I've taken a liberty and chosen to apply two-day full protection over the established semi-protection on this Wikipedia policy page. Other admins are welcome to adjust applied protection as they see fit without asking me. I feel compelled to protect this iconic and essential part of Wikipedia policy against the kind of casual disagreement edits we might make on any stub about anything unimportant. This is not unimportant. Settle disagreements here in discussion, NOT IN LIVE POLICYSPACE! (sorry for shouting). I am an uninvolved admin in this space; I have no opinion to offer about the disagreement itself. BusterD (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
(Non-administrator comment) Yeah, I endorse stopping an edit war on a policy page. More than one revert should be enough indication that a change should be discussed. I have no particular opinion about the content of the change. I may revise that after I've read more about it. AlexEng(TALK)01:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Just to note, I had opened a RFC at VPP to get opinions on these changes. I did this as an RFC mostly because these are Core content policies with Arbitration Enforcement conditions associated with them so any change that could have policy application implications should get broad support from the community. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll admit I was really surprised when editors started trying to edit war out existing policy to that degree after getting back online from a busy week. Generally if someone disagrees with existing policy, there is no question that you should be using the talk page first, so I find it odd how Kyohyi or others never opened anything here after edits like this.
In this case, the changes I made were all minor clarifications in already approved policy, so these weren't brand new changes (in which case ideally would be brought to a policy talk page first). In this case, it was just full stronger policy language that was missing from this single line on this page, but existent everywhere else on Wikipedia. That's generally something that cannot be reverted back out because that would be disagreeing with existing policy and definitely require consensus. At least if we're following normal decorum for policy pages, anyone should have been able to restore this without issue (or not needed to in the first place) even if the language had been missing in that one line in the past. That's generally supposed to be non-controversial. Since no one followed WP:RFCBEFORE and opened a section here for clarification, I'll do that later today if someone else doesn't. KoA (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
No, you reverted in the bold action by trying to undo existing policy language. Nothing was bold on my part as already addressed above. We can't shift the burden like that, especially when it comes to policy pages where we are not supposed to have edit warring like this at all. If you absolutely wanted part of existing policy language removed, the first course of action would have been to open a discussion here if you wanted a significant change or had confusion about our existing policies on Wikipedia. Please be more careful on policy pages in the future. KoA (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I would, when there is any doubt, err on the side of caution and treat them as BLPs. There is often very little difference between a VTuber and any other entertainer using a pseudonym.--AlexandraIDV15:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Alexandra and Jclemens, I will try to add the appropriate templates etc. when I am able. 93 (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with treating them like regular YouTubers like Jaiden Animations. It depends if they are likely to be associated with a single person as with Miss Manners or portrayed by multiple people as with Dear Abby. If the main person retires and they still keep the character going with another person, it can be revisited as a fictional character. Also if the portrayer has their own notable life, then the character could redirect to the real person's page as with Larry Bud Melman, or have their own page as with Pee-wee Herman. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
It's really going to boil down to what seems like a simple distinction, but could obviously have some blurred lines. Are they just a character like Luke Skywalker, or is the article really referring to the actor themselves, like Mark Hamill. For most cases, you're just dealing with a produced persona that's meant to be fictional all the way through that is just portrayed by someone. If instead it's intended as a pseudonym of a performer themselves, it would then fall under BLP (like Prince_(musician)#Pseudonyms). KoA (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Most VTubers not directed by a company blend fiction and reality like a regular video blogger, and wholly own their avatars. Consequently, such Vtubers should be treated like an online handle and distinguishing visual branding of a real person blogger. Company directed ones like those mentioned above are more complicated. Obviously, any real person can engage in fictional actions, but I don't see how being a Vtuber generates a special case here. 2001:56A:711D:4500:140C:A83F:53A3:5CBF (talk) 06:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
WP: BLP has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.--Kyohyi (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
The RfC was archived with no consensus established for disagreeing with existing policy, so I've gone ahead and restored the removed policy language (albeit should have been left in at the start of the RfC) that included existing clarification from elsewhere in policy. For background, the "old" line here is basically an outlier in existing policy on SPS and BLPs, so the restored version is just matching the language up again.
As a reminder, no one should be trying to edit war that language out again, especially on a policy page for minor clarifying already existing policy language. In the past when editors did that, they claimed the existing policy language changed policy here and were also trying to remove the language about if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer not being an exception to our guidance on SPS. If someone really believes that, that is still disagreeing with existing policy and trying to override core content policy at WP:V, and that definitely cannot be done without consensus. For those like me that treat this as minor already existing clarification to how we've always addressed this, there is no such conflict, especially since it's mirroring existing policy language, and it ties into other parts of policy on this page (more below). Hopefully that preempts the edit warring that happened last time, but this was also addressed in the above section when editors were confused before. Mostly just trying to be thorough to try to safeguard this policy from what happened last time before the RfC, but to be clear, hitting the revert button on this part of policy is not an option at this time.
It came up in the RfC a bit, but part of the reason we use the restored language everywhere else is because we also have WP:BLPPRIMARY policy where SPS sources can be used alongside a citing secondary source as a narrow niche use. Some were mistakenly trying to claim an SPS must never exist on a BLP page at all. It seems like it comes up often enough where editors skimmed over the outlier line here without reading the rest of policy and started blanket removing SPS sources that had secondary sourcing (e.g., source X saying SPS source was involved in significant controversy with the BLP subject). With that said, the current language could maybe be tweaked a bit to add something directly piping readers to BLPPRIMARY, so that could be worth discussing to make it even clearer. That however, would be a true change to policy language, and I wouldn't feel comfortable making an actual WP:BOLD edit here without discussion. KoA (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Come on, you know "with no consensus established for disagreeing with existing policy" is not how it works. You need consensus to change this policy. You can go to WP:CR and ask for a close, but I think the close is "no consensus", which means the policy doesn't get changed. I'm restoring lgv. Levivich17:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Levivich, please reread what I posted if you are confused, but you have been abundantly warned already. You need consensus to significantly change or disagree with policy. You made it clear you disagree with existing policy earlier. I am not the one disagreeing with existing policy here, nor am I the one trying to override core content policy by edit warring and not gaining consensus. If I were actually trying to add a real change to policy instead of existing policy language, the same would apply to me. I also pinged you as a reminder to undo your revert here. As repeatedly stated by multiple editors here, policy pages are not the place for edit warring, even if you disagree with policy. KoA (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
KoA, you changed the language in January and other editors disagreed that your change = "existing policy". The RfC did not find consensus for option B (your text change). You should not be reinstating your bold edit. Schazjmd(talk)18:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and those editors who try to claim existing policy isn't existing policy can be dismissed pretty obviously. Nor should anyone be claiming that existing policy language is a bold edit. At the end of the day, trying to remove the language I restored is still based in disagreeing with existing policy, and trying to shift the burden onto others merely enforcing that is never appropriate. Not to mention it's trying to override core content policy through edit warring even if we ignored that. There's also a point where if someone disagrees with widespread policy language and tries to require consensus for a single outlier line of policy, that reaches tendentious WP:NOTBUREAU policy territory. KoA (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The point is that when you feel policies disagree with each other, consensus-building is needed to 1. establish that there's actually a disagreement, 2. determine which wording takes precedence if there is a disagreement, and 3. determine how precisely to change the text to reflect the correct wording, if we do so at all. Sometimes these questions should be obvious and easy, but if they are it should be simple enough to reach a consensus. Obviously you can't just say "well, I think a more core policy says otherwise" and change policy without consensus - every experienced editor contributing in good faith is going to believe that core policies back them up in a dispute like this! Besides, the RFC plainly seems to have reached a consensus for some change, since almost nobody supports A, it's just that there's a lack of consensus on what exactly the change should be. So the thing to do now is to slow down and discuss options (which should have been done earlier per WP:RFCBEFORE anyway), not to try and push through your version with no further discussion. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
The point is that when you feel policies disagree with each other, consensus-building is needed. Correct, which is why I've been reminding editors that think including existing policy changes something that they need to gain consensus for removing policy I restored. Because of existing policy as opposed to a scenario like two equally brand new proposals, the burden for consensus is on those who think existing policy is somehow a significant change.
That's very different than if say I had introduced entirely new unsupported language to add in to policy and also why I'm not the person to be mentioning slowing down to. I gave a lot more time than I needed before restoring the policy language both during the RfC, and now waiting for this to be self reverted in good faith rather than directly reinforcing the lack of consensus for dismissing policy. The process has already largely been run out even up to the RfC level for those claiming including existing policy was a significant change, and they did not gain consensus for it. I hope it comes across just how absurd dealing with that is at this point, even for us experienced editors.
As for what policies are more "core", that's partly why further discussion of the RfC is mostly moot without any consensus from it. We don't have to argue about that at all. Those are WP:V, WP:N, and WP:OR. That's already outlined at our policy pages themselves with more background at WP:COPO. Those three are not supposed to be superseded, so we do need to watch that hierarchy to a degree. KoA (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Since I think the RFC definitely reached a conclusion that some change is needed but probably failed to agree on exactly what that change should be, we should discuss options. I liked the suggestion there to reference WP:ABOUTSELF directly, which I think is the core idea here - many people in the RFC are concerned that one wording or the other, at BLP or V, could allow people to use self-published sources to discuss living people other than the author in certain contexts, and disagree over which wording is more clear in terms of forbidding that; but everyone, at a glance, seems to be in agreement that that shouldn't be allowed. So we should just come up with an unambiguous wording for both pages that leaves absolutely no room for doubt. --Aquillion (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we'd be running into trouble in terms of core content policies by excluding WP:V language here, and we don't need to do a circular redirect on the BLP page, so to modify a bit from yours Never use self-published sources (WP:SPS) as third-party sources about living people (WP:BLP), even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer, unless written or published by the subject of the content (WP:ABOUTSELF).. I'm not a huge fan of the wikilink shortcut callouts when the link is already present (don't recall this being an issue at the RfC), but not a big deal unless there's a MOS issue.
