Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 19

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Reversing the AFD default for BLPs

Historical perspective and stability and a BLP namespace

One of the major problems with biographies of living people is an inability to gain historical perspective. This is true of all articles about modern and contemporary culture, but is particularly obvious in the case of a living person whose life story is, quite literally, neither finished nor written (though you could argue that for retired people this is less of a problem). Look through the biographical articles we have about people from the 19th century (only a few of whom are now still alive), and consider how the BLPs issues change. This issue of historical perspective is related to the problem of stability. One of the reasons some articles on living people are so unstable is not just because of POV pushing, but because the verdict of history and calm analysis at a distance in time is not yet possible. This alone, makes a good argument for not having articles on living people at all. Obviously that will never happen, so why not put the living people articles in a separate namespace, with a process to move them into the main namespace as and when needed. Maybe based on the number of links to an article from other articles, or a discussion process to nominate articles to be moved into the main area? When someone dies, their article automatically moves into the main namespace. Would that be at all workable? Carcharoth (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What's the advantage of this? All it would do is bring problems, factionalism and elitism ("I edit in the BLP mainspace more than you, I'm more qualified than you, this edit is wrong"), and script-writing to fix the thousands of broken links that would result. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't see what that would bring us except more bureaucratic process. All articles are potentially in a state of flux anyway; BLPs aren't that much different from others in that regard. --Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Another option: how hard would it be for the developers to write some code which automatically semi-protects articles in Category:Living people? Then we could escalate to engage full protection at a subject's request. Hiding T 09:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice there seems to be a certain circularity about this discussion page: every discussion eventually comes back to a proposal to mass semi-protect BLPs. I see it was proposed in what is currently the very first thread on this page. Maybe we should be debating and voting on that, rather than these heavy-handed proposals to start deleting borderline articles without consensus.--Kotniski (talk) 10:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should just implement it. Hiding T 10:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I thought one of the problems with semi-protection was that it stopped the subjects of biographies making corrections. Most read their articles and try and correct them, through IP addresses, before they have registered accounts. Carcharoth (talk) 11:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  - Isn't that a good thing? I understood that you aren't supposed to write about yourself on WP. Letting people "correct" their own articles is likely to lead to disinformation in the other direction (removal of valid criticism and inconvenient facts). The main downside I can see to semi-protection is that it prevents authors of articles from further improving them; but perhaps pushing such authors in the direction of creating a proper account wouldn't be such a bad thing. --Kotniski (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    - I thought you had to create an account now to create an article? Or did that change again? Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, looks like you're right. Although even account holders still have to wait so many days before they can edit semi-protected pages.--Kotniski (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No. While it's difficult for someone to be neutral about themselves, we also want to enable them to identify and remove libel and the like. The harm done would outweigh the good by some margin. Wily D 13:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how you reach that conclusion. If people want libel removed they can ask us to do it for them. Meanwhile this system would make it much more unlikely that any libel would get in in the first place. I would expect the overall amount of libel-type harm to fall significantly. Meanwhile the other type of harm (good encyclopedic content being removed or altered just because the subject doesn't like it) would incidentally get reduced too. And compared with the delete-if-no-consensus proposal, we also avoid the harm of deleting (in practice almost irrevocably) potentially notable content. The downside is of course the same as with any semi-protection - we make it harder for casual users to improve the article - but given that the BLP problem needs to be solved somehow, I don't see any less destructive solution than this.--Kotniski (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Designated agent 2

Why is information provided here about a designated agent? That's for dealing with copyright infringement, not defamation. --Michael Snow (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether "designated agent" is the right term or not, people who don't like an article can use that contact info to request a WP:OFFICE action which deletes the "questionable" material. I might add that all the hand wringing about "our" supposed responsibilities is rather overdone given that WP:OFFICE up on Olympus are doing just fine deleting stuff without any input from us. The presence of WP:OFFICE is yet another reason why WP:BLP, WP:HARM, etc are unnecessary.

Consider the Ruud Lubbers article. The OFFICE came in and edited it last November, and left it under protection until March. Which of those edits could not already be covered off by WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOTABLE such that a WP:BLP is necessary?Bdell555 (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the foundation does not expect us to be lawyers, and that if there was any real legal danger that OFFICE would step right in an fix it. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the legally defined "designated agent" information (which is out of date, but can not be legally changed without a specific government process) with a non-legal term and what the Board thinks is appropriate contact data for this page. Go for it Michael Snow!

"We recommend that you contact [...] for these concerns: [...]" WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are two sets of contact information. The designated agent stuff (which also lists an email address that is not in use), doesn't belong here. The other one could stay under a different heading, just identifying it as contact information for the Wikimedia Foundation. As for office actions, we would prefer to keep those to a minimum, and judging by the way people react on the rare occasions when it is invoked, I believe the community would prefer that as well. --Michael Snow (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Please fix the content of the policy. Are you uncertain as to what to change it to? If so, post here a proposed change and we can discuss it; otherwise be bold and fix it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt once again up for discussion

Posting as this has extreme relevance for Wikipedia and specifically for BLP, and is being held in an area that few watch and less interact on: RFD.

The consensus on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 5 is challenged by User:JoshuaZ at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_22#Daniel_Brandt_.E2.86.92_Public_Information_Research. As we need to get a final end one way or another to this, please do not remove this notice. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying hard not to conclude this is trolling, or at least disruption of some strange point. Either way, discussion rightly terminated.--Doc^g 16:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't, and I've opened the discussion again. Believe it or not, allowing the community to decide these matters is not disruptive. Treating users like trolls because you personally disagree with them is shameful.-- Ned Scott 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

certainly not trolling. The initiator of the RfD is an altogether respectable editor, although he has the opposite view on BLPs from DocG. Many of us--I hope the consensus at Wikipedia-- have the opposite view on this from Doc, and we are not trolls either. So far from being terminated, it has been closed with a move to Deletion Review. It will be terminated, when it is finally accepted that NPOV and COI requires equal treatment of those who annoy us, and that deletion is not the solution to editing difficulties. This article has been deleted because it embarrasses us. It may, but whose fault is that? We must become mature enough to cope with it. DGG (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Different opinions than your own do not equal trolling or disruption, no matter how active you are at BLP. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So Wikipedia will engage in "Courtesy blanking" of something if that something "may potentially cause ... emotional distress"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Courtesy_blanking

Facts are potentially distressing, certainly. And Wikipedia contains a lot of facts, most of them true. Perhaps Wikipedia will one day "blank" itself as a "courtesy" to humanity, which has been plagued throughout its existence by distressing facts! Now if we could just go one step further and "blank" all of human knowledge, after all... ignorance is bliss Bdell555 (talk) 03:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To characterise pro BLP people as against education and the spreading of knowledge via wikipedia is to distort the reality of the situation completely. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand "pro BLP people" aren't against knowledge full stop. They are just against knowledge that "harms". WP:HARM had to come to existence because otherwise articles that causes "distress" couldn't be reverted if they were neutral and consisted of notable facts cited to reliable sources. I think it is quite possible that the acquisition of knowledge is inherently "distressing", however.Bdell555 (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain what this D Brandt issue is all about? Even the deletion discussions seem to have been censored. On what grounds was his article deleted? The information available gives the worrying impression that WP has simply decided to censor itself due to threats or hysteria from this guy. I know you're probably all fed up talking about this, but if someone would be good enough to fill me in (by e-mail if really necessary), I'd be grateful. --Kotniski (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll respond to this on your talk page. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Unfortunately they just confirm my earlier suspicions. Well, I can't judge the original article (maybe it was POV enough to be deleted), but deleting the redirect??? Has part of WP gone mad? This sort of thing quite alters my beliefs about what this encyclopedia is - I agree that we should respond to genuine concerns from living persons, but just giving in to their every whim means we can no longer claim any kind of objectivity.--Kotniski (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Do we even have consensus that there is no consensus to "default to delete with a no consensus BLP AfD"?

After reviewing much of what has been argued over the last few days I wish to make a sounding. From what I can see, there is only a (sizable though it is) minority that it generally happy with the current "Default equals keep in BLP AfD's" - but those who are not happy with the current scenario are generally split between what is the most appropriate way to handle these BLP articles. Might I suggest that the recent participants indicate whether or not they consider the current method of closing no consensus BLP AfD's as needing improving/repairing/replacing, or as not requiring changing. If there is a majority that currently believes the process to be the best available, then there is no point in arguing what should replace it. If there is a majority that thinks it no longer fit for the process then everybody can join together to propose an alternative. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Needs repairing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
See my comments above re the possibility of implementing a change on the most troublesome types of BLP's and using the experience gained from monitoring that change in practice to extrapolate on whether it should be expanded to the broader universe of BLP's. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No change to the deletion process should be made. --SSBohio 20:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
No change is needed to the AfD consensus. You would need an overwhelming majority to make a big change in important policy, particularly to institute a policy that would change the rules on when articles can be deleted. I would oppose any attempt to encourage deletion of encyclopedic articles about notable people. I just haven't seen that it is a problem worth turning such an important policy on its head, and we have plenty of other remedies available if there are BLP issues in those articles. There are a number of things I disagree with about BLP policy but ease of article deletion is rather far down my list. 20:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I would say there is a distinct lack of consensus from this discussion, though others may see it differently. I think things should stay as they are until a consensus to do otherwise forms. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree no change is necessary. Admins already have the discretion necessary to interpret AfD discussions in light of BLP, and everyone has the discretion to remove BLP-violating text on sight. Powers ^T 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The only "change" that's needed is to make it more clear to the closing admins that AFD is not about counting votes. If the closing admin reads and understands the discussion, and then does what he thinks is the right thing to do based on the arguments brought forward in the discussion, and based on policy. If 99 people say "delete, no proof of notability", and then the 100th person comes in with proof that the subject is indeed notable, no sensible admin would call the discussion consensus to delete, regardless of whether the article is about a living person or a minor classical school of philosophy. Likewise, if 20 people say "keep, should be notable enough but I'm too lazy to look up sources", and 1 person says "there's no proof that this is really that notable, and nobody's going to watch it, and it's very likely to cause offence", a sensible admin would either delete or semiprotect the article, not call it consensus to keep. Again, the same principle works for BLP or a minor religion in the Amazonian rainforest. Zocky | picture popups 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Addresses

I noticed that the Jeremy Edwards article listed his address (not the house number, but the street). I've removed the street name but I was wondering if there's a policy on this anywhere? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information is the most relevant policy in this type of situation. While it's generally useful to note in what city a person resided or currently resides, the name of the street of their past or current residences is not something that generally belongs in an encyclopedia article. (Aside from privacy concerns, a living person's physical address may change at any time, meaning that information in the article could become inaccurate at any time.) There are, of course, some exceptions, such as the articles about Michael Jackson and Neverland Ranch, where the address has become a well-known part of the historical record. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Makes sense. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

a request for some eyes and ears.....

It's somewhat tangential - but ultimately related to the discussions above - and I'd certainly appreciate some eyes and ears at a new page I've setup up at User:Privatemusings/OptOutNoticeboard - all thoughts and feedback most welcome! - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP policy proposals

PLEASE NOTE: To reduce the current size of this page, I have transferred a number of connected discussions, including several still open proposals aimed at strengthening BLP policy by having more BLP articles deleted or semi-protected, to this subpage.--Kotniski (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic categories

I added ethnic to the categories that should not be added in the absence of evidence that they are significant to the subject's notability. Hope that isn't controversial with anyone. Some of the ethnic categories are in an awful mess, and maybe this change will help people realize that these need to be reliably sourced. --John (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But some of ethnic categories are not mess at all, and I don't see a need to stop people from adding categories when there is no controversy. -- Taku (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ethnic categories need to be treated in exactly the same way as their beliefs, sexual orientation, etc. The test should not be whether it is controversial but whether it can be reliably sourced. --John (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

May I ask why? Like I said above, on quite many occasions, one's ethnicity isn't a controversial topics at all. I can understand one's religious beliefs and sexual orientation are sensitive information and should never be mentioned unless supported by multiple reliable sources, but ethnicity isn't (most of the time). Ethnicity is, to my mind, akin to birth date or birth place. -- Taku (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, ethnicity can be just as controversial as religion or sexuality. Are you following the US presidential election at all? There's a candidate called Barack Obama whose ethnicity is somewhat significant. As it is easy to find reliable sources discussing his ethnicity, we are right to mention it in the article. Someone on whose ethnicity no reliable sources can be found should not be categorized ethnically. It's just WP:V, nothing unusual, but in the spirit of BLP I think we need to apply extra rigor to categories of living people. Even birth place and birth dates can be challenged and removed if no sources can be found, although I would say there is a basic difference; race and ethnicity, not being scientific concepts but social constructs can be subject to controversy and dispute, and our default should be not to include it unless we have evidence it is noteworthy, significant to the subject's notability. Objective facts like birth details are less likely to be controversial. --John (talk) 23:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, that's why I put "(most of the time)". Of course, the ethnicity "can" be a big issue in some biographies. But on some other occasions, it isn't. I agree that the ethnicity "could" potentially require to be treated differently from other hard facts like ages. By the way, some birth dates on actress and models are controversial matters, requiring throughout sourcing. Every bit of biographical information can be "subject to controversy and dispute", and so I don't know why the ethnicity has to be singled out. I think we have the language on religious belief and sexual orientation in BLP because they don't, in our belief, constitute part of a basic biographic information such as birth details or nationality. Not because of the potential for dispute and controversy.

