Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 33

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

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

SPS on royalty

There's an interesting discussion at RS/N about some possible exceptions to the SPS rule because up-to-date sources are (allegedly) not found elsewhere. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Defamation article up to par??

I note that this policy page and WP:Libel links to Defamation which has a tag saying it needs attention from an expert, but no talk page explanation of why. Could people review it and make sure there hasn't been some weird drift in there? I'm not an expert myself. (There's a rather interesting debate at WP:BLPN about the use of WP:RS containing alleged defamatory sources that may or may not be relevant.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY: "becomes a source of dismay to their original authors"

Some editors take this advice literally and work towards it. Perhaps it needs some mellowing? FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Other advice can be found at WP:LUC if you haven't seen it. -- Atama頭 07:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's generally a good idea to address self-promoters in strong words so we have something to point them to in conflicts. It seems unlikely that many will read this first and be discouraged, but at least it helps to shut them up once they have made such a mistake. On the other hand, it does happen that misguided editors rewrite a biography to stress negative aspects as punishment for a subject who edited their own biography, often only innocently and quite reasonably correcting a mistake or removing gossip. I think it might be best to add strong words about this bad practice ad WP:BLP (more precisely WP:BLPEDIT). Only if this doesn't solve the problem would I consider watering down WP:Autobiography. Hans Adler 07:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is necessary to warn people about starting something they may come to regret, and people who are tempted to write an autobiography will almost by definition often possess a marked lack of insight. The area where I think WP might be more positive is in reassuring the subject of BLPs that it is not out to get them and that there are legitimate ways that they can help to make WP better. The real problem here is, as has been said, other editors. Even experienced ones sometimes say silly things, that what the subject knows or feels about themselves is irrelevant, and that because editors have the power to do what they like, they will. We teach children not to behave like that and rightly call it bullying behaviour, and it does not correctly reflect Wikipedia policy. If the subject of a BLP (or somebody associated with an organisation etc) says something is not true they will most likely be right and the existance of a secondary source saying otherwise will not often be conclusive. Embellishment of past achievements and omission of less edifying details (or the converse of that in attack pieces) is likely to be a problem with secondary sources as well. COI is quoted inappropriately too often, and the presumption of good faith should be invoked to protect subjects of articles unless there is good ground for doing otherwise. --AJHingston (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You had me right up until that last clause, AJH: "the presumption of good faith should be invoked to protect subjects of articles unless there is good ground for doing otherwise" is just going one step too far towards inviting the kind of self-promotion that we are dealing with every day. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Self-promotion is far too prevalent for us to tie our hands together about it. -- Atama頭 19:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mnor changes to WP:BLPCAT

FTR, the section WP:BLPCAT was edited as a result of discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Suggested change to avoid contradiction. --Orlady (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Ozzman1997/Enter your new article name here - "Sesame Street is an Afghan children's television series created by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri."

I've taken this to MfD but it needs attention now, I think, as it has clear BLP violations - to give a flavor of the article, it starts "Sesame Street is an Afghan children's television series created by Osama bin Laden and Ayman al Zawahiri." It goes on to name real people but give them fake quotes. I note that the editor's only other edits were to twice blank Wikipedia talk:Verifiability‎. I'm exhausted and off to bed with a cold so I'm posting here rather than taking any action other than this post, removing categories and taking it to MfD. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Deleted, editor blocked. Dougweller (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors running attack pages off-site

How do editors feel about incorporating a general principle in this policy that individuals hosting attack sites or blogs with disparaging content about a living person should not edit the same person's biography in Wikipedia?

People who do run attack sites on living people are often among the most motivated to contribute to the biographies of the people concerned. This is one area where our "anyone can edit" system can prove to be a great liability to the project, as well as a major inconvenience to the BLP subject concerned, as it gives the blogger or critic a potential platform on the page that is the subject's top Google hit. Providing such a platform is really not what this project was set up for, and over the years, a number of editors running attack sites have been topic-banned from the corresponding Wikipedia biographies in arbitration cases.

Potential downsides of such a principle are that it will clearly not be possible in all cases to enforce such a rule (e.g. where the on-wiki identity is unconnected to the off-wiki identity), and that it might lead to speculation and drama ("I suspect that you are the individual who runs the 'The Truth About X' blog. Are you?").

The plus side is that in some cases it may provide the community with the wherewithal to direct disruptive editors to stop editing a particular biography, before matters advance to arbitration, and that adding this as a principle might give more conscientious critics of living people enough pause for thought to see that it is morally improper for them to coöpt the open editing environment of Wikipedia as an extension of their online activism. (For the AN/I thread that gave rise to this idea, see [1].) Thoughts? --J N 466 23:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard noticeboard is probably best place to go. Though you might try contacting them about WP:Canvass and suggest they take it down. When I first started editing I had some blog comment about some article I was working on, which I must have linked to because an editor contacted me and said it could be seen as canvassing, so I took it down. Recently when searching for a phrase from an article to find the article's new link, I found an editor (using same user handle) who included the quote and complaints about how people were removing info to make this person look good. I mentioned my canvassing experience and the person didn't seem too impressed and left it up. So mentioning canvassing can work for some people but not others. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see here. Wikipedia should not allow people who openly disparage living people by name in personal blogs or on personally operated websites to edit the BLPs of those people. For one thing, it makes Wikipedia look bad that we would allow this to take place. More importantly, it just makes sense that it helps protect BLP subjects not to allow people with openly antagonistic feelings to touch the article. I think a short paragraph in this policy providing guidance on this issue would be appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What about webforums, Facebook, Digg, etc? I don't see why we should limit this proposal to just personal websites and blogs, when other websites might be even more prominent. Will Beback talk 00:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

For fairness, those who operate fan sites should also be barred. Will Beback talk 00:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

So essentially, any WP editor who says anything bad about any notable person anywhere on the internet should be barred from those BLPs. We should make sure to make extensive lists with links to all of the negative statements, so we know what articles to bar editors from. Silver seren^C 00:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That does appear to be the point of this proposal: critics (and fans) of BLP subjects should not edit those articles. In a sense, that's already policy - anyone who cannot edit neutrally should not. However we only have to look at the COIN to see that it's barely enforced. Will Beback talk 00:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that we should also extend this to printed materials as well. Will Beback talk 01:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying in a web discussion that you think Obama will ruin the country, and running a Facebook page or website titled "Obama is a twat". No one has a problem with the former. We are talking about the latter. --J N 466 01:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the difference. It's just as easy to create a blog entry as to post to a forum. Some forums have much greater prominence than blogs. And writing a book attacking or praising a subject indicates an even greater investment. I don't see the big difference where the editor has called Obama a "twat" (or a "genius") - if that's their view, and if they can't edit neutrally, then they shouldn't be editing the article. Will Beback talk 01:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Obama is a poor example here. The typical case usually concerns people of marginal notability, who are not household names, but who have somehow rubbed someone the wrong way so much that they create a web presence devoted to disparaging that person. Wikipedia is the natural place for such individuals to expand their feud with that person, and I don't think it's in our interest, and in the interest of BLP policy, to facilitate that. --J N 466 01:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This seems like major policy creep. We don't "facilitate" non-neutral editing, but we allow all kinds of people with conflicts of interest. This is really a COI issue, so that would be the appropriate place for this. If we adopt this it should not be limited to BLPs. It'd be just as bad if someone who has a campaign against baby formula, for example, is editing the relevant article. Likewise, people who are big fans probably aren't neutral either. Will Beback talk 01:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

First, of course, one also can tr to take the issue to WP:ANI as a BLP violation where it might be handled most readily. Do note, as oft discussed, there is a big difference between POV - which people can try to control in editing - and COI - where once announced editing on the actual article can lead from being barred from editing the article itself. Obviously most editors use anonymous User names which allows one to share one's POV on blogs, or even to hide COIs. Others like me didn't know better than to use an anonymous handle and people can go around doing opposition research. People with POVs that are known (like me) obviously have to be more careful, though how careful often depends on whether the majority of people on the article have the same or opposite POVs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Those are some good points. Historically, policies that are based on the off-Wiki status of a person have been difficult to enforce. That's largely and inevitably due to the fact that we allow pseudonyms. It's also due to mixed feelings about what level of involvement in a topic is sufficient to represent a conflict of interest. That's evident here, where some argue that negative forum postings aren't a problem but blog postings are. I think the logical way to address this would be to add a line to WP:COI saying that writing about a topic in a non-neutral way off-Wiki creates an on-Wiki COI. Will Beback talk 02:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering that all articles already must be neutral in tone and based upon RS, this policy suggestion is pointless.--Fasttimes68 (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This should not be a separate policy by itself. Running an attack site may be taken as a proof of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, but I would consider it appropriate for someone who slams Barack Obama on his blog to edit his article -- speaking as a Barack Obama supporter -- so long as the edits comply with policy. elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 02:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Telling other editors that the individual currently runs the page, and bringing it up when there are particularly problematic edits helps. If they said something offhand displaying a POV a long time ago on some hard to find website, obviously not as relevant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not articles like Obama. The problem is people who have five editors watching their BLP, and one guy on the Internet who really, really, hates them and starts editing their bio. --J N 466 04:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. In the Derek Smart article, linked to from the ArbCom motion request I linked to above, I was aghast to find that an editor who was operating an Internet campaign against Derek Smart, including running a webpage filled with pages and pages of negative information about the guy, was allowed to make content suggestions on the Derek Smart article talk page. If we had something in this policy about that, it would make it easier administratively to police this kind of stuff. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This proposal would have the affect of automatically topic banning a class of people, many of whom have not yet edited Wikipedia. that's unprecedented. By contrast, the COI guideline merely suggests that people edit with caution no matter how great their conflict of interest.

And what if someone who has made off-Wiki postings or written a critical book comes here to edit under a pseudonym. Would they be violating WP:SOCK because they haven't revealed that they have been automatically disqualified? Will Beback talk 05:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You seem to take a perverse pleasure in misrepresenting what is being proposed.

We are not talking about people who have written a critical book.
We are not talking about journalists who have written a critical article.
We are not talking about editors who have written "George Bush is an idiot" in a web discussion.

What we are talking about is this:

We are talking about people running an attack site dedicated to vilifying and disparaging a marginally notable living person who has a Wikipedia biography.

Experience shows that when people running such a site edit the Wikipedia biography of their target, it tends to be problematic, causing problems that often take months to resolve, while causing significant distress to the BLP subject. I fail to see how it benefits the project. --J N 466 12:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If any such editors are in the process of systematically attempting to disparage a BLP, the situation can already be dealt with via existing policies - and I would prefer it remain that way not only to avoid instruction creep, but because the proposed policy, as written, does leave some room for ambiguity. You have pointed out what your intention was, and I understand it, but the proposed wording is more broad than you intended (though perhaps not quite as broad as Will Beback's interpretation). Kansan (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I had not actually proposed a wording. I just wanted to sound out views on the general principle. In my view, letting someone who runs a website named "John Smith is a prat" (or worse) edit John Smith's biography is asking for trouble. I also disagree with the view that these problems are usually quickly resolved. Editors of that bent are often very occasional contributors, focused on a very small number of articles, with gaps of many months between edits. That is enough to skew a little edited and little watched biography, and enough, once the BLP subject notices, to cause us a few PR problems. What doesn't help either is that the number of BLPs we have increases daily, while there is no corresponding increase in the number of core editors maintaining them. I'll be happy to be proved wrong. :) --J N 466 16:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

By their edits, ye shall judge them. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Jesanj (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. There seems to be a broad assumption on the part of some of this discussion's participants that equates "writes negatively about a subject elsewhere on the internet" to "cannot write neutrally about a subject here on Wikipedia". While the former certainly may indicate a tendency toward the latter, I am uncomfortable making an automatic assumption to that effect. I am also uncomfortable with the bandying about of the term "conflict of interest". I am decidedly unclear on what pecuniary, political, or judicial interest is at issue here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What a great conversation. I find myself sympathetic with almost everyone's viewpoint. (The one thing I saw that I would strongly disagree with is Cla68's suggestion that people who have a strong viewpoint shouldn't be allowed to even make suggestions on the talk page.)

I'd actually like to suggest that, properly enforced, existing policy and community norms already mostly take care of this. If someone is behaving off-wiki in a fashion that could be objectively agreed to be "running an attack site" (or anything similar: blog, forum, intensive ranting in multiple venues) and then brings that to Wikipedia, I think admins would quite properly take that into account when deciding whether or not to bar that person from editing a particular article. That's just good judgment, and I think it's pretty uncontroversial.

But it is judgment, and it seems quite hard, per even JN466's caveats upon starting this discussion, to come up with a "rule" that would adequately capture the notion that we'd all or nearly all agree upon. What I'd say, reading JN466's last comment, is that existing policy covers this quite easily. If you see someone doing that, just block them. Easy peasy. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's annoying to see Jimbo saying what I was about to say. Agreeing with Jimbo is too obvious. We will know better what to do in each individual case, once the full context of the situation is in front of us, than we will now: so we don't need to feel compelled to come up with a general rule to dictate further action. Our judgment is good enough here, I think. causa sui (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's difficult to come up with a "rule". On the other hand, to take the current case, dealing with it has not proved easy in practice; this thing at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephanie_Adams_(2nd_nomination) seems to have gone on for five years. As far as I understand it, it involves one very upset BLP subject, endless OTRS actions, a feud between the subject and several bloggers, lawsuits by the subject against two of the bloggers (several of whom seem to have edited her BLP), etc. [2] [3] [4]. The article is now at AfD, and will probably be redirected; but I wonder if there is not some more efficient way of dealing with such situations. The waste of time is enormous. --J N 466 19:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, speeding up efficiency would help. With problems ranging from people running attack pages, to people secretly working for organizations or governments, to people who are just plain mentally ill, it's amazing wikipedia survives at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

COMMENT Carol, Wikipedia actually doesn't "survive" in the sense you mean. Its reputation for BLP issues in the media and the public has not survived and (since the John Seigenthaler incident) is probably unrepairable without drastic policy changes. The reason is that WP's core editing values (WP:RS and WP:V) are not consistent with having anonymous editors write BLPs based on (at best case) what they find in print media. As example of this, read WP:OTTO as a warning. The Stephanie Adams case mentioned above, which at least involves a real person, is another travesty.

The fix here is not a "more efficient way" of dealing with these problems. There are too many BLPs (hundreds of thousands) and not enough volunteers, and no "efficient way" to replace the human brain. Also, the cost of mistakes is far higher with BLP than for obscure science-topic articles.

The fix, of course, is simply to have many fewer BLPs. The number allowed on WP now is a legacy issue that WP simply "fell into" and that has been kept (so far as I can tell) out of sheer bloodymindedness, as a sop to people on WP who enjoy gossip about sports figure and celebs and their (un)favorite minor politicos. And it has been prevented from personally damaging WMF people who would ordinarily stand to suffer, along with everybody else, because WMF honchos are allowed to simply delete even RS stuff from their own bios that they don't like, and surpress BLPs about themselves if they don't want one. Indeed, WMF is not above deleting and salting embarassing BLPs of WMF people completely, as in the case of WMF's former COO, who had a BLP before she was a well-publicized felon, but not after. It's gone, even though she's far more notable than before.

Britannica, which has been dealing with BLP problem since 1911, manages the problem mainly by limiting their numbers of BLPs (and of course not letting the public edit them). It has about 120,000 total articles, of which 13-17% are bios (about the same fraction as WP) except that this number is the TOTAL of bios on Britannica; most of the 20,000 or so people bio'd in Britannica, are dead. I don't know what fraction of Britannica bios are BLPs, but it can't be more than a few thousand (not much more than the nearly 1000 BLPs in WP that still do not have a single reference). By contrast, WP struggles with 300,000 living soccer goalie BLPs or whatever, and moans that there isn't a more "efficent way" to fix the COI and false-info problems. Well, there is another way, and it is this: don't get yourself into this mess in first place. Stop BLPs altogether, or cut their number by 99%, so that you can watch them.

Will Beback's statement below about their being no anti-COI policies on WP per se, bears emphasis. The anemic BLP COI policy is a direct fallout of no COI policy anywhere else. Interestingly, I note that while WP doesn't have any overall COI policy, that hasn't stopped WMF from banning people who advocated paid editing, who they don't like. This is another case of "IAR" when somebody has the power to employ IAR. But don't imagine that IAR really applies generally to all the rest of the peon-editors and masses, who write WP. Of course, it does not. S B H arris 16:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy, I would like to take issue with the first sentence of your second paragraph. More often than not, I would say, it is difficult for either OTRS users or administrators to find the authority to topic ban or otherwise sanction an obviously disruptive user. I suspect that is because the core policies being violated are WP:NPOV/WP:V. Those are a lot harder to enforce with teeth in an efficient manner than the bog standard admin issues. Raising the matter on ANI works, sometimes, but the users who have an agenda are also usually the ones that have an amazing propensity to write tl;dr screeds. It's just not efficient for me to spend even an hour dealing with that kind of an issue. I would much rather be able to read over the situation in ten minutes, unilaterally take such action as I see fit, and then spend my remaining fifty minutes reading a journal article for my GAN. Community sanction processes have their purpose, but the fact that they are often our only weapon in dealing with matters like this is not helpful. NW (Talk) 20:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

[Insert reply to reply to me]: Yes, your comments above, and my examples below, make me think that being an inclusionist perhaps should NOT include inclusionism on BLPs. Or at least deletion of less notable ones at whatever point negative info (except when someone actually is convicted of a crime) outweighs positive. I was quite happy when mine (started by someone else, edited by me mostly with refs) was deleted. And I'm still annoyed that a self-promotional piece heavily edited by its nonnotable subject, has survived both notability and COI tags and discussion, and my complaining to a number of editors who seemed to like deleting BLPs. (I know personally and dislike the person so feel it would be COI for me to do it; plus not interested in blowback.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NW. As things stand, admins currently have to say: "In my subjective opinion only, because it's not written down anywhere, you have a COI in relation to this living person, such that I have decided to topic ban you." This can lead to long AN/I arguments, which offers yet another forum for the conflicted editor to discuss the living person, and means the admin has to spend a lot of time looking for links, and making an enemy of the person he wants to topic ban. It would be easier on admins, and fairer on the conflicted editors, if words could be agreed for the policy about COI and BLP editing. I suggested adding something here in 2009, and here in 2007, but there was little support for it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who is on COIN constantly, I will say that if someone asked me about the potential conflict of interest of a person who runs a site (or blog, or moderates a forum, or whatever) that is wholly devoted to attacking a person, I would agree that the person has a COI. As to the complaint about COI being "enforced", however... That's an empty complaint. COI is never enforced. There is nothing to enforce. WP:COI is a guideline which offers suggestions on how best to handle individuals who have conflicts of interest. It also has suggestions for people who might have a COI, and examples of ways in which those individuals can avoid disputes (declare your COI up-front, avoid controversial edits, etc.). An administrator can't decide that an editor has a COI and then block or ban them, for example. If the community decides to ban a person due to COI concerns, that's clearly enforceable. If an individual with a COI is also committing blockable offenses, such as committing vandalism, spamming, trying to out or otherwise harass someone, or harming BLPs, those people can be blocked. But I don't see how anyone can be accused of not enforcing COI when there are no means to do so. We couldn't even get the community to agree that being paid to edit Wikipedia on behalf of the subject is a bad thing, do you expect we could really give all of COI more teeth? -- Atama頭 00:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Good points. We don't prohibit editing by those who are paid to write. We don't prohibit the subjects of biographies from editing them. We don't prohibit people from editing the articles about their employers. We don't prohibit angry ex-husbands from editing their former spouses' articles. We don't prohibit political activists from editing articles about their causes, for or against. Instead, this would become the sole blanket prohibition. Will Beback talk 00:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion, if we implement something like this (and I'm leaning toward support for it), is that even though it seems like it's almost entirely a COI issue, we should still implement it in this policy. The reason I suggest this is because BLP is policy, and a policy that is taken very seriously (and given extra teeth like discretionary sanctions), it will have more teeth this way. And even though it's a COI issue at the core, it seems to only become really dangerous when a BLP is involved. I'm less worried about someone running a site that talks about how terrible Walmart is, than someone running a site that attacks a living individual. Not that the former situation isn't a concern, it's just less of one to me. -- Atama頭 00:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If we're going to create an enforceable COI rule for BLPs, should we limit it just to people who have written negatively about the subjects? Are there other conflicts that are severe enough that they should also be included? Will Beback talk 01:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes, because the concern here is that a person with such a vested interest in harming a person's reputation would try to carry on that agenda on Wikipedia. And under no circumstances should an editor link to or reference their own work, if that work is intended to damage the subject's reputation. For example if an actor's former assistant writes a tell-all book that is heavily critical of the actor, if that assistant created an account they should not be referencing that book in the actor's article. -- Atama頭 06:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That gets back to a question I asked before - why should this proposal be limited to websites? If someone has written a book attacking a BLP, or gone on talk shows doing the same, wouldn't that create the same problem? Will Beback talk 07:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Atama, what about WP:BLPBAN? ArbCom has apparently decided that a single admin can ban an editor from a BLP. Perhaps that decision should be incorporated into this policy. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a much simpler solution and avoids having to try to write policy language to cover what cold be a variety of situations. Will Beback talk 07:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you FuFoFuEd. I supported a similar suggestion at ANI a couple of days ago. -- Atama頭 07:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

How about some specific wording in a new section below? I'm lost. Let me just list two old and several recent concerns I've had on this topic. Of course, we must always worry about the slippery slope ("ban this person, they put too much positive "balancing" info about that bum in wikipedia") and unjust application of sanctions.

Editor who worked for advocacy organization and worked under own name who was always putting negative stuff into organizations/people's articles from research he'd done on his job. He seemed too popular with top Admins and got away with it for a long time til finally the constant barrage of attacks from editors who challenged his COI made him quit. (Unless he's now got a new handle.)
Editor with clear identifying handle who has attack blog piece complaining about subject of BLP and specific recent edits to the article.
Editor with pretty clear identifying handle who had written against and helped organize a protest against the subject of a BLP, got that info in the article and continued to edit and opine against the subject until a WP:COIN; even after that kept opining away on talk page and doing less controversial edits without mentioning to new editors his COI.
Three or four editors who declare - often repeatedly - that subject is a BAD PERSON for whatever reason. They support putting in more and more negative material about the person and even declare that editors who have just BLP concerns must be bad people too because they "defend" this bad person.
WP:Single purpose account using the joke name of a prosecutor to make sometimes questionable edits against the person who was prosecuted, to argue on talk page against balanced information being put in the article about the trial, and even engage in admittedly WP:OR conspiracy theories about alleged falsification of evidence by the person and their attorney on article talk page and a user talk page. (Ok, I'll put a note on their talk page.)

One complains (in first couple cases), little happens and one gives up complaining, in last few. It's the most frustrating thing to me in Wikipedia and literally has wasted at least 500 hours of hours of my editing time over the last three years. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The point is, that it's YOUR (unpaid) time. If somebody had figured out how to waste 500 hours of paid WMF employee time on some WP rule problem, it would long ago have been fixed. As it is, they don't really care that much. Perhaps not at all. S B H arris 03:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

That last case sounds potentially blockable per WP:UNP. The other cases would depend on context. I'm particularly curious about that third case. -- Atama頭 18:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Given no solid proposals, I guess all one can do is bring up the problem - whatever it might be - on the talk page any time they do a controversial edit. So at least other editors - new and lurkers - will know about it. And be forced to go to WP:BLPN more often with that bit of evidence of extreme bias/attack. Though there's always WP:ANI and WP:RfCUser if problem is bad enough. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor Handle

What's the situation for somebody registering with an editor handle based on the name of a living person and then editing pages related to that person.

For example: Special:Contributions/Loren_Thompson

Is this account being used from his own office? Hcobb (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If that is actually the Loren Thompson mentioned in the article, then I don't think it's an issue (in fact, it's good, since if they're going to edit their own article it's best to represent their conflict of interest upfront.) My problem is that if it's not the article's subject, using that name might give the impression that they are... I'm not sure what to do about that. The username policy states that "usernames that impersonate other people" are forbidden -- I've always taken this to mean that you can't impersonate other Wikipedia users by, say, using odd characters to create an identical-looking username. But taking the name of a BLP and then editing their article as if you're them would certainly be trying to give the impression that you're that user, which (when it's not true) seems to me like it's a form of impersonation to be discourage. --Aquillion (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:REALNAME. I think the editor has a major conflict editing Lexington Institute.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

What non-public information belongs in a biography of a living person?

I removed "notable activities or" and the text read

“

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life, according to reliable published sources.

”

and this was added back

“

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

”

What sort of notable activities relevant to a Wikipedia biography would not be public?
What establishes that notability in a manner that's not public?
What non-public content belongs in the Wikipedia biography of a living person? patsw (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

This will turn into a pointless dispute rooted in different usages/meanings of "public". The reason to continue framing the passage in terms of notability is that this term is well-defined for usage at Wikipedia, while "public" is not. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the term public has a broader consensus definition among editors than you assert here. (See WP:BLPSOURCES)

This edit was made precisely to uncouple it from the process of determining if a topic should have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia. That guideline itself disclaims any relevance to content.

What non-public information belongs in the Wikipedia biography of a living person? patsw (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It depends entirely on what is meant by "public". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said at Wikipedia talk:Notability#Suggested change to avoid contradiction: "Public life" likely has different meanings to different people, so it's not obvious that all notability is related to "public life". For example, it could be said that a cloistered monk who is notable for his writings has no "public life," but is notable for his "private life."
Expanding upon that point, in this modern world of paparazzi and YouTube, the term "public life" often may be interpreted to mean activities undertaken entirely in the full view of the public. A monk who writes in solitude is just one example of a person whose life is entirely private and can become notable (within the meaning of WP:N) on the basis of work done outside the glare of publicity. --Orlady (talk) 18:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem (which I pointed out there) is that WP:N specifically says that notability is only used to decide whether to have an article. But WP:BLPCAT invokes notability for something that is not about whether to have an article. So WP:N and WP:BLPCAT contradict each other. And this contradiction was actually pointed out in a real discussion. We either need to take notability out of here, or add WP:BLPCAT as an exception to when notability applies. Ken Arromdee (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the definition provided in WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:RS disputed? What non-public information relevant to a Wikipedia biography would be in a reliable source according to our definition? I am not asking this question rhetorically. If "public" doesn't cover it all, what would that "non-public" content be in order to be included in the article?
The example of cloistered monks is frankly meaningless. When a monk becomes an author, that authorship is part of his public life, and his private life remains his private life.
If a person meets the WP:AUTH criteria and has a biographical article, its content in its entirety is the public aspects of their life according to WP:RS. Aspects of the private life of J.D. Salinger became public when Joyce Maynard and Margaret Salinger published memoirs and appear in the article.
Is there a third definition of notability lurking about? The definition in WP:N describes the process used to determine if a topic gets a standalone article and the Wiktionary article for wikt:notability is hopelessly subjective and unusable for establishing a consensus.
What do people want to include in content as "notable" which is not "public"? patsw (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears (from #s 1 and 3, at least) that you are asserting that if something appears in a RS, it is to be considered "public". Works for me, but I suspect it won't work for some. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, the inference I am making is the opposite: if content is "public", then it must be in an RS. My specific argument here is that we've already got a definition that distinguishes between public and non-public. patsw (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What non-public information belongs in a biography of a living person? patsw (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are you asking this question again rather than continuing to comment? It's confusing.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I am addressing each comment in turn, and attempting to restate the question which is the title of this section (which I believe to be important) which itself is not being commented upon. patsw (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

@Ken Arromdee: WP:BLPCAT solely concerns categories and lists, in which someone is either in the category or not. For example, a subject may have had a complicate spiritual path which could be described, but only his self-identified religions would be used as categories. Or, we could say that someone was convicted of a misdemeanor, but we would not categorize them as a criminal unless that was related to their notability. Will Beback talk 07:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, how does your definition of notability work? wikt:notability is subjective and trivial to assert.
Misdemeanor convictions (or guilty or nolo pleas) are public information in most jurisdictions. If they are reported in reliable secondary sources, on what basis would that content and that category be excluded? patsw (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

These are endlessly complex issues. I wish there were easy answers but they have come up again and again with being resolved definitively, so far as I know. I'm just saying that the BLPCAT section applies only to categories, lists, and templates, not to the main text in an article. Will Beback talk 12:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:N doesn't say it applies to the main text, it says it applies to "article content". Categories are used as part of article content.
Even if they were not, this still falls under "things which might not completely be contradictions if you squint at them really hard". Most people who aren't experienced in the Wikipedia legal system would interpret this as a contradiction.
In context, WP:N is claiming that notability is used for whether to have an article and for nothing else,. It's true that the literal wording of that section allows it to be used for things that are not articles, but it earlier says

These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list.

which (because of the word "only") does not allow its use in non-articles. 38.104.2.94 (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That is correct. Our notability guideline is to determine whether or not to include an article altogether, not what should be included in the article. We do have other guidelines and policies that govern the suitability of content itself, and I think the most important one is WP:NPOV. WP:UNDUE, which is part of the NPOV policy, is often cited to reduce the amount of text given to a particular subsection or topic within an article. WP:HTRIVIA is only an essay but is sometimes cited when removing "unimportant" information from an article, which is probably the closest we have to a notability guideline for content. The final arbiter for what is suitable in an article, though, is consensus. -- Atama頭 17:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Often, when people use "notability" in the context of an article that exists, they actually mean the "relevance" of content proposed for addition. patsw (talk) 00:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That may be true, but it doesn't justify changing WP:BLPCAT's reference to notability, which still does have a specific meaning. Also, by removing notability from BLPCAT, you'd open up a can of wikiworms about "relevance". As far as I can tell, Wikipedia does not require directly that material be relevant to an article to justify its inclusion (although I and many other editors argue it constantly). Instead, relevance is at best implied by negative implication, i.e., what material does not belong in an article. For these reasons and for lack of consensus, I reverted your change to the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

All mention of notability should be removed from this policy completely and forever. Notability does not govern article contents, not even indirectly. This policy mentioning notability in this way is a horrible abuse of the guidelines, and is fraught with issues. I agree with the removal of "to their public life or notability". Our guidance should be what reliable secondary sources talk about, not our inconsistent and ever changing notability guidelines. Gigs (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. Categorization is a somewhat diffferent beast from body content. I think the policy is simply trying to hold this kind of categorization to a higher standard than the usual body content. After all, we can still add this kind of material to the body without it being relevant to notability.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is misguided. "Public life" is a term with a specific meaning, at least in mainstream American English (I can't speak for every part of the world), that is quite distinct from that part of one's living existence that is publicly known. One's public life is one's public persona, more or less. There's a specific relationship with religion (and also some other things like sexual orientation). One may be out in the open about it, or one may choose to keep it a private matter. Tom Cruise, for example, has made scientology a significant part of his public life. He talks about it, he serves in positions of authority, he makes videos about it, he promotes it, he is something of a spokesman. But arguably (and let's say for the sake of argument), it's really neither here nor there in terms of his notability as an actor. We include it because it's encyclopedic information, it's not a meaningless categorization, it's part of who he is as a person. On the other side of the coin, there are people whose religion or sexual orientation is not part of their public self, but for whom it is an important (and well sourced) part of why they are worthy of an encyclopedia article. Ted Haggard, for example, is an anti-gay American preacher who was disgraced and fell out of power after he was found to have engaged in a lot of illicit behavior including a number of gay relationships. That was his private life, not his public life, but a major part of why the sources find him worthy of note. A happier example, Amy Grant is a contemporary Christian musician who crossed over to pop music. That makes her (presumed) Christianity a significant part of her notability. You could argue that she made her faith part of her public life by singing about it, but not really - that's indirect. It doesn't prove she really believes, or that her actual belief is public. She's just singing songs in character. Tom Waits sings about being a hobo and he's not a hobo. Anyway, much simpler to say that if we can source her as a Christian and she's famous for Christian songs, her religion is relevant to her notability. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't agree that it's much simpler. "Wikipedia notability" encompasses probably 100 printed pages worth of inconsistent guidelines, along with dozens of "unwritten practices" that no lay person has a chance of understanding. We should avoid invoking the n-word whenever we can. I'm OK with leaving "public life" in there if we can get rid of any mention of notability. Gigs (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
  - BLP isn't for casual readers, it's a difficult part of editing. What would you replace it with? Calling someone religious only if they hold out their religious beliefs as part of their public persona is a somewhat arbitrary and possibly lopsided judgment about what it means to be religious. Aren't we interested in something closer to biographical importance? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving it in. Just get rid of the contradiction. You can do that either by taking it out--or by leaving it in but listing it as an exception in WP:N. WP:N already mentions an exception; there's no reason we can't mention another one.