On that note Levivich, I've asked a few times now, but you've been strongly opposed to the language on being an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer language not being an exception for SPS sources, which is already part of policy. I'm not very supportive of a blanket exception in general, but do you have a proposal you're wanting to carve out to allow those afterall? Now would be as good a time as any to at least get that part hammered out if you feel strongly about it. KoA (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
One caveat is that many editors do have concerns with the ABOUTSELF exception as a whole (tit-for-tat arguments, etc.) and could easily get into the weeds. That wasn't really the focus on the RfC though, but rather that SPS aren't allowed as independent/third-party sources and that we want to direct people to WP:BLPPRIMARY or WP:ABOUTSELF for what the exceptions or "appropriate" use of them is. The claims that either would "somehow" allow people to use SPS carte blanche was never substantiated, so we don't really need to pay heed to that in terms of consensus. People were definitely pressed on that (Alexbrn I know addressed those claims) at the RfC with few to any responses. The independent/third-party language at least primes readers for BLPPRIMARY, while the current outlier line in BLP can confuse readers (and technically contradict BLP policy itself) on top of the core content policy issues. Here's a draft or two though:
BLP's original: 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.
Current policy-wide version (w/ABOUTSELF): Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer, unless written or published by the subject of the article.
For something that actually does some slight new wordsmithing: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Self-published sources are considered primary sources of very limited use for BLP content, but may carefully be used as a standalone source if written or published by the subject of the article.
I do like the idea of carving out a new sentence to help specify a bit rather than doing it all in one sentence, but 2 seems like the path of least resistance for now at least and makes sure to keep us from running afoul of other policies. KoA (talk) 23:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Seeing radio silence after edit warring started up again to remove existing policy, I've gone ahead and undone that edit warring and restored the policy language (again). At this point, this edit has all currently existing and longstanding policy language in it with no new changes to policy itself, and it needs to remain unless there is consensus for a clear change to policy. Our hands are tied in that regard despite recent very WP:BOLD attempts at removal, so I would ask editors to slow down to prevent what happened last time before the page was protected.
As as reminder, this is a policy page, and you should not be edit warring to remove policy, but instead gain consensus for it if you feel strongly about something. I'm at least trying to operate under the good-faith assumption that others are not going to try to continue edit warring on a policy page to maintain a preferred version like what happened during the RfC, but if someone does try to remove the policy language again without gaining consensus, that is definitely antagonizing a policy page. If someone does want to make a major change, WP:TALKFIRST; minor changes are fine, such as clarity from already existing policy, but outright removal of existing policy definitely falls under consensus required.
Some have suggested a brand new paradigm that we now need to get consensus for already existing policy and have tried to repeatedly remove policy under that. That runs into issues with WP:NOTBUREAU policy, but also as existing policy is something that already has both implicit and explicit consensus. Instead, if they want existing policy removed, they really need to craft a proposal and have an RfC at this point. As already mentioned above, an RfC was already attempted, and there was no consensus for removal of existing policy or that there was any conflict in existing policy. There is discussion just above this about potentially crafting some new language for an possible new RfC, which is good, but might be better started in a new section for more focus. If someone doesn't like the current policy language, that is your avenue for change, not by reverting. This is a policy page, so we do need to be careful about protecting it from knee-jerk reactions and stick to the talk page if someone wants substantive change beyond what the community has already endorsed as a whole. KoA (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Not seeing the history of your "longstanding verson" here. Can you provied a version(s) your refering to?Moxy-19:59, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
The language has been in policy since at least 2007.[1]. Without repeating the other things I mentioned above, the only way for someone to remove existing policy is to either get consensus for it, or get consensus that there's a WP:POLCON issue in a case like this, which did not happen at the RfC. The key thing here is that we're dealing with existing policy rather than any new policy changes being made by my edits or others who restored the language in the past, so this isn't a case of someone coming in with a brand new proposal. KoA (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
That language is in a different policy. You began trying to change the language in this policy in January, 2022. You have not gained consensus from other editors to change this policy. Schazjmd(talk)20:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is from WP:V a core content policy that is not supposed to be overridden. What you say isn't an issue though since we can't violate WP:NOTBUREAU policy. Whether it's core content or other policies, they work as a whole or network unless we do spot real conflict between them. The RfC did not identify that though, so that's why we're left requiring consensus for removal of policy. Again, different case if someone had proposed an actual change in policy. KoA (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This edit by KoA and this edit by Orangemike each revert to a version of the guideline that - as far as I can tell from the page history - has never been the stable version. If you want to change the guideline, the process is to achieve consensus in favor of the change, and not to edit war. If I have missed something, I'm sure an enterprising editor can point that out in this subsection. Newimpartial (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Newimpartial, please undo your edit warring. We already had the RfC, and editors did not get consensus that existing policy language could be removed. That was extremely explicit multiple times on this talk page and edit summaries that removal of existing policy was not an option or appropriate. If you wish to remove the policy text, you need to gain consensus first. KoA (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Ohh I see your trying to change this page to match another page.....not that it's been here before. So yes would need consensus to change it here. Ask for a close on the RFC and then move on from there.Moxy-20:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
KoA this seems overly basic for an experienced editor, but you cannot presume that you have consensus (or other justification) to unilaterally import text from one policy page into another policy or guideline page, even if the policy text you are importing has a higher level of consensus than the text into which you are inserting it. If your view reflected practice, people could (and would) import text from WP:V into the WP:GNG and from WP:BLP into the MOS whenever they feel that core policies reflect their own preferences better than does the current text of the guidelines. That simply isn't how the WP policy ecosystem works; I believe this was pointed out to you before, but if not, here it is.
The "No consensus" result means that the stable version of the guideline remains until a positive consensus is developed to change it, and that your disputed material (regardless of where you have borrowed it from) is excluded. Your assertion that the RfC result means anything other than this is clearly becoming disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
You can indeed presume consensus for existing policy, especially in terms of WP:TALKFIRST for clarity edits in already approved policy. Unless specific issues are substantiated as I mention below, we can assume policy language has consensus by default and that those who disagree with policy need real consensus to do so. Consensus is a fundamental part of being policy. That's why we can't just pick and choose like you are mentioning, so that's why I had been restoring the full policy.
No, that is tantamount to disagreeing with policy over at V. It's possible to do that, but you needed consensus over at the RfC. In the meantime, the allegations that WP:POLCON was an issue fell through. That was the core argument of those opposed to the language. Without that, we are only dealing with minor edits for clarity in approved policy per WP:TALKFIRST. KoA (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Nope. Disagreeing that a particular passage from WP:V needs to be repeated here is not at all the same thing as disagreeing with policy over at V. The question of whether the policy and the guideline conflict with one another is entirely orthogonal to the question whether or not to import the WP:V language here. Nor does TALKFIRST support your edit-warring in any way I can see. This seems plainly disruptive IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Nah, even if you do want to shift away from the core issue of that RfC and ignore that, all that's then left is saying people oppose existing policy because they don't like that self-published sources aren't considered third-party/independent and that being a researcher, etc. is not an exception to the rule. That should sound absurd to anyone and not really something that could affect consensus or something that could lead to calling protecting policy language from edit-warring, edit-warring. I've seen troublesome RfC aftermath before, but the lengths people are going to remove policy here without actually addressing anything appropriately is astounding. KoA (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Nobody here is removing policy: you are quite right that the place to do that would be at WP:V. What people are doing here is disagreeing with you about adding additional language to this guideline. You shouldn't be engaged in protecting language that has never been part of this policy page, particularly by means of revert-warring. Your stubbornness about this is now clearly disruptive, since many other editors have explained the situation to you at, by now, painful length. If you want the policy language here to change, you need a positive consensus to do so, and I dare say you are unlikely to convince people by fillibustering the discussion, repeating your misunderstanding of the policy process over, and over, and over again (diffs available on request). We are getting close to carcass-flogging territory, here. Newimpartial (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
That's backward. The RFC failed, so the page doesn't change. Your change is not 'existing policy language'. MrOllie (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Which has already been outlined as vastly wrong. We don't pick and choose policy, but treat them as a whole. KoA (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I mentioned elsewhere I'm stepping away for awhile after this, but just to be clear, I already directly mentioned TALKFIRST, and what you are suggesting is for cases of substantive changes, not something like this. We already had an RfC on this, and the only thing there that could have possibly held back accepted policy language that already has consensus is something like WP:POLCON. Yes, a number of vocal editors disagree here, but that is not the same as lack of WP:CONSENSUS, and an amount of consensus follows established policy wherever it goes. You need a really good reason to dismiss established policy, especially when used for minor clarifying edits like TALKFIRST explicitly allows.
WP:DRNC gives good guidance here. I will point out it is an essay to preempt potential "it's only an essay" comments, but no one can deny the advice it gives: Editors should not invoke these procedural practices to maintain the status quo when they have no substantive objection to a change. See WP:STONEWALLING. No one can deny that's tendentious. That's even if regular content didn't have explicit consensus, much less a case like established policy that does. Instead we have people deadset against language like experts are not an exception, yet not engaging at all about that on the talk page when pressed repeatedly for a real why.
At this point, we already had over a month (in a premature RfC from those opposed to the language to boot) for people to chime on any substantive issues with including existing policy language to strengthen BLP, and no concerns rose to a level of consensus. Especially in the recent reverts, we're really to the point of reverting for the sake of reverting without actual usable reasons for removal. That's what I've been trying to protect this policy against lately. Either way, the consensus for the language still exists as it did since the end of the RfC, the question is just how to deal with the behavior on this policy page of all places when we shouldn't have to factor that in. KoA (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Let me be clear, then: I object to the importation of this language from WP:V on the grounds that it is entirely unnecessary, and that it does nothing to improve the clarity or the meaning of the language here at WP:BLP. There is project-wide consensus is to retain that language at WP:V and no consensus to include it here. If you want to convince people to include it here, you will need to try something quite different from your current approach, which would be quite aptly classified as wiki-lawyering. Frankly, you would be better off making an IAR argument than torturing TALKFIRST and DNRC the way you have in this discussion. And the only behavioural issues I see here at BLP, quite frankly, are your own. Newimpartial (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Newimpartial, you're a little late for that. We already wrapped up the RfC, and that wasn't substantiated, not to mention there needs to be a substantive reason, especially for established policy. Things like "no-consensus" or "not an improvement" are often considered superficial answers in consensus bearing discussion. No one is reasonably going to be opposed to language that experts are not an exception. That's a known recurring issue we already had to call out in policy for BLPs elsewhere and for any of us experienced in this areas. That's not to "win" a dispute, that's just what policy is, which ties the hands of those of us following it overall. That's supposed to be a good kind of bondage anyways for us editors.
