I've been noticing there's some inconsistencies when it comes to articles for bands or music groups. There are some that will list the birthdates for members such as Angerme, Iris (Japanese band), Juice=Juice, Camellia Factory (and the editors are very adamant about keeping this format despite some information being trivia, such as member colors). But I noticed for other articles, particularly for Korean idols like Iz One, and other rock bands like Negoto, Luna Sea, Babymetal, the editors kept the birthdates off the page as the article should focus on group activities only. So my question is: do we keep birthdates on group articles, especially if some members aren't notable enough to have their own article, or remove them as the article needs to focus on the group? Are member colors considered BLP trivia? Thanks. lullabying (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Template:BLP others
Reading {{Blpo}} you'd have no reason to think that it applies to "people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." Shouldn't it make this clear? I added it to Talk:Terrorism in the United States as the article often mentions people who have originally died, and in particular it looks odd adjacent to the BLP DS notice which does say "people who have recently died". Doug Wellertalk15:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Chronological list of proposals to tighten notability criteria for BLPs?
BLPCAT says [removing unrelated parts about religion] "Categories regarding sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." This does not mention gender identity, which is a different thing than sexual orientation. I don't think we should apply the same standards to the usual gender binary distinctions: when we classify someone as male or female, and there is no reasonable cause for uncertainty over whether they are male or female, we shouldn't worry about finding reliable published sources describing how their gender relates to their notability. Nevertheless, I think that the same reasoning should also apply to gender identities that depart from the usual binary genders. I have in mind a particular case where another editor added Category:Transgender and transsexual women to an article without sources or textual support in the article, and I reverted. The subject in question had been identified by some past sources as male but currently identifies as female (under the same name). In the ensuing discussion, I cited BLPCAT and the other editor responded that BLPCAT does not cover this category because it's a gender identity rather than a sexual orientation. Should BLPCAT cover this category? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I would absolutely say yes, given our other policy aspects on transgender individuals. If we have a person that is not notable before transitioning (either physically or in identity) and there's no aspect of that transition in reliable sources nor self-identification, we should treat the person as the post-transition gender for purposes of categorization and keep them out of the transgender cats. Same concept as if the person never publicly stated their sexual orientation and that is not the subject of reliable coverage. --Masem (t) 02:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely, we should not be commenting on a person's gender identity unless A) they've publicly self-identified and B) it's somehow relevant to their notability. If it doesn't meet those criteria then the expectation of privacy for BLPs should definitely apply. Simonm223 (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
This isn't a pressing issue in my view, but let me play devil's advocate here for once. Because I don't understand why we should treat transgender categories (e.g. Category:Transgender and transsexual musicians) different from gender categories (e.g., Category:Female musicians). If we set the bar of notability so high for the former ("publicly self-identified" and "relevant to notability" by Simonm223's standard), why not also for the latter? Who in, say Category:Women mathematicians would meet those standards, i.e. for whom of those mathematicians is being a woman relevant for their notability as a mathematician? --bender235 (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps because, when dealing with cisgendered people, the real risks associated Outing aren't something we have to weigh against being informative. Simonm223 (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Furthermore, not identifying a trans woman as trans where it's not relevant to her notability is actually treating her like any other woman rather than treating her differently. After all, we don't demand evidence ciswomen are women. Why should transwomen have extra scrutiny applied to them when it's not relevant? Simonm223 (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Who short of Caitlyn Jenner would ever meet your standards then? Or phrased differently: why even have a Category:Transgender and transsexual women if the "real risks associated outing" are as high as you say, and no one should be categorized in there until they literally go on a publicity tour telling people about their sex change? --bender235 (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Because there are people that have asserted they are trans in a WP:V form, that allows this category to be populated. It should not contain people that are only known to be trans by word of mouth or by rumor-mongering sources. --Masem (t) 16:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
This wasn't an issue of WP:V or WP:RS to begin with. The apparent standard, set forth by Simonm223, is not whether information about transgender status is verifiable, but whether it is "relevant to notability" of the person in question. For almost no person this is ever the case, and that goes for transgender as well as male or female people. As I mentioned as an example above, for whom in Category:Women mathematicians is being a woman relevant for their notability as a mathematician? Zero. --bender235 (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
In fact, it was an issue of WP:V as well, because we don't actually know for certain whether the earlier sources identifying the subject as male are evidence that her gender changed later or were merely mistaken about her gender. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
You're going into the specifics, which is not what I meant. I wanted to keep this discussion general. As a side note, I hope you, too, find the argument contrived that a girl would compete in boys' athletics by accident. --bender235 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
The standard Simonm223 seeks to establish goes beyond WP:V, because even if you have a reliable source mentioning a person's transgender status, in practically no circumstance is this fact "relevant to notability." Relevance for a mathematician comes from WP:ACADEMIC, not from whether the person is female or transgender. --bender235 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
@Bender235: I think it's a little disingenuous to conflate, "are out as a transperson" with "go on a publicity tour." My point is simply reinforcing that made by Masem above - that transpeople who are not out as trans should be treated precisely the same as a cisperson of the gender they publicly present as. That means, no, if she isn't out as a trans woman, she wouldn't go on a category of trans women. But she most certainly could still go on categories of women in general, as trans women are a sub-set of women. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, define being "out". Is enough if people in your immediate circle (e.g., school, company) are aware, or does it have to be national headline news? And don't get me wrong: my point is not to forcefully "out" people, because I couldn't care less. My point is that we need to be careful with the inclusion standards we set. --bender235 (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Look, it's simple, do reliable sources say they've identified themselves as trans? Is this in any way related to their locus of notability? (Eg: Laverne Cox is an actress who often plays transwomen) then they're category-appropriate. If an individual is notable and either of those two criteria don't apply, we treat them like a cisgendered member of their gender.Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
A nit, but not to take away from your general point. If someone has clearly asserted they are trans as reported in high quality RSes (eg NYTimes, BBC), but that is not the focus of their notability, it would still be fine to include that in the article and include them in the appropriate category. At that point, that becomes something like religion; many BLPs include mention of a religion as an aside as long as it is reliably sourced self-statement about it, but likely doesn't affect their larger notability. I woul agree self-stated trans individuals generally will make being trans part of their notability, but this should not be assured as the case.
What we don't want is someone digging through weak or poor RSes, like a blog post that happens to mention their friend is trans, or taking aside comments made in some RSes that are not clearly declarations of being trans, to use as justification to include that to out the person as trans whether in article or in categorization. --Masem (t) 18:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
And I just realized you had an "either" in there, so your point matches mine, oops :P Still, this all should be logical continuation of normal BLP policy. --Masem (t) 18:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists
The major RFC contributor user:Lootbrewed is now CU indeffed for socking, including with the IP 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E, who was also a major contributor to the RFC
The close by user:Aervanath does not indicate that this was intended to change policy, just that consensus was to include the information in that article.
I don't know if the policy has changed since the RFC (or if so if it was because of the RFC) but WP:BLPNAME, part of the policy WP:BLP, as it currently stands states: The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.
I interpret that as meaning that such information should not be included unless there is consensus that such information is required for a complete understanding of the subject. WP:NONAME, part of the essay WP:MINORS, goes even further wrt to minors: This applies to someone who is incidental to an article, but significant enough to mention even without identifying them, such as the minor children of celebrities. Do not name or otherwise identify the person, even if good sources do publish the name, when a more general description will suffice.
So, is my interpretation of the policy wrong? Does the 2015 RFC supersede the current policy and mean that we are free to add the personal details of non-notable children as long as the parents have announced them? Meters (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
NOTE: The above is in no way, shape or form the neutral question that RfCs are required to be. This is an advocacy essay in complete and blatant contradiction of WP:RFC, which states flat-out: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section." It poisons the well, and helps ensure that this is not an evenhanded RfC. An admin should toss this and have the original editor redo it properly.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Names and details of non-notable children should not be included in order to protect their privacy and safety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxanthippe (talk • contribs)
The policy is not silent on children's names. The policy quoted above refers to "names of any immediate, former, or significant family members" (clearly that includes children) and says they may be included if they are required for complete understanding of the subject. As for an RFC, that's part of the problem. The user in question is claiming that an article-level RFC from 2015 (with a close that does not seem to apply to anything but that article) has already superseded the policy. Or do you mean that we should hold an RFC proposing to modify the policy to explicitly prevent listing children's names in subject's bios? Meters (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
As long as there are reliable sources, I am ok with giving a unadorned statement of the names of children... something as simple as “He had three children with his first wife: John, Jane and Sam” does not violate anyone’s privacy or safety. But there is no need for birth dates or other details. Blueboar (talk) 01:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree with giving the number of children because a criminal could target a rich celebrity for ransom and kidnap. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC).
