ministers have discussed extradition, it has gone beyond BLPCRIME. So I suppose the best approach is to name her, but perhaps not in the lead, and be careful not to write anything implying guilt in Wikipedia's voice. SarahSV(talk)19:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks to the people who have replied here. The article has been edited considerably while this thread has been open so I thought I'd give my personal reflections on this and the discussions at the AFD, the Sexual abuse incidents at Adass Israel School, Melbourne article's history and its talk page. I am not in any way trying to write a formal close.
BLP applies. Of course it does.That is why this whole question arose.
The article was created about the event as a result of the suggestion at the AFD because of BLP1E considerations. The intent was to respect BLP1E.
A finding of liability in a civil court, even if punitive damages have been awarded, is not sufficient to claim in Wikipedia's voice that the defendant actually carried out the alleged acts – they are still "alleged". This may only be so if the tort is also (potentially) a criminal act.
This situation differs from O. J. Simpson murder case (suggested by WP:BLP) in that the individual was not high profile before the civil case and has not been tried in a criminal court – there has been no finding of guilt or innocence, only that the "conduct warrants punishment".[2]: 223 The civil finding required a lower level of proof.
The number of mentions of the name of the alleged perpetrator has been reduced to three in the article's text, one in a quote from the trial judge. I am not happy with the way in which the name has been introduced in present version of the article but I have been keeping out of substantive editing since raising this matter. The name appears in the titles of some of the references cited (and is very prominent in many of the references).
Providing some way to easily spot when a Controversies or Criticisms section is removed or reduced
Hi all
I keep finding very obvious COI edits removing completely or vastly reducing criticism or controversy sections of articles (mainly BLP and companies) with innocuous edit summaries that get missed by other editors. I've started a discussion about if there could be any technical solutions to mitigating this on the Village pump here. This is just a notification, I'd really appreciate it if you go comment there so we can centralise the discussion.
Note that we should avoid having "Controversy" or "Criticism" sections in the first place. They are generally unencyclopedic, and tend to remove information from the appropriate narrative flow, while becoming magnets for undue gripe posting. bd2412T20:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
...and the subject (or editors) dislike
Since I made the initial change, I'm reluctant to revert its deletion. It was originally followed by thanks from editors and admins using the "thank" function to show their approval, so I was a bit surprised to see my edit reverted FOUR days later. Here's the story:
As I understand it, the point of WP:BLP is that articles about living people can do them harm, so we take care to avoid that. We don't allow temporary slack for unverified, non-neutral claims the way we do for other articles, out of concern for the person who is the subject of the article. Bringing in editors' feelings seems to cloud the issue. Whether editors like or dislike a fact should never be a criterion for including it or excluding it, in any article. It's not like we take editors' feeling more into account or less into account on BLP articles. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Courtesy Notification- WP:RSN Discussion
There is currently a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that may involve issues relevant to this wiki policy/guideline. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Billy Graham
Another editor and I have removed a statement from Billy Graham on the marital and professional history of one of the subject's grandsons, and there have been back-and-forth reversions. I don't see the relevance to the subject, and in any event BLP applies both to the grandson and to Dr. Graham. Any guidance you can give will be appreciated. Kablammo (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The section is on the subject's "19 grandchildren and numerous great-grandchildren". If the sourced and negative content about one grandchild is a BLP violation why is the positive content about another grandchild included with only a primary source? This is not a BLP issue in any way, it's cleansing of the Billy Graham biography to gloss over any problems in Graham's family tree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:42, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
The sins (if that is what they were) of the grandchild should not be visited on the grandfather. They do not belong in the article, which is on Billy Graham, not his family tree. Kablammo (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Kablammo. Most articles do not and should not elaborate on a subject other than what the article or topic is about. Create a different article for that grandson if it is notable. It doesn't belong whether it's positive or negative. I see allot of articles with "fluff" about achievements on notable people yet they are removed on other less significant individuals when contributors don't know as much about the person. This is the case here. His grandchild is not relevant enough to include it as it does not tie into nor pertains to Billy's life. I also see that there should never have been that many reverts (edit wars) before discussion when an explanation was given in the edit summary as to why it was originally removed. Tsk tsk! 2600:1702:1690:E10:A0F2:B721:7796:883D (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Depends which part of the Hebrew bible you look at. Moses said the opposite. The issue is not about the sins of the grandchildren, it's about the notability and admissibility of the activities of grandchildren into this biography. Soon enough, the article will not be a BLP and then the rules here do not apply anyhow. With the article on my watch list, I will likely restore the content in the future if a clear consensus is not made here or on the article's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I did a Wikipedia search on Mrs. Wolkoff's biological father, Barry Batinkoff, which brought up a link to Randall Batinkoff. Although I can't find anything saying Stephanie Winston Wolkoff and Randall Batinkoff are related their biological parents have the same names and their mother(s) remarried to a guy with the same name. Should we put that they are biologically related? I added that Wolkoff has the same biological parents as Batinkoff on Wolkoff's page. Should that be kept and added to Batinkoff's page or removed? Thanks. Gooseneck41 (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
"She was a product of an affair conducted while Ganesan was married to Savitri"
Hey all, curious what some of you might think of the phrasing "She was a product of an affair conducted while Ganesan was married to Savitri" found at Rekha. To me that reads as editorializing, as though we're passing judgment on the subject's "legitimacy". Thoughts? I don't want to stir up any pots at the article, because it was added in good faith by a hard-working editor, I was just interested in other opinions before I flagged it or changed it. I occasionally need perspective. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought that the circumstances of her conception did not shed any light on her, and I agree completely with your comments above. When dealing with BLP issues, the default position should be to remove: "When in doubt, take it out."