And I don't buy the argument that it's not a contradiction because it only refers to categories and lists and those aren't part of an article. They are "article content" and WP:N does apply to that. And reading it that way is being excessively literal and is not going to be how most people see it; the obvious intention was that notability is used for no other purposes. Like I said, if you have to squint it hard to avoid the contradiction, something needs to be fixed. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Gigs and Atama: We don't actually require that every single cat be directly related to "why Wikipedia has an article on this person", so we should avoid using the highly jargonistic wiki-Notability concept here. We require that the cats be DUE. This permits us, for example, to list celebrities in Category:Breast cancer survivors even if getting breast cancer has nothing to do with why Wikipedia has an article on the person (==WP:Notability). There really is no good reason for us to treat religious affiliation as being more sensitive than medical privacy. We cat people according to religion, sexual orientation, cancer survivorship, etc., if that is a significant or important part of the person's story, as shown by the rules at DUE.

Also, I think patsw's question about the logic is relevant: Can anyone give an example of a person being wiki-Notable for being <name of religion here> without that religion being "relevant to the person's public life"? In the author-monk example, the author's career as a monk would definitely be "relevant to" his public life as a published author. No one would say that their profession as a monk or nun is "irrelevant to" the public life of Thomas Merton, Wayne Teasdale, Mikhail Sabinin, Carol Anne O'Marie, to name just four such authors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Where would John F Kennedy rank in respect of this question? Kennedy himself said "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters – and the Church does not speak for me". Martinvl (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd include a religion cat for JFK even under the current rules. It was "relevant to" his public life. Religion can also be "relevant to" the public life of a person who famously repudiated a religion.

More importantly, a religion cat is DUE for JFK. For better or worse, his religion was a major issue that his political campaign had to deal with. Anti-Catholic prejudice cost him votes in some quarters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Templates

Due to the current wording of this policy, one editor insists that templates like Template:BLP unsourced can be used on any unsourced article containing information about a living person (e.g. a school article that mentions the current principal). This was never the intention of this template. This has been discussed at Template talk:BLP unsourced#What kind of article can have this template?, and the only editor disagreeing with this insists that this should be discussed here (ad doesn't want to have the template watchlisted for some reason). So here we are: do people agree that that template is only intended for full BLPs, not articles containing some BLP info, and do people see the need to change this policy to make this clearer? Fram (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I would remove the template with a comment that it applies only to a biographical article. This shouldn't be controversial. patsw (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The only gray area I see are for articles about more than one person that still clearly fall under BLP. Like "Bob and Terry Smith". Normally we don't apply BLP directly to groups, but in the case when we have a clearly biographical article with named people in the topic, I could see that use as being OK. Gigs (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope - if there are living people mentioned without references, then either their names go or the article meets BLPPROD as far as I can tell. Delete all the names first is likely safest, but I do not worry about it. Ans references in any article relating to named individuals mustmeet WP:BLP in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the prohibition against unsourced statements about a livings person applies to every article, not just biographies. That said, Collect is right that the best solution is probably to remove the statement (or references to the person) from the article rather that delete the article outright. In the cases where that would be impossible, chances are the article was a BLP posing as a COATRACK anyways. — Coren ^(talk) 17:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course. The question here is not whether BLP applies, it's whether the "unsourced BLP" template applies. And it doesn't apply to things that aren't specifically biographies. Gigs (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I would only use that particular template if

the article is a biography (not merely any old article that is subject to this policy) and
there are zero citations of any kind at all anywhere on the entire page.

We use different templates for other problems, such as {{blp sources}} for pages with at least one, but still too few sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Stub template

Hello, is there such a thing as a stub template for biographies of living persons? or do they just get the plain {{bio-stub}} (biography stub)?

Cheers - Benzband (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP proposal

Resolved

– Now all BLP edits show that important edit notice, rather than just a minority of them. With many thanks for the friendly help from everyone here, and for the very willing technical bug-fixing support from David Göthberg, TheDJ, Anomie, Edokter, and Redrose64. First Light (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Pardon if this has been brought up before. Assuming it's technically feasible, what if every BLP article had an Edit Notice with a couple of sentences similar to the BLP talk page template — perhaps the first two sentences of that template ("This article and talk page must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous.")? I imagine only the tiniest fraction of editors, especially newer ones, see that talk page template. This way, every edit to a BLP article would show that reminder to follow BLP policy. First Light (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:EDN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I did, which is why I linked to it in my first sentence above. Is there something specific there that you are trying to point out? First Light (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies -- but then I don't see what you're asking. It is possible to do what you want, with edit notices. (Again, my apologies for making what must have seemed like a rude post.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I see that I also should have been more clear. Is there a way for every BLP article that is categorized as such, or has that template on the talk page, to automatically have an edit notice appear whenever anyone edits the article? I'm thinking of some code magically added by the developers that would make it automatic. And is that desirable (in my opinion it is)? Thanks, First Light (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This might sound too simplistic a request, but can you please show me a BLP that doesn't have such an edit notice? Wifione ^Message 18:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ahaa! I see that there is an edit notice already, but only when clicking on the "edit this page" button, and never when clicking on the "edit" button for each section. This should show up in each section edit also. First Light (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reported this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit notice on BLP articles. First Light (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

dealing with subjects that are charged with a crime

The policy states that we should avoid using crime-related categories for people that are charged with a crime unless they are actually convicted. However, there are a things that I would like some clarification on:

Does the same rule apply for crime victims? I've seen various inconsistencies with this: for example, the "murder" categories were removed from the Oscar Grant article because Mehserle was only convicted of manslaughter, whereas the article on the murder of Annie Le was called just that - murder of Annie Le - long before Clark was convicted. If the rule is really that important, then should articles about murder victims be titled "death of X" until the perp is convicted?
If a person is convicted but is later exonerated, then should we remove the categories? After all, they were convicted at some time.
Mainstream media often use words like "alleged" and "suspected" to describe someone that has been charged with a crime but has not been convicted. It's often argued that these terms are overused, but the media uses it for legal reasons: if a newspaper states that a defendant killed someone, and the defendant is acquitted, then they can sue for libel. After all, people are generally considered innocent until proven guilty. On the other hand, it's common for authorities to maintain that an acquitted subject did commit the crime, and I've never heard of police being sued for this. A lot of people would argue that "innocent" and "not guilty" are not the same thing, but an acquitted defendant is no longer legally responsible for the crime. Are we (as Wikipedians) supposed to use "alleged"/"accused"/"suspected" to describe defendants?
- Assuming that the answer to the above question is "yes":
Does the same rule apply even if the person publicly admits to committing the crime?
Does the same rule apply to someone who lives in a country that does not have the presumption of innocence?
If a person is acquitted in a criminal court but is found guilty in a civil trial, then is it safe to describe them as a criminal?

Thanks. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally in the world populated by spherical cows Wikipedia editors would not discuss Murder vs. Homocide and would name the mentioned article Death of Annie Le, the redirect is there.
IANAL but would go with "Police in location X alleged/accused/suspected Person Y in this and that" or "Court in location X convicted Y in this and that", citing secondary sources. Generally material of prosecution/allegations should be attributed to concrete sources and should not remain anonymous.
I see no problem with saying "Person X said he did this and that", which does not strictly mean the person indeed did it.
We are not here to judge, just neutrally reflect on what sources report on what happened. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

1. The same rule applies for crime victims.

2. Category should be removed if the conviction is overturned.

3. Depends.

4. Yes.

5. Yes.

6. No, you can't be "guilty" in a civil trial. They can be liable in a civil trial for damages. They are only a criminal if they are convicted in a criminal trial.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Good answers. I can definitely think of situations where it's OK to say "person X did this and that" without them being convicted. Acquittal by reason of insanity is one that comes to mind. Cases of self-defense can also fall under this: if someone kills an armed robber and his/her actions are found to be justified, it would still be OK to say that the person killed somebody. This would not be considered libel because we are not accusing the person of a crime, and that the person acted within the law (justifiable homicide).

The media often directly states the "facts" in such cases even before the legal proceedings have occurred. This is especially true for officer-involved shootings: I've never seen the news say things like "Officer X allegedly shot and killed a man at place Y" unless the officer clearly acted in a criminal manner. I guess this is because the question is generally "did he do it?" for regular citizens, whereas it's usually "did he act in self-defense?" for the police.

This brings me to my second question: should we (as Wikipedians) tread lightly and treat all homicides/shootings/etc. the same way (i.e., as a crime)? Or can we safely state that X killed Y in self-defense if it is obvious that this is the case? --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

"Outside of the event"

This edit from July added "outside of the event" to: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event and if, outside of the event, that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Nathan Hale was notable for one event, so I guess he doesn't have any notability "outside of the event" (although I'm not sure what that means). Isn't this saying we should delete the article? - Dank (push to talk) 00:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Nathan Hale was notable during the American Revolution - including rescuing a ship from the British etc. And notable for the memorials after his death, which are numerous. It is unlikely that as a living person he would have rated a BLP, but in death, he absolutely merits a Wikipedia BDP. In short, your argument fails. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hale's "one event" was his death, so it's a bad example. But "event" is generally defined fairly narrowly. For example, many military officers are notable for only one battle, yet we have articles about them. Athletes who have merely signed with a professional team, or participated in a single Olympic event, are considered notable. Actors who have appeared in only one significant production are deemed notable. So the definition of "one event" is unclear and probably has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Will Beback talk 01:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let me simplify: if a historical figure is known for only one event, but many historians have written about the person, are we saying that the later books about the event constitute notability "outside the event"? Could we phrase that a little more clearly? - Dank (push to talk) 01:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean like John Hinckley, Jr.? He is clearly known for only one event, yet we have an article about him. It's hard to argue he has any notability outside that event unless the subsequent trial is counted, but maybe that's the intent of the "outside of the event" text. Will Beback talk 22:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, that's the problem. I don't know what the text means, but it's not hard to read it to mean: if Hinckley had been shot dead on the spot, then we shouldn't have an article about him. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You mean like Lee Harvey Oswald? Will Beback talk 21:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hale is long dead - so a BLP policy is unlikely to cover him. ONEVENT (the general notability policy r.e. events) is a lot more relaxed :) Particularly if he is still being written about after his death etc. As to Hinckley & Oswald; you'll note that the policy rightly makes a note that some individuals are so well written about that it is reasonable to ignore the limitation - it even specifically mentions assassins of political leaders as an example :) given the reams of information written in retrospect about those individuals, of book and scholarly quality, that seems fine. Finally it specifically notes we should generally avoid having an article on them - which my no means makes this a hard and fast rule. TL;DR - all of the articles raised seem fine. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Furthermore, the concept that is trying to be introduced is explicitly contradicted by the footnote. The old language was fairly clear that in order for BLP1E to apply, two conditions needed to be met: (1) the person was notable for one event; and (2) the person was not low-profile. The idea of making the second prong of the test mean the same as the first undermines the policy. From the footnote we can tell what the intent is (meaning the low-profile prong of the test is an independent of the one event test). Per the policy: "It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." This makes sense as there is a policy in place for WP:BIO1E and the BLP1E event offers protection for those individuals who are low-profile.LedRush (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The intent of the policy is 100% clear (and always has been); which is to make sure that where an individual has coverage only in relation to a single event, we deal with that as an event, not as a biography containing extraneous material of no relevance. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's much clearer, thanks; perhaps that should be on the page. Also, I should have been clear above that BLP doesn't apply to dead people per se, but article decisions made while they're alive sometimes continue when they're not. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeh for sure. It will be interesting to see how well our approach holds up long term - I suspect well. We will cover more people from our era than those past; but not to the level of frivolity, in an organised fashion and with careful privacy considerations. I think that if a subject evolves subsequent ongoing interest then we are well placed to reflect that. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The intent of the policy is 100% clear (and always has been); which is to make sure that where an individual has coverage only in relation to a single event, and they are low-profile individuals (therefore not seeking notability) we protect them with regards to BLP concerns by discouraging the creation of article on them. When they are not low-profile (meaning they seek notability/media attention), we don't have the same privacy concerns, and our concerns are more related to whether or not the person is notable, and we look to WP:BIO1E for that answer.LedRush (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If the policy were applied correctly then we'd delete athletes who have competed in only one Olympic Games and are not known for anything else. Is that correct? Will Beback talk 22:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not if you accept my (plain) reading of the policy, or the policy as clarified in the footnote, or the policy as enforced throughout much of Wikipedia. Also would be gone are the dozens of articles on criminals famous for one crime, one hit wonders (pop stars), actors famous for one role, etc. Now, many of those categories have guidelines for determining notability, but it would be odd if those guidelines are in direct contradiction with this policy. Of course, that is only true if you accept Errant's odd position on the meaning of this policy.LedRush (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit as the original "consensus" involved one other editor who didn't address the issue (saying only "it looks like a step in the right direction" before everyone moved on to a different topic. The intent of the editor making the change seems to be to make the policy internally inconsistent in addition to being inconsistent with other policies. It ambiguously attempts to introduce a concept explicitly rejected by the policy and in contradiction to related policies.LedRush (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox statements

A little over a month ago, the reference to infobox statements was deleted from WP:BLPCAT. User:Sean.hoyland attempted to initiate a discussion at the time, but it was not picked up, and the change passed me by.

I consider it important that infoboxes should be held to the same standards as navigation templates and categories, as just like lists and categories they do not provide context. The reason is that a cursory glance at an infobox may have the reader coming away with the idea that the subject belongs to the category in question, even though the sourcing of that information would not pass the standard for including the same person in a related list or category.

In practical terms, if the subject

does not self-identify as belonging to religion X,
does not self-identify as being of sexual orientation X,
has not been convicted, or the conviction has been overturned on appeal, or the incident is not relevant to the person's notability and has remained unreported in third-party reliable sources,

then

the infobox should not say "Religion = X",
the infobox should not say "sexual orientation = X",
the article should not use a criminal-offender/convict infobox, or whatever infobox is used should not describe the subject as a convict.

I therefore propose restoring the reference to infoboxes in BLPCAT. I'll notify WhatamIdoing and Sean of this discussion. Cheers, --J N 466 22:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems entirely reasonable to me. Infoboxes shouldn't contain contentious details that are better discussed in the article content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well. Infobox information is just a bare summary of the subject. To the extent we continue to hold categories to a higher degree of includability than the body of the article, the only difference I can discern between "Religion = Catholic" and "Category: Catholic people" is the infobox can have citations, whereas categories cannot. But that's not enough to eliminate the problem.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it's important that the infobox reflects the content of the article, rather than the navigation aids, because the infobox is part of the article, not part of the navigation system, and the sole purpose of the infobox is to summarize that article. In none of these cases should the actual article state that the person is definitely any of these things; therefore, the infobox should not state that the person is definitely any of these things.

In short, the outcome is the same, but it has nothing to do with how we handle navigation/finding articles, which is the actual subject of BLPCAT.

This approach could be usefully repeated at our advice page on infoboxes, or we could add another sentence that says, "Yes, even infoboxes and other tables are part of the article", but restrictions on non-navigation parts of the article don't belong in the navigation-only section of this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The BLPCAT sourcing provisions do extend to list articles; so it's not quite correct to describe them as a navigation-only part of the policy. But leaving that aside and taking a pragmatic view—given that you agree, "In none of these cases should the actual article state that the person is definitely any of these things; therefore, the infobox should not state that the person is definitely any of these things", is there any specific harm that could result from having the reference to infoboxes in BLPCAT? Because having it there has clear benefits. I've seen some very bitter conflicts about infobox statements in these kinds of scenarios in the past. Explicitly holding infobox statements on criminal convictions, religion and sexual orientation to the same standard as categories, navigation templates and list articles is a good way to preempt these conflicts, and prevent inadvertent misrepresentation of BLP subjects. --J N 466 21:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing says that:

"In none of these cases should the actual article state that the person is definitely any of these things; therefore, the infobox should not state that the person is definitely any of these things."[5]

Can WhatamIdoing explain why "In none of these cases should the actual article state that the person is definitely any of these things"? Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Because infoboxes shouldn't treat questionable assertions as fact? It seemed clear enough to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think JN466 also found it an interesting statement as JN466 repeats it here. Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you actually have a point to make, or are you just engaging in more pointless nitpicking over words? Unless you are going to suggest that infoboxes should treat questionable assertions as fact, there is nothing much to debate here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump—in case you didn't notice, I was speaking to another editor,[6] an editor named (User:WhatamIdoing)—I was just asking for clarification on a particular point that editor made. Bus stop (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, I was asking why it mattered. Can you please confine your postings to issues actually relevant to the subject being discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy is right: if the person, e.g., says that he is not a Muslim, then the article should not say "Yes, he definitely is Muslim"—and the infobox should not say this either, and that is how adding "Muslim" will be interpreted. The article could (if relevant/lots of sources care about this point) say that something like some sources say that he's Muslim because <fill in the blank: His parents are? He was once seen at a service at a mosque? Certain Americans simply can't believe that a non-white person could really be elected president of the US?>, but that he says he's not a Muslim". That's far too complicated to attempt to represent in an infobox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

JN, I understand the value of having information like this somewhere in this policy, but including it (and the list-article information) in an unrelated section is poor policy-writing practice (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content) and has occasionally resulted in mindlessness. For example, I saw a dispute a while ago in which someone demanded that the religion of a prominent Muslim politician not be included because the editors couldn't agree which sub-sub-group of Islam he subscribed to, and someone trotted this line out as alleged proof that providing the undisputed general category of "Muslim" in the infobox was somehow prohibited by policy because no one had (yet) named a specific source in which the politician directly said, "I am a Muslim".

The primary job of an infobox is to summarize the important parts of the article. The primary job of an infobox is not to summarize the important parts of the article, minus the parts that make some editors uncomfortable, like religion and sexual orientation. If the person's religion is undisputed (so that it's humanly possible to accurately summarize it in a word or two) and significant to the sources (so that it's DUE), then that information it should be included in the infobox under exactly the same rules as the information is included in the article. The reason that the infobox should be handled like any other part of the article is because the infobox is a part of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am in agreement with a point made in the above post by WhatamIdoing that it should be possible to name a religion even if all is not known about that religion. The example cited by WhatamIdoing involved the identity "Muslim" though I think this would apply to other religious identities as well. My reasoning is that just because all information is not known about an identity, is not reason to omit as much as may be known about that identity. Also, it is relatively rare to find "self-identification". I think I am in agreement with WhatamIdoing when mentioning that no source can be found in which an individual says "I am a Muslim" is not reason enough that we should be prohibited from asserting that that individual is a Muslim—provided that were properly sourced. I think that Reliable sources should be sufficient unless there are sources that contradict one another on this point. Bus stop (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to the discussion that started all this at Talk:Bashar_al-Assad#Shia_or_not_Shia during which you changed the WP:BLPCAT policy, I think you have somewhat misremembered and mischaracterized the discussion and the issue. There was an issue precisely because the specific flavor of religion was disputed. There was prolonged edit warring over various entries like Shia, Alawi, Alawi Shia by people who think these labels have value. It was disputed because sources used a variety of descriptions and self-identification was lacking (and there is probably a political reason for lack of self-identification that probably can't be resolved with sources). The issue caught my eye precisely because it wasn't mindless, it's generic and applicable to many articles. As I said in the discussion, it goes to the heart of ensuring and enforcing BLP compliance and guarding against editors making invalid transformations of information to generate a statement of fact about a living person. If you look at the article even now you will see that the source still does not support the infobox entry, religion=Alawi. It supports a more general description, religion=Islam. Does it matter ? The key point was that the way to describe his religion in the infobox was unclear based on policy because there was a conflict between what sources say (e.g. "he is from the Alawi community") and what he says ("I am a Muslim"). I'll repeat what I said in the discussion because it sums up my concerns. If the information transformation that occurs through summarization of article content means that an infobox applies a label that BLP policy cares about to a living person that they haven't confirmed is the correct label through self identification, the BLP policy needs to explicitly say that is okay. At the moment it doesn't. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland—would not Wikipedia be on more sure footing, or on more solid ground, if it stated the less focussed identity—namely that the man is Muslim? Surely if he is Alawi, he is Muslim. This is of course assuming that the sourcing is questionable for the Alawi identity. I don't really know as I have not been involved in that issue. Bus stop (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reading the article makes me quite uncertain that making them a subgroup of Muslims is correct as they have substantive differences from general Muslim theology. Safest course is not to so categorize the group. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

However, Mormons have substantive differences from general Christian theology, for example. As far as WP is concerned, Alawis ought to be categorised as Muslims or non-Muslims according to how they self-categorise, not according to how another sect sees them. --FormerIP (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why must they be categorized as anything at all? I still feel that insistence of fitting everything into categories is a major weakness of Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hear hear. But if we are to categorise people at all in regard to private matters such as sexuality or religion, we should base it on self-identification. If someone has not self-identified, we should only assume that they regard the matter as private and leave it at that. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all sexuality and religion should be considered separately. There's not a reason I know of why religion and sexuality seem to be incessantly linked in these discussions. Also—every part of an article should be considered separately. Therefore there should be separate consideration given to for instance Infoboxes and Lists—vis-a-vis for instance religion. Finally "self-identification" is not necessary in many or most cases, in my opinion. When an abundance of good quality reliable sources indicate a religion, for instance, for a subject of a biography—that should suffice—unless there are extenuating circumstances. The only extenuating circumstance that immediately comes to mind is if other reliable sources indicate that the individual is not of for instance that religious identity. In other words when we have contradiction of reliable sources—then we need "self-identification". It is surprisingly infrequent that an individual has occasion to declare that they have, for instance, a religious identity. Individuals commonly allude to their various identities somewhat indirectly—not because it is a private matter—but simply because it is odd to declare some things. But good quality reliable sources are more than up to the task of digesting that material and providing us with for instance religious identity. Bus stop (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is obsessed with categorization. We categorize literally by putting people into categories. We categorize people in infoboxes, which are really just a proxy for categories. We categorize people in the lead, which is far more prominent than describing them in the body. And then of course we categorize them in the body. I remember before I became an active editor on Wikipedia and was just a casual reader that I was struck by reading articles that prominently said so-and-so is Jewish and so-and-so is Catholic, etc. I wondered at the time why did the article say that - was there some relevance to the subject? It seemed gratuitous to me. Honestly, my opinion now hasn't changed much since my less policy-knowledgeable opinion back then. Most of the time, whether someone is Jewish or Catholic or Muslim has little or no relevance to the subject. It's just (supposedly) a fact. And so what?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In the body of an article religion should probably be mentioned if it is known and reliably sourced. The body of an article is the meat and potatoes of an article. Doing away with Infoboxes would not be any great loss, in my opinion. Categories can be useful; in my opinion we should always err on the side of inclusion in categories—they are research aids—the person doing research can not even consider looking into something that is not there in the first place. The same is true for Lists—err on the side of inclusion—citations and even brief disclaimers can be included in Lists. And yes, the reader should be considered interested in the religion of the person being written about—if reliable sources deem that worth mentioning—we should consider mentioning it too. Everything that is found in sources does not have to find its way into an article, but the general rule should be that we take our cue from sources. Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I really wouldn't look at BLPCAT as a section concerned with navigation. I see it as a section concerned with all instances in Wikipedia that make a simple equation of the type

(BLP subject name) = (religion X, sexual orientation Y, convict status Z).

In all of these cases, the same criteria should apply. People are called convicts, gay, bisexual, Scientologists, muslims, atheists and many other things besides in sources, and sometimes these descriptions fall short of our BLPCAT standards, even though they may be discussed in the article. If policy forbids me to categorise or nav-template someone as X, because the sourcing does not rise to the standard required, then I shouldn't be able to describe them as X in an infobox, or include them in a list of X. It really is quite important. Best, --J N 466 12:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Categorization is a particular mode of description. A particular faction here is uncomfortable with describing people -- and it is getting in the way of conveying basic information about people. This shouldn't be so difficult -- least of all in an encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about describing people - it is about not misdescribing them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with the notion that we should avoid misdescribing people. But my point (about discomfort with description) is amply demonstrated by numerous posts in this section. A number of people say (here and in countless more specific discussions): "we shouldn't be categorizing people". It amounts to the same thing -- some editors here don't want to describe people in particular ways. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether to categorise or not is a whole different discussion. :) The point we need to agree on here is whether the sourcing for infobox statements should be held to the same standard as the sourcing requirements for categorisation and inclusion in lists and navigation templates. I think it's quite clear that it should. --J N 466 00:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The cat requirement is specific to cats. Cats have different characteristics. Importantly, they don't have refs. Infobox entries -- or the text relating to them, as with ledes -- can have refs. That difference is why it is logical to have the different rules for cats, on the one hand, and non-cats, on the other. Which is how wp is set up. In addition, I generally agree with Nomo's well-thought-out discussion above.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- List entries can have refs too, yet there is agreement that we shouldn't include living persons in lists of criminals, religious adherents, or LGBT people unless the BLPCAT requirements are satisfied. Are you actually in favour of allowing statements in infoboxes related to criminal convictions, religion and sexual orientation whose sourcing does not rise to the level required by policy for categorisation and listing? This would seem like an end run around BLPCAT to me. --J N 466 09:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
If I am right in assuming that nobody above is actually in favour of inserting infobox statements about criminality, religion and sexuality that do not meet the BLPCAT threshold, then I plan to restore the mention of infobox statements in a couple of days. Are there any objections? --J N 466 23:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- I also support restoring that mention of infoboxes. Even though infoboxes are de facto already covered by BLP policy, that point needs to be made more clear for some editors. First Light (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Jayen—I object to your proposal. I believe that "self-identification" is relatively rare. People do not often enunciate statements of "self-identification".

I'm also surprised that a dozen people in a dozen days should think that they should impose policy on the entire project. Is that how we came to the language in WP:BLPCAT reading:

"These principles apply equally to lists and navigation templates (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation."[7]

Policy should not be altered or instituted for light and transient reasons, in my opinion.

In my opinion reliably sourced information should have the potential for use at most parts of this project, even if "self-identification" is absent. In my opinion the requirement for "self-identification" is an arbitrary requirement. I think we should be able to use our own discretion in weighing the reliability of sources.

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. I believe that instruction creep is a problem. Reliable sources are more than up to the task of providing solid support for the indicating of religious identity and sexual orientation at virtually any part of a biography.

When an abundance of reliable sources support a fact, we should have the discretion to report it. We should not need "self-identification" in all cases. Perfectly defensible writing based on solid sources is hampered by a requirement for "self-identification". We should be capable of assessing sources for their reliability.