But we do provide information that can be much more difficult to get by other means, like facts gleaned from newspaper articles that are now paywalled, books that are only intermittently and partially available online, etc. We can't just shrug and say, "It's all out there anyway." XOR'easter (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I am flabbergasted. Isn't anyone in this discussion other than myself a professional biographer, journalist or academic researcher in biography? Because with all due respect what I'm hearing is so unaware of basic norms and standards in the field, it's like trying to talk about law or police investigative work with people who aren't attorneys or investigators. How can we have a serious discussion if parties won't even entertain the possibility that biography is an actual field of study with long-established basic standards? It seems close-minded to me. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I generally leave names of non-notable family members out, not so much to protect privacy (although that's a good reason too) but because it is usually completely irrelevant to whatever the subject is notable for. I definitely don't think a not-well-advertised RfC on an obscure article should affect our general practices on that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I think children's names are generally clutter, and birth dates more so. We're an encyclopedia, not the society pages or a supermarket tabloid. There might be intermediate cases where a child is not wiki-notable enough for an article but deserves a significant role in a parent's biography ("The divorce was particularly bitter because of the custody argument over Robin, then aged seven"). There's no way to read policy as demanding their inclusion, particularly when all we can say about them is that they were born. The RfC from 2015 applied to one article, and a biography of a celebrity at that. Taking its conclusion as binding for all biographies everywhere? I don't see it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
That was never what this was about. This is about the highly publicized children of celebrities in which the parents specifically and voluntarily release the information to media with circulations of cumulatively tens if not more than one hundred million viewers and readers. We're not talking about the notable but private-citizen head of a Midwest bank. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Should generally avoid naming for privacy sake, even if they are named in RSes. That's not a wholesale ban on them, say if some creative person said their latest work was inspired by their 5-year-old child and named that work after them, that would be a reason to include. But if its just to list out that they have children, nope, should not be included. Birth dates should definitely not be included unless that is itself of significance. --Masem (t) 16:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Unless they are otherwise noteworthy then names of children are rarely of note, nothing wrong with they had four children, or they had three boys and a girl but the names add nothing to the article. Certainly current consensus and guidelines follow this approach. MilborneOne (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
As I noted above, this RfC was created in a highly non-neutral, one-sided fashion that goes completely against WP:RfC. I've contacted WP:ANI for an admin to step in, but in the meantime, as a professional journalist and researcher who has contributed biographies to film books, it is absolutely normal, standard biographical process to include the names of children and their birth dates in the biography of celebrity or other high-profile public figure such as a politician. Robert Caro does not hide those facts about LBJ. When Kim Kardashian's children are on the cover of magazines and the parents specifically announce names and birthdates to the media, then it is no longer a matter of privacy, and hiding this widely public information is whitewashing.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Robert Caro is trash journalism? He's a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner for Biography and has two National Book Awards, including one for Lifetime Achievement. And magazines such as Vanity Fair and even People — until recently a Time Inc. magazine and now under the highly reputable Meredith — fit the definition of reliable sources, your subjective derogatory view notwithstanding. The Associated Press, CNN and other highly reputable RS sources also provide this information — because it is basic and highly pertinent biographical information. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not a formal RFC. It seemed like it would be such an obvious clarification of interpretation that it would not require a formal RFC. I think the consensus is clear, but If you think we need open an actual RFC then feel free to open one. Meters (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
I would leave non-notable family members out as well as a general rule of thumb. Not every BLP is a celebrity. Also, I don't consider this an RfC, either. SportingFlyerT·C01:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with others that the Brian Austin Green RfC clearly did not change our policy as expressed in BLP. It wasn't the right place to do so, and it had few commentators probably in part because few thought it was intended to change BLP policy. The closer also did not say anything about changing BLP policy or that the conclusions there would automatically apply to any other article. Clearly each case needs to be considered on its own merits, based on BLP and our other policies and guidelines. As with others, I don't think we need an RfC to say that the that RfC did not change (or establish) policy, but if anyone feels to the contrary they are free to open one. I should clarify I'm not commenting on the inclusion of names or dates of births in any particular article, both since I haven't looked at any case and also since this isn't really the place to discuss it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC) 16:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Per BLP policy, the names of family members who are not independently notable are excluded from articles unless there is a specific reason to include the personal information of the private individual. What happened with the Brian Austin Green RfC is how the policy is supposed to work; i.e. the default is to not include the material unless there is consensus to do so in a specific article (meeting the "editorial discretion" clause of WP:BLPNAME). The individual RfCs in no way supplant or overide BLP policy and are the exceptions that prove the rule.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots16:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
This is very much a WP:COMMONSENSE situation. BLPs shouldcover reliably sourced general information number of marriages, first names of spouses, number and gender of children. This may be a good place to stop for some. If there is a written biography, standard reference work (Who's Who, for example) book-flap bio for authors, extensive press coverage it would be absurd to suppress the names. Clearly for public figures, or where a birth impacts the reasons the subject is notable it would be absurd not to report salient well sourced detail. (Examples, children and grandchildren of British prime ministers in office at time of birth.)
The suggestion that listing already widely documented children of prominent people on Wikipedia would inspire kidnapping, seems fanciful.
RfC concerning removal of Blender magazine accolade
RfC is open, concerning whether this should be removed: Blender magazine's ranking of Emerson, Lake & Palmer as among the 50 worst bands ever. A thread from 2009-10 is being cited as a consensus to remove its mention, and editors from that thread have been pinged in what appears to be a canvassing effort. So please chime in, especially if you have no emotional ties to the band's music and are more concerned with Wikipedia guidelines and policies and core values and so on. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Reuters: The EU court has ruled that the implementation of a "right to be forgotten" request only extends to services/servers in the EU, not globally. I don't know if we have ever had a BLP case that included someone that was requesting to be forgotten in this way, but as en.wiki is on US soil, this would mean we should not be legally bound to comply with it (though there would be plenty of other reasons to comply with such a request). --Masem (t) 14:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
External links update
After discussions spread over the last couple of years, we have finally updated Wikipedia:External links#Links in lists with some new advice about how to format external links in some stand-alone lists. This format is not mandatory, but it may be helpful in some cases. Please feel free to try it out in pages that you think are appropriate, and leave feedback on the guideline's talk page. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable alumni
The last time I can find that we discussed this here was back in 2008, but as the issue has come up again I was wondering if consensus still holds. Where do we sit with adding non-notable people to lists within articles, in particular to alumni? If they would not qualify for an article, either as an individual or as a significant part of a an event that is covered elsewhere on WP, should they be included in a list within an article? - Bilby (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
For a list, alumni should generally qualify for their own article. There are exceptions at WP:CSC, but they probably would not apply.—Bagumba (talk) 09:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
I tend to summarily delete them if they're redlinked and no reference has been provided to suggest they may qualify for an article. DonIago (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Styles of address for British politicians
Many articles for British politicians such as Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn and Margaret Thatcher. These are generally unsourced and I don't think they add anything to the article. Although they take up a relatively small amount of space, they do take up a subsection without any obvious benefit. Should we keep including these subsections? Bellowhead678 (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Depends on the article... These sections are helpful when a politician is given a peerage (especially in historical articles). It helps to have a quick reference list that shows that Mr. Joseph Blow is the same person as Lord Hephalump, who then became the Marquis of Puffinstuff. Blueboar (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I have been witnessing a major issue when creating articles about former squash biographies for which I am not unable to find their date of births. SquashInfo is the main website which has a collection of all the squash players like what Cricinfo has a collection about cricketers. SquashInfo usually had the data about the date births of players but as of August 2019, the website stopped displaying the date of birth for current and former players. It may be due to the GDPR which could have restricted SquashInfo to display the date of birth of squash players. Even if we try to create the squash players without their birth dates, will it be okay to do that. Abishe (talk) 13:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Provided that there is enough reference material about them to demonstrate notability, there is no problem in writing an article about a person whose date of birth is unknown. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
References for Activists (living)
I am creating a page for a person who is engaged in vegan activism, both as a healthy lifestyle and as an advocate for cruelty-free fashion. If her website and blog focus on these philosophies and benefits to society, can I use these sites as an External Reference? Or, a different type of reference that you can suggest? I don't feel that they are self-promoting. Sunshinedaydreamwiki (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Sunshinedaydreamwiki The person must meet our WP:Notability criteria to have an article, which requires independent, reliable sources of information about the person. If they are notable as a vegan activist, the sources would presumably say that. If they are notable for another reason and you want to mention that are also a vegan activist, their website or other writings that promote veganism would seem a reasonable source. That might not be true for more contentious claims, such as being a prominent activist or receiving an award for her activism. --agr (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
That's nonsense. If it were in the article, then whoever wrote the article got it from a source, meaning the information was available to the public before it was on Wikipedia, and would have been public whether or not added to the article. If we can find it out, so could anyone. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
A modicum of courtesy would be appreciated. Take a look at the reference. One notes that the dates of birth of everybody in first world countries are on the official registries of births, deaths and marriages. These take a little effort to obtain: Wikipedia is more readily available. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC).