If some want to force ourselves to re-get consensus for existing policy, there is a point where WP:NOTBUREAU policy applies. Also, please watch the combative comments and slow down. It is not helping the atmosphere on this page. I already mentioned how difficult it as has been to try to insulate this page from stuff like that, and self-awareness is key. Either way, as I alluded to in my last comment as I've been wrapping things up, the WP:LASTWORD seems to be yours. KoA (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Your (seemingly unironic) comment that self-awareness is key had me quite in stitches - thanks for that.
And your comment that No one is reasonably going to be opposed to language that experts are not an exception is equally unintentionally hilarious, since RfC participants did in fact object to adding such language to this policy, and your proposal to do so here did not achieve consensus.
I went back one year, and the version which Newimpartial reverted to from Orangemike lacks the disputed text. So I'm seeing it as the "stable version." --Deepfriedokra(talk)12:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Does removal of a date of birth from a site affect the "published" status referred to in WP:BLPPRIVACY?
WP:BLPPRIVACY says, in part, "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." If a person's date of birth is removed from a site where it had been posted, should Wikipedia still show the date of birth, citing the earlier version of the source?
In the situation you refer to, I don’t think BLPPRIVACY is the appropriate policy to apply. The key issue is RELIABILITY.
When a website page includes a date of birth in one version and drops it in a subsequent version, I think it reasonable to assume that a (potential) reason for the removal is that it was discovered that the date as originally published is inaccurate. The source has corrected that (potential) mistake by omitting it in the subsequent version. Thus, we should consider the updated version to be more reliable than the earlier one, and act accordingly… by omitting the date ourselves until we find a different source. Blueboar (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Blueboar. I had not thought about that perspective, but it's a good point to consider. I had wondered if perhaps she had asked that it be removed. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Death claim without a source
An IP from Florida is claiming that Steve Wilhite, co-inventor of the GIF format, died on March 14. I randomly spotted this on March 15 but found no source online, so I reverted the edit and asked the user to provide one. Said user just restored the claim without comment or source, and there still is no information I can find. BLPs are not my strong suit, so I hope someone here can help out. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 18:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
I believe that the sectiosn are not incoherent. We must place 4 and 6 together, and section 7 must come after 3. Yavnikaa (talk) 18:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
If the news source indicates someone's age, such as "20 years old in 2022"; is it okay to assume the year of birth is 2002? Or we can only mention that someone is 20 years old at that certain time? Thanks.--TerryAlex (talk) 02:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLPSPS states 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, but WP:SPS states 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.
Turns out I commented in that RFC, though I don't remember doing so. The other question is what is meant by "third-party source"; I've interpreted it based on WP:IS as meaning that we need to attribute it in text, but it appears that some editors in that RFC have interpreted it differently. BilledMammal (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
The intent of "third-party source" was "about someone else", but it's ambiguous and confusing. The two sentences should be giving the same guidance, but the difference in wording leaves them open to interpretation. The RfC was never formally closed; quick glance, there was support for a change but not agreement on which change to make. I can't grasp how you read SPS as saying it's okay if attributed. Schazjmd(talk)17:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Because it is written as Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, rather than Never use self-published third-party sources about living people, which implies there is some way to not use the self-published source as a third party source, and WP:IS suggests that might be possible by attributing it in text. However, now that you have pointed it out it does seem more likely that it is written awkwardly, rather than written to support the use of self-published sources. BilledMammal (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Ohhh, that's how you got there! Thanks for explaining, I couldn't see it. I see it saying only as a first-party source. (I don't get why they used "third-party" instead of "second-party" either.) Schazjmd(talk)17:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
@Schazjmd The first and second party would, I believe, be the living person in question and 'Wikipedia'. You very rarely see first- or second-party used as terms, except for console games where some are described as first-party releases when they are published by the maker of the console. I gather it comes from use as a term of art in contract law particularly, and other legal stuff more generally. SamBC(talk) 18:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
@Schazjmd and @Sambc, the terminology comes out of contract law. The first and second parties are directly involved in the transaction, and the third parties are other affected entities (of which there could be many). If you imagine a car wreck, you are the first party, the driver who damaged your car is the second party, and your (both of you) insurance companies are the third parties.
If you are left scratching your head about why Wikipedia would prefer an affected entity who isn't a principal actor, then, well, language is not entirely logical, and by the time the terminology got out of the realm of Third party insurance and into journalism, it meant something closer to Wikipedia:Independent sources.
This means, in practice, that we accept a self-published source from you (i.e., the first party) saying something about yourself ("I was the victim of a car wreck today") but not about anyone else ("The driver cried when he realized he was going to have to pay for the damage" or "My agent with Big Insurance Co. is the strangest person ever"). We also accept a self-published source from the other driver (i.e., the second party) saying something about himself ("I guarantee that I was stone cold sober") but not about anyone else ("You asked me if I was going to faint" or "The police officer was really slow to show up"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Schazjmd here. My read has always been self published primary source are acceptable within ABOUTSELF limits. Self published 3rd party sources are acceptable within limits. Self published, third party sources about a BLP subject are not OK. Springee (talk) 17:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I hate to agree with Springee, but my understanding has always been that both policies forbid the sourcing of BLP statements to SPS, with the usual ABOUTSELF exception. SPS articulates more clearly that the "self-published source by a recognized expert" carve-out does not apply to BLP material, but I have never interpreted that as a conflict between the two, since BLPSPS isn't required to deal with the carve-out at all - it doesn't apply to the cases addressed by BLP, so it isn't mentioned. Newimpartial (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I don't see a difference between them, they are just expressed differently; one says no self-published stuff except things by the subject, while the other says no self-published third-party sources, which basically amounts to the same thing - albeit the first is probably clearer. SamBC(talk) 18:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
There isn't any real substantial conflict there between the two (as long as someone looks at all relevant policy language), just different iterations that cover the bases in terms of the spirit of BLP sourcing. We just can't treat SPS sources as distant/independent enough to the point that they're really just WP:PRIMARY sources, and that's the key underlying factor. You have to consider them as closely involved at best instead, and that informs the rest of the related policy.
You obviously can use SPS sources to a degree though if you have independent sources giving them appropriate weight (WP:BLPPRIMARY), so technically, the language in that one sentence of BLP is slightly incorrect and an outlier if misread otherwise by only looking at that sentence. There really is a network of policy on this. V just gets a bit more into the why of how SPS are an issue for BLPs. Part of that includes how simply being an scientific expert, etc. still doesn't bring a source beyond the SPS category, though editors have been extremely opposed to included that language here at the BLP policy page for some reason that it's been edit warred out multiple times even though it's from core content policy.
However, V doesn't allow carte blanche use of SPS simply with attribution either, but that's nestled within the independent source background. I've said it before, but since you can't use an SPS source as a third-party source, then what exactly are you going to use it as? Realistic use is already so drastically reduced in that line that it would have to a pretty niche exception. Basically at the RfC mentioned above, no one could provide a substantiated example of how suddenly SPS source usage would change under just V's language in isolation. Many commenters echoed that calling out what amounted to hand-waving concerns not really grounded in how things actually work on the ground.
From a legal standpoint, the thing we cannot be doing is putting something in Wiki's voice unless there is solid sourcing. Attribution is needed otherwise if there is something WP:DUE about a "X said Y about BLP", and that's regardless of the SPS question or not. The single line in BLP has a few issues that could be fixed with minor tweaks, but it still satisfies that concept for legal. Simply merging V's language in does that too while taking out the inconsistencies the current BLP line has with other parts of BLP while still strengthening it, so that's always an option since it's all already existing policy language. Until then, even though it's more cumbersome, we can always just remind people to read all the relevant policy rather than the one sentence in question at BLP. KoA (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I agree that these have the same meaning, but it might be simpler if both of them used the same words. (I prefer the BLPSPS phrasing.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Peabody Award question
This may be more appropriate for Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards, but I have noticed inconsistency in how BLPs, specifically, handle Peabody Awards wins. Peabody Awards can be given to a variety of media, and broadly fall into two categories: personal and production. E.g. Martin Agronsky won a personal award, it was given to him, and Hailee Steinfeld was among the cast and crew cited when Dickinson received a production award. In both these cases, the Peabody is mentioned on the BLPs as their win, in the lead and awards. The inconsistency doesn't really concern the personal awards, as I think it's clear those are for the person named, but when it comes to production awards there doesn't seem to be a standard for inclusion on BLPs of everyone mentioned in the citations across Wikipedia. The producers, typically, yes, but then in the case of Steinfeld, she gave the acceptance speech despite being part of the cast. So, my question is whether we should include production Peabody Awards among the awards/honours on BLPs for everyone named in the citation, or if we should otherwise decide which categories of people should be mentioned, or if there should be no BLP mention of production Peabody Awards (leave it at the media, e.g. TV show, article)? Kingsif (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted the article back to an old version where everything is properly sourced, the article would still be a good candidate for AfD though. It appeared to have been vandalised with the addition of some nationalistic ranting a few months ago. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLPBALANCE and how lists of honors received plays into that. A long list of awards for a contentious living person could be perceived as whitewashing, and excluding potentially notable awards could be perceived as a negative POV.
How do we fairly determine notability without being WP:INDISCRIMINATE?
Does notability of certain awards differ by how notable the receiver is?
Do we have any best-practices or consensus on the topic?
WP:BLPPRIMARY and whether primary sources are suitable for citing awards received.
Are primary sources, particularly those of the organization giving the award, suitable for a list of awards?
Does this vary by the size of either the award or the living person?
Is notability of the award in question if no reliable WP:INDEPENDENT sources exist?
Looking for guidance, not just on the dispute here, but looking for a more unified set of guidelines, precedent, and consensus that could help resolve similar disputes going forward.
