Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:BLP)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:
WikiProject Policy and Guidelines
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of the Policy and Guidelines WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 

Unreferenced lists and porn stars RFC[edit]

This huge and significant RfC was added to WP:ANRFC yesterday. As the person who added it said at the time, the RfC is only about thirteen days old at the time of closing, but it has generated plenty of discussion and that discussion now appears to have stopped.

I should disclose that I have participated in quite a lot of discussions about how we should deal with sources and living people over the years. Arguably, this means I should recuse myself as a person who has been a party to previous disputes in the topic area, but I think it's so unlikely that you'll find an editor who's qualified to close this discussion who doesn't have a pre-existing position on sources and living people that I feel it's reasonable for me to do so in the circumstances. However, if anyone wants to dispute the close on this basis then they are welcome to do so and should raise the question on my talk page in the first instance.

Closing the RfC is complicated by the fact that not all the contributors are answering the same question. I found it necessary to filter the comments into those that are about unreferenced lists of living people in general on the one hand and those that are about lists of pornography performers in particular on the other, and also into those who comment in the principles and those who comment on the practicalities, before I could make much sense of the RfC outcome. I think the discussion has reached the following conclusions:

Q: Should all pre-existing lists of living people have a reliable source supporting each entry?
A: There is no consensus on this point. Therefore the status quo continues to apply. A reliable source should be added for every entry that's challenged or likely to be challenged.

Q: Should new lists of living people being created from now on have a reliable source supporting each entry?
A: Generally yes, unless the list is uncontroversial. Experienced editors should know better than to put a living person's name onto a controversial list without sourcing it, and inexperienced editors should be educated about BLP rules as quickly as possible. Editors are invited to use their common sense about how to apply this in practice: please don't follow a rule over a cliff.

Q: Should all pre-existing lists of porn performers have a reliable source supporting each entry?
A: The rough consensus below is that it's always more controversial to call someone a porn performer than to say they're engaged in most other professions. A reliable source should be added for every entry that's challenged or likely to be challenged. But as a concession to the practicalities, editors are asked not to go through the pre-existing lists making large-scale and unilateral challenges, as this will overwhelm the people who maintain these lists with work, and there is a legitimate concern that this is unfair. If you do intend to remove unsourced entries, please proceed at a reasonable, non-disruptive speed dealing with what you judge to be the highest-priority cases first. If you could easily source an entry yourself, then removing it as unsourced is rather unhelpful.

Q: Should new lists of porn performers being created from now on have a reliable source supporting each entry?
A: Yes.

A further discussion about whether it's necessary to reword our existing rules in response to this RfC----and if so, how----would now be appropriate.—S Marshall T/C 13:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been an ongoing dispute about what requirements Biographies of living persons policy places on lists related to Porn stars. In particular, where a list is full of blue links to the articles of the personalities being listed and the linked articles do support inclusion in the list, does BLP Policy justify blanking those entries without inline citations? Monty845 17:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all list entries must be cited[edit]