Noting that the BBC article does only use Wikipedia as an example there, rather than saying it was directly to blame in this case. Quite right, though, it only takes one fan adding a laborious researched date into Wikipedia for Google and famousbirthdays.com and everywhere else to immediately grab it and republish it forever. --Lord Belbury (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I would note that the info being available in registries doesn't mean it's available to the general public. In NZ [2], and England and Wales [3], and I think a lot of the US (to the extent it is often republished by third parties) it generally is. (Admittedly [4] disagrees on the US.) In Australia I believe it can be more complicated e.g. [5][6] and Canada e.g. [7][8][9]. See also the earlier document from the NZ Privacy Commissioner. No idea about other countries but I believe it can also be complicated e.g. see these discussions for Germany [10][11] or France [12] or Switzerland [13][14]. Heck even in NZ, and probably England and Wales, the requirements to obtain the info would probably discourage some of those up to no good since it's likely to impose additional risks of being caught. And all of these countries are generally considered "first world".
Anyway more generally, I agree that with a lot of this, probably it is obtainable somewhere on the internet for someone who tries hard enough. However the level of difficulty may affect the willingness of those with sinister motives to do it, and also may slow them down so reduce the number of people they can target. In other words, the fact it may be in other non RS online doesn't mean we should ignore the effects our coverage of such material can have. I mean heck, even when it is published in multiple RS such that we probably would cover it, having it on Wikipedia often makes it easier. Of course if Google puts it in their smart search box or whatever that probably makes it even easier, still I suspect we're actually a big source for such info.
I would note that in the modern world, stuff originating on Wikipedia, isn't unheard of either. This would I assume have come from family or friends, but still, it doesn't mean it's okay.
And there are often cases where while it's technically out there, e.g. someone talks about celebrating their birthday on Twitter or whatever, it may actually be quite difficult to search especially if it's not text and could disappear at any time. (I know that technically if the subject has published it, it can be considered okay, but IMO if it's just someone with a picture of a cake or something then that isn't enough. Especially since people don't always celebrate their birthdays on the exact date.) Until some well meaning editor unfamiliar with BLP adds it to our article and than WP:Citogenesis means in a few years time it's all over the internet maybe even in enough WP:RS that we now have a reason to cover it.
So yeah, IMO we definitely should ensure we follow our standards in keeping such info out unless support by sufficient sourcing. And although identity theft concerns is one factor, IMO it isn't the only one anyway.
I don't see why you're edit-warring with the IP. The IP is right: the material, which has been tagged since 2014, shouldn't be in the article unless it's sourced.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Authors of creative works are both historically and currently disambiguated from other authors of the same name with their DOB, even living ones. As such this information is widely available from library catalogs and is an essential part of bibliographic metadata. I was wondering if we can add a note excepting published authors with their DOB in their bios, or whitelisting library catalogs / the library of congress as a source, since this information is both important for identifying them and also very widely available. At present it is not mentioned at all, one way or the other. Mvolz (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering if i was to write an article about someone, would a voice recorded one on one interview between me (the wikipedia article writer) and the person i'm writing the article about be a reliable source? Squishybaughman (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Discrepancy and internal contradiction with WP:SPS
We seem to have a position with respect to self-publication and BLPs which if taken seriously would largely wipe out every watchdog group's authority in our pages. Anything from these groups is self-published, so nothing they say about a living person can be taken as authoritative, except apparently if someone else repeats that specific claim. Therefore, following the latter of our law, we can't state the truth about hate groups (if members are named) or medical quackery (associated with an individual) unless newspapers and other non-expert media sources repeat the claims of these expert groups. WP:SPS states that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications," which is a labored way of saying that if mainstream authorities rely on them as experts, we may do so as well. And really, we should do so as well, because those MSM sources are not expert and make the kind of mistakes that non-experts make.
What we are seeing, however, is that the sentence which follows about BLPs in practice is being used to force us to not tell the truth about organizations where the MSM haven't gone to the experts and cited them. We see this in fights over hate groups and now over medical quackery: there is a discussion on WP:FT/N concerning the widespread removal of Quackwatch as an authority because BLP is almost always brought into play since these dubious practices are advocated by specific people. What happens is that someone writes an article, and we have trouble getting rid of it over notability concerns, but it's also difficult to be able to tell the truth when the watchdogs have flagged the person/group/practice, but the MSM haven't specifically cited them in the instance in question.
The description of self-publication is problematic anyway: taken at face value, it conflates the NYT (which is technically self-published) with vanity presses and ignores the reality that every website is self-published. But beyond that, the deprecation of expert sites in favor of non-expert but nominally reliable MSM self-published material is really an inversion of reliability. We need to reword this somehow to reflect the actual merits of the sources, or someone needs to cough up a legal reason why we can't risk telling the truth. and If the latter prevails, then we need to WP:PROD material on problem people and their organizations and causes ruthlessly and on sight, because in practice what happens is that someone writes such an article and it takes too much work to get rid of it when it cannot tell the truth about the person, because the authorities cannot be cited. Mangoe (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Two quick points.
There is no widespread removal of Quackwatch. Quackwatch is currently used as a source in over 400 articles. Out of those 400+ articles, I have identified 20 which are BLPs or contain BLP material, and in which Quackwatch might be employed in a manner which contravenes WP:SPS. Even then, Quackwatch is not necessarily being removed, but limited to how the policy is currently interpreted, and in almost all cases when it is removed it is being replaced with a non-SPS with no loss of content. The "widespread removal" claim was pure exageration.
Fundamentally, my understanding has always been that the sourcing of BLPs is held to a higher standard because incorrect coverage can cause harm, and has done so in the past. Thus we limit the use of self-published sources, as it is too easy for false claims to make their way into Wikipedia via that path.
There's too much panic over the sky falling because we're modifying content in a very small number of articles to bring them in line with BLP. - Bilby (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
There is no discrepancy, SPS says quote clearly "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer". It may be this needs changing, but there is no discrepancy.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The comment in the OP post Therefore, following the latter of our law, we can't state the truth about hate groups (if members are named) or medical quackery (associated with an individual) unless newspapers and other non-expert media sources repeat the claims of these expert groups seems to be begging RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I fully appreciate the need that editors may feel to call out the BS that some groups and people spew when it comes to hate groups, conspiracy theories, quackery, etc. but it is not WP's place to do that unless others have done that for us. This is balanced by the fact that we also should not excessively include SPS claims from said groups or people that are unduly self-serving. --Masem (t) 16:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
At its heart the issue is this, should an expert be allowed to be used as a source about another living person if the opinion only comes from the experts own SPS?Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment - I have seen problems previously with varying interpretations of the restriction on the use of SPS in relation to BLP content. To me the main problem is a tendency to treat all content covered by WP:SPS the same, as if material from a watchdog group or a university website, or the self-published work of an academic in their own field, ought to be treated the same as non-expert opinions published on a celebrity's personal blog or corporate puffery disseminated on a promotional website. It seems obvious to me that we collectively can make distinctions among sources with more or less reliability, and that the more reliable self-published sources are more robust and useful than op-eds and other material that does make its way into BLP content. Arguments against the inclusion of the more reliable types of SPS for BLPs tend to CRYBLP and be made when editors don't like the material, and not for consistent reasons of verifiability or reliability IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Self-published does not mean "published by the same organization as the publisher". If we followed that tautological definition all sources everywhere would be self-published. It means "published by a single person with no higher level of editorial control". So if a watchdog group has an editorial board, separate from its writers, and its publications go through some kind of review by them rather than just being a one-person show, then they are not self-published. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I would go slightly further on this, and say that the editorial board should also be separate from organizational leadership, especially for watchdog, and advocacy groups. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Sure, but I don't see general agreement about what constitutes "meaningful editorial oversight" per WP:QS. As I have suggested above, many editors seem inclined to exclude certain sources that appear "self-published", including from watchdog groups, while accepting op-ed content that might, in fact, have received less "meaningful editorial insight" but issues from a known publication. Newimpartial (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree that we need to be more cautious about accepting op-ed content (especially when it comes to BLPs). But that does not mean we should be any less cautious about accepting SPS material from “watchdog” groups. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The problem is when a “watchdog group" appears to be run by the same person who seems to be editor in chief and chief contributor and where it states that only some of its material receives any outside scrutiny.Slatersteven (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