I, however, wonder if a theoretical discussion we've doing is worth engaging. I mean, for example, do you think it is fine to put an ethnicity category when the infobox notes ethnicity? -- Taku (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not without a valid reference. Which infoboxes have a field for ethnicity, as a matter of interest? --John (talk) 01:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a moot point, as no one should be adding anything without references. It doesn't matter if its their age, their hair color, their ethnicity, or their place of birth. It doesn't matter if its a BLP or an article on someone who has been dead for over 300 years. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

First, to John. Template:Pageant titleholder bio has ethnicity as a parameter. From my experience, it seems ethnicity is usually noted in articles about models or actors. For figures like politicians or academics, the nationality seems to be used preferably. Since quite often free images are not available for them, ethnicity (like heights or weights) can be a good alternative, because clearly the nationality doesn't provide sufficient information about how they look. To Celarnor, in principle, I understand the argument, but that's not necessarily what is done in practice. We (at least I) still mention the ethnicity in the infobox when we are quite sure of it even when no reliable sources "explicitly" state the subject's ethnicity. For example, when I know a personal is a Japanese actress, and if she looks Japanese, (even when there is no free image, there are usually lots of images on the Internet), I fill the ethnicity parameter in the infobox as "Japanese", without any source. -- Taku (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a rather dangerous and risky thing to do, and is one of the reasons that Wikipedia has spawned the tome of evil and fail that is BLP policy. As long as we have notability, it shouldn't be very difficult to find an article that discusses the ethnicity of your hypothetical subject. It shouldn't be too hard; just go back to whatever source you first encountered that let you know that the subject is a Japanese actress from Japan and cite that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know it's really not about "me" per se. I'm just telling you that is a usual practice. Of course, I always cite sources I used to write articles. But I don't think it is either "risky" or "dangerous" to assume the ethnicity in some occasions, because sometimes it is just so obvious. Also, judging from your comment, I assume you have little experience contributing to bio articles. So, I don't think you are aware of difficulty finding sources that explicitly mention one's ethnicity. -- Taku (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It usually takes a bit more effort for subjects of marginal notability, but for the subjects that are genuinely and obviously notable, its seldom difficult. A while ago, when List of Anglo-Indians came up for deletion due to the fact that there weren't any sources, it wasn't a very difficult matter to source most of them. Maybe you should review your searching methods? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is just a difference in types of articles we contribute to. For one thing, I usually consult sources in Japanese. The matter of ethnicity simply just doesn't appear in discussion in those sources, probably because it is so obvious. In my experience, it is much easier to find one's blood type :) -- Taku (talk) 08:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Context is important though. A JPOP star should probably have their blood type listed - a Japanese particle physicist, not so much. Wily D 12:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the original editor of this thread. I've worked on both David Archuleta and Jason Castro, both of American Idol fame. In David's case, from what I could see, Wikipedia was more or less the only place calling him a "Honduran American". People seemed to think that from ever piece of ancestry a person has, you can then apply a label to them here, regardless of any other reliable source, or the person themself, ever using that label. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the helpful comments. I have now cleaned up Category:Eurasian people, Category:Afro-Caucasian people and, most recently Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain. In all three cases, the majority of entries were category-only, followed by some where there was an assertion of ethnicity with no obvious reference to verify it. I removed all entries in these two cases. I did get a couple of false positives, and one of them has led another admin to question the value of what I am doing. As I do still believe that what I am doing benefits the project, let me recap what I am doing and why I am doing it. There is no implication that an ethnic category is automatically a bad thing to belong to, any more than it would automatically be a bad thing to belong to a religious category, a political one, or a LGBT one. However, all such categories are definitely contentious if not verifiable, which is the criterion that triggers the applicability of this policy. Thus, my proposal would be that I will continue to remove ethnic and religious categories where they are not clearly verifiable to reliable sources. In the case of living people, I will also remove any unsourced assertions from the article body. In the case of people who are no longer living I will instead add a {{fact}} tag. Does that sound reasonable to people? This issue has also been discussed here, here, and here. I'm keen to keep cleaning up the categories, which, it seems obvious, have in most cases been added with no justification whatsoever (see here for an apparent example of this), but I want to make double sure that people understand and agree with what I am doing first. Hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you're doing great work. We should absolutely NOT be categorizing people based on "well I think they look X"... I blogged about this problem here. I'll go further. I think it's not enough to have a verifiable source for the ethnic categorization... I think it's needful that (with perhaps some very rare exceptions) the source establish WHY it is notable that the person is a given ethnicity. An example of a good categorization, in my view, would be the Vin Diesel article. This article has material that describes why his ethnicity influenced his career. An example of a bad categorization, in my view, would be the Sydney Tamiia Poitier article. When this article had a categorization (it does not, now) there was absolutely no relevance within the body text of why her ethnicity matters, how it influenced her career, etc. This is a difficult job and I'm glad John (and others) are taking it on. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:BLP subject response, viewpoints of the BLP subject

Some week ago I made the proposal Wikipedia:BLP subject response. Discussion on it has pretty much ended, and the consensus appears to be against the proposal. However, User:FT2, while rejecting the proposal as it stood, did propose that we add the following text to the main BLP policy:

"The viewpoint of the subject of an article or section is always to be considered a significant viewpoint for the purposes of neutral point of view policy, in the context of biographical material on them."

"A web page containing the subject's views on encyclopedic factual matters may always be linked and cited for the purposes of this, provided this would not breach Wikipedia:No personal attacks and particularly, the section on external links."

This appears to be a reasonable addition which will help in providing the complete picture for biographies, and will also contribute to making the article more in line with WP:NPOV. Are there any objections to adding the text? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Any reason to apply this only to living persons? Shouldn't the same principle apply to the deceased, corporations, political groupings etc.?--Kotniski (talk) 12:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd change the last clause to "the section there on external links." to make it clear we are not talking about WP:EL. Also I find the word "encyclopedic" problematical. It's meaning within Wikipedia is not the same as the dictionary meaning and generally boils down to "stuff I think is worthy." "Always" seems a little strong as well, since we then qualify it. Finally there is the question of how many such links are acceptable, say if the subject maintains several web sites.--agr (talk) 13:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This is generally common sense for pretty much all articles. There are exceptions such as when all the reliable sources strongly disagree with the person (see Kent Hovind for example) but overall this is more an NPOV issue. I'd also suggest removing the comment about external links since the consensus seems to be that within mainspace there are almost no cases where not linking should occur. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is too game-able to state that we must always link to a page under named conditions. We should encourage editors to link to appropriate pages and give some key relevant criteria for that. That way we not be gamed into providing a free link to something they wish to promote that is unrelated to the article. WAS 4.250 (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP and 3RR

PLEASE NOTE AGAIN: For the same reason, I have transferred a lengthy set of discussions about the three-revert rule (3RR), and the BLP exception to it, to this subpage.--Kotniski (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Waunakee, Wisconsin

An editor has added Kyle Barman, on the strength that he is an Eagle Scout. I've removed the entry once, but it has been readded. I've posted a request on the talk page for comments re notability. Input would be appreciated on this one. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable alumni listed in articles about degree mills or otherwise problematic universities

From Talk:Washington_International_University#Deletion_of_item_from_article it appears that there may be a general problem with listing non-notable alumni in articles about colleges and universities that have reputations as degree mills. I've become convinced that doing so creates insurmountable BLP problems. Furthermore, based on both BLP and NPOV grounds one can make a strong argument that we should not in general list alumni who are not notable in any article regardless of the quality of the school. Is there a consensus for such an attitude? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it makes sense. John Carter (talk) 01:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I object to limiting this to "degree mills" as inherently problematic and POV. Broaden it to all institutions of higher education and their alumni and it becomes a potentially sensible and workable concept. --ElKevbo (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I weighed in on the talk page, but to repeat my point here, the inclusion should never be used to promote someone, or put someone in their place, thereby making a new level of fame/infamy regarding the person. This is, IMO, what is being indicated by the talk page, that the person in question has had an article written about him in the news on a subject unrelated to this university, that just mentioned where he got his "degree". The opinions stated by one editor is to basically knock him down a few pegs by including him on the uni article to counter mention of his degree (which doesn't appear to have been done by him, and is not our job regardless). On top of that, add the man has evidently asked his name to be left off the article. In a general sense, non-notable alumni shouldn't be listed any more than non-notable anybody (do we really need to know that Bob the gardener went to UofX, if Bob isn't famous in his own right?). Erring on the side of caution is a good thing, especially back to the diploma mill example, as it could cause harm to someone's reputation originating from WP. It would be like breaking a story about a person who has been marginally in the news as a previous porn star because some WP editor noted the name on the back of the box of a porn movie made in 1982; unless a RS breaks that story and unless it was notable, accurately portrayed, WP:V, etc., we don't include it. We should never act as the originator of breaking news stories. --Faith (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not really germane to this discussion, but I'd like to set the record straight on a couple of points about the WIU article. This was not a case of a clear-cut non-notable person whose degree had merely been mentioned in passing by a third party. Rather, the WP contributor who originally added the information was adding self-identified and published information from and about a person with a possible borderline claim to notability. This person was CEO of a company (the company still exists, but he's apparently no longer its CEO), and his short bio on his company's website (a page whose content he can be assumed to have controlled) listed him as holding a Ph.D from the institution that is the subject of the article. The same information also appeared in UK business news articles about his role in various financial transactions involving buying and selling of companies (one of which was the source cited in the article). Other news stories about him and his companies consistently identify him as "Dr.", apparently on the basis of that Ph.D. --Orlady (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ and ElKevbo that we should populate the alumni lists of all schools by the same standards. This eliminates certain BLP puzzles automatically. I'd exclude people from any alumni lists if they don't have articles. I perceive that both JoshuaZ and DGG (from DGG's comments at the article Talk) would follow the logic of their position by *including* any notable graduate of a degree-mill in the list of their alumni, even though some of them might no longer be pleased at the connection. EdJohnston (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Anything that automatically eliminates BLP puzzles is a good thing. — CharlotteWebb 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
For unaccredited institutions, I think it's less an issue whether the student is notable, and it's more an issue whether the student/institution relationship is notable. If a fake doctor kills somebody and there's substantial reliable coverage of how he got a degree at a fake university, that's a good reason to mention his name in the university's article, even if he's not deemed worthy of his own article (perhaps because he's known only for that fact). On the flip side, if some hugely famous person's name is listed in a bogus college's alumni list, but no substantial coverage of the fact exists, I shouldn't include that fact in Wikipedia, since I wouldn't have adequate sources to cover the fact fairly, even though I might technically be able to verify the singular fact. --Rob (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- We care about NPOV. Neutrality is not fairness and fairness is an inherently subjective and hard to define notion. Of course, someone can always repudiate a degree or make a statement on their personal webpage that they didn't know the degree was problematic if it is. Furthermore, an important point- not being accredited isn't necessarily bad. Many evangelical Christian colleges refuse accreditation because they say it will interfere with their mission. While some of those are using that as an excuse to run diploma mills others seem sincere. Indeed, if we use different standards for different types of schools then it will put us in the very difficult and POV situation of deciding just how degree millish different institutions are. That's not a good position for us to be in. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Applying two double standards in tandem would make us quadruply biased. Unworkable. — CharlotteWebb 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) I think Thivierr (Rob) is on to something important. "Is the relationship of encyclopedic significance?" is an important question that good editors will consider for both the individual's article and the institution's article. Thus Joshua Chamberlain (alum and later president of the college) and Robert Peary (museum associated with his expedition on the campus) almost definitely need to be on the Bowdoin College article, while DJ Spooky may not belong on the college article, even though he is clearly notable because there seems to be no relationship between his significance (rapper) and his time at Bowdoin (philosophy and french major). (Yet as part of a good biography of him, it definitely merits mention in his article.)

There may well be some individuals who themselves are BLP1E subjects, but that event is associated with the institution and merits mention in the institution article. (Hypothetical and over the top example: an alumnus working as a technician in a campus nuclear reactor who was on duty when a reactor meltdown irradiated the campus and forced the college to close for a couple years while rebuilding elsewhere.) In that case, the lack of an article on the individual should not preclude use of their name in coverage of the event. So no hard and fast rule against mentioning the name of a person who will not have an article is appropriate - but such an individual wold not merit merely mentioning in a listing of alumni; the event has to be significant enough to merit significant coverage in the article. So such a person would never appear in a sub-article (or section) akin to List of Bowdoin College people.