I note that Ioannidis is an academic. That draft policy is a nightmare for Wikipedia's coverage of academic biographies. It would devastate a large fraction of our academic biographies and two of the main criteria in our academic notability guidelines (#2, major national awards and #3, fellowship in major societies) which depend on academic honors that are, for the most part, documented through sources from major academic societies and universities. These sources often cover the recipients of these awards in some depth (detailing what they did to win the award, in particular), and are from sources of unimpeachable reliability, but they would generally not be considered independent under the draft policy. If this draft policy were put into place, most fellows of major societies like IEEE (which is specifically called out as an example by WP:PROF for criterion C3) could not even mention the existence of the fellowship, let alone use it for notability, because the only sources for it would be from the IEEE and their employers. Indeed, even IEEE Fellow is not currently a standalone article and this draft would therefore forbid us from mentioning it even when we do have other sources. Because of the problems it would cause, the draft has my strongest possible opposition.
It is often a good idea to separate out the significant awards from the chaff, but indiscriminate one-size-fits-all thresholds like the ones in the draft cannot be the way. What is chaff for one person (a lesser award for a Nobel prize winner, say) could still be the most significant award in a career for someone else, cause for notability for them, and something we should certainly highlight on their biography. So it is necessary to take such decisions on a case by case basis rather than by making general rules.
In the case of Ioannidis, I think "most accessed article in some database" is chaff, an arbitrary statistic rather than a deliberate decision to recognize him, and dubiously lead-worthy. I agree with User:Bakkster Man's decision to significantly trim the "awards and honors" section [3]: it was too long. But I disagree with many of the choices of what to trim. They should include anything that, by itself, passes WP:PROF#C2 or #C3. For some people, lower-level achievements can also be included, but for Ioannidis the C2- and C3-passing achievements produce a long enough list that the lower-level honors should probably be omitted. That means, for instance, that I disagree with Bakkster Man on including "Elected member, National Academy of Medicine": this unquestionably passes #C3, by itself, and should be included. I agree with Bakkster Man that individual named lectures can probably be omitted. I disagree with Bakkster Man on including random awards from corporations; I don't think these are at a high enough level for #C2 and, while they might be significant for other academics, I think they pale in signifance to e.g. the NAM election for Ioannidis. For many academics, honorary doctorates would be kept, but for Ioannidis they may not be necessary, because he has higher honors. Etc etc.
So my choice for what to keep would have included (1) awards and medals (but not lectures) from notable societies (Stuyvenberg, Pollock, Gordon, Sackett), (2) membership or fellowship for notable societies where that is a significant honor (Bologna, NAM, EASA, at least), (3) the Haldane Lecture, because it is independently notable, and (4) president of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology, because by itself this passes WP:PROF#C6. It can also help to put this sort of section into prose rather than a bulleted list: make separate paragraphs for each type of award or honor, for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
That's more or less what I would include, I think. I also concur that prose would work better than a list here. XOR'easter (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Edit request (add scope of the policy to the lead)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Applicability_of_the_policy and widespread practice, this policy applies to all information relating to living persons. Some believe, possibly due to its misleading name, that it applies to articles about living persons only. I suggest adding BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. (i.e., the first line of the applicability of the policy subsection) to the lead to clarify the policy's scope. 192.76.8.90 (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, we don't want to clutter the lede, which already does say "any page" (emphasis in original). It could be added to the "[a]" footnote which currently has "People are presumed to be living unless there is reason to believe otherwise. This policy does not apply to people declared dead in absentia" which conveniently does appear right there. Or you could change "any page" to "any page (not just articles)" which doesn't add all that much extra text. Or just not do anything. Herostratus (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
You're right, the introduction does mention the scope of the policy twice; restating it once more probably won't make much of a difference to those who have not read it (properly) in the first place. I have marked the request as answered. 192.76.8.90 (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Roberto Benigni
There's a cite problem on the page about Roberto Benigni; two references points to the same website, Film Reference, but when I try to fix the problem, it returns an error.--Carnby (talk) 08:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages.
I think that a non-contentious addition should be made to state that it also applies to draft and draft talk pages. Draft space had not been set up when the BLP policy was implemented, and its omission is an oversight. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Under applicability of policy it already states BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts (emphasis not in original). No changes are needed. If anything we should simplify things by condensing this to simply state upfront that BLP applies everywhere on wiki no exceptions to avoid bloat, but it's not a change worth the time needed to haggle over it. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Biography of professional subject
I came across a biographical article on another Wikipedia, I believe it was written by himself. The subject is a lecturer, in a professional field with a PhD degree and has published many studies. However, no media or sources mention the subject, does he deserve to be on Wikipedia? According to Wikipedia's guidelines, subjects do not meet Wikipedia's general criteria. Link to the article is here. The sources provided also invalid. What's y'all comment on this? CyberTroopers (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" seems perfectly clear to me: the wording has been that way for many years, and I think most people understand the intent well enough. Perhaps you should explain what the issue was that led you to think it needed changing? Getting into the finer details of a revision to the wording of a policy before we know what the problem is supposed to be seems premature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Dr. Universe: By removing the word "only", you changed the policy from being about situations where the only detailed information we have is about a single event, to being about situations where the coverage might actually cover multiple events, but all coverage is "in the context of" one of those events. So your new wording is more restrictive: it might prevent people from being notable, even when they have multiple reasons for being notable, because of the context in which the coverage of those multiple reasons is framed. Was that your intent? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
@David Eppstein:, @AndyTheGrump: Can you please ping me when/if you reply? The original was: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." I changed it to "If all reliable sources cover the person in the context of the same event." which I think is much more clear. Andy: the fact that it was unclear for many years isn't excuse for it to continue to be unclear. Now when it says "If reliable sources...", which ones are we talking about? All of them or some of them? If there is ONE source that covers the person only in the context of a single event, then the person's article should be deleted? That's why I added the word "all". David: you have a good point. The word "only" serves an important purpose here, and I just thought the wording was a bit awkward, but I don't mind keeping it there for now. I think we need to specify what we mean by "reliable sources" though. Does it mean "all reliable sources" have to be that way, or "at least one reliable source" has to be that way, or "most reliable sources" have to be that way. Thank you. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Suggested language-
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 shall not mention accusations nor use any language that implies the person has committed a crime absent a guilty plea, conviction or civil finding. Editors should seriously consider not mentioning an arrest unless widely covered by reliable sources.
If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[d] include sufficient explanatory information.
Piggybacking off of earlier discussion, so pinging those involved as well as Bbb23 since I found an old quote from him and wondering if it still applies.
Looking at the history of the BLPCRIME section, it has undergone remarkably little change over the years. Though the earliest version were explicit that defamation was a strong motivator for excluding information. So I think any change should keep that in mind. With that said, I have put up language to have a base to work from. Specifically, I'd like to see a clearer delineation in accusation, arrest, trial and outcome as I think the privacy and defamation concerns decrease as you work through the chain of events, subject to coverage in reliable sources. For now, consider this a discussion and not a formal attempt to change policy.
Comment from Bbb23 in archives -
Despite the unimperative language, BLPCRIME has applied that language as policy, not as a guideline masquerading as a policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure but I think that this probably has to do with Paul Pelosi, the relatively low profile person who is the spouse of the very high profile Nancy Pelosi, who is the US Speaker of the House. Paul Pelosi, when a minor about 65 years ago, was one of the drivers in a tragic car crash that killed his brother. He was charged with a misdemeanor but was not convicted. It is impossible to say today who if anyone was responsible, and because there was no conviction of this (at the time) minor person, I do not think that it belongs in his biography. Cullen328 (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
In the spirit of full disclosure, I lived in the Napa Valley for nearly 30 years, where Paul Pelosi was recently arrested for DUI. As far as I recall, I have never met Paul although I have met his wife Nancy several times at Napa Valley political fundraising events and have had two or three brief political conversations with her. Cullen328 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Cullen328, 100% promise this has nothing to do with Paul Pelosi. Though guess could have a unintended knock on effect. My interpretation of the rule is closer to the quote of Bbb23 and the impetus was how I handled 2022 Tangshan restaurant attack removing the suspects names immediately vs Murder of Kanhaiya Lal where the names remain (and page locked due to a faux BLP edit-war) vs Murder of Umesh Kolhe where names are now removed. I would like to tighten up accused, arrested never/rarely being named, not open up convictions to being plastered every where. Slywriter (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Slywriter, then why would you ping me to this discussion? I do not think that I have been involved with either of those articles. Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, expecting to find consistency among articles in an encyclopedia with 6.5 million articles is not a reasonable expectation, especially in crime articles where the circumstances vary vastly. Cullen328 (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Cullen328, I pinged everyone who commented in the Sept 2021 BLPCRIME discussion linked above as it had no resolution. Apologies if that was improper and if you are currently engaged in a BLPCRIME discussion elsewhere, I was and remain oblivious to it.