We should obviously not be abiding by sources when other sources contradict them, but that should be obvious. Bus stop (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The procedure followed is correct on Wikipedia. The consensus is clear. There is no cabal of a dozen people making huge decisions here. Your imputed desires notwithstanding, the result is both clear and cogent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say or imply anything about a "cabal". Let me re-state my point. Wider input is called for. Bus stop (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Then what did you mean by: I'm also surprised that a dozen people in a dozen days should think that they should impose policy on the entire project.? I hear the quacking of the great "cabal call" ... Collect (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop,given that your objections are clearly driven by your enthusiasm for tagging individuals as Jewish on the weakest of evidence, I think they should be considered with the weight they deserve - i.e. none at all. (And BTW, 'religious identity' is a phrase you've made up yourself - it doesn't mean anything.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy—unless I am mistaken, you are in your above post introducing to this discussion the topic of Jews. I didn't mention "Jews", "Judaism", or "Jewish" people.

It is not necessary to mention Jews. Across a wide range of identity phenomena, "self-identification" is not as common as some would suggest that it is. I'm not going to go out on a limb, engaging in original research, to try to explain why this is so, but in my experience it is relatively rare to find someone articulating that "I am a Christian", or "I am a Jew", or "I am a Muslim". It is not unheard of. But it is relatively rare. The infrequency with which such pronouncements are made puts a real impediment in the way of editors—especially when sources establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that such affinities exist. I fail to understand the apparent desire for option-limiting rules. Bus stop (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Utter bollocks. Please take your monumental display of ignorance elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy—calling my post a "monumental display of ignorance"[8] is a violation of policies, such as Civility, and No personal attacks. This is a discussion page. We are obviously disagreeing. But let us try to be respectful. The project becomes more pleasant for everyone when we refrain from speaking disparagingly of other editors. This should be very obvious but sometimes frustration can lead to negative interactions, so let us just agree to disagree. Bus stop (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The reference to infobox statements had been part of BLPCAT since October 2010, until it was removed recently without discussion. --J N 466 23:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion in Infobox

To further highlight the problem with infobox statements: currently the "religion= " parameter in journalist infoboxes (while editing) actually transcludes and appears as " Religious belief(s) " in the article's infobox. I removed it entirely from the Fareed Zakaria infobox because the subject not only says they are "not religious", but they drink wine and write about it, all contrary to the beliefs of Islam. Yet because they were born into a Muslim family, they therefore have those "beliefs"? The same is true for Charles Krauthammer, who the article quotes as being "not religious", but who is tagged in the infobox as having "Religious belief(s)" that are Jewish. I don't know more about the rest of his story, and whether in other sources he describes his "beliefs". I've started a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_journalist#religion ≠ Religious belief(s) about this usage in journalist infoboxes specifically, but in general, don't we want to be more careful about ascribing religious beliefs to living people in their articles, unless they clearly state that "my religious beliefs are...."? First Light (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I think infoboxes are designed solely for the purpose of exasperating those editors who think WP:BLP means something <g>. Collect (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that as a major problem. Why not just remove the word "beliefs" from the field in the Infoboxes that you refer to? Do we find sources contradicting the sources which say that Fareed Zakaria is a Muslim? Do we find sources contradicting the sources which say that Charles Krauthammer is Jewish?

That Fareed Zakaria is a Muslim is supported by sources. If you are objecting to the word "beliefs", that is remedied by removing the word "beliefs". Doing so does not change the fact that the subject of the biography is Muslim:

"He’s an Indian-born, Yale- and Harvard-educated Muslim who moves easily between…"[9]

That Charles Krauthammer is Jewish is supported by sources. If you are objecting to the word "beliefs", that is remedied by removing the word "beliefs". Doing so does not change the fact that the subject of the biography is Jewish:

"One Jewish journalist and intellectual who has refused to buy into the double standard is Charles Krauthammer."[10] Bus stop (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You present no actual reason why any of this should be in an infobox. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, do you really think that is possible for a person to be a Muslim on any other grounds than belief? That is frankly ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources provide us with our cue as to what information is considered important. No one is saying that these individuals are perfect exemplars of the religions in question, and truth be told I don't even know what that would mean, but I think there is an indication of an affinity for a religious identity, and reliable sources are calling that to our attention. I think it is our role to dutifully convey reliably sourced information to the reader. That is what writing a Wiki biography is about, in my opinion, or at least insofar as our opinions are of secondary importance. Apparently, reliable sources are of the opinion that the religious leanings of these individuals should color the way we think about them, therefore I am more comfortable reporting, within constraints, what reliable sources say, than in willfully omitting the information that I repeatedly encounter when I research a person. Bus stop (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But their religion is already covered in the article - there is no "willfull omitting" of the information by not having it in the infobox. By making it one of the few features in the infobox, and the only one that relates to their views, beliefs, attitudes, etc., we are defining the person by giving pre-eminent emphasis just to their religion. It's certainly giving Undue Weight when the person comes out and states "I am not religious"—even if the infobox transclusion is changed so it just shows "Religion". First Light (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

At Manual of Style/Infoboxes I read, under "Purpose of an infobox":

"When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts about the article in which it appears."

That this information is found in the body of the article might support that it should be in the Infobox. Bus stop (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, if all you can come up with to defend your nonsense is gibberish about 'an affinity for a religious identity', I suggest you stop wasting everyone's time. No one agrees with you. We aren't going to pretend that religion doesn't involve 'belief' just to suit your ridiculous agenda. If you want an online encyclopedia that works that way, I suggest you start your own... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, if someone says "I am not religious", then their religion is not a "key fact". First Light (talk) 00:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First Light—you say "…if someone says 'I am not religious', then their religion is not a 'key fact'." This may or may not be correct. It depends on the weight that reliable sources accord religion in their lives. I can't judge that at this time concerning the two individuals discussed above. Interesting explanation for your name: "The First Light received by a telescope during its initial use." I never knew that. Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Some folks are militantly atheist, for whom religion is an important issue. Will Beback talk 01:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, if someone isn't religious, the only 'fact' about their religion is that they don't have one. Look up the word isn't in a dictionary... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Atheism is a religion-related belief. Will Beback talk 01:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Not believing in unicorns is a zoology-related belief. So what? And incidentally, it is entirely possible to be devoid of religious belief without being an atheist. As far as I'm aware, the evidence suggests that we are all born like that... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we had a slot for belief in unicorns, and if a subject has clearly said that he does not believe in unicorns, then it'd be logical to put that information in the slot. Will Beback talk 03:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy—we have sources which say that Fareed Zakaria is Muslim and Charles Krauthammer is Jewish.

Fareed Zakaria: "He’s an Indian-born, Yale- and Harvard-educated Muslim who moves easily between…"[11]

Charles Krauthammer: "One Jewish journalist and intellectual who has refused to buy into the double standard is Charles Krauthammer."[12]

Please bring sources to support the argument that you wish to make.

Do you not feel that there is equally an onus on you to provide sources to support your arguments?

Sources are not just a nicety. Sources allow for verifiability. Bus stop (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

...And, since the only way you can verify what someone believes is by asking them, there is no 'reliable source' regarding religious belief other then the person concerned him/herself. No other 'source' can be anything other than opinion at best, or bigotry at worst. Now shut the f*** up, we really aren't interested in your Wikilawyering bullshit. We aren't going to include lies in Wikipedia to suit your bigoted nonsense. Troll elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy—this project is more pleasant when participants conduct themselves with decorum. I said nothing "bigoted". Please be mindful of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Bus stop (talk) 03:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, your bogus 'decorum' cannot hide the simple fact that you are obsessed with shoving people into boxes labelled 'Jewish', 'Muslim' 'Christian' etc, regardless of the self-identification of the individual concerned - and that is bigotry, plain and simple. So yes, you are a bigot. Hiding behind WP:NPA while making obnoxious generalisations about the subjects of our articles isn't remotely 'civil' - it is POV-pushing of the highest order. Like I said, if you want an encyclopedia that pushes your agenda, start your own... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

e/c Nobody is questioning the sources. The question is whether someone who publicly declares that they are "not religious", according to reliable sources, should have anything but "not religious" in the infobox after "Religious beliefs". None of your sources even attest to their personally held beliefs. The only ones that do, quite clearly show the subjects self-identifying as "not religious". Even if the infobox simply says "Religion", it should only state it if it is a relevant part of their public life, for example if they are a religion writer, and they publicly self-identify with that religion's beliefs. First Light (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First Light—as I've already suggested, one need merely remove the word "beliefs" from the Infobox field you refer to. You say that "it should only state it if it is a relevant part of their public life". It is not quite that simple. I believe we have to look to what reliable sources have to say on this topic. That requires a bit of research. If there are many more like the above two sources for Zakaria and Krauthammer, then I think perhaps a cogent argument can be made that one being a "Muslim" and the other being a "Jew" are "relevant". But we would have to examine the sources. Bus stop (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Nope - the two examples given should be dealt with according to existing policy - which is to discuss contentious issues on the relevant talk page - we are discussing general policy here, and nobody has come up with a valid reason why we should mislead our readers in an infobox - so we won't. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Bus stop, one can't merely remove the word "belief(s)" from the infobox. It automatically transcludes that way, and I'm told it would probably take an RfC. Further, even "Religion" implies "belief". For those infoboxes in question to be accurate and non-controversial, and therefore comply with WP:BLP, they would have to say "Religion: X, but self-identifies as "not religious" ". Even then, it would be giving undue weight to a characteristic that is not a defining characteristic of the person. First Light (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

First Light—there are no ironclad rules about belief and religion. You are saying "'Religion' implies 'belief'".[13] You initiated this thread[14] by pointing out that Zakaria and Krauthammer are "not religious". Yet the two sources posted above are showing that one is a Muslim and the other is a Jew. Is this a contradiction? I don't think so. But more sources would be necessary to get a clearer picture on that. Preliminarily the two examples you have provided suggest that religion does not imply belief. In the case of these two individuals we see no disconnect between an apparent lack of belief and an identification with a religion. You point out that one can't just remove the word "belief" from the religion field in the Infobox. Can't there be two fields—one reading simply "Religion" and the other reading "Religious beliefs"? In that case, the one that is most applicable could be used. My argument is to reserve the option for editors to decide these sorts of questions on a case by case basis. We don't need our hands tied by a requirement that religion can only be indicated in an Infobox when we have "self-identification". Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and instruction creep should be avoided when possible. Your examples provided above suggest that ironclad rules should be avoided if at all possible. We need the flexibility to interpret sources. Rules tend to be applicable in some cases and inapplicable in other cases. Bus stop (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bus stop, Wikipedia isn't a forum for original research, or for soapboxing. If you want to promote the ludicrous proposition that 'religion' doesn't involve 'belief', do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy—let's have a civil conversation. How do you explain that the two sources provided above describe Zakaria as Muslim and Krauthammer as Jewish? Please explain to me why the sources are assigning to them a religion when First Light has pointed out that both of these individuals are, in their own words, "not religious"? Bus stop (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

If Zakaria isn't religious, he isn't a Muslim - so one of the sources must be wrong. 'Jewish' is ambiguous of course - as you well know. And no, I'm not interested in having a 'civil conversation' with someone trying to subvert Wikipedia to promote a warped agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Andy—in response to your characterization of me as "…someone trying to subvert Wikipedia to promote a warped agenda",[15] consider reviewing WP:TALK: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Bus stop (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

e/c I'm also not interested in an endless discussion over something that is truly a violation of BLP. It's also an attempted violation of these individual's rights to clearly state their own religious beliefs—with a single Wikipedia editor wanting to tell them that they don't know what they are talking about regarding their own beliefs(!). And a violation of common sense, and time, and..... First Light (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Tough - as long as you continue to attempt to subvert Wikipedia to push your ridiculous obsessions, I will call it like it is. Your bogus politeness doesn't fool anyone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Geni.com? Reliable source? OR?

Can Geni.com be used to add ancestry to BLPs? An editor, user:GMA7 Powers 2008, is using it to contribute to many articles. If not, I, or someone, need to give warning. If I may have placed this in the wrong page, please advise where it should go, thanks BashBrannigan (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC).

To ask if a source is reliable, use WP:RSN. However, if it is a BLP issue, instead of RSN use WP:BLPN. One geni.com page used as a reference that I looked at displayed nothing other than a firm instruction that I needed to enable scripting and Flash, which makes me doubt that it is a reliable source (but ask at RSN for other views). Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Nationality claims in BLP articles

I see a lot of claims of nationality in articles, which are often not backed up by sources. This includes text in the lead ("xxx is a Spanish singer..."), infobox, inclusion in nationality categories, a stub template which includes nationality, and other mentions in the main article. Often, the Wikipedia link that the nationality mention points to (whether another article, or a stub or category), does not adequately define the inclusion criteria for a page. It appears an assumption is frequently made that if you are born in country X that is your nationality, but is that really the accepted definition of nationality? Should nationality be your place of birth (what if someone's parents were temporarily out of their home country when their child was born), or confirmation that you are a citizen of x country (how would that be sourced?), or a definitive sourced statement on 'nationality' by the person themselves? I think this BLP page should contain some guidance text relating to nationality claims. As an example, Category:English mathematicians makes no explanation of what is classed as 'English'. Eldumpo (talk) 08:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:OPENPARA, which states that essentially it is the nationality at the time that person achieved notability. So if someone was born in Spain, moved to the USA as a kid, became an US citizen at 18 and became notable as a singer at 25, then "xxx is an American singer". --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes Martin, but the infobox will still say Spain at place of birth, and that doesn´t apply for a person born in some former country (Soviet Union for exemple) despite being an Estonian footballer (for exemple). The country of birth is one specific issue, and has nothing at all to do with what that peroson did afterwords.

With regard to sportspeople, I beleave the nationality is the one depending on the national team the sportsman represents (having in mind that it may represent more than one during his career). If a sportsperson didn´t represented any nation, then it should be used the nationality that can be sourced. The fact is that it will often be eaqual (say, related) to a persons place of birth. The exceptions are obviously people that moved at young age, or people "accidentally" born somewhere else (like children of diplomats, or with other exemples of parents working abroad, for exemple). FkpCascais (talk) 01:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a question for most notable living people, who live in and are citizens of the country of their birth and parents. Maybe the discussion could use a few examples, some of the corner cases to illustrate the problem you're looking to solve. Ntsimp (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, as we are all heated by another previous discussion that happend here. Basically one of the issues is which country of birth to use at Konstantin Vassiljev or any other Estonian footballers born in the territory of current current day Estonia during the period of Soviet Occupation when the region became Estonian SSR part of Soviet Union. We do have some consensus within the project to use historically accurate territories (cities and countries) at place of birth, but some users want to keep Estonia in place. FkpCascais (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't is easier to report that Vassiljev is an Estonia international football player in the lead section? He's appeared many times for Estonia's national team, and there is no controversy about that (I hope). I suspect there are sources which show he also carries an Estonian passport, but that's far less important and doesn't reflect why he is a notable athlete. Jogurney (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It can be surprisingly difficult to source the actual possession of a passport - see Francis Bacon (artist). If there is no reason to think that (your example) a singer born in and living in Spain, with a Spanish-sounding name & singing in Spanish, is not a Spanish citizen, then realistically we have to go on that assumption. English/British/Scottish/Welsh is a special case (and nothing to do with legal status, as there are no English etc passports). There is a guideline, or rather a long-running row, somewhere - these irritating splits in categories are mostly the work of nationalistic Scottish editors in fact. Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that we are understandably cautious on most aspects of BLPs, why are we OK with saying 'realistically we have to go on that assumption'. Surely if something isn't sourced we shouldn't be including it. Eldumpo (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with some background information: "nationality", "location of birth", and "citizenship" are completely separate concepts. This is particularly surprising to Americans, because American law is strangely inclusive on these points: anyone born on the premises is automatically a US national and US citizen.

Nationality is primarily about which country's laws you are obliged to follow. Citizenship is primarily about which country's politics you are allowed to participate in. Your place of birth may have no connection at all to any of the above. In fact, throughout most of human history, most people were nationals of whatever state their parents belonged to, but not citizens of anything at all (peasants, serfs, slaves, and women all commonly falling into the category of non-citizen nationals until modern times).

Changing your citizenship does not necessarily revoke your original nationality. Using the Spanish example above, a person born in Spain as a Spanish national and Spanish citizen may immigrate to the US and become a US citizen. This can produce dual nationality (because under US laws, all US citizens are automatically US nationals) and dual citizenship (which US laws do not recognize, but most European laws do) rather than making the person solely a US national and US citizen, because the country of origin is under no obligation to consider the Spanish-born person to be a "foreigner".

To give a more useful example, if you are born on a ship in the middle of the ocean, to Mexican parents, and later immigrate to the US and become a US citizen, your place of birth is the middle of the ocean, your nationality at birth was Mexican, your current nationality is Mexican and American (some years ago, Mexico repealed its law that revoked Mexican nationality if you became a US citizen), and your current citizenship is American.

What I'd do in all cases is follow the sources. If—in everyday writing, not in publications dedicated to identifying every single twist and turn in the person's legal status—they usually say that he's "Estonian", then I'd say that, too, in both the lead and in the infobox. Later, I'd spell out the details: he was born in "<Name of City>, Estonian SSR" or "<Name of City>, Estonia, which was a part of the Soviet Union at the time". This gives you both a reasonably accurate (but simplified) summary for the summarizing parts, and the full details where you have space for the details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I note the comments you make about the differences between nationality and citizenship etc, and they seem reasonable and are the kinds of differences/complexities that I was alluding to, although I'm not sure to what extent your definitions are sourced or whether there is consensus here for them. I see lots of references to 'nationality' in articles, which based on the sources presented, can only be assuming nationality on the basis of country of birth. Is there consensus that this approach is reasonable, as it does seem to be an assumption to me, although either way I would like some guidance added here (and at Bio) clarifying how nationality should be addressed. Eldumpo (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Purpose of BLP articles

Has there been any discussion of clearly stating the purpose or goal of a BLP? These guidelines are helpful for determining what to avoid, but give little guidance on what to strive for. For example, should an article strive to be current? Should it strive to cover all notable events in a person's life? Positive guidance would help resolve contentious issues in article drafting.--Nowa (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nowa—in my opinion I think the answer is obviously that articles should be "current" and should "cover all notable events in a person's life". I don't think BLP specifically translates into the excluding of such information. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--Nowa (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

- I think MOSBIO is the correct guideline - Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies - combine that with - Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography#Tips for writing biographies - and you have at least a starting point - Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. This was helpful.--Nowa (talk) 21:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Use of Findmypast/Ancestry and other online archives to find personal information

Well, I was looking at the possibility of writing a WP article on Findmypast, the UK based subscription website which (among other things) publishes transcripts/images of government documents online. To my surprise (and horror) I discovered that literally thousands of WP biographical articles have used FMP to find out the full birth names, years and location of birth etc. of living people. Surely this has a serious conflict with WP:BLPPRIVACY, let alone the problem that the sources aren't accessible without a subscription?! Because the 'problem' is so widespread I'm wondering how it can be resolved. Maybe a specific mention could be made in the above WP policy guide? Sionk (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think policy already covers the removal of that as a source for a DOB - its a primary source that requires investigation and is also behind a paywall. - its basically a sales site. - without payment there is no information there at all. - currently there are 1041 - you could remove them yourself over a couple of weeks. You could try requesting a bot removal? Off2riorob (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for lightning quick response! Interesting to see that list too. It seems I overestimated the problem, but the number is still quite large. How do I organise a bot removal? I'm a self-proclaimed academic, amateur genealogist and general busybody, not a computer geek, haha.Sionk (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool, I love your self description. - You could ask at - Wikipedia:Bot requests - I only found one related discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, a read of it will help you understand some community positions, I agree with you completely but not everyone will. - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Personal data on findmypast.co.uk - Off2riorob (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, as Off2riorob noted, practically nobody but himself saw a problem with this. Per WP:PAYWALL the paywall is not particularly a problem (as somebody noted, JSTOR is behind a paywall, and nobody says we shouldn't use it as a source). The bottom line is that these are extracts of official records, and publicly available. For the most part, the information could also be second-sourced to Who's Who or to specialist-field biographical encyclopedias (eg for children's authors Something About The Author etc). In any case all the GRO index by itself will give you is the year and quarter of birth, entirely in line with WP:BLPPRIVACY. The information is overwhelmingly likely to be accurate and correct, the principal effect of removing it will just be to hurt our readers, and our comprehensiveness. Jheald (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Its worthless to a reader, its worthless all round, "our comprehensiveness" is content that is easily cited to reliable secondary accessible externals. - the only person that is benefiting is the website from the financial gain. I still remove them on sight and I encourage all other editors to do the same. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Off2riorob here. Thankyou for pointing me to the previous discussion, but it seems it was somewhat inconclusive, with 'for', 'against' and 'neutral' comments. It is interesting that WP:BLPPRIVACY is part of a section of policy called Presumption in favour of privacy. Using a subscription site to interpret primary sources in order to publish as yet non-public personal information about a living person seems to violate the 'presumption in favour of privacy' as well as, possibly, original research. Admittedly, with some celebrities with uncommon names, anyone could go into a public library and look up the information. It would still seem these people are going beyond what is reasonable to find encylopaedic information. Sionk (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." That's pretty much exactly the limit of the level of detail someone would get from a GRO index site. And I have to contest the proposition that someone's year of birth is somehow irrelevant to their bio. It's generally of very great interest to know how old somebody was when they achieved particular landmark accomplishments. Jheald (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

No one said that someone's age is irrelevant to their biography. But if someone chooses not to make their age, strange middle name, place of birth etc. public, that doesn't justify WP editors using all means, including original unreviewed research, to dig out the information and publish it on the world's most accessible online encyclopaedia. Sionk (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Age is famously something that is regarded as private by some people including, or even especially, the notable. The same may apply to other geneological information, of course, and and it is not enough for editors to say that they do not see the harm in publishing it in WP, or that they are interested in the information. There is a lot of very sensitive information that may well be thought relevant to a biography, such as why an actress dropped out of sight for a year. Wikipedians need to understand that an international encyclopedia must be sensitive to privacy concerns which may well be protected by law in some cases. The very fact that they are private means that we cannot always know why. --AJHingston (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Age is also something that is famously falsified by actors and others. Most of these articles appear to have had full dates of birth -- picked up from the internet or press articles or wherever -- before the GRO cites for birth year were added. To be honest, I think it is quite a good thing if we are fact-checking such claimed dates against the authoritative public records. Jheald (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What aspect of 'presumption in favour of privacy' don't you understand, Jheald? Or are you simply deciding it doesn't apply to you? Sionk (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

What part of WP:BLPPRIVACY "list the year" aren't you prepared to accept, Sionk? Or are you simply deciding you know best? To restate: these are public records, readily accessible (eg through FreeBMD); and for the most part we already had a full date of birth (more information than the GRO hit provides), the GRO reference is just being used to fact-check it. Jheald (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Our purpose here is basically to report what others have reported, it's not to investigate primary unreported private details about living people that are to people like myself and the other 99.9% of other people/readers who don't give money to the website, uncheckable and unsupported in secondary reports. JHeald is on a mission to seek out and expose what he considers as celebrities that he accuses of lying about their age, again - not what wikipedia is here for and not editors correct objective - Off2riorob (talk) 09:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

FreeBMD is, as its name suggests, free -- no money involved. Even for a site like Findmypast, which may have some transcriptions that FreeBMD hasn't got to yet, per WP:PAYWALL that shouldn't be a consideration. My view is that if we present information that is reasonably fact-checkable, then it's no bad thing to reasonably fact-check it. Jheald (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)- find it in a Secondary source WP:RS or in a statement from the subject or don't add personal details about living people - as I said previously, remove Findmypast/Ancestry on sight. Off2riorob (talk) 09:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be removing an appropriately located reference, and damaging the article. It's entirely appropriate to link the authoritative source to confirm a straightforward, factual, descriptive piece of information (WP:PSTS). Jheald (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is a source ya don't need a pay as ya go primary to verify it. If there is not a source do not add find my past ancestor dot com whatever site to support a personal detail - as per, continue removing on sight. If the only place you can find someones personal details in in a searchable database on a sales site or a birth record database, then clearly privacy is an issue. - such investigative editing and becoming the primary vehicle for the reporting of living peoples personal details of living people is just not our mission. Off2riorob (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The argument is being changed by Jheald now, but in essence is still the same. FreeBMD, unlike Findmypast and Ancestry, is of course free (I don't know how relevant it is because until now we've been discussing FMP). However, there are still a number of problems with using FreeBMD which means it requires interpretation, assumptions and OR to extact data. FreeBMD is not complete after c.1916, though it has some transcriptions of BMD registers up to c.1955. Therefore finding a name of a living person does not guarantee its the correct record. Therefore I think FreeBMD is a 'red herring' thrown in by Jheald to obscure the argument here. For all sources of the GRO BMD registers interpretation is required, for example someone who's birth was registered in the March quarter may have been born in November the previous year; an event attributed to a registration district could have taken place in any one of several dozen parishes and two or three different counties.
Back to the original argument. If as Jheald says, the personal fact about a living person is already openly available from another source, then there's no need to double-check it with a primary source government record. If the fact is not openly and unambiguously given in a trustworthy source then is probably shouldn't appear in the encylopaedia.
I don't have time to investigate every use of FMP on Wikipedia. Of the few I've looked at closely, quite a few reveal details such as middle names, which weren't previously openly available. Several examples use FMP to confirm uncited information that had been added by someone else e.g. using an uncited YOB and the name to find the place of birth. There are a lot of variations to this theme but, in any case, I can't see any justification to use original research to uncover undisclosed private information, or to confirm what is already 'out there'. Sionk (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree with all of that, especially the comment that such databases whether free or not, "requires interpretation, assumptions and OR to extact data." - Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Prejudicial information regarding possible criminal behavior or defendants in current criminal cases

See Sub judice User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes information which relates to possible criminal activity or pending criminal charges against a living person is included an article. The information may or may not be from a reliable source, indeed may only be present in the editing history of the article. The person may or may not be notable. Persons; the public, prosecutors, judges, or jurors; who make decisions with respect to criminal charges may potentially view such information. What should our policy be? User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

To give an example, suppose someone is put on trial for killing Muammar Gaddafi. Our article has a link to this article and the language, "They captured him alive and while he was being taken away, they beat him and then they killed him". What is our obligation to ensure justice is done the accused? Multiple factual scenarios are possible. Keep in mind that the overwhelming majority of such cases involve incidents, victims, and suspects which do not meet our notability criteria, and if information has ever been present may have been deleted. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If the information is properly supported by reliable sources, then it is already available to the people you indicate (e.g. via newspapers). The problem you identify is one for the courts, not for us; jurors are instructed not to view such information and not to consider it in their deliberations if they do learn about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not out of the realm of possibility that we would receive a court order that directs us to remove that information. What should we do in that type of case? I have my own opinion - of course - but I'm curious about what the community would like in that case? Obviously, we would have our legal team involved, so this is more of a "mind of the community" type of question. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignoring any legal complications, my own preference in such a case would be to double-check the information for plausibility, and if it appears OK to leave it in with clear attribution to the original source and, where applicable, information about the fact that the original source was since censored. However, I see no reason why Wikipedia should be privileged over other similar works such as Britannica and be more immune to legal proceedings. If some court or government really has a lever for censoring Wikipedia, then the WMF obviously needs to consult its lawyers and strike a balance between its own ideals and the constraints of the real world, just like everybody else does. Hans Adler 19:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to do more than check for plausibility. If we intend to present is as true, we need to check that it is. In the Gadaffi article, I just removed a statement in the lead that he was sodomised. This is plausible, but even the sourcing used is circumspect and, whilst basically RS, not exactly weapons-grade. A good illustration of why we should be dumping "not truth".

In general, attributing allegations against living persons can be okay, but we should be making sensible judgements, not taking a hardline that if it can be sourced then it is fair game. Some allegations and insinuations are not important enough to merit inclusion in WP. --FormerIP (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If some judge sent us such an order? If it were a U.S. court, I'd say we fight it tooth and toenail, since there are almost no cases in the entire country where such an order would be legitimate; and publicize in the press that some arrogant judge believes him/herself to be above the law. If from some other jurisdiction, then I say we ignore it, since it is by definition null and void in the United States. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The power of a foreign court aside, what if there was extremely prejudicial information in one of our articles which would not be or arguably would not be admissible evidence? Remember, the information would only have to be removed for the duration of the criminal proceeding. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and if the prejudicial effect is obvious, should the information be in our article if we know jurors, or a judge, somewhere may be viewing our article and drawing the obvious conclusions? Should we not do what is right, if it is, without being ordered to do so? Or is that simply absurd? What if we are the cause of a dangerous person being released on the public? User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

So what? This is a reference work, not a court of law. The issues you raise are meaningless to us. We care about WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE; nothing in Wikipedia is or should be admissible evidence in a court of law. Those are the same bogus arguments used by every judge and lawyer opposed to freedom of the press. It's not our job to do what the courts are incompetent to do, any more than books should be removed from the adult section of a public library because a 6-year-old might open them. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Worrying about court orders is WMF's department. But we do have a responsibility to be accurate and avoid gossip and trivia. If we were ever to live up to that, there should be no problem. --FormerIP (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I support Orange Mike's interpretation: If we follow our own BLP sourcing policies carefully, no court would have any legitimate reason to attempt to censor any such material. Jclemens (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This problem occurred at Death of Baby P, as the names of the defendants were widely available on the Internet, despite a UK court ban on naming them.[16] The second trial nearly collapsed because of fears that a fair trial would be impossible.[17] Wikipedia is not bound by the Sub judice laws of non-US countries, but common sense should apply.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

We've been here before. See eg Talk:Peter Tobin, and the history of that article, which was redacted twice while trials were underway. There was a long discussion on WP:AN/I at the time (Admin deletes article per Scottish police), and also a follow-on discussion here at WT:BLP (Current legal cases). Anyone commenting here should first read those threads.