Many redirects, e.g. WP:ELBLP, link to a section like "§ In biographies of living people" instead of "§ In biographies of living persons". Also, we have policies like WP:BLPPROD which have "people" in the title instead of "persons". (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.)wumbolo^^^15:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
ADL and SPLC = only attack articles. Should never be sources in BLP!
It's hypocritical that Wikipedia has all these rules against using sources on WP:BLP that are from pure-attack sources. Yet when it comes to the ADL and SPLC -- which are purely websites that make nothing but attack articles -- Wikipedia uses them as sources like the very word of God. It's like using Encyclopedia Dramatica as a source for articles, except the ADL and SPLC are even more vicious in their attacks. Stoodpointt (talk) 04:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Stoodpointt. The reports on the ADL and SPLC websites are meticulously researched and have professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy. Reports from these groups are widely cited by the full range of published reliable sources. You are entitled to your opinion about these sources, but consensus of active editors here on Wikipedia is that they are reliable and acceptable for use here. These sources are essential for writing policy compliant encyclopedia articles about extremist groups in the United States. You can discuss this at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Cullen328Let's discuss it04:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello, folks. The daughter of the subject of one of our articles opened an account today and made a few edits to her father's article. One of those edits added her name, as well as the names (including married names) of her seven siblings. I reverted this edit, with a summary indicating that we don't publicise the names of non-notable children. I also left a note on her Talk page alerting her to our concerns about conflict-of-interest editing. She left a response on her Talk page, indicating that she was unhappy with not having her name associated with her father and, in that same posting, listed the full names of herself and her seven siblings.
I know we don't tolerate this kind of thing in Main space (especially, as was the case here, where the information wasn't sourced). But how strongly do we feel about it in User space? Enough to call for a revision deletion?
Thanks for the response. In the case here, the subject was an elderly man who died more than ten years ago. It is very unlikely that any of the children are minors. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
"anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead" should not apply to articles about those notable for living beyond that age
If a person would not be included in an article if the person were dead, or if a person would not have been included if the person had died before the age of 110, then the person should not be presumed dead.
Examples:
The entire article List of oldest living people should be treated as statements about living persons -- even though some were born over 115 years ago.
Anything in the articles Oldest people and List of oldest people by country should be treated as statements about living persons unless the person is known to be dead or was born over 122 years ago -- the 115 years rule should not apply to these article.
The same principle applies to articles about individuals notable mainly for their age, such as Nabi Tajima and Giuseppina Projetto.
The policy says: Even absent confirmation of death, for the purposes of this policy anyone born more than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless reliable sources confirm the person to have been living within the past two years. That seems to cover what you're saying? If someone is over 115, and two years have passed since the last indication they were alive, I think it's fair for WP:BLP to assume they're dead. The particular issue that would make me prefer this interpretation is that a number of claims of extreme lifespans are not particularly reliable, and it's important that people can't use WP:BLP to demand that those claims be treated as reliable even in the lack of accurate sourcing - basically, if you're over 115, I think it's fair to require regular WP:RS updates to confirm that you're still alive. For anyone who has actually achieved that age it should not be hard to produce the relevant sources, given how rare and noteworthy it is. But if eg. the followers of some hermit-mystic or cult leader claim they're still alive at the age of 130, and no reliable sources can confirm this, I don't think that WP:BLP should apply. --Aquillion (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Accusation of attempt at IP theft
An article about a TV show, rather than a biographical article, makes a crime accusation toward a living person, without offering evidence. Is this allowable under WP:BLPCRIME? In a report about a convention appearance, a recurring guest on the show is quoted saying the show's producers attempted to engage in intellectual-property theft. The actor offered no evidence, and did not claim to have overheard the producers or to have been told this by the producers. The actor and the VFX supervisor had also each made this claim in tweets that they have since deleted.