It is quite possible the answer is leave the guideline alone, however BLP is one area we should strive for consistency. Putting on the NPP and AfC hats, it is also nicer to have bright lines for what needs to be removed on sight and what can remain while it is discussed on the article talk page or BLPN. Slywriter (talk) 05:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The last line is definitely clearer and more indicative of how (alleged) illegal event articles are actually written, with the suspect getting more attention than any other involved person, living or dead. But I think "individuals" should be "people". If that's revised, consider this a message of Full Support rather than my current 82.5%. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Does BLP in any way apply to images of signatures of still-living persons? Could it be something that's possibly covered under BLPPRIVACY? There's are some things in BLP related to image use (e.g. MUG) and also to personal information from primary sources, but I'm not sure how that applies to signatures. Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons is an a essay about the topic, and the Wikipedia talk:Signatures of living persons#This essay needs some TLC sort of touches on this. A scan of this talk page's archives also shows this has been discussed before like at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 22#Signatures and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 28#Images of signatures, and a RfC on BLPSIGN as official policy]] from 2011 was closed as no "consensus". My concerns have more to do with possible BLP issues than copyright issues since in many cases (like under US copyright law), images of signatures can be uploaded to Commons licensed as public domain per c:COM:SIG. The particular image that made me wonder about this is File:Signature of James Wesley, Rawles.jpg. This file was uploaded to Wikipedia as non-free content, but there's really valid justification for its use as such. The file's licensing most likely could be changed to {{PD-signature}} for copyright purposes and then tagged for WP:MTC, but there also seems to be little encyclopedic value to using the signature. The file appears to have been uploaded by James Wesley Rawles himself and that might be seen as an acknowledgement of the WP:REALWORLD risks involved in doing so, but again there seems to be little encyclopedic value in using the signature. Perhaps the uploader mistakenly assumed that by uploading the file as non-free content that they were somehow protecting themselves from the file being misused in some way. So, I'm curious as to whether there might be any BLP justifications from moving the file if its licensing is converted to PD. Is it, on the other hand, simply a matter for local consensus to decide? -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Specifying that WP:BLPRESTORE only applies to potentially-defamatory material
I think that this is already the case (since BLPRESTORE only applies to good-faith BLP objections, and the parts of BLP with "teeth" generally refer to potentially defamatory material) but I think it is worth making clear. I suggest changing this sentence by inserting the bolded text (without emphasis): When potentially harmful or defamatory material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. If there's no way to argue, in good faith, that something could potentially harm or defame the subject it should of course still have a proper source, but it's a normal editing dispute and not a situation where someone can reasonably invoke BLP. --Aquillion (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Couldn't someone WP:WIKILAWYER with something like: "Undid revision... This material is not potentially harmful or defamatory, it's just facts! I don't need consensus to add facts."? Crossroads-talk-21:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Even with the current wording of BLPRESTORE, there are ways for a tendentious editor to WIKILAWYER the policy while trying to restore removed content. But your right, I think this would make it easier, especially for cases where BLPRESTORE is cited after removal of content that isn't clearcut potentially harmful or defamatory. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
While use of BLPRESTORE is primarily for harmful or defamatory content, I do not think restricting it to cover only that content is helpful. There are good faith reasons to dispute and remove content from a BLP other than potentially harmful or defamatory content, like WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BLPPRIVACY, that are also covered by BLPRESTORE. BLPRESTORE is also useful when content has been added via primary self-published sources that is either controversial or unduly self-serving. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
For a recent example of using BLPRESTORE for non-harmful or defamatory content, a couple of weeks ago I removed multiple paragraphs from Debbie Hayton, giving justification at the talk page for each piece of content I removed; in short I had concerns over WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:SYNTH, WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE and several unverifiable claims. After some discussion between an editor and I at the talk page, and a brief restore/remove/restore series of edits on the article, I went to BLPN to get clarity on BLPRESTORE. The editor from BLPN agreed that BLPRESTORE covered the content I removed, and that content still remains out of the article as the other editor has yet to return to that discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
BLPs in draft space
The existing policies are somewhat unclear about what should be done about unsourced BLPs in draft space. Both the BLP policy and draft policy are fairly silent about this issue.
If it is desirable to remove unsourced BLP information from draft space, there's no clear indication about how to do that – {{prod blp}} doesn't function in draft space (and indeed, has draftifying the article as one of the options), so the existing deletion processes are acting as though unsourced BLP information in draft space is perfectly fine. On the other hand, without an explicit exception in the policy, this somewhat contradicts the high level of scrutiny that BLPs are supposed to be given.
It'd be helpful to have guidance one way or the other about whether unsourced BLPs are allowed in draft space, and if not, what the appropriate process is to work towards removing an entirely unsourced draft BLP – this seems like a topic on which a consensus is highly likely to exist, and yet there's no easy way to determine what that consensus is. --ais52320:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm looking for a general rule rather than to know what to do in any specific case (the context is that I sometimes patrol the prod category for incorrectly used {{prod}} tags, and am not sure what to do when I see a {{prod blp}} in draft space – the lack of clear guidance as to whether this is appropriate (or what the alternatives are) is causing confusion both for the people trying to correct the deletion nominations and for the people who place the tags in the first place). I agree that it's definitely worth allowing time for sources to be added, but (in article space) {{prod blp}} does that already due to the 7-day waiting period. Do drafts get extra time (7 days? 6 months?)? --ais52321:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Not sure we can (or should) give a “one size fits all” general answer. A LOT of this comes down to making judgement calls based on specifics. When it comes to BLPs, some types of info can sit unsourced for a while - yet other types of unsourced info need to be removed immediately and only added back with a source (ask, how potentially harmful is it?). Blueboar (talk) 21:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
User:Ais523, drafts are deleted at MfD for being an “unsourced BLP”. That is a sufficient reason to delete a draft without mentioning the multitude of sins that have also have. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
BLP rules are applicable everywhere, including user talk pages. So unsourced things should be tagged and removed accordingly. No pass for draftspace to violate BLP. Venkat TL (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
That’s right. A question was whether BLPPROD can be used in draftspace or userspace. It can’t. Use MfD instead, and if there are too many for MfD, then there’s an argument to expand the scope of BLPPROD. In any case, once an unsourced BLP page, including draftspace and userspace, is tagged BLPPROD of MfD, it has seven days for a reliable source to be added. There is no requirement for the problem to be as large as a “BLP violation”, and there is no need to state the actual problem. The actual problem is typically a chilling submission they made up, and/or revealing private information about private non-notable people. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Including denials
This BLP policy says: “If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance.”
This seems like a wise policy, somewhat similar to journalists’ well-known ethical obligation to “Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.”
I’m concerned that, in most cases, this BLP policy *seems* to be contradicted by one of our Wikipedia essays, Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies applies. That essay says, “If a reliable source has checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, but if the only statement is that ‘X denies the accusations’ then we don't need to include it because, well, he would, wouldn't he?” This isn’t just a tiny exception to BLP policy about denials; it would become the exception that swallowed the rule. Another problem with that WP:MANDY advice is that a reliable source has decided to publish the denial for reasons that the reliable source believes outweigh the retort “he would wouldn’t he” (e.g. an accusation, unanswered by the accused, leaves the reader thinking the lack of denial is an admission of guilt).
Essays at Wikipedia have few restrictions as to their content, but according to WP:Essays, “Essays that violate one or more Wikipedia policies, such as spam, personal attacks, copyright violations, or what Wikipedia is not tend to get deleted or transferred to user space.” So I am curious whether editors agree there’s a conflict between WP:MANDY and this BLP policy, and if so whether this BLP policy ought to be modified, or instead WP:MANDY ought to be modified, deleted, or moved to user space.
Incidentally, this essay recently came up during a discussion I was having at BLPN but I think that discussion is over and moot now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree there's a problem with Mandy. We should put a person's point of view in their article. It doesn't take up much space in the article. And a denial is not inevitable. 94% of people in the USA actually plead guilty. And it is more broadly true that many people confirm allegations or our silent.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I also agree. The spirit of Rice-Davies' original quip is that a denial might not be very persuasive regarding the truth of an accusation, but the existence or absence of a denial is interesting in and of itself, even when there is not really any doubt as to the veracity of the accusation. As Jack points out above, people admit to things all the time, and it is bad writing to make the reader guess which sorts of denials go without saying. Certainly the essay's claim that "Very few anti-vaccinationists... are prepared to go on record and own their positions..." does not reflect the world we live in any more.
I think essays serve an important role in policy development on Wikipedia, including ones that challenge established guidelines and policy (something we could use more of, at the risk of sliding from set in our ways into completely fossilized and out of touch.) But essays advocating for a change that goes against prevailing consensus should be explicit about that, and not be disguised as advice on how to approach articles. Some tweaks to the introductory wording could address that.--Trystan (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The issue I have with many "right of reply" anti-MANDY arguments is that editors do not limit themselves to allegations or incidents, as specified in the section of BLP quoted above. Many public figures go out of their way to deny supposed characterizations that nobody has ever asserted about them, or to dispute widely accepted labels or interpretations of their positions used by others. My own belief is that these statements typically fall into BLPSELFPUB 1. as unduly self-serving and should not be included in WP articles unless the denial itself has received extensive secondary coverage - I would hate for any principle to be endorsed as a result of this discussion that would lend support to inclusion of such denials outside of disputed allegations or incidents, which is the intended scope of the provisions in BLPPUBLIC. The principle must not be, "any claim that offends the public figure mandates that their denial be included in each Wikipedia article where they are mentioned", which is the way I have often seen this anti-MANDY argument used. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Then such a thing is already handled by the "unduly self-serving" clause coupled with - crucially - the lack of secondary sources covering the denial. However, I often see this essay used as a reason not to include a denial - of whatever kind - even though numerous high-quality secondary sources cover it. "Doesn't matter that all these sources report that John Doe himself denies supporting Badguyism; including it is FALSEBALANCE because MANDY."
I support userfication, deprecation, or whatever. This essay dates from 2019 and is useless at best, and at worst aids and abets tendentious editing and BLP violations. It obviously contradicts the policy as shown above. Crossroads-talk-17:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Since you are, as I recall, one of the editors who has advocated the inclusion of "denials" when the matters in question are neither accusations nor incidents, I regard your input on the matter as part of the problem, not part of the solution. Newimpartial (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I support the "moved to user space" option of the proposal, which if I understand WP:USERESSAY means moving to the page of the user who created it, JzG. Sure, but is approval here on WT:BLP sufficient? I doubt that WP:MANDY was produced with an RfC consensus so I doubt that an RfC consensus is really necessary for moving, but don't know about precedents. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose moving this useful essay out of essay-space. Wikipedia policy/guideline discussion should not be the sort of autocratic rule in which we suppress even the whisper of dissent. Essays that explicitly oppose certain interpretations of our core guidelines (and let's be clear: the idea that we must uncriticically echo every politician's bleating that "it was only a joke" is an interpretation, not the guideline itself) are an important check on WP:CREEP and should be maintained. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The problem would be resolved if the essay would “explicitly oppose” the BLP policy, for example if we could put a tag at the top of it saying so. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Given the provisions of WP:BLPSELFPUB 1., I don't think the essay opposes anything in BLP. It opposes the way certain editors are inclined to interpret BLPPUBLIC, but that is its job. Newimpartial (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
In every instance where a reliable source describes an accusation of wrongdoing, and then says (without elaboration) that the accused person denies it, MANDY would have us omit that from the BLP. That’s 99% of denials. IMHO, such a broad exception to BLP would (1) violate BLP, and (2) very frequently lead readers to conclude that the absence of any denial implies an admission. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
It’s a fairly common legal concept, and you can find “implied admission” discussed all over the place, e.g. “silence or failure to deny renders the statement admissible against him as an implied admission.”[4]. More generally, silence is acquiescence. But the legal stuff is just based on common sense, and one can find that in literature, e.g. “She may not have said it in so many words; but she never denied it when I said it.”[5]. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
People often argue that Mandy isn't a matter of law, but in fact the original statement by Mandy was in a court case. 94% of people in American criminal cases plead guilty. If someone pleads not guilty it doesn't make sense to say "Well, they would say that".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Also note that an instance where a reliable source ... says ... that the accused person denies it, MANDY says to ignore the denial as it lacks independent sourcing. This is the same principle by which we ignore for notability purposes those instances where periodicals reprint material from a corporate press release. In any instance where independent sourcing exists in relation to the denial, MANDY does not apply.