And even some individuals that lack articles currently will merit mentions in such lists. Sumner T. Pike is one such that is currently in the list of Bowdoin alumni; he was both a comissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and one of the first commissioners of the United States Atomic Energy Commission. We don't have an article on him yet, but he is notable enough for mention in the list.

In general, I agree that being notable enough to merit an article, even if that article is not yet written, is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion in a list of alumni. The standards for mention in prose coverage will be different, and generally higher than those for mention in a list of alumni, but there may be some who merit discussion in the text of the article yet not in a list of alumni. GRBerry 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That all seems highly reasonable except for the part about DJ Spooky. It isn't clear to me how one can decide that Sumner T. Pike can decide which were influenced by their time at the school unless you have sources explicitly saying so. Listing them all in such cases avoids original research issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with JoshuaZ regarding the DJ Spooky example. All notable people who are known to have attended the school should be valid candidates for listing i these articles, regardless of whether or not their notability relates to their course of study. Additionally, it often will be appropriate for university/college articles to list non-notable alumni due to their significance to the institution. For example, the car dealer who donated enough money to Carson-Newman College that they put his family name on the football stadium and a music building is probably not notable, but due to his importance to the institution his name needs to be in the article. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

While it is proper to mention Lonas H. Tarr (and his donations) in the college article, it would misleading to list him as a notable alumnus (unless he is actually "notable", in which case an article should be written, so take your pick). — CharlotteWebb 16:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a note about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities asking for additional input. --ElKevbo (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the comment about "some hugely famous person's name listed in a bogus college's alumni list, but no substantial coverage of the fact exists," that's not an issue. "Bogus colleges" don't publish alumni lists that include full names of real people, hugely famous or otherwise. --Orlady (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Well there certainly are unaccredited post secondary institutions that hand out degrees that proudly state the names of alumni. Whether to apply the word "bogus" to any of these is debatable/subjective, but not significant to my point. The point is, somebody may consider it defamatory to be associated with such an institution (particularity if it got lots of bad press), and like all potentially defamatory claims, we have to be especially careful about getting good reliable independent sources. --Rob (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this last point of Rob's. As in the above example about the reactor meltdown tech, that would surely be mentioned in connection with the school by RS, allowing us the means to include the person's name, i.e., they were famous/infamous for their connection to the school. However, alumni not tied to the school by a RS should be excluded per BLP to avoid doing harm (or at the very least violating WP:SYN). Listing none of them unless found in a RS avoids original research issues, IMO. When in doubt, leave it out. --Faith (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Routine semi-protection - ??

Having seen the section that says the status is disputed, I was wondering should we routinely semi-protect them?? I know it's probably been discussed a lot in the archives of this page, but in my view, maybe we should use expiring semi-protection rather than lock out IPs completely (I have read arguments that IPs make up the bulk of our contributions amongst the 7million accounts we have).

There do seem to be a lot of indefinitely semi-protected BLPs, but I think they should be protected with a short-term expiry date rather than indefinitely. Just my 0.02 cents. Ta, --1qx (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed that section it was proposed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Proposals#Proposed changes to wording of policy but I opposed it then and saw little support come forward for it. The portection policy as is provides sufficient justification for smei-protecting where it is needed and flagged versions should be implemented soon as well. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Flagged revisions sounds quite good. I've actually seen it being used on another Wikimedia project (not the German Wikipedia) and it could be useful. It could also be good on articles like Monkey etc. Ta, --1qx (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles about people notable only for one event

What if that one event is for a Victoria Cross or a Medal of Honor? This section would suggest that we should not have an article for Rambahadur Limbu. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I have answered it myself by reading Wikipedia:Notability (people) because it covers the subject in much more detail and has a section called "Any biography" "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.".

So as Wikipedia:Notability (people) covers the subject in more detail I have altered the header note for that guideline from "See also" to "Main" as it has a more detailed description of what this section in this policy is saying. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The right thing to do in my view is ask whether you can write a biography about the person. Ann Eliza Bleecker is a biography. An article that essentially says "third lieutenant Jacob Smithers III won the VC for throwing a grenade back where it came from" is not a biography. It's a merge (to the VC article) waiting to happen. ++Lar: t/c 17:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

policy presumes "hurt" or "distress" impossible in afterlife

This BLP policy assumes, without argument, that the day after the subject of the article dies, the article can revert to "normal" (?) standards of neutrality, sourcing, and notability because although such standards could lead to an article that "distresses" the subject unless diluted and/or modified by a BLP policy, a subject who has "passed away" would no longer be distressed. That's a contentious metaphysical assumption! If "hurt" is to be construed as to the physical body, I would call attention to the "sticks and stones may break my bones..." argument. There are, of course, no "tears in heaven", but what if the subject went to hell? The eternally damned surely have enough problems dealing with fire and brimstone never mind an unflattering Wiki bio! Where's the sense of compassionate mission here? Mortals are being discriminated against in favour of immortals, as well, since apparently the unvarnished truth can eventually come out with respect to the former class but never for the latter.Bdell555 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I take this as a signal that serious discussion has ended here. --agr (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's harder for a dead person to start a defamation lawsuit or submit an OTRS ticket complaining about negative or wrong material in their articles. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

True, but their surviving relatives tend to pick up the slack. - Jredmond (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Defamation doesn't work that way. Common law has long held that defamation is an injury to the reputation of a group or individual, and that the reputation dies along with the group or individual. The relatives would have to go a different route and show that some kind of harm was being done to them as relatives of that person/group via an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and that's much harder to accomplish. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

If we really believe that "Do No Harm" is what matters then yes saying bad things about recently deceased people can hurt their family members. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with JoshuaZ. I thought there was something in place to cover this for X# of years (???). Faith (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm sure we all agree that BLP problems can still occur in articles about the recently deceased, regardless of what happens in the afterlife. (FWIW, I happen to believe the afterlife is unverifiable.) But when BLP issues arise in such articles, they tend to concern survivors and others involved in the life of the recently deceased person. So while it's technically true that BLP no longer "applies" to the subject of the article, the policy still has implications, as it does on all Wikipedia pages. Looking for loopholes in BLP is a pointless exercise. szyslak (t) 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just use common sense here and evaluate articles of the recently deceased with a view to what harm they might do to the deceased, their friends and relatives, and our reputation for verifiable, neutral articles based on reliable sources... if we do that, it will be obvious when we should extend BLP like provisions to other articles. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily follow that BLP subjects (or the family of recently deceased BLP subjects) don't have problems with verifiable, neutral articles based on reliable sources. (See the Giovanni di Stefano AfD). Any harm caused by a NPOV article following sourcing policy is done by the sources and/or the actions of the subject themselves in the off-wiki world. We should follow policy with all of our articles, not just BLPs; that renders most of this kind of special treatment unnecessary. I guess I just don't understand why a verifiable, neutral article on a deceased person should be held to any less of a standard than an article on a living person. Their becoming deceased probably doesn't have any effect on the article other than a mention of their death, removal from the living persons category, etc. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course every article should follow policy. BLP does not deny this. BLP says that for articles about living persons, the writer(s) must exert extra care to follow the content policies. Doesn't mean you can have no care for them elsewhere, it just means you must have more care when it comes to BLPs/BLP material. An example: Uncited material that is not BLP-related may be tagged with a "needs citation" tag when found, and one may wait a bit to see if a citation can be found. If one cannot/is not found within a reasonable time frame, the material should be removed. If, on the other hand, the material was BLP-related, and controversial, bam, it should be removed without question. Less uncited controversial information does not hurt -- Jimbo Wales even said something like "zero information is preferable to misleading or false information". The legitimacy of a revert war (remove unsourced controversial or especially negative BLP material, someone else adds it in, remove again citing BLP, etc. each readdition not having any citations) in the case of BLP is more open to debate than in other cases where such a war is usually considered entirely destructive. In this case it may have a degree of beneficiality, although it is by no means a permanent solution or substitute for good dispute resolution: it's just that one can be more lenient (not totally permitting of course, just a little more lenient) toward the behavior (on the side of the removals, not the readditions -- one would ideally come down harder on those). In other words, the approach to non-conforming material is especially stringent with BLPs, not that it is or should be weak everywhere else. There's a difference between "weak", "strong", and "really strong". Enforceent of content policy must be "strong" at least, and must be at least "really strong" when it comes to BLPs. I could be wrong, though, but that seems to make the most sense. mike4ty4 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

"enforcement must be at least 'really strong' when it comes to BLPs" misses the issue. The issue is whether POSITIVE or flattering material should be subject to a different standard than NEGATIVE material. Whatever happened to neutrality?Bdell555 (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats happened. People generally aren't going to file suit against the Foundation for positive material. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Has there ever actually been a court case? No, and there likely never will be, because WP:OFFICE has apparently caved every time, not just with respect to "illegal" material, but "questionable" material people have complained about. Are we here to build an enyclopedia or to advance the interests of the Foundation?Bdell555 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The person I was responding to seemed to be suggesting BLP was "unnecessary", I was countering that. Note who I responded to. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, not everyone believes in an afterlife. Second off, those that do do not necessarily believe something written about them on Wikipedia (an entity in this life) will have an effect on it. Third off, Wikipedia has a great deal of people whose beliefs vary considerably on this so it wouldn't really work. Better to just leave it out. mike4ty4 (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So you have no qualms about a Wiki article flipping from a favourable/positive POV of the subject to NPOV on the mere contingency of someone dying?Bdell555 (talk)

It should have been NPOV (Neutral point of view) before they died. To me, if it becomes NPOV that's good. If it's not NPOV now, then it should be made NPOV. Especially if the person is still alive. If they're dead it should still be made NPOV. Although perhaps there isn't quite as much of a rush. You say "on the mere contingency of someone dying", but that doesn't change that it became NPOV, and that it should have been NPOV beforehand. Favorable POV is not neutral either. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If NPOV is "good enough", then why does WP:BLP exist? Why not instead appeal to WP:NPOV and say, "this article is not neutral, it portrays the subject from a negative / unfavourable / non-neutral POV?" Fact is, articles CANNOT be made NPOV as you request because WP:BLP gets cited against neutralizing efforts by those who want an article that is favourable to the subject.Bdell555 (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Because "favorable" is not equal to "NPOV". Wikipedia requires NPOV. BLP exists because NPOV is especially important in the cases it applies to. What don't you get about that? What makes you think that "favorable POV" equals NPOV (calling favorable-POV-pushers' efforts "neutralizing" suggests you are equating "favorable POV" and "NPOV", which is not the case.)? mike4ty4 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The "wrong version"

I know when an article is locked due to edit warring we get stuck on a version where there is no real consensus but it's left there. It's usually no big deal in most cases but there should be a consistent approach in regards to blp issues. If an article is locked due to edit warring over potential blp issues shouldn't the content be left out until the issue is resolved. It is pretty dumb to have an article stuck with a potentially violating inclusion in it. This does not mean that content can't be put back in once the issue is resolved though. It is just better and reflects more competence to show a consistent approach on these matters. Also, you might ask: What if an editor is just using blp as an excuse to edit war with an incredibly unreasonable argument. Sure that could happen but the involved admin can use his/her judgement on that and make a decision accordingly. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the current policy makes BLP violations one of the few things that admins are supposed to eliminate when blocking pages "at random" during edit wars. (I tried proposing that such blocks not be placed randomly in general, but it seems the community prefers to allow chance to play a role in building our encyclopedia, so the proposal was blisteringly shot down.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP/blocking change

Current policy treats BLP vandalism no differently than vandalism of other articles, with the exception that 3RR is waived for reverting BLP vandalism. I propose that the default response to BLP vandalism be changed from warning from levels 1 to 4, then blocking for a short time, rewarning, blocking for longer time, etc to the following:

IPs who blatantly vandalize a BLP will be blocked after the first act of vandalism without warning. This would include things like continuous insertions of the word "penis" in BLPs, blanking to "he's gay", "Kelly is his biggest fan", etc.

Registered accounts who do such actions would receive a {{Defwarn}} (or 4im) followed for an indef block for the second BLP vandal edit.