Any entry of a living person in a list that is not referenced with an inline citation may be removed, and under BLP Policy, it may only be restored when properly cited.
  • Support We cannot assume an article contains the references required to be in the lists and any other approach wil result in BLP violations easily occurring and a level of trust towrds all editors that BLP does not show. If we dont require info in a listt article the next step will be not to require it in a bio either. In List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films some ditors argue we should allow the orignal research of editors who get to choose who has appeared in both porn and mainstream films with no need for citation but the reality is this citation is needed both for them being porn worklers and mainstream film workers, otherwise we are saying wikipedia standard of excellence is in its editors and not in its verifiability not truth approach to all information and particularly that about living people. IMO we need to be tightening up our BLP policy not weakening it. Adding a reliable source on the list works for everyone whereas the approach suggested in the No option seems to require every individual editor and reader to verify for themselves the veracity of these alleged reliable sources. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: I don't even see the question. There's no doubt that being described as a pornographic actor has to be sourced, and a blue link is not a reliable source. It's not even close to being a reliable source. Using a blue link to source material is the same as using a Wikipedia page in an inline citation, a practice that we reject out of hand.—Kww(talk) 18:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support: because this is already the policy. See, for example, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Citing_sources which states Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. See also Wikipedia:Verifiability The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Perhaps it's worth remembering that we are writing an encyclopaedia here. Verifiability policy isn't just an arbitrary rule to be gamed where possible, it's the only way to achieve our common goal. Deltahedron (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I actually support the title of this section as an eventual goal, but recognize that the project is WP:IMPERFECT and reject the blanking of the list when there's no doubt that the removed entries *can* be sourced instead. This is what is being discussed here - I think no one denies the need to remove unsourced, problematic content on sight, but this is not what this RfC is about.
We're not discussing content policy here but behavioral one - do we support the asymmetric process created when an editor removes *all content at once* without even reviewing it for verifiability and force others to check whether it was already sourced elsewhere? We didn't support that process when we reviewed WP:BURDEN and neither should we support it here. I say we must not remove content against WP:PRESERVE when even the people removing it agrees that it "would belong in a finished article". Diego (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Framed another way, you might ask if you need to reference a controversial claim made about George W. Bush in the article about him if its referenced in another article, say Jeb Bush. The answer becomes clear: the existence of a reference in another piece of content, in another context, does not remove the need to reference a claim made in a new context. If the article behind the blue link changes, there is no automatic cascade to the list. The reference must appear on the list itself. Nathan T 16:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Nathan:, the question here is whether bulk removing such claims in that case is acceptable procedure, rather than merely copying the available reference from the first context to the second. Could you please clarify your position on that? Diego (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The question I see above says nothing about bulk removing. It's standard practice in BLPs to remove uncited information. It is the responsibility of someone adding controversial claims about a living person to ensure that they are adequately sourced; we do not allow that kind of thing to hang around until someone can be bothered to cite it. Nathan T 19:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The question says "Any entry ... may be removed", which someone interprete as "any entry must be removed", thus bulk removing all entries which are not cited inline, regardless of their actual citation status elsewhere. The disagreement on this RfC lies on what is considered "adequately sourced", for information which has been already adequately sourced - just not on the format requested by the editors removing it. Again, nobody is disputing removal of information for which adequate references are not known, but the disagreement that prompted this consultation is not about that situation. Diego (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Don't even see why this is up for discussion. Sourcing for claims or categorization of living persons is required everywhere, especially in potentially problematic contexts. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless all the "Support" folks here intend to review every freakin' list in wikipedia rather than only applying this rule to lists they are offended by. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
@Baseball Bugs: BB - this is not exactly new territory for BLPs, which have basically always relied on the subjective assessment of what constitutes a "controversial claim." Despite your attempt to label everyone as Puritanical moralists, it is clear to most that calling a non-porn star a porn star might be upsetting or objectionable, and therefore we should ensure that we only label someone that way when we know and can prove (in context, to the reader, and not relying on some other page that may eventually change) that the label is accurate. Nathan T 19:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose. After thinking this through, I think this is a poor way to organize information and a disservice to the reader. It does little or nothing to advance the aims of BLP, and in fact it may be harmful. The current BLP policy says that for a person to be included in a list, just like a category, "the case for each … must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." That means the article in question, as a whole, must contain adequate sourcing that the person qualifies for the list or category. Lists by contrast do not contain article text. Putting a single cherry-picked citation culled from each main article next to each list item does not make a case for anything, or explain much. The citation may or may not reflect the current state of the article, and does not give the whole picture. The problem for the casual reader is that when they see a single link by each name in a list they are expecting an authoritative and informative resource that says something useful about the person and perhaps why they are on the list. They are not expecting that the citation is a pro forma response to comply with a new policy we make here. They don't know that they they are in fact getting a less than full picture of the person by following the citation instead of following the article link. Giving the reader less than our best information about a personis not a good way to serve that person's interest. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be arguing that providing verification by citing independent reliable sources is somehow less useful than providing no citation at all. This cannot be right. The choice is not between uncited mention and badly cited mention: it is between well supported mention and no mention at all. To insert a name of a living person in an article entitled "List of Foo", or "List of Foos who are also Bar", is to assert, in the voice of the encyclopaedia, that the named living person is a Foo, or a Foo who is also a Bar. That assertion, by WP:BLP policy, if challenged or likely to be so, "must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Citing_sources makes it clear that the inline citation should be in the list. Further, normal WP:V mandates an "inline citation that directly supports the material". If the citation does not directly support the assertion that the living person is a Foo, or a Foo who is also a Bar, it should not be used. An aggregation of sources cannot be synthesised: the assertion must be direct. This is what the reader expects, and deserves, when they see the citation. If no such source can be found, then the assertion cannot be verified, and so should not be made, and hence the name should not be in the list. This is not a new policy being made up here -- it is how we construct an encyclopaedia. Deltahedron (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Correct, the argument you pose is neither valid, nor is it the argument made. You are conflating several issues. Current BLP policy is that the citation to support an item's presence in a list should be justified by the article about the item and verified by the sources there. Requiring a duplicate (or worse, new) source next to the list item is a step backwards as far as informing the reader, giving them a full picture of the person, and keeping the list in conformity with the article. Your point about synthesis is an orthogonal one that affects many lists and has been the subject of much debate about lists and categories. If someone is sourced as being French, and the same source also verifies that he is a chef, it does not necessarily follow that he is a French chef. Moving citations back and forth from the article to the link does not affect that question. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
"Current BLP policy is that the citation to support an item's presence in a list should be justified by the article about the item and verified by the sources there" does not appear to be correct. Requiring a citation to a reliable source is what policy demands, as quoted and it should be in the list per MOS, as quoted. Supporting the presence of the entry in the list by a citation to a reliable source in the list as required, and linking to an article for further explanation seems a step forward rather than backwards. Why would providing less information be better for the reader? However, whether or not this argument is correct (and I cannot see that it is) it is an argument for a change in policy, and this is explicitly not what this RFC is about. Deltahedron (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
No, current policy and prevailing interpretation is for the links to be in the article, not the list. The predominance of opinions here agreeing with that interpretation of policy supports that. At the risk of quoting the exact same material quoted elsewhere, the relevant section "Categories, lists and navigation templates" says that "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources...These principles apply equally to lists". There is only one place that has article text and reliable sources (plural) to justify anything, and that's the full article. Adding a citation to the list would be a new step, and it's a legitimate question whether that is a step forward or backward. It probably depends on the list. I've worked some on the List of Internet Phenomena article, where I encouraged that as an inclusion criterion and it was a definite step forward. However, I do think it will be a step backwards if applied broadly to BLP lists. You'll have perfunctory compliance with digging a source out of the main article, but as I said that will be at the cost of possibly misleading the reader and providing less information if they follow that citation rather than the link, and having the list and article diverge. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
No, Wikidemon , current policy is that all articles have the same sourcing requirements. Lists are articles. Saying that some of the requirements for categories apply to lists as well doesn't somehow say that lists are immune to the requirements that apply to articles. It would be helpful if you didn't continue to repeat that fallacy.—Kww(talk) 03:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
No, current policy is that the sourcing for lists is found in the articles to which they link. To repeat your argument by assertion, saying that BLP means other than what it says about where the sources should be located is somehow saying that lists are immune to the requirements of BLP. It would be helpful if you didn't continue to repeat that fallacy. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not. No, you haven't found a single line of text anywhere that would indicate that to be true. You repeatedly quote a line saying that requirements that apply to categories also apply to lists and keep discussing it as though it says "all other requirements that apply to articles don't apply to lists". BLP says "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Note the lack of mushiness or vagueness about that direction: not a single "except for in lists" to be found. Your argument is without logical foundation: lists are articles. Articles are required to source contentious material with inline citations, not blue links.—Kww(talk) 04:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is. The BLP policy explicitly describes how to handle sourcing for lists, and that is "by the article text and its reliable sources". That is not only the line, verbatim, but also current practice and interpretation of the BLP requirement, and it also appears to reflect consensus on this page about what the policy means. Interpreting the text of BLP to say otherwise is wishful thinking; if it BLP or WP:V had intended to require in-list citations they would have said so directly instead of saying they should be handled like categories and templates. A couple pointers on interpreting rules: (1) the specific overrules the general, Lex specialis, and (2) where a passage is capable of two constructions, one of which will render parts of the passage invalid, contradictory, or otherwise meaningless, unnecessary, or void, the construction rendering the passage to have a valid meaning is preferred. Nobody has ever proposed sourcing lists by blue links, that is a straw man. The sourcing is contained in the references for the listed articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A list of "People who are Foo" is an article; inserting a name in that list is an assertion that the person is a Foo. An assertion in an article text requires sourcing in that article. The text you quote refers very elliptically to BLP "principles" and how to carry those principles out in practice is explained in the MOS in an extremely clear and explicit requirement which I will not trouble to quote for a third time. BLP and V do not say that lists should be handled like categories. Lists are articles, and BLP and V and MOS are very clear about how to handle articles. Resort to arcane legal doctrines to support an interpretation must count as a prime example of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Deltahedron (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The text of BLP is clear; calling it "elliptical" in order to ignore it doesn't work. It's fine if you consider the discipline of logic from antiquity to the present to be "arcane" and "wikilawyering" and would rather apply your own rules, but you'll have to realize that others who seem to be in the majority now and throughout Wikipedia's history of list creation interpret the policies differently. Bottom line, any factual assertions about living people are verifiable, sourced, and readily available in the encyclopedia. You and some others are now insisting that the location of that source has to be transposed to the list itself; others disagree. The question boils down on where to put the sources. We're having an RfC about that. We'll see which view prevails. If the outcome is to copy sources to the lists, then we'll muster our resources to make that happen in an orderly way; if not we'll leave it up to the projects and editors of each list, and perhaps the MOS, to make guidelines. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. I realise this is rhetoric rather than reasoned argument, but I'll spend some time unpicking it as an exercise. "The text of BLP is clear". Not on this point: if it were, there would be no debate, and certainly no need to invoke arcane rules of interpretation to understand. Calling it elliptical is not to ignore it but to draw attention to the fact that it needs interpretation. Fortunately, it is interpreted quite explicitly at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Citing_sources. "Feel free to do X" is a rather stale rhetorical device, strangely still popular on Wikipedia. It is usually deployed, as here, where X is something plainly stupid, something the opponent never did, and indeed something the proponent would not actually want to do either. Its purpose is to leave the casual reader with the impression that the opponent did do the stupid thing X but without the proponent ever having made an explicit assertion that can be rebutted. "Bottom line ..." usually introduces, as here, an assertion which is at best irrelevant, and probably incorrect, as here. It is extremely unlikely to be the case that all list entries which are not supported in the list article are actually correctly supported in the linked-to article. "You are now insisting ..." No, I did not say that. Please quote me correctly in future. Deltahedron (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
For goodness sake, the entire dust-up over the porn article is a clusterbomb, of rhetorical nonsense and process gaming. I put my original comment in this section to point out that a change in policy interpretation that would require source citations after each list item instead of the underlying article is not only a major change in Wikipedia practice, but in my opinion a disservice to readers and to the BLP subjects, and I explain why. That's important, I think we need to take a step back and look at the whole picture (that's what "bottom line" means, incidentally), is there actually a problem here that needs solving, and what would it mean for the encyclopedia one way or another if we adopted any of these solutions. I'm not lawyering things, I'm trying to work on the encyclopedia, but when the instigators of this latest in a series of BLP-related WP:BATTLEs chime in that there's no point discussing it because the policy is 100% clear on their side, they don't have to listen to other editors, and they can edit war against the community to have their way, I do think I need to school them a little on how to actually read a set of rules. That the exception trumps the rule is grade school logic, if they're teaching that anymore in school, but a common mistake people make. The fact that it has a latin name and dates back thousands of years doesn't mean it's too highfalutin for us to follow, quite the opposite, it's a 2+2 sort of thing. Whatever your favored interpretation, misquoting the policy page, calling the text of the BLP page "oblique", then using that know-nothing term "wikilawyering" against someone who's actually trying to use logic, accusing me of dishonesty, resorting to insults, threatening blocks, etc., as various editors have done, is not the way to support it. I haven't read the manual of style but I'll take your word for it. If that's its interpretation, it is on shaky ground and not something to follow. Most of the community does not and has not. My understanding is that someone wedged that into the style guideline in 2013 during a debate similar to this one. We should probably wedge it back out, depending on the outcome here. Indeed, this and all policies are subject to interpretation, and it takes two or three logical steps to go from the text on the page to either side's conclusion. I do believe that if you take those steps carefully, and look at what the policy says and means, and its purpose and context, it certainly permits sources to be either in the article or on the list. My point here is that always putting the sources on the list would have a negative effect. I have not quoted you, but as far as misrepresenting your position do you or do you not say that the source links should be found in the list rather than in the article? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
My assertion is that BLP policy requires the list article to have at least one citation to support the assertion that the person mentioned is a member of the class described by the list. Of course the article on the person, if there is one, should also be supported by reliable sources. Comments on other editors attitudes and education do not advance a discussion of what BLP policy is or how to implement it and are not really worth refuting further. Deltahedron (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- List articles have always been treated differently than regular articles, being closer to categories, given their primary role in most cases as indexes ("hubs of links") rather than containers. See WP:LISTN for example - that's a case where Wikidemon's "arcane doctrine" also applies to policy; the general rules of notability for articles don't apply to lists, even though they're very clear rules. Saying that "list are articles, therefore all article rules apply to them" is ingenuous, there has never been a community-wide consensus to treat lists as articles with all its consequences. Now, BLP policy applies to all Wikipedia space; but that doesn't mean that the references must appear inline whenever BLP material appears, only that they exist - inline citations are not required at talk pages, for example.
Whether to have an inline reference in lists when the references are already in the linked article is a matter of style, not a requirement of BLP for the protection of the subjects - nobody has stated a clear case that the status of List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films created a risk for any of the people that were listed there (which is the spirit of the BLP policy); all I see here is people debating about nit-picky, bureaucratic rule-following for the shake of compliance with rules, not for the benefit that those rules should bring up. Diego (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikidemon, at this point, I can only assume that you are intentionally misreading the policy in order to support your position. That's always been a shoddy debating practice. It's quite true that people creating lists have tried over the years to push their obligation for sourcing onto other editors, but it's a distortion of policy to say that policy supports that effort.—Kww(talk) 13:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
If I'm at a category, there are typically no citations. So I would still have to go to all the individual articles to confirm if they're cited. How is that any different from sitting at a list and wanting to confirm individual citations? By your logic, someone could change the list to a category and you'd be fine with that - despite the fact it's no improvement to the level of citations. I could just as easily categorize Mickey Mantle into "porn actors" as I could put him on a list of "porn actors". What's the practical difference? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Kww, it looks like you just lost the debate if you have to resort to insults rather than trying to understand policy. I won't stoop to that level, so I think we're done on this particular exchange. This is an RfC on how people interpret the policy. I'm part of the majority who interpret it differently than you. Leave it at that. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Kww here. The policy says that for a category to appear at the bottom of an article, there must be sources on that same page that justify the inclusion of that category on that page. The principles apply equally to lists, so for a contentious item to appear in a list, there must be sources on that same page that justify the inclusion of the item on that page.
The reason that I don't support this statement as written is because it covers non-contentious items as well, and the policy does not require inline citations for non-contentious statements about BLPs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There are generally not citations on category pages, and a category page is just another type of list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec, addressing WhatamIdoing) The phrases you put in quotes and italics are not found on the policy page. You're making an interpretation. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
You have edited long enough to know how to add an item to a category, haven't you? Can you explain a method for doing so that doesn't follow WhatamIdoing's "interpretation"? Her material certainly does follow WP:CATEGORY:"Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories."—Kww(talk) 19:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
There's no practical difference between the one kind of list and the other, yet you're taking contradictory positions on the one vs. the other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm certainly struggling to see why we should have completely different policies about [1] and [2], which both appear to the ordinary reader as lists of names. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Being as charitable to the deletionists as I can, it would be a fair bet that the rules for these two types of lists were developed separately, as in "the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing." Regardless, it makes no sense to have opposite rules between two types of lists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
(outdent) Whether I'm tending a list or category as an editor, or looking through one as a reader, I would go straight to the article and examine its text and sources to see why and if the item belongs there, and not count on the presence or absence of a single citation on a list. The exception is where a highly notable subject is on an obscure list far removed from their reason for notability. If Barack Obama appears on a list of people of Scottish ancestry I don't want to muck through the entire Obama article to see why, it's better if there is a link and/or explanation there. In the more common situation where the person is of moderate notability, say Emerson Fittipaldi being on the List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, going to the article in question is clearly more useful. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
With regards to lists versus categories, I think User:Fayenatic london has a good reasoning on his deleting Category:LGBT_Roman_Catholics. A list is a far better place for this information as grounds for inclusion can be explicitly stated, cited and discussed. A list can also be much more informative, with sections or table columns for historical period, occupation etc. I left a link to the diffs, in order to facilitate creating such a list. Personally, my view is that lists and categories are different because the former can include citations if warranted. That said, I don't believe can include citations means must have citations. moluɐɯ 13:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose I really don't believe that List of burial places of Presidents of the United States would benefit from inline citations to prove that still-living US Presidents are still living and thus not buried. We have a few sky-is-blue perfectly uncontentious list entries involving BLPs. We should not require pointless make-work for these uncontested items, and we should not encourage people to make a WP:POINT by authorizing removal of such items. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is ridiculous. Oh no! Someone might theoretically add something to a list that isn't true, and you know all the big studios always check this list article before hiring anyone, since they don't want anyone who formerly worked in porn. In this case, their name is in the credits of everything they do. Articles for films, pornographic or mainstreaming, don't have a reference for every single actor they say is in the film. Do we remove all those cast members? Dream Focus 20:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - But per User:Deltahedron; I feel like this question is already pretty clearly addressed by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Citing_sources. NickCT (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hearty support - Statements about living persons absolutely must be sourced where they appear, according to policy. I agree with AndyTheGrump on this one - this list has no reliable sources (IMDb is not reliable, you all know that) and he was correct to blank the page; WP:BLPREMOVE (part of a policy, not a recommendation) requires us to remove unsourced contentious material about living persons. If Andy asserts that it is contentious, then it is by definition contentious. Encouraging editors to go out and find sources or pull them from bluelinked articles is all well and good, but that does not override site policy. Ivanvector (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Bugs, all categories are supposed to be verified/verifiable, too, and supported by the article's text. Per WP:Categories,
"Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the Template:Category unsourced template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category."
That seems pretty clear. And, yes, I have seen various gnomes removing unsupported/unverified categories from articles. Happens all the time, and it should. Even more so if an unverified category might constitute a BLP problem. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