Finally, please note that the BLPPUBLIC provisions you are trying to engage here only apply to denials of accusations or incidents, not to random interpretations of, e.g., political pronouncements or decisions about which a public figure may issue a denial. The issuance of a denial does not imply the prior existence of an accusation. Newimpartial (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Doesn’t Wikipedia include quotations all the time when the statement is quoted by reliable sources, without any reliable source saying the quoted statement is accurate? Whenever reliable sources report about a disagreement, we often quote the disagreeing people, instead of waiting for the reliable sources to tell us who is right then quoting only them. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't know about all the time. We rely on RS to tell us when there is a "disagreement" where we need to BALANCE two sides, and where we have a consensus reality and then an interested party that disagrees. In the latter case, and where there is no legal or quasi-legal "accusation", I don't know that we make a point of quoting people who deny the thing that most sources agree upon, unless their denials themselves become a point of the RS coverage of the issue. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Where there is no general agreement among reliable sources, Wikipedia reports multiple perspectives with attribution. That has nothing to do with MANDY. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Except by being covered in "reliable sources" it is not true that the denial lacks independent sourcing. Reporting that as part of the story is nothing like a reprint of a press release. It is tendentious to use a source for negative material but then reject that same source's coverage of a BLP's denial because of MANDY. Crossroads-talk-21:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it depends on the nature of the coverage. Coverage that evaluates an allegation against a denial lends WEIGHT to both, so MANDY doesn't apply. Coverage that describes an incident at length, and then mentions in passing that the subject denies that anything happened, does not lend WEIGHT to the denial any more than a parroted press release would: in that case, MANDY applies. Newimpartial (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The fact that the source chose to include it as part of the story does lend weight. This is nothing like a reprinted press release, which is a notability issue that has nothing to do with BLP anyway. The fact that MANDY helps create this viewpoint which directly contradicts actual policy is why it is a problem. Per WP:BLPPUBLIC: If an allegation or incident [note: not just an incident but "allegations"] is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it....If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported. Crossroads-talk-04:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Support a downgrade. One of the big issues with this essay is editors often decide for themselves and their own opinions when a denial/rebuttal is MANDY vs when it is a reasonable reply. This opens up a lot of room for issues with violating IMPARTIAL and BLP issues. I find it hard to believe including a denial/rebuttal would ever make an article worse. Springee (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Have you read point 1? It says not to include unduly self-serving statements, which includes the kind of denial at issue here. Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
BLPSELFPUB only applies to SELFPUB sources (obviously), yet you yourself in your 18:43, 16 June 2022 comment say MANDY tells us to reject denials in reliable sources, which itself contradicts the last paragraph of WP:BLPPUBLIC. A perfect example of how this essay is used to overrule policy.Crossroads-talk-21:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
What MANDY actually tells us is that in cases where the denial exists only in X's own words and no reliable source has any independent fact-finding showing contradictory evidence then Hitchen's razor may apply. But if a reliable source has checked the denial and ... discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so in our articles. What MANDY makes clear is that there is no BLP requirement to give bio subjects a "right of rebuttal", but there never was one, anyway - BLPPUBLIC doesn't say any such thing, and there isn't any conflict between MANDY and policy.
Obviously, a troupe of editors has gathered here that objects to the interpretation of policy Mandy offers, such as its key example:
If X is accused of being a white nationalist, and investigation has shown that X publishes white nationalist talking points but has not self-identified as a white nationalist, then the fix is not to add a self-sourced denial, it's to frame the statement as an accusation and establish the basis for it and the error bars around it: "X is described by multiple sources as a white nationalist".
You, and Springee, and perhaps Anythingyouwant, apparently disagree with this treatment and want to see denials that BLP subjects are white nationalists, or anti-trans activists, more widely included in articles even when the BLP subject is the only one who disagrees, and where no accusation or incident is involved that would even trigger BLPPUBLIC. But pretending that policy can only be interpreted the way you read it, so MANDY is counter to policy, is right there in your rhetorical toolbox. Sigh. Newimpartial (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
There indeed never was a "right of rebuttal", so MANDY could only be fighting things that are sourced to RS. Its sole non-redundant use is to counteract BLP and NPOV policies to lend weight to accusations. Its a culture war thing and its history and date of creation in the post-Trump era confirms this for me.
Rather than trying to paint opponents as defenders of white nationalists and anti-trans activists, you may want to consider that we have reason to want Wikipedia to keep its dispassionate tone and not turn into culture-warrior preaching-to-the-choir like "Rational"Wiki.
Of course claims that someone is a white nationalist or "anti-trans" counts as an "accusation" or "allegation" per BLPPUBLIC. How could it not be? And MANDY's claims that actual white nationalists, etc. don't wish to be called such seems out of touch with reality. People like Richard B. Spencer are quite open about what they believe and call for.
Nothing I have said means that we need to treat denials as of equal weight with independent analysis in reliable secondary sources. The problem here is the argument to exclude it entirely. Crossroads-talk-04:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I hope to cut to the chase here - your key claim is Of course claims that someone is a white nationalist or "anti-trans" counts as an "accusation" or "allegation" per BLPPUBLIC. How could it not be? The answer, which should be obvious, is WP is supposed to follow the sources, and treat these as facts when sources treat them as facts, and allegations when sources treat them as allegarions. Again and again I have seen you, and other like-minded editors, insist that these terms must be treated as labels even when sources -academic sources included - treat them as factual statements, and report no dispute over them except for MANDY denials. It is clear that there is no consensus for this approach, in discussions at MOS elsewhere, but there comes the wrench out of your toolbox to say that we should include denials that have been given no credence except by the person making them (and, often, the corollary argument that we should be attributing statements on which all RS ageee, treating them as "allegations" even though literally the only remotely plausible source doing so is - you guessed it- the BLP subject themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 10:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This stuff about in-text attribution, and misrepresentations of my position (and making it about me in general) is a distraction. What we've actually discussed is that such accusations (white nationalism, anti-trans, whatever) shouldn't be treated as gospel truth if large portions of sources did not indicate agreement, via either not mentioning the claim when discussing the person, or by using their own in-text attribution. Yet, here at 21:20, 9 March 2022, you advocated to treat such a claim in wikivoice unless sources specifically argued against the claim.
An allegation can turn out to be true, or be supported by most RS, but it doesn't justify total expungement of the denial if that same denial is reported in RS. This essay advocates editors thinking they know better than the RS. Crossroads-talk-00:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
What we are actually talking about here is cases where the sources don't treat something as an "accusation" or an "allegation", but you somehow *know* that it is accusation so you think the subject is entitled to have their denials mentioned in WP articles. That is precisely the position that MANDY is arguing against, which explains your energy directed Tbdeprecating MANDY. Newimpartial (talk) 10:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Springee there's nothing in MANDY that overrides consensus among the editors at a discussion. It's not going to be used to prevent valid content for which there's consensus. Editors with dissents from consensus can't blame it on MANDY. They just did not win support for their analysis of sourcing and WEIGHT. SPECIFICOtalk18:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Editors frequently cite MANDY as a justification for exclusion. If it doesn't sway the outcomes of discussions then it shouldn't be an issue to downgrade the essay. Springee (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Numerous principles are cited in talk page discussions, which are essentially about WP:ONUS and WP:WEIGHT. Any number of things sway outcomes, but there's no one thing that solely determine outcomes. Consider it a yardstick by which to measure RS coverage of the associated issues. SPECIFICOtalk19:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC).