UK appeal courts have and will vacate convictions if they believe the jury was aware of prejudicial information. This is something that the community has to consider. While a UK court may be no legal basis to stop non-UK citizens uploading material to non-UK servers, the question we have to consider is when this would really be doing the right thing. Jheald (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The UK has strict laws on publishing certain types of information during trials, and the UK media would have a field day if a trial collapsed because of a Wikipedia article. Personally, I think this is unlikely, as Facebook and Twitter are far bigger problems. Since these sites are not considered to be reliable sources, any material that violates BLP - during a trial or not - can be easily reverted. Wikipedia cannot second guess the courts, and as long as material has appeared in a reliable source, there should be no bar to including it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) The problem is not necessarily unsourced gossip -- the problem may be factual true material that is being withheld from the jury. For example, Tobin's prior convictions. The very fact that WP tends to be more reliable than Twitter or Facebook -- and tends to reference things to reliable sources -- may ironically make well-referenced things more of a problem in this regard. Jheald (talk) 13:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only that (though those are all excellent points) -- a trial would not collapse "because of a wikipedia article". It might collapse if it were shown that a juror consulted a wikipedia article. The problem is then what the juror has done, not the existence of an article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A possibility a court might consider and attempt to guard against. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

What if pressure from a court has resulted in all material in reliable sources being redacted? Good point, by the way, above that the question is not the limits of what we can do, but what is right. What are the ethical responsibilities of being a major publisher and how can we best discharge them? We know there is information in reliable sources that is both prejudicial and wrong, even fabricated. We know people, even sensitive, highly educated, experienced people may be influenced by what they read here. We sometimes, as in the case of the Death of Baby P, have actual notice of obvious problems. And we may receive requests, or orders from courts, some of which have jurisdiction, or otherwise have us by the short hairs, or not. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Similar fact evidence is sometimes withheld from juries, even if it has appeared in reliable sources. In the age of the Internet, the only realistic way around this problem is to instruct juries not to research the case online.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Precisely! Nomo, you've hit it in one. It is not our job to keep a rogue juror from violating his/her instructions. The sub judice system (of which I personally do not approve; so what?) is the responsibility of the legal systems of those countries to police. I find any suggestion that we are responsible to do their job for them repugnant in the extreme. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It is now standard practice in most countries for judges to advise jurors not to tweet, or to read material about the case on the Internet.[18] If Wikipedia did publish material that was reliably sourced, it would be the juror's fault for accessing it against the judge's instructions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the only viable solution, Jurors to be told not to tweet under new law, enforceable orders to jurors to not be researching matters on the internet during trials combined with voir dire that explores prior internet usage, particularly intense interest in a matter. However, there are jurisdictions which will attempt to issue blanket bans on publication of information during a proceeding, or even demanding removal of previously published material. Should we should try to accommodate them if there is obvious prejudice or just stiff them? Major nations such as the United Kingdom or the People's Republic of China have the ability to affect the Wikimedia Foundation and our ability to publish in their jurisdictions, if not some editor living in the United States. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's always that simple. Yes jurors have a responsibility to follow judges' instructions, just as pedestrians have a responsibility to look where they are going. But drivers still have a responsibility to drive carefully. We have a responsibility to write conservatively per WP:BLP, and that can involve all kinds of considerations. We avoid, for example, stating someone's religion where we know what it probably is but we can't be 100% sure. Surely, it would consistent with that type of approach to be at least mindful of the risk of prejudicing a trial. --FormerIP (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, most of the problems in this area have occurred when people attempted to add things they had read on Twitter or Facebook, which would have failed WP:BLP anyway. A government would risk making itself look mighty silly (and causing the Streisand effect) if it loudly demanded the removal of reliably sourced material from a website during a trial.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Silly or not, it is done. See Footballers face retrial and Newspaper to face contempt charge over abandoned trial. They dismiss the case and "it is your fault". User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

That case was ten years ago, and relates to a newspaper that should have been aware of any reporting restrictions in the case imposed by the Attorney General. Wikipedia cannot be aware of every court case in every country, and should also be wary of removing reliably sourced information from articles that are read in a range of countries. This is why Wikipedia named Ryan Giggs as the person in CTB v News Group Newspapers, even though it was illegal in the UK at the time. I would also like to ask if the WMF has ever received a formal request from the UK government to remove material. Google revealed recently that it had been asked by the UK government to remove 135 YouTube videos, which were probably dreary rants about Jihad by various headbangers.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Material covered by the secret orders issued by The High Court was oversighted repeatedly; a good faith effort was made to comply. They addressed private, libelous information and would have been removed should anyone have requested, even an uninvolved 3rd party. We would oversight personal information about what the bag lady did with the smelly bum in the alley, if requested, or noticed. That example illustrates the limits of such orders. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If it were not for this we would still oversight it, as the injunction remains in effect and the reasons for suppressing it remain valid. It is personal, libelous information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This not strictly true. By the time that John Hemming named Giggs on Monday 23 May 2011, Giggs had been named as CTB by his BLP since Friday 20 May, after a furious two week debate over whether to include the information. It was oversighted on a number of occasions, but the ill-advised decision of Giggs' lawyers to take action against Twitter effectively wrecked the injunction by setting off foreign media coverage. John Hemming acknowledged this in The Guardian.[19] A Scottish newspaper also broke the injunction before John Hemming. Quote from John Hemming: " If I hadn't done what I did on Monday, I accept that Sky wouldn't have just run with it as they did. We can't say what would or wouldn't have happened had I not spoken about the issue in the House. But I don't think I used parliamentary privilege in the sense that I needed to have it. The story had been printed in Scotland at the weekend, it had been all over Twitter and was on Wikipedia. It was in the public domain. Even though all speeches are privileged, I did not have to make use of privilege."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If your phone number, or any other personal information about you that you have not published yourself, was published on Wikipedia we would immediately suppress it. Why is a footballer's personal information any different? We are, of course, subject to the effects of popular manias and beyond a certain notoriety our efforts are futile. Likewise, in the case of criminal cases, while it might have done little good to suppress false information published in The New York Times about the activities of Saddam Hussein, it might do a great deal of good to suppress prejudicial evidence about an obscure common criminal. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The UK privacy injunction saga in 2011 set off the biggest debate about freedom of speech in the UK since Spycatcher and Lady Chatterley's Lover. It all began on 14 April 2011, when The Sun tried to publish two stories, one about "a world famous celebrity" (NEJ v BDZ (Helen Wood)) and another about "a footie star" and Imogen Thomas (cover of the newspaper here), under the heading "TWO CHEATS HIDE BEHIND LAW". In both cases, the issue was not libel but privacy as defined by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These were both tabloid junk stories, and would soon have been forgotten about had it not been for the enormous amount of money spent on trying to prevent these two people from being named. Near civil war broke out in the UK media in April and May 2011, with everyone from David Cameron to Jimmy Wales offering their opinions. Publishing a person's home address etc. online is always wrong, but in Ferdinand v Mirror Group Newspapers the court accepted that sometimes publication of these stories can be justified. Had it not been for the injunction saga, the claims about Ryan Giggs would have failed WP:BLPGOSSIP immediately.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I was involved in a real-world example not too long ago at Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders. I think this is an illustrative example, because if you claim to take the BLP policy seriously, this article is a great test of your sincerity. When I came across the article, one of the two perpetrators was a defendant in the capital murder trial associated with the crimes, while the other had confessed and been convicted. I found it appalling that the (now restored) blow-by-blow description of the crimes was included in the article before the trial had reached its conclusion - and that the article had made GA (!) - and so I removed it, mentioning that I'd done so at WP:BLP/N. Another editor agreed with me and in spite of some grumbling we were able to keep it out until the defendant plead guilty and confessed to everything in the article (and more) in open court.

Traditionally, the press is expected to hedge their presumptions of guilt until a conviction is actually turned in; mistrials are commonly declared where media coverage has polluted the juror pools or made selecting a neutral jury impossible. And yet while Wikipedia's worldwide cultural impact is arguably of a higher profile than any major corporate news agency, our adherence to these principles is abysmal. A person interested in finding out about a criminal case (such as current or future jurors) are likely to search Wikipedia for information about criminal defendants before they search Google, and they are likely to decide whether a real person like you and me should be jailed or go free - live or die - based on what they find. That is a tremendous responsibility we are accepting whenever we report anything about such a person. The more hated and vilified the subject, the more uncompromising we have to be in enforcing every word of this policy. Regards, causa sui (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The scenerio presented in the first paragraph here actually happened on the article :Death of Caylee Anthony when Krystal Holloway's (a supposed paramour of George Anthony)"partial or half " testimony was put into the article. This more sensational part was previously sold to the National Equirer. while also appearing in more reputable papers. Krystal had a financial motivation to give just half of the story - that being that it was more sensational and worth money. The incomplete and sensational statement implied that George Anthony had prior knowledge of, or otherwise had participated in, the cover up of the death and/or hiding of the body of his granddaughter Caylee Anthony. This woman came forward to state that she had an affair with Mr. Anthony and one night she asked him, "What do you think happened to your granddaughter" at which point she stated that he said, "It was an accident that went wrong and Casey tried to cover it up." (This implies that George knew what happened to his granddaughter and did not report or testify that he had prior knowledge of it.) What Krystal Holloway actually said when repeatedly threatened under oath and also shown her sworn police statement, was something which may sound similar to someone unfamilar with the law but has a completely different meaning. George said, "I really believe that it was an accident and that went wrong and Casey tried to cover it up". I argued with a fellow editor that the complete testimony must be put in but the editor did not want to, saying that a "reliable source" (not the Equirer), I think it was the Sun Sentinel, stated it the first way. I told the editor that the trial tapes and the police tapes and the sworn testimony tells a different story. Anyway, I believed and still believe it was a blantant BLP violation and took it out. The editor kept repeating that statement in Wiki that is so misleading - "Veribility, not truth". Finally, an administrator came in who heard the trial as I did and listened to the sworn testimony at which time the editor completely changed her story and inserted the full information - but only after one month of much consternation and a discussboard, etc., etc. To imply that someone is guilty of covering up and/or unreporting an accident or a homicide and hiding the body is in and of itself a serious crime. It is an being an accessory during and/or after the fact. I know we are not lawyers, etc., etc., and I am just telling you that the standards need to be a little higher when living persons are accused of a crime in a wikipedia article. People can and do sue for defamation and the Anthony family since the acquittal of Casey Anthony, IS IN FACT SUING different companies and people all over the place. They cannot sue Wiki because the paragraph was repaired and accurate last time I looked. There needs to be a better understanding and a better way to explain a guideline than "Verifiability, not truth" the title is misleading and invites legal trouble. Mugginsx (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The fiction is maintained that the editors of the article, who are usually not worth suing, are the responsible parties; thus agents of the Wikimedia Foundation will not edit articles except in exigent circumstances. The purpose of this note was to advance a policy suggestion that Sub judice considerations be taken into account with respect to biographies of living persons, at least when practical. We can do little about notorious matters which are extensively covered in the press such as Death of Caylee Anthony. But we can do a great deal about situations where our article is a substantial part of media coverage regarding a matter. Suppression is especially important in such cases as our information about persons who are not the subject of extensive media coverage is likely to be sketchy and incomplete, thus, inherently misleading. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:legal, the editors are responsible for their statements. As to whether or not they are worth suing is a matter of what they value in their possessions, a home, a car may only be valuable to them. If they work, their wages can be garnished. No one can not be hurt by being sued, except, a street person who does not work and owns nothing. As to whether it is worthwhile to the suors, the idea is not always to acquire money as an outcome - it is hurting the person being sued by making them hire an attorney, etc. Mugginsx (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

True, but a basic rule of thumb is that an expected recovery of at least $10,000, and perhaps more, is required to make litigation worthwhile. Additionally, intimidation must work for punitive litigation to be worthwhile. If all it does is stir up a hornet's nest of opposition it is self-defeating. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That rule of thumb does not take into account middle and lower income individuals and most of all, it does not take into account "angry people" who have been harassed and have a lawyer on retainer who can just sue for any amount and a garnishment of wages will be granted until the amount is paid. In other words, it is done for spite - and the Anthonys are a prime example of people who are angry and "lawyer-poor" who need to recoup money they had to spend for protection against the media, mentally unstable people, child advocacy groups, and citizens who, in their eyes, have defamed them. I understand the average person only sues for "money", but there are others who sue to "hurt" a person or make a point to the public. I do not want to rehash the arguments, there are examples everywhere but the people are usually too unimportant to see in print. It is just something to keep in mind when a very small group of editors think they can establish their personal POV by putting slanted statements in an article, especially of an ongoing capital murder trial with living non-notable persons and those editors mistakedly think they are protected by the "Verifiable, not truth" guideline that they copiously quote. In Connecticut, it takes $35 to sue in Small Claims court to receive a cap of $5,000. That can hurt a person, especially when it will additionally cost nearly that amount to bring an attorney with him or her. http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/small-claims-suits-how-much-30031.html It is just something to think about and I wish the guideline was clarified. Mugginsx (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, we seem to be on the same side of the question, although suppression can be futile when there are a thousand other big Google hits. When Wikipedia articles are the major Google hits, suppression is not futile. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Very true. Mugginsx (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Is every 'Firstname Lastname' article necessarily a biography?

This policy page seems to be based on the premise that every article about a person (typically named [[Firstname Lastname]]) is a biography - an account of someone's life. I question that premise.

Many people are notable for only something in particular, and their lives are not necessarily notable. But we still have articles with their names on them, which include all notable and appropriate and properly sourced information related to them. These are not biographies, and they shouldn't be.

I bring this up because of Herman Cain. As the talk page and history of that article show, there has been a lot of disagreement about how much of the information about the recent misconduct allegations belong in the article, and some are arguing for exclusion of certain material on the grounds that that article is a biography, and so much information about a scandal is undue weight. To me, that article is at least as much the article about all that is notable regarding Herman Cain, including everything significant about this story that is looking more and more like it could influence the outcome of the presidential election, as it is an "account of his life".

On the general question about biographies vs. "articles about all that is notable about a person", responding here is appropriate. But if you want to discuss anything specific about the Herman Cain article, it's probably best to do that at Talk:Herman Cain rather than forking that discussion here. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's actually simpler than this: if it discusses events in the life of a person, then it's a BLP. It might be a very poor BLP (your example of a person "notable" because of a single event is why BLP1E exists) that shouldn't exist at all, but it's still a BLP. Frankly, and speaking in hypotheticals since I haven't even looked at the article you mention, if the only thing documented in an article that bears a living person's name is a scandal, then that article probably shouldn't exist at all because that person is clearly not notable enough for one. — Coren ^(talk) 00:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Equally, a Firstname Lastname need not be a BLP. It might be an article about a fictional character, a corporation, or even a disambiguation page.—S Marshall T/C 01:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

if the only thing documented in an article that bears a living person's name is a scandal, then that article probably shouldn't exist at all. Absolutely. But that's not the case here it all. Herman Cain is a robust BLP - no question about that. But right now they're DELETING ALL MENTION OF THE WELL-SOURCED MATERIAL REGARDING THE MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS. Right now, if someone comes to WP to find out about that issue, which has been in the headlines all month so far (even in Europe, not just the U.S.), they are likely to go to Herman Cain and find nothing - as if didn't even happen! I see no justification for this kind of censoring at WP:BLP. I'm trying to explain this at Talk:Herman Cain, but to no avail. Can someone help, please? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe what is needed is a fork, 2012 presidential campaign of Herman Cain. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons would still apply, but even totally bogus issues, such as Barack Obama not being born in the United States, are notable as events which occurred during the campaign. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And looking at the discussion at Talk:Herman Cain, there is such a page, Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012. Although, it is plain that information is emerging that will support inclusion of the information in Herman Cain. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And such information has emerged, in my view, and yet when I added one well-sourced sentence about it, it was reverted. See Talk:Herman_Cain#Is_censoring_any_mention_of_the_corroboration_of_Bialek.27s_story_here_a_violation_of_NPOV.3F. Is this BLP zealotry? --Born2cycle 01:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

To the general question, think of the BLP policy as a policy not on biographies as such, but on biographical content -- its scope includes all information about or relating to living people everywhere on Wikipedia (and not just in article name space). That is not "BLP Zealotry" - biographical content is biographical content, wherever it is. That being said, for Herman Cain, the sexual harassment allegations are getting substantial media play - front page on Google News several days in a row now -- and so they should get a brief mention. causa sui (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Do external links count as references for BLP purposes?

If a BLP article contains no references cited in text, but does contain one or more external links, do those external links count as references? What if they are purely self-referential such as the person's own web page? This is the reason I ask; I had tagged it as an unreferenced BLP, but someone else said they thought the external links counted as references. I went ahead and AfD'ed that article since it seemed to be a gray area. But I am left wondering, do we have a policy on exactly what constitutes an unreferenced BLP? Thanks for any info. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, external links count as references; they don't have to be in footnotes. Still, self-published links on a BLP are inadmissible unless they're the subject's own site, and even that doesn't help to meet WP:N. Jclemens (talk) 07:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt reply! So this kind of article is NOT an unreferenced BLP. Thanks, now I understand. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Until fairly recently, external links were not treated as references. The applicable template was specific; a BLP was categorized as "unsourced" if it did not "cite any references or sources."[20] Thousands and thousands of articles were tagged by this consensus practice. Over last year's Christmas holiday, after a discussion with very scanty participation, the template was altered. Although the issue had repeatedly been debated before, without reaching consensus for change, no effort was made to notify participants in those discussions. The change was pushed by members of the unreferenced biography wikiproject, who, in what I see as a grossly misguided effort, addressed the embarassment of the existence of so many unreferenced bios by changing the working definition of "unreferences". This has left Wikipedia in the peculiar, indeed perverse, position of having more relaxed standards for BLPs than for less sensitive articles [21]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. So it was a change from previous practice and was not widely publicized. I guess there must have been many besides me who didn't get the word, since I find many articles listed at Category:Unreferenced BLPs even though they contain external links. (I browse that category looking for articles to rescue.) Live and learn. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP1E in practice

While it's fairly clearly written, BLP1E is routinely ignored in AFD discussions. It seems silly to have such a policy if it's routinely ignored. Toddst1 (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ignored, or simply not interpreted the way you want it to be? Bring up a couple recent examples where you don't think it was considered properly, and let's talk through how clear cut it is and whether it was applied correctly in those cases. Jclemens (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

And in case you have any issues with respect to any BLP's AFD, you should necessarily go to closing admin and then to DRV. Wifione ^Message 03:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom election reminder: voting closes soon

All editors are reminded that voting closes for ACE2011 in just over a day's time (Saturday 10 December at 23:59 UTC). To avoid last-minute technical logjams, editors are asked to vote at least an hour before the close, that is, by:

Saturday 15:00 (3 pm) on the west coast of North America;
Saturday 18:00 (6 pm) on the east coast of North America;
Saturday 23:00 (11 pm) in the UK and Ireland;
Sunday 01:00 (1 am) in South Africa;
Sunday 06:00 (7 am) on the west coast of Australia; and
Sunday 10:00 (10 am) on the east coast of Australia; and
Sunday 12:00 (12 noon) in New Zealand.

For the election coordinators. $Tony (talk)$ 14:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Arrests

I have reposted this question elsewhere, so please reply there rather than here. Thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

A query for you (hope this is a good place to post it).

If Mr. X, a notable (own WP article) UK sportsman, is (per BBC News) arrested for a 'serious' offence, does that arrest qualify for inclusion in his article, or not? What I'm looking for is a definitive answer / statement, such as a "See [[WP:xyz]]" one, that I can quote, & store & use in future.

Are all such arrests treated the same in WP? Are most treated 1 way (examples please), but a few treated another way (examples please)?

Incidentally, does Wikinews follow the same guidelines?

Many thanks, Trafford09 (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying what does and does not constitute "Guilt By Association" in relation to controversial incidents in BLP entries.

A number of WP:BLP articles refer to specific controversial incidents that occur related to living persons. Generally someone perpetrates a a scandal, especially an act of violence, and then a tangential connection is found between a public figure, and that public figure, who then disavows or deplores the act of violence. I would argue that when the person in question publicly responds in a significant manner (i.e., conducts an interview, offers court testimony, issues a press release) that mention of the incident no longer constitutes a guilt By Association of WP:BLP violation, especially when they unequivocally denounce the actions of the perpetrator. For example, when Jared Lee Loughner perpetrated the 2011 Tucson shooting, and in the resulting speculation_on_causation| implicated Sarah Palin, who subsequently denounced the incident in strenuous terms. The section was originally included in the Sarah Palin entry, but subsequently moved to a related article Public image of Sarah Palin#Campaign imagery

This incident was extensively discussed on the WP:BLP noticeboard, and many insisted that any mention of the incident in connection with Sarah Palin was a form of association fallacy and a consensus was clearly obtained regarding the current wording.

Another example is found in the case of Jodie Foster contains a similar passage referring to her being a target of fan obsession, in connection with John F. Hinckley Jr's assassination attempt on President Reagan. A reference is provided to the fact that Foster offered videotaped testimony about Hinckley's letter during his trial.

These carefully-worded examples provide an acceptable model for broaching an admittedly difficult topic, and so do not fall into the realm of guilt by association.

While I have not personally been uninvolved in editing the above pages, I have been involved in previous discussions regarding Anders Behring Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks. Breivik quoted a wide variety of sources in his manifesto, and some editors attempted to insert entries placing blame on those individuals in the aftermath of those attacks. This was extensively discussed here on the BLP noticeboard in two separate entries at the time.Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive127 A consensus was reached that the majority of these references were guilt by association attacks on the persons in question, with which I fully agree. That said, I did attempt to bring up the fact that many of these individuals had subsequently denounced Breivik's violent actions, and that inclusion of this in a briefly worded statement would not necessarily constitute a guilt by association attack. Nevertheless, some other editors argued that despite concise, careful wording, such additions constituted a violation of BLP policies.

The reason I am posting this discussion here is that I believe the WP:BLP policy does not effectively address the handling of contentious, controversial issues as they occur, and I think it would be useful in helping to provide some useful, more explicit guidelines for editors when such controversial occur. Extremely contentious debates can be seen in the talk sections of various pages (i.e. Sarah Palin) in which editors tried to blame Palin for Loughner's actions, and then Palin supporters arguing that the incident shouldn't be mentioned at all, even though she did respond. It would be helpful if a clearer guidelines were implemented, which would help to limit these often furious exchanges and edit wars. While the relevant section Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Criticism and praise simply cautions one to "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content", the guidelines are not clear with respect to when a person responds to such accusations.

So, the formula I propose is this: if lunatic X commits a controversial act Y, and implicates person Z either directly, or person Z is implicated indirectly (such as what happened to Palin), and Z publicly responds and condemns both X and Y, then mentioning the fact that Z responded publicly is no longer an insinuation of guilt by association in violation of a WP:BLP entry. Would it be acceptable to add a section on controversial incidents, and guidelines for writing them? I might also add that it would be advisable to wait for a period before editing is commenced.Jemiljan (talk) 19:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the difficulty with such a rule is that it will depend on the case. The recent psychiatric assessment of Anders Behring Breivik may make it easier to make a judgement than in the immediate aftermath of the incident; he was laying the blame very widely including on the victims themselves. But take the hypothetical case of somebody who physically attacks the supposed rival of a film or sporting star, and says that they did it for her based on something she is alleged to have said. The star in question would certainly be expected to make a statement of condemnation. But whether that should appear in the BLP should depend on the circumstances. Was the attacker actually in a relationship with the star in question, or were there other prima facie grounds for thinking that the claim might be correct? If so, the denial might be a proper matter for the star's BLP article (though I would be uneasy about it until after any trial). On the other hand, the attacker may be claiming that he or she had merely heard words spoken by the star in a film or on television which they had interpreted as an invitation or encouragement to carry out the attack, and in that case I would argue that it had no part in the biography of the star in question. Most instances will be somewhere in between these two extremes, and one consideration must be whether the damage is already done - if the subject of the biography is being widely accused of being responsible in some way and it is being believed, then the whole affair and their denial becomes notable and that may be the guiding principle in the Sarah Palin instance. --AJHingston (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with your point that in some cases (especially BLP1E), that the circumstances may not warrant inclusion. Say some lunatic claims that a "star" or "notable person" told him or her in a dream or "heard voices" telling them to go rob a bank, the attempt is foiled, and the person publishes a single, short comment, then that isn't notable. Or some idiot thinks that Richard Gere told him in his mind to "gerbil" his or herself is ridiculous. Such instances would hardly warrant a response on the person in question. The response, if there is one, might only be a statement by an agent or spokesman at best.

In contrast, in the case of Sarah Palin (and I would add Jodie Foster as well), I appreciate that you agree that they do provide an acceptable model for inclusion. That said, I wonder what is the criteria for "notability"? Here again, we become a bit vague, and some clarification of this threshold is in order.

In the case of Palin and Foster, there was a flurry of news reports. In the case of Breivik, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller were widely accusing of "inspiring" Breivik. Similar to Palin, they not only denounced the event, but were also independently defended in several media outlets: on television, radio, and newspaper articles. Specifically, Spencer appeared in four separate public television and radio interviews, both dismissing the charges made against him, and strenuously denouncing the attacks, and several independent articles were written about the matter. To me, this sort of incident very much meets the criteria for "notability". Still it would be good to have some sort of threshold articulated, as sad to say, there will be future events along these lines, and a clear policy would, I believe, prove very helpful.Jemiljan (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Jodie Foster one is interesting, and incidentally touches on one of the areas that is being judicially examined in the UK by the Leveson Inquiry. It does, I think, demonstrate why we have to be very careful. Clearly, Ms Foster was an entirely innocent party and I do not think that any sane person would suppose otherwise. We have the BLP rules because without them people's lives can be done enormous harm. My own view is that whilst it may be right now to refer to the ill treatment she received by the media at the time as relevant to her life and career, I would not want to see it in a biography if it referred to current events. This is a very difficult topic. --AJHingston (talk) 23:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand your point about how the case of Foster relates the topics addressed in the Leveson Inquiry. At the time of the attacks, I don't feel that Foster was treated poorly by the media or that her reputation suffered. If anything, I think that she received a certain degree of sympathy. That said, I agree that as you say, allowing WP to be a forum for association fallacies, especially in BLP articles, can cause enormous harm. That said, there are ways to write such passages so as to ensure that logically speaking, it doesn't meet the criteria of an association fallacy, much as any fallacious argument can be modified into one that is sound and valid. I do believe that the specific model I have suggested provides such a framework. Do you have some specific criteria that you think I have not addressed?Jemiljan (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Tthere is a danger of going off topic here, but the Leveson Inquiry is not investigating phone hacking etc as such, that is a matter for the criminal courts, but about the culture, ethics and regulation of the media and is actually going over much of the ground that the BLP policies deal with. In European terms it is the conflict between article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (privacy) and article 10 (free expression) which in the UK is generally summarised as the right of the media to report things if that is in the public interest. One tabloid journalist has expressed the view to the inquiry that the public interest is the same as whatever interests the public, whilst various notable and non-notable people have complained about the impact of the media constantly probing into every aspect of their lives. I had actually forgotten the tenuous connection between John Hinckley, Jr. and Jodie Foster though I do remember the concern expressed about the alleged sexualisation by Hollywood of child stars at the time. I was concentrating on the reference in the Jodie Foster article to the media attention on her as a result of Hinckley's actions which she will have found very distressing. If such a thing happened today I would take the view that the assassination attempt had nothing to do with her and so had no part in her biography.

I think one difficulty with the proposed formula is precisely one raised before the Leveson Inquiry. Journalists often try very hard to extract a statement or interview in order to bring something within the public sphere, whilst a refusal to deny may be used to imply that it is true (X refused to deny....etc) or even later brand the person as a habitual liar if they refuse to admit to a very private matter such as an early pregnancy or new relationship which subsequently proves correct. My feeling is that the mere fact that a person has been manoeuvered into making or refusing a statement should not determine whether the matter should be included in the article. Another difficulty with making rules is that cases vary so much, and the boundary between actual responsibility (eg encouraging your followers to go out and behave in particular ways) and guilt by association (eg fans behaving in a particular way without encouragement) may be very unclear. So I am not sure how much additional guidelines would help. --AJHingston (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

While I very much understand your caution, I think you may misunderstand parts of my proposal, and are imagining other scenarios which I have quite intentionally not addressed. Please note that the threshold I am proposing is one very much in place: avoidance of guilt by association. All that I am asking is clarification in the BLP policy section on what does and does not constitute as much, and threshold established by the rules of logic are very clear, and such incidents must necessarily be unambiguous. If vague, then the policy would not apply.

Note that I proposed mention when the person implicated has issued multiple, unequivocal statements in response- not just a single statement-, and certainly not instances when they should refuse to respond. Your criticism concerning how the phrase "refusing to deny" is very valid, for that clearly meets the guilt by association criteria. That said, I am quite clearly not at all proposing that mention be inserted in an article where someone hasn't issued a statement.

Simply put, according to the rules of logic, the fact that someone may made multiple statements about an incident for which they bear no responsibility- especially in an instance where they are attempting to defend themselves of such charges- doesn't in and of itself meet the standards of a guilt by association fallacy, even if they were "maneuvered" into doing so. If the entry is concise, written neutrally, and reflects NPOV policies, then this shouldn't be a cause for suspicion or alarm. Keep in mind that the clarification I am proposing refers to one specific aspect of an overall policy for WP:BLP entries, and should be constructive in nature, as part of the overall set of policies. Conversely, is it fair for other editors, claiming that any mention of an incident, despite multiple public responses by the person implicated, constitutes guilt by association, even when the person in question is publicly defending themselves from such charges? Well, that is precisely the stance I have encountered, and think that clearly does not meet the criteria for an association fallacy established by the rules of logic.