My feeling is that even in an article that's not a biography, we cannot make unsubstantiated allegations of a crime against a living person. Two editors at that article believe otherwise, and with two against one, I've been unable to do anything to remove the unsubstantiated allegation. What are your thoughts? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
#MeToo Allegations
Beyond WP:LIBEL, I am unsure if the BLP team has (or needs) a policy on the unique new breed of criminal allegations arising from the #MeToo movement. Anyone knowledgeable on BLP and allegations of criminal conduct, please take a look at Dan Spitz and a recent discussion at the associated Talk page. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs)17:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
If you accuse an act of doing something are you accusing the perpetrator of that act
Over at Antisemitism in the Labour Party a dispute has arisen over whether or not a the painter of a murals denial of antisemitism should be included in the section about the controversy (here is the section [[3]], ignoring the other issues being discussed this com,met on the talk page [[4]] seems to argue that they are not accusing him of being antisemitic, but rather his mural) so it is not a violation of BLP (as the mural is not a person). This seems to be an iffy argument to make. Surely accusing a mural he has painted as antisemitic is saying he committed an antisemitic act, thus his denial is a valid inclusion? Or am I mis applying our BLP rules?Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, give that "anti-Semitic" is a subjective term and a label, we should include the artist's stance against that label if that can be sourced. There are two reasons for this:
Most importance for NPOV - because it is a label, we cannot state in WP voice that the mural was anti-Semitic (but can attribute the claims it is). In this case, the artist's view, while in the clear minority, is still a significant view and should be presented briefly (not for false balance).
BLP can be argued to apply to a controversial work by a identified artist, since the impression of that work will fall onto the impression of the artist, making it a BLP issue, and what the artist has said about their work should be presented for their sake as part of the BLP aspects. --Masem (t) 13:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Well the title of the articles section is "Corbyn and an antisemitic mural" So (even though the text does say it is only an allegation) the title violates the above, as it states it is antisemitic.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
@Masem: And if we do no identify the artist in our article (as he is not of any relevance to the article) - would that change the equation here?Icewhiz (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
If the artist is unknown at all, that's less an issue, but if the artist is known, and one is just not naming them (but easy to find out) that's still a BLP issue. --Masem (t) 13:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Question regarding the use of BLP with articles for Duos and Groups
Here's a question I want to have considered carefully:
What scope of information, conforming to BLP, should be used when writing up articles regarding groups, duos and such like involved in film, TV, music, radio, and so forth? Is there a need for such articles based on such partnerships that are still active, containing details on individual members, however minute, when such information is better suited to that individual's persoanl article on Wikipedia? GUtt01 (talk) 22:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Corollary of NOTNEWS
I seem to recall a phrase—"not everything a notable person does is notable"—or something similar, in a guideline. I thought it was in WP:NOTNEWS, but I can't seem to find it. Does anyone recall where that was or may have been? Should the BLP include that with a reference back to NOTNEWS? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I cant do a detailed look at the moment, but would welcome any help on this list. The issue is with the sources about the living people listed and if they mention "dwarfism" or not. As you can imagine throwing this label on anyone if they are not open about it is an issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
I have boldly expanded BLP1E to point out that it's not really enough to be the protagonist of a notable event. There are a lot of notable event whose main actor gets significant coverage for a substantial role, and yet we decide to have a single article that covers the event and the person, rather than separate articles for each. What makes multiple articles happen is ongoing coverage. The example given happened 37 years ago, and the perpetrator is still in the news. That ongoing coverage is one of the main reasons why we have one article on the shooting and another article on the shooter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, Hinckley continued to make news because he continued to be involved in further newsworthy events. None so big as trying to kill the President and mostly related to that, but still additional. If he rushed through his trial and treatment stuff in one year instead of thirty-some, it'd still be multiple stories; someone solely known for one thing is a different case even if that one thing is recalled every year for a century. InedibleHulk(talk)23:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Retitling "Yale Student Abortion Art Controversy" to "Aliza Shvarts"
Hello,
I'm a researcher and art historian who's been invited to write on Aliza Shvarts's practice. I'd like to propose changing Yale Student Abortion Art Controversy to a BLP page for Aliza Shvarts. Much of this page was written and contested in 2008, during the event’s emergence onto the stage of notability. It’s now been ten years since Shvarts came to notability as a BLP1E (the title of which was highly contested on the talk page, and the page was shortly thereafter reviewed and recast as an Event) and underwent a deletion review, and seven years since a user blanked the article’s content in its entirety, and it was restored. In the decade since the scandal, scholars and critics have written about the "controversy" not as a controversy, but as a controversial artwork, part of Aliza's larger critical and artistic practice. Because of this, I believe the page should be reclassified as a BLP, in which the controversy surrounding the artwork figures as one (substantiative) section.