Oppose. Like anything else, the inclusion of denials is subject to WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ONUS, and editorial consensus; our core policies make it clear that no content is mandated for inclusion. These policies are more central than an offhand note in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. And it is clearly not common practice to automatically include denials, so it is the wording of PUBLICFIGURE that ought to be toned down. Even WP:BLPCRIME only says that we must strongly consider not suggesting that someone has committed a crime without a conviction; it is absurd to suggest that the suggestion to include denials must be given more weight than that. The significance of a denial depends on many things, including coverage, due weight, and where it was published - the idea that we must automatically include denials sourced to eg. someone's verified Twitter account, a Reddit post, or a random Youtube video does not pass a sniff test. Our job as editors is to reflect what the gist of the best sources say, not to trawl through every single thing someone has said for an obscure forum post somewhere denying something; at its most extreme, the interpretation of PUBLICFIGURE people are suggestion above essentially invites WP:OR where an editor goes over a subject's entire eg. Twitter timeline looking for exculpatory tweets that can be included in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
There is a balance here. Per both MANDY and policy, we don't want to include self serving rebuttals that aren't covered in RSes, but we do have a responsibility to include directly-connection denials of whatever they have been accused of due to BLP, even if that is only on that person's verified social media. The Is an art to this; if the denial exists only only from SPS, the that's literally just a sentence or part of one ("which they denied.") But never more than that. When the rebuttle is covered in depth by RSes, then its fair to go into it more. MANDY should just not be used to eliminate any such denial that meys minimum sourcing inclusion, but ghat doesnt mean that the other bounding aspext of self serving info also doesnt apply. --Masem (t) 22:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Hm. It occurs to me that prominence is also a part of due weight, which WP:PUBLICFIGURE covers. So, to answer NewImpartial's example... suppose we have someone who is famous as a white nationalist, and who is described as such (uncontroversially and in the article voice) in basically every source covering them, as their primary point of notability. They've denied being one somewhere but it has no coverage whatsoever. In that case, even by the most rigid reading of PUBLICFIGURE, an appropriate way to handle that would be to describe them as a white nationalist in the lead, with no mention of their denial, and to have a few words mentioning their denial somewhere deep in the body (ie. with relative weight appropriate to something that has had no coverage whatsoever when weighed against literally all WP:RS coverage of them.) That is obviously an extreme example, but the general principal might be a reasonable compromise. My experience is that people generally try to use WP:PUBLICFIGURE to argue that we must include the denial in the lead, or anywhere anything negative is mentioned, which it definitely doesn't support; and that MANDY is largely invoked in those arguments about highly-prominent mentions. Even then, though, I don't think PUBLICFIGURE requires that the subject be given an automatic WP:ABOUTSELF voice for every single point about their biography, only allegations and incidents; the bar on self-published sources for unduly self-serving things is important. --Aquillion (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I actually agree that self-published denials aren't necessary, at least not on social media, and people definitely shouldn't be trawling for such. (If they put out some sort of official statement about some major controversy, that can be a decision for local consensus perhaps.) My concern is MANDY's use to exclude material from published secondary RS, especially the mainstream media. Crossroads-talk-04:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it's important to note that the standard for SPSBLP is "unduly self serving", not just "self serving". I would distinguish between the two by asking if the self published (or similar) material serves to move the subject back to a reputational status quo or does it elevate them beyond their starting point. This can come up in the case of a "minor celebrity" where overall coverage of the person/organization is limited. A person is accused of doing something/holding a particular believe/position by one or a few sources ideologically opposed sources (say Mother Jones reports they were charged with embezzling funds from a charity). The person rebuts the claim on either their personal website but either no source or only Wikipedia has deemed not generally reliable report the claim. Perhaps they provided the court records saying evidence from after the MJ publishing date made it clear they weren't embezzling and the charges were dropped). It is clearly self serving for them to refute the claims against them but it is not unduly self serving as the net result is to get back to a reputational zero point. It would be unduly self serving to publish a follow up claim that they actually brilliantly invested the funds resulting in a strong fiscal return for the charity. The latter claim tends to bolster them beyond the reputational starting. Springee (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Also, belatedly, I do want to take specific issue with this: This seems like a wise policy, somewhat similar to journalists’ well-known ethical obligation to “Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing.” That is a journalist's obligation to perform what we would call original research. I strenuously disagree with the argument that WP:PUBLICFIGURE allows (let alone encourages or mandates) us to do the same thing - if there is a well-known denial we can consider it even if self-published, but pouring over someone's entire oeuvre to find a denial is WP:OR and is broadly inappropriate. We rely on journalists (and other WP:RSes) to do that sort of research for us; we don't pull up obscure tweets and surface them ourselves in order to try and change reader's opinions or to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS against article subjects. I feel that that interpretation of PUBLICFIGURE treads too close to suggesting that Wikipedia should be a source for publishing and disseminating new arguments that the article's subject has made even if they have received no coverage - that definitely isn't the case. Even at its most rigid interpretation, PUBLICFIGURE requires only the bare "which they denied", somewhere in the body, with no further detail. It does not require (and, when dealing with self-published sources making self-serving claims, does not allow) an extensive in-depth response from the subject, just the bare minimum note of denial somewhere in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Since we are often dealing with BLP, it is always better to err on the side of do no harm. Again, remember that the standard is unduly self serving. A denial is almost never unduly as it tends to only get someone back to a starting point. If an editor is accused of adding OR to an article, finding that they didn't doesn't raise their overall reputation, it just put them back where they were before the claim was made. Springee (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
AFAIK, no one has suggested “pouring over someone's entire oeuvre to find a denial.” But we should pour over the reliable sources, and if we find a denial of wrongdoing in the reliable sources then it should normally go into the BLP if the BLP discusses the alleged wrongdoing, rather than being excluded per MANDY merely because people supposedly always deny wrongdoing. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
What I think we should especially not be doing is treating something as alleged wrongdoing - and therefore including a denial - when the only source treating the topic as "alleged wrongdoing" is the BLP subject themselves, in their denial. This is undue deference to the statements of a BLP subject, which violates WP:NPOV and is something WP:BLP tells us not to do. This is actually the instance I see MANDY cited most often: in instances that only the subject themselves considers to be "°allegations". Newimpartial (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
UNDUE implies that we should be hesitant to mention allegations based on one single source - no matter who that single source is. If we don’t mention the allegation then there is no need to mention a denial. Blueboar (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Right, but I was referring to facts or descriptors that multiple RS report as simple pieces of consensus reality, not as "allegations". Newimpartial (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose moving, re-namespacing, or otherwise changing the status quo, which I'm not convinced is broken (apart from the larger issue of making arguments by pointing to opaque, abbreviated jargon, which this discussion will not fix). XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Oppose moving the essay, and also oppose using it in the way that it often is. A simple statement that "Doe denies the accusation" (if, of course, it is verifiable that Doe does in fact deny it) takes up little space, and is not "undue". It is then up to the reader, as it should be, to evaluate the credibility of both the accusation and the denial. But the fact that Doe asserts that the claim is false is clearly relevant, even if in the end the denial is not in any way credible. That said, however, essays are generally given wide latitude to express minority viewpoints—but they should not be treated as policy, and certainly never overrule policy. If people want to use "MANDY" as an argument in content discussions, start an actual RfC to make it a guideline or policy. Until and unless that happens, such arguments should be ignored. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Ignoring MANDY arguments sounds like a good option. As you say, including a denial need not occupy more than three or four words (e.g. “which X denies”), but this very brevity is used by MANDY as the main reason to exclude the denial: “if the only statement is that ‘X denies the accusations’ then we don't need to include it”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment. Not really up to speed on the specific question at hand with the essay, but I do want to echo Seraphimblade's comment above in that denials do not get automatic inclusion as there is typically a due weight consideration. In the realm is usually deal with it, it's usually a case of WP:FRINGE and WP:BLPSELFPUB, specifically there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity . . .. I have definitely come across cases where it basically was a crackpot making a sort of dog at my homework excuse in court proceedings, etc. It's a high bar for self-published sources, and that part of policy sometimes gets overlooked, but even if a newspaper happens to cover the response, it doesn't always necessitate a tit-for-tat response from the BLP subject being included in the article. Sometimes the allegation is all that meets the DUE bar, and we do need to be wary about giving BLP subjects special privileges that would violate NPOV policy in that manner. KoA (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Sure, User:KoA, there’s “typically a due weight consideration“ but that’s typically for choosing between the accused person’s detailed tit-for-tat response versus only the mere three words (eleven letters) “s/he denies it”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Generally no, that they deny something is not required, and more often than not in my experience, we have to cut off fringe BLP subjects from having their denial stated at all to comply with policy. There's a variable bar that has to be met depending on the subject as to if the ball is back in the BLP subject's court or not. KoA (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
User:KoA, you speak of denying “something”. I agree with you that this BLP policy does not generally require us to include denials of “something”. If an incident happened according to all reliable secondary sources, then we don’t necessarily have to include a denial. But if an incident hasn’t been verified according to the reliable secondary sources, and all they verify is an allegation, then this BLP policy does require us to include denial at least with the three words “he s/he denies it”. The policy is very clear on this point: “If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported, while adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance.” Including allegations without denials would likely be inferred as an admission, or an assertion by Wikipedia that the BLP subject is a liar so any denial is not worth mentioning. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Then if someone denies "nothing" then it's moot point, so it's always "something".
Either way, BLP policy is pretty clear, though part of the reason I commented here is because people have been skimming over the latter part of what you quoted, including yourself. That part says should, not must, and it has a bunch of qualifiers. False balance is a huge issue in many such denials depending on subject, so the caution here is not to be so quick to generalize that even three words are needed. BLP has carveouts for that. KoA (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I too support userification/whatever other downgrade of the essay. I think two comments in this discussion have hit the nail on the head here: In every instance where a reliable source describes an accusation of wrongdoing, and then says (without elaboration) that the accused person denies it, MANDY would have us omit that from the BLP. That’s 99% of denials (Anythingyouwant), and Its sole non-redundant use is to counteract BLP and NPOV policies to lend weight to accusations (Crossroads). We should not host essays which advise editors to ignore existing BLP policy on denials anymore than we should host essays which advise editors that there isn't really any reason to cite sources (and should thus ignore WP:V), or that Wikipedia can be a good place publish their own novel theories on subjects (and should thus ignore WP:NOR), etc. Endwise (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
As an additional point, regarding those who say that claiming that someone is e.g. racist aren't "allegations" and so what is discussed in WP:MANDY doesn't apply to this part of BLP policy, how is being accused of racism meaningfully different than being accused of being adulterous or anything else? Why is it any different at all to see an article with a source that says something like Jane Doe claimed that John Doe cheated on her. John has denied Jane's accusation and delete any mention of John's denial of Jane's accusation from the article, writing in your edit summary Well, he would, wouldn't he? See WP:MANDY? Why is it any different when the accusation is of racism rather than, say, adultery? Endwise (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I also support moving to userspace. The one policy this essay cites is WP:FALSEBALANCE, a policy focused on addressing "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories, and how those "should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." The essay uses the policy as a springboard to argue that even reliably sourced denials of allegations be excluded, which is exactly how this essay is being misused on mainspace; it is frequently linked to in edit summaries removing denials sourced to even FA-level ("high quality") publications.A litany of users have been raising concerns about this essay's content on its talk page for over 2 years now: see here and here. It needs either user-fication, or a healthy dose of WP:TNT to make it align with actual policy. Either way, it clearly can't stay in its current format. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Support removal as an essay because it appears to be a band-aid to avoid addressing these issues where they need to be addressed, which is BLP policy. Whether denials should be included should not be left to WP:LOCALCON on whether WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:NPOV, WP:PUBLICFIGURE and others apply, it should have a clear guideline or policy to point to that says "When only X says they are not Foo, do this", "When reliable sources cover X saying they are not Foo, do this", "When reliable sources disagree on X being Foo, do this." And to those who say BLP is clear- the existence of this essay, this discussion and the need to point to multiple policies show it is indeed not clear on the issue. Slywriter (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Support downgrade mostly because MANDY appears to be born from a cultural catch phrase, and a bunch of mental gymnastics whose only purpose is imposing editing restrictions on content, but there is very little there actually backed up by any policy. The only policy mentioned is Not a newspaper and NPOV but both are represented very poorly in a way that conflicts with policy. My big problem with the way NPOV is being represented is the statements: We don't legitimise fringe views just because they are asserted by an article subject. And the same would apply to content about any other controversial subject. The problem here is that there is a big difference between legitimizing a fringe view or controversial subject, and being able to mention it in an article neutrally without making it a legitimate fact. The whole premise of the essay suggests that editors are somehow not able to put content in without creating a false sense of balance, so they shouldn't be allowed to. My other problem is with the statement: If a reliable source has checked the denial and confirmed its basis in fact or discussed its credibility, we can certainly say so, but if the only statement is that "X denies the accusations" then we don't need to include it because, well, he would, wouldn't he? this is pretty much asking editors to do their own original research rather than simply reporting what the sources are saying. In other words, the advice is: find out if the denial is actually plausible, credible, or true, and then it's ok, but if it's just a source saying that somebody denied it then it isn't ok because they probably did [whatever they denied doing]. We were never called for including only stuff we think is true, but not including stuff just because we think it isn't, otherwise we would never have articles on topics like Flat Earth or Bigfoot. I also agree there is a conflict with BLP. Huggums537 (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please do so below or initiate a thread at the village pump.
