Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Race/Ethnicity - Self Identification

Regarding the line :

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

I believe this initially read "religious beliefs, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity", is there a reason that race/ethnicity were removed? Can I put it back? It seems these two attributes are subject to similar difficulties that religious beliefs and sexual orientation are. NickCT (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Add "nationality" to catch a few more problems then <g>.

Categories about a person's beliefs or orientation of any sort should rely specifically on self-identification by the person, and not on surmise by any other source, and then only if such beliefs or orientation are relevant to the person' notability.

Trying to make it even less susceptible to wiki-cavilling. Collect (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion about it, Nick. The consensus was that religious beliefs and sexual orientation were different from race and ethnicity. Approximately, it is not appropriate for me to describe Stevie Wonder as a bisexual Hindu, since he has never indicated that he is either of those things. But I do not need a quote from him saying "I am black" in order suggest that he might be. --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Stevie Wonder, in fact, does self-identify as "black." This requirement is not a horrible hurdle for Wikipedia to handle - and those cases where the person does not self-identify as (say) Croatian are where this would actually be properly enforced. Collect (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Does he identify as black? I suppose it is probable, but a citation may be required. But the reason we do not require evidence of his self-identification, whereas we do where his sexuality or religion are concerned, ought to be obvious. --FormerIP (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues about nationality, etc. litter the BLP/N board - thus should be included. The more we are strict about contentious claims, the fewer the problems we shall see in the future. Collect (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

@FormerIP - re "There was extensive discussion about it" - I took a look at this. I presume this was the most recent discussion on this topic. Funny, I'd actually participated in this discussion and completely forgot. I'm really surprised RL0919 closed this RfC as he did. I did a quick tally and counted 21 for including ethnicity and 13 against. It seemed like consensus was reasonably strong for the measure. Admittedly though there were some canvassing allegations I didn't read too deeply into.

@Collect re "Add "nationality"" - Agreed.

It seems so obvious to me that things like religion, sexual persuasion, ethnicity, race, and nationality are fundamentally similar, in that they all contain an element of subjectivity. There is no agreed upon yardstick by which any of these things can be measured. NickCT (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A requirement for "self-identification" for "ethnicity" is probably uncalled for. Reliable sources can probably tell us what someone's "ethnicity" is. Ditto for "nationality". In fact ditto for "race". The two core attributes of identity that lend themselves well to requirements for "self-identification are "religion" and "sexual orientation", and I do not think that those two attributes should be considered together (although they already are). Separate discussions should be held for "religion" and "sexual orientation". Bundling the two together only muddles the reasoning put forth by the various editors participating, making the comparison of arguments unnecessarily complex, and the one-size-fits-all solutions that we come up with in policy language actually fit none of these attributes as well as they could. Living subjects of biographies do not necessarily enunciate statements of "self-identification". This should not always prevent us from Categorizing in ways that seem appropriate in keeping with that which is suggested by good quality sources and concerning attributes that involve less sensitivity than others. But again I think the bundling together of a multitude of attributes for consideration as a group is not a good idea. I object to the suggestion, immediately above, that we include "ethnicity" and "race" in an already too-diverse group of qualities considered together. Separate discussions can be initiated for these attributes if editors feel that these qualities need further scrutiny vis-a-vis our policies. But lumping them together with relatively unrelated attributes/qualities is I think a way to come up with policy that is not appropriate for any of the included considerations. In my opinion the black-and-white requirement for self-identification probably needs to be adjusted to allow for a multitude of good-quality reliable sources to suffice to substitute for "self-identification", especially as concerns less sensitive considerations. Subjects of biographies do not necessarily enunciate "self-identification" and we should not necessarily require it. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

@Bus stop - re "self-identification probably needs to be adjusted to allow for a multitude of good-quality reliable sources to suffice to substitute for "self-identification" - Well I can agree with that at least. If you can give a reasonable number of good quality sources saying "Joe is African-American", and there are no credible sources, which oppose the statement, and no real debate about the issue, I don't think you actually need to show Joe has "self-identified" in order to support saying that "Joe is African-American".

re "Bundling the two together only muddles the reasoning" & "one-size-fits-all solutions that we come up with in policy language actually fit none of these attributes as well" - I couldn't disagree more. The reasoning for bundling is that all these attributes are inherently linked in that they are all inherently subjective. That's why they should all be put together.

Finally Bus, it might be worth noting that you are pretty heavily involved in doing ethnic classifications on WP. You might want to recuse yourself from a conversation about whether what you are doing is right. Obviously someone heavily involved in a particular practice, is unlikely to support a policy which restricts that practice. NickCT (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I see this as trickier and more nuanced than others. In the UK, where the topic is probably a lot less sensitive than in some places, the clear rule is that ethnic self-identification is the 'official' way it is done. There are a number of reasons for this, one being of course that external appearance is not sufficient in itself, another that people's ethnic backgrounds are often very mixed. But we should not underestimate the sensitivity that can surround somebody's parentage, for example. The guiding rule in WP that we regard such things as private unless the subject chooses to make it otherwise has to be right. For example, a comedian might choose to base some of her jokes around the fact that she has an Iranian background. But we should be very cautious about what may be a journalist's careless assumptions based on skin colour or known background, so unless it is clear that the ethnicity is as described by the subject or at least that they are comfortable with the description, it really should not be in. Self-identification should be implicit in practice and the idea that we can 'objectively' classify others on external information is wrong. --AJHingston (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that nationality should be treated like religion. Nationality is purely a matter of law. For example, all American citizens are American nationals whether they like it or not. It is not actually possible to be an American citizen without being an American national. (It's possible to be an American national without being an American citizen, but not the other way around.) We don't really need someone to say "I see myself as being an American national": either the person is, or s/he isn't, and what determines the person's nationality is the applicable laws, not anything the person says about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) Unfortunately, nationality is not just a "matter of law" - if you read the various noticeboards (especially BLP/N), the issue as to what nationality should be given in a biography is often complicated - especially where the boundaries of nations are altered over time - for instance is a person who was born in Germany when Germany included part of what is now Poland, Polish or German? Is a person who was born in the Palestine Mandate now Israeli or Jordanian depending on where the current lines are? Or Palestinian? In short, "nationality" is frequently not just a simple matter of law, and denizens of the BLP board know it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is sometimes complicated. Which is precisely why a blanket rule about it would be daft. --FormerIP (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