Regarding Foster, she did provide videotaped testimony in Hinckley's trial, it was widely covered, and her statements recorded. The current bio simply summarizes this. I honestly don't see how that would constitute an association fallacy in violation of WP:BLP.Jemiljan (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

How about this example; an editor trying to smear other individuals by associating Breivik with them, in this case on Template:Critics of Islam? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Jayjg, but how is that relevant to the specific policy under discussion for BLP articles? Is the tab in question found on BLP them? If so, that would necessarily constitute an association fallacy, although oddly enough, I don't see that tablet displayed on BLP entrie, so I'm not even sure what the purpose of it is anymore (I have numerous criticisms of it, which you're more than welcome to respond to: no one else so far has). Jemiljan (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP applies to anything related to Living People. It's not just for biography articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw the note at the Village Pump.

I don't think that any satisfying level of "clarification" is possible. The only possible way to decide how to handle this sort of information is to Use Your Best Editorial Judgment. There are multiple ways to handle it—you can add it, omit it, or mention it vaguely (e.g., "an actress he was obsessed with" rather than "Jodie Foster")—but how to handle it is a matter of judgment, based on all the facts and circumstances. Any "rule" handed down in the hypothetical would be useless in the specific. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Contentious? Challenged? who decides?

All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

Who gets to decide what material is contentious in a BLP? What constitutes a challenge and who can make a challenge? --Kenatipo ^speak! 07:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Any editor may challenge material. Will Beback talk 01:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Will. Is that in writing anywhere? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it's written down anywhere, but there's no other possible answer. While admins and functionaries can address certain issues, no one on Wikipedia is given special powers to challenge material. (OTRS volunteers are the exception, and they usually just remove material without challenging it first.) So that means there's no general limit on who may challenge an edit on Wikipedia. Similarly, any editor may challenge or even remove unsourced material from any article on Wikipedia but the expectation is that for non-BLP articles they will first conduct some due-diligence steps whereas they may remove it immediately in a BLP. Really, all material on Wikipedia should be verifiable, so this is just a matter of underlining the importance of verifiability in BLPs. Will Beback talk 09:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Will, you didn't answer the "contentious" part. It matters. For example, I'm working on a BLP, Paul Krugman, where an admin is not even contending the inclusion of some useful, cited information (a list of "influences" in the infobox). He's just contentious about how it's included. (He has a point: it's not in conformance with the relevant infobox guideline. But even he has said it's a "narrow point".) I "contend" that since the information itself is apparently not contentious outside Wikipedia, and it's useful enough, it shouldn't be considered contentious within Wikipedia. And so far, nobody has shown up to challenge the information itself. Leaving it out leaves the article impoverished -- and, I have argued strenously, the omission casts the subject in a poor light. Leaving it in leaves the article still impoverished in important respects, but less so. Yakushima (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of "contentious" is probably sufficient: "Causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial." Will Beback talk 08:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Will; I appreciate your responses. I'm asking these questions because of the James O'Keefe article. The article body cites several persons who think O'Keefe's work is "deceptive" or "misleading". In the lead, these comments get synthesized into "his work has become widely seen as deceptive", which is the un-footnoted phrase I'm challenging as contentious, unsourced or poorly sourced and in violation of WP:LEADCITE. Thanks. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Questions about a specific article should be taken to the noticeboard. Will Beback talk 21:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

DoB

The secion of WP:DOB which says:

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. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.

contradicts itself. What if the subject complains, but their DoB is widely published by reliable sources? Perhaps it could be reworded as (change emboldened for clarity):

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. If the subject complains about the inclusion of a date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, and there are no such sources, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.

Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If the subject's DOB is widely published by reliable sources I can't imagine why the subject would complain about the DOB being cited on Wikipedia. So you're probably imagining an event that will never arise. However, what often happens on Wikipedia is someone adds a DOB from a dodgy source (Facebook page, Twitter, personal knowledge) and the DOB then rapidly becomes common knowledge from Wikipedia, so I definitely think the paragraph you've highlighted should be augmented and made more prominent. I find myself continually chasing around biographical articles removing poorly sourced private info! Sionk (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As Sionk points out, the argument that because someone knows, everyone should, is a dangerous one as is the contention that if it is true it should be in. Lots of people know my birthday, but I do not choose to announce it. Fortunately I am not notable, but if I were I would not see why WP editors should feel entitled to include it. --AJHingston (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NFC#UUI

This page does not mention strictions of copyrighted images with FUR. Should there be changes to this page? --George Ho (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you supposed to be attempting to understand policy as it exists before you try to go changing it? Did your mentors OK you pursuing this? Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

~~Off-topic, but see User:George Ho/Block History #1. --George Ho (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)~~

Never mind that; I should have said: "This page does not mention strictions of copyrighted images of a living person with FUR." --George Ho (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Coordinates for personal residences or holdings

I'm just looking for an idea of where the editors here stand on this topic. Do coordinates (which serve a similar function to street addresses and can be even more precise) violate BLP, when those coordinates are for a personal residence or a holding on that personal residence or property? More specifically, if that residence or holding is not used in a commercial enterprise and is intended to remain private (which may be hard to discern and may come down to original research), would those coordinates be violating the privacy of those living people? The current example I'm debating is for privately (read: personal possessions or property) held caves on personal residences or property that are not apart of commercial outfits. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The above results from a discussion at Template talk:Infobox cave#Merge from Template:Infobox ukcave; which itself results from a TfD discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 November 22#Template:Infobox ukcave. See also User talk:TParis#Your comments regarding the merge of cave infoboxes. WP:NOTCENSORED has already been explained. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that we don't normally include addresses of residences in BLPs (see WP:BLPPRIVACY), I cannot see why we should be including geographical coordinates, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, apart from any other issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The original question, above, makes no reference to BLPs. The wider discussion relates to articles about caves. We already publish many addresses and coordinates of private residences in articles about the buildings (or other structures) concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The original question may make no reference to BLPs, but this one does, and it seems to me to raise legitimate issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

PotW is right, this is in regard to personal property or personal holdings that are not commercial. I already know what PotW thinks, so I came here for a second opinion. The reason why I'm confused is that PotW keeps citing "no censorship" on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia does censor stuff and I want to know how it applies (if at all) to personal property or holdings that are not commercial. I'd prefer replies from other editors to get that second opinion. So I came directly to the source for where I think the dispute lies, since WP:BLPPRIVACY states it is directly concerned with the laws of the U.S. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You had second, third, fourth and more opinions at the discussions I cited above. Your view did not prevail in the TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you claiming that every editor is knowledgeable on all aspects of everything wikipedia. Or yourself for that matter? Shame to you for suggesting that no possibility exists. Perhaps WP:BLPPRIVACY applies. I'm being open minded that it doesn't. Are you being open minded that it does? I will now patiently wait for other editors perspective. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Shame on you for attempting to put words in my mouth. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll point out that WP:NOTCENSORED is a red herring here. It has never been intended as a license to include 'anything we can find a source for' in articles - if it was, it would render other content-related policies meaningless. The recommendations in WP:BLP etc have been arrived at after much debate and discussion, and cannot possibly be ignored just by making abstract claims regarding censorship. And a decision at a single TfD cannot be used to justify breaches of policy either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And I'll point out, again, that this is not about BLPs. Nor have I claimed or assumed that "WP:NOTCENSORED is intended as a license to include 'anything we can find a source for' in articles". Did you note the prior discussions to which I referred above? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

A cave is a cave is a cave. If there is specific information that a specific cave is being used as a residence of a particular, identifiable person who is not a public figure, then it would be inappropriate to list the coordinates of that specific cave, regardless of its presence in reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What if that cave is apart of the residence's property? Leitmotiv (talk) 23:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

As I noted above; we have thousands of articles, with addresses and/ or coordinates, about buildings (or other structures) which are used as the residence of a particular, identifiable person who is not a public figure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, note "private" addresses are posted all of the time on Wikipedia, so that's another red herring. Here's an example, picked at semirandom: National Register of Historic Places listings in Sanpete County, Utah. Still, it represents not only poor logic to call it BLP or privacy or private, not to mention WP:OSE applies to both Leitmotiv and myself in that case. tedder (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

:) I see WP:OSE applies to PotW in this very discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If you'd care to read that page you'll see that it doesn't. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 01:03, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Would I be right in thinking, Leitmotiv, that when you talk about a "cave is apart of the residence's property?" you're meaning in plain English that the cave is situated on private property? And you're asking if BLP would prevent the publication of coords on that basis? --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory: it is not our function to collect or create factoids to add to articles. If a reliable secondary source has found it necessary to comment on the exact location (with coordinates) of something, then suitable information (if encyclopedic) can be incorporated into the article, otherwise, not. Coordinates are included for various notable buildings, public locations, and geographic features as they provide encyclopedic information about public knowledge that conceivably could provide a public benefit (people can easily locate the public feature). However, for private property (particularly involving a residence), it would be absurd for editors to perform original research to deduce coordinates that would only be useful for the morbidly curious, or the deranged. I do not see the address or coordinates of Barbra Streisand's residence at her article or at Streisand effect—that is how an encyclopedia should be despite the fact that many would love Wikipedia to publish personal details. I have not looked at the issue concerning the "cave" mentioned above, but the principle is clear: anyone wanting to add information needs to show that it has encyclopedic value and has reliable secondary sources (there should not be editor-supplied coordinates of any private property other than major and impersonal features like buildings). We do not mention the exact age or personal details of the children of a notable person—that's not censorship, and the issue of coordinates is likewise nothing to do with censorship. Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Umm, yeah, that's great, Johnuniq, but you might wait until Leitmotiv actually clarifies his request. The debate he's trying to start here, so far as I can ascertain, is over whether there is a BLP issue in providing the coordinates of caves sited on private land. That would have little or nothing to do with Barbra Streisand's residence or the age of her children, if any. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I might have to take that on the chin as I was reacting purely to the "coordinates are for a personal residence or a holding on that personal residence or property" in the original post (and this is BLP talk), and the flowery bits I added were for the general principle. However, the SECONDARY sources requirement still applies. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It does, yes. Nice flowers, btw ;). --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought it was self-evident that we don't use primary sources for material like this. If secondary sources don't consider the location significant, we certainly shouldn't be giving it. This isn't a BLP issue particularly though - it is a general principle, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We continue to do off the BLP topic, but what the hell. WP:NOTDIRECTORY has nothing to tell us here. We're talking about the coordinates of a geological entity. That would be in any reasonable consideration of subject matter, a primary attribute of a geological entity ... it describes where it is on the globe using a standard convention for such descriptions. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok sorry for the delay. Yes, Tagishsimon. That is exactly what I am inquiring about. The caves I outlined above are "situated on private property" (e.g. a tax lot for a residence or personal property) or is "incorporated into the household" (I do mean literally, as in you go into the house and access the cave through a hatch in the floor). To apply that to the Barbara Streisand example... it may be a cave she has underneath her manor, accessed by way of her house, or an exterior entrance somewhere on her property (and I might add is not for commercial use, but her own private use). To further convolute matters, which I now see is necessary, what if under Owner A, they had their private cave and its location publicized and sources exist, however that was 20 years ago and the property has since changed hands to Owner B, who now wants to reestablish some level of privacy regarding their property and holdings including the cave. The sources still exist and won't go away, however, the cave still resides on private property, only under new private ownership. It is interesting to learn if BLP applies only to personal biography pages on Wikipedia, or in piecemeal on other pages where they may be mentioned, and if it applies to their private holdings and effects as well. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay; thanks. From my point of view there is no BLP issue whatsoever. Our cave articles are not identifying a person by name. The idea of coordinates is merely that they point at the cave. The ownership of the land, or the fact the the cave is incorporated into a dwelling owned by a namable individual, is besides the point, because we publish no information about the person. If we said "The cave is under the house of Mr. Unique Smith at this coordinate" then there might be an issue. As we do not, there is not. I'm well aware that you do not want coords of US caves on wikipedia. BLP is not a lever useful to you in that pursuit. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on whether we are mentioning the person residing at the place or not. For example, if we are indicating where a famous building is – famous because it's a landmark building in every tourist guide, not because a particular person lives there today – then I think coordinates are fine. If we are writing about a living person, however, then coordinates are absolutely off-limits, unless the precise location is regularly mentioned in RS, as in the case of Bill Gates' house. --J N 466 06:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is all rather tangential to the real issue here - which actually has little to do with WP:BLP, from the look of it. Instead, this comes down to whether Wikipedia should (a) have an article about a particular cave, and (b), if it does, should geographical coordinates be provided? In both cases, the answer should probably be 'only if secondary sources see it as significant'. If, and only if evidence that there are good grounds within general Wikipedia policy for including this level of detail should BLP issues even come into the discussion. On this basis, I'd suggest that this is probably being discussed in the wrong place - instead, a broader discussion on the inherent notability of the geographical locations should be taking place - and I cannot myself see any specific reason why exact coordinates are significant anyway. If my impression is incorrect, I'd like to see an explanation why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That's my impression too. It is my thought that coordinates exceed the encyclopedic level of Wikipedia and encourages original research since the majority of coordinates are never sourced. But I'd still like to know if personal holdings and property fall under BLP. Can you parse living people from their possessions when those possessions are trying to be privately maintained? In response to Jayen466, my original question was not regarding famous people. But it is concerning living people who reside on private property with a cave that is unsourced, and also sourced but perhaps not in consent with the current owner. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

As has been explained to you more than once previously, and is core Wikipedia policy, we do not require an individual's permission to publish facts about things which happen to belong to them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but honestly PotW you're obsessively neurotic nature means little to me at this point and as I've pointed out before, I have come here for different points of view. Which I am getting. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Leitmotiv has express a wish - no, an intent - to stop us publishing coordinates for certain caves which are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia and whose coordinates are published by reliable sources. Having found little support for this, he is now trying to use WP:BLP as a reason to prohibit their publication. We already publish around three-quarters of a million sets of coordinates for notable locations, structures and physical features. Such locations are encyclopedic information and, among other things, populate the Wikipedia layer on Google maps, and the "nearby" feature of Wikipedia's own mobile app. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize everyone. Meet Andy Mabbett, he follows me where ever I go. He's kind of wedded to me. He would also have you believe that Wikipedia is a static environment where things don't change, and that a person, such as myself, is unallowed to travel to different areas within Wikipedia to discuss said subject and educate myself or find exceptions in policy (to which there are many on any given subject). Leitmotiv (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

i see the encyclopedic value of coordinates for historic homes, that are notable. if a notable person lives there then c'est dommage. if they wanted to be private they could get a restricted listing at NRHP. i see no reason to second guess the national park service. i recall someone wanting to delete coordinates of the British Embassy Washington, D.C. don't see the point of that, see streisand effect. Slowking4⇔ †@1₭ 22:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

So one person has suggested WP: NOTDIRECTORY may apply in some instances, and if I get this right, it's not allowable on actual articles of people. But in most cases, the Wikipedia content on possessions or holdings of people may permit coordinates as long as it's notable? Is that the consensus? Leitmotiv (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That's what it looks like to me. We don't publish "Mr Nobody Smith lives at (street address/geographical coordinates/anything like that)". We routinely publish "This famous (house/cave/church) is located at (street address/geographical coordinates/etc)"—even if Mr Nobody Smith currently happens to live there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Editing the biography of someone you have been in a real-life dispute with

I cannot presently see any passage in this policy that prohibits anyone from editing the biography of a living person with whom they are, or have been, in a real-life dispute. The most recent Signpost (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-12-12/In the news) mentioned an example. This is a quote from the blog post referenced in the Signpost:

The other day there was a reference on Twitter to writing by a Melbourne gentleman with whom I’ve had some online problems in the past (which problems reached a level of seriousness that ultimately they were resolved by a court for my protection) and as a result I looked up his Wikipedia entry. And discovered that it had been whitewashed over the preceeding year, with a detail I knew (from the court matter) to be wrong included, details the subject wouldn’t like removed and strange promotional material added. I restored material deleted from anonymous IPs, corrected the false date… and promptly became embroiled in what is known on Wikipedia as an “edit war” – where one person, in this case an anonymous IP, promptly undoes changes without discussing them, and then the other person stubbornly restores them, and then a different anonymous IP promptly deletes them, and then it goes back and forth for a while.

While the Signpost piece appears sympathetic towards the blogger's case, I note that – as far as I can tell from piecing together the on-wiki history, based on the blog's content – the blog's author is now topic-banned from the biography in question, for continued violations of BLP policy. Another example was Johann Hari, who admitted –

In a few instances, I edited the entries of people I had clashed with in ways that were juvenile or malicious. I called one of them antisemitic and homophobic, and the other a drunk. I am mortified to have done this, because it breaches the most basic ethical rule: don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you. I apologise to the latter group unreservedly and totally. [22]

I also recall the recent case of a former Playboy model who was in an ongoing dispute with several bloggers (which at least in one case entered the legal arena); nevertheless, several of the bloggers concerned edited her biography for years. The article was finally deleted after five years of OTRS complaints from the subject, and interminable strife.

We must realise that Wikipedia, with an almost guaranteed top Google link for any biography of a living person, represents a huge temptation to people involved in real-life disputes with individuals that we have articles on. And experience shows that when such editing occurs, it tends to cause BLP problems, harming both BLP subjects and this project.

Is there interest in drafting a BLP policy section to address this scenario? One relevant existing guideline is: Wikipedia:COI#Legal_antagonists. --J N 466 15:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a COI issue. As I'm reminded by the ArbCom, there is absolutely no prohibition on editing articles regardless of how great one's conflict of interest may be. We do not ban BLP subjects from editing their own bios, so it seems equitable that we don't restrict their enemies from editing either. I don't agree with this general position, and strongly encourage strengthening COI to actually ban editing by people with major conflicts of interest. But that is the current state of written policy. Will Beback talk 21:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

We are saying a lot about positive CoI and the related temptation in the policy. The situation is not symmetrical, either. I recall a newbie editor writing a perfectly decent article about her 90-year-old mum, who'd been a notable opera singer in her youth. Generally speaking, a negatively biased or libellous biography is a far more acute problem for this project (and OTRS) than a puffy one. --J N 466 01:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

BLP should be the overriding policy here. COI does not prohibit someone from editing Wikipedia if they follow WP's other rules, such as NPOV. This policy, however, should make it clear that editors involved in real-life disputes cannot edit BLPs of people they are in conflict with. I support addition to this policy of such language. Cla68 (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And if someone edits a BLP in a way that's already policy compliant (NPOV, RS, UNDUE, etc.), why does it matter if they are in a conflict or not? Jclemens (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course someone making a neutral edit is not a problem. But in writing a neutral biography, we neither need, nor want to solicit, the help of people involved in real-life disputes with the biography subjects. No reputable media outlet would give the job of writing a prominent feature on notable person X to a journalist who is currently suing person X over a boundary dispute, or a journalist whose husband has just cheated on her with person X, etc. Even material written by unconflicted contributors is run past a newspaper editor or legal team first, whereas with us, everything immediately goes live to the world.

Someone else than people who have personal reasons to hate the subject can write that neutral biography. We have had enough examples, starting with those above, where allowing this type of contribution has led to embarrassment to this project, as well as harm to BLP subjects (see e.g. Wikipedia:BLPN#Rita_M._Gross, from today), so I think it's worth a statement of some sort in policy. --J N 466 03:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

As a practical matter, how do we determine if someone is in a dispute with a bio subject? Do we require them to disclose their COI? And could such editors still comment on a talk page or participate in a deletion discussion? Will Beback talk 03:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Those are good questions that will need answers. What I am thinking at the moment is that the focus of any statement we add should not be punitive, but an appeal to editors' conscience and better nature. (Cf. Hari's hindsight view of his own actions, above.) Requiring them to disclose their COI is probably impractical; but if they have done so on-wiki, as was the case in the first example above, they could be pointed to the policy. Commenting on a biography talk page might not be ideal. If they have information that would genuinely improve the article, they could perhaps run it past another editor that's been editing the article, by posting to their user talk page. --J N 466 04:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So we punish people with declared COIs, and do nothing for the undeclared ones? That, if anything, is probably as close to the status quo as anything... Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions, Jclemens. The right to contribute anonymously is protected by policy, also for good reasons. That means it will always be difficult to prosecute this, unless the person volunteers the relevant info – or we dispense with anonymous editing of BLPs altogether, move all BLPs to a separate project where editors are required to register with their real-life identity, and BLP subjects can determine the identity of anyone who has added anything to their biography. That would put us in the same boat as the press, and open individual editors up to the same types of lawsuits (including frivolous ones by people who can afford the legal fees).

Here is another case where this type of editing reflected negatively on this project: Mayfair art dealer in disgrace after admitting poison pen campaign against rival Philip Mould [23] (as the edit history of Philip Mould shows, we didn't do as well as we could have here: [24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31]

The practical difficulty in identifying and sanctioning this behaviour on-wiki should not deter us from stating that it is incompatible with BLP policy. --J N 466 05:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

In my 2010 ArbCom candidacy, I cited a couple of examples of rather egregious defamation against living people that were buried in "non-BLP" articles that I happened to run across in the course of my habitual editing. There's plenty of "BLP" material throughout any article that mentions real people, so the idea of a separate PeoplePedia (or whatever) is not particularly practical, either. Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. But BLP policy covers these other articles as well, and we should say something about it here. I'll try and draft something. --J N 466 05:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You'd create a situation where someone could prevent me from editing their Wikipedia bio by engineering a conflict off-wiki. No, thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious how this would affect political biographies. If I go to an anti-Obama demonstration, would that mean I am in a real life dispute with that person? If I volunteer for, contribute to, or otherwise support a politician am I in a real life dispute with his or her political opponent? If I am involved in a pro-widget movement would that mean Im in a dispute with an anti-widget activist? If I am a Moslem does that put me into dispute with an anti-Islam politician? If so then this would be unworkable. I suggest that, if this policy proposal is to succeed, it would need to define "dispute" very narrowly. Perhaps limiting it to lawsuits would be a practical, bright line. Will Beback talk 00:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I was thinking of personal disputes, as in the examples above, where in each case there was personal involvement on both sides. --J N 466 03:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a hell of a dispute underway over the biography of a certain professor, whose bio has apparently been the subject of enormous warring to the point of warranting Jimbo Wales to call for its deletion. There is sentiment for deletion and salting even though the article is currently not biased. I think that a rule banning participation in BLPs of persons with demonstrated negative animus, whether they are in a COI or not, would help toward alleviating this persistent problem. The COI could be proven by persistent efforts to add negative information to an article, and/or a declared real life disagreement or dispute. We need broad rules here. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

"Demonstrated negative animus" - I'm not sure how that would work. Would we ban someone from editing a bio if they expressed a negative opinion of the subject? For example, here an editor calls a subject an "ignorant sap".[32] Would that be grounds for a topic ban? Would a history of adding negative, but otherwise compliant, material be considered a demonstration of animus? How would this affect political bios? Many editors have expressed animus towards Barack Obama, for example. Would saying "Obama sucks" be cause for a topic ban? Will Beback talk 22:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we would need to take a broad view of COI here. If someone thinks the subject of an article is a "sap" or "sucks," he should stay away. If the only kind of material that he adds to a bio is negative, so as to demonstrate a bias, I think that his or her edits should be scrutinized by other editors. We need to craft a common-sense rule that will deal with biased people trying to give the shaft to BLPs. I don't see anything wrong with that. While a proclaimed COI should be one prohibiting factor, I have no problem with actions that lead one to believe that this person "has it in" for a particular person. I think a rule like that, in the BLP policy, would prevent the kind of festering sores we see now being played out in the AfD of that professor. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm the one who originally added the plagiarism content to Abbas, on the basis of NPOV. I also added positive material to the article. I have no animus towards him, and certainly no COI (I've never met him). I understand the rationale for your proposal, but I doubt it will lead to less dispute, and it might even lead to more: it could end up as a means for gaining advantage in content disputes with editors in good standing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it would lead to more disputes. But my assumption here is that there is a BLP problem that needs to be rectified. There certainly seems to be a lot of sound and fury. As you know, there is an effort to delete the Abbas bio based not on its current content but on the basis of past problems. I'm not sure what those problems were, but I'm suggesting that keeping overtly biased people out of BLPs is one approach that might work. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's say there is a hagiographic biography. Another editor comes along and adds significant negative material that had been omitted. Since everything positive is already on the article, his or her edits would not be balanced--they'd all be negative. Yet those edits are necessary in order to bring the article into compliance with NPOV. This proposal would seem to punish the editor who does the necessary job of adding the negative material, and allow editors who don't like the negative material to topic ban those who disagree. If so, it could be a disaster. Will Beback talk 23:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

When this really becomes problematic is when you have two or three or four people who are in dispute with/organize together against someone, be it off or only on wikipedia. Whether you suspect it by self-admission, fact discovered during researching the article, obvious AnonIP addresses, etc., or meat-puppet like activity, it's quite frustrating. But much as I've complained that their "Pov" is more like a "COI", NPOV editors don't seem willing to deal with it. Though they will note the actual policy violations said individuals may be promoting. CarolMooreDC 06:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Will, NPOV overrides everything. If a biography is truly hagiographic, this policy would not punish an editor seeking to restore balance. This is like every other Wikipedia policy, as it is contradicted and constrained by NPOV and other policies. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Addition of the following section after the section "Restraining orders":

Editing biographies of personal opponents

Just as biography subjects may feel tempted to edit an article about themselves, editors and members of the public who are in a real-life legal or personal dispute with a biography subject may feel similarly tempted to edit biographical material about their legal or personal adversaries in Wikipedia. Editing biographical material with such a conflict of interest has a tendency to become problematic, sometimes exceedingly so, and is strongly discouraged. Editors in this situation who feel they have vital material to contribute are advised to post to the Biographies of living persons noticeboard or the Neutral point of view noticeboard, rather than editing the article directly, and they should not edit the article talk page beyond placing a neutrally worded link to the noticeboard discussion on the article talk page.

Views? --J N 466 02:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, we're not even letting them edit the talk page? I think that's going way too far. Currently, the COI guideline suggests that people with COIs post to the talk page instead of the article. This would have the effect of changing that general expectation. Also, could you define what qualifies as a "personal dispute"? Will Beback talk 02:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the part about not editing -- it seems merely to clarify how COI applies to situations like this. I always assumed COI did apply in cases like this, so in my view there's no harm in saying so. I'm less sure about the talk page restriction: that's where it would depart from existing practice. We've long been advising people with a COI to use the talk page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What happens if someone wants to suggest an edit that is not appropriate for discussion on the boards mentioned? Or are you impliedly widening the function of those boards? --FormerIP (talk) 02:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

BLPN or NPOVN should cover most eventualities. But it wouldn't be a problem if an editor wanted to post to RSN, COIN, or another user's talk page instead. We could add those alternatives. --J N 466 03:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What if the proposed edit raises no obvious issues? What if there are no obvious user talkpages to post on? What if the user deletes your question, as they are entitled to? --FormerIP (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The best solution is just to say, "... are advised to post to an appropriate noticeboard ...". That leaves the choice open. The statement is framed as advice. If it's just about adding a birth date for example, sourced to a high-quality neutral source, no one will mind. --J N 466 13:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are real-life examples of problematic talk page editing: [33][34] (or, rather, cleaning up such edits). There were similar problems at Talk:Stephanie_Adams. Most of that talk page's history is now no longer accessible, but what's at the redirect location now should give editors a flavour. --J N 466 03:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk page postings are already covered by BLP. " Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." [Emphasis in original]. Will Beback talk 03:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That did not prevent the posts given as examples here. The Stephanie Adams situation in particular carried on for five years. --J N 466 03:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Policies don't enforce themselves. If there are violating posts they may be removed by any editor, just as if they were article edits. No new policy is required for that to be done. Will Beback talk 04:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's still worth stating as a principle. It should over time become part of our culture, and exercise a preventative effect. --J N 466 14:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A personal dispute is one where each party is personally aware of the other; for example, where the subject and the editor have traded insults in another forum than Wikipedia, or taken each other to court. --J N 466 03:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

By "personally known", do we mean known by real names in real life? Or does this include online squabbles? Will Beback talk 04:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would include online squabbles. If someone started a Wiki biography on you, it would not be appropriate for editors who have vilified you off-wiki to edit it, regardless of whether they have done so under their legal name or under a pseudonym known to be linked to an account here. --J N 466 13:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I support the proposed wording, including not editing the talk page. I had a personal experience with just such a situation at the Derek Smart article. Someone who was operating his own attack web page against Smart wasn't actually editing the article, but was asking other editors on the talk page to insert negative information. He only stopped after ArbCom asked him to. With this in the policy, WP's administration would have authority to prohibit someone in that situation from touching the article. Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I support this. I think it's a smart proposal. The provision about not editing of talk pages would prevent talk pages from being misused. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Support Though perhaps with minor wording changes to:

Editors with any significant legal or personal dispute with the subject of any article subject to WP:BLP are strongly discouraged from editing any such articles or the associated article talk pages, and are advised to use the BLP noticeboard and other noticeboards depending on the issues involved.

simply to make things both clear and concise. Collect (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone opposed? --J N 466 10:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Opposed: Especially regarding no comments on the talk page where the people who are most involved can see and evaluate them, at the time or in the future. To use an example Will might comprehend, sure, I'd love to use it to drive off all the people who hate Gilad Atzmon and have used Wikipedia as part of an organized campaign to get him banned from musical performances and destroy his musical career because they personally despise him and have said so off and on wikipedia. If that's not personal, what is? If it's just a desire to personally destroy a political opponent, is it personal or political?

Also, this doesn't say anything about NOT editing the talk pages (or articles) of people who you personally know - or personally admire, including to deal with real policy violations, not to mention to add WP:RS, non-WP:Undue info. Can Gilad Atzmon's friends edit away all the WP:RS criticisms and add various praise articles not mentioned currently with impunity while his enemies are banned from even complaining on the talk page? Even neutral editors already have said 1/2 the criticism are WP:Undue.