. But if that’s not going to work then I’d support firmer measures. While MANDY was never a formal proposal to modify any policy, it seems clearly like an informal proposal to modify the BLP policy, so this template could be apt. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
There have been lots of interesting comments about this, some supporting removal to user space, or outright deletion, while others prefer to give a lot of leeway to exercise free speech via essays. The template I’ve suggested immediately above is a compromise that respects both sides, and no one has objected to it, so I am inclined to start a formal RFC about it at the MANDY essay’s talk page, while pinging everyone who has commented here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
"Nobody has objected" is not the standard here. You have not gained consensus in favor of your proposal and I think it basically died on the vine. SPECIFICOtalk22:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn’t make any particular proposal at the top of this section, did I. What I said was that “I am curious whether editors agree there’s a conflict between WP:MANDY and this BLP policy….” And I mentioned several different things that could be done. So now, having gauged sentiment, I’m ready to make a firm proposal. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
There's an overwhelming consensus to do something to rein in Mandy, and so I plan on starting an RFC over at the Mandy talk page, to simply put the template at the top, without moving, erasing, or modifying Mandy. The following list of people who have commented here is alphabetical by first letter of username....
1) Anythingyouwant: A denial in RS of wrongdoing in a BLP should normally go into the BLP, so Mandy is wrong.
2) Blueboar: Other options for people who don't like Mandy include editing that essay and/or writing an opposing essay.
3) Crossroads: Supports userfication, deprecation, etc. because Mandy shouldn't exclude denials in reliable secondary sources.
4) Endwise: Supports userification or whatever other downgrade of Mandy.
5) Homeostasis07: Supports moving Mandy to userspace, or WP:TNT to align Mandy with policy, it can't stay as-is.
6) Huggums537: Supports downgrading Mandy because there's a conflict with BLP.
7) Jack Upland: Agrees there's a problem with Mandy.
8) KoA: BLP says denials "should" not "must" be included, but "not really up to speed" on the issue with Mandy.
9) Masem: Mandy is right to bar self-serving rebuttals that aren't in RSes, but wrong to bar properly-sourced denials.
10) Peter Gulutzan: Supports moving Mandy to user space.
11) Seraphimblade: Opposes using Mandy as it often is used, i.e. to overule policy, but also opposes moving Mandy.
12) Slywriter: Supports removal of Mandy because it tries to fix by local consensus what needs to be addressed in BLP policy.
13) Specifico: Mandy is not the big bad wolf, consensus among the editors at a discussion can override Mandy.
14) Springee: Supports downgrading Mandy; even denials of allegations in self-published sources are OK if not too self-serving.
Incidentally, this essay recently came up during a discussion I was having at BLPN but I think that discussion is over and moot now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The issue is not moot if OP is still advocating article text that elevates the politician's "clarification" of his comments to the status of a specific denial of fact or opinion. There is related discussion on the article talk page. SPECIFICOtalk14:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Please do not move this comment (again), I am replying to the one immediately above stamped 14:19. I mentioned this matter at the end of my OP. The matter is moot. The text in question has been removed from the BLP in question, that’s fine with me. You said “If you think you can draft valid article content based on the feedback you've gotten, I'll review it.” I am not drafting any more article content about that issue, or seeking a continued discussion about it. MANDY was not even relevant in the first place. But it is now if you move this comment in which I am seeking to deny your immediately-preceding comment. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
We are not talking about a denial that is reported by the WEIGHT of RS as substantive and credible or that is reported as significant to the public, a legal proceeding, or the denier's reputation. We are, in this and other cases invovling politicians, talking about individuals who seek to amend their comments following adverse public reaction. They claim to be "clarifying" or explaining a little joke, or claiming sarcasm or equivocation. When RS report those as deflections, or not credible, or of no public significance we have not included them in articles I've seen. This has come up many times in recent American Politics articles SPECIFICOtalk14:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The OP mentioned that at the end of his initial comment here. The relevant text has been removed from the relevant BLP, and the OP is fine with that, and is not proposing any text to replace text that has been deleted. In any event, MANDY was not relevant in the first place, as explained at BLPN. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC) (the OP)
I should say (though I touched on this above) that I definitely don't think "clarifications" fall under the WP:BLPPUBLIC bit about denials. That's a dangerous road that would effectively require the subject's response to, or alternative take on, absolutely anything in their article. BLPPUBLIC is much more narrow - it's about direct, complete denials for specific events or accusations. You can't use it to say "no, I'm six feet tall, not 5'11." --Aquillion (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Just want to present a few other options… 1) WP:OWN applies to essay space… if enough editors disagree with a specific part of an essay, they can edit the essay to better represent consensus. Alternatively, 2) Essays are cheap… If an essay is representative of the opinion of one faction of wikipedians, but another faction disagrees with it… that second faction can write an essay that presents the “counter argument”. Blueboar (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I have been thinking (always a bad thing, I know)… While MANDY is focused on denials, the logic behind MANDY could apply to allegations as well as denials. If a right leaning newspaper labels a left leaning politician as “far left”… If an advocacy group labels someone with a negative label related to their advocacy (“racist”, “transphobic”, “nazi”, etc)… when a woman makes a “me too” accusation against a man… couldn’t we say: “well they would, wouldn’t they?” to dismiss the accusation? Blueboar (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
We absolutely need more restraint in rushing to include allegations and similar aspects. Just because one or two sources may carry the allegation, that doesn't mean it needs to be included, particularly if that a tiny fraction of available sources about the person. This approach is what has led to our articles on many BLPs being laundry lists of negative points, most which do not have the long-term significance for an encyclopedic article. We need to focus on inclusions of allegations that are widely spoken about and have impacted the person in some serious manner, which may mean that we have to wait to include recent allegations until we know they are serious. --Masem (t) 12:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree that this is a logical parallel. If the SPLC says "X is a hate group" should we dismiss that by saying "of course the SPLC labels them that way. The SPLC labels everyone they don't like a hater/hate group."
MANDY for all purposes is an extension of UNDUE (the idea of including an "obvious" rebuttal). The decision to not include not-yet-widespread allegations or other similar is also UNDUE but with the weight of BLP's "do no harm" concept. Masem (t) 18:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I noticed user User:Ssoppysystematically removing the word "openly" in all instances of "openly gay." I haven't reverted any of those edits, but I've asked them to pause unless there is a consensus on this. I found one previous discussion from 2009 regarding whether "openly" is redundant in the phrase; participants in that discussion mostly agreed that it was redundant. I'd agree that it is redundant within the context of BLP policy, in that Wikipedia would never report that someone was gay unless they were open. However, the average reader of Wikipedia may not be aware of this policy, and as such "openly" may be read as synonymous with "out." OhNoitsJamieTalk14:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I skimmed through some of those removals and think they were improvements. There are definitely cases, like Nancy Ruth, where we need the "openly" in "first openly lesbian senator", so I can't say removal is useful in every conceivable case. Unless there's a sign that Ssoppy is missing this distinction, I say we let em loose. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
In the majority of the cases it's redundant because there would be a source where the individual talks about their sexuality. But as Firefangledfeathers noted, there are times, e.g. here, where the "openness" part is itself notable. So maybe a warning to the editor to be more careful would suffice. ...discospinstertalk20:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
BLP policy only applies to living people. There are many examples of long-dead historical figures who are commonly regarded as having been gay, but not openly gay. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I would agree that it is usually unnecessary to use “openly”, but its not wrong to use it. And there are situations where use might actually be helpful. Judge on a case by case basis. Don’t go on a disruptive crusade to remove (or to keep) it. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I partial-blocked the user from article space in an attempt to get them to join the discussion, but they've resumed making the edits as soon as the 1-hour block expired. I haven't seen any removals akin to the Nancy Ruth example, but there's a few like this, where Coming out was piped to "openly gay." OhNoitsJamieTalk21:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I think that one's fine too. The link to Coming out wasn't particularly needed. I don't view their edits as disruptive, but I think it's a reasonable interpretation. Right or wrong, once the concern was raised, they should have paused their run of edits. Not stopping after the block makes it worse. I hope they get the message soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not gay so my comment shouldn't be given much weight. Some might not others to know you're gay, they don't talk about it, but the fact was leaked. Others who readily talk about it publicly. What's considered BLPRS on the matter? Adakiko (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm having a hard time imagining a scenario where Wikipedia would report that a living person was gay if the person was not out. Richard Simmons is an example where we mention that there has been speculation about the person's sexuality (which in that case has been widely reported on), but we leave it at that. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Side note: while looking for examples, came across a BLP violation in the Matt Drudge article and removed it. While the book does mention that, allegedly going to gay clubs is insufficient to apply labels or categories here. OhNoitsJamieTalk22:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Requesting inputs about WP policies regarding, WP:BLP protocols and naming of the accused in relation to mentions of allegations and counter allegations in the given article, against a female victim of sexual assault, her associates and also other accused.
Strongly Oppose. Not being able to clarify "doubters", "skeptics" and "deniers" is in-fact not following NPOV at all- tons of RS in media use this, we even has an article about Climate change denial. To not being able to use these words, even if they are cited, falls under euphemisms in MoS/Words to Watch, why shouldn't the articles on WP being able to Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade? I'm perfectly sure that there would be unanimous consensus here agianst this purposal, as it's politically motivated. VickKiang (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