If the suggestion is that some watchdog groups carry out "meaningful editorial insight" over their publications and others do not, I agree. I do not, however, see this distinction being made consistently in CRYBLP-style discussions. I also believe, personally, that excluding self-published, expert academic commentary from BLPs while allowing broadsheet reportage is not a policy that does WP any favors in terms of the quality of its articles nor in the example WP is setting for appropriate sourcing in general. Newimpartial (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Then we need to change the wording of a policy which explicitly says that expertise does not negate SPS (both on relation to BLP and its status as an SPS) considerations.Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Just for the sake of argument, I would suggest replacing the blanket exclusion for SPS on BLPs with a carve-out for the reliable experts already recognized in WP:SPS, with a caveat that even a reliable expert SPS cannot be used as a source for BLP claims that are extraordinary, FRINGE or of a questionable nature. Newimpartial (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, it won't happen. I'd personally oppose such a change, because the issue isn't one of expertise, but the risk of harm caused by publishing a claim about a living person that has not been through some level of independent editorial confirmation. It is one thing for an expert to publish an off-the cuff comment on their blog about an organisation or theory and risk an error - it is another thing for someone to make a similar comment about a living person, make some fundamenatal error, and then see that claim republished by us in a BLP. It would be so much safer to accept that we simply need less risky sources for BLPs than to carve out a dangerous exception that would only apply in a tiny number of cases. - Bilby (talk) 02:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I can see why it wouldn't happen, but I disagree about the perception of risk here. The way I described the possible change is specifically intended to disallow "off the cuff comments" (WP:QS), along with false claims. In spite of the assumed "tiny number of cases" to which BLP applies, my sense is that there are many, many cases in which the best analysis of a cultural figure, and in many cases the best-informed biographical information per se for writers and academics, is found in material that has been self-published by other experts in the same field. The level of quality and reliability represented by these sources (and therefore the level of risk) is vastly superior IMO to the quality of reporting in the majority of news sources in these cases, who may be independent but who lack either the expertise or the motivation to provide reliable factual information and relevant analysis of many living persons who nevertheless meet WP's standards of notability. To my mind the encyclopaedia would gain, rather than lose, from being able to use these expert sources, and I don't see any particular difficulty in discounting the FRINGE, extraordinary and specious in these cases. Newimpartial (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
It won;t happen because teh community has strenuously objected to weakening BLPSPS in the past, and I think if you took such a process to the wider community it would have little chance of succeeding. If it was to have a hope it would need to be narrowly defined with a clear example of why the change is neeed, which I think is lacking. That said, the issue is that self publishing by its nature allows for people to publish at whatever speed they wish, with whatever level of consideration they might want to make, and with as little independent validation as they care to seek, and we can't necessarily know to what extent any of these things occured. While this might seem safe, the problem is making sure that it can't be misused, and managing that is going to be where the resistence will come from. We tried something similar about a year ago and got nowhere - narrow exceptions either become so narrow that they loose their value, or aren't narrow enough to prevent risks.- Bilby (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I am well aware of why the change wouldn't happen, but I simply disagree that it would be "weakening" BLPSPS. Our sourcing policy is not made "stronger" by excluding better sources in favor of weaker ones, and such is the (presumably unintended) consequence of the current policy language. It is not necessary to "know the extent to which independent validation occurred" by a scholar on their blog any more than it is necessary to do so for a local newspaper on its puff pieces. In both cases, we can exercise judgement based on the body of work produced, and one of these types of source is not more prone to misuse than the other. Newimpartial (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The newspaper has independent editorial control - someone has presumably checked the claims before publication. A self published blog doesn't. If we determine that the newspaper lacks proper processes, we stop using it (as has been the case lately with a number of tabloids). But a self-published blog lacks those processes to begin with. That said, most of the time we can use self-published works by experts to make statements about living people, so long as we write them as the opinion of the author, rather than as a given fact. That allows us to retain the claims without the same level of risk. What would be needed for change is to show sufficient cases where we must say something about a living person, that statement isn't contraversial, it is not available via any other source, it isn't being given undue weight even though it only exists in this self published source, the author is such a recognised expert that there's no significant risk of error, and we can't simply write it as "according to x, person y ...". That's a high bar to get over. - Bilby (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Checking on the use of court records
In trying to resolve a single CN on Elizabeth Wurtzel's article to be posted at ITNC due to her recent death, there was a case of her publisher Penguin suing her for failing to deliver a book. *everyone* covered the initiation of the suit in 2012, but *noone* covered the conclusion. Obviously 7 years later, some action had to be done. After a big of digging I found the case record at the specific court, affirmed it had been dismissed, and such used that court record as a source to clear the CN. See my diff here.
I would to 1) verify this is an acceptable use of primary sources that is still in line with BLPPRIMARY - in that this is only closing the record on a notable case that had no follow up coverage for some reason, and otherwise not supporting any questionable facet of the BLP, and in fact should be included per NPOV (having an open lingering court case years since it was filed makes no sense) and 2) might suggest this as a possible example of where court records could be used assuming #1 is fine. --Masem (t) 22:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it can reasonably be argued that a UK MP is not a public figure. That said, I also don't think it's helpful to make claims like 'abuse of the process' unless you have evidence the editor is doing this a lot and is clearly editing against consensus and they know they are. If you disagree with an editor's decision your should start a discussion on the talk page. If you can't reach consensus, use some form of WP:Dispute resolution. In this case, asking for help at WP:BLP/N will help. Note that you're understanding of BLPCRIME isn't quite correct anyway. Even for public figures, while we can sometimes include accusations of crimes, we still need to take care and consider WP:UNDUE etc. Particularly in the example you're talking about, since you're talking about an advanced democracy with a generally well respected system of law, but the person doesn't seem to have ever been prosecuted and the accusations are over 3 years old. Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Add exceptional claim to BLPSELFPUB similar to ABOUTSELF?
WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF are similar. The 5 core rules have some minor wording differences to match the different areas they cover. But one difference which isn't a simple wording difference is the lack of 'exceptional claim' in BLPSELFPUB rule 1. The exceptional claim bit was added here [15] to the verifiability page. I couldn't find any discussion of adding it to this page since then. Although I find it hard to imagine a case of an exceptional claim that isn't unduly self-serving, perhaps it's worth adding anyway for emphasis?
Definitely we should if someone can come up with a scenario where it may be useful. Myself I can imagine stuff like someone saying they invented a time machine or solved the P versus NP problem, but those would also be unduly self-serving. Then again, I'm not sure it's any different for organisations and stuff, but I guess there is a wider area.
(The history of the 2 sections is complicated. I think they've been developed semi independently then semi synchronised on occasion. E.g. compare [16] with [17] and [18][19] and [20] with [21]
BTW I have not said anything at WT:V. At the moment IMO we should just add 'exceptional claim' here, or not worry about the difference. I don't think it's worth removing exceptional claim from ABOUTSELF so I don't see that watchers there have a significant interest in this discussion. Still I have no objection if someone does want to leave a notice.
Back in November I've made several changes under WP:BRD. Following reversal, I'm bringing them here for discussion. The first three changes are general CE changes, meant to standardize and streamline the section;[22][23][24] the fourth is an addition regarding the omission of identifying details when a person might be at risk of physical harm, following a discussion on WP:ANI (that's one sentence; the rest of it was moved in from another subsection).[25]
Oppose the addition of Its publication may pose a serious safety or security risk to the person, their relatives, or anyone else involved in the subject being discussed. as superfluous in cases where the pre-existing It has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations. applies, and, by virtue of being subjective, that it is open to wikilawyering and competence issues in cases where that pre-existing text does not apply. Note also that the stated impetus for the change appears to be a highly politicised case where the existing text does apply. - Ryk72talk11:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ryk72: Several editors said just that in the ANI discussion - that inclusion would risk the person's safety - but ironically that's not an argument that's clearly backed by policy. And of course it is subjective, but so is "has not been widely disseminated". Unlike the latter, however, it's explicit in its reasoning (cf. "certain court cases or occupations" - which? what? why? where?).
"Widely disseminated", or the equivalent "appears in multiple reliable sources", and the second case "(not) intentionally concealed" are more easily and more clearly able to be demonstrated than "(does not) pose a serious safety or security risk", and, in that regard, are less subjective. I've not opined on the CE aspects; happy to give them some thought. - Ryk72talk12:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The same question can be asked for the existing policy as well: have we uncovered so many spies and informants that we need a policy statement on "certain occupations"? Probably not, but we have it because it's important and it makes sense. The problem is the way it's phrased leaves much to be desired: it's unclear (which "certain court cases" are we discussing?), and it leaves the decision to third parties in a way that opens up Wikipedia to political influence at the expense of freedom of information (who "intentionally concealed", and why?). My proposal merely makes overt what policy had already implied: that we have a certain duty to decency not to name names if it might get someone killed.
That said, even if policy didn't address these cases at all, it would still make sense to address them, because the severity of some incidents overrides their rarity. Consider for example the WP:FRAM case, which was highly unusual, yet severe enough to merit changes in policy. I would argue that when an incident can have life threatening results (which is more than can be said for Fram's), then we ought to have unambiguous policy addressing it.
The incident discussed on AN/I was (as I recall) about a lack of high-quality RS. The proposed changes wouldn't help with that, and they introduce confusion:
It is often preferable to omit a person's name or other privately identifiable information omitted when ... Its publication may pose a serious safety or security risk to the person, their relatives, or anyone else involved in the subject being discussed.