The problem is that the "Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia" section does not clearly spell out Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy and link to it from the first paragraph. What is written should be in line with that, not acting as if the policy doesn't exist and just putting it in as a See Also. CarolMooreDC 16:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The prohibition against editing article talk is excessively prescriptive and totally unnecessary. I have no problem with this otherwise. causa sui (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How about framing it more clearly as advice? E.g. --

Editors in this situation who feel they have vital material to contribute are advised to post to a relevant WP:Noticeboard, and to leave a neutrally worded link to the noticeboard discussion on the article talk page, rather than editing the article directly." --J N 466 21:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Why on a notice board? I don't get what's wrong with the talk page. Recently, a campaign manager showed up on Talk:Newt Gingrich with some suggestions for how to improve the article. He told us straight up who he was and what his COI was, but it turned out that a lot of what he said made sense and several of his ideas were implemented to the betterment of the encyclopedia. Why should we be discouraging that? causa sui (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You may have missed the beginning of the discussion, above. We are talking about people who have a real-life feud or legal dispute with the article subject, predating their arrival in Wikipedia. Experience has shown that contributions from people in that situation, even on the talk page, tend to be problematic. --J N 466 06:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Right, but this wording doesn't have that context in it. If the issue is just related to legal liability or how Wikipedia editing could complicate an ongoing legal case, I think that limiting that legal exposure is the responsibility of the editors themselves. We should only be thinking about what is best for the encyclopedia and the WMF and not giving legal advice in policy. causa sui (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It is bad for the encyclopedia if someone who hates the subject fills the talk page with derogatory stuff. It's quite possible to do this without committing an obvious policy vio. It's enough to post on the talk page, "Hey, have you seen this article [link to blog post]? It says there the subject has recently been diagnosed as [fill in blank]. Shouldn't this be included in the article?" Then someone replies, "No that is not a reliable source". Then the other person replies: "But have you seen the divorce documents on The Smoking Gun? Her mental condition is mentioned there too [link to primary source rant]." Etc. And before you know it, the talk page is full of such stuff, and OTRS is getting distressed e-mails. We should be thinking about our responsibility to BLP subjects, and what is best for them, because being responsible about such things is good for the WMF. For example, WMF UK recently got charity status partly on the basis of assurances that we effectively prevented BLP abuses. --J N 466 16:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Adapting the proposal

Obviously there have been problems expressed with banning people on COI grounds from a talk page. And this is new WP:COI policy which obviously people interested in that policy would be very interested in discussing. So a note about this should be posted on that talk page if talk page bans are not to be withdrawn.

However, per my reverted change here there needs to be a sentence or two introduction to "Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia" mentioning conflict of interest. In fact the section probably should be retitled to mention COI. My deleted language below was just a quick distillation of the WP:COI lead. We need something informative like that.

Wikipedia has conflict of interest ("COI") policies including on editing articles promoting one's own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. See updated below.

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC 04:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like us to say something about preexisting feuds or disputes between editor and subject. Wikipedia should not be the encyclopedia where your worst personal enemy edits your biography (and most likely the top Google hit for your name). --J N 466 06:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like that issue is not specifically addressed in WP:COI (except via reference to restraining orders) and should be, at least to clarify the matter. Is it only if you know them personally? When specific situations have arisen, like someone who's not only written about the subject but organized protests vs them - or others who have repeatedly insulted the subject on the talk page as they argue for adding more and more negative material - they have claimed it's just a "POV" and not a conflict of interest. Even editors not involved in disputes have agreed, evidently looking at the "Conflict of interest in point of view disputes" subsection in WP:COI. CarolMooreDC 11:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. This is about private/personal disputes, where each party is personally aware of the other; for example, where the subject and the editor have traded insults in another forum than Wikipedia, or taken each other to court. It's not about having marched in a public protest against a public figure; that is indeed just a POV – although, the smaller the protest, and the less public the figure, the more personal it becomes: if you alone are camping at the edge of someone's front lawn every day holding a placard, it's personal and the subject and their family are aware of you. --J N 466 12:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there can be overlap where parties meet each other and political disputes turn personal. But who can read into the mind of another and know for sure?? But to tweak proposal in line with above.

Wikipedia has conflict of interest ("COI") policies including on editing articles promoting one's own interests or on editing articles about legal or purely personal adversaries.

This makes the point about personal denigration - but something about this will have to be added to WP:COI. Obviously, wording can be refined. Go for it, but let's keep it short. And, again, it should be an introductory sentence to subsection "Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia" CarolMooreDC 13:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure about loading all this into WP:COI. That already has a warning about legal disputes, but although sometimes misunderstood by editors, even admins on occasion, conflict of interest is a legal expression with an established meaning; I think the distinction between that and the duty to retain a neutral point of view is a valuable one. Either can apply here. For example, somebody might be involved in a copyright battle and be anxious to alter any suggestions that the subject was the originator of an idea or work. That would be COI and clearly we want to control that just as we would would want to control the subject's edits on the same topic. But to take another likely scenario, an embittered ex-partner of the subject might have a strong desire to tell the world just what s/he thinks of their performance in bed, parenting skills, sexual faithfulness, and a great deal else besides, and may be able to produce supposedly reliable sources in support of at least some of it. That may have little to do with COI. There are many other situations where a dispute has become personal yet there is no 'interest' involved in the strict sense, including of course cases where the behaviour is irrational because the critic is mentally ill. For those reasons I would much prefer to address the problem directly here. --AJHingston (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Quite. Good examples. And if the ex-partner details the subject's failings on the talk page, it does not reflect well on us. --J N 466 01:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the language added recently by Collect:

Editors with any significant legal or personal dispute with the subject of any article subject to this policy are strongly discouraged from editing any such articles, and are advised to use the BLP noticeboard and other noticeboards depending on the issues involved.

I dunno that I disagree with the substance, but can't it be worded better, maybe:

Editors who have a significant legal or personal dispute with a living person are strongly discouraged from editing the person's article, and are advised to express their concerns on the BLP or other noticeboards.

--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to be broader than "the person's article" and my aim was to prevent any Wikilawyer saying "but the article is about the person's book and not about the person" or the like, or that "this does not apply to this article because it is about another person primarily" where the clear intent of the edit is to advance the conflict. Does this help? Collect (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, that helps, but I don't think your wording covers what you want clearly enough. How about this (a little wordier, unforunately):

Editors who have a significant legal or personal dispute with a living person are strongly discouraged from editing any article related to the person, and are advised to express their concerns on the BLP or other noticeboards.

--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That does seem to express the sentiment succinctly. But I think it should be moved to its own paragraph, not only to give due prominence but because it has nothing to do with edits by the subject, rather the reverse. --AJHingston (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean its own subsection?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. Clearly it is not well placed under Dealing with edits by the subject of the article. But it doesn't really belong under Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia at all, so this may be something for proper discussion. The most closely related paragraph is actually at the top of the article on the subject of attacks, as part of writing style. If we were starting afresh I suspect that the whole structure of the page might be rather different, and like so many others it has suffered somewhat from piecemeal revision. If the page were to set out broad principles (eg fairness, accuracy), advice to editors, advice to subjects, and then perhaps some more technical stuff, that might be better, but we probably all have better things to do with our time than argue over radical redrafts and I am certainly not volunteering myself. --AJHingston (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

First, this is still a WP:COI issue and second it implies that they shouldn't edit the talk page, which is still questionable and defacto new WP:COI policy. I encouraged people interested in COI issues to come here, but I think this might need an RfC. This is just one of several WP:COI issues and belongs first in COI and then there needs to be a section encouraging people to read WP:COI with short overview.

Second, I would rename and organize section as follows:

6. Conflict of Interests in editing biographies (was Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia)

(Short sentence intro or at least link to WP:COI)

6.1 Dealing with edits by the subject of the article

6.2 Dealing with articles about yourself

6.3 Legal or personal conflicts

6.4 Restraining orders (assumedly vs. people subject has legal problem with?? not clear to me; can it be made explicit?)

7. Wikimedia Foundation resolution on biographies

7.1 How to complain to the Wikimedia Foundation

Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC 00:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

2 Centavos/Cents here. Wouldn't advising via the talk page of the article in question, while providing references from reliable sources to support said advise be the best thing for the article in question? Furthermore, if there is consensus that the advise is valid amongst the active editors, then they can take said advise and remove/add content as consensus sees fit, given that it also follow BLP of course. Also, those who question the content, can see the alternate proposed content faster by referring to the talk page rather than going to some page that maybe difficult to find via wikilinks to a non-wikipedian. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding a ban or even a suggestion to not use the article talk page must have a centralized discussion. This a radical, extreme position the makes a huge change in our current editing practices. Plus, it further encourages people to hide COIs rather than reveal them. No one should even consider adding this to the policy unless you can show an very large, very strong, site-wide consensus. I can think of numerous articles right now where my and others' attempts to make an article neutral (by including legitimate, sourced, negative commentary on a BLP subject) would have my hagiographic opponents attempt to drive me off by implying some sort of real life fight. In my opinion, this suggested change is an absolute no-go until such time as Wikipedia requires people to register with their verified real-life identities (which, God willing, will never happen). This proposal adds to BLP problems, not takes them away. If you can get site-wide consensus to show I'm in the minority, fine, but until you do, please don't anyone consider changing a hugely impacting policy based upon the opinions of a very small number of editors. I wouldn't even have been aware of this if Carolmooredc hadn't cross-posted to WP:COI. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I was kind of surprised when I learned of this discussion as well (my first clue was a change Carol made, which I reverted, and then the most recent change that Collect made. As I understand it, your biggest concern is any language that impinges on an editor's ability to discuss changes to a BLP article through the BLP article's Talk page. I have two questions: (1) what about the language that Collect added recently? and (2) what about any change to the policy along the lines suggested above that doesn't prohibit editors from changing a BLP article Talk page?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear what we are discussing, it is Collect's change at this diff to add: Editors with any significant legal or personal dispute with the subject of any article subject to this policy are strongly discouraged from editing any such articles, and are advised to use the BLP noticeboard and other noticeboards depending on the issues involved. Given two comments above I think we can safely add "article talk page" to his list. My proposal above goes further in putting the sentence is a proper context instead of leaving it in the inappropriate place it is now.

So our two issues are: adding "article talk page" and where to put any such sentence. CarolMooreDC 18:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I will try to push the discussion along. My difficulty with bundling the whole thing under COI is set out above. Whilst we could widen COI to include personal disputes as suggested, I am uneasy about blurring the boundaries between a true COI and allowing one's passions to affect POV. The distinction is useful, even though many of these disputes will raise both COI and POV concerns. Or we could say that such disputes are only a problem if a COI is involved, but we all know of situations in which somebody's emotions actually conflict with their interests. I share the view that the fundamental issue is that Wikipedia should not be used as weapon in external personal disputes, not least because of the need for fairness and even-handedness in the guidelines.

On the specific point about restraining orders, I think the biggest difficulty is that there will be differences between legal jurisdictions. The advice is directed to the subject and their representatives, will normally have to be dealt with in confidence, and as I suggested above the best solution would be a section giving advice to the subjects of BLPs including this amongst other things. Most often they will be court orders in relation to a harassment case or matrimonial dispute, but not necessarily. I would be uneasy about trying to refine that policy here because of the possible implications. Editors in general do not need to know what they are, and somebody who has had a restraining order against them will not need advice here and it is not for Wikipedia to tell them if they are in breach. Unfortunately, many will be mentally ill. Again, it is not really about COI. --AJHingston (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, we should not be giving legal advice in policy. Limiting one's own legal exposure is the personal responsibility of every editor. Policy should only be about what is best for Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation. There is no legal problem for WMF here and we should not be dispensing legal advice in policy, which itself could possibly open up the WMF to lawsuits. causa sui (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, causa sui puts it more clearly than I felt able to as a non lawyer. Just to clarify, the 'advice' to the subject of BLPs needs to direct them to the appropriate place if they have obtained such an order which they consider may be infringed, in the same way as they can raise other concerns affecting their legal rights. It should not seek to advise them here on what those rights are. --AJHingston (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am absolutely against adding article talk pages, for the reasons just explained above. [35] We should not be advising article subjects' disgruntled former spouses, stalkers and harassers to edit the talk pages of the relevant BLPs! Many of them will do so anyway of course, and it is not forbidden. But we should advise them to raise their concerns – if at all – in a neutral forum, like a noticeboard, where the merits can be assessed without affecting the BLP subject. --J N 466 16:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Restraining orders questions

OK, let's forget about mentioning COI for now. I just don't understand what this means and it probably isn't clear to others.

Subjects who have restraining orders [discuss] may need to make special requests, which should be handled through the OTRS system.

On first reading it sounds like it means, "Subjects who have restraining orders against wikipedia for writing about them or having some specific thing in their biography..." It's not clear it means "Subjects who have restraining orders against editors who may be writing about them..." Assuming even THAT is what it means. That's why I put [discuss] on there. If it is editors writing about them, then a section combining the two concepts would make sense. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 05:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I made an edit changing the non-helpful "restraining orders" to "legal issues" which is what (I think) the intent of OTRS. Collect (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I searched archives of this talk page for "restraining order" and only found two links, one asking what it meant and the other quoting it. So I'm going to ask at OTRS noticeboard talk page since they might know and there might be some legal need to use that phrase that has been lost in history on this talk page. CarolMooreDC 00:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Whilst you are at it - ask if "legal issues" would suffice for the matters which actually have occurred. Thanks. Collect (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think "legal issues" would suffice (although I'm not sure the change works as written). Speaking as an OTRS volunteer who has handled a matter or two to which this would apply, non-specifically I can offer the example of litigants in a civil suit who are under a gag order about discussing a legal case finding errors in their article about said legal case. They may feel more comfortable contacting OTRS to point them to sources than discussing the issue on the talk page of the article. ("Hi. I'm Bob Smith. I'm legally forbidden to discuss this, but....") The change as written though, doesn't really cover that situation, since these editors do not have "legal grounds for seeking the change"; they have legal limitations on making the change. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Anything involving legal "stuff" isn't handled through OTRS any more though, is it? If they actually have a legal document/order etc. then they need to contact [email protected]. If they believe there is a legal issue involved (i.e. defamation or other issues) and just want to get us to look at it then, yeh, OTRS seems the place. Restraining orders seems to have been an odd choice... unusually specific! But if one did apply that would have to go through legal. I'd suggest re-writing/expanding the section to explain the purpose of OTRS and when to use it. Seeing as OTRS is a big part of our BLP response. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Quite a bit of what comes in as "legal" is content based and needs to be handled through the community. If they have gag orders restricting their own speech, that's nothing to do with our legal team. It isn't directing WMF to do anything. At best, they then have to find a community member to handle it. Often, they just punt it directly back into OTRS with a request that OTRS deal with it. We need to make sure that article subjects aren't inadvertently misled into thinking that WMF manages content. As a service provider, they don't. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's basically what I meant to say in a less roundabout way :) Let me have a think and propose a rewrite... --Errant ^(chat!) 13:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was about restraining orders. E.g.: A celebrity/divorced person gets a restraining order for a stalker/ex-partner who keeps harassing her. As soon as the restraining order becomes active, said stalker/ex-spouse then turns up in Wikipedia, turning the article into an attack piece, or filling up the talk page with sourced, unsourced or half-sourced derogatory accusations. --J N 466 16:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the suggestion is that it is widened to cover other situations as well. Which may or may not be the right thing, though there ought to be advice somewhere if only (see the section above) to say where to go. But I share ErrantX's concern about appearing to suggest that 'Wikipedia' rather than the editor who inserted the material is responsible for offending content. As worded the revision appears to cover anything which the subject of a BLP considers to have the backing of the law in getting removed. That may include obscenities, gross violations of privacy, infringements of the rights of others, things causing distress or fear, allegations of criminal behaviour including sexual misconduct, other libels and so on as well as breaches of restraining orders and other legally enforcable undertakings. They may or not be already covered by a court order, but if the subject really thinks they are that serious then as a non lawyer I would be worried about anything suggesting that the subject should do nothing other than ask somebody else to deal with it. Guidance in this page permits the subject to delete and argue later, and that is far better than leaving genuinely offensive material up there a moment longer than necessary. We do need to urge the subject to bring it to attention, in confidence, but it should not be for some poor volunteer (or even employee) to take responsibility for handling a matter which might, ultimately, have to be dealt with through the courts. I do not know if anyone has yet been jailed for something they have written in a BLP, but it will happen. --AJHingston (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for helpful changes. I also moved this sentence to that section: Editors with any significant legal - or personal - dispute with the subject of any article subject to this policy are strongly discouraged from editing any such articles, and are advised to use the article talk page, BLP noticeboard and other noticeboards depending on the issues involved. I hope that works. CarolMooreDC 18:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We should not advise harassers, ex-spouses, enraged neighbours, litigants etc. to use the talk page of their real-life opponent's BLP. We might tolerate their doing so, but the best advice is for them to bring up their concerns in a neutral venue. That will mean fewer OTRS tickets, and less worry for admins about whether a BLP talk page post is a critical BLP vio or not. --J N 466 20:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You are probably right for legal issues. People wanted to put legal and personal issues together. If we take out personal and leave legal, I don't think there'd be an issue with removing "article talk page." CarolMooreDC 20:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

But we still have a problem if we bundle together the subject of an article with the position of those who may be in dispute with them. They stand in a quite different relationship to the article and to Wikipedia. This points more and more to having distinct sections directed at the subject and at other editors. Let us suppose that somebody includes something in an article which is actionable in law. As I understand it, the line now is that the responsibility is with the editor who made the statement and the offended subject can remove it and take whatever steps are open to them outside Wikipedia against the editor concerned. The Wikipedia Foundation and other editors cannot be held responsible. But if we say to the subject no, let us deal with it and for whatever reason the offending statement remains there, 'Wikipedia' shoulders the blame and at the very least there could be quite a difficult PR job to justify what happened, at the worst more serious consequences. Look at the difficulties that social network sites got into over allegations that they were failing to protect the victims of bullying etc. --AJHingston (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that advice directed at the subject and advice directed at those in dispute with them shouldn't go into the same section. But by the way, for a good example of how to fill a BLP talk page with innuendo that wouldn't be allowed in the article proper, see Talk:Kevin_Bloody_Wilson. There is no secondary source, there is not even a primary source, but for the past nearly 5 years the page has said that the guy has a conviction for sexual assault. Someone else said – four years ago – he actually hasn't. So this super-slo-mo conversation just hangs there forever. --J N 466 01:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of things appear in BLPs, and talk pages are a public extension of these, which really should not be there. Which is a reason for not saying to the subject 'leave it to us', even though I do want them to be encouraged to complain. It is all too close to the subject matters of the UK Leveson Inquiry as well as the social media bullying rows for comfort. --AJHingston (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, issue then remains where to put: Editors with any significant legal or personal dispute with the subject of any article subject to this policy are strongly discouraged from editing any such articles, and are advised to use the article talk page, BLP noticeboard and other noticeboards depending on the issues involved. How about putting it under either "Criticism and praise" or "Attack pages" sections. (Please note for people new to discussion I personally think COI covers this and is what needs mentioning, but others disagree so at this point I just want it out of the "Relationship between the subject, the article, and Wikipedia" section where it clearly does NOT belong.) CarolMooreDC 13:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with advising litigants (for example) to use the talk page; it's often the most efficient method for the community to discover and correct problems. People who abuse talk page privileges can be banned as needed.

However, I'm a bit concerned about the general concept. You're generally allowed to correct errors about yourself, especially if they're poorly sourced. So what if one of the errors relates to both you and the person you're in a dispute with? The proposal here creates a situation in which you are simultaneously allowed and disallowed to deal with a problem. Pretend it's a century ago: if an article says that Joe Hatfield secretly married Jane McCoy last week, should Joe be prohibited from removing this erroneous statement on the grounds that he is involved in a personal dispute with Jane McCoy's family? Is he allowed to fix this error if it appears on a page (or section) that says "Hatfield" in the title, but must leave it on a page that says "McCoy" in the title?

It's not necessarily a bad idea—we do have problems with this issue—but the potential costs to a blanket prohibition might be more significant than we're aware of. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is another instance where distinguishing clearly between the subject and other editors would be helpful. As I have argued above, I do not think that we should or need be weakening the position of subjects here; it is not what the discussion has been about. Secondly, it may be very helpful for the subject to include a statement on the talk page - eg categorically denying a claim or explaining why an accepted version of their history is wrong, because it alerts others should the disputed claim be repeated in the article later. Alternatively, the subject may be very anxious to have discussion of a matter, or perhaps some abusive remarks, deleted altogether. We cannot prejudge that. And on the inclusion of things affecting third parties, it is most likely to be the subjects who know whether that is a problem, especially where family members are concerned.

Rather than bundle both under a possibly misleading 'legal issues' heading, I favour taking the present second sentence out of the present section and giving it a new title such as Editors who are in dispute with the subject of the article. Then the advice to subjects can be tagged onto the paragraph above, on dealing with articles about yourself, and say something like if you have special concerns which are not appropriate for discussion on the talk page use the OTRS system. That should cover restriction orders and other legal matters, as well as allowing reasonable discretion. --AJHingston (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has suggested a blanket prohibition. And we do need to distinguish between subjects and the subject's real-life personal enemies.

Subjects should be treated with leniency. If they post to the talk page, it is a good thing.
Stalkers, angry ex-spouses, former colleagues with a grudge, etc., are a different matter. Their contributions to the talk page are often problematic. They should be advised not to edit the article, and not to edit the talk page, and to raise concerns at a noticeboard instead. --J N 466 18:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

@AJHingston: I agree it's better to let everyone edit the talk page for reasons you state (not to mention when does a political disagreement, for example, become "personal.") We can always ban those abusive on article talk pages. On section title "Legal Issues," see others' views above which at the time seemed convincing to me. I agree the new sentence doesn't belong in that section but people didn't want to change name of whole section to something more inclusive (that might also mention WP:COI as being a relevant policy). Your suggestion is more logical, even if means a whole new section. In any case, it would be nice to finish this soon before we loose track of it and that out of place sentence remains.

Whats to be included in biographies?!?!

Hello!
There has been a discussion going on at the India Portal for deletion of Caste from biographic articles related to India. The discussion is available at Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Mentioning_caste_of_Individuals. I was actually searching if we have any established guidelines for this. I assume that as caste would not be a concern for majority of the biographies but will be related to Indian bios only, there is no such guideline for it. I have gone through WP:BLP which usually does not comment on inclusion of any information in a bio, but surely does comment on what-not-to-include stuff. We in our discussion also came up with various objections of including religion and other points. Hence if anyone could direct us to an existing guideline or past discussion, it will be helpful. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that Animeshkulkarni appears to have been forum shopping. Aside from the discussion which is linked above, they have canvassed on a large number (100 or so) of article talk pages - with a completely incorrect summary of what is going on and a rather odd suggestion that people should comment at WT:INB or on the individual article talk pages, thus potentially dispersing a discussion Big Time. I am currently trawling through those talk pages with a message saying

Not here, please. There is a community discussion taking place at WT:INB and I would advise people to read the entire discussion before forming an opinion because the above summary is incorrect. Nothing more need be said here.

as an exercise in damage limitation and maximising input where it matters. - Sitush (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@Sitush - My talk-pages posts of "correct/incorrect summary", "and/or comment" have nothing to do with what i am asking here. But thanks anyways! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Caste should generally be handled exactly like ethnicity and religion is: we usually mention it if it's significant enough for typical WP:Independent sources to mention it. We omit it if the sources omit it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually think there may be a logic to putting the discussion here, as it may actually be helpful to have this written specifically into the policy so there's less confusion. I agree with WhatamIdoing, that this falls under the general restrictions on "contentious" information, that requires strong sources that are reliable for this info. So, for example, while I would consider a random celebrity magazine to be reliable for where a person went to school, or who their greatest inspiration is, I wouldn't consider it reliable for the person's religion, caste, ethnicity, sexual preference, etc., unless there was a direct quote attached. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In most cases, I would take any independent source, because it's not actually "contentious" in the vast majority of cases. I don't need a direct quotation from Cruz Bustamante or Bill Richardson to justify identifying them as Latinos. I don't need a direct quotation from Elie Wiesel to justify identifying him as ethnically and religiously Jewish. All of the independent sources agree, and large numbers of them choose to mention this information. That's good enough for me. Caste is treated just as much a fact of life in India as gender; it is really not a matter of self-identification.

If there's some dispute, then of course one wants to be very careful, just like one would want to be careful about identifying a person as being married if there were conflicting reports. But in most cases, there is no dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments WhatamIdoing! I agree with you on your point of exculding mention of caste in case of disputes. Eg: If someone is specifically against caste-system and has announced himself so, it would be wise for editors to not mention him as "belonging" to that caste. However, both things can be mentioned thus not making it contentious. We should, in this case, be cautious while framing the sentence. Eg. Kamal Hassan's article does it wisely by saying that he was born in a Hindu Brahmin family but has declared himself atheist. (However his atheism has nothing to do with caste but only his religion. But mentioning it thus serves both purposes of mentioning as well as not-labelling.) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP violation - questioning reliability of dissertations

Per this discussion, is it a BLP violation by an editor if they question the reliability of a PhD dissertation in regards to whether the writer is an expert on the subject? Silver seren^C 00:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

here is the debate on the topic from the talk page on John Adams. Rjensen (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Collapsed

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article cites two Ph.D. dissertations—footnotes 108 and 109/109 (the second one twice)—and quotes their authors without explaining who they are or why they should be considered authorities on the subject. I question the ~~reliability~~<relative reliability of those sources and am tagging them.

I also question the recent edit that served to downplay Adams's Unitarian affiliation, relegating it to the second paragraph where it's described as the argument of one writer—a possible violation of WP:DUE, given that a large number of mainstream reference and academic sources, including this one (used to source Religious affiliations of Presidents of the United States), list Adams as Unitarian.

Thought I'd bring this up here before being bold because I haven't been paying close attention to the article and am not an expert on Adams or early American history. Rivertorch (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

WP rules (WP:RS explictly include finished PhD dissertations as reliable sources. ("Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community....") Is there some reason to challenge their validity? To do so violated the wp:BLP rule concerning disparaging remarks about a living person. (It is highly damaging to a scholar's career to disparage his PhD dissertation). Rjensen (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a novel reading of WP:BLP, as far as I can tell. I disparaged no one's dissertation, and it is hardly a violation of policy to place a tag reading ^{[unreliable source?]} in an article. The tag asks a question (note its question mark), which you have answered. Thank you for your answer. What you might have added was that you personally added the wording to the guideline WP:RS. Since your addition has faced neither reversion nor serious challenge in two years, it is now an established part of WP:RS—a change I should have noticed. Mea culpa. In any event, I think the section is a bit of a mess. Part of its problem is that it fails to make clear (at least without a close reading of the footnotes) who claimed what about Adams, when they claimed it, and with what credentials; recent claims from Pulitzer-winning biographers rub shoulders with those from newly-minted Ph.D.s and pre-WWII scholarship. That two sources meet WP:RS doesn't make them equally reliable, after all, and it occurs to me that particular care should be taken to ensure that content related to topics which spark significant controversy in popular discourse be especially well-sourced and presented with due weight.