I feel that such changes would serve to increase the awareness that BLPs are a critical issue at en.wiki as well as reducing the amount of BLP vandalism. MBisanz ^talk 07:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is already well within admin discretion to block without warning when vandalism is particularly egregious or damaging a subject. Though, I do not object to codifying it. _{1 != 2} 13:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

While it is within admin discretion to block without warning in cases of egregious BLP vandalism, inserting "Kelly is his biggest fan" or "penis" into an article is not an instance of that (it is vandalism of a BLP article, but not BLP vandalism per se), and a block without warning is unjustified and quite WP:BITEy. (Let's keep in mind that not everyone is aware of this policy or Wikipedia's heightened sensitivity toward BLPs.) –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps change "blatantly" to "maliciously" or "disparagingly", and I would support such a response. I think warnings generally are of little value for malicious vandals, who probably don't read them, until after they're blocked. --Rob (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe treating IPs the same as registered account, ie. both get a defwarn on the first act and a block on the second? Then malicious and bltant could be folded together, because reinserting profanity or nonsense in an article after being warned, should be blockable. Also, my motivation for codifying it would be that right now if random editor files an AIV saying "User:Joey has twice been warned and inserted nonsense in George Bish" the AIV response, per its own rules would be that the editor has failed to warn up to level four, or that joey hasn't done it since his second warning, etc. I, like Until tend to block sooner on BLP vandalism, but codifying it would be good for making that an institutional norm. MBisanz ^talk 19:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think {{defwarn}} would be appropriate for all cases (e.g. inserting "Kelly is his biggest fan" or "penis" into an article is immature and an act of vandalism, but it is not really defamation). However, I would agree that blocking for BLP vandalism after a single warning is appropriate when that vandalism is blatant and malicious or defamatory (that is, when the editor can't claim ignorance of WP:BLP as an excuse). My main concern was to ensure that regular (i.e. non-defamatory) vandalism on BLP articles (such as inserting "w00t!") be dealt with as it has been in the past. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that warnings are not useful for things like adding "This guy eats dick", the person already knows it is wrong, and if they don't already you won't convince them. _{1 != 2} 19:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess I can agree to the malicious/defamatory wording, since it would at least enshrine in policy that BLPs are things of the utmost importance. MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no point in codifying this. There is nothing anywhere in any policy that says that someone will be blocked, nevermind something so blatantly hostile against newbies. It's pure instruction creep. Administrators and other editors should use their discretion like they do already - policy and common sense has this completely covered. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Common sense has taken care just fine of this in the past, IMHO. If it's blatantly obvious that someone's a vandal, there's no need to warn him, whether our rules say so or not. --Conti|✉ 00:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Try telling that to some of the admins at the noticeboard. Any time I've reported vandalism some admin declines to take action due to insufficient warning. We shouldn't be wasting valuable encyclopedia-building time (and violating WP:DENY) by repeatedly warning obvious vandals - they should just get blocked without further ceremony. Any change to the wording of policy which emphasizes this would be highly desirable.--Kotniski (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you have some examples of blatant vandals not being blocked? --Conti|✉ 12:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's approach to vandalism is often criticized as too gradual, but that debate belongs at Wikipedia:Vandalism, not here. The problem with BLPs is not blatant vandalism, but inappropriate edits, often made in good faith, that a reader might assume are well founded ("X's name came up in connection with the Kennedy assassination inquiry, but no evidence was ever found," vs. "X is a dick head"). This is not the place to change vandalism policy.--agr (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So since this impacts BLP, Blocking, and Vandalism policy, would e centralized discussion be more appropriate? MBisanz ^talk 19:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess so. In fact, I think a centralized policy would be more appropriate - no point having three or more separate policy pages on closely related topics whose scopes are inevitably going to overlap to a considerable extent (and which could all do with significant trimming in any case).--Kotniski (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Blah, I'll add it to my to-do list then. MBisanz ^talk 07:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be more at place in the vandalism policy than within BLP policy. There are some BLPites that wouldn't object to an edit count requirement before people could edit articles within that scope, so I don't think it would be very appropriate or fair to have such a discussion within that policy. Still, I have to disagree with specialized policy for individual article types. If vandalism is getting too out of hand, then maybe we need to have less warnings and faster blocking with all articles, not just with BLPs. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jim's sentiment

WT:V has hosted the question[1][2][3] of whether it is redundant or overweighted to retain Jimbo's quote about removing text aggressively in both policies WP:V and WP:BLP. I believe a consensus is forming favoring nonredundancy in policy and rejecting overstatement as tending to encourage hyperdeletion; but others believe repetition is practically necessary. Technically the quote applies to "all information", suggesting the argument that it should be retained there and deleted here; it also has a special BLP emphasis, suggesting it be retained here and deleted there. In whichever place it would be deleted, it would be ensured that the remaining text paraphrase the quote more professionally; and in both policies there is some argument that that has already happened. However, coming here I note that the placement of this quote is (a) not really contextualized or transitioned, but rather having the appearance of being pasted in as boilerplate, and (b) much better paraphrased in the surrounding policy than it is at WP:V. This, plus the lack of any recent controversy about the meaning of this section (WP:GRAPEVINE), suggests that it might finesse the debate at WP:V by simply cutting the Jimboquote paragraph here. It seems to add nothing here and is already policy at WP:V. What does this slate of editors think? JJB 13:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this illustrates just how much CREEP and redundant BLP really is as a copy of notability and verifiability. If people really are getting confused and think that we need some kind of separate copy of verfiability within BLP articles, then we probably need to start cutting down on that extra policycruft. Everything, not just articles about living people, needs the same kind of standards for verifiable material, and I think that quote puts that well. Nothing is lost, since V applies to BLP anyway, obviously. Editors just have to remember that there's more policy touching articles about living people than just the single page on BLP. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion from Wikipedia:BLP subject response

The idea suggested of BLP subject response failed as drafted, due to serious BLP problems of its own. (See above page for discussion.) However one idea that came up seemed to get a measure of positive reception and be viable, and I would like to copy it here for consideration:

"The viewpoint of the subject of an article or section is always to be considered a significant viewpoint for the purposes of neutral point of view policy, in the context of biographical material on them."

"A web page that verifiably contains the subject's own views on encyclopedic factual matters may always be linked and cited for the purposes of this, provided this would not breach Wikipedia:No personal attacks and particularly, the section on external links."

The advantage here is, then we're back in normal sane balanced territory. If the bio-subject can post up their view on the factual matters in the article for us somewhere on the net, and makes it comply with the minimal standard of NPA/external links (which we can help with) and verify (OTRS?) their authorship, then editors would then be under a duty to always consider it as a significant viewpoint for NPOV.

This guarantees the bio-subject's view is available for the article, in a balanced integrated manner, where a view is expressed by reliable sources that they feel needs a rebuttal. It also avoids the problems of always giving a platform to "whatever they might say", since what it adds to BLP isn't a platform, but simply the assurance that the subject's view on a matter is considered a "significant view" for NPOV purposes, in the context of their own biography, which few would argue with. How we use that, what we draw from their words, is then left completely down to a normal encyclopedic approach.

Detail: - if the subject is prepared to write a view that meets NPA, BLP and EL, and it's verifiably their (publicly accessible) writing, then there is benefit in saying the article should take note of it as one of the significant views. Note it is not said what weight that view gets, because that will vary tremendously. But that the subjects view in a BLP article is by default significant, is I think reasonable. Even if the subject were a fraudster or murderer, to note that "X says Y" where the statement doesnt attack others or breach policies, is probably reasonable. It at least provides a route to resolve it.

If they write a statement that presents their stance but does not attack others, that we can fairly link to, then we can use that to represent their view with whatever weight is appropriate. I'm inclined to say in any BLP matter where an aspect or event in someone's life is at issue, their view probably is a significant one to represent for neutrality, so I have no issue with formalizing this as our way to handle the problem.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh... I don't like it. Self-published is self-published. If a BLP subject can provide links to an interview in a reliable magazine, or a published biography or autobiography that is one thing, but otherwise this as stated above is the exact opposite of WP:RS and WP:V in a bad way. We don't allow people to put their own biographies on Wikipedia, and we shouldn't allow them to take an end around by publishing their bios on their own blog first...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the opposite of what I have seen which is the subject usually having a strong conflict of interest. I would say that the viewpoint of the subject of an article or section is very unlikely to be neutral at all. That is why we require independent sources short of direct quotes and non controversial material. _{1 != 2} 00:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It helps with keeping the article in a more neutral state by incorporating how an individual has responded to a possible bias on our part within the text of the article itself. It also isn't quite the same as inserting or removing text by the subject on an article about themselves; the rest of the article can remain untouched by the subject by allowing this; i.e, rather than removing statements about a subject, it can simply be included that "(subject) has disagreed with this statement, publishing on their blog that (whatever)." Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Self published

When a person has published books and papers in journals or through publishing houses which are not paid (but rather pay the author or offer no remuneration), is that considered self-published? Would such sources not be considered reliable for claims of what the subject of the biography thinks and believes? I am in a situation where such sources are being rejected because authored by the subject of the bio, even though they are attributed to the subject and his published works. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the article so we could take a look? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Here is the section where it's currently being discussed [1]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at this, I would tend to agree with you more. The article is about the writer and his research/theories. It appears any mention of his writing is duly noted that it is his writing, the article isn't claiming to present it as fact. Furthermore, I don't see how the claims listed are "contentious" or "self-serving". Sheldrake's writings of course might not be useable within any scientific article, but for his article I think they are OK. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that is what I needed. I don't edit bios much, so I'm not really sure of myself. It's like a whole seperate section of rules for bios. Thanks for your time (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether Sheldrake is a WP:RS for claims made outside the field he was trained in (Biochemistry), did scientific work in (Plant physiology) and has notability for (Parapsychology), in Developmental biology and the History and Philosophy of science, fields in which he would surely be a WP:QS, and in which WP:SELFANDQUEST would surely apply, where he makes "self-serving" and at times "controversial" claims, including claims to the coattails of numerous "third parties". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be the question. In an article about a person, we can say a person believes the world is flat, if in fact the person has clearly maintained that. Whether he is a reliable source on earth flatness or not isn't a consideration. The article is about the person, not earth flatness. 2005 (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why have WP:SELFANDQUEST at all, if you can mention anything that the subject of an article states that they believe? Your "world is flat" analogy doesn't appear to be applicable as it doesn't violate any of WP:SELFANDQUEST's restrictions (the closest would be "contentious" -- but it is more absurd than contentious). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not unduly self-serving to state an hypothesis. The article is about what the subject believes, and therefore the claims are directly related to the subject. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is most certainly self-serving to claim that your work "builds on" a laundry list of other "theorists", and that your work is in some way in the tradition of Darwin (when it has nothing to do with 'natural selection' or the 'origin of species'), to claim that mainstream science has "failed to explain how an organism emerges from an egg" when their is a whole field devoted to that study (how do they keep getting research grants if they "failed to explain" anything?), and to claim "biological anomalies" to necessitate your work when nobody else thinks that such anomalies exist. The article on Sheldrake is chock full of self-serving claims. 11:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. I just went through the article in its entirety, and see that it is actuall quite critical of him and in no place gives any undue emphasis or scientific credibility to any of his theories/claims. Reiterating some comments above, if someone says Jesus was a Martian on vacation in Galilee, and they were famous for that, then we would put it here. To be fair, the article is not written in a way to ever suggest legitimacy to his theories, and even where ever appropriate there are sources about the community discrediting them. I'm not sure what the goal is of removing Kendrake's writings, it's not a science-fact article and we aren't dealing with facts of science, just one man's thoughts (why he is notable enough to have an article in the first place). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"[I]f someone says Jesus was a Martian on vacation in Galilee, and they were famous for that" is it also all right to mention their claims that John the Baptist and Thomas Aquinas' teachings support this view, and that the gospels don't explain what Pontius Pilate was doing in Judea, so that we need the Jesus-as-Martian-on-vacation theory to fill in the hole? Just checking. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply, yes, assuming it is made clear that this is simply what the subject believes/wrote. In an article that on a person, this is quite obvious. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay then, it would seem therefore that WP:SELFANDQUEST is meaningless, and WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements already covers everything important. So why do we have the former policy? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what "contentious" is in that section for. It isn't for absolute truth, it is for truth relevant to the claim being made - the relevant claim here is "person X believes Y". This is only contentious in the sense of that policy section if other reliable sources are claiming "person X does not believe Y" (or "person X believes Ỹ"). GRBerry 20:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with GRBerry. Contentious in that section would mean something like "There is no evidence that person X said Y", not "Y". Provided a biographical article about the subject, is making clear that these are quotes from the subject about their own beliefs, no matter how ludicrous they are, they wouldn't be "contentious" vis a vis WP:V. Wjhonson (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Diacritics in tennis biographies' article titles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is movement afoot to mangle some tennis-playing living people who happen to have biographies in Wikipedia, well, mangle their names. I recall similar ill-conceived group activity concerning biographies of living persons making a living by playing ice hockey. Is that perchance not at odds with this Wikipedia policy? It says: Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. I would expect an encyclopedia to abide by that policy in getting the name right. A tennis tournament, a data base on a commercial webpage aimed at the public, a television network -- I can come up with many places in the public sphere, where people's names get mangled, and people put up with it. Should Wikipedia toe that line? Or should it get their names right, if only on human dignity grounds? Is this a Biographies of living persons issue? Can we, should we protect living people who happen to play tennis very well, enough to be the subject of Wikipedians' interested in chronicling competitive tennis? Is it admissible, that some Wikipedians wish to erradicate glyphs not found in the 26-letter English alphabet? What about time-honored precise English book typesetting traditions of rendering words such as "naïve" or "coöperate"? After all, every careful English speaker renders Björk like so, unless technology prevents them, or people-unfriendly policy. If she ever plays a charity tennis match, and makes sufficient scads of money to attract the attention of tennis-chronicling Wikipedians, is she in danger of losing her diacritic, too? Please opine, advise, intervene. Do no harm. --Mareklug ^talk 18:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Count me a firm supporter of diacritics wherever they may be found - but I don't think it's (just?) a living-persons issue. I wouldn't want Wikipedians to think they can start purloining people's diacritics as they become deceased.--Kotniski (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear, but it is the living who are the ones being assaulted. Can we stop this using the tool of the "Biographies of living persons" policy? It is unlikely that the Wikipedians in question would afterwards bother deceased tennis legends we might have biographed. --Mareklug ^talk 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this as being a BLP issue. This is an issue of whether we should use someone's name or a bastardized version of their name. I firmly support diacritics wherever they're found, but especially so in names; it's their name, its the natural form of it, and ultimately, other than laziness, there's really no reason not to use them. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you getting at here? Do you have any examples? In my experience, we sometimes use diacriticals when the subject himself does not. (See for example, Amer Delic.) Why does it matter whether this is under WP:BLP or WP:NAME? I can only think of one reason—BLP edits can be excused from the three revert rule. Cool Hand Luke 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that people comment in the existing thread at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Tennis. It's hard to make this out to be a BLP issue. It's a question of what style rule we should follow in writing their names. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are words which are written in English in a form using diacritics, and also in a form without them. In such cases, we should use the simpler form. Wjhonson (talk) 06:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a word, it's a name belonging to a living person with a nationatlity. I, for one, wouldn't be very happy if people started bastardizing my name in reference works. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OK guys, please don't start this discussion here as well. It's already going on in two places (see also WP:UD), and judging by my watchlist entries (I haven't found a spare hour to actually read the debates recently) it's still got a lot of life left in it.