You would have to clarify what "privately identifiable information" is; the difference between a safety risk and security risk; and what a "serious" risk is. What would those sentences have achieved in the recent case that wasn't achieved by people pointing out the lack of high-quality RS? Or would the proposed change mean that WP should omit certain names no matter how good the sources? If someone gives an interview and says "I did X", and the admission puts them, their relatives and others at risk, would WP have to leave it out of their bio? SarahSV(talk)18:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The justifications for omission were mainly based on BLP, BLPNAME and the risk of physical harm, not on RS or VERIFY. They might've passed more easily based on the latter, but that wasn't the core of the issue AFAIR.
"privately identifiable information" (or "uniquely identifiable information") are any details that can be used to uniquely or closely identify a person. In the context of Wikipedia is primarily names and photos, but it can also include addresses, ID numbers, job titles and other details.
"safety and security" is there to cover multiple relevant semantics, but for conciseness either would be enough. "Serious" is a bit more nuanced, but a good demarcation line is whether the potential damage might require treatment by a medical professional.
The question applies to existing policy as well: what can we achieve through BLPNAME that can't be achieved through RS? And yet we have it, presumably because at some point the two values clashed, but it isn't clear.
You can see that it's heading for the rocks: that if someone admits to having done something that could put them or their relatives in harm's way, we couldn't publish it no matter how good the sourcing. I think the current section works as written. When policy appears to be vague, it's usually deliberate. If you want to introduce more specificity, the writing would have to be very precise and not lead to unforeseen consequences. SarahSV(talk)18:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I've kept the phrase "often preferable", so it is still a guideline rather than a proscription; difference is, it's now clear why it is "often preferable", allowing editors to more easily judge on the when.
Vagueness allows for unforeseen consequences just as well: for example, just this week a person asked whether we can use fictional sources, since there's no clear statement in Policy that we can't; and we've had several discussions on whether deprecated sources can actually be used, because again there's no clear statement against it. The way to resolve this, in my view, is to clearly articulate your principles, and leave the ambiguity to the application. The current policy does neither - it is unclear why or where it applies, even in common cases: for example, can we name a spy (or any similar figure in a country's security apparatus) if their identity is censored in their country of origin, but nowhere else? What about a witness in a closed doors hearing or a court case whose identity is concealed as a matter of procedure? Contrast with my proposed changes, which are clear on the why of policy, while leaving editors' discretion on the when. François Robere (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Insofar as policies are descriptive rather than prescriptive, "do no harm" is not a principle to which the community ascribes. The community is clearly comfortable with including information detrimental to living persons; if it is, to some extent, "reliably sourced". Also, the discussion at #Do no harm regards the interim state of articles, prior to formation of a consensus. It, and the ArbCom decision it quotes, do not cover the eventual, consensus position. - Ryk72talk21:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Right, the complete ten years old paragraph would be needed for context, and that's arguably (=I said so in the edit request) already covered. –84.46.52.59 (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
As other editors have mentioned, the much more stringent language that François Robere proposed in good faith is so subjective as to invite time- and energy-consuming arguments / discussions on a countless number of articles. It makes the very act of writing a proper biography much more difficult, ironically, than writing a reliable-source newspaper/magazine account — i.e., the journalistic sources that we use to write our articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
This RfC has been running for a while but input has dropped off, and right now it's about an even split between the guidelines a) saying nothing at all about the matter, or b) saying to avoid putting the same country in two or three infobox parameters (the other options in the RfC have attracted nearly no support). It's not going to be a useful outcome (just another RfC again some time later) if this closes with "no consensus", so this tie needs to be broken – with good reasoning, not with WP:JUSTAVOTE of course. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Ahnentafel
Are there guidelines about including a family tree ({{template:ahnentafel}}) in a biography, particularly a BLP? I haven't been able to find anything on when we should consider including one in an article so I thought I'd ask here. Schazjmd(talk)22:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Ethnicity vs nationality in lede
Newbie User:185.113.96.195 (apparently in Sweden) made 4 edits to BLP pages changing the nationality to ethnicity, i.e. Jewish, in the lede. All were reverted immediately by different editors including me. I posted a welcome on the user's talk page, and vainly looked for a suitable guideline to reference. Is there one? Wwwhatsup (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I thought this guideline was updated to explain that you should not use the full DOB for announcements of children births on articles. Govvy (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
According to the top of this page, "The purpose of this page is to discuss Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons." Is there something relevant? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Use it, you'll see. It picks up plenty of those sources, when they are used. And it'll pick up more in the future, as the script develops. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}23:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
RfC about independent sources for academic biographies
Current wording: Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. Proposed wording: Academics/professors meeting one or more of the following conditions, as substantiated using multiple published, reliable, secondary sources which are independent of the subject and each other, are notable.
Most experienced editors know this important policy. As it states, the policy applies to all "information about living persons" on "anyWikipedia page". Most of us have memorized and frequently use the shortcut WP:BLP when scolding educating other editors. However, less experienced editors—those most in need of understanding this policy—are misled by the title into assuming that it applies only to biographies of living persons. Therefore, I propose that we rename the policy page as Wikipedia:Information about living persons. That would require changing shortcuts and other redirect pages to point to the new title, to avoid double redirects. If this proposal is adopted, I volunteer to do this, in consultation with those of you who actively maintain this page.—Finell21:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Support a move but I would go with the pithier Wikipedia:Living persons. I agree that the current title makes the scope of the policy unclear for new editors. (Note that there was a request to move the page to Wikipedia:Living persons back in 2016. That RM failed, unfortunately, but I think enough time has passed that a move can be reconsidered.) (But, personally... I would've waited until after April 1 to propose a title change to a major policy!) WanderingWanda (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
A contradiction in terms? "Self-published"
In reference to this: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." I find that wording very confusing. Does "self-published" mean, for example, an autobiography of the person? Or does it only mean something published, in this instance, by me? I think this would be much clearer:
"Never use material published by editors of the living person page. Autobiographies and biographies about the person are acceptable as long as they meet certain criteria [with link to that]." Thoughts? --PaulThePony (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I've read, implicitly, "Self-published" to mean "without editorial control". An autobiography published through a reputable publishing house will have an editor to review the text so that there is editorial control. Similarly, a travel columnist in a reliable source will have their columns similarly reviewed. Those are not self-published. A person posting to social media or to their own blog is self-publishing. A Forbes contributor is also self-publishing, for example. An autobiography published through a pay-as-you-go service is also self-published. --Masem (t) 21:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
"Self-published" refers to a person, or perhaps a small group, producing a document or website by themselves, with no professional structure. Our posts and articles on Wikipedia are self-published. The WMF controls this website, but the volunteers are self-publishers on it, as we are on Facebook, Twitter, etc. An autobiography is not self-published if produced by a professional publishing house. The book Me by Me, Oxford University Press, 2020, is not self-published. SarahSV(talk)22:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I would argue that Wikipedia itself is not self-published — the other editors here impose a level of editorial control that is not present in a blog or academic preprint or vanity-press book. In any case, I agree with Masem's interpretation: it is not about the company that printed the material or put it online, but whether there is some level of review by another person than the author, and revision based on that review, before publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
It isn't about review alone. As Masem said, it's about control: whether a professional infrastructure is in place to exercise control over the output. Otherwise a group blog would be regarded as not self-published. SarahSV(talk)22:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Forgive me, but what is the point of a biography of a living person
Hello, all. I'm newish to WP. I've turned my hand to improving articles on a couple of minor political figures here in Australia. And I can see I'm going to need to be able to give a reason for my edits.
My view is that the value of a Biography of a Living Person is so that we can understand the people who are affecting our world today. We should know where they have come from - their experiences, the things that may have shaped them. And, especially in the areas of public leadership, whether corporate, NGO, think tank, columnist or political figure, we should have some kind of overarching outline of the person's thought.
RfC: Eradication of the Relationships section on Wikipedia
WRONG VENUE
This is already covered by WP:RS and the requirement for sourcing in WP:BLP.
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.
What I'm asking for is a fair objective standard between Korean and western artists. The relationships section should be totally eradication even from western artists' pages or totally allowed (with dating and breakup info) on all pages included Korean artists' pages. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
A few days ago, there was an edit war on Kim Hee-chul revolving around the Relationships section. We started a discussion about it whether to remove it or not. However, while discussing with the other editors, I came to the realization that the Korean artists' articles' editors hold different views on the matter and enforce removal of verifiable and well-sourced information from WP:BLP because they subjectively deem them insignificant or allegedly "harmful" and "sensitive information" (against WP:CENSOR) as can be seen here Here. Also, for years I have been told that when Korean artists' breakup the info of them dating should be deleted, and now I discovered that all that was decided without any proper discussion and a consensus as seen here discussion 1 and discussion 2, and many of pages lost the Relationships section because a couple of editors thought they are not necessary even thought they are usually well-cited.
What I know is that well-covered and confirmed news by both parties in the Relationships section do not fall under WP:BLPGOSSIP or WP:FAN, and instead are Neutral point of views, Verifiable, and are not an original research, so why should the Relationships section be deleted from some articles while kept on others when it is well sourced with even international news outlets covering it. Relationships section can be seen in almost all artists’ articles on Wikipedia, be it a Korean artist (Park Shin-hye, Choi Tae-joon, Jung Eun-woo, Shin Min-a, and Kim Woo-bin, etc) or western artist (Miley Cyrus, Demi Lovato, Nick Jonas, etc). What I'm asking for is a fair objective standard between Korean and western artists. The relationships section should be totally eradication even from western artists' pages or totally allowed (with dating and breakup info) on all pages included Korean artists' pages. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2020 (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.