And I say there is no practical difference between the one type of list and the other. There's no justification for having one rule for one type of list and a different rule for another type. Either way, you can go to the linked item to see if it's a valid entry on the list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion is not about whether we should have different rules for lists and categories, but how to respond to the fact that we do. A proposal to change the policy would be a different RFC. Deltahedron (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
No, you either have a policy or you don't. You can't claim that a citation is needed in one type of list but not another. A list is a list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
"A list", otherwise known as "a list-article", is indeed a list, but a category is not a list. (A category is a navigation tool.) Compare, for example, List of World Heritage Sites in Africa with Category:World Heritage Sites in Africa: I believe that you will find that they are rather different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
No. A category is a list with links to individual articles. It is functionally identical to what you call an "article-list". There's either a policy or there isn't. You can't have it both ways. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
A category is not functionally identical to a list: the differences, and the advantages and disadvantages of each are discussed at length in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, which begins "Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles". One of the stated advantages of a list is (7) "Can be referenced to justify the inclusion of listed articles". Hence the differences in policy to reflect the differences in functionality. Deltahedron (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for that gem. So all those saying lists are functionally identical to categories and therefore they could avoid their BLP responsibilities as editors were in fact ignorant of this point. There is now not a single valid arguemnt to not be sourcing list, as things should be to avoid lists being made up by editors who do not fel they are required to justify their inclusions by reliably sourcing. It also means that in the long term all lists should be made BLP compliant at the evry least. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
You're both missing the point. If you're sitting at the top of a category, there is no practical difference to sitting on a so-called "list article". Having one rule for one and a different one for the other is ridiculous. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The guidelines I quote above list 17 eminently practical differences, so I think we can regard that as settled. Do I take it that we are now agreed that there are in fact different policies for lists and categories? Deltahedron (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
No. Lists and categories present the exact same BLP challenges due to very similar navigational structure, and a uniform approach to them as suggested by the current BLP section on the subject makes a lot of sense. The only relevant difference is that lists can have explanatory text or citations next to each list item, which is a lot different than establishing that they should or that they must. I mention in my opposition here that I don't think it's a good idea as a blanket requirement because there are cases where that would be a disservice to the reader and actually weaken BLP protection, but there are certainly other cases where it is helpful to have a list inclusion criterion that the list entry has a reliable source next to it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec)The core issue of this discussion is about requiring citations on lists for allegedly "contentious" information. There is no reason to treat one type of list different from another. Either way, if you're sitting at the top of a list, you can check the citations by lookin at the article - and for categories, that's the only way you can check it, unless you embed sourcing in the category, which I don't see the manual-of-style warriors arguing for. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec) My question was directed at BB who said that having different rules "is ridiculous". That seems to me to imply that BB agrees that there are indeed different rules, although they have made it clear that they do not think there should be. Is that a fair summary? Deltahedron (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, you have your work cut out for you if you hope to get BB to agree to anything. He's quite persistent in his opinions. Good luck :) - Wikidemon (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I am trying to check exactly what BB's view is on this point (namely that BLP policy differs as between lists and categories) since it seems that we might actually agree on the point, if not on its ramifications. Deltahedron (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what you're unclear on. The complaint here is supposedly about the alleged risk of alleged BLP violations in "list articles". If you're not concerned about the same gaping citations gap in category lists, then there's no valid logical argument for being concerned about it in these "list articles". And if you are concerned about it, then you should likewise be arguing for applying the same standard to categories. Both, or neither. Any other way makes no sense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Then let me more explicit, if I can. Is it BB's view that current BLP policy requires a different treatment of the citation of reliable sources for contentious inclusion of names of living persons in lists to the treatment it requires for the contentious inclusions of such names in categories? We take it as read that BB feels any such difference in policy to be ridiculous, the question I am asking here is whether BB agrres with me that the difference exists. Deltahedron (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
So far, no one has convinced me that there even is a requirement for a redundant citation within the "list article". Some are saying yes, some are saying no. The policy must not be as crystal-clear as Squeak thinks it is. Regardless, if this is a good-faith effort to fix BLP problems and not just to feed deletionists, then the BLP rules for lists have to be consistent. If they aren't, then you haven't solved anything. Oh, and squeaking of Speak, er, speaking of Squeak, there is a topic-ban discussion for him at ANI right now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
That's clear, thank you. Your previous use of the indicative "is" rather than conditional "would be" conveyed the opposite impression. It is indeed true that various editors have expressed the opinion that, for example, "The BLP policy explicitly describes how to handle sourcing for lists" only for that explicit description to turn out to rely on tortuous rules of legal interpretation. So I can certainly agree that it is not as clear as might be desirable. Nonetheless I think it is definite, for reasons I have already given several times. The separate issue of verification of inclusion in categories, where it is not technically possible to give direct citations, is indeed problematic, but I do not think that situation likely to be improved by changing the policy to weaken the requirement elsewhere. Deltahedron (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Actually, there was a discussion on possible BLP issues with categories recently: Category talk:Antisemitism#RFC on purging individuals and groups. You might be interested, although the scope of the discussion was very narrow. Ivanvector (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: As I've said elsewhere, there needs to be a limit on what counts as contentious and what is considered adequate enforcing of BLP according to the spirit of the policy, beyond which the edit warring and refusal to collaborate is considered disruptive. Otherwise, I could go to any B-class BLP article and perform a removal like this of every single sentence that doesn't have a direct inline reference within it, and keep edit warring any revert in the name of BLP enforcement way past the 3RR and refusing any request to stop or help fixing the removal; thus gutting the article to an unreadable mess that, per policy, could only be fixed by inserting a new reference within every sentence in the article. I don't consider that to be improving BLP coverage, nor that BLP justifies such unconditional removals in all circumstances, for any reason (or without a reason at all), without any kind of checks and balances, which is what people supporting the wording of this option are doing. Diego (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree, I think the bar for what is considered contentious should be deliberately low for BLPs, because of the sensitive nature. The spirit of BLP is that all material on living persons must be held to the highest standards of verifiability - there's no room for leniency. If material is not verifiable we can't publish it, and in some cases that will result in paragraphs peppered with inline refs. There's nothing wrong with that, other than maybe looking kind of ugly on screen. On the other hand, if an editor is removing material which is properly sourced, then they are not protected by WP:NOT3RR and should be blocked. Ivanvector (talk) 13:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have a problem for having a citation for each sentence (although WP:CITEDENSE allows for references to be placed at the end of the paragraph, or even one reference for all the content from a single source). I don't think we're actually in disagreement - having a sentence without a reference within it is not by itself enough reason to remove it, nor to say that it's not properly sourced, not even for BLP content, as it may very well be sourced at the paragraph level. My problem is with removing content without even looking whether it's properly sourced or not, which you agree is not protected by policy. I'll highlight these words from the norm you linked: "Wikipedia requires inline citations based on the content, not on the grammar and composition elements." Diego (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Yes, all BLPs included in a list should be supported by in-line citations per WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS. Frankly, so should all the dead persons who are included on any given list, too. Often, the real value to our readers of our list articles is not the list itself, but the citations that corroborate the information provided. Come on, people. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a sixth-grade book report. Everything in a well-written article or list should be supported -- why would you think otherwise? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • opposeThis is already the case per present policy. Any challenged content has to be supported with citations. ON the otherhand I think it is a very bad idea to agressively remove uncited entries as is being suggested here - many people seem to take great delight in removing entries without first making even the most trivial attempt to find a possible reference for the fact. This kind of attitude is frustrating and amounts simply to pushing the work onto others. I would support this suggestion only if it were coupled with an injunction that at least one good faith attempt to find a source should be made before removal. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Per WP:BLP policy this is a requirement - and per common sense we should be referencing lists in the way that we reference any other article. If a list is worth having, it is worth referencing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Having references is a requirement, but removing unsourced content is not. I agree with Maunus that pushing work onto others when the references are available should not be allowed (and as I explained above, I think doing that is already not allowed now per WP:CHALLENGE).Diego (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLP mandates the removal of unsourced content about living people which is contentious: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) 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.. WP:CHALLENGE is part of WP:V, which explictly defers to WP:BLP on this point. Deltahedron (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, as long as the material is contentious and without references. The entries in this list all have known valid sources. Diego (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
This section is discussing the general proposition Any entry of a living person in a list that is not referenced with an inline citation may be removed, and under BLP Policy, it may only be restored when properly cited and the assertion "Having references is a requirement, but removing unsourced content is not" contradicts BLP. If any specific list includes citations to independent reliable sources that supports the inclusion of a name in the list then that would be a reason not to remove the content. Deltahedron (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Precisely, this section includes the case of content for which good references are known, but are not inline - thus a matter of style, not of challenged content. WP:PRESERVE is also a Wikipedia policy; although people wanting to remove content routinely break it, it clearly says "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies: Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research." So removing such content can't be done, by policy; and there's no contradiction with BLP: sourcing the content is compliant with policy, removing content for which references are known is not. So it seems we've arrived to the same conclusion. Diego (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Several people in this discussion have overstated the rule, probably because they're thinking of the specific list that prompted this. Having references for every BLP-related list entry is not "a requirement" per BLP. BLP requires citations if and only if said material is "contentious". For non-contentious material you should add citations, but you are not required to add citations. "Must" and "should" are not synonyms in our policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
As I pointed out just above, the first part of the proposition here is that "Any entry of a living person in a list that is not referenced with an inline citation may be removed", not "must". But if it is removed, then it becomes contentious to reinsert it, and BLP requires that it not be reinserted without a citation, and hence the second part, that "it may only be restored when properly cited". Deltahedron (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • oppose Lists and categories are generally interchangeable, and membership in the category is cited only by the citations in the article. When looking at the category page itself, no citation is visible. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Comment - We can and so we should. BLP demands this and rightly so to protect living people from the excesses of editors. Otherwise our verifiability standard becomes whatever editors say and not citing reliable sources. Without reliable sources these lists cannot be verified. We cannot strat putting the needs of our editors above the needs of the livign people we write about. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Haven't you just !voted twice in this thread? Diego (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Apologies, wasnt trying to game the system, thought it was a different poll. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The proposal would apply to all lists of living persons, including things like List of Nobel laureates, which could be immediately blanked if this was the policy. In reality, this proposal, without limitation to controversial subject like porn, has never been policy in practice. It may well be our long term goal, though.--Milowenthasspoken 17:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If the subject in question has an article that substantiates their inclusion on the list, this just creates unnecessary workload. If its a red link or just text, then yes of course it needs to be sourced. BLP policy is important, but so is common sense. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The distinction between lists and categories, which has been made much of by some !voters, is an artifact of the underlying technology, and has no reality for ordinary readers, or indeed subjects of BLPs. Inclusion in a list or category is absolutely fine as long as the name is blue linked to an underlying article on the subject which makes the case for inclusion in an immediately obvious way (for example, in the opening paragraph of the lead, or in a named section) and the underlying article is itself adequately referenced. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I referred to Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates which lists some 17 differences, most of which are entirely real for readers, such as the possibility of having inline citations, which, we might recall, are there for the benefit of the reader. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists explains how to use them effectively, in ways which are largely not possible to categories, for technical reasons. In particular it mentions that "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others." Deltahedron (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Unless you believe that categories should never be used for contentious material that argument simply makes no sense at all. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
What argument, and why drag categories into what you think I might have meant? I was reminding you of what editing guidelines already say about lists. Do you believe those guidelines make no sense? Or is it the notion that references are there for the benefit of readers that seems so absurd to you? What exactly is it you object to here? Deltahedron (talk) 18:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you have said this sort of thing repeatedly and at length, despite which you have failed to convince a substantial number of posters on this page, myself included. If you really can't see why category lists such as [3] hole your argument below the waterline there is little more I can say. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Since my arguments are based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and you have not been able to point to any problem with those, or quote any specific point that you can refute, I conclude that your position consists mainly of disliking the conclusions. Your position, whatever it may be, would carry more weight if it was supported by policy or logical argument. As for convincing the majority or not, you will doubtless recall that Wikipedia:Consensus is "ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy", it is explicitly not a vote.
Now let me address your assertion, made above,that "The distinction between lists and categories, which has been made much of by some !voters, is an artifact of the underlying technology, and has no reality for ordinary readers", which is presumably part of your argument. I pointed out guidelines on another page giving 17 reasons to believe that there is a difference, and observe that in many of those 17, the difference is real for readers. Do you assert that every single one of those reasons is incorrect? Shall I reiterate them here for you to refute individually? Would you explain in a little more detail how the existence of the category you mention supportes the notion that there is no difference in reality between lists and categories and refutes all 17 points? Or would you like to modify your assertion somewhat? Deltahedron (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Do feel free to keep repeating the same old argument at ever greater length, and I'll be sure to let you know as and when I find in convincing. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I asked you some questions about your assertion, which you appear to be unwilling to answer. I will assume that means that the answers would tend not to support your position. (Oh, and let me refer you to a previous comment of mine on the rather stale "feel free" rhetorical device [4].) Deltahedron (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Jonathan, I think you are making the error of assuming that because many of us who agree with Deltahedron choose not to repeat ourselves that somehow your argument is prevailing. Quite the contrary, I see a nearly even split of !votes, and no consensus for creating an exception in BLP policy that would permit unsourced lists of BLPs. Nor do I buy the specious argument that Wikipedia lists and categories are functionally the same, because they are not. Wikipedia lists are articles and are subject to the same policies as all Wikipedia articles, including WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS, among others. Wikipedia categories are indexes, more akin to a table of contents or subject index than an article. The different functions and purposes of articles and categories is so self-evident that I am shocked that no one has stated the obvious until now: No, articles and categories are not the same thing, and they do not serve the same purposes -- apart from navigation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You're making technical arguments about categories vs. lists, which betrays the fact that this issue is not actually about BLP, it's about manual of style. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Mr. Bunny, the differences between a Wikipedia article and a Wikipedia category are not "technical arguments"; the differences are fundamental. And this has precious little to do with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Nor will repeating yourself -- over, and over, and over again -- add any weight to your fundamentally flawed argument. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It's about the MOS of lists, specifically BLP lists. Categories are being drawn as a comparison, specifically technical limitations on them and citation. Trying to call his argument invalid because they are lists v. categories sounds like you're running out of ideas for what to refute. moluɐɯ 17:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
BB has made this point elsewhere. I note that JAJ asserts that there is no difference between categories and lists, whereas BB asserts that the argument is entirely about the difference between categories and lists. Perhaps someone would hold their coats while they settle the matter? More seriously, and perhaps surprisingly, I tend to agree with BB's point, made elsewhere, that categories can be also be problematic with respect to BLP, but of course one of the many differences between categories and lists is that it is posible for lists to have other information for the benefit of the reader about each topic other than the article titles, such as, but not only, supporting references. However the focus of the discussion is not just about how to reprepresent those references in the article, which might be a stylistic issue (and is indeed adequately covered in MOS), but also about how those requirements determine how editors respond. That is not a style issue but a BLP policy issue, and that's why it is being debated, quite properly, on this page. Deltahedron (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Referencing the lists could be considered an MOS issue, but BLP is indeed a more fitting category of discussion; however, what exact policy this discussion should fall under is pretty irrelevant, and is a distracting debate. I maintain that whether you agree lists and categories are the same or not, that the comparison used in the above arguments is certainly valid. moluɐɯ 17:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Deltahedron, you did see my point -- made elsewhere in this OOC wall of text -- that categories are also subject to being verified/verifiable and supported by article text, otherwise they are subject to being removed per Wikipedia:Categories, right? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and I quite agree that this is what BLP policy currently requires. Deltahedron (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
If you really cared about BLP, you would likewise be arguing to fix this gaping loophole in the category setup. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I care about all sorts of things, some more than others: like most people I prioritise and focus my energies. At present we are discussing an agreed interpretation of BLP for lists. Suggesting that I don't really want that, because I'm not doing something else as well, or instead, does not serve to advance that discussion; it's pretty obviously not true, and might even be considered by more sensitive individuals to be casting some kind of aspersions on me. Well, I'm sure BB doesn't really intend to do that, and I'm sure that, like me, he prefers to concentrate on the validity of the arguments and the extent of the evidence rather than making guesses about the motivations of the people involved. Deltahedron (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not convinced you care anything about BLP. Lists and categories are the same thing in practice. The identical (alleged) problem exists for both. To argue about one and not the other betrays a concern about the technicalities of rules rather than on true concern about BLP issues. I'm seeing arguments here that somehow it's "not possible" to add redundant citations to category list items. If so, then someone who's really concerned about this needs to take it to the developers and tell them to make it possible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Come on now. Categories and article pages have different technical restrictions and have different standards because of that. Yes it would be nice if categories could support citations for its members, I support that. Its lack of existence is not an argument for not citing lists. Chillum 21:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec)Replying to BB: Thank you for your frankness, let me be equally frank in return. This is the middle of a discussion on how to interpret and act on existing BLP policy. Arguing for changes in policy or in the underlying software is not what we are doing right now. That might be desirable, and it might happen in the future -- indeed, if you care so much about these issues, why don't you start a separate discussion on those issues in another section of this page and, as I have said, I might even support that. Or not. I do not care whether you approve of my motivation, and am content to argue my position on the basis of policy and evidence. Your disparaging of other peoples motives rather than engaging with the arguments suggests that you either do not have arguments of your own, or that you are here not to advance the discussion but to disrupt it. Deltahedron (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec)"It would be nice". If you actually cared about BLP, you wouldn't be settling for "it would be nice". It doesn't matter anyway. The deletionists will win here. They always do. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Bugs! Chill. It appears unlikely so far that there is a clear consensus either way. If in the end we were to move to an interpretation requiring citations on each item for all blue link lists of people, or all blue link lists that conveyed potentially contentious information about people, then the community would likely devise a tagging, rescue, and deletion schedule for old lists and an absolute policy requirement for new lists, much as it did in two other similar instances in the past, NFCC use justifications and BLPPROD. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think BB has a contribution to make to the discussion, and I don't think s/he particularly cares about BLP policy either (indeed, s/he has on more than one occasion described referencing as a stylistic matter). What BB does care about, it seems, is poking editors who do care about BLP, by attempting to wind them up with assertions that they don't care, or don't care enough. Another windup seems to be claiming that editors who care about logic and reasoned argument are being inconsistent in their thinking. That might be because BB wants to make one side or other of the argument look bad, by making its proponents look uncaring or unreasonable, but the way s/he spreads his attentions around suggests that s/he is just looking to find someone whom he can provoke into an angry or ill-judged response. I assume s/he does it for the drama value, or to gratify her/his own ego, or for self-aggrandisement; although the technique is not unknown in cyber-bullying. It's probably worth refuting any outright untruths that such people write, at least the first time, just for the record, but Wikipedia is rather deficient in mechanisms to deal with persistent low-level incivility and anti-collegiality, as the current discussions at User talk:Jimbo Wales amply demonstrate. Deltahedron (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I do care about BLP's, much more than you're aware of. Any article linked from any list needs to be properly cited. It would be as much of a BLP violation to put a porn actor in a category or other type of listof major league ballplayers as to put a major leaguer into a category or other type of list of porn actors. (If you think otherwise, you've missed out on the BLP verbal violence over seemingly mundane stuff like date of birth.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Dirtlawyer1, on the contrary, I think your assessment of the relative support for the two positions is about right. I also happen to think that your position is likely to prevail in the end, but of course that doesn't alter the fact that I think it's wrong. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support of course I don't know where people get the idea that lists are somehow special. The WP:V applies to all articles including lists. The MOS for standalone list says "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations.". Lists have been subject to the same verification requirements as any other article for the 8 years I have been here.