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.

Suggestion about the presumption in favor of privacy

I think that we should presume privacy in the case of all people known for only one event—whether they're dead or alive.

For example, if there's no secondary source about a person's birth or death date, I don't think we should include it in an article when that person is only notable for one thing during their life. Such information can be found from reliable sources like social security records, but I think it ought not be included unless a secondary source has found it notable enough to mention.

I wonder if this is what the policy currently says. The "Presumption in favor of privacy" section has clear language about it, but since this is the BLP policy, one might argue that we must only follow this rule in BLPs. Indeed, I think that such a rule is more properly a concern under WP:SYN, since we shouldn't insert original connections into accounts of people notable for only one event.

So I have two questions for everyone:

Does our policy currently require privacy for biographies of the dead as well as the living?
If the answer is yes, could we edit that section to explicitly say that it applies to all biographies? Cool Hand Luke 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As you point out, many of the principles in the BLP policy follow from other policies and guidelines, e.g. SYN. But articles about living persons present special legal and ethical challenges and WP:BLP attempts provide more explicit guidance for such articles. I think it would be a mistake to expand this policy to cover articles about dead people.--agr (talk) 02:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If a person is notable enough to warrant a biography here, then we should not be restricted from using primary material for a statement, when similar statements are normal for biographies. It is normal for a biography to state when a person died, therefore, if we can ascertain that from public documents, we should be able to state it, without needing to prove that it already has been stated in a biographical dictionary.Wjhonson (talk) 06:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Is a fact non-relevant to notability in BLP permissible when it is used to discredit?

The BLP article on Mae-Wan Ho contained a statement [2] that "Dr Ho is a former vivesectionist involved in burning rabbits eyes." I subsequently modified it [3] to "Dr. Ho's research has involved burning rabbits' corneas in order to test the effectiveness of treatments to prevent or significantly delay corneal ulceration after alkali-injury." but then removed it [4] because I thought that it violated WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. My reasoning was detailed on the talk page. This work is not relevant to Ho's notability because it is only one paper of several hundred research papers she has published, she is only one of several co-authors, and research in corneal therapies is not an area she is notable for (rather, genetic engineering, evolution and AIDS).

The statement has now been re-added [5] with the justification that even though this is one paper, it is "evidence of her hypocracy" "as a promoter of responsible use of science".

This sentence seems to be in violation of WP:BLP#Criticism and praise, in particular "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability" and "Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons."

Have I got that wrong?

Also if you look at the edits by Ttguy and Hrafn on this article since at least May 26, you may get the impression that anything positive that can be said about Mae-Wan Ho needs to be suppressed, in these two editors' opinion. In light of that constant opposition, it will probably be impossible to achieve "strict adherence to our content policies" especially those highlighted in WP:BLP.

Or is that the way WP is supposed to work for biographies of living people who happen to do something some editors don't like? --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems like this should normally be reported at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, to get notice. I've left comments on the issue on the article's talk page, and also nominated the article for deletion, due to lack of third-party sourcing. --Rob (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP Articles: Legal Name vs. Most Recognizable Name

Editors are obliged to keep BLP information as close to truth as possible, insofar as can be determined by verifiable reliable sources. However, WP:Naming conventions (people) requires BLP article have "The name that is most generally recognisable" (sic). Should that be true even if the most generally recognizable name is not the BLP subject's legal name? Are we editors under no obligation to name BLP articles in conformity with the subject's legal name, bowing instead to what the general public finds to be the most recognizable? Can we likewise be sloppy with other article facts? Can we repeat popular misconceptions about a BLP article subject (e.g., stating that Obama is a Muslim if 51+% of Americans mistakenly believe it)? Surely not.

When a woman marries and chooses her husband's last name, that becomes her new legal name. Just because she is more generally recognizable under her maiden name does not mean that her maiden name is her true name. And if we wait until she becomes more generally recognizable under her married name, if ever, aren't we thereby just blowing with the winds of popular culture? All articles, most especially BLP articles, should stick to the facts insofar as they can be verifiably and reliably determined. Our job is to educate the public, not reflect its misconceptions.

The issue came up recently with regard to Jenna Bush. My guess is that with her father leaving office soon, she may never be more generally recognizable as Jenna Hager than she is as Jenna Bush. She may always be Jenna Bush in the public's mind. But her legal first and last name are "Jenna Hager", as is clearly evident in the caption of the photograph here.

I submit that the Jenna Bush article should be renamed to Jenna Hager, and that Jenna Bush simply redirect to Jenna Hager. That way, the public can look up Jenna Bush and find out that her new real name Jenna Hager.

I tried to raise the above issue at WT:Naming conventions (people)#Is "most generally recognisable" in conflict with BLP?, but at least one editor there is waiting for WP:BLP to take the lead, which is why I'm now raising the issue here. That editor cites some prior discussion related to subject preferences (e.g., capitalization of k. d. lang), but nothing that clearly dealt with a BLP subject's legal name. This is a legal issue, not an issue of the subject's preferences. (Yes, it was a matter of preference, but only for the few seconds it took to write the legal name on the wedding certificate. From that point on, it's a legal matter.) Thanks for your attention to this matter. --Art Smart (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Although guidelines sometimes are not clear, we should always consider WP:IAR. Wikipedia is not tabloid to keep popular, over correct articles. So my personal opinion is that guideline about this have to be written in WP:BLP.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between the information present in an article and the title of that article. In the very first sentence of a biography, we should state provide the full legal name of the person (assuming that it is available); however, we need not do so in the title. My suggestion would be to avoid imposing any personal/original standards and instead to rely on the judgment of reliable sources: do they primarily refer to "Jenna Bush", to "Jenna Hager", or "Jenna Bush Hager"? –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Art Smart, do you actually have a reliable source that says she legally changed her name. Wedding picture captions are often made for "traditional" reasons, not legal fact. The White House spokesperson, shortly after the ceremony, didn't even know if there was a change[6]. You're making a big deal out of this, and yet, all you've done is show "Jenna Hager" is used in one place, but you haven't shown the legal status. You're the one making the point that law trumps usage, yet you don't bother to show a legal change, but instead point to usage only. Also, calling somebody with a non-official name is not equivalent to a lie. Saying Obama is a Muslim, is a lie. Omitting his middle name in his article title isn't. Saying "Jeb Bush" is likewise ok, as long as the body of the article gives the facts of his full legal name. Forcing all article titles to be the legally official name of the subject would be quite harmful, and pointless. --Rob (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Jenna Hager: People, People, US Magazine, White House, White House, US Magazine, etc. --Faith (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my point entirely. Jenna Bush is simply an example. The question I put to this group is this: Shouldn't WP:BLP include language requiring fidelity between the BLP subject's legal name and the title of the article about them? As for the specific example you cited, I hardly would consider People magazine anywhere near as reliable a source as the official website of the White House. Would you? --Art Smart (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't WP:BLP include language requiring fidelity between the BLP subject's legal name and the title of the article about them? No. As Rob noted above, using a nickname or alternate name is not equivalent to giving false or inaccurate information, as long as we mention the legal name in the body of the article (assuming that the information is available and there are no special circumstances related to privacy or other legal matters). Using the full legal name of a living person may, in various contexts, be undesirable from an editorial standpoint (longer and less recognisable titles) and from the standpoint of privacy. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested using full legal names. That is a straw man argument. I am fine with first and last names only, as suggested by WP:Naming conventions (people), provided that they are the legal first and last names. --Art Smart (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That a name is "legal" does not mean another name is "illegal". Remember that many people do not use either their legal first or last name publicly. Are they breaking the law? Is Wikipedia breaking the law by using the name "Marilyn Manson" instead of "Brian Warner"? szyslak (t) 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this isn't necessary. BLP is here to remove negative information that is poorly sourced. Our goal is not bureaucratic accuracy. A name is an identifier, and a legal name is not more identifying than a common name. This logic would have Cher redirect to Cherilyn Sarkisian. That isn't a good idea. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

So BLP allows positive information that is poorly sourced? Honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just want to make sure that I understand with precision your considered opinions. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think this is essentially a non-issue:

What is the risk that the president's daughter will sue us because her Wikipedia article is titled "Jenna Bush" and not "Jenna Hager", or vice versa? Even if Jenna Hager is her legal name, that doesn't make Jenna Bush an "illegal" name. (Yes, I know BLP is not just about preventing lawsuits, but I think that point was begging to be raised.)
The "legal name" concept varies among cultures and legal systems.
A person's "legal name" is not his or her "only correct name". If the first name on my birth certificate is "Benjamin", am I committing an untruth if I call myself "Ben"?
The use of the "name that is most generally recognizable" is based on the first principle of WP:Naming conventions, an official policy. A requirement to "use only legal names" would require a policy change both here and at WP:NC.

szyslak (t) 05:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It could easily be solved by moving to Jenna Bush Hager, which a redirect from Jenna Bush, thereby acknowledging her married name, while retaining what made her famous. --Faith (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. An encyclopedia lists people by their legal name. A redirect from plausible search times is obviously in order, perhaps as soft redirects to let people know what's going on. We shouldn't list by what is the most common usage, since that might not be the one that makes the most sense for an encyclopedia. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see an encyclopedia that lists legal names such as Allen Stewart Konigsberg, Maurice Joseph Micklewhite or Marion Morrison. Encyclopedias regularly use common names. WWGB (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Actors are a different bird altogether in that they use their stage name as if it were their legal name (e.g., autographs, etc.). That is far different than a married woman who has adopted her husband's surname. For example, Mrs Tony Blair is listed as Blair, her legal name, even though she uses "Cherie Booth QC" professionally. (Cher, IIRC, changed her name legally to Cher, so that's not a good example). --Faith (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Then let's just stick with maiden names all around. Why bother trying to be correct on a BLP subject? --Art Smart (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

We require reliable sources for information stated in an article. We don't require such sources for editorial decisions we make. Should this person have an article at all? That doesn't depend on whether we can find a story in the mass media asserting that the person meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Should the bio subject's religion, or her cerebral palsy, or his brief youthful stint as a minor-league baseball player be mentioned in the introductory section, or relegated to the body of the article, or omitted entirely? We figure out which presentation of the information will best serve our readers. Titling an article Bill Clinton rather than William Clinton or William Jefferson Clinton is the same type of decision. For the convenience of our readers, we put the article at the title where the greatest number of them will look for it. That's far different from making a false assertion about Barack Obama's religion. JamesMLane t c 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Time and again, I feel like my point is being entirely missed. I am not asking about whether or not to use the middle name, and I am not asking about the use of nicknames (e.g., Bill) instead of given names (e.g., William). What I am asking about is last names of women who get married but do not keep their maiden name. Period. In each and every case, the public is more familiar with the maiden name, and therefore under existing guidelines (i.e., "generally recognizable"), we should never change the name of the article. Is that what we really want? Do we really want article names left over from what the public is used to, or do we want to take advantage of the malleability of Wikipedia to adapt to new realities? Do we want to keep reflecting public misconceptions and ignorance, or do we want to educate by redirecting to articles with the new last names? That is all that I am asking, so everyone, please cease with the straw man arguments, even those made in good faith. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that your concern is clarified (and thank you for that, Arthur), I'm more bemused than ever. Why on earth would we do such a thing? I know some folks still keep to this dying custom in some countries, but unless the rest of the world changes the way the subjects are referred to, I see no reason to go moving articles in violation of "name that is most generally recognizable"! I'd recommend creation of a redirect for those persons for whom we have reliable sources attesting to the name change; but this is not 1908, and I don't think we need to worry about it that much.--Orange Mike | Talk 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (kept his own name when he married, as did his wife)