Applying controversial labels to people
From time to time I stumble across BLPs that label individuals in (IMO) unprofessional and unencyclopedic ways. For example:
Examples of first sentence
Longstanding text with label
Improved text without the label
Diff
Andrea Rossi (born 3 June 1950) is an Italian convicted fraudster and claimed inventor.
Andrea Rossi (born 3 June 1950) is an Italian entrepreneur who was convicted of fraud in the 1990s, and who claims to have invented a cold fusion device.
The construction "[Person's name] is a convicted criminal" [28] is problematic because "convicted criminal" is vague (was it a curfew violation or murder?) and gives no indication of whether/how the conviction is notable.
Do not use controversial or effusive descriptions unless commonly used by reliable sources.
The link on the word "controversial" goes to WP:LABEL (MOS:Words to watch) which specifically discourages using value-laden labels. So we obviously should avoid applying value-laden labels to people.
I would like to see that single sentence expanded to be a bit more explicit. Here's an example:
Do not label a living person with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless the person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.
I'm definitely not married to this exact wording, and it could use some polishing. But I would like to gauge the support for something like this. Thoughts? ~Awilley (talk)15:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I spend a lot of my time editing BLPs of what might crudely be described as "bad people", and like Awilley I regularly come across problems of this kind. There seems to be a remarkably widespread misconception that WP:BLP protections don't apply to bad people. My usual approach is simply to insist on following the sources closely, but I then get accused of whitewashing, or censoring, or using euphemisms, when all I am trying to do is to follow the sources. (There is, of course, a separate question of the selection of appropriate sources, but the strongest attacks usually follow my use of an accurate precis of a source which the complainant added themselves.) I'm not sure what the solution is, but the current situation isn't entirely working. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Objective truth can be stated as fact but opinions and characterizations should be attributed to a source. And the source should come first in such a sentence. We should for instance be saying that "The Southern Poverty Law Center described Molyneux as..." rather than "Molyneux is a...", and it is definitely not sufficient to relegate attribution to a citation as citations might not be read. We should be mindful of the aphorism "Consider the source".
I am an advocate that unless the person is only known for being a criminal, like Charles Manson, the first sentence of a BLP should avoid any type of labeling or negative OR positive statements about a person. It should be almost a textbook phrase: "So-and-so (birth-death date range) is a <nationality> <list of documentable professions>." After that, then careful use of relative important of other factors become important as to how to fit it into the lead, but rushing to call out negative labels is something too many editors tend to want to do. Taking Rossi's case above, it is important to identify that there was the conviction of fraud on the claim of cold fusion but rushing to that statement in the first or second sentence is too fast. In a case like that, it may be something takes a short paragraph to explain the route from claiming cold fusion to the conviction. Ideally the lede should always move from the most factual, most objective information to the more subjective information, though that's a gross oversimplification of lede writing for BLP. But opening the lede on subjective material is always a poor choice and violates the idea of impartial writing for BLPs.
Basically, I've called this our "scarlet letter" problem in the past. Editors want to label "bad" people as bad as early as possible, but what is "bad" is subjective. Is Rossi a "bad" person compared to, Manson, or, say Alex Jones? There's so many levels of "bad" that we can't really be judging that in wikivoice and shouldn't be trying to push that. --Masem (t) 16:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
@Masem: Ha! You've inadvertently illustrated part of the problem by assuming that Rossi's fraud conviction was related to cold fusion. It wasn't. It was from years earlier when Rossi started a toxic waste disposal company that "disposed" of the waste by illegally dumping it. But you have a good point about people who are primarily known for their crimes. See for instance the Lead sentence of Ted Bundy: "Theodore Robert Bundy (néCowell; November 24, 1946 – January 24, 1989) was an American serial killer who kidnapped, raped, and murdered numerous young women and girls during the 1970s and possibly earlier." It's perfectly ok to write that because Ted Bundy is universally and primarily described that way in reliable sources. ~Awilley (talk)18:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Even then, I feel that first sentence is still a bit too strong. That he was a serial killer is fine, but I'd reward the latter part to some thing "having been convicted to the kidnapping, rape, and murder of..." as "conviction" is not always "truth" (see our top ITN story related to George Pell). --Masem (t) 19:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Masem, a conviction is truth until overturned, which happens very rarely. Pell's conviction was overturned because it was technically deficient: there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he was complicit in a culture of sexual abuse in the Australian church, and that hundreds at least suffered appalling abuse at the hands of priests under his purview, but there is no offence of enabling sexual abuse through abuse of religious privilege. Guy (help!) 17:31, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
It's been a couple of days now...would there be any objections to me implementing the above proposal (possibly with tweaks for flow) into the policy? ~Awilley (talk)21:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
@Peter Gulutzan: Maybe? I think it would depend on how the sources describe the person and the relative weight of the felony in that person's notability. I personally don't like "convicted felon" because it's vague, but in the 1st sentence where you're trying to be uber-concise that may be the best way to convey information in the fewest amount of words. But "convicted felon" seems a bit heavy handed in the first sentence in most of the articles you linked, even though WP:PUBLICFIGURE obviously applies. (It would certainly have to be different for Joe Schmoe who did some time in 1998 for possession and now runs some company or whatever.) I'll be honest, I've never spent much time reading or editing articles about "bad people".~Awilley (talk)03:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd be treating a case like David Duke vs OJ Simpson differently (as representative cases) in that David Duke tends to embrace those qualities people consider negative, while OJ may still assert innocence despite conviction. Exactly how I'd rewrite is not simple, but I strong disapprve when editors use the lede sentence to mix legitimate professions a person has with labeled terms and the fact a person was convicted. While we do have to judge how much weight the career aspects have relative to the negative labels or conviction, we should still default to focus first on the objective statements of profession before getting into the "dirt". --Masem (t) 03:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Sticky so far. Another related thought. I showed this discussion to my wife who works in mental health, and she immediately brought up People-first language which basically says to avoid defining a people by their disabilities. For example instead of saying "the schizophrenic" you might say "the person with schizophrenia". ~Awilley (talk)21:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
@Awilley: I agree with your idea - the policy related to 'contentious labels' needs some clarification, especially as it relates to the opening line or descriptor of the individual, otherwise it's easy for Wikipedia articles to be a way for editors to engage in name-calling of individuals they don't like, based on the opinions of like-minded journalists who have published critical articles about those people. And this is particularly an issue when the articles are about "bad people" or just controversial figures. Wikipedia is a good source of information on many topics, but I really wouldn't trust it when it comes to the biographies of controversial living persons, and part of the issue is the use of these contentious labels to dismiss, insult and discredit people. So this is a significant issue as it relates to the reliability of the information in Wikipedia and whether it can be a reliable resource about living persons. Btw, this relates to the discussion below on the use of 'far-right' terminology. Mekinna1 (talk) 16:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Awilley, the reason for people-first language is to destigmatise illness. I don't think we need worry about stigmatising crime: the government works quite hard to ensure that there is a stigma attached, and that doesn't seem like a bad idea in cases of fraud. Guy (help!) 17:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
So if a government works hard to stigmatize people who break the law, an encyclopedia should follow suit? Does that logic extend to "illegal aliens"? Because there are arguably people in the US government who are trying to stigmatize that even more than fraud these days. "So-and-so is an American activist, blogger, and illegal alien." ~Awilley (talk)17:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
As I know that changes to major infoboxes are often controversial (and many to that template in particular have been WP:VPPOL RfCs in their own right), it seemed pertinent to notify broadly of the proposal.
Summary: We removed |residence=, but kept this parameter for childhood non-birthplace residence, despite that being usually trivia. The proposal would repurpose this parameter for long-term residency places during the subject's period of notability. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:32, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
BLPGOSSIP clarification, "whether the material is presented as true"
The policy states that we are to ask ourselves whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. And then what do we do with those answers? Clearly the source must be an RS and the material must be given proper WEIGHT, but does this policy mean that if material is not true it is gossip and must not be included? It's unclear how gossip is defined here, because unproven speculation may be included per WP:BLPPUBLIC and disproven theories may be included per WP:NFRINGE. I was unsure of where to find the original discussion about the origin of this policy, but I did find a BLP/Talk discussion and a Clay Aiken RfC about including a public figure's own response to speculation, where the consensus was to include his statements (which at the time were that he was not gay). So either gossip does not need to be true to be included, or gossip is no longer merely gossip once it is publicly addressed? But what if Aiken never addressed the speculation, but it was all the media ever talked about to the point that (as reported in RS) he was famous for the is-he-or-isn't-he speculation and no one even remembered he was a singer? But anyway, should we clarify the "whether the material is being presented as true" line? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Including language against inclusion of criminal/procedural histories of figured involved in a criminal event even when well sourced from RS
In two recent cases, Death of George Floyd and Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, all which the victims and suspects failed initial public figure tests, the reliable media quickly dug up the past criminal and procedural histories of the victims and the suspects, and for us, both of these were made big cases at BLP/N because editors wanted to include these details for both sides.