    Also a blue link to an article with citations is not even close to a citation, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Chillum 18:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Has been policy for a while, and is just common sense. If it's already sourced in the linked article, it's not going to be a problem pulling it to the list article. All information on BLPs should be sourced where the information is presented, that's just plain BLP policy. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If someone makes a removal on BLP grounds, that can only be reverted if a source is provided or if consensus has been reached that the original removal was in error. Sourcing cannot be palmed off on to other articles. Such a principle could not be confined to lists. Neljack (talk) 00:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but only in the case of potentially contentious lists[edit]

Each individual item in any potentially contentious list, such as lists of allegations of criminality or historically divisive topics, should be cited and may be removed until it is cited to a reliable source. Inclusion in a porn-related list is inherently contentious as persons incorrectly included on this list may find this personally or professionally damaging.
  • Support. Visually , this page is a stark illustration of the currently polarized debate on this topic, with large numbers of comments above and below, and not a single comment in this middle section until now. But nothing will be accomplished until we bridge this divide, so I've tweaked the language in this middle section a bit. We need to be able to act on BLP-infringing matters but we don't want to blank many long-standing lists that are accurate and don't present any serious issues. Gamaliel (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If someone doesn't belong on any given list, they can be removed. Comparing porn actors to gangsters is highly offensive original research. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Is anyone seriously making that comparison? Gamaliel (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Providing a couple of examples of potentially contentious topics is not directly equating or comparing two things. Gamaliel (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If I note that apples and oranges are both fruits, apparently I am equating them. Good to know. Would you care to substitute language above that you feel makes the case that these are both potentially contentious topics without comparing them to one another? Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't know about gangsters here but there's clearly a stigmatization of pornography implied by mentioning criminals in the same sentence as an analogy for porn stars. I'll leave porn star pride out of it but there are certainly sex positive people who see this kind of judgment as oppressive and insulting. Refusing to be frank about sexual matters, for the supposed protection of the people involved, is among other things not an encyclopedic approach. That's a danger when declaring entire topic areas to be inherently contentious. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As I said, I welcome alternate language to address these concerns. I have no desire to stigmatize anything, but it's not stigmatizing or being anti-sex positivity to note that there are people who would strongly object to being misclassified in such a matter and would find it personally and professionally damaging. Refusing to be frank about this will not help us address this issue. Gamaliel (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Happy to support this version. The BLP policy is intended to apply to controversial ("challenged or likely to be challenged") claims about living people. Nathan T 19:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - It doesn't matter how obvious we think something is, Wikipedia content must be verifiable and this is particularly important when the content relates to the divide between a person's professional and private life. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support mostly. Contentious matter about BLPs requires inline citations. There are no exceptions to this rule. An item is contentious if anyone contests or WP:CHALLENGEs its inclusion. Whether some other editor believes that the challenge is based on ignorance or anti-sex bias is irrelevant: challenged is challenged, and the response should be inline citations, not complaining.
    What I don't support is the reason given for why inclusion on a porn-related list is contentious. The effect on the BLP is actually irrelevant to the determination of contentiousness. Something is contentious if it is (a) actually contested or (b) reasonably WP:LIKELY to be contested. It is the experience of our editing community that inclusion in a porn-related list is likely to be contested. We could say the same thing about a List of causes of climate change or List of health benefits from tobacco use, even though these subjects involve no BLP issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    • None of the complainants here have actually challenged the contents of the list. This is strictly about manual-of-style sledgehammering. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support For non-controversial lists like "People from X", blue links are fine for references as this data should be relatively easy to extract (such as a link from the infobox, etc). For anything where the data can be controversial, the blue links are not likely going to be sufficient because you'd have to read the whole article to determine if the controversial criteria is there or not. As such, inline sourcing (or in some cases, a single header source that encapsulates the whole list) is required for each entry of controversial lists. Ideally, one will be pulling a source or two from the blue-linked article for this, so it should be trivial to complete. --MASEM (t) 19:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose If the information is the article linked to, then no reason not to have it on the list. Someone could just as easily enter false information in the main article as in on a list. They could easily have a reference to something else, since most won't click on the link in the reference to read the actual source. I don't really see this is something that is happening though, so its not really a problem. Dream Focus 19:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral Something is contentious if someone thinks it is, the wording given here does not make that clear. I think our current BLP, MOS, V and other such policies already clearly cover this. Chillum 18:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is an accurate statement of current BLP policy, though WP:V goes further and supports the option above (requiring such referencing for all lists). Neljack (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Not all lists. The way around this deletionism is to get rid of the "list articles" and replace them with categories, which don't even support redundant citations, let alone requiring them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongest support possible. The manual of style enforces this point. "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." BLP policy requires STRONG sourcing with respect to contentious material about living people. A blue link article is not a source, and even if that article contains strong sourcing, the RS should be included in both articles. Articles should stand on their own; Blue link articles can be changed, deleted or even point to the wrong article in cases of disambiguation. The "list" article, if it relies on a wikipedia article for a source making a potentially contentious statement could easily become unverifiable. The burden to copy or find a RS is on the editor who wishes to add or re-add the contentious statement, not on the editor who removes or challenges the statement.Two kinds of pork (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, unless there is a dispute over the factual basis[edit]

When a blue linked name of a living person is removed from a list for being unreferenced, it may be restored if the linked article supports inclusion and there is no factual dispute at that article over the characteristic supporting inclusion.
  • Support In my opinion, a reference is only required where there is a factual dispute about the characteristic justifying inclusion. Where a person's blue linked article clearly labels them with a particular characteristic, and there is no dispute there or anywhere else that the label is fair, than including them on the list is neither contentious nor likely to be considered contentious, which is the trigger under WP:BLPREMOVE for requiring a reference. The blue link is not a reference, but merely a way for someone to see that a reference is not required under policy. Again though, if anyone wants to claim that the label is wrong as a matter of fact, then BLPREMOVE does require an actual reference on the list. Monty845 17:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree. BLP does not require blue link item in a list to have a verification citation next to that list item. As User:Cavarrone points out BLP currently says the exact opposite: "the case for each content category must be made by the article text and its reliable sources...these principles apply equally to lists." Lists contain links to articles that in turn provide sourcing, a practice that is standard in BLP articles and elsewhere on the encyclopedia. Requiring citations next to blue link list items would be a significant change in policy that I think is beyond the scope of this RfC. However, editors may on a case-by-case basis decide that a particular list ought to have citation sources and I would support that requirement for this particular list. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support because of Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE as well as of WP:BLP which states in the Categories/lists section: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by THE ARTICLE TEXT and ITS reliable sources." Otherwise it is just a pointy sky-is-blue dispute. --Cavarrone 17:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:BURDEN and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. The same principles at hand at WP:BURDEN that establish a responsibility prior to challenging unsourced content and forbid its blanket removal also apply here - one has to assert their good faith belief to make a case that the content is controversial and unverifiable, otherwise page blanking is considered disruptive (see also WP:MINREF - "section blanking may be vandalism, rather than a demand for inline citations"). Following the letter of policy while ignoring its intent, like when deleting content that is known to be true and verifiable, is not a good use of WP:BLP - given that this case is one of article style, not content substance; BLP material that is referenced one link away is not "unsourced or poorly sourced", it's just improperly formatted. The expected behavior of an editor who knows that the material can be sourced is to add the citation themselves. Diego (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support If the list is compiled from existing WP articles on these individuals where the assertion is being made that they indeed are a porn actor and that assertion is reliably sourced and there is no dispute about the sourcing that supports that assertion, then exactly what is contentious. The list itself is not making a contentious assertion about anyone, it's merely listing people who have already been identified through sourcing as being a porn actor. If someone wanted to dispute the sourcing making the assertion at that person's article page, then it would stand to follow that they would then be removed from the list as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • SupportUsing BLP policy to blank articles everyone knows is verifiable is just pointy and disruptive. Making 'contentious' assertion is just another excuse. Especially when you know your claims are false. There is no dispute about the sourcing, only the methods. Dave Dial (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support with reservation. The claim should be supported by the article about the list item, and the claim in the article itself is subject to the normal sourcing requirements. In other words, this does not in any way weaken RS or BLP, it simply allows latitude as to where the sourcing sits. All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC).
  • Support - for all of the above reasons and the observation that its just not practical. Some lists can have 100's or 1000's of entries. If the destination of a blue link that contains references to confirm what is being listed exists, let it stand. Furthermore I'd like to add that this attribute could just as easily by a Category and there would be no recourse for adding a reference of any kind. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) Face-smile.svg 20:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support It's ridiculous to have redundant sourcing just because two people want to take an overly strict interpretation of the words of BLP policy. Strict BLP policy is actually a good idea, and in theory prevents maybe Libel lawsuits due to unsourced information being regularly deleted from articles. In this case, the aforementioned articles in the list have the citations within them but it is expected by two editors (who have reverted more than 3 times under BLP umbrella) that we are to harvest sources from these articles and that it must be done in spirit of BLP policy. No, we are not a bureaucracy and do not have to bend to this specific interpretation of policy. Indeed, one of the pillars guiding Wikipedia is that we do not have firm rules. Tutelary (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
We've got redundant sourcing all over the place. Haven't you seen similar claims referenced in more than one article before? If I reference a claim about Marie Curie in the Marie Curie article, do I then not need to provide any references related to her in any other context where her life and achievements are described? If I add a reference in Columbia University to a claim about Dwight D. Eisenhower, do I then not need to source it on the Dwight D. Eisenhower article itself? Nathan T 16:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Fairly clearly there are only a narrow set of circumstances where sourcing s required. In this scenario appropriate sourcing is present, and available with a little effort. Given that sourcing can be to, for example, a scarce book that costs hundreds, or requires a lengthy library trip to consult, sourcing that is indirected through a blue link should not to be considered "inaccessible". All the best: Rich Farmbrough16:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC).
In what circumstance would a reference for whether or not someone is a porn star be found only in a scarce, enormously expensive book? That's a strange assertion. In any case, the principle holds - controversial claims must be sourced in each context in which they appear, lest we establish that "x is sourced somewhere, therefore we need not source it here" is the new and correct interpretation of WP:V. Such a strange outcome might lead some bot operator or script user to go through and remove a million "duplicate" references. Nathan T 19:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - "where a list is full of blue links to the articles of the personalities being listed and the linked articles do support inclusion in the list, does BLP Policy justify blanking those entries without inline citations?"
No. What's been unfortunately going on recently with respect to many pornography-related articles is that a very few users (when they see Wiki-linked names on pornography-related articles) choose to blank those names entirely without any attempt to simply click on the blue-linked article names and see if there are reliable sources that those names are, in fact, associated with known adult industry performers.
"The expected behavior of an editor who knows that the material can be sourced is to add the citation themselves." Exactly...what those few users also unfortunately refuse to do (in almost all circumstances when not confronted by an administrator) is to simply copy those same reliable sources from the blue-linked articles over to the pornography-related Wikipedia article that was originally "in question" in the first place. This kind of "pointy" behavior is fundamentally disruptive to collaborative editing, and it unfortunately is a too common attempt to use phony "BLP concerns" as a shield for one's edits. Wikipedia BLP policy should not be used to push one's own agenda, no matter what that personal agenda is. Guy1890 (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - As long as doubt can be removed by a veritable source... I think anyone who was unfamiliar with Wikipedia would probably click the link to the article first; anyone familiar may check a reference. If there is no reference, I'd expect the regular to click the article on the person. Where the reference is placed is overly bureaucratic and it hinders the goals of list makers more than it helps the readers. If someone wants to add extraneous references to the list, I don't see any reason to object, but blanking a list because the sources are not directly on the page is ridiculous. It's like you're building a tower out of Legos, but half of the bricks you need are 5 feet away. Instead of scooting over to them, you just knock the tower down. moluɐɯ 22:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
    Changing stance to Neutral - While I still firmly believe my reasoning above for supporting, the editors opposing and their arguments are leaving me with some doubt as to future invocation and application of such a rule. moluɐɯ 16:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support BLP requires explicit referencing of controversial material Stuartyeates (talk) 00:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - If the article is BLP compliant and the claim is well referenced, then it is redundant to do the same on the list. There is no BLP issue whatsoever -the claim is meant to be sourced in the article. The list is just a pointer to the articles, which contain their individual sourcing. If someone wants to add such sources to the list as well, then by all mean do that, but as long as the article is properly referenced there is no reason to remove the entry.--cyclopiaspeak! 17:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - For many of the reasons already stated. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose This leads to maintenance problems as pages get out of sync. I can easily imagine hoaxing this way: add a contentious statement and a ghost citation to the article about Joe Film, link it on the List of evil people, have your garbage reverted out of the first, but no one noticed your second effort. Even if you started off with real citations and reasonably accurate information, they can get lost due to editing and merging. The only reasonable safeguard is to require citations on every page that contains the contentious material about the BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Hoaxes can just as easily be made via categories, which in spite of being just another type of list, don't seem to require direct citations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose Sourcing for controversial information should be immediately available as an inline source. While it is likely that the fact is sourced on the blue-linked article, it requires some work to "extract" that. We don't do that with block quotes or other controversial facts, it should not be an allowance for list of persons grouped by a controversial aspect. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Then categories should likewise have "immediate availability" without having to link to the individual article. Yet they aren't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
      • We should not be using categories for contentious topics in the first place. Mind you, there is the hypothetical cross categorization of "port actors" and "mainstream actors", but either bit of information should be a thing readily verified on their page; it's the immediately cross relation page like this list that is the problem. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
          • There is no practical difference between lists and categories. You're promoting contradictory standards. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
        • Let me add that the hypothetical example that I am considering here is an actor that may have started in the porn industry but under a stage name but got a break and later got into real films upon which he used his real name; in such case, unless we have a BLP-quality source that equates the stage name to the real name, then we would have separate articles for these people (assuming both notable), and we would not classify the real name as someone previously working in porn. We would categorized the stage name article as a porn actor, and the real name article as a mainstream actor, neither which are contentious facts. But then making a connection between the two that a BLP reliable source does not provide is where the problem starts. --MASEM (t) 23:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
          • That's not the complaint. The complaint is that the persons named in this specific type of list are lacking citations... which is false on its face. The citations are in the respective articles... just as they are on a category page.Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
            • This may surprise you, but I don't even care what the situation is at the list that started this discussion. We've been asked what the policy should say for all lists, not just for one list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
              • Well, the outcome of this RfC is certainly going to apply to that list too, isn't it? So maybe you should educate yourself as to the effects of what you're supporting as a result of your positions for all lists, including that one. Diego (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
                • If the decision is for redundant citations on all lists and not just certain ones, that would be good, or at least consistent. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Clicking on the blue link to the person's article is just as easy as clicking on a reference link. Stop being ridiculous. Dream Focus 19:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem's comment above: every list with BLP constituent list items should have in-line citations supporting the inclusion of individual list items. Why is this so hard, people? Do it -- it's the right and proper thing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. However, adding a reference from the subject article, when restoring to entry to the list, should be encouraged. Likewise, no editor should remove a blue link entry from a list before at least spending 5 seconds reviewing the entry, absent exigent circumstances (e.g., mass vandalism suspected)--Milowenthasspoken 17:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Every article on Wikipedia should stand on its own. Because A links to B which has a RS stating A is a porn actor is not sufficient. What happens if B changes or is deleted? The claim that A is a porn actor is no longer verifiable. And to those clamoring for others to bear the burden of copying cites from B to A, I say to you "Tough Titty". It is not the responsibility of those removing unsourced, contentious claims to look for existing sources, regardless if there is a "blue" article or not.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose A blue link will never be a reference. The linked article can change. Each article is responsible for its own citations. Returning a name that was removed per BLP without providing a reference in the same article/list is a violation of BLP and it should be. No returning contentious information about living people without an inline reliable source, it is that simple. WP:V places the same burden for non-living subjects, BLP should not have a lower standard. Chillum 18:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. Cheers and Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 00:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem and Chillum. Neljack (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

General Discussion[edit]

I really don't see that there is any room for debate in this instance - WP:BLP policy is clear that unreferenced contentious material on living persons must be "removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis in original). A blue link isn't even remotely a 'reference', and an unreferenced assertion that someone is a pornographic actor is clearly contentious. WP:BLP policy doesn't have a get-out clause that says we can ignore the need for references if we think something may be true.