Yes, my wife and I also kept our original last names, too. But that was our choice, and I would never project my values onto the subjects of BLP articles. So let me get this straight. We must try for as much accuracy in BLP articles as possible, excepting only for the name of the article itself? It bemuses me that the very thing that is most important to get right seems to be treated as the very least important. --Art Smart (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

←I don't think this is a BLP issue, but a styleguide issue, and I believe that it is probably more properly addressed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Unless I'm misunderstanding something, and we're proposing a separate standard for living subjects. :) (Would we move Cicero to Marcus Tullius Cicero even though the man is firmly dead? Presuming we move Dr. Demento to Barret Eugene Hansen, would we then move it back when he died?) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you only if a person could get married posthumously or otherwise legally change their name from the grave. It's a living person issue, IMHO. --Art Smart (talk) 12:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The question of legal name vs. commonly known name would certainly seem to have much wider implications than a name change on the marriage of the subject. It seems inconsistent to move Madonna (entertainer) (a popular name) to Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie (a legal name) without moving Marquis de Sade (a popular name, which is also a title) to Donatien Alphonse François de Sade (a legal name) or George Eliot (a popular name) to Mary Ann Evans (a legal name). Unless, of course, you propose to move the article back to "Madonna" once she dies. In my opinion, that makes it more a style guide issue than a living person issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Posthumous marriage is possible in China, France, and several other countries. Ariadne55 (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with prior posters who have said that this is a manual of style issue rather than a BLP issue. GRBerry 20:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Excepting only for entertainers and writers using lifelong pseudonyms, the most "generally recognizable" name will always be a person's maiden name, even after she marries and happens to choose to legally take her husband's last name. Therefore, a person like Jenna Hager will have an article in Wikipedia under the name Jenna Bush from now until Wikipedia ceases to exist. I simply have no respect for a policy that demands so much accuracy within articles on BLP subjects, but apparently couldn't care less about the accuracy of the very name of the article. Instead of educating the public, this policy serves only to reinforce its widely held misconceptions. Personally, I loathe the Bush administration so very much that part of me is delighted that Wikipedia shall taint Jenna forever with the worst last name in U.S. presidential history. But the wikipedia-loving accuracy-monger in me thinks that such a policy is unfair to her and to anyone other woman who became famous before having a name-changing marriage. --Art Smart (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I lost track of this thread about halfway down, so help me out here. Do you want us to refer to Fleetwood Mac's keyboardist as "Christine Perfect" or as "Christine Quintela"? (not that either suggestion should be taken seriously, of course). — CharlotteWebb 13:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This thread originally had nothing to do with entertainers or others using pseudonyms. Just notable people whose BLP article was named using their legal last name, but who have since changed their legal last name. All other discussion is off point in my opinion as the originator of this section. --Art Smart (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Christine never used a pseudonym, but her legal name has twice changed due to marriage. Could you answer the question? — CharlotteWebb 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Christine Perfect redirects to Christine McVie. I found no article on Christine Quintela. Since a past or present legal last name is being used as part of the base article name, then if her legal last name changes, then that base article should, in my opinion, be moved to use her current legal last name, and the old name redirect to the new name. In other words, all past legal names should redirect to the current name. This proposed algorithm is intended only to apply to BLP articles created using the subject's legal last name, and not to base articles created using a pseudonym or partial name (e.g., Mark Twain, Madonna, Cher). This proposed algorithm also does not address nicknames, middle names, etc., only the last name. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not about legal names, it's about common name. Wikipedia follows the lead of outside sources. If newspapers and magazines routinely refer to an individual by a certain name, that's the one we should use. If newspapers change, then we can change after they do. Wikipedia follows the pack, it doesn't lead it. --El on ka 22:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bingo. In the example of Jenna Bush Hager, newspapers and magazines now routinely refer to her as Jenna Hager. That's exactly how her name appears on the official White House website (see caption of photo here). So am I right that the Jenna Bush article should be moved to Jenna Hager, and change Jenna Bush to a redirect? Please advise. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP Images

I think it's inappropriate to add images that shows an unusual situation of the subject of BLP articles. For example showing Condoleezza Rice with bikini in Barcelona or showing Pope wearing tie in Amsterdam red light district! Even if it happened before and they are real free images, using them is not professional for an encyclopaedia and it might cause problems for the subject of the BLP article. In my mind, it'd be useful if we add a section about BLP images to this policy. Any idea or comment? Hessam (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, most people would not see a woman wearing a bikini or a man wearing a tie as an "unusual situation" (and some would not be alarmed by the opposite situation either). In all seriousness I could never support any kind of policy change that could ever be interpreted in preference of a flattering non-free image over an un-flattering free image, so I'm going to have to dismiss this as potentially dangerous policy creep. Editorial common sense should be applied. If we have several free images to choose from, we put the best ones in the article. If the subject of the article (or their publicist) says "please use a different picture", we might say "please give us a different picture and release it under the GFDL or some other free license". If they give us free pictures, we use them, and everyone is happy. Of course if they say "damned if we release anything under the GDFL [sic], forget it" we might say "Wikipedia will continue using the best available free images P.S. nice legs". Copyright issues might be the only area where policy that hasn't been re-written to provide exceptions based on "BLP". If so I would like it to remain that way. — CharlotteWebb 11:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor children of living people

Twice recently I have reverted edits about the minor children of living people in articles about their (notable) parents. [7] [8] In at least one case the mention of the children was added (apparently) by one of the children involved. I am very wary about the inclusion of information about these children, especially when they are not notable in their own right, but have not seen anything in WP:BLP about this issue. Have I missed the relevant passage?

The latest, very trivial, example involved adding the age of the child. I dislike ages (other than from a template) in Wikipedia as they rapidly become out of date, but adding a template involves knowing the date of birth, which seems like an invasion of privacy too far. Comments? Rachel Pearce (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think, unless the children are notable, or are part of the reason why the parent is notable, there is no need to say anything other than that the subject has x number of children. Going beyond that, to give their names and ages, requires extensive coverage in reliable sources, in my view (eg. children of celebrities such as Tom Cruise, David Beckham and Madonna), and a presumption that the parents have released this information to the public (eg. in newspaper interviews or biographies). If it is clear that the subjects try to keep their private life private, then respect that. I agree with the changes you made - the children are not relevant to those articles. Carcharoth (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

people themselves, routinely in the own posted bios, include information about their children's names and ages. This occurs not only for naïve people on the web, but is found in academic and corporate bios prepared by PR professionals, & in published work dependent on that. A single such source in such cases is enough. Whether it is relevant content here is another matter. The general trend among bio references sources is to include it, as people apparently think it humanizes the subject. That's a relevant purpose of bios, even in an encyclopedia. (Obviously this emphatically does not apply at al when the subject does not himself publicize the information, except in such case as Carharoth mentions. As for continuing accuracy, the solution is very simple: include it as year of birth only. DGG (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In the case I edited the year of birth was not given by the previous editor, only the fact that the child is 3 (or was on the date when the editor entered it) (or was on the date when the source which the editor saw said so). I see what you mean about humanising the subject, but I am not sure giving names and ages is relevant. And what about the situation I mentioned when the child him- or herself is apparently the editor? I suppose (to answer my own questions) we should only add such information when reliably sourced, and someone who purports to be the subject (or their children) is not a reliable source. Rachel Pearce (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

General practice has long been to deprecate the inclusion of details of minor children. It's seldom appropriate to include this information. "X has two children" is quite relevant to the subject of the article, but more is probably not. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think articles should include the subject's children's names and ages. It's a basic biographical fact, like birthplace and spouse's name. As for the Moffat article, according to the guidelines on autobiographies, if Wikipedia already has a page about someone, the subject is allowed to correct facts such as marital status and place of birth. It seems reasonable that the subject's child should be allowed to add his/her own name and birthdate to the subject's page in the appropriate section. They should be held to the usual standard of verifiability, of course. Ariadne55 (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. We need to stop acting like morons, thinking that such information poses any realistic threat whatsoever. And I can't say I agree entirely with the assessment that "General practice has long been to deprecate the inclusion of details of minor children." -- Ned Scott 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

That has been my experience. My point is that such detailed information isn't necessary and it isn't relevant to the person. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 01:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Speedy Category for the new provisions

Please see Wikipedia_talk:CSD#G13. ViperSnake151 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom trying to sneak in policy change

Those interested in the ongoing development of BLP policy might be interested to read this current proposed ArbCom decision. It's been attached to a seemingly unrelated case regarding a boring, technical issue of formatting of reference quotes, where few would be likely to see it before it's a fait accompli, and it grants sweeping new powers to admins to impose their will unilaterally on anything pertaining to a BLP. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I find that pretty disturbing. Anything that clearly and obviously doesn't belong in a BLP is already easily removable; hell, we even ignore the three-revert rule when it comes to BLP. If something is too controversial to be immediately reverted as vandalism or is complicated/potentially real enough to be libel, then it should be reverted and discussed. Anything else needs discussion and consensus for or against inclusion. The regular editing process is absolutely fine for that. If you don't agree with a change, revert it, discuss it, get consensus and either put it back, keep it out, or change it somehow and put it back in. Under no circumstances should such carte blanche measures be granted like this.

Between this and their "sourcing adjudication board", I'd say ArbCom needs a serious re-examination from the community. This is starting to get out of hand. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to register my oppose vote here, because I don't know how to vote there (there's no edit button). It seems like some admin holds a grudge against certain editors and is trying to pre-empt their decisions from being challenged. Scary. Imagine Reason (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The proper course for something like this would have been to recommend it to the community, who could then discuss the question. The clear effect of this will be to bias BLP decisions towards removal of content. I don't see it at aimed against specific editors--I see it aimed against all editors who think NPOV is a core value, more important than the subject's wishes--there are admins perfectly willing to remove material that a subject dislikes under guise of BLP. The only justification for a rule like this would be to deal with emergencies, but we already have office actions for that, & when there is actually a genuine legal problem, it works very well.. DGG (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I entirely agree with DGG. Problem BLPs can be corrected like any article by ensuring content fully complies with WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE, and especially WP:NPOV. Content that complies with those policies and is still thought to be in need of deletion should only be deleted after discussion and detailed explanation for why it is in need of deletion. Again, more thought needs to be put into just why WP:NPOV isn't enough to deal with an article that is unfavourable to a subject. The admin community seems to be in denial about the fact that many Wikipedians have reservations about WP:BLP's potential for supporting articles with a POV favourable to the article subject, given that most admins seem to want "any and all means at their disposal" to enforce the policy. Prospective admins' stand on WP:BLP ought to be a routine question for WP:RfA.Bdell555 (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've challenged (on his userpage) the admin who decided to confront the minority admin who expressed reservations and acknowledged that BLP is contoversial. He defended BLP saying that WP:RS does not "say everything". This is the exactly the sort of thing that is giving free reign to the deletionists to revert material that passes WP:RS (and WP:NPOV and WP:NOTABLE) muster. The non-BLP policies are attacked as not 100% exhaustive because that's the only way room can be made for BLP!(Bdell555 (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also noted that some BLP defenders try to dress up their support for the policy as support for high "standards" of some sort. That is, of course, a mischaracterization of the true origin and rationale for the policy which is not offending or "hurting" the subjects of articles. If it is truly about "standards", why are such worthy standards not applicable to the rest of Wikipedia?. The "do no harm" objective CONFLICTS with "high standards". If it doesn't, then why not solve the BLP problems by just applying the SAME "high standards" that ought to be applied to the entire Wiki project?Bdell555 (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My last point on this is that I think people are fooling themselves if they think the further empowerment of a superclass of Wiki-users with "special authorization" to delete, ban, etc (not only by following the "letter" of the BLP policy but by following whatever their subjective idea of the "spirit" is) is an effective shortcut to a better Wikipedia relative to one ORDINARY edit at a time.Bdell555 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want evidence of the "sneak", see here which includes an involved party's observation that "No one was even interested in the footnotes" and my own, plus this: the subject of the article of the "Footnoted quotes" ISN'T EVEN ALIVE!Bdell555 (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Externalise the debate

Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes.