Now, granted, there might be reasons these histories are important as the investigation of these stories develop. In the case of the death of Floyd, there is one officer now under arrest under a murder charge and this is the one that from the media it is know they have had several reported incidents of violence on their record. In the case of Arbery, the story involves the fact that the suspects appeared to have had a prior history with Arbery as part of serving as an enforcement officer in one of Arbery's past convictions. In these cases, the relevant records make sense to include But to take the case of Floyd here, the media have learned of his prior convictions (not in Minnesota) ([31]) but these have no relevance to the situation as we best know at this point as there was no prior history between the victim and the officers. So at BLP/N, it was determined that we should not include Floyd's convictions despite the fact they are well sourced.
To that end, it feels like BLP lacks a statement to this end to avoid including this type of material unless it is essential. on the BLPN related to Floyd, I suggested a three pong test to determine when it is appropriate to include:
That the criminal/procedural history is sourced to high quality RSes, and not only to weak RSes or primary sources like court records
That the material is needed to help enhance the reader's understanding of the BLP's background relative to the topic, AND
That omission of the material is detrimental to the reader's understanding of the BLP.
The last two points mirror NFCC#8 we use for non-free content as a means to encourage conservative/minimal use of non-free, so it should have a similar impact here. This is just one idea oh how to approach this. But I'd make sure we need this - does BLP actually does this and it's just not clear, or do we need to be more explicit about it? The fact many editors rush to add this type of information is a bit of concern, hence the need to make sure we are clear this is something to avoid. --Masem (t) 00:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I think we must also look at the positions of the involved parties. When an officer of the law or other person in authority is one of the parties, in particular an officer that has apparently killed the other party, should that officer be treated differently under this guideline? More clearly, if the officer’s record shows a history of complaints, violence, and/or racism, and that may appear directly relevant to the officer’s actions possibly under official cover; should that be considered more admissible in Wikipedia? Or, a reductio argument, if the My Lai incident just occurred; would we treat the dead in the same manner as the killers. Obviously we must keep RS, NPOV, BLP, and RECENTISM in mind. I’m simply unsure of whether we should treat the two in exactly the same manner if one is an authority figure. O3000 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree that AVOIDVICTIM covers this. Even when past allegations and convictions are noteworthy, we must seriously consider not including them to protect the privacy of the victim. If leaving out material is detrimental to the reader's understanding we would use our judgement to include it, no need for further instruction. Also, #2 and #3 are redundant. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Technically it does but I mean, the fact we've had two different conversations on this and people still wanted to include the details, the point is not getting across. And no, #2 and #3 are not redundant, they are separate concepts, again taking from how we use NFCC#8 for image justification. --Masem (t) 05:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I have been examining the biographies of several controversial and conservative persons. The term "far-right" often seems to get used in the initial sentence describing the individual by editors who are very critical of those individuals, e.g. "Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian far-right author, clinical psychologist, and scholar", "Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpələs/;[7] born Milo Hanrahan, 18 October 1984), or pen name Milo Andreas Wagner, is a British far-right political commentator, polemicist, public speaker, writer and activist." I haven't been able to find any individuals who actually describe themselves as far-right, other than individuals like Richard B. Spencer, who are actually self-proclaimed Nazis. In most cases, the use of the terminology seems like a glorified form of name-calling that's being used to discredit a person based on the fact that a particular editor doesn't like what they say or their politics. For instance, it's a bit ridiculous to call Milo Yiannoupoulos far-right when the Wikipedia definition of far-right includes homophobia, and neo-Nazism, while he is a gay Jewish man married to a black man. Whether you like him or not, it's hard to conceive of the idea that he is homophobic.
Secondary sources of journalists who describe these people as far-right are used as the sources, even though the label is also simply the opinion of the journalist.
It seems to me that in general the use of this term should be discouraged as it's generally inflammatory and ill-defined, unless the person the BLP is about has actually described themselves that way in a verifiable primary source. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes a vehicle for partisan politics and attacking controversial conservative figures.
@Ian.thomson: Yiannopoulos was just an example. I'm not an expert on him but he does seem to say many things that are just intended to provoke people, like saying that he's opposed to gay marriage - do you really believe that he means it? His personality is not the point of this. The point is that the term 'far right' is ill-defined and is used as a kind of name-calling to discredit people, even if they don't identify as far right. Journalists can have their opinions of these people, but those opinions should not be taken as credible, neutral secondary sources - they are opinions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekinna1 (talk • contribs)
Whether or not any member of the far-right sincerely means it, if an individual is doing their damndest to call others to and affect people's lives for an ideology that fits an academic definition of Far-right politics, and journalists make note of it, it's reality.
"Far-right" isn't simply some slur, it's the most neutral description of any politics that looks at the typical right-wing views and says "that doesn't go far enough."
Fascist ideologies require some pretense of having been part of some first order that modernism deviates from, and so many far-righters don't want their views singled out as anything other than normal. Thus they will pretend that any designation for their ideas is a slur because any designation would allow civilized people to realized that far-right claims are disgustingly anti-human. I will assume that the Alt-lite talking points you've been posting here were only said accidentally and naively. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The underlying issue here is HOW to present controversial political labels in a BLP, and whether they belong in the lead. I strongly believe we should not be stating such labels as fact (in WP’s voice)... but rather as opinion (with in text attribution so the reader knows who is applying the label to the subject). And the lead is not the right place to mention Opinion. Blueboar (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
It's not an opinion. It is sourced to multiple high-quality sources. Calling someone a far-right advocate is the same as calling them right-wing or left-wing. It's not the same as "terrorist" or "racist" etc. It just describes a person political activism. When a person is widely known to be far-right or right-wing activist then there is no reason to remove it from the lead. For example, Tommy Robinson is widely known as a far-right activist (he actively supports far-right wing ideologies and ideas). It's part of why he is notable, this is why it should be mentioned in the lead.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
It is an opinion... sourced to opinion pieces. That opinion may be accurate, but it is still an opinion. Blueboar (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The label far-right is different from calling someone right-wing or left-wing because it has a pejorative tone, whereas right-wing or left-wing are fairly neutral terms. It seems to be used with the intent of discrediting people or organizations much of the time - kind of like calling someone a Nazi without using the word Nazi. Journalists use the term far-right, but I don't think the argument that journalists have called someone far-right therefore they can be labelled far-right in a Wikipedia article is a very strong argument...It's similar to if there was a newspaper article about someone that called him an obnoxious jerk, and three other journalists also wrote articles describing this person as an obnoxious jerk - should we then create a Wikipedia article about that person opening with "Ian Thomson is a wikipedia editor and obnoxious jerk, born in 1972..." Just because you can cite it doesn't mean that it's worth putting in the article or that it's anything more than a journalist's personal opinion...This is very closely related to the discussion thread above about 'contentious labels' for people. I think this is all pointing to the fact that clearer guidelines are needed on this subject that prevent Wikipedia from turning into a venue for general name-calling.
If you compare the opening paragraph on Yiannopoulos -
"Milo Yiannopoulos (/jəˈnɒpələs/;[7] born Milo Hanrahan, 18 October 1984), or pen name Milo Andreas Wagner, is a British far-right political commentator, polemicist, public speaker, writer and activist. Through his speeches and writings, he criticizes Islam, feminism, social justice, and political correctness. Yiannopoulos is a former editor for Breitbart News, a far-right media organization known for its promotion of fake news and conspiracy theories."
to the opening paragraph on Ben Shapiro -
"Benjamin Aaron Shapiro (born January 15, 1984) is an American conservative political commentator, public speaker, author, and former attorney. At age 17, he became the youngest nationally syndicated columnist in the United States. He writes columns for Creators Syndicate and Newsweek, serves as editor-in-chief for The Daily Wire, which he founded, and hosts The Ben Shapiro Show, a daily political podcast and live radio show. An editor-at-large of Breitbart News between 2012 and 2016, he has written ten books, the first being Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth (2004) and the latest being The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great (2019)."
- There are some obvious and I think unfair differences. Yiannopoulos is immediately called far-right and Breitbart news is also called far-right, but then Shapiro is simply a conservative who once worked for Breitbart, no adjectives. The difference seems to be that people dislike Yiannopoulos more.
@Mekinna1: "Far-right" is a neutral description for anyone who looks at normal right-wing individuals and says "doesn't go far enough." To call far-right individuals merely "right-wing" would be like calling normal right-wing individuals such as George Bush "centrist" or even "left of center" -- horribly inaccurate. Wikipedia just follows sources: if a source labels an individual as "far-right," then so do we. It's not the fault of Wikipedia, academia, or journalism that most people have decided that certain elements common to far-right politics (racism, fascism, etc) are immoral. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Mekinna1, As Ian says, we need to be able to differentiate. Ronald Reagan was right wing. So was Mussolini. Does that work for you? It doesn't work for me.