With regard to the more general case, as a matter of principle we should be encouraging sourcing for any article or list, and where lists include living persons it needs to be borne in mind that almost any inclusion has the potential to prove controversial. If a list is noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, individual inclusions must be noteworthy enough to merit proper sourcing, I'd have thought - and the more potential for controversy there is, the greater the need is for strict enforcement of sourcing requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

On a personal note I find it frustrating that people are more willing to criticize BLP enforcement than to fix the problem in the way BLP requires, which is to reliably source each entry of any living person on any list. Otherwise I could create a list of war criminals and put Barak Obama on the list because I, a humble editor) think he is a war criminal with no need to reliably source my claim. Having a blue link is not evidence that somebody is a porn star and I would have thought BLP is very clear that to include people in porn lists need reliably sourced references. If we make an exemption for porn we are breaking our BLP policy and our watermark of verifiability not truth. I personally do not believe a group of porn article editors can break our BLP policy so easily. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I invite you to not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Now, the difference between the example you're citing is that Barrack Obama's article does not say that he is a war criminal. Now, say the UN comes to a unanimous conclusion that he was, and it was added to his Wikipedia article (and wasn't contentious material or disputed by other editors). Then, he could be included and WP:BLP policy would not prohibit it. Now, on every single blue linked article on that page, the lead or the article itself demonstrates that they are/were a pornographic actor. It's in the article and isn't disputed. What you are doing on the article is that you are blanking the page and are not disputing any specific person on the list that you have a problem with, which we've already asked you about, but you have a problem with the lack of citations when there are already blue linked articles. Tutelary (talk) 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
There is clearly no BLP issue here current policy does not require citations on lists of wikilinks. Squeakbox, why aren't you helping to fix the problem you perceive instead of edit warring? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Well I could ask that question of you too, wikidemon. I prefer to wait till the drama has calmed down and it has been established that BLP must be enforced here. And BLP policy requires the removal of this material but it does not require its addition so I need to enforce BLP first and the get on with finding refs. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
BLP policy requires that unreferenced contentious material be removed, plain and simple. There is nothing whatsoever in it about Wikilinks providing some sort of exception to this policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Nor is there anything about worrying about being disruptive when enforcing BLP, and nor is enforcing BLP "making a point", its real editing to protect real living people. If all these articles demonstrate that these people are porn actors it should not be difficult to reliably source each one and return it to the article, Tutelary, problem solved. But of course the inclusions were disputed the moment I, a wikiepdia editor, disputed them. People dont blank pages citing real BLP concerns, they rempove BLP violations and claiming I was page blanking will not be confirmed by any diffs. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Please reread the policy page, it is not on your side. BLP does permit these lists. See the section on links, lists, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
BLP policy requires that contentious material be referenced. It makes no exception whatsoever for lists - it explicitly states that "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (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". AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Now back up 2 paragraphs to see the first of "these principles" is: "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." - Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Lists and categories are not the same thing. If an article contains a category, that article already should contain the citation to a reliable source to support the categorization as well. A list stands alone, and the sources for that list need to be contained within the list.—Kww(talk) 19:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The policy page says that the same principles "apply equally to lists", that "the case must be made clear by article text and its reliable sources", i.e. at the linked-to article. If the policy intended to treat lists differently than categories it would say so. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
One statement in BLP related to inclusion in categories of people doesn't somehow magically erase WP:RS: Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as a source in other articles.—Kww(talk) 02:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
BLP does not say the Wikipedia article is used as a source, it says the sources are in the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
And what if A) the wrong article is linked too (disambiguation) B) the article is deleted C) the article is changed? The "link" is no longer providing a RS.Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Squeakbox, you clearly could not add Barak Obama to List of war criminals with impunity, because the article Barak Obama does not support his categorization as a war criminal. If it did it would require appropriate sourcing in the article. All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC).
And if I, say using a sockpuppet, add the name of some just notable enough blogger to a porn list. Where is the guarantee that person's name will be deleted if we cannot even be bothered to demand reliable sources for their inclusion? Or does every 3rd editor have to check back to the bio article in every case, creating far more work than adding a citation. And why? Because people dont want to do the tedious work of adding citations to porn lists. That is not a good reason to break BLP. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, duh! Because of people like you and Andy who are constantly patrolling for BLP violations, that's why it will be deleted. Along with the rest of us who just want the articles to have accurate information. As for tedious work, I spent 4 HOURS adding references that you reverted in about 5 seconds. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) Face-smile.svg 20:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
You spent four hours without wondering whether IMDB was considered to be a reliable source?—Kww(talk) 20:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, with over 70,000 mentions of IMDb on this site[5], many of which are inline citations for the cast and crew of various productions, no I didn't wonder at all... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) Face-smile.svg 20:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, I actually dont spend all my wikipedia time patrolling for BLP violations but I can think of no more noble or useful thing to be doing on this project. I am not entirely conviced you do want accurate information because, according to my reasoning, if this were important to you and certain other editors, you would be fully supporting my BLP compliance attempts, as some editors have done, and you would not have made the false accusations that I am trying to undermine our porn coverage on wikipedia simply because I am asking for BLP compliance today. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Squeak, I am in full support of BLP compliance, I'm just not in support of your bizarre interpretation of policy or your disruptive efforts... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) Face-smile.svg 21:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Scalhotrod, what is bizarre about wanting reliable sources for claims made in an article about living people? And how is removing those unsourced names disruptive? I cant see how one or the other could be so. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's not a good reason to blank the whole page either. I reject the idea that BLP should be enforced based on the article's status rather than the truthiness and verifiability of the knowledge represented. Had you and AndyTheGrump reviewed each entry in the list to challenge only those entries that have unreliable sources (or no sources at all) at their linked articles, thus detecting a real problem with sourcing, I would have a lot more respect for your position.
A challenge to the whole list because a of a defect in form creates a backlog of work for other editors, plus an urgency that the problem must be solved right now for fear of the risk that the content be lost to the article history. That is a good thing to do when there's an actual probability that it may risk someone's online reputation. But as it is with this case, where all entries have been already reviewed by the editors crafting the list and there's no one who actually believes there's a problem with the asserted facts, editors making the challenge should be expected to assume at least a fraction of the work to ensure that there's indeed something severe to fix. Under these circumstances, a requirement that others stop everything they're doing and fix the problem right now, just because now is when you've found about it is not the way that collaboration among editors should be set to happen. Diego (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
P.S. The morale would be that burn on sight all content without an inline reference, without bothering to check whether it's reliably sourced at some easy to find place elsewhere is NOT the way we want to go enforcing the BLP policy, as it's a highly asymmetrical way to go on reviewing the verifiability of possibly contentious material and thus a disruptive process. Go on challenging individual statements all you want after you tried *and* failed to verify each of them, but don't bulk delete when there's evidence that the references are at hand without checking them nor trying to add them yourself first - that has always been unacceptable, and certainly not in the spirit of neither WP:V nor WP:BLP. Diego (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Diego, I did indeed check every entry and only removed those without reliable sources, there can be no question that that is how I did it. And Andy merely reverted back to what I had done. If I had found entries with reliable sources I would have left them as my only concern here is BLP compliance. BLP does not require me to look for reliable sources before removing the names of living people and it is right that it does not require me to do so as the whole emphasis is on removing the offending material before even discussing the issue. The time tolook for reliable sources is later on, and I am sure i will be doing so once all the dramma has died down. But if not, others can do so, thematerial is all well stored int he history so reinsertion is technically easy once a ref has been found. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
And where exactly did you look, that you missed all the existing sources? WP:Verifiability does not require that the references are placed inline. And BLP may not require you "to look for reliable sources before removing" content, but WP:BURDEN certainly does ("When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it."). Diego (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This whole discussion does not seem to get the fundamental principal on Wikipedia is that it is the responsibility of those seeking to include information to meet policy. If it does not meet policy it can be removed, BLP or not. It is not the job of the person removing it to fix it. If someone wants a name put back then do the research and return it. If nobody bothers to look up a reference then it should not be here.

The types of changes discussed here would be better discussed on WP:V which has the same standards of the burden being on the person seeking to include, which says blue links are not references. If we make BLP less strict than WP:V then we have missed the whole purpose of BLP. Chillum 18:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The main hole in that argument is that the blue link list items meet policy to begin with, as they are verified by reliable sources in the target article. You think they do not; Wikipedia convention and a substantial but not overwhelming number of commentators here think that in a BLP context they do. If you think something is inconsistent with policy you may challenge it. The burden of other editors is to make sure it does, not to convince you and every last doubter. As for jobs, one expectation of every editor here is to work together in a collaborative fashion to create an encyclopedia. Making messes for other editors to clean up, if you have been asked to stop, is certainly falling below that expectation. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources[edit]

"Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations". Contentious BLP material is of course one of the 'four kinds of material' where lists must be 'sourced where they appear'. No wiggle-room here, the list requires sourcing. On the list page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Then go on and add them yourself. What good do you expect will come from blanking the article? Diego (talk) 21:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Compliance with policy. And no, I am under no obligation whatsoever to clear up other peoples' mess. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
But you feel entitled to put others under obligation to fix yours? When you haven't checked that the material is contentious and unverifiable, you're not complying with policy by removing it, you're actually breaching WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN. Diego (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Believe me, Diego, when I say I checked the material was contentious when I looked at the article's title. I then checked every person for a reliably sourced ref and when I found none I was forced to remove all the names. Nobody is claiming the material was or is unverifiable, merely that it was and mostly is unverified. So I was definitely complying with BLP policty and those other policies you are quoting at me do not trump an urgent need to remove non compliant BLP material about living people, in this case sex workers. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Then I feel pretty safe in calling Squeak a liar. It took me 4 hours to just copy/paste a reference for each entry on that list that I added here which was reverted 4 minutes later by Andy the Grump here, which I re-added 3 minutes later here.
It took Squeak all of one minute to revert it again here. Sure, you thoroughly checked it... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) Face-smile.svg 21:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
LOL, "I checked every person for a reliably sourced ref and when I found none I was forced to remove all the names."! Here SqueakBox is just lying, and these are that kind of ridicolous, blatant lies which has no chance to be trusted here. It is sufficient to check the first name in the list, Abigail Clayton, and her article lists multiple RS attesting she is an adult actress. The same with the second name Aino Kishi, a bunch of RSs, the same with the others. Also look at his edit history: he blanked the page a few minutes after this bold removal in another sex-related article and just a dozen of minutes after this one. Cavarrone 22:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course I was not lying, Cavarrone. I checked the names of every person on the list in the article itself. It took me a couple of mins at most. I did not see any need to check the articles of the porn stars themselves and nor was I willing to start the long task of reliably sourcing these people BEFORE removing the BLP non compliant material and I fully stand by that decision. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Not lying, just playing word games. SB did not bother checking the list for sourcing, they just edit warred to delete it with a weird justification that few editors agree with. The "I am under no obligation to deal with messes I create on Wikipedia for other editors" attitude is toxic. If acted on, it becomes tendentious. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
No word games. You cannot expect an editor to spend an afternoon wading through 50 bios to verfy other editor's unsourced asserttions, BURDEN places that duty on those who added the material and to put that on me would require a change in policy as well as being unfair. And that would take hours whereas the BLP violations had to be removed prior to discussion, ie with some sense of urgency. And if I had verified the 50 bio. So what? The next editor would have to verify them to. Editors expecting this kind of ridiculously overtasking so they dont have to maka the effort of reliably souring is getting everythign the worng way round and in the emantime we are not guaranteeing our BLP polciy with a contentious subject like porn. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay — if we're talking about this edit[6] then we can accept on good faith that SqueakBox did look at every reference, and because they were all to IMDB, concluded that none of them met the burden of reliable sourcing imposed by BLP, reverted to an earlier version that had only two names on it with different references. Cavarrone, I think there are some places in this discussion where twisting of the record does go over the line as far as lying, but this is not such a case, and it would be helpful if we can steer this discussion towards explaining editors' understanding of policy. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have a Wikipedia article about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to: a) establish their membership in the list's group; and b) to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E. (emphasis added)
  • The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion or on sexual orientation. For further information, see Wikipedia's policy on biographical information about living people, in particular the category/list policy for living persons. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I would say living people on porn lists are amply covered by sexual orientation as needing special care especially as some will almost certainly be involved in gay porn. So this should hopefully quieten those who are claiming that porn work is not by definition contentious as understood in the BLP policy. By saying it is contentious we are not claiming porn workers are contentious but that their profession means we need to pay special care to how they are portrayed as living people on wikipedia. So we should not be looking to change the policy to give some editors a way of avoiding BLP at the expense of the living people they are writing about. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I would say living people on porn lists are amply covered by sexual orientation as needing special care especially as some will almost certainly be involved in gay porn. I'm not sure how to respond to most of that without making a fool of myself. These people have sex for a living as actors. A man having sex with another man in a pornographic film isn't any more definitive proof that he's gay than The Terminator is for proving Arnold Schwarzenegger is a robot from the future. I'm not well versed on what weird exceptions, if any, there may for the LGBT WikiProject to include a person on a list by sexual orientation, but I do know that a publicized statement of sorts (such as openly stating sexual orientation or announcing a relationship) is generally, if not always, required. As far as porn is concerned, I can't consider an act performed for money on film to be a statement of orientation. I think citing "gay porn" is merely a strawman being set up that would just unnecessarily make involved an extremely sensitive issue. moluɐɯ 23:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
What you are saying may be true but even so it does not in any way lessen the care and attention these people deserve and nor must we forget the impact that wrongly placing someone on a list might have and these people wrongly placed would not be porn workers and might well not agree with your interpretation of what is or is not gay and might well be extremely irate at being wrongly accused by wikipedia of being a porn star. So sexual orientation is important because it is an important theme in all porn, its part of the sex act itself. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
If the people on that list are being culled from existing articles on WP that are already in compliance with WP:BLP, then by including them on that list, we are not making any new assertions about that person. You seem to want to carve out a niche for porn actors specifically and require that anywhere they are mentioned, a RS should be included to back up that assertion, regardless if the assertion has already been sourced and verifiable in their bio. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Nope, Isaidnoway , because while we can assume the bio article is BLP compliant we cannot assume it is a bio of a porn star. Not without checking the bio itself. What you have to do is rely on the editor who added it to the list or check yourself becuase not all bios are of porn stars on wikipedia. This belief that a blue link is evidence that someone is a porn star is patent nonsense and too many editors have been spreading it. Unless we trust 100% in editor judge3ment (which is a huge shift form current BLP policy) we have to rely on reliable sources. What you are propoing is that nay editor does not have to provide proof of his edition of a bio article to a list of porn stars and thatbthe burden is on the reader or other editors to check this information out themselves or trust the editor. I would rather trust relaible sources and so I think would the living people we write articles about as well as the WMF, who would have ot deal with the defamation cases. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
SqueakBox talk contribs The article in question is now being rehabilitated to comply with all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It's also important to remember that this article is several years old and this is a mass undertaking, so I think good faith is being shown here by the editor's working on the article and a little time would be appreciated in the rehabilitation. A little collaborative effort is always welcome too. As far as your argument is concerned, it has been noted, and I will leave it at that, and defer to the consensus on this page pertaining to this issue.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Isaidnoway Collaboration is exactly what I am looking for. All hosde editors who add reliably sourced names are collaborating with me, ad lets face it if I hadnt done what I did the article would still have no reliable sources in it, although many an editor would not have dared givent eh incredible level of abuse I have had to put up with by editrs who had found something "better" to do than collaborating with my effort to get BLP compliance. In term of time the WikiPorn project had 6 months notice and as I was first enforcing BLP back in January on porn articles. When I remove non BLP complint entires the work is not detroyed, it is there in the history where it can very easily be pulled out agin, a source added and re-added t the live version. There is zero need to add any non BLP compliant names. Brad was right about tackiling the most important cases first and being cautious and this is behaviour I have stuck to all along, and when the furor dies down I will certainly be doing more BLP enforcement on porn articles and hope and trust others will collaborate then as well. If the wikiPorn team had been willing to collaborate back in January rather than fighting my proposals form the opening (how dare I enforce BLP on porn) there would not now be nay porn lists that were not 100% orn compliant. All I want is collaboration. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Isaidnoway
And help editing the article is exactly what I am looking for when I speak of a collaborative effort. And as I said above, I will defer to the consensus on this page, rather than rely on the opinion of one editor.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not an article is BLP compliant is not an indicator of whether it should appear in a porn list. How do you know the article asserts the person listed is a porn star and has appeared in mainstream films. It might be a BLP compliant article and assert no such thing. Seeing a blue link to an unknown name verifies nothing other than that this named person has a bio article. It gives no clue as to the nature of the article or the person. You are making 2 new assertions because you dont know what the bio says, or not without checking the bio pages out of each eprson on the list and that should not and must not be required in order to establish verifiability on a porn list page. Each wikipedia page must stand on its own. Othewerwise nobody knows whether your list is reliable or is pure original research without doing a massive personal checking process. We avoid such a cumbersome approach to verifiability by having reliable sources. Telling me I have to read 50 or 100 porn bios if I want to prove the verifiability of assertions other editors have made is not verifiability. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
What you are saying makes no sense. If you wanted to verify the reliability of whether every person that is included on that list should be listed, then you are still facing the daunting task of having to click through 50 or 100 reliable sources (citations) to establish that verifiability. Same difference of clicking through their bios. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's a bit of a loaded sentence, so I'm sorry if I can't fully comprehend it, but... The two things I see being mentioned are specific situations about care being taken to handle sexual orientation, and whether or not a film is porn. The issues can be dealt with as such for each question: "What is this person's sexual orientation?", what have they stated it to be? "Is this film porn?", is it (to put it politely) an erotic film meant to arouse its audience? The general case is pretty clear cut. Your focus is sounding to me like hypothetical specific situations where Wikipedia would be held accountable for libel, but I fail to see how these situations are particularly relevant to this sub issue of pornographic actors on lists with links to articles that contain reliable references, much less the main issue. moluɐɯ 23:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
But how do you know those reliable sources you talk about reference what you are claiming they reference? You dont cos you havent even seen them so you could not possibly know whether or not these claims are referenced in another article. Its pure specualtion on your part and because of this, you asset, BLP can be ignored. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
That's mincing words. If you can't be bothered to check another article that is clearly linked, how can you be bothered to check a particular reference? I'm not asking BLP to be ignored, nor is this speculation. If I have a reliable source on an article linked from a list, I consider that perfectly valid for verifying a statement. If the statement does indeed turn out to be false or not supported by the source, it's an entirely separate issue. It becomes a case of "This statement isn't verified by the source so I'm removing it from this article for now. As such, I am also removing this person from a list that was dependent on this statement and source." moluɐɯ 23:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Note:MOS is a guideline, not a policy. This wording was added in 2013 during a discussion on the talk page about this very question. All the best: Rich Farmbrough16:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Note[edit]