All articles which refer to any living person are covered under WP:BLP. That policy is not restricted to "biographies of any single living person" but specifically
This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.
I feel that the Tone section is a little anemic. It talks about what should be covered, but doesn't address how they should be covered, apart from one word 'dispassionate'. BLPs can sometimes tend towards hagiography or vilification. I feel a clarification is necessary that achievements or notoriety should be addressed in the same manner as Reliable Sources describe them. I propose adding this sentence to the section on Tone:
Do not overly praise or vilify, describe the actions and achievements of subjects in a manner similar to how reliable sources have described them.
I can get on board with that, since even with "dispassionate" already included, many BLPs are not, and strengthening this passage might help. I note that there should be a semicolon rather than a period after "vilify".--Tenebrae (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I generally agree but strongly believe this needs to reference WP:RECENTISM as well as WP:LABEL. It is one thing to talk of the actions of a BLP 5+ years down the road from those actions, using the long-term sources that are sufficiently distance from any events that would impact that, to determine how to judge those actions. However, the current state of the media should make us take caution with using short-term/immediate sourcing as the method for determination. --Masem (t) 20:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Version 2:
Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources (but keep in mind that depictions of recent events may be unbalanced). Do not use controversial or effusive descriptions unless commonly used by reliable sources.
I propose this addendum: "Real name of said person should be used as the title of a standalone biographical article, even if the person is more commonly known with a pseudonym or nickname, unless real name of said person is unknown. If exists, pseudonym should redirect to real name." Erkinalp9035 (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
To avoid accidentally creating multiple biographic articles for the same person. In addition, some people use multiple nicknames and multiple of them are equally common. Real name rule solves that. The same goes for citations. Even if a by-line stipulates a pseudonym or a nickname, real name of the said person should be used. That way, we avoid fallacy of citing conflicting pieces by the same author. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
That's the exact opposite of what NPOV says. Both WP:NAME and WP:POVNAMING (a section of WP:NPOV) tell us to title articles based on reliable sources. Your addendum is essentially asking that we doxx article subjects based on questionable or WP:UNDUE sources, which is also the exact opposite of our BLP policies. Yeah, so we get an accidental duplicate article now and then. It's probably unavoidable. Thankfully, the answer–deletion or merging–is cheap. Woodroar (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Facts are cheap, too; they are free actually. Real name is a fact pertaining to a person, and if a notable person's real name is known even by a small mass of non-notable persons, it is advisable it is known in a broader public. Three independent primary sources or two secondary sources referencing at least four primary sources about the name are enough to confirm a person's real name if all given sources agree in the same name. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 11:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what "it is advisable it is known in a broader public" means, but titles follow the name by which the person is best known, for very good reasons. Thus Jimmy Carter and Cary Grant, not James Earl Carter Jr. and Archibald Leach. EEng16:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
BLPCOI
Since social media is a thing, more and more, and in light of the matter concerning Philip Cross (wikipedia account) interacting with George Galloway (politician) on twitter about his WP editing, is it worthwhile adding something to BLPCOI about this, warning editors not to interact with subjects on social media? Probably not, but wanted to ask... Jytdog (talk) 03:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Does this mean if I post to the Facebook page "Fraudulent Archaeology Wall of Shame"[5] (which has a number of professional archaeologists on it) criticism a fringe author that I have to declare a COI if I edit their page? Or that anyone editing in the pseudoscience area might have to clear a COI if it can be shown that they prefer science? I also can't see why this would be limited to BLPs is we added it. I also don't want to encourage editors to do off-wiki research on people to try to hobble them on Wikipedia. This would lead to editors searching other editors' Facebook pages, Twitter accounts, etc. Doug Wellertalk12:45, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Not watching anything on tinternet; however - if a bias is revealed and that user has off wiki bias also - then its a no go go area that they should not be allowed to contribute in - even if they do it within wiki policy and guidelines - which any smart pov pusher can drive a horse and cart through - Govindaharihari (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Resolved