My view is that one way to tackle the problem of BLP material that is reliably sourced, is to push the issue one stage further back. If external entities (be that businesses or the subject of an article) want to challenge the insertion of a particular piece of information that is sourced to a reliable source, then instead of challenging this on Wikipedia, the entity concerned needs to go on the public record (a press release on their website, newspaper interview, book, blog, and so on) and refute what that reliable source has said. This moves the conflict from Wikipedia, back out to the media "out there". Wikipedia can then continue to document and report both sides of the controversy, while still weighing the pros and cons of each source. Eg. A blog post by subject Y refuting what author X said in a book, or what journalist Z said in a newspaper article, might carry less weight than subject Y successfully getting a retraction or letter printed by the newspaper, or subject Y writing a book that include a refutation of what Wikipedia has been including using the other book as a source. Unless this is done, then Wikipedia becomes part of the problem of media bias, instead of standing outside things and documenting and synthesising the sources to produce an encyclopedia article. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

end quote - please continue discussion below

This is close to the current practice anyways for both BLPs and other articles. I (and I think other editors) routinely say this sort of thing to subjects who are not happy about inaccurate coverage that was repeated in what are under our policies reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the current policy page mention this strategy? If not, it probably should. More to the point, looking at the really rather long page, does anyone read the entire policy any more? I'm sure many people think they know what the policy say (they have "internalized" it) but might not be aware of some of the more intricate points mentioned here. When was the last time the policy page was cleaned up and given a copyedit and reorganisation to get the points across better, while still retaining useful pointers to page containing more detailed guidance? Carcharoth (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe the policy mentions this. It would make sense probably to add a note about it. (I'll try to refrain from making sarcastic remarks about the shock of a change to BLP policy that already actually has something resembling consensus). I however would not be in favor at this time of a general rewrite until the current issues settle down. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference between what Carcharoth is describing and having no BLP policy at all? Ignore the subject's views like this and the article is being subjected to the same standards as non-BLP articles! What is the rationale for a BLP policy if not to take into consideration what BLP subjects would want?Bdell555 (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason we have this policy is to emphasize the urgency of applying the equivalent policies with special vigor, and a few special provisions, in the case of living persons. In the case of persons of marginal significance caught up in events of great significance, this does include taking their wish for privacy into account. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Honouring the wishes of the subject of an article

Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes.

The last time I checked, there is nothing to say we must honor the subject's wishes unconditionally. If there is a debate and the general consensus is that well-sourced, NPOV material is pertinent, then in it goes. Again, BLP musn't be used as a spin mechanism. Otherwise, we'll have every whiner from around the globe wanting to POV slant their article in the best possible light. That is unacceptable. --Dragon695 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The trick is to try and distinguish from those who want material removed because they think they can game the system, and those who are genuinely upset and concerned about the material and don't want it in the article. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to distinguish between the two (though sometimes it does seem obvious). People say that "reliable sources" is an objective way to resolve that conundrum, but the trouble there is that many people point to newspapers as reliable sources, but then you have to distinguish between responsible newspaper coverage, investigative journalism (which can go either way), and tabloid journalism (reporting stories just to sell papers). Newspapers are reliable sources for news, but not always for encyclopedias. The trouble is that articles on living people often rely on newspaper reports and articles. See below for my evolving views on this, and a possible "meta" solution for certain types of BLP problem. Carcharoth (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No. The trick is to handle all BLPs fairly, neutrally, accurately, and verifiably, regardless of what the subjects thereof may or may not request. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't have a BLP policy then. Where does "do no harm" come in if it can be trumped by neutrality, verifiability, etc? The whole point of the policy is to consider the interests of the article subject!Bdell555 (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The sad thing is, There are people that disagree. Also see OPTOUT. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee

The posting of this proposal in its present form seems to have arisen in part from provisions in the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes that give administrators wide discretion in enforcing the Biographies of living persons policy. As such, it is likely to be of special impact in the area of enforcement of this policy. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 16:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP needs clear images statements

An admin deleted an image (and cited WP:BLP) on twink (gay slang) and blocked two users for a month each. Neither user seemed to have been warned although arguably they should have known better? I didn't as I added the image in the first place and it was there for a while. Later the admin stated "adding an image of a living person to any article on a potentially pejorative term, gay or otherwise, is wholly unacceptable". In this case arguably the subject would have seen the term as a compliment rather than a pejorative but I do agree that it's better to have someone clearly identified with the article's subject instead so we are free of drama. The BLP policy doesn't seem to address directly this issue, at all, so I would suggest something be added. Also including that an accurate, clear and verifiable caption with the image so it's clear to readers why this person in the photo is included on the article is recommended. Banje boi 19:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, one of them was warned before-hand. The other should've known better instead of continuing the edit-war. It goes back to the purpose of this policy - editors need to be sensitive to other living persons - on this subject, some people will object or perhaps even be offended in the way the image is used in that case, and a reasonable person can foresee this. Care must be taken in the content you put in a BLP - even if it's an image. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

- I didn't see the warning but I still feel a month block seemed more like punishment than prevention. Regardless, myself and at least one other experienced editor looked to see any clarification and found nothing. Wikipedia goes to great lengths to be helpful and explain things elsewhere so I feel we can add a bit here and I'm not seeing a downside to doing so. Banjeboi 04:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  - I'm just saying that it does, in my view, involve an element of common sense for the reasons I cited above - but I'm neither objecting, or supporting your proposal itself. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP is regularly applied to images, both in terms of having them and using them. In practice, the policy is regularly applied across the entire wiki, but the implications of various namespaces and situations may vary. It might not hurt to clarify particular concerns with images, in the non-article space section. If we're looking for other examples, I believe there's been some controversies over images of "strippers" and whether certain images can or should be classified as such. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A major problem with that use of the image was that it involved original research. Apparently someone saw the image and decided it fit the description so used it to illustrate the article. However that problem isn't directly related to BLP. A side issue is whether the image contains a recognizable person. Presumably pictures of unrecognizable people aren't a problem. So, if an image is altered to obscure the face then the BLP issues would be avoided. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Admin in Question's actions were essentially correct, maybe a bit more "knock it off"s could've been issued, but that's neither here nor there. Labelling anyone with a possibly objectionable term, phrase or accusation is unacceptable. If we know they don't object, then its fine. So I could add commons:Image:WilyD.png to Pasty-looking white guys with terrible fashion sense, but unless I so declared myself, you could not. This is pretty unambigious. Wily D 20:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I think I was the original adder and most of those working on the article still see this as not so common sense although in hindsight, to me at least, I would have problems with using the photo now without sourcing that he was labeled a twink by himself or otherwise to satisfy concerns. I see the problem as presuming someone would be offended as being seen as a gay person (the shock, the horror). To flip that, do we think someone would be offended to be assumed to be heterosexual? If all those involved were newby editors perhaps we could just look at it as inexperience but all of us are pretty used to following protocols and when directed toward a policy, checking up on the issue. I also recall a lengthy battle on Chris Daly, a local politician who seemed to be maligned by a photo showing him SCREAMING AT FULL VOLUME two inches from a police officer's face. Eventually this image was deleted as unfree. Having something for well-intended editors to lean on for guidance would be helpful including some resources of where to turn if one is unsure. There does seem to be plenty of gray area here as well as a keen interest to improve the project with images whenever possible. If it's pretty unambigious then there should be little problem putting it into policy cited. Banje boi 20:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

EC, reply to WilyD: Well, some of that is the OR issue. If someone had called the person in that photo a "Pasty-looking white guys with terrible fashion sense" in a reliable source, then using the photo to illustrate that would not necessarily be a problem, even if the person might object to that designation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Err, which is why someone who has won an award for being a "Twink" is a viable illustration, whilst some J Random KlubKid is not. But I'm hard pressed to imagine who'd object to my example as OR given the usual leeway afforded photos. Wily D 21:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Judging from common practice, images are already subject to BLP (if sometimes in esoteric ways), so we might as well say so. I've drafted a brief entry to that effect. Thoughts? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I think it's a good start, I suggest instead a separate images section under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy as that seems to be the overiding issue and where I would hope to see something if I were told "removed image per WP:BLP". I'd be happy to draft a bit up if that would help. Banje boi 01:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

solution to NPOV concerns

I propose that the following declaration be added to the BLP policy in order to reaffirm WP:NPOV:

Whereas the neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of the project, no element of this policy should be interpreted, cited, or enforced in such a way as to support any action (or derivative policy) which discriminates against edits and/or articles unfavourable to a subject over edits and/or articles favourable to a subject, both being in EQUIVALENT need of adherence to WP:NPOV, all else equal.

Bdell555 (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not needed. The policy already says at the very beginning "Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: Neutral point of view (NPOV) ..." WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No,that is not equivalent to my proposed declaration. Expand that quote and it says "Editors must take particular care adding..." (my emphasis). My proposal goes towards acknowledging that fidelity to WP:NPOV requires that editors take equivalent care DELETING as per the declaration that there should be no discrimination in terms of the need for Wiki actions to adhere to WP:NPOV. If there is any messaging coming out of the current policy that discourages editors from deleting NPOV articles into POV (and/or less informative) articles, it is drowned out by the messaging that encourages deletion.

I might add that if redundant policy should be avoided, the entire WP:BLP page should be deleted on the grounds that everything in it is redundant with other policies. If anything in it is NOT redundant, please identify which elements are not, in fact, redundant. It would greatly aid an analysis of what the fundamental issues are here were those incremental elements be before us for discussion.Bdell555 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to see anything that would discourage editors from removing any and all material over which there is the slightest question. Omission is not what causes harm.

Moreover the proposed wording states the opposite of our policy: the BLP exists precisely because negative and positive statements are not equivalent in their effect in the real world. Negative statements must be treated with far more sensitivity and require far more attention. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

"Omission is not what causes harm."

And omission is not what creates a positive good. If our only objective is to minimize harm, we should delete the entire Wikimedia project.

"negative and positive statements are not equivalent in their effect in the real world"

A negative statement may create 5 units of negative utility for one individual, but if it also creates a billionth of a unit of positive utility for 6 billion readers, it's positive in net effect. Meanwhile, a positive statement may create 5 units of positive utility for one individual, but if it also creates a billionth of a unit of negative utility for 6 billion readers, it's negative in net effect. That isn't to say that my claims about effects are proved, but to say that yours aren't either. The effects are disputed (or unknown).

If we were to adopt your consequentialism, then it ultimately wouldn't matter if an edit violated any and all abstract rules so long as the expected concrete effect is to reduce "harm in the real world". If the expected effect is disputed (there may be 6 billion variables involved), there would be no way to resolve the dispute since we don't recognize common rules that can be appealed to. Your consequentalism thus has to be rejected in favour of a process oriented system where it doesn't matter what an edit's expected effect "in the real world" is so long as it complies with the process. Deletion (or addition) that pushes a POV might have all sorts of supposed positive effects "in the real world" but it should still be prohibited given that it violates "a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of the project"; - persons of an opposing POV would dispute the expection of positive effects. Indeed, although Wikipedia's ultimate objective may be tell the truth, that actually falls out as irrelevant in this collaborative project because consequentialist appeals can't resolve anything when the truth is unknown or disputed. One has to appeal to process and we must simply assume that the best possible world ultimately results from the best possible process. This is, in effect, a long winded way of saying that critical process rules like WP:NPOV cannot be subject to consequentialist arguments like the argument that a certain class of articles should be favourable to the subject if that minimizes harm. There are offsetting costs to that and they may take the form of forgoing gazillions of imperceptibly small units of good or, alternatively, units of good that are remote in time and place and so not immediately appreciable.Bdell555 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The above may alternatively be considered an argument that "do no harm" is too narrowly defined when it is restricted to the subjects of articles. The difficulties of appreciating the harm, or foregone positive effects, to the general population in as an emotional, immediate, or concrete way as to a single article subject, is ultimately no argument against the need to consider those effects. The argument for a narrowing of "do no harm"'s application must be proven, not just assumed.Bdell555 (talk) 14:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask for your views on a hypothetical:

An article is fully WP:NPOV compliant. However, it causes hurt, distress, and offence to the subject. The subject has even both informally and formally complained. Moreover, there is overwhelming consensus in the Wiki community that the that article causes harm to the subject. The subject requests changes that would make the article POV. Objective third parties could foresee that these changes would be requested since it is was apparent that only POV altering changes would minimize the harm to the subject. Do you support making the changes?

I raise this as a hypothetical because in any actual case where this emerged, the people supporting the changes would bend over backwards to argue that in the particular case at hand, WP:NPOV and the minimization of harm are being simultaneously accomodated without conflict.Bdell555 (talk) 14:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The questions you raise are part of a long and ongoing philosophical debate over the nature and boundaries of the right to privacy, See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/ and our privacy article. Wikipedia has taken a position, embodied in this policy, that does not accept your utilitarian calculus. This is in accord with many laws, and ethical codes, e.g. Journalism ethics and standards#Harm limitation principle, but you are of course free to disagree. It doesn't seem that there is much interest in rehashing that debate again here.--agr (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually arguing against use of a utilitarian calculus. In essence, I'm saying that although it may ultimately all come down to utility, the ends don't justify the means at intermediate or prior steps. So in effect utility drops out as irrelevant. I used a utilitarian calculus above to suggest that if you broaden the scope of a proposed utilitarian calculus out towards the "ultimate" scope, it's not clear that the "ultimate" end is in fact served by the action that serves the intermediate (more obvious?) end.

Kant, for example, is famously anti-utilitarian and I believe he once posited a hypothetical which today we might present as the Gestapo knocking on your door and asking if the innocent fugitive X you are harbouring is in your home. If the (immediate) ends justify the means you should lie. But Kant didn't think you should because it presumes too much knowledge with respect to the larger scope. What are they going to do next? What is the fugitive going to do? What if, because of what you said, they took an action such that they walked right into the fugitive as he snuck out a side door without your knowledge? The bottom line is thus that you shouldn't lie, ever, and if support is needed for having such a rule it would be that it serves the ultimate end.