Since no proposal to revise WP:BLP policy requiring references for contentious material is being made here, and since WP:BLP policy does not state that a blue link is a reference, this RfC is pointless - we cannot reach a 'consensus' to ignore policy, regardless of what is decided here. Unless and until WP:BLP policy is revised, the removal of unreferenced names from the list is required under existing policy, and the inclusion of such names is a violation, end of story. If people wish to propose a revision to WP:BLP policy, they are free to do so (though the WMF might possibly have something to say on this). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any contentiousness about folks like Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy being porn actors? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLP policy requires sources, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Without sources of course the answer is yes. After all they are living people and so entitled to protection under our BLP policy. Lets assume we havent heard of any of these people, I hadnt heard of Ron Jeremy till editing yesterday. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
You're wrong. The answer is NO. There is no contention whatsoever over Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameson being porn actors, any more than there is contention that Mike Trout is a major league baseball player. Your ignorance of the subject, betrayed by only having ever heard of him yesterday, demonstrates that you're incompetent to be discussing this issue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Have you checked the page we're on? This is the BLP policy talk page so a consensus on this page could indeed change the policy. However, current policy does not require citations for this sort of list, and this RfC is posed too narrowly to suggest an outcome of adding that requirement. In its more limited question, a consensus here that the article should or should not have link citations would certainly apply to this article. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Re "we cannot reach a 'consensus' to ignore policy" — It's not a matter of ignoring policy, it's a matter of correctly applying policy. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Yup - and policy is entirely unambiguous. Unreferenced contentious material concerning living persons must be removed immediately. Nowhere does it suggest that a blue link is a reference - because quite obviously it is nothing of the sort. We don't cite Wikipedia as a source. Ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The dispute seems to be based on what the policy means by contentious material. My understanding is that contentious material are facts which someone claims may not be true. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
And you don't think that unreferenced assertions that people are pornographic actors might prove contentious? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's a matter that they might prove to be contentious, it's a matter of whether they are contentious. I think that's what the policy pertains to when it refers to "contentious material" rather than to "material that might be contentious". --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
There are two halves to the question: are the assertions contentious, and are the assertions inadequately sourced. Neither is a sufficient condition for the other, so it's best to treat them as two separate issues. As to whether being a porn actor is contentious, that depends. If you said that about Paris Hilton because of her sex tape, perhaps. If you said that about Ron Jeremy, clearly no, that is not a contentious claim. In my opinion it would be a big mistake, as you say, to categorically regard all discussion of pornography as contentious because it might be contentious for some people but not others. The more direct question here is whether BLP and WP:V require citations for blue links of this type, if the sources are found in the linked article. A couple editors are saying yes, others (and Wikipedia practice) say no. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The sources you talk about may or may not be in the subject article, this is why wikipedia has long rejected inline citations. Its best we assume nobody has even heard of Ron Jeremy and assume all porn work is contentious in nature when it comes to BLP. If porn work is not contentious almost nothing is and BLP would fall apart because everyone would be clamouring for a BLP exemption "just like the one the porn project has". ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 19:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Nobody is suggesting that a blue link is a reference, it is merely an indirection to appropriate sourcing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough20:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC).
But BLP requires explicit sourcing otherwise it is the editor who decides if someone should be in a list and not the reliable sources. And these appropriate reliable sources may not exist. Having an article, for instance, is not evidence of being a porn star. But a reliable source will indicate said individual is say a porn star without each and every new editors having to chase down the same sources allegedly found in the bio article, causing an endless cycle of unnecessary work AND violating BLP. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
If no one is challenging the fact that a person is a porn star, why would you challenge them being on a list of porn stars? Surely you're not claiming that they will be insulted by the Readers of Wikipedia knowing that they (aghast!) appeared in mainstream, non-porn, productions? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) Face-smile.svg 20:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
You are presuming the answer. The question is not about any individual listing, it's about whether an unsourced statement that someone is a porn star can be allowed to stand (and again, a blue link is not a reliable source, for the very same reason that we don't permit citations to Wikipedia articles).—Kww(talk) 20:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
BLP requires a higher threshold than you are wanting. My plan is to check the verifiability of individual porn stars re BLP later on when I have the time. So either propose a policy change or accept our high standards for today at least. I am challenging these names because I want to see them reliably sourced, to protect their reputations as living people, to protect wikipedia's reputation as reliable and verifiable and to improve our porn coverage by making it BLP complaint as of today. Making the concerns of living people who are porn workers into a joke is not amusing, User:Scalhotrod. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
@Kww, if I understand your statement correctly you're saying that every time a (notable with an article) person is mentioned on Wikipedia and they are mentioned as being in the Adult industry and/or in association with their status as a performer in that industry that it should include an inline citation to explain why this claim is being made? So for example, when its mentioned in Charlie Sheens article that he is dating a porn star (and her name is given) or more recently that he got engaged to one, that a citation is specifically required, correct? How are we going to managed the cleanup of that? Ron Jeremy alone is mentioned over 5,000 times. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) Face-smile.svg 20:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Each article certainly requires an inline citation to that effect. No need to repeat it every time the name is mentioned in the same article.—Kww(talk) 22:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
So there are several thousand articles that mention Ron Jeremy that may require updating by your assessment. I'll split it with you, care to start from the top or the bottom? We'll meet in the middle. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) Face-smile.svg 22:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I tell you what: since you want to include the material, add citations. That's what WP:BURDEN demands of you. I won't specifically search out the articles that mention him, but I'll remove the uncited material when I wander across it.—Kww(talk) 23:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
That would be pointiness in the extreme. Try not to make Wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The core complaint is bogus. There is no contentiousness over Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameson, for example, being porn actors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but WP:THATSBOGUSSOWECANIGNOREPOLICY appears to be a redlink... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Your argument is based on "contentious material". Jeremy and Jameson being porn actors IS NOT "contentious material". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Without a source, it's a contentious statement. What you are basically saying is "since I already am familiar with sources, there is no obligation for anyone to provide one." That's ludicrous on its face.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Why does Mike Trout not need a citation in lists that contain his name? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry Kww, but this is where the zealotry of BLP enforcement is rather silly. There is nothing contentious about the statement that people like Jeremy, Jameson and Lords are/were porn stars. It doesn't become contentious simply because you say so any more than an unsourced statement that Wayne Gretzky played hockey becomes a BLP violation because someone chooses to dig their heels in the ground. The real issue with this list is the lesser known actors. Those are the ones where I agree that it is valid to make such a claim of contentiousness. However, we now have pages and pages of arguments because both sides have chosen to act stupid. This was a minor problem with an easy solution: Squeakbox blanks (or preferably, asks an associated project to source with the reminder about BLP and the likelihood of the material being removed soon). Interested editors unblank and source. Life goes on. Problem solved. Resolute 16:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't care much about the BLP issue, Reso. It's this peculiar notion that list articles don't require sourcing at all, so long as some other article contains the source. That's just runs so completely counter to WP:BURDEN and WP:V that I don't see how one small RFC started in reaction to an overstep by SqueakBox could somehow enshrine such a thing.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

List of American scientists has not one single citation. Without sourcing, that list should be rubbed out. (Using Kww's argument.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely it should.—Kww(talk) 00:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Do I have your permission to erase it until it gets proper sourcing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
pokepoke moluɐɯ 00:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

All participants here should avoid disruptive point-making. In a perfect world, every statement in every article would be sourced, but that is not attainable anytime in the foreseeable future—and actually, that would not be a perfect outcome at all, as a footnote after every routine and non-controversial statement in every article would make the articles look like footnote salad. Anyone who can't see that there is a greater need for sourcing for the statement that someone is a pornographic actor than the statement that someone is a scientist, should not be editing articles on either. And even as to the article about the pornographic actors, priority of attention should be given to genuinely disputed or contentious statements—the ones that could be actually harmful to BLP subjects—as opposed to ones that are not subject to genuine dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, when I began applying BLP enforcement on Saturday I was very aware, having had 6 months to think about the issue, that enforcing BLP on all porn would be far too big a task for a humble editor like me and therefore I chose to focus on articles which mention a lot of likely living people as likley being involved in the porn industry. I made list of my target articles, ie the ones I considered of the greatest urgency, on my user page. Beyond that my knowledge of who is famous in the world of porn is so poor that I was unable to distinguish within a list who might or might not be more controversial, so my picking was based on whole articles rather than praticing any discrimination within an article. Some editors could not believe I did not recognise the names of well known US porn stars but I am not an American. On the other hand many experts on US porn would doubtless not be clued into the stars of Japanes adult video, where I am working now, besides which expertise in a subject is not required to edit it for BLP compliance. One thing I have learnt is that lists of award winners are much less open to editor interpretation than lists such as porn actors who have appeared in mainstream films. When one works on a list one removes 50 or 60 possible BLP vios, much more than are liley in a bio article so I stand by the choices have made as to priority in BLP enforcement. We need to treat all unsourced or poorly claims that somebody living is or was in the porn industry as high importance BLP violations. Porn stars get their kids turfed out of kindergarten among other things for being outed as porn stars and yet we were claiming that people are porn stars without even bothering to verify the facts. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
"I was unable to distinguish within a list who might or might not be more controversial"...what "Squeak" is finally admitting to here is what has been unfortunately obvious for quite some time now. He never bothered to check any of the blue-linked names that he arbitrarily blanked from many articles recently. If he had simply clicked on those obvious links, he would have been able to see clearly that they were all associated with stage names of people that were involved in the adult industry. " When one works on a list one removes 50 or 60 possible BLP vios"...without really knowing if those removals are, in fact, based on actual "BLP vios" that is. There are plenty of facts (verified by reliable sources) in many Wikipedia articles that "Squeak" obviously doesn't know about or even care about, and that's unfortunately what this entire affair is all about. Guy1890 (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Based on that assesment, hopefully we can all agree that Baseball Bugs should not be editing bios and should just stick to "working" the drama boards. --Malerooster (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
It's important to avoid harm to living persons. There's no harm to Jenna Jameson in calling her a porn actress... because she IS (or has been) a porn actress. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Jenna who? You see I am NOT American Bugs and so have not heard of her. For all I know she might be a tennis player. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Yea, it's not like Jenna Jameson has a Wikipedia article written about her with literally dozens & dozens of reliable sources in it...ugh... Guy1890 (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Which means that it should be super-easy for anyone who wants to include that material to copy a source over. The WP:BURDEN is always on the person who wants to include it, not the person who wants to WP:CHALLENGE unsourced BLP material. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that one can't really challenge information (a simple blue-link to another Wikipedia article) in good faith on a list if, when going to that blue-linked article, one can easily see that the information is valid & well-sourced in the blue-linked article in the first place. If one thinks that other editors or readers might find the information on a list article to be "contentious" now or in the future, then one can simply copy the necessary citation(s) over to the list article that was originally in question in the first place. If there are obviously no reliable sources readily available for some conentious information on a list, then (and only then IMHO) should the information be removed. Guy1890 (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
ok, I'll keep it simple, how about calling somebody who is NOT a porn star a porn star. Is there ANY harm in that? --Malerooster (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Possibly. Did you find some examples in that list? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
How would I know? There were no citations. DOOOOOOHHHH. Does anybody else feel my pain :) Good night.--Malerooster (talk) 03:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There were links to the articles, which presumably have citations. If they don't, obviously they shouldn't be on a list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The mere raising of the absurd complaint is a major exercise in pointiness. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad@ deleting List of American scientists would be WP:POINT, suggesting that someone else's claim would mean it should be deleted definitely isn't. It is pretty clear that neither BBB or KWW intend to do the former. All the best: Rich Farmbrough16:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC).
  • There doesn't need to be a change in BLP policy, it's clear that lists can be made with sourcing in the given articles. This RFC should be closed making that clear. Challenging a list just because you want to blank the page is disruptive, especially when you know there is adequate sourcing directed by blue links. It's disruptive and pointy to claim a BLP exemption to blank articles you know is sourced. If you want the list deleted, take it to MFD or wherever you go to have lists deleted. Don't edit war to blank the article and claim BLP exemptions. That SHOULD be the outcome of this RFC, those supporting the absurd point that lists need sourcing are just supporting further disruption to the project for no reason other than to make a point. Dave Dial (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