Do you—or perhaps someone else—have an opinion on my question re Unitarianism? Rivertorch (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Challenging a dissertation as an unreliable source is disparaging a scholar. "Has he stopped beating his wife?" is the same sort of pseudo "question" but it is clearly a negative commentary on a living person (and that is tightly restricted). As for the quality of the sources, an editor really ought to read them before making a challenge. Religion and theology are technical issues of the sort better analyzed in depth by 300 page PhD dissertations at leading universities than in a paragraph in a popular book.Rjensen (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. A question isn't the same thing as a comment, a contextual challenge to a sourced sentence isn't an impugnment of the source, and a maintenance tag placed due to a good-faith concern and in ignorance of a change in guideline wording isn't a policy violation. And the "beating his wife" thing is an entirely false analogy, as a moment's careful thought surely would reveal. Regarding what you say about religion and theology, I might agree with what you say when I consider your words at face value, but they seem to carry (based on your imaginative use of the word) a faint whiff of disparagement of one of the article's sources. Perhaps the guideline should deprecate scholars who write "popular" books instead of "300 page [sic] PhD dissertations"? ;) Come on. If you really think editors should read a doctoral dissertation before daring to sully its purity with a tags, there's a better place to propose that. I doubt it will gain traction, but my prescience has been on the wane around here just lately. (If you piggyback it on a resolution endorsing BLP-violation witch-hunts, you'll undoubtedly get quite a few 'support' !votes.) Rivertorch (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

As to Adams' religion. Most scholars say he was a Congregationalist of the Unitarian faction (they had not separated yet). That is not controversial. What is more interesting: was he a deist as well? I think the consensus of serious scholarship is that he used Deist terms (like "providence") but rejected the usual Deist notion that God did not intervene in human affairs. The paragraph makes this point--all the scholars cited are in agreement. Occasionally you find popular sources that include Adams in a list of deists, with no analysis. Thus Self (2009) says: "The claim will be made that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, as well as many others, were all deists." But that's superficial. Rjensen (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Genuinely interesting, but it doesn't begin to address my concern. Rivertorch (talk)

What is this nonsense about questioning the reliability of a dissertation counts as violation of WP:BLP? You are utterly incorrect. We are allowed to challenge the reliability of any source and Rivertorch raised a valid question that, as far as I can see, you have yet to answer. Just because someone wrote a dissertation on a subject does not mean that they count as an authority on the subject. A paper written by someone who is distinctly an authority in the relations of religion and theology would be far more reliable than this PhD dissertation. The whole question is, are these authors qualified writers on the subject of religion and theology? Have they been published in the field before and are considered an authority within the field in general? If they are just some random person who wrote their PhD dissertation on the subject, they would most certainly have questionable reliability. Silver seren^C 10:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

the Wiki rules on BLP are very strict-- they require for example very good sourcing for disparaging statements, and no sourcing whatsoever was provided here. Wiki RS rules also explicitly state that PhD dissertations are valid RS, and Rivertorch, without looking at the two dissertations, assumed all dissertations are invalid sources. He since realizes his mistake. You get to be an authority on theology by writing a PhD dissertation that is accepted by the faculty of a leading PhD school, as was the case here. It means that multiple serious scholars have approved your work. Note that the article itself has no conflicts--all the authorities are in broad agreement and Rivertorch failed to find any RS that disagrees with the multiple scholars cited there. Note that Philip Goff wrote one of the dissertations--he is Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Programs at Indiana U-Indianapolis,the Director of the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture (a prominent national center for religious studies) and Professor of Religious Studies and American Studies. He has published widely and is a leading scholar. The other one, Gregg L. Frazer, is a full professor now and has published his work with a leading university press: The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation, Revolution (University Press of Kansas, to appear May 2012). Mark Noll, a famous scholar, says the book is "Sophisticated, well-documented, and forcefully argued....readers should come away much better informed about the past and also much better situated to adjudicate religious-political debates today." To my knowledge no one has challenged their scholarship. Rjensen (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

See, that info is all we needed to know that they are reliable and you could have said that in the first place. Though you are still utterly, utterly wrong about BLP policy. For disparaging statements within an article text, they have to be really well sourced. This has absolutely nothing to do with questioning the reliability with sources and I am absolutely horrified that someone with 50,000 edits actually thinks that, because it is so very wrong. Silver seren^C 22:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, please stop putting words in other people's mouths. Rivertorch never said that all PhD dissertations are unreliable, he said that there was no indication that the authors of these two dissertations are authorities on the subject they are commenting on. Silver seren^C 22:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If Wiki said "athlete XYZ" set the record in 2003, and an editor adds, "did he use steroids?", with zero evidence of steroid use, that's a disparaging comment about XYZ even though phrased as a question. It' a violation of BLP. To ask whether a person's PhD dissertation is a "unreliable source" is exactly the same. Rjensen (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not whatsoever. We are allowed to question the reliability of any source that we use in the encyclopedia. THat's the whole point of the unreliable source tag in the first place. Silver seren^C 00:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP discussion. Silver seren^C 01:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

the very strict wp:BLP rules trump all other guidelines. Rjensen (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Except you're using BLP wrong. Very, very wrong. Silver seren^C 06:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the BLP as a VERY strong rule--one that over-rides anything else. It says that if Wiki text is in any way derogatory regarding a living person it needs STRONG proof or should be immediately erased. Challenging a a person's PhD thesis as unreliable^{[unreliable source?]} is highly derogatory in the academic world, which depends heavily on the PhD to validate candidates for jobs. Wiki's rule stresses: Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care Rjensen (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it works. There is a difference between article text and...well, everything else, and you seem to be conflating the two. That sentence you quoted is referring to text within an article about a subject. It refers to making sure that you have strong sourcing for any negative statements about a living person and to make sure the negative statements are being used with the due weight required for the amount of sources on the specific criticism. This, however, has nothing to do with article text or a BLP in an article. This has to do with questioning whether a specific source used in an article is high enough quality of sourcing to be proper for the information it is being used to source. We question sources all the time. Your explanations about the author's above is enough info to show that they are experts in the field and reliable for the information they are commenting on. However, questioning whether they were experts, since we didn't know before who they were, and therefore questioning the quality of their dissertations as a source does not violate BLP whatsoever. This is the point that you need to understand, the difference between the BLP policy and questioning reliability. Questioning the reliability of a source is never going to violate BLP. Silver seren^C 08:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I argue that when you use Wikipedia to damage a person's reputation that violates the BLP rules. The rule says that the violation can occur anywhere. It says Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. It does not allow loopholes. In this case, there was no special care whatever--instead very careless use of tags that 30 seconds of googling the names would show was false. Rjensen (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess we'll just continue the discussion over here then. Adding an "unreliable source?" tag to a reference is not affecting the reputation of the author of the reference, unless you belief that the careers of professors relies upon the use of their work in Wikipedia. You're essentially arguing that no source can ever be questioned for reliability, because questioning the reliability is "affecting a person's reputation" somehow. And, in this case, we weren't even questioning the reliability, per se, but questioning if the dissertations were the highest possible source for the information. As I stated before, if these dissertations were written by relatively unknown PhD holders who have no reputation for being an expert in the field of theology and religion, then it would be proper to question the reliability of their dissertations, in favor of papers written by others that are considered experts in the field. Silver seren^C 11:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

First off, a point of order. I object to my comments being copied here from a different page without my being notified, let alone asked. Anyone with a functioning mouse can follow the link to the original discussion; it's confusing and needlessly disruptive to repeat the same content in two places. I am hatting the copied discussion.
Second, I want to state for the record that I very much wish this episode hadn't happened. I bowed out of the discussion more than 24 hours ago, after deciding that (1) it had reached an impasse and (2) it was being conducted in an unfortunately combative manner. I am sorry to see it's still ongoing in my absence. It is abundantly clear by now that neither of you are going to persuade the other of anything, so I wonder if you both might just agree to disagree, shake hands, and call it a day. Editors disagree over interpretation of BLP policy; it happens all the time, and it need not be dragged out ad nauseam across multiple talk pages. Silver seren, if you'd like to try to establish consensus on policy as it relates to this, would you be willing to raise the issue here again in more general terms in a new thread? Rjensen, if I were to strike the first portion of the thread I began at Talk:John Adams, would that alleviate your concerns? If you both answer 'yes', then perhaps we could mark this discussion closed and move on to more productive pursuits. Rivertorch (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The question here is not about the article on John Adams, it is about the scope of the BLP rule. More generally, does challenging a living person's PhD thesis as unreliable^{[unreliable source?]} constitute a derogatory comment that can damage a person's reputation, particularly in the academic world, which depends heavily on the PhD to validate candidates for jobs. Rjensen (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

This is indeed the correct place for asking that question, and I have been wondering why you didn't ask it here in the first place. This thread is the continuation of a particularly unproductive one in article talk, where instead of simply noting the wording you'd inserted into a guideline, which would have answered the question, you chose to make serious allegations that another editor had violated policy, then copied those allegations onto this page while engaging in a thoroughly unproductive back-and-forth "Yes it is"–"No it isn't"-type discussion with a third editor. I made the suggestion (a reasonable one, I thought) that the third editor—the one who (correctly) bothered to bring this here in the first place—ask the question afresh in general terms in a new thread and offered, as a sop to your reading of BLP, to strike the portion of my original question to which you'd objected. I repeat that suggestion now, modified to note that it really doesn't matter who opens the new thread. Does that seem reasonable? It is entirely procedural in scope and requires no substantive concession on your part. Rivertorch (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

it appears Rivertorch has reversed his original position that PhD theses are unreliable sources. The current issue is somewhat different: is TAGGING a person's PhD thesis as "unreliable" a violation of BLP? I say yes and Silver seren says no, so it's an issue that deserved a discussion here. Rjensen (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I ask that you strike the first sentence in the preceding paragraph. You have mischaracterized my original position completely. Rivertorch (talk) 05:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I mischaracterized Rivertorch's "mea culpa" as a reversal of his original position which challenged cited RS for no good reason, as he admitted he was unfamiliar with the topic (he said, "I haven't been paying close attention to the article and am not an expert on Adams or early American history.") Rjensen (talk) 07:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Why stop with a PhD thesis? If it were a BLP violation to tag a thesis as unreliable, it ought to be an equal violation to tag a politician's website or a journalist's book.

Sources are not inherently reliable or unreliable simply because they are one type or another. What makes a source unreliable is how we use them. This tag alerts us to the possibility that we have used the source in a way that is inappropriate according to our sourcing policies. It does not say that there's something inherently wrong with the source itself. Even the weakest source is good for some purposes, and even the most stellar source is unreliable for some purposes.

The bottomline is that this is a perfectly fine use of this tag, and says nothing at all about the author of the thesis. (It does express a concern about the skills and standards of the editor who wrote and sourced that statement.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Presumption of Privacy and Social Networking Sites

Despite WP:ELOFFICIAL stating that "Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites" backed up by WP:ELPEREN stating that links to social networking sites should only be added if the subject does not have a more robust official web presence, there seems to be a concerted effort on the part of some editors to add all of the subject's Facebook, Google+, MySpace, LinkedIn, and Twitter account links to the external links section of the article. Doesn't this violate the subject's presumption of privacy just as much as listing their address or phone number? Shouldn't the subject control if and how they advertise their social networking accounts?

I propose that we add some language concerning this to the section about presumption of privacy. Even though these links are technically disallowed by WP:EL, it certainly wouldn't hurt to reinforce the message here with respect to articles about living people. Yworo (talk) 22:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd think that the degree to which this could specifically be a privacy concern would have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, though it certainly might be a factor. There is also the obvious issue of actually verifying that a social network link is genuine - not always easy. So yes, added wording in relation to this seems a good idea to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

To be an ELOFFICIAL link, the website must actually be about what makes the person notable (see point #2 in its definition). So if you're notable for being an actor, then a Facebook link that's all about your grandchildren's birthday parties does not qualify as an ELOFFICIAL, but a Facebook link that's about your acting career does, and it would be silly to claim that your publicity efforts should be given a "presumption of privacy".

We are not generally seeing this kind of error. I don't think that we want or need any more advice about mistakes that aren't being made. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "concerted effort", as the OP claims. There are some users who are unfamiliar with the external links guidelines, who are perfectly well meaning, that add such links. Gentle education of Wikipedia guidelines is usually all it takes. Yes, tomorrow there will be another well-meaning user who doesn't know the guidelines who will need to be educated as well, and the next day there will be yet more. These are independent, well-meaning editors who just don't know the guideline. If you don't tell them, in a friendly and warm manner, what the guidelines are, they won't know. See WP:BITE. --Jayron32 00:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Query

Posit a claim:

As for the idea that Wikipedia can't mention alleged criminal activities, such as harassment, unless there is a criminal conviction, that's obviously incorrect. All sorts of activities are potentially criminal. BLP applies to identifiable individuals, not unidentified members of a movement.

Are "all sorts of allegations" proper without strong sourcing simply because a "group' is "too large" even though the allegations are about or relate to specific named or identifiable individuals? Does BLP apply as long as the charge is clearly about acts of named or identifiable individuals, even though part of a group? Or if the article is about a group, is the fact that the charges relate to acts or allegations about individual persons then unimportant - that the charges only relate to them in their existence as part of the group? The query here is for neutral observers, and as such is worded as neutrally as I can muster. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really sure I understand the question, but I've been thinking about a possibly related matter. Suppose there is an individual who is part of a group. A complete biography from sources would necessarily name living people as the subject's associates. The individual is charged with and convicted of several crimes, serves time, is released, then some years later, dies. The living individuals are never charged, but their association with the subject puts them in a negative light. Reliable sources describe a story that by its very nature implies that some or all of them may have (ineffectively) assisted the subject by means of tampering with witnesses and perjury (or at the very least may have been aware of these and the original crimes but did not report them), but without making specific accusations. How would one deal with this without causing harm to perhaps innocent associates? Yworo (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Guilt by association covers various situations especially in the political arena. Take a BLP which states that the subject was a member of an organisation some other members of which were convicted of illegal activities. That membership may be important to their biography, well attested by reliable sources, may be admitted by the subject then or later. If so, it should probably be in the article. But BLP considerations still apply both to the article about the person and that about the organisation. It would be important to avoid any wording that implied that the individual had participated in the illegalities, or in the article about the organisation any claim that because members of it were convicted membership of it implied participation in illegal acts unless that were explicit in the objectives or inherent in the fact of membership because it was a proscribed organisation. Any denial by the subject that they had participated in the illegalities, or statement that their views had changed, must be included in their article. So I do not think this is something that one can make a blanket rule about, except to say that great care and vigilance is necessary. --AJHingston (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you need to be concerned about WP:COATRACK problems. Imagine, for example, a politician who makes a political point out of being Catholic and who happened to be active in a parish whose priest was later convicted of sexual abuse. It would normally be okay to write something like "Joe Smith was a frequent volunteer at Holy Water Parish from 1975 until 1997", but it would be inappropriate to write something like, "Joe Smith was an active supporter of Holy Water Parish while Father Scandal was sexually abusing children there". You don't want to encourage innuendo, especially when the sources themselves decline to make any direct claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

And of course there is the false logic which goes A is associated with M, Z is associated with M, therefore A is associated with Z. --AJHingston (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions help!

Hi there I was wondering if someone could help me! I want to move Polly Perkins (singer) to another article name as Perkins is also extensively involved in acting and writing. I started a discussion on this on the article's talk page a while back, with one other editor agreeing that a move was needed. It doesn't seem a contoversial move, and I would just go ahead and do it (though would be happy to send it to requested moves if someone wants it) but the problem is we dont know what to move it too!

Both me and the other editor do not know what would be the most appropriate new name for the article, - Polly Perkins (entertainer), Polly Perkins (performer) or something else entirely? Is there a convention on this, and what is it? If not has anyone got any suggestions?

Many thanks, Bleaney (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've taken care of this. She was the only person on the list with the legal name "Polly Perkins" so deserves to be the main entry. The article is now at Polly Perkins. Yworo (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks! If only I had realised that earlier! Bleaney (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, could someone transfer the old talk history to the new article name? Bleaney (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again! Bleaney (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup, already working on it. Yworo (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

wp:crime

This is just a request for peer comments on whether (if at all) we should extend CRIME to BLP. I refer specifically to a statement in CRIME, which goes like this, "Note: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured.". Should we extend this note to BLP with this change: "Note: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator (or including material in any article suggesting that any named person has committed a crime) when no conviction is yet secured." I had made such an addition to BIO but editors correctly pointed out that BIO is only for guiding whether an article can be included on the project - and not for defining policy on article contents. Having said that, I have to mention that I'm ambivalent to this addition and am just placing this request to get an idea of the community's viewpoints. Thanks and kind regards. Wifione ^Message 08:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have two comments. First, the text here doesn't need to include the part about creating an article as that is already rightfully covered in WP:CRIME. Indeed, it would be a mistake to include it here as it would elevate a notability guideline to a policy statement. Thus, the text would/could be: ""Note: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that any named person has committed a crime when no conviction is yet secured."

Second, although I believe I fight harder than most to keep this sort of material out of BLPs (see, e.g., Michael Le Vell), I understand that in some contexts such material might be justifiably included based on WP:WELLKNOWN. Thus, although I favor including this text here, I'm not sure if it's necessary to qualify it. Speaking more concretely, my view is that WP:WELLKNOWN is applicable to very large scandals, often involving major politicians (e.g., Herman Cain) and not applicable to someone like Le Vell. The question is how do we address this issue, particularly as WP:BLP and WP:WELLKNOWN are policy, whereas WP:BIO is a guideline.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You give good insights. Might I disagree with you on excluding details of creating articles under WP:CRIME? WP:BLP is a good single source of information for all policies that involve living people. And it is important that we include this part as a policy rather than allowing it to remain isolated to the guideline. This is not a sticky point with me though as I do understand that the inclusion might upgrade a guideline to the level of a policy. About your second point, you have to realize that there's a critical issue here. If multiple reliable sources claim that there is an allegation that a well known figure is accused of committing a crime, we should include the same, and that is current BLP policy. In other words, it's critical to differentiate between a highly motivated set of reliable sources who comment strongly that a well known living person has been accused of taking a bribe versus a set of sources who claim that the accused has taken bribes. WP:WELLKNOWN will in fact then have an addendum to take a note of WP:BLPCRIME, which could be the shortcut for the addition being proposed. In summary, report all allegations (which is still there in WP:WELLKNOWN), but give serious consideration to not reporting that a person is guilty, when no conviction is yet secured. Does this sound sensible? Wifione ^Message 06:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Your last sentence gives me pause - perhaps you didn't intend it the way it was written (I'm very literal). We're not talking about reporting that someone is guilty. As the proposed text states, when someone has not been convicted, we are concerned with reporting anything that might suggest he's guilty. In other words, what do we do with accusations, investigations, etc. (as opposed to a conviction)? That's where the tension between protecting the BLP but respecting WP:WELLKNOWN causes so many problems. Essentially, many editors want to use WP:WELLKNOWN to report accusations that are reported in reliable sources even in instances where the person isn't particularly well-known and when it's not a major news story. That's why I contrasted Cain with Le Vell. Assuming there's a consensus of editors who agree with me (and I'm not sure there is), then some kind of statement in WP:BLP that provides a counterpoint to the text in WP:WELLKNOWN would be useful when these issues arise.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this brings up an unclear area of the law which was discussed recently at Wikiproject law. In short, A search of WP:RS shows that while prosecutors do consider a guilty plea a "conviction" it's hard to find any real legal definition that confirms that. So while Wikipedia usage does seem to be in that direction, the actual legal definition is more ambiguous. CarolMooreDC 03:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Carol, although interesting, this is a distraction. No one is talking about a guilty pleas here. We're talking about whether accusations and investigations should be added to articles (I won't even go to the next step, formal charges). As for the guilty plea discussion, in the U.S., how a guilty plea is treated depends on the jurisdiction, and I haven't researched each of the 52 jurisdictions (not counting places like Puerto Rico). In California, a guilty plea is a conviction. Added: Carol, I didn't see the footnote in Wifione's WP:BLPCRIME before I wrote the first part. The footnote is wrong as it's presently worded.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Carol, you're right. Bbb23, how would you react to BLPCRIME containing two clear clarifications? One that clarifies that WELLKNOWN should be used for well known people, but for not well-known persons, we don't even include accusations, even if there are reliable sources. Check the wordings in the WP:BLPCRIME link. Wifione ^Message 04:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Wifione, here is your proprosed text:

A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that any named person has committed or is accused of committing a crime when no conviction is yet secured.

I would propose changing it to:

A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until convicted by a court. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime when the person has not yet been convicted.

I would change the footnote to read:

Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement do not amount to a conviction. BLPCRIME applies to low profile individuals and not to well known individuals, in whose cases WP:WELLKNOWN is the appropriate policy to follow.

I haven't retained all the various emphases, but they look fine.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm in consonance with all the changes you have proposed. I don't see any particular issues to add to the same. I'm including this section below the section on "Subjects notable only for one event". Should you wish to change the positioning of the same, please feel free. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 04:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for implementing the change (and the italics in the other part). As for where you put it, I haven't moved it, but what do you think about putting it under the "Public figures" section because of the interrelationship beween the two policies?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion; let it be there. It's a new policy. Let it seep in for a couple of months. Change it after that wherever you wish. Wifione ^Message 06:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Dead Links

To all editors interested in BLPs: You are invited to join the discussion on Dead Links and BLPs on the talk page of Wikipedia:Citing Sources. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am Rob Evans, The Donut Man. I would like to edit my biography, Donut Man, References

Rce19066 (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with this page, however you should aware that it is not something we generally we allow, your conflict of interest means you cannot be neutral, further proven by the overly biased and promotional content you have already attempted to add to the article, [36]--Jac16888 ^Talk 00:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

BLP, infobox images, and subject input

Just want a check on this given a recurring issue with Ben Templesmith.

How far do we go with catering to the subject of an articles wishes re infobox images? At the end of 2010 the serviceable non-free image was changed at the request of the article's subject. When the discussion petered out in January 2011 the article was left with an portraiture image he had requested. In November of that year the image changed again with the ES that the subject dislikes the previous two. That lasted until this month when another new image was put in place at the subject's request, one apparently taken at the same time as the Nov pic.

- J Greb (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

It seems to me that (unless someone is obviously and manifestly joking or lying) we should regard people's statements about their own religious positions as definitive. For example Richard Dawkins has recently and very publicly stated that he (now) describes himself as an "Agnostic" and not an "Atheist", even though there are zillions of WP:RSs that describe him as an "Atheist". There is a RFC open about this at present, but there seems to me to be a general principle involved. NBeale (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

PLease review the rules relative to wp:canvass, while notifying a board such as this can be appropriate, it needs to be done in a manner that is neutral not advocating a specific position.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In the Dawkins case, it's WP:BOLLOCKS anyway. A scientist admitting that science deals in evidence and probability not absolute truth, and thus scientific atheism can be construed on a technicality as extreme atheist-leaning agnosticism, does not equate to an "I am now an agnostic, not an atheist" statement. Dawkins very recently made a public spectacle of himself (again) by saying that Christians with secular attitudes aren't really Christians. This "Dawkins isn't really an athesit" RfC, coincidental or not, should be watched for WP:MEATPUPPETry. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 23:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how posting on the BLP Talk page makes any sense. If he wants to draw attention to the RFC, then he should so on WP:BLPN. Is he advocating a change to the policy (would belong here) or complaining about the application of policy (would belong on BLPN)?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI: WP:BLP/N has been notified already. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I've been an editor for over 5 years and it seems to me that WP:COMMON would imply that we accept subject's self-descriptions of their religious beliefs. But I can't find (on a very quick look, I'm really on a wikibreak) anything specific about this in BLP. This is a general principle and rather separate from the specific issue. But it would have been disingenuous not to have mentioned the context. NBeale (talk) 21:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The only mention of religion in BLP is in WP:BLPCAT. I'm still unclear what it is you want here. Do you think something should be added to BLP policy? (Not a real wikibreak, is it?

)--Bbb23 (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a recurring theme at the BLP/N noticeboard - and categorizing people or making long sections about their religious attendance, membership, beliefs, heresies etc. is generally not approved of there. Collect (talk) 21:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Except when it's integral to why they're notable. It wouldn't make much sense at, say, Britney Spears, but an article like Jesse Jackson or Pat Robertson will necessarily contain a lot of such information. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

sealed criminal files, opened and resealed?

Hi, how to deal with the following situation: A person that is doubtlessly notable for his or her completely unrelated activities has a criminal record. The files were sealed by the presiding judge and not even the fact of a conviction was ever published. Several years later in a new criminal case prosecution went after the old files and succeeded in the first round. The files of the fist trial were opened and media reported over them. On appeal the opening of the files was considered in violation of the applicable law and the files are resealed now. Can we use the media reports from the period when the files were open? Or should we discard all information on the prior case because the files are not public record and should never have been? --h-stt !? 13:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If a court in the appropriate jurisdiction has determined that the information should not be publicly available I think that should be an end to it and it should be removed. Without going into the specifics of this case but speaking more generally, the reasons for confidentiality in any instance may be varied and even to debate them may involve destroying the very reasons for the decision in the first place. If people disagree with the law that is a matter for the relevant legislature. --AJHingston (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In a case which involves a prominent public figure in the Unites States where the contents of the sealed records have been published in reliable sources such as The New York Times they should not be removed, deleted, or suppressed. Change the facts, change the response. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Criminal records are routinely sealed in Europe. It is foolish to end up in court in Germany or the U.K. with your personal assets at risk because you added information about sealed criminal records to a Wikipedia article about someone who is not a position of great public trust. You may think who a footballer sleeps with is a matter of great moment, but the courts may not agree. The director of a bank is arguably different, but you should be prepared to hire skilled counsel and shell out the dough if you wish to argue with the High Court, but I digress. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Does BLP affect related pages?

If an individual A has both a biography page and another page where he is a key player, do BLP restrictions apply at the other page as well? This came up recently at the pair of pages Shing-Tung Yau and Manifold Destiny. Tkuvho (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

BLP applies to every page at Wikipedia (including talk pages), as explained here. By the way, this question should be at the noticeboard (WP:BLPN). Any follow-up should be there. Johnuniq (talk) 10:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Tkuvho (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Point of clarification on BLPGROUP

I've just seen someone try to argue that individual members of a larger group (in this case, police officers) are exempt from BLP under BLPGROUP (the bit about corporations, legal persons, etc). Might it be a good idea to add something to BLPGROUP to the effect of "This does not include living people who are members of these organizations, such individuals are still covered by BLP standards." Ian.thomson (talk) 03:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary. It is a monumentally stupid argument, which were it valid, would make WP:BLP policy useless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I know. And yet the argument has been made. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The arguement is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Police officers charged criminally in Canada not on my talk page. I wish stuff here was easier to tell what it really means. It seems like you need a Lawyer to tell what should be usable and what cant. Like these WP:PROPOSAL and Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance need to be used to change guidelines. I really dont see anything that says titles cant be used if names are left out. They are members of a org WP:BLPGROUP it is very unclear to me. Theworm777 (talk) 10:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

They are members of a group. They are not the group as a whole. This has been clarified repeatedly by multiple editors.

The first line of BLPGROUP says "This policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons." We have an article on legal persons. The first line is "Legal personality (also artificial personality, juridical personality, and juristic personality) is the characteristic of a non-living entity regarded by law to have the status of personhood." Simply put, it says 'Legal personality refers to when someone who is not a person is treated by the law as a person.'

If "people from legal professions" was meant, we would have said "people from legal professions." "Legal persons" is not the same thing, and if you had bothered to actually look at what it meant, you would have known that. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have understood that from the 1st time you said it. But once the names were removed and It had good sources was not "unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable." So it did not need to "be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." It really didnt not matter and was going to be deleted like I had said but It should have been left there for the discussion. The guy only started the page 4 or 5 days ago. I was just there helping him. The way that guys article was done was really wrong. I know it was a stub even with info I added back in but you all just removed it there was nothing to even talk about on it. Theworm777 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

how to choose a name

I'm not familiar with the rules for BLP. We have a jingoistic dispute over Russo-Georgian millionaire Boris/Bidzina Ivanishvili. "Boris" seems more common in English: Forbes uses it, as do 17 of 18 confirmed hits at GBooks (4 with 'Boris' in 2010, one with 'Bidzina' in 2011). However, some newspapers use "Bidzina" (supposedly the Guardian and the Telegraph; I haven't confirmed). His website uses "Bidzina".[37] This might be a case where he went with "Boris" at first, either because he was doing business in Russia or because it was a more familiar name abroad, and then switched to "Bidzina" when he went home to Georgia (the Economist used 'Boris' in 2008 but 'Bidzina' in 2011), though that's just speculation).

(Regular Ghits are 483k Boris Ivanishvili, 94k Bidzina Ivanishvili, but if restricted to updates in the last year, 14k Boris Ivanishvili and 76k Bidzina Ivanishvili (phrase search). But they seem a bit screwy: if you restrict Bidzina hits to ones which do not include 'Boris', the number jumps to 1.65M, so I don't know if any of the numbers mean anything.)

Normally, I'd just go with "Boris" per COMMONNAME, but are there BLP issues that would override that? Do we take personal preferences into account? (I'm not linking this discussion to the bio talk page, because the squabbling there is unlikely to illuminate anything.) — kwami (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you raise this at WP:BLPN rather than here?--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Because I didn't know that existed. As I said, I'm not familiar with BLP issues. I'll repost. — kwami (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, sometimes I wish I could say I didn't know BLPN existed. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Robin van Persie's supposed "Nazi Salute"

An editor has been removing a referenced but controversial action by a famous footballer. This is one such edit. The section is worded:

After the match, Van Persie was accused of making a Nazi salute when celebrating his second goal, however, he strongly denied the allegation calling it "insulting".

With the Daily Mail as the reference. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2055547/Robin-van-Persie-denies-Nazi-salute-Chelsea.html "I'm no Nazi! Van Persie slams internet rumours over 'salute' celebration against Chelsea". For some reason this has become controversial today, four months after it was added. Discussion at Talk:Robin van Persie#Nazi salute. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of accents from Tennis player BLPs

Could more experience BLP editors please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this Talk page isn't watched much? :) should BLP cover this or should some guidance be given under Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies#First_mention? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

This dispute has spread all over the place. See Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Proposal_to_require_no-diacritics_names for pointers to two more discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Revising WP:BLPCAT to include gender identity

WP:BLPCAT states:

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

I propose revising this to (my bolding):

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs, gender identity, or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief, gender identity, or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs, gender identity, or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

Please see this revert by 68.94.8.83 (talk · contribs) that I nearly missed and has been in the article for nearly a month. Would some editors here put Jeanne Phillips, the current Dear Abby, on their watchlists in case this happens again? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of the 'Category:Pejorative categories' that I suggested we may need to keep an eye on all of them in one page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that the hundreds of articles in Category:Male pornographic film actors would have to be removed unless we can produce reliable sources in which each of these men say something like "I am a man"? What effect would this have on Category:Women and its many subcats?

Or by "gender identity", do you actually mean "transgendered status and other unusual gender identities"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No. I think the the OP means that 'gender identity' is a category where people have declared themselves a gender differing from their birth or apparent one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

@WAID: If so, it seems like a reasonable addition, but we would need to use a term other than "gender identity". FormerIP (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed my mind. Where someone has changed sex during their period of notability, it is usually going to have to be mentioned in the article, regardless of whether the person has ever talked about it in public. And, if it can go in the article, the article can go in the category. FormerIP (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with FormerIP; amongst those individuals I have worked with, I know of two who have transitioned - neither of those have (nor would) in public identified by terms such as "Trans..." anything (though they may have done so in private). In public they would solely identify by the gender they were currently in, or transitioning towards and it is external analysis (secondary sourcing if you will) that would categorise them as in the above case, Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Canoe1967's comment at 20:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC) perfectly captures my intentions. I created this section merely as a suggestion; if the consensus here is against the addition, I do not mind. Cunard (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Social identity seems to fit the bill and could be added?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you'd be happy with the result, e.g., if a millionaire politician decided to self-identify as working class. Additionally, it includes categories that we don't want to make complicated, like Category:Women artists. "Being a woman" and "being an artist" are both social identities within the framework of this theory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to human beings, wouldn't "social identity" cover absolutely any category you can think of? FormerIP (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The basis for excluding dates of birth

I think I already know the answer, but I have to ask, did anyone with any actual professional background in data protection, have any hand in the drafting of WP:DOB?. It seems to give out the utterly false impression that if your biography on Wikipedia doesn't include a birth date, you are somehow protected from identity theft. Given what other personally identifying information is left, in for example the current topical case of where this removal policy has been invoked, I can tell you now that anyone who gives out this impression to any real life person worried about such things, as some way of calming their fears, is committing a grave error. You can almost call it fraud in my book. It would at least be classed as professional negligence, if Wikipedia was actually staffed by paid employees, which is obviously isn't. Crummity Nordrid (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that section gives that impression at all.