180 degrees wrong - the purpose of rules is to prevent future disputes - and such a rule would do so. Saying that a rule is bad because it will prevent disputes is strange logic at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a matter of law. It's sometimes a matter of extremely complicated law, and you shouldn't just guess (e.g., "he was born in Germany, so I say he's a German national"), but it's a matter of law, not of self-identification. A person can repeat "I'm a national of ____" until he turns blue in the face, but that does not actually make him be a national of that country—nor does saying "I'm not a national of ____" make him quit being a national of that country (to the occasional distress of tax evaders and draft dodgers).

By contrast, saying "I follow <name of religion>" does make him have that religion, and "I do not believe in <name of religion>" makes him not have that religion. That's why we want self-identification for religion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that views on this will skewed if the editor is from the US, because things there are often atypical. It is generally helpful to mentally keep citizenship and nationality in separate compartments. Citizenship is a legal status which can be objectively determined by the law of a state. A person may hold citizenship of several countries (though that may not be recognised by all of them), or none, and although it can often be assumed or inferred, RS may well be necessary and actually the best and most reliable source in cases of doubt is likely to be the subject even though we may be relying on a secondary source to relay it. But national identification may not be the same at all. It may be narrower - for example, UK citizens would not normally describe themselves in that way except to foreigners and indeed we do not even have a word for it; we may say British (though it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the two are not synonymous) but might legitimately give Scottish or Iranian whatever as nationality, even if not living there, nor would we think that identification necessarily attached to place of birth (which is simply the place your mother happened to be at the time). But nationality may also be wider than citizenship. As for trying to explain the traditional French approach to the question, or the question of what it means to be German (even today let alone historically) or from the Balkans, and indeed very many parts of the world is not something I can go into here. And because nationality and ethnicity may be connected the question of birth parentage may feature. In most cases, the descriptor for a person will be straightforward and not contentious, but we cannot necessarily know that. Even if the use of original sources were allowed, to say simply, I know the right answer because I have seen your birth certificate / knew your mother at the time / etc might not be enough. It comes back to my point above, that in practice we generally lack reliable evidence without self-identification. --AJHingston (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that 'A German national' always means a German citizen, although 'of German nationality' might be debatable. But I agree that we need to extend our policy to include race and ethnicity. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

how to choose a name

I'm not familiar with the rules for BLP. We have a jingoistic dispute over Russo-Georgian millionaire Boris/Bidzina Ivanishvili. "Boris" seems more common in English: Forbes uses it, as do 17 of 18 confirmed hits at GBooks (4 with 'Boris' in 2010, one with 'Bidzina' in 2011). However, some newspapers use "Bidzina" (supposedly the Guardian and the Telegraph; I haven't confirmed). His website uses "Bidzina".[1] This might be a case where he went with "Boris" at first, either because he was doing business in Russia or because it was a more familiar name abroad, and then switched to "Bidzina" when he went home to Georgia (the Economist used 'Boris' in 2008 but 'Bidzina' in 2011), though that's just speculation).

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

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

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

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

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

Robin van Persie's supposed "Nazi Salute"

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

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

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

BLP1E

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

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

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

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

Subjects notable only for one event

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

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

• If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
• If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
• It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal to change BLP1E

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

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

• Support for reasons stated above. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support although I'd like to see more on the phrase and is likely to remain. It is often worth having articles on "one hit wonders" if they are in a field (sports/music/athletics/etc) where people might wonder, "did this person do anything else?" A redirect to the main article doesn't answer that question, it only says that the person was involved in the known event. My baliwick, it could be argued that a world series of poker bracelet winner is "likely to remain" a one hit wonder. But the articles are beneficial because it highlights that fact. If the article were merely a redirect, then the reader doesn't know if the person did anything else or if we simply haven't written an article.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • How about changing the word "likely" to "expected" or "likely and expected". This differentiates between the person who stumbled into his 15 minutes of fame by being at the right place a the right time, vs the person whom one might expect to be notable again. WSOP Bracelet winners are likely not to going to win another bracelet, but there is an expectation that they might.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  Remember, there is, and will remain, the exception for sports bios, "subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports)". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support in general; but we do need to get rid of the speculation as well (because a lot of BLP1E discussions descend into editors arguing over whether someone will be notable...). Maybe: If that person is otherwise a low-profile individual outside of the event, and holds no further notability. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment A person who is "low profile" is not the prblem for BLP1E - the idea is that if the event is notable, it can have an article, but the individual connected with that event is unlikely to have more in his or her BLP than the event itself. Thus this proposal seems to go a bit afield of the reasoning behind the limit entirely.

  A person whose notability is entirely associated with a single "major event" may be mentioned in an article on that event, but should not have a separate biographical article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Single Non-recurring Event

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relevant Essays

Mostly by me, addressing these same sorts of issues:

• WP:WIALPI
• WP:WI1E

  Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)