BLP policy modification may be needed at this point[edit]

Therefore, I believe that our existing BLP policy should be tweaked to encouage editors to try & find inline citations for list articles from simply visiting blue-linked names contained on any list (not just pornography-related lists - that's a red herring) and then simply add inline citations (if they exist) to the list in question from those other notable, well-referenced Wikipedia articles instead of simply blanking article content. This kind of policy change would, IMHO, conform with both the letter and spirit of many of our existing Wikipedia guidelines (including BLP) for collaborative & constructive editing.
I encourage others to propose specific policy language below, which others can tweak as necessary before implementing. I feel very strongly that's it past time to end the practice of allowing a certain few users to invoke "BLP" as a defense for editing articles in whatever manner that they personally see fit. Guy1890 (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
A PROD is not an attempt to have an article deleted but to have it improved, hence the name. Eventually is of course not good enough for BLP, non complinat material needs to be removed asap. So basically you proposing we change policy to entirely undermining our requirement to have reliable sources when living people are mentioned. And what about the needs of the living people themselves who are the subjects of our articles. Or should we just ignore their needs now? And why does removing the verifiabilty requirement help the encyclopedia, as that policy will also have to be modified. And why should we trust editors to add names to lists of living ´people if we dont impose the reliable sources constricts on them? Isnt that asking for abuse? Preventing editors from invoking or applying the BLP policy is to essentially destroy the BLP concept but I dont believe you will find it easy to gain a consensus for such a bold policy direction change. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
You will also need to modify the opening, Guy, which currentkyu explicitly calls for the removal of non BLP complaint material porior to discussion. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
You're inventing contentiousness where there is none. Your claim of a BLP violation is false. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
How is that, Baseball Bugs. Has the policy just been changed to allow unsourced original research about alleged porn stars on wikiepdia. or what piece of policy do you base your insights on. Claiming my claim is false is not an argument it is an assertion. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
How is borrowing properly and reliably cited information from a policy compliant BLP original research? Are you suggesting we can't use a source validly simply because it exists elsewhere on Wikipedia? Something like watching an inordinate amount of porn and compiling a cast for each film yourself would constitute original research. You're throwing policy names around without understanding the policy itself. It would help to read WP:OR before making these tangent claims. moluɐɯ 16:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
PROD obviously stands for Proposed deletion and competence is required when editing Wikipedia.
"you proposing we change policy to entirely underminj our requirement to have reliable sources when living people are mentioned"...far from it. If sources are readily available on notable, reliably sourced Wikipedia articles, then why not use them instead of blanking content & moving on? No one is proposing "removing the verifiabilty requirement" at all. Again, this kind of proposal actually enhances it because it encourages users to add citations when they are already readily available right here on Wikipedia.
"why should we trust editors to add names to lists of living ´people"...indeed, why should we trust anyone that edits Wikipedia?? Let's just delete the entire site & move on if that's really the way that everyone feels about everyone else on here. Guy1890 (talk) 01:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
we trust the reliable sources not the editors. if you dnt like it set up a fork where reliable sources arent required. it might be popular but nobody would believe a word it said, Guy1890. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
"we trust the reliable sources not the editors"...and we trust that editors on Wikipedia have the competence required in order to tell when there are reliable sources available for non-controversial Wikipedia content and when there aren't reliable sources available on Wikipedia for content which one may deem (in good faith only) to be controversial. Guy1890 (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
And as any competent editor knows from reading WP:BLP, when it comes to BLP issues, it's not good enough to find sources "on Wikipedia" somewhere. The source must be on exactly the same page as the contentious claim about the BLP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
See my reply in the above section...what you're really doing here with this line of argument is encouraging the kind of bad faith editor behavior that started this whole thing in the first place. No one that I can see here is opposed to including citations for actual contentious information in any articles. Guy1890 (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that what WAID is "really doing here" is trying to uphold high standards of sourcing in the case of BLP, as one would expect of a serious encyclopaedia. On the other hand, quite a number of people appear to be opposed to including citations in certain articles, namely lists. Deltahedron (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This makes sense as long as we make clear that this is a policy for new lists with a transition for old ones rather than an occasion for anyone to engage in mass content deletion. We should have a clearer bright-line standard, not just material that is contentious or likely to be challenged, because that leaves everything up in the air until people challenge it. This would time to develop list templates, for example, and update the existing ones, also it would need reasonably wide community input. Are you sure you want to limit it to BLP lists? The logic is the same either way, either the link target is a suitable place to find the source for verification purposes, or we expect a source next to the link itself. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm aware of the fact that using inline citations on all lists was apparently frowned upon long ago on Wikipedia (like they are now with categories), so it's no surprise to me that there are tons of lists on Wikipedia that have little to no inline citations at this point. I think it's also obvious that not every "challenge" can be made in good faith. The standard that I've always personally used for when to cite something inline is whether or not I could ever imagine that someone else could possibly find the facts that I've added to an article to be in serious doubt, and I personally try to err on the side of including a citation rather than not including one, if possible.
As for "limiting it to BLP lists", there's been a gaming of the system that I've unfortunately seen ongoing for years now when it comes to using our BLP policy to remove content at will that one might not find personally agreeable. We need to clearly state from here on out that that needs to end. BLP should not be a shield for poor or bad faith editor behavior.
A discussion from last July had a great quote in it: "But it is inappropriate, per WP:V, to remove a blue link that is not inline-cited where there is a reference on the linked page to support inclusion, since it is simply a matter of moving the reference across." That's the most reasonable position that I can imagine here, and our policies should continue reflect that...to the extent that they already do (or don't) right now. Guy1890 (talk) 02:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree for a blue link. The problem is these articles with hundreds or thousands of missing or inadequate citations where the people interested in the article contents refuse to provide citations and people uninterested in the article contents don't appreciate being forced to their work for them. In a case like that, the only reasonable thing to do is to remove the article contents until the editors working on the article live up to their obligation to provide inline citations.—Kww(talk) 02:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
On that list of scientists, I see the name Thomas Edison. Yet I don't see any citations in his article that properly source him being a scientist. Yet you wouldn't challenge that, because everyone who knows who he is knows he's a scientist. (Or are they wrong about that?) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Don't give the Tesla crowd any ideas. Monty845 03:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
"where the people interested in the article contents refuse to provide citations"...I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. "and people uninterested in the article contents don't appreciate being forced to their work for them." Well, life is a two-way street my friend. People that have spent many, many hours of time working on list articles of all kinds don't like having their work wiped out in one swoop by editors that can't be bothered to click on a blue-link & move over real, live inline citations from that article for material that they personally happen to find controversial or contentious. We're supposed to be all in this group endeavour on Wikipedia together. Guy1890 (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
What makes it an unfair assessment? I don't see many of the authors of the lists in question working on providing citations to reliable sources, an act that would not have been particularly onerous if they had done so one at a time while building the list in the first place. The lack of sources may have been excusable five years ago, but it's not any more.—Kww(talk) 03:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not required of them, and in times past it was actively discouraged. If anyone is interested in article content instead of playing wiki-cop they can help the effort, if the community indeed decides that effort is worthwhile. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
"I don't see many of the authors of the lists in question working on providing citations to reliable sources"...look harder. A lot of work has been done (both recently and over the last year or so) at List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame, as well as many of the other adult film-related award articles, adding sources. Is there more work to be done on other articles? Sure, but there's always going to be more work to be done on Wikipedia on a whole host of fronts, and, again, this is a collective project. It also helps if while some work to add sources & more reliable information to articles that others aren't waiting at their respective keyboards with their Delete key at the ready. Guy1890 (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hear, hear; this is the whole crux of the matter. Editors wanting to properly challenge BLP content will always have the right to delete it and keep it removed for concerns that it is unreliable or problematic, but not when the policy is wielded merely to force others to comply with the MOS and check a bullet point in the style guides when there's no real BLP problem - only a problem of formatting. Diego (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I see that on ANI, the editor Squeak owns up to pushing this whole thing due to a personal agenda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What personal agenda is that, Bugs. Being in favour of porn workers? Thinking the living people we write about are more important than we are? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Nope. Self-evidently untrue. Unless by 'personal agenda' you mean wishing to see WP:BLP policy properly applied. What's your agenda, Bugs? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Bugs, what are you referring to? Do you have a diff? In any event, complaints about editor behavior over this are better left to the AN/I discussion, which was originally brought to complain about SB's repeated page blanking. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
This bit of dialogue.[7]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs, you are certainly rightn about my bias towards the subjects of our articles. Perhaps you should report me for it, or try to get the community to topic ban me. After all it is simply not acceptable that an editor would place the living subjects of our articles as more important than editors. I really wish you would do one of these things so the wiser community can itself decide whether alle ditors who put living people we write articles about as more important than editors and then topic ban them all from enforcing BLP. A new wave of editor power. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
So you think that "defending the subjects of articles through enforcing BLP" is somehow wrong? Would you care to explain why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
You're not defending BLP, you're only defending a manual of style sledgehammer. There's no BLP issue here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Clearly some editors think those who defend living people need to be dealt with by changes to BLP policy to not allow them to enforce BLP, especially not against a consensus of editors, who some claim certainly should have the right to walk all over the rights of the living people we write articles about. If we change the policy in favour of editors not having to reliably source potentially defamatory statements (such as that somebody is a porn star) lawyers will have a field day if a person wrongly labelled as a porn star does sue because it would be clear eidence of an attempt to undermine the BLP policy to allow greater freedom for editors to label whoever they want as porn star, with no guarantees as tot he veracity of that claim and with attempts made to stop those attempting to enforce any reliable sources compliance. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The harm to living people and the lawsuits to be avoided are entirely hypothetical, and in this case look extremely remote, whereas the aggravation and antagonism directed to the Wikipedia community is clear and real. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing policy is not needed. Content that does not meet BLP should be removed, if this leaves the article empty then it should be deleted or rebuilt and prod is appropriate. Lists do need to meet the same standards and a blue link is not even close to a citation. Inclusion in a list can and often does make a statement about a living person that violates BLP. BLP is not something that should be eventually attained, it is something we need to maintain at all times. The burden to meet BLP is on the person seeking to include the information not the person removing it. Just my 2 cents. Chillum 21:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A different perspective, and a proposal[edit]

1. There has been been a longstanding, broadly supported consensus, reaffirmed during deletion discussions regarding lists of gay porn stars, that associating individuals with the pornography/erotica industries was contentious under BLP policies. I don't recall anyone other than the notorious Benjiboi seriously disputing the matter at that time.

2. Lists involving such contentious characterizations of individuals are particularly problematic. Not only do all significant assertions regarding the individual need to be properly sourced, as for a standard article, but we also need to verify that the list links to the correct individual BLP article.

3. Wikipedia continues to do a dreadful job of verifying entries in porn/erotica-relted lists. I've just removed four more spurious sets of links from List of Penthouse Pets, an article that's already had about two dozen bad links removed, if not more. I've had to take similar steps at quite a few other porn-related lists, even List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame, an aericle where such errors should be particularly easy to avoid. (Inadequate scrutiny pf porn-related articles is hardly limited to lists; check out Pornosonic, a set of fabrications that should have been stifled within seven days rather than hanging around for seven years.)

4. While SqueakBox's removals were more drastic than what I might have done, and might not have been the most prudent to make without advance discussion, they were consistent with BLP policy and practice. When confronted with a complex test permeated with non-BLP-compliabt assertions, it's better to remove the entire text and try to construct a clean build. "You can't sort jam and marbles".

5. Proposal. Lists of persons associated with the pornography/erotica industries should not be created or maintained unless the subject/defining characteristic of the list cannot be addressed adequately by a category. When the value added by list format is less substantial, the added risk of BLP violations in a sensitive field justifies limiting the treatment of such subjects to category format. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Disagree. It's based on a flawed understanding that BLP mandates it, it would be difficult to manage without significant removing of viable content, and it advances a contentious moral opinion to single out a single range of subjects having to do with human sexuality as something shameful and scandalous that we would essentially be censoring. I would not support forbidding lists in any subject matter based on the subject's being contentious. If we're going to require a different sourcing format for lists it should apply to all lists, or at the very least all lists of people, not lists based on sexual topics. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Nice idea but - the porn industry is not special. The wrong turning taken by a number of editors in the distant past was simply to attempt to use Wikipedia to compile relatively weakly sourced information about non-notable performers, something that did not then and does not now fit with the scope of the project. This is unconnected with the standard BLP type problems in the pornography articles. (Apparently not many editors are interested enough in porn... another demographic revelation.) If a list is checked (as it should be) that it links to the correct articles, that will, de facto provide a check that the claim is sourced in the article linked to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough16:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Reflection within this policy page[edit]