However, it is actually true in a few limited instances. Some businesses use name and date of birth as their sole identifying mechanism, just like others use name and phone number as their sole identifying mechanism. You could, for example, reliably get access to two of my utility accounts with nothing more than my name, home address, and a verbal assertion that you were me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP1E

I think we should just get rid of BLP1E. A majority of our biographies are about people who are notable for one event, if you stretch the definition of event enough. How many pointless AfDs have we had on high-profile individuals getting world-wide coverage in thousands of news outlets on the grounds of BLP1E? Gigs (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think getting rid of it is the right approach - I think it probably needs some reworking. As an example take Chesley Sullenberger - before January 15th, 2009 he was not a notable man and none of the sources in our article pre-date that moment. However because of one event, the media organisations began to note all the prior events that had shaped his life and as they did so those events became notable - not notable enough for those events to deserve an article of their own but notable enough that BLP1E ceased to apply - his entire life was now notable, independent of what he did that day. However if someone like Michelle McGee is simply interviewed a few times because they had an affair with a celebrity and all the detail of the interview is about the affair then BLP1E keeps it in check and ensures that they don't get an article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The legitimate purpose of the rule is to protect private individuals who get caught up in news stories from getting articles about them (instead of the event). It is arguable that preventing celebrity gossip articles (per Stuart) is also a benefit of the rule. Unfortunately, some people who would prefer a narrower scoped Wikipedia try to use BLP1E plus the related NOTNEWSPAPER to argue for deletion of nearly anything they don't personally like (but easily passes GNG). As Gigs notes, nearly all notable people came to prominence because of one event and thus if someone wants to stretch reality they can argue all coverage of said person is directly/indirectly related to one event. Of course it doesn't always work, but it is a viable option for people wanting to get rid of minor-moderately notable individual's pages. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that many editors "use BLP1E", as you say, as a tool to support deletion. Many editors think it provides easy criteria for deletion because they think it gives multiple conditions, any one of which may justify deleting an article. Rather than realizing that in fact it provides three separate hurdles to deletion. That is, it is misinterpreted by a form of the conjunction fallacy, mistaking the AND for an OR. The following rewrite of BLP1E would say the same thing, but make the meaning much more explicit:

Subjects notable only for one event

Further information: Wikipedia:Notability (people) § People notable for only one event

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions are met:

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.

It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.
In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.

I suspect that if BLP1E were rewritten this way, and was better understood, there would be support for removing the second condition, 'likely to remain low profile', which would make it equivalent to WP:BIO1E, which would be tantamount to deleting BLP1E. If I'm wrong, at the very least this would promote a proper understanding of the rule. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now, BLP1E says, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.... (unless) the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented..." Dennis is correct in asserting that this is being interpreted in different ways because it is in prose form, and by putting it as criteria in bullet form it will clarify that BLP1E requires all criteria to be met to justify a deletion.

The situations which Stuart and ThaddeusB describe happen regularly and a lot of energy is expended in discussion over this, and I think it is more because the policy is ambiguous and less because of different evaluations of the facts of each case. I think people vote for delete if any one of the criteria is met, and I think the intent is that all criteria should be met.

I do not propose to change the criteria or have a discussion about what is right or wrong, but I do propose to clarify whether it is the case that all the existing criteria should be met or whether just some of the criteria should be met. A bullet list like proposed above settles that unambiguously. As Dennis says, some people interpret "and" as "or". How would everyone feel about the revision Dennis proposes? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change BLP1E

Replace the existing BLP1E explanation with the one proposed by Dennis. The new version contains the same content as the old version, except that the prose is converted to bullet points and it is made clear that articles must meet all criteria to be deleted.

This is not a vote, but rather a poll to collect ideas about motivation for support and opposition.

Support for reasons stated above. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Support Per me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Support although I'd like to see more on the phrase and is likely to remain. It is often worth having articles on "one hit wonders" if they are in a field (sports/music/athletics/etc) where people might wonder, "did this person do anything else?" A redirect to the main article doesn't answer that question, it only says that the person was involved in the known event. My baliwick, it could be argued that a world series of poker bracelet winner is "likely to remain" a one hit wonder. But the articles are beneficial because it highlights that fact. If the article were merely a redirect, then the reader doesn't know if the person did anything else or if we simply haven't written an article.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- How about changing the word "likely" to "expected" or "likely and expected". This differentiates between the person who stumbled into his 15 minutes of fame by being at the right place a the right time, vs the person whom one might expect to be notable again. WSOP Bracelet winners are likely not to going to win another bracelet, but there is an expectation that they might.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Remember, there is, and will remain, the exception for sports bios, "subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports)". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Support in general; but we do need to get rid of the speculation as well (because a lot of BLP1E discussions descend into editors arguing over whether someone will be notable...). Maybe: If that person is otherwise a low-profile individual outside of the event, and holds no further notability. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Comment A person who is "low profile" is not the prblem for BLP1E - the idea is that if the event is notable, it can have an article, but the individual connected with that event is unlikely to have more in his or her BLP than the event itself. Thus this proposal seems to go a bit afield of the reasoning behind the limit entirely.
A person whose notability is entirely associated with a single "major event" may be mentioned in an article on that event, but should not have a separate biographical article.

Would seem the simplest wording directly supporting actual Wikipedia practice. Collect (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that this is intended as a small-scope change. Keeping the current meaning, and only rewording it so that there is less confusion. It's very difficult to even discuss substantive changes in the rule if there is not broad agreement on the current meaning. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Even so; it's worth considering. I think Collect's suggestion is elegant and concise --Errant ^(chat!) 16:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment Actually, I saw a good rephrasing of the statement at WP:VPP#Remove prognostication from WP:BLP1E, to conform with WP:1E and WP:CRYSTAL. Errant proposed this:
- In situations where a person receives coverage from reliable sources in the context of a single event and, outside that event, they remain a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them
That nicely avoids the issue of "they might become notable later!" that tends to crop up in such debates. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this sentence "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." needs some work. Nathan^T 14:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that it is not an accurate reflection of the current policy text, or do you think that the current policy text needs some work? Gigs (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think its awkwardly written and could stand to be improved. Nathan^T 15:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I had the same double take FWIW. I think it is because the "not" is in an awkward place. It might be better to leave that sentence as a separate exception as currently exists. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's awkward, but I wanted to keep as much of the original wording as possible to avoid any change in policy. Because a list of 3 bullet points makes the policy unmistakably clear. If you leave the third one as a separate condition, you introduce some of the confusion that led to the conjunction fallacy. See Conjunction fallacy#Debiasing. If we really wanted to make it crystal clear, it would be 4 points: adding that they are still alive.

So can you support this as an interim improvement? Changes in wording are needed, I agree, but that will run into more resistance because it risks changing the meaning. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Support the changes. Regarding Collect's comments, I disagree. Once we have a BLP on someone, we can and should fill it with other biographical information that might not be directly related to what made them notable. If we didn't, they wouldn't be biographies, they'd just be news summaries. I always viewed this policy as a protection for low profile individuals from having their entire life documented in public because of one, limited, event. Gigs (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to press the issue ;) but if they have no other notability, other than the one event, then the point is to preclude creating an article. Unless I read it wrongly Collect's version is just a far more concise version of what we have - and makes no comment of what goes into a biography if it is judged creatable :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noting what I had hoped was obvious. My version affects nothing other than conciseness of statement that I can tell. Collect (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Support changing to bullets poinst to help avoid confusion and make it easier to discuss future changes to the rule. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Single Non-recurring Event

I think I see a minor tweak to several of the proposals above. We keep talking about notability based upon a single event. A person comes out of nowhere and wins a notable tournament/event---say Professional Golfer. Even if they never compete again, they are still worth having an article on because that will be a question people ask--did the person ever win anything else? Redirecting to the main article doesn't answer that because people will be left asking, "Did they win again or do we need an article on them?"

My take on BLP1E is that it is really intended for the person who played a pivotal role in a specific news story/crime/event that is unlikely to garner coverage ever again because their initial rise to fame was related to events surrounding them and not to who they were. People who have worked towards achieving the notability and are now known for succeeding are a different category. The golfer may never again make the cut at a tournament, but it is impossible to say that they are unlikely to win another one as that is the reason they keep playing. Thus, I think that by changing "single event" to "single non-recurring event" we address a major problem with BLP1E.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E already directs you to Wikipedia:Notability (sports) for the set of exceptions that are used for sports, so bringing up sports isn't helpful. If you want to talk about substantive changes in BLP1E, the key is what distinguishes it from WP:1E: one, they're alive, and two, they're low profile. The common thread in the definition of low-profile is that they didn't seek attention. They were minding they're own business. If they seek attention, then they're not low-profile. A low profile person who was unlucky enough to be a witness to three notorious crimes doesn't suddenly become a celebrity; they're still trying to mind their own business. The single event isn't the crux; it's the person's behavior.

Much of the current policy is wordy distraction. For example, the whole bit about extraordinary people and events, like John Hinckley, Jr., is already covered in WP:1E. All you have to say is that Hinckely wasn't minding his own business, but obviously sought attention, and therefore BLP1E doesn't apply, so you revert to WP:1E.

The part about guessing if they're "likely to remain low-profile" disappears if you simply ask for facts to back up the arguments that they are likely to be low profile or not. Did they get caught up in a big event, then sign a book deal? Seeking attention, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, fall back on WP:1E. Signing the book deal isn't a prediction about the future, it's a verifiable fact. Any argument about whether a previously low-profile person is seeking to become a high-profile person rests on verifiable facts about the present, not speculation about the future. That's why it can be removed: remain focused solely on the issues described in WP:LOWPROFILE and you have no need to discuss what you think they're going to do. Only discuss what they've done which might qualify or disqualify them from WP:LOWPROFILE, and thus WP:BLP1E. And, to repeat, if disqualified from BLP1E, you fall back on WP:1E.

So you reduce the whole confusing thing to only two questions: Alive? Low-profile?

And my belief is that the best way to get there from here is to first make the present policy clear enough that everyone realizes what's wrong with it and how to fix it. Or if the present policy becomes well understood, and everyone is happy with it, so be it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Dennis hits the nail on the head here. The intent of the policy is (or should be) to protect individuals who accidentally get caught up in events and do not attempt to "cash in" on their new found fame. Most argument tends to focus on the "one event" aspect, leading people to arguing for deletion of all kinds of people to whom the policy should not apply. The policy should not be used to deny people articles because one event isn't good enough to be notable, but rather protect people who would rather fade into obscurity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll suggest starting an RfC and involving the larger community on this. And if it is about notability, I'll also suggest starting the RfC on the BIO talk page. Wifione ^Message 03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean there should be an RfC to reformat the current policy into bullet points, as in the quotebox above? Or an RfC for a more substantive rewrite of BLP1E? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:LOWPROFILE is a lowprofile essay. It is not a guideline nor a policy; and has been edited by relatively few people. The problem with the essay is that it seems to equate profile with activity of a person and their marketting endeavors. According to the article, I'm high profile because I want to be hired to do balloon gigs and have tried to get media attention. But I'm not high profile because my star hasn't risen high enough to get noticed. Sometimes poeple are high profile despite their desire to be otherwise---hell some hollywood stars would be just as happy if the circus forgot about them and let them film their shows and go home to a "normal" family. Yes, we have atheletics, but that doesn't cover every competition---only athletic ones. Consider the WSOP---is a World Series of Poker Bracelet winner covered by that? Some would say yes others would say no. Ok, if you argue that the WSOP Bracelet winner is covered, then are the 8000 players who anted up 10 grand also included? According to the guidelines, they have competed at the highest level of the "sport"? Most people at WP:POKER would argue that simply forking over 10K to play in the main event does NOT qualify you for an article, but winning a bracelet event does because those are the most covetted (non-monetary) prizes in Poker. Once you win one, you join an elite club and can never partiicpate in another tourney without your having won one being mentioned... whether you want the fame or not.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevant Essays

Mostly by me, addressing these same sorts of issues:

So, backing up to the start, the reason I suggested an outright "repeal" of BLP1E is that we have a section right above it in WP:NPF that deals with low profile individuals. If we can all agree that the reason BLP1E exists is to protect low profile individuals, then we should just get rid of it and possibly tweak the NPF section a little (or not). Gigs (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done

There seemed to be plenty of support, and no clear opposition. Some editors above obviously wanted to go further, and nothing precludes that. I support the idea of drastically pruning back, and in a sense eliminating, BLP1E, and I support an RfC to bring that about. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I made a grammatical change for subject/verb agreement. I must say the new wording seems awkward, but because I haven't been involved in the ongoing discussion, I suppose my opinion doesn't count for much at this juncture.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The footnote was promoted into the main text. I didn't like the way it made it sound like our subject notability guidelines override BLP policy; they don't. I changed it. Gigs (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Just like that? Wikipedia:Notability (sports) was thrown out the window because one editor didn't like it? Any interest in finding a little consensus first? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines don't override policies. You can restore the former wording if you want, but I think the consensus is already with me here. Gigs (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In general policies take precedence over guidelines. But in this specific case, the policy BLP1E used to say that WP:ATH could take precedence. That was the whole point of bringing it up, rather than ignoring it. Why would policies enumerate every related guideline (or essay), only to then say they don't really count? I think the change should be reverted until some consensus appears, and an explanation as to why WP:ATH even exists if BLP1E is the last word. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Subject specific notability guidelines are on thin ice as it is. Most of them allow us to have articles that fail verifiability standards, fail the general notability guideline, or violate other policies. As you can tell from my earlier comments, I'm no fan of BLP1E, and favor it's removal entirely in favor of wording more focused on the "low profile" aspect rather than the "one event" aspect. Even considering that, I think it's a dangerous position to take if we allow a subject notability guideline to override our BLP policy. Gigs (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Elsewhere Dennis had described to me the precedent for describing exceptions to GNG within specific subjects. I do not yet have an opinion on this, but I can see that the precedent exists. For example, most recipients of the United States Military Medal of Honor are otherwise not notable except for having received the award, yet the precedent is that anyone getting this award is inherently notable. See Category:Recipients_of_the_Medal_of_Honor for hundreds of articles created on this basis. I would be interested in collecting examples of other factors which make an article's subject notable even when it fails GNG or BLP. I think lots of these exist, and I would like to see them all in one place. I think without knowing the scope of the precedent is it hard to describe how this discussion should go. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The concept of the Medal of Honor is that it is for a notable deed - thus the recipient is notable for both the deed and the medal - or "two events" as a result. Collect (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:MILPEOPLE doesn't justify itself with this argument. You could just as easily argue that almost any single event is really two events. First the event, second the recognition or media coverage or fallout from the event. In today's media environment, the news circus that surrounds private individuals who get caught up in a big story can easily be called an "event" if you want to call it that. And then there's cases where there is zero coverage, and even zero published sources, for the act of valor itself, other than the citation for the award. You could still call that two events, but doing so requires a bit of stretching the definition of WP:V. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

@Collect; perhaps, if there is independent coverage of the two things. But if coverage ties solely to the receiving of the medal then, no, that would be one event. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not denying there is precedent. I just think it's wrong and we shouldn't encourage it even more here with wording that makes it sound like it's consensus that these guidelines (often developed by small, interested, groups) can override our community wide core policies. It's far more than a few hundred. It's probably over half the articles on footballers and sports people, and most of the articles on tenured professors that fail the GNG requirement of ongoing and in-depth coverage. Gigs (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing and nobody is "inherently notable", no matter what enthusiastic editors say about the subjects that they favor. It must be possible to find a published reliable source for absolutely every single subject, without exception. (You don't have to list any such sources, but it must be possible for a sufficiently determined and resourceful person to do so.) See WP:NRVE and WP:WHYN for why we have this rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

On a lofty plane, this is true. But in seeking consensus in the real world, guidelines like WP:ATH or essays like WP:MILPEOPLE have, functionally, a higher status than guideline or essay. BLP1E is not a well-written or well-defined policy, and it's very difficult to apply. Editors continually disagree on the definition of "one event" and "low-profile individual", and whether those apply to a particular case. The kind of bright lines that divide notable from non-notable in WP:ATH and so on are thus extremely valuable. So even though in principle it sounds good to say "nothing and nobody is inherently notable", a measure of flexibility is required. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E was recently invoked in an AFD discussion of multiple American Idol finalists placing in the top 13 of this AI season. The discussion earlier touched upon sporting events where one notable event can be enough - this in my opinion should also extend to shows like American Idol. Note that by "Shows like American Idol" I mean the scope and attention that show gets, not that every reality show should automatically qualify for notability. AI finalists become a focus of several nights worth of televised content and a summer tour, and most contestants placing in the top 12/13 will likely forever be recognizable, at least locally. I support a RfC on this, and urge specific wording that after participation in a sufficiently large event, BLP1E should at least not be the sole basis for deletion criteria. - Kenneaal (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The key point about BLP1E, though, is to judge whether anything outside of that coverage is worth recording. Generally other aspects of their life are not especially notable, and of no long term encyclopaedic interest (in much the same way neither of our lives are of general interest :)). That it might receive some scrutiny during their notable period is, I think, somewhat misdirecting. The thing worth recording it all in association with their notable event - perhaps with some background judged suitable context. We can do all of that in event articles, there is little requirement for a biography. Where a biography becomes useful is where two or more events in a persons life are worth recording, and they don't link up naturally in a single event article. At that point a biography makes sense for the reader because it acts as a link and a summary of those multiple "events". I've not dug too much into athlete articles, but I suspect they would be better served as a list, with names redirected, in the case where they only win one award (or something). Although given the inoffensive nature of their notability I am not surprised that process has passed scrutiny so far (and, frankly, it is not something I would complain about myself, if the athletics Wikiproject is happy to go that route). The problem I see is a growing number of biographies of people who could better be dealt with in the event article. Having a biography invites trivia about their private lives and sits as a magnet for a BLP nightmare - especially in contentious areas. My constant example is Amanda Knox; the article at the moment isn't too bad, but it sits ready for any future retrospectives, digging into her latter career, to expand lots of un-useful trivia. On the other hand all of the current content is directly related to the event that made her infamous in the media - and really should be dealt with in an event article. I feel we tend to hold a far too low standard to the "one event" policy - in that we should almost always write event articles, and only write biographies when there really is no other sensible solution (this is much better for the reader, also). --Errant ^(chat!) 20:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with ErrantX here. In these cases it is usually the event, not the person, that is notable. Having a BLP article either means two articles (or more, if there are several people involved) when it would be much more helpful to users to cover the event in a single article and redirect to there, or else a BLP article that is really about the event. The other point, which will I suspect become more of an issue as time goes by, is that there is an implicit obligation in an encyclopedic biographical entry to give a fair and balanced account of the subject without inappropriate intrusion into private matters, and the subject is fully entitled to object if it does not. A WP article that is about some incident that they had a part in 20 or more years ago (say) is most unlikely to achieve that. --AJHingston (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Good points being raised, with more elaboration than what was seen in the AFD discussion. In the specific case of AI, perhaps a section of the season article should instead then be dedicated to short biographies of the finalists, so that proper redirects can be made from the contestant name to a short stub in the main article about them? Might be something to raise as a standard with the wikiproject that handles AI articles? - Kenneaal (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Getting out of the mud here

So to back up a little, this is the statement I find controversial:

"In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event."

So my problem with it:

BLP1E is about when we might decide not have an article on someone who is indeed otherwise notable per our guidelines. The fact that a subject specific notability guideline (SNG) supports their notability isn't a coherent point. BLP1E is only applied to notable people in the first place.
It elevates guidelines, and in particular guidelines that are often primarily developed by a small group of people interested in a particular topic area to the status of taking precedent over core policy. Gigs (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the exception is supposed to cover very specific cases. For example, if a previously unheard-of athlete wins a gold medal at this year's Olympics, we can create an article about them, even though winning that gold medal is the only thing they will be notable for. It would obviously be absurd to deny them an article and instead create a section in 2012 Summer Olympics, even though that's what BLP1E would have us do. Hence the need for an exemption. FormerIP (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it really that absurd? If we have a standalone biography on the otherwise obscure gold medalist, their entire life is fair game. In fact, in order to write a good biography, we'll have to dig pretty deep into the private life of someone who isn't high profile. Otherwise the article will just say "Joe Blow won a Gold medal in 2012 for Skiing", and that's not a biography at all. Loose notability standards are fundamentally incompatible with strong BLP standards. Gigs (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm late to this party but

I remember mentioning this somewhere else but I don't think any discussion developed on it. I think that BLP1E (and probably also BIO1E) should be divided up into "BLP1E active" and "BLP1E passive". In other words, is the event something that you "did" or was it something "done to you"? "1E active" should make a stronger case for inclusion then "1E passive". Example, if some nut job goes to the top of a building and shoots a bunch of people, he gets an article even if that's the only notable thing he did in his life. The people he shoots in most cases won't get separate articles. This would (almost) eliminate any doubt (or wikilawyering) on whether or not we should have articles on John Hinckley, Jr. or Mark David Chapman while still protecting otherwise non-notable shmoes who blunder in to a big event. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hinckley and Chapman have bios because they are (for better or worse) significant historical/cultural figures and there is enough material about them so that their articles (presumably) are do not just duplicate material we already include elsewhere. I don't think varying those basic criteria would be a good thing. "1E active" would just mean changing the rules to allow duplicative articles about assorted criminals, publicity-seekers, bass-players and reality show contestants. FormerIP (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP in respect to criminal investigations and legal procedings

I suspect this has been covered in great depth before, but we've had a couple of recent controversies involving suspicious deaths in the United Kingdom and I'm wondering if we shouldn't re-examine the BLP guidelines in respect to criminal investigations of this nature. The first involves an unfortunate incident that occurred at DYK on 21 March when the death of an actress was included as a main page factoid (see here for the discussion on that) and the second on Friday (30 March) when Wikipedia received a request from a UK law enforcement agency to remove information from an article about a recent ongoing investigation (see here). The DYK was removed following discussion and the latter article was adjusted accordingly. We have rules briefly covering criminal investigations at WP:BLPCRIME and one or two other places, but the fact we've been asked to remove details of such a case could set a precedent for other similar requests. Therefore I feel this is something we need to address, perhaps putting together rules that stipulate more clearly how exactly we cover issues like this one. Lots of murder investigations seem to end up as articles, many within days of the event and while inquiries are still ongoing, and I guess I'm actually surprised something like this doesn't happen more often. I'm by no means an expert in this area, so have no firm ideas on what we could do, but I can see there are issues that need to be examined. Therefore Im bringing it here to gauge opinion and hopefully reach some kind of resolution. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that this should appear immediately after 'No eventualism'. There are two issues here which cries of 'no censorship' really fail to answer. The first is that these are evolving stories in which those who are in the fullest position to know the truth are unable or unwilling to disclose it. We have had some extremely unfortunate examples of trial by media in the UK in recent years which have caused very real harm and distress to innocent people, and the defence that alleged facts, allegations and speculations are published elsewhere will not do for Wikipedia which is meant to be an encyclopedia. Secondly, the risk of predudicing a trial is not one that we can dismiss, and by the very nature of it we cannot know where the danger lies. Anyone who has any experience of the legal process knows that there will be often be information that cannot be publicly disclosed, often in the interests of the defendant rather than prosecution, and if the legal authorities ask for all or part of an article to be removed the chances are that they are right. THis is less a matter of making new policies than operating existing ones. --AJHingston (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

How can this article prejudice a trial. All the information in the article is available all over internet with a simple search. Why should Wikipedia start censoring its articles? Soon we will see other known people/companies/sites who have articles on Wikipedia contacting us and wanting information removed on different grounds. We are setting a dangerous prejudice IF we let this censoring of the article in question go on. Because it is censoring.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And this is a logical fallacy.

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 13:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A criminal defendant is handicapped with respect to fully responding or explaining material published in the media then republished in Wikipedia. Any information provided to the media, or to us, may offer additional opportunities for police investigators or prosecutors to uncover or present additional incriminating evidence even in cases where the accused is not guilty. Additionally, we are hardly a proper jury, nor are the media. The actual jury pool, or judge (the notion that judges are not influenced by adverse publicity is hokum), meanwhile is on-line, reading about the case, deciding if the defendant is guilty, before they have heard a scrap of admissible evidence. In extreme cases it becomes impossible to seat an unbiased jury, and at best difficult. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators falls square within the purpose of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. When and how to use it and properly explaining it to our users and the public are the issues. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Juries are not allowed to read about the cases they are to decide in. And if some jury members do look online for information on this case anyway then they can find the same information that is found on Wikipedia all over the internet. So censoring the article is not the best option here and this article can/will not influence the jury more/less then the thousands of articles that can be found via a simple Google search. In my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I authored BLPCRIME exactly to ensure that such situations are avoided - where articles (although abiding by our NOR and V policies) unfortunately end up giving the impression that an individual is a criminal or is the guilty party before a judgement has been given. One has to strongly look at the impact the issue can have on the BLP and his family/friends in case there's an article that comes top of the line on the search engines. Do realize that I made BLPCRIME only for low profile individuals. For high profile ones, we simply cannot do anything but document the sources available as laid out in WELLKNOWN. I also feel that in case of validated requests from law enforcement agencies, we should guide them to the Foundation rather than take a call ourselves. Government agencies are well known to attempt to remove material from our project for reasons that are not generally neutral. Wifione ^Message 16:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it unfortunate that the Foundation did not give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, unlike Google, Facebook and the like. That would have obliged the community to explain and justify its policies and open them up to debate. The idea that somehow Wikipedia can set itself as apart from the behaviour of the tabloid press, or the rest of the media, that the issues are not applicable across the globe, or that WP represents the good guys against some vague establishment conspiracy is very far from the mark. If the community believes that WP should stand for fairness, accuracy, balance, and so forth, it needs to say so clearly and it needs to understand the constraints that places on editors. --AJHingston (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The news media makes its living by being sensationalist. A reference work makes its living by being reliable. We have set ourselves apart from the news media. Waiting for the dust to settle before publishing is not being the "good guy"; it is fulfilling our mission, being a reliable reference work. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Small bit of an outside view. I would agree that articles on active police investigations or criminal proceedings need to be looked at very, very carefully since a lot of damage can be done. Limiting based on the general BLP stance of "no damage to the living person or persons involved" is a little short though. The articles can also slant the other way in building up the suspect. They can also undermine the authorities or, in the cases of murder, tarnish the deceased victim(s). "Waiting for the dust to settle" is a good way of starting - we don't have to break the new, nor do we need to be repeating it as soon as a news outlet breaks something. Noting the coverage should be enough to determine notability, but that would be a call for a general article, not a "here are all of the details, participants, facts, theories, stories, etc" type article. Those can wait for a final resolution. - J Greb (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a Police Gazette - the use of articles, especially any wherein POV editing can occur, is a substantial problem - likely solvable only by barring articles based on newspaper accounts of crimes and the surmises made by newspapers etc. We can wait until all the facts are in before we make fools of oursves (see Duke lacrosse case history), etc. Or else simply decree that sources reporting current events are not "reliable sources" in any crime investigation article. Collect (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
There is a relatively simple solution to all of this: add a bit to WP:BLPCRIME which states that cases which are receiving national coverage (nevermind international coverage!) are... I don't want to say "exempt", but something similar (you guys feel free to figure out the actual language). Basically, if there is more than local coverage (especially if there has been for any period of time) then it's reasonable to assume that an article here could exist (in the same way that other current events may have articles here). I understand the point in citing NOTNEWS and talking about "Wikipedia is not a Police Gazette", but it would be cool if our policies could find some middle ground.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
- The problem is that it is specifically those cases which are most violative of the spirit of WP:BLP. Vide the Duke lacrosse case - which had much national coverage -- most of which turned out to be egregiously wrong in hindsight. The Olympic bomber case in Atlanta -- where the RS coverage was egregously wrong. And on and on. It costs Wikipedia nothing to simply wait until the dust settles before making the same egregious misstatements made in "reliable sources" which are trying to get maximum circulation and ad revenues. Collect (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  - But, it costs Wikipedia nothing to live with coverage of outside coverage either, until someone here throws a fit about it and we end up creating a "Streisand effect" over the whole thing. The fact that the Atlanta Bomber cases and the Duke Lacross team cases were wrong... I've gotta wonder why you wouldn't want them covered here if your motive is actually protecting the people involved (oh, and by the way, do I really have to point out that it was the police and the District Attorneys in those cases which sought out a good portion of the publicity?) If you want to talk about the spirit of the BLP policy, then it's the cases where people may go and attempt to create an article about a case that is starting in their local county court and receiving a bit of coverage in the local paper that I would be concerned about. By fighting against coverage of the cases where there is significant coverage you're creating enemies out of friends and eroding the impact that the BLP policy as a whole should have. Wikipedia policy is certainly not law, but it's the closest thing that there is to law here, and earning disdain towards policy amongst editors hardly seems productive (especially though partisan tactics). I'm one of your "opponents", but I'm attempting to offer an olive branch for compromise here.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)