Most of the contention comes fomr the fact that a substantial proportion of those who dominate conservative dialogue in the US right now are so extreme that twenty years ago they would have been shunned. Can you imagine Poppy Bush endorsing Dinesh D'Souza or Alex Jones? Guy (help!) 17:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Far-right is a very general, ill-defined term. The Wikipedia definition includes neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, white supremacism, homophobia, ultranationalism, alt-right, chauvinist, xenophobic, anti-communist, etc., etc. There could be BLPs about people who hold one of these views, but it's unlikely that someone would hold all of these views simultaneously. The term doesn't really mean anything other than generally bad stuff on the fascist end of the spectrum. If the suggestion is that someone is a neo-Nazi, then there should be some specific reference regarding that claim and why, like the guy likes to read Mein Kampf and carries it around with him or something that actually suggests a connection to those views. Likewise if you really want to insist that the guy who swans into his speaking events in a big pouffy faux fur coat and giant Jackie-O glasses, discusses his boyfriends and oral-sex with men is actually homophobic, then fine, but you should provide some references that speak to that in particular. Otherwise far-right is just a smear term. Mekinna1 (talk) 02:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
We use the term terrorist in the first sentence of articles, which is far more pejorative, and is also a controversial term with multiple definitions. It doesn’t matter how the person self-identifies. If it did, all terrorists would be labeled freedom fighters. O3000 (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Proposed change to wording of BLPVICTIM
I'm proposing that (emphasis mine):
When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions.
Be changed to:
When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems—even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions.
The entire page is about living persons but with the provision that it also applies to the recently deceased. Going from not including the adjective "living" in one sentence then including it in another which starts with "This is of particular concern" is potentially misleading and one could wonder if this meant that recently deceased persons are not implied by this specific sentence. So I am proposing that we strike "living" from the sentence. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
(You probably mean WP:AVOIDVICTIM?) While I see that this can be also be used to assess notability/inclusion, my understanding is that "living individuals" is emphasized there because those are the people who risk having their reputation affected with its repercussions (that's also why "This is of particular importance" is there). If the goal is to emphasize that this also applies to the recently deceased, I would suggest "living or recently deceased individuals" for even more clarity. If the context of the section was enough because it all applies to living and recently deceased, the whole sentence could be considered redundant, so its spirit is more like a warning or important reminder... —PaleoNeonate – 17:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Is Reddit a source for Biographies?
This is being used on an article I have been editing by another editor who has beef it out. It wasn't a well referenced article before the editor added a decent amount of sources and info. But Reddit? TIA Arnkellow (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Translations of names
Is this something we should be doing in the cases of someone from Greece who lives and works in Canada who has a Persian name, which an editor insistes should be translated, or Ash Sarkar who is British with a Bengali name. Doug Wellertalk15:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
I am unsure as to whether it's intentional or not, but it is ambiguous as to whether public figures are innocent until proven guilty. I would consider it bizarre if the innocent until proven guilty clause only applies to non-public figures, so I suggest the following reorganisation.
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
I would have no objection if anyone wants to retain the "relatively unkown" part, it seemed to largely duplicate the "not public figures" immediately before it. Equally I have no objection to many other changes people may consider, my main concern is to clarify that innocent until proven guilty applies to everyone not just non-public figures, assuming that is the case. FDW777 (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I would agree: the "innocent until proven guilty" applies to all, and we only further stress that non-public figures that we should strongly consider if absolutely necessary to include that material if really necessary. Reversing the order of these statements seems to make sense. --Masem (t) 17:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Determining whether a source is SPS in deciding whether BLPSPS applies
I've started a WP:RSN discussion (here: [33]) [edit: it has since been archived, and the link is [34]] that has implications for WP:BLP guidelines about WP:BLPSPS and for guidelines elsewhere about WP:SOURCE and WP:SPS. In a nutshell, I'm asking how we determine what constitutes a SPS for online fora when it’s unclear whether the author and publisher are the same, for example, when those fora are published by scholarly organizations and have editorial boards, but aren't run by news organizations and so don't qualify for the WP:NEWSBLOG allowance, or when the online forum employs editors and includes both work by an author-publisher and work by many authors who aren't publishers. My question is about articles that are not a biography but where one or more living persons are sometimes prominent in the article's content. The question is prompted by an article about a legal case that includes content about the living defendant and Judge, where some references are to online legal fora, and where I'm questioning whether those fora should really be considered personal/group blogs, regardless of whether they self-identify as a "blog." However, the question isn't limited to that specific article or even to articles about legal cases and citing legal "blogs." I wanted to give a heads-up here and invite people to contribute to the discussion. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
There's now a related discussion (here: [35]) on the talk page for WP:Identifying and using self-published works, re: the misleading SPS definition there. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
There's also a related discussion (here: [36]) on the talk page for WP:Verifiability. The definition of SPS has significant implications for WP statements that fall under BLP. As a simple example, if government publications are generally SPS, and if the Mueller Report is among them (in that the government is both the author and the publisher), then we cannot use the Mueller Report as a source for a statement about any of the people who were charged in the Special Counsel investigation, which strikes me as a well-intentioned policy having unintended bad side-effects and therefore in need of revision. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Indicating notable relatives in “personal life” section of BLPs
Is there a reason that notable relatives should be removed from a “personal life” section of a BLP? NBA player Jarrod Uthoff is the son in law of US congressman Jim Jordan. I had noted this (with a source) several months back but for whatever reason there has been a lot of action removing it today. I was under the impression that notable relatives SHOULD be noted if sourced and not controversial. I have started a discussion at Talk:Jim Jordan (American politician)#Inclusion of son-in-law in “Personal life” section, but would love insight on this. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
If both are notable (both standalone articles), the relation confirmed in reliable sources, and it is a reasonable close relationship (not a Spaceballs "father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate" type thing), I see no reason why not to note it in a personal life section. Obviously if the two have had interactions that have played a role in one or the other's career (for example, Carl and Rob Reiner), that can be highlighted sooner even, but otherwise it should be seen not so much trivial but not to be elevated beyond personal life. --Masem (t) 19:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Obviously some discretion is needed when it comes to prominent families, while you'd expected to have immediate relatives included I'd hate to see all the members of the Kennedy family detailed in each article. FDW777 (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Is there any guideline that addresses the “personal life” sections of BLPs or inclusion of notable relatives? I can’t find them if they exist. Rikster2 (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know of any guideline, beyond the general guidance of WP:BLP, but I agree with the sentiments above that close notable relatives confirmed by reliable sources can reasonably be listed (and that all such listings need a reliable source). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Another point that occurred to me later is that, especially for husband-wife pairs, the mention should be reciprocal: if we mention the marriage on one page we should mention it on both. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Of course, with regards to notable families we don't need to mention every relation. And not including distant relations unless it is somehow important in context. But I think a congressman having a basketball player as a son-in-law in important to mention. ~EDDY(talk/contribs)~ 20:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Did Wikipedia cause a live person to change his name?
Well, that may be over-dramatizing the case, and I certainly hope it is; but I'm not so sure. Hungarian pianist ""Bence Péter" seems to have changed his name to Peter Bence, due to confusion about what his real name is outside of Hungary; i.e., which is the given name, and which is the surname. The fact that the usual order for a Hungarian name in Hungary is the reverse (e.g., "hu:Orbán Viktor") just exacerbates the confusion, as does the fact that this young man's surname, "Péter", looks like a western given name (and is also a common given name in Hungary), and that "Bence" ("Vincent") looks to non-Hungarian eyes like a surname. Long story short, it appears that the young man has given up rowing against the stream, and has changed his internet domain, his website, and his name (legally? who knows?) due to the amount of insistence that his name just has to be "Peter Bence" and not his real birthname of "Bence Peter".
I'm just hoping that Wikipedia didn't play a role in worsening the confusion, given that we're #7 or whatever on Alexa, and this young man, who now does have notability enough for an article, but didn't when he created bencepeter (talk·contribs) in 2008 at age 17, followed immediately by the article Bence Peter (now a redirect). The gory details are at Talk:Peter Bence#His name.
Is there some way we can monitor BLP page moves, or maybe moves accompanied by a near-simultaneous change of the bolded part of the WP:LEADSENTENCE, and send a notification about it? Or perhaps a BLP-name-change bot, or something, that scans BLPs and could flag the situation, or maybe even block or revert it, until it could be examined? Or maybe every BLP move needs to go through WP:RM#CM, and there should be no such thing as a unilateral page move for BLPs? I'm somewhat at a loss of how to deal with this, but I just have a sinking feeling about this case, and even if we weren't involved this time, I'm just wondering what we can do to prevent us from having a negative role in some future, similar case. Adding Largoplazo. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 04:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