Given this RFC, what will happen once it's finished? Will it simply be closed and consensus used to restore the page? Or would this be effectively be written into WP:BLP policy? If so, we need to have the specific text that is going to be used for this. Tutelary (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Unless policy is changed, the RfC will have no effect anyway, given the requirement in WP:BLP for unsourced controversial material to be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
So you would disregard the outcome of the RfC? Wikidemon (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The contents of the list in question are neither unsourced nor controversial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
A list citing no sources is an unsourced list, end of story. And unsourced assertions that individuals are pornographic actors are self-evidently controversial. If they weren't do you really think we'd be spending all this time arguing about it? Time which those who consider this distinctly trivial list actually worth keeping could usefully have put into actually adding the sources they insist are available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The last time someone attempted this, they were immediately reverted. moluɐɯ 18:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
What's your citation for the claim that they are "self-evidently controversial"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no unsourced assertion being made here. Before a person is even placed on the list, they must meet the inclusion criteria to be placed on that list. That's the way it works for all the lists that are on WP, you must meet the inclusion criteria before being placed on a list. So in this instance, it had already been established that these individuals were indeed working in the adult film industry, therefore they met the inclusion criteria and were placed on the list. There is no new revelation being made about the individual, nor is there a controversial statement being made about the individual. They already have an article on WP where it has been established through reliable sourcing that they work in the adult film industry. You can certainly argue for inline citations, but saying that it is an unsourced assertion is false and misleading. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Since there were no sources in the article, any assertion made by the article was unsourced. Remember: a blue link is not a citation, and Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source. The only way for this article to make a sourced assertion is to have a citation to that reliable source.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
If by "article" you mean the list, then you should likewise call for the abolition of categories which lack citations - which would be most of them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
A category appears as text inside an article, and that article needs to contain a citation supporting the category. A list is a standalone article.—Kww(talk) 23:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
From a category, you have to link to the article if you want to find the citation. Same as with a list. There's no practical difference. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Except that one is a part of an article, and one is an independent article. That's an extremely important distinction when one is discussing the proper location for sources.—Kww(talk) 03:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
From a given article, I can go to "what links here" and get a list. Or I can go to "categories" and get a list. There's no practical difference. A list is not independent, no matter what form it takes. Without the links to other objects, there's no list. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A list is just merely a compilation of already sourced content. The assertion that a person has worked in the adult film industry is sourced in their bio article. The assertion that a adult film star has also appeared in a non-adult film is again in their bio article. The list is just a compilation of that already sourced content. There are no assertions being made by the list. Isaidnoway (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A list is not merely a compilation of already sourced content: in general a list may contain items which do not yet or may never have their own articles, see WP:AOAL points 4, 8 and 15, where this is given as an advantage of using a list over a category. To insert an item in a list, whether or not it is a link to another article, is self-evidently an assertion, made in the voice of Wikipedia, that the item satisfies the criteria for incluson in the list. Deltahedron (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
It depends on the list, its inclusion criteria, and what it's for. In a list of porn actors it doesn't seem wise to include anybody who is not notable enough to have their own article, or to include them unless their article makes it clear that they are a porn actor and that it is relevant to their notability. On the other hand, if an article about a musical group lists current and former members it seems okay to include some that are not notable or that simply don't have an article, with due sourcing in the parent article about the group. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
What is the "it" here that "depends"? There were two assertions in the comment above: (1) that a list is not merely a compilation of sourced content; (2) that inserting an item in a list is an assertion. Which of these depends on the list, its inclusion criteria and what it's for? It's tautological that what a list is depends on the list. Deltahedron (talk) 19:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I really should've titled this 'What's gonna happen next?'. I didn't mean to get this into another heated discussion, just wanted to discuss solutions on what's gonna happen after this RfC closes. Obviously there's still some contention, but with support for one option...Gah. I'm just not sure what'll happen. Tutelary (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I seriously don't know where this strange notion that a list isn't an article comes from. It's an article. Its requirements for sourcing are no different than any other article.—Kww(talk) 03:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the reason this RfC was opened was to address some of these issues, was it not?-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In response to the question of what happens next, and without prejudging the outcome, IF the discussion is closed such that the list in question does not need references, I would expect the blanking editors to stop, and if they don't, they will no longer be able to claim exemption from edit warring policy on account of BLP Policy. If it closes the other way, the list stays blanked until such time as adequate references can be added to each entry as its restored, and we may see other lists blanked accordingly. Monty845 21:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Maybe someone could suggest a good general source to use with each name in the list, such as a list provided by the industry. I might be willing to do that work myself, as the deletionists clearly aren't willing to do it, but I wouldn't until that ridiculous RFD is closed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
      • And now it's closed. Give me the best general source to use and I'll get to work on fixing the list so the deletionists will have to find some other target. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:40, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Who will bell the cat?[edit]

Requiring references for BLP lists is a fairly good idea in theory. In practice, if it is approved, supporters of this measure will have to go around putting references for each and very entry on thousands of lists or risk having all of these articles summarily blanked and deleted. KonveyorBelt 00:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The complainers are the ones who will have to do that work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I am confused as to what "complainers" you are talking about, since there seems to be ample whining from both sides, but if you mean people who want every list to have references you are spot on. KonveyorBelt 00:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course BLP lists should have references, and no doubt that's even more important in porn-related articles. (Its also great in high school notable alumni lists, too, which are rather prone to receiving baloney additions.) Solving this problem cannot be done by some drama-filled attempted mass blanking. We saw that in the Jan 2010 attempted mass deletion of unreferenced BLPs. Instead, that problem was worked on by creating BLP-PROD for new articles, and the Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue project to review all unreferenced BLPS, which it did over a 14 month period, until there were zero entries. It takes work, but that's what an encyclopedia requires.--Milowenthasspoken 02:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that up, I knew this latest all sounded familiar. If I recall, many of the participants here were part of that one as well. I hope there is a lesson to be found there. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious as to why "lists of people" were excluded from BLP-PROD. I also agree that wholesale nuking of content is not a productive or reasonable approach to addressing this issue. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying it's only a matter of time before another idiot comes across this hypothetical new policy and decides to take matters into his own hands to enforce it. KonveyorBelt 03:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Yep. I'm looking at the days of year articles like August 5. Nary a cite to be found. --NeilN talk to me 04:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
In which regard note that August 5 contains among the list of births "1987 – Lexi Belle, American porn actress". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
The Lexi Belle article, to which the August 5 list links, has ample citation for her being a porn actress. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I removed the work "porn". Her entry now reads "American actress" like other female performers from the US. If someone wants to know what kind of actress they can click on her link. If editors feel its important to designate her a porn actress on the birthday list, they can add a cite.--agr (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
But you left Rita Faltoyano unchanged? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
My bad. I removed two more. They should go for all dates, a bot would help. These porn tags are too easy to vandalize. Who is going to check them all? For a birthday list, actor or actress should suffice.--agr (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
it's not reasonable, and unhelpful, to call "porn actors" "actors" in a list like that. These three are clearly and unquestionably porn stars, and adequately sourced as such. This is the same issue behind the RfC. I would definitely oppose rummaging through the entire encyclopedia to scrub that word out of lists. - Wikidemon (talk)
This RfC does not seem to be generating a consensus in favor of change and the current policy is still in effect. And if porn is not a disreputable profession, why should performers in that field have the title "actor" or "actress" qualified in a list of births on a given day? Finally I would argue that these birthdate lists are an easy target for pranksters, so contentious designations should be kept to an absolute minimum, even if sourced.--agr (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The RfC, to my understanding, is an attempt to divine what the community thinks current policy is, not to change it? The side-discussion under "Try Again" is an attempt to add a helpful pointer, also consistent with current policy. If there's no consensus here one way or another, current policy indeed remains, but it means we have disagreement on what that is. I'm confident that most famous porn stars, seeing that they are willing to take their clothes off and have sex in front of a camera, are open enough about their chosen profession that they are comfortable with the word "porn" or "adult entertainment" as part of their job description. Systematically scrubbing the encyclopedia of their professional category is not a service to them or our readers. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
That is also my understanding of what the discussion here is doing. However, the reason we have a policy at all is that we are bulding an encyclopaedia and we need to make it accurate. BLP is an area in which inaccuracy has an effect on real people. The question is not whether we want to deprive the encyclopaedia of correct material on some technicality: it is to put in place arrangements to make it as unlikely as we reasonably can that incorrect and damaging material goes, or stays, in. It's not the people who should be on those lists but maybe are not that we should be more worried about -- it's those who should not be but maybe are. Deltahedron (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The burden to meet BLP is on those who want to include content. Lists without citations are not deleted right away. A prod can be removed under the justification that the article will improve. AfD gives at least a week to improve the article.

Articles are not going to get deleted without some chance to bring them up to standards. Unlike other policies BLP needs to be immediately met and kept met. Eventually met is not good enough. Chillum 16:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

List has been nominated for deletion at AfD[edit]

This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. I thought this should be listed here as well. Discussion at AfD-- Isaidnoway (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That seems a little WP:POINT-y, and at the very least a poor choice of timing while we're trying to have a discussion here. I'll probably go ahead and restore the list for now so that anyone participating in the deletion discussion can see the actual list that is under consideration. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do. The nomination argument is referencing the deleted content anyway, so it's best if we all can see it. Diego (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I found a better way, I just inserted a note pointing to the historical version so that editors can review the real version, not the trivially small one. Edit warring to blank or gut an article on supposed technical policy grounds, then nominating it for deletion, while threatening anyone who restores or even discusses the matter, is an old play from the deletionist playbook. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Update - the nomination has been decided as Keep per WP:SNOWCLOSE. Diego (talk) 22:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Article was under Full Protection[edit]

Article was fully protected with this message: Persistent disruptive editing: Figure out how to improve this article, people!!!

Just when a bunch of editor's jumped in to help provide references, the article gets protected. Go figure.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Never underestimate the zealous determination of deletionists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Update:Protection has been lifted, so editing can continue in a collaborative manner.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Is the RfC close effective?[edit]

I attempted to incorporate the RfC close results into the policy page, as succinctly and clearly and using the closer's language as directly as I could, so that we can have some clarity regarding how to handle lists.[8] This was quickly reverted.[9] So... are we going to follow the RfC results or not? I don't think we can selectively follow it, either the RfC is closed or not. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I fully support Wikidemon's recent attempt to codify the close of this RfC into existing Wikipedia policy as it relates to list articles. The wording used was pretty fair & neutral IMHO. It's fairly obvious to me that the kind of editing practices that started this RfC in the first place will continue (and are basically still continuing now) without some kind of policy clarification. Guy1890 (talk) 05:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, guys, for saying this but dumping the language of my close directly into the policy may not be the best approach. I chose my words with care, but they're my words for what the community decided. I'm certain that editors will be able to improve on what I said so as to be clearer and more succinct, and leave fewer loopholes for misinterpretation. I hope this process doesn't take too long though.—S Marshall T/C 08:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

So, do we know what the results are from the RfC or does this remain an undecided policy matter/? - Wikidemon (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I agree with the revert. AFAIK, the RfC said nothing changing policy. That needs to be a separate discussion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 09:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I've tried to be as clear as I can in the close. I've said what I think the results of the RfC are, and I've said we need to discuss whether those results will have an effect on the policy wording. If we're willing to be constructive and flexible, then I think that discussion can be informal and relatively rapid. There certainly should not need to be a new RfC to discuss how to implement the last RfC.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • This is the talk page for the Wikipedia policy on BLP. To assert that an RfC on this talk page regarding requirements for sourcing is not about policy is one of the most ridiculous things I've seen in quite a while. The consensus as determined by the closing admin is now part of BLP policy; the policy page should be updated accordingly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
    • And the closer stated in the close, and quite carefully restated above, that the specific language of the closing statement was not presented as consensus policy language. Pasting into the policy as such was clearly inappropriate. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, so it applies to lists too. I've added "and lists" just to make that clear. [10] That might be all that's needed. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories, lists and navigation templates[edit]

Currently, WP:BLPCAT states:

"Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content 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."

"Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."

Does this (or should this) protection extend to political beliefs? Is it acceptable to categorize a person as part of a political movement if the categorization is contentious? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

To help AQFK avoid being coy: this question pertains to Marco Rubio and the Tea Party, currently being discussed at BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The reasoning behind the BLPCAT proviso would seem to be that only the BLP subject themselves would be in a position to know their true and internl beliefs or orientations, so that only self-identifications would be acceptable as reliable for "People believing in Fooism". (We note incidentally that this is inherently problematic in the case of BLP subjects with a reason or motivation to conceal those inward feelings.) So there would seem to be a good case for extending the proviso to cover categories referring to political belief, which again is subject to the same principles about inward knowledge (and external mis-representation). However, membership in a political movement is presumably capable of being verified objectively in independent reliable sources, sufficient for "Members of the Fooist Party". In the instant case, I understand the category is "People associated with Fooism". If association refers to other peoples' perception, then "People perceived as associated with Fooism" is capable of being independently verified. On the other hand, if association means having sympathy or congruence with beliefs, then "People sympathetically disposed towards Fooism even if not full believers" could be held to come under the proviso. I hope this helps. Deltahedron (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Categories of "political belief, association or orientation" are not intrinsically "fact" - thus requiring self-identification for any such categories makes a great deal of sense. The classic example was the unfortunate use of "associated with Communism" in the early 1950s where a person had a marginal association with a "Communist front organization". The common sense approach would have avoided that mess at the time, and should be used on Wikipedia to avoid any use of categories to make contentious claims about any person now. Collect (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No, we should not extend this policy to political affiliation (beliefs are already in the policy). The validity of political categories should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Reasonable allowances should be made for subjects who publicly disavow association with a particular political movement, at which point the category actually becomes contentious. Otherwise we need to simply follow sources.
One of our foundational principles is that content needs to verifiable according to reliable sources. The need to honor self-identification primarily applies to the intrinsic qualities of a person that only they can determine such as gender identity or religious beliefs. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to ignore what sources say, and try to apply original research to the problem, by semantic dissection or acrobatic BLPVIOREVERTs.
I recently edited a BLP in which an editor edit warred to insert content, claiming that it's omission was a BLP violation. We have other editors who revert any perceived negative material about certain BLP subjects, no matter how relevant and impeccably sourced it is, or how many dozens of sources state the same thing. We even have a few admins who actually encourage this behavior by misquoting policy, and when challenged, demonstrate a profound miscomprehension of the policy. "BLP vio" is frequently declared in blatant violation of our NPOV policy, to keep content out of articles. So no, I don't think we need to create more ways for a zealous minority to harm the integrity of the encyclopedia by routinely blocking legitimate content.- MrX 18:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes As I pointed out above. The fact is that BLPs can cause actual harm to people, and the claim that editors "cry BLP" is a splendid example of assuming bad faith. Protecting living persons is not the work of a "zealous minority" - it is the actual obligation of all Wikipedia editors under Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Question - First, you are proposing 2 different things. You are equating "political beliefs" with being a part of a "political movement" (and presumably vice-versa?). I'm a registered Democrat (what some would consider a political movement in addition to a party), but I sure as hell don't subscribe to every belief of that movement. So which are you proposing? Second, because we are discussing politics isn't there going to be someone who finds the category contentious, objectionable, or misleading at the very least? Criminality and sexual orientation are examples given, another I can think of is a connection to the Adult industry, in other words, working in porn in some respect (i.e. performer, stripper, sex worker, et. al.) We can't get people to state definitively why it is or is not contentious aside from a naive (and/or prudish) few that claim its contentious simply because it involves sex, but a lot of Editors are seemingly offended by mentions of it. So please clarify your query. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
As I read the discussion above -- if you tell folks you are a registered Gnarphist, then you have self-identified as a Gnarphist, and a reliable source stating that self-identification would allow Wikipedia to so categorize you.
If you supported the (putative) "Citizens against the Rosenberg Executions" (positing that this fictitious group was Communist led or affiliated in some manner) then it would not be correct to label you as "affiliated or associated with the Communist Party" as it does not include any self-identification. Nor would speaking to a group of members of that putative group then make you "affiliated or associated with the Communist Party."
Does this clarify the issue a bit? Generally speaking, people do state what their occupation is meaning that issue is not present, nor is it even considered in the proposed wording, which sticks to areas where self-identification is the most reliable source we can have as to a person's thoughts, positions and beliefs. Collect (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I thinks its the interpolation by Editors of these kinds of things that we have to be cautious of. Self identification seems fairly straightforward, but I can see how for example "speaking to a group of members of that putative group then make you 'affiliated or associated with...'" could be used abusively. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
IMO we should ask teh developers as amatter of urgency to allow cats to be ref'd so that a page such as would include a ref for every person on this list, which is likely a massive BLP violation effecting real people and WMF, who would get sued if someone who wasnt a porn actor was included. If we cant do this we should certainly stop categorizing living people other than that they are living people. The BLP should be tightened up so absues like the page I just linked to cannot occur. At thje end of the day ti si the judgement of editors who decides who gets on the cat pages and not the reliable sources, and that is completely unacceptable as these are living people. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO Yes - Collects explanation is excellent. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)