Telling people to "do no harm" is like telling people it is OK to lie sometimes, because if you don't, and the Gestapo gets the fugitive, his blood in on your hands. But then you'll inevitably get all sorts of problems sorting out whether someone's lying was justified or not.

re privacy, I certainly grant that if Mr X kicked a dog in the street years ago that isn't something that should generally go in. But that's primarily because I don't think that would satisfy WP:NOTABLE. If two facts are equally notable but one goes in because its positive and and the other stays out because its negative, you've got a WP:NPOV violation. I think it would go over better if "do no harm" advocates conceded that and just said it was worth it instead of pretending that there is no violation. If the positive one comes out too, that solves the WP:NPOV violation (although that might just double the WP:NOTABLE violation, I'm not sure WP:NOTABLE is a cornerstone). However, where in the policy are editors instructed to take out positive material? No where that I can see. Meanwhile, the deletion of negative material is cheered on at every turn.Bdell555 (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. I had never really thought of it in quite that way before. And I have to agree; I see a crusade against the insertion of unsourced BLP material whenever I go anywhere BLP-related. However, barring A7s and the like, which are obvious and egregious positive material, you don't really see people go after unsourced positive material as much. It's a hypocrisy that's been around for quite a while. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"Barring A7s and the like" is a bit much. By my reckoning, there have been about 30 "A7 bio" deletions in the past six hours. Not all of them will be hagiographies, of course, some will certainly be hate pieces. However many will have been attempts to promote some unknown. But what's that got to do with the fact that, unsurprisingly, we want to take the removal of seriously damaging material more seriously? Your argument doesn't make sense. Suppose you see some guys beating up a women in the mall. If you rush to help her, are you going to be called a hypocrite because you didn't object the last time your mother compared Elvis Presley to Jesus Christ? Of course not. We take damaging actions more seriously than unwarranted praise. --Jenny 11:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course damaging actions are more serious. To go out and physically beat someone up, however, I have to log off first. Replace “guys” with words. And not our words, but a reliable source’s words, which we simply repeat, all the while maintaining neutrality and objectivity.

Suppose it’s Hitler instead of a woman in the mall and it’s Germany in the 1920s. A stirring, widely attended speech he gave makes him somewhat notable and so a NPOV bio was created that contains well sourced, notable facts that indicate that he’s highly motivated, charismatic, says he will take on the communists and the special interests, wants his country restored to greatness, is a decorated veteran of the Great War, etc as well as providing some reliably sourced, notable facts that suggest he may be something of a thug. Hitler submits 10 complaints saying his reputation is being brought into disrepute and threatening legal action. The OFFICE decides to temporarily remove the material that doesn't advance his reputation “as a courtesy” (to quote from WP:OFFICE). Later a user puts the material back in but is promptly reverted by users sympathetic to the subject citing "do no harm", the clear priority WP:BLP places on removing "contentious" material over non-contentious, and the need to adhere "strictly" to the laws of (in this case) pre-WWII Germany. All of the material which makes him appealing to a large segment of the population, however, remains. Hitler rises to power, with the general population largely ignorant of him apart from his popular political positions and his past accomplishments. Years later, millions of people are dead. Wouldn’t Wikimeda’s responsibility for such a "real world" outcome in fact be lower if Wiki policy had consistently said that it does not try to anticipate and take into account "real world" effects?

With respect to our legal liability, we’ve given up the “don’t shoot the messenger” defence when we are no longer neutral conduits. When we start discriminating with respect to material that is of equal notability and reliability, we are taking on editorial responsibility for what gets through. We’ve taken on an agenda (to “minimize harm”), and if it should somehow backfire on us, we can’t plead that we were just minding our own business (our business being restricted to creating and maintaining encyclopedic articles that are neutral and reliably sourced).

Anyway, I’ll withdraw my “proposed declaration”, because even if uncontroversial it’s too much like a Declaration of Independence, i.e. a noble statement of mission but not something people routinely refer to guide their daily actions. I’d rather just propose a dialing down of the …affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility" stuff. That language opens the door to users to give short shrift to other Wiki policies arguing, "we have a greater responsibility here (such that the ends justify the means)". There should also be more neutrality with respect to deletion encouragement such that, for example, "and negative in tone" should be scratched from "Administrators encountering biographies that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion," OR, in the alternative, the whole sentence calling for discriminatory deletion should be cut.Bdell555 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The rhetorical form was never more cruelly tortured than in your above argument. The BLP does not justify the removal of references to significant, widely reported speeches by politicians. --Jenny 20:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

In this example, he's not yet head of a political party. He's a just a popular speaker, and the speech itself doesn't appear in the article, just a mention of the fact he's known for his speeches, and that's not what Hitler wants out, what he wants out is the "facts that suggest he may be something of a thug". These reliably sourced facts were obtained by looking at more than just his speeches.Bdell555 (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a statement in the New York Times or the Guardian saying the he's known for his speeches blaming Jews for the state of Germany, the ADL have complained and whatnot, I don't think a polite note from Mr Hitler's publicist will get the content removed. If he's an exceptionally minor politician whose hateful speech was covered by the sports reporter of the KrappenDorfer Zeitung (circulation 3000), well yes, we'll probably remove the article per CSD-A7. --Jenny 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

"Upload and placement of images is subject to this policy, in some circumstances. BLP-relevant content that is inappropriate in text form remains inappropriate in image form." has been added to the policy. I agree a sentence or two saying this is useful. However, perhaps we can phrase it better. Any suggestions? I'll start with one. Others please add other suggestions. Then we can pick. WAS 4.250 (talk)

"Upload and placement of images is subject to this policy, in some circumstances. BLP-relevant content that is inappropriate in text form remains inappropriate in image form." - current added with comment : 21:17, 30 June 2008 Luna Santin (Talk | contribs) (37,555 bytes) (→Non-article space: drafting an explicit images statement, per common practice and talk page thread) (undo)
"Upload and placement of images is subject to this policy because BLP-relevant content that is inappropriate in text form remains inappropriate in image form." - WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Before we try to settle on wording, maybe we should discuss just what a BLP image policy should cover. Images that portray an individual in a bad light, say holding a beer, or scantly clad, would generally be inappropriate, but what about plain photos of people who do not want their image publicized? --agr (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be best to settle on wording that merely clarifies that the policy applies to images - which should be already obvious. That way it will be consistent with the rest of the policy no matter how the rest of the policy is worded at any time.

The specific issue you raise could be a concern under the aspect of the BLP policy regulating privacy invasion, but it would only be so for people where it truly is hard to find a photo of them used in reliable sources. It would not be relevant to photos of poor photographic quality - blurry, obscured, et. cetera. GRBerry 20:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

comment. (see previous discussion above at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP needs clear image statement)

Respectfully disagree. Although I don't see it as needing to be overly lengthy some clarity would be helpful as there is disagreement about what is or is not obvious. I suggest a separate images section under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Presumption in favor of privacy as that seems to be the overiding issue and where I would hope to see something if I were told "removed image per WP:BLP". I'd be happy to draft a bit up if that would help. Banjeboi 01:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If all we want is a mention that images are included, I'd suggest modifying the last paragraph in the intro to begin: "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. It covers all aspects of an article including images, templates and categories." But I agree with Banjeboi that we should say more as is it not obvious how BLP applies to images. --agr (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

subject's preferences about including sourced, public, relevant information

There's an question I'd like to get a consensus on from Wikipedia at large. What is the position of factual information that the subject of the article has been open about publicly, but simply doesn't want to be published here?

A folksinger, Jay Brannan, identifies as gay, and has discussed this in various places with various publications -- the fact can very easily be given published sources. However, he dislikes Wikipedia and has strongly expressed the wish not to be identified as gay in his article on this site.

This question was discussed on his talk page some time ago and his orientation was removed. However, I want to re-open the discussion (which I missed at the time). Reading over WP:BLP I'm not sure it really calls for the removal, as the information is neither uncertain nor private as such -- he just doesn't want us to say it.

[It should be noted that he can hardly be blamed for seeing WP as unreliable -- a joke paragraph with detailed false information about him remained in his article long enough for a journalist to see it and ask him in an interview about his "struggle" with a disease he doesn't have. Embarrassing!]

The subject is not a prominent one, but as WP:BLP is still fairly new and has been contentious, I think it's worthwhile for the wider WP community to consider the topic.

Dybryd (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The section that says "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." Unless he is notable for being gay, I don't see why the information belongs in the article. Our bios shouldn't be clipping dossiers containing every fact about about a subject that ever appeared in a reliable source.--agr (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Both his music and his acting -- the things for which he's notable -- focus on gay sexuality.

Dybryd (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say include it, no question about it. NPOV is not negotiable, period. If you can find multiple reliable sources that assert that given fact, then there's no reason not to include it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a case where we'd remove something simply because the subject doesn't like it. Now he doesn't want an article on Wikipedia, but he isn't so obscure that we'd ever consider deleting it. His music and acting have attracted attention on both sides of the Atlantic.

Besides wanting the whole article deleted, and complaining about a picture that belongs to him being used (presumably since removed) Brannen says in his blog "i hate when my sexuality is sewn to my very name as if it were on my birth certificate, particularly when it is completely unrelated to the ensuing paragraph."

Of course we should never do what he describes, in any case. If his sexuality is relevant (and it looks like it probably is, given his appearance in, for instance, in Shortbus), then it may be mentioned, in the context in which it is relevant. The mere fact that somebody is gay or straight isn't taboo, but it shouldn't be stuck into an article like a label, irrespective or relevance, because that would be non-neutral. It would be saying "this person's sexuality is very relevant to his existence." And if it isn't, which for most people it really isn't, we shouldn't be saying that. If you look at the New York Times article, that's a good example of appropriate mention of Brannen's sexuality. In the context of his music, he is quoted contrasting his style to Rufus Wainwright, who is described by the interviewer as "another openly gay young singer-songwriter." This doesn't define him or label him inappropriately; the text is quite a way down the article, after references to portraits of a former boyfriend that decorate the walls of Brannan's flat in Chelsea.

So yeah, mention his sexuality where it is relevant. But no, don't write (and I'm sure you weren't going to write) "Jay Brannan is a gay singer-songwriter..." in the lead, or "Brannan, who is gay, lives in New York City.." or whatever. For the same reason it wouldn't be sensible to say "Stevie Wonder, who is blind..." or "Stevie Wonder is a blind singer" or "Stephen Hawking is a quadraplegic theoretical physicist or "Gene Vincent was a crippled rock and roll star" or "Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a crippled President". --Jenny 12:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Afd on Brannan's article has plenty of sources listed as well as reasoning why it was scrubbed at that time. IMHO, he's kidding himself, his body of work, as an actor and singer, has revolved around sexuality issues but we can be kind in his case and reference it much lower in the bio so it feels less impactful. In cases like this I recommend building the article with plenty of references about other notable aspects of his life and work to see if a logical and more subtle place to reference this information presents itself. Good writing sometimes smooths over the hot button issue du jour. Banje boi 02:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

IMDb - is there any common result if IMDb is reliable or not?

Hello! 1. Is there any stable information anywhere on Wikipedia that has established if IMDb is a reliable source for Bios of Living Persons or if it is not?

2. If there is no established result, is then there any stable and established guideline anywhere on Wikipedia if a not finally discussed source like IMDb could be used for such Bios?

Please give links to Wikipedia-pages for question 1 and 2, if you say there are any final established results!

Greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.16 (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus that IMDb is a reliable source; it is too easy to put false or self-serving information into it. (I ought to know; although everything in my IMDb profile is correct, they have little way of knowing that for certain.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the BLP board has an overview on this but the general gist is no, not terribly reliable, you can use for harmless (uncontroversial) content but it's usually better to utilize better sources if available. Banje boi 02:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Single-sourced claims

I'd like to propose adding the following to WP:BLP#Sources:

Be cautious about assertions concerning living people that are sourced to one source only, particularly if the assertions are contentious. A surprising or apparently important claim that is not covered by (other) mainstream sources may constitute a "red flag". If a claim is significant, it will most likely be covered in multiple reliable sources. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

This essentially highlights the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and leads on to the requirements of WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown ("Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources..."). If multiple, highly reliable sources are not available for such information, the obvious conclusion is that it should not be included. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a reasonable proposal. I support the inclusion of the paragraph. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there are too many exceptions to this to make this a general rule. It's often a good guideline, but making it firm policy would lead to madness. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There are too many things to take into account when evaluating the validity of a claim. We should not try to list them all. A claim with "only one source" is evaluated how? Only one source listed as a reference on wikipedia? Only one source found after a quick google? We can not verify that a claim actually has only one source for it. The best we can do is bring more people and time and effort into evaluating a claim. That's what consensus is all about and it is already policy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The basic principle would be that thinly sourced, highly damaging material should not be included unless it's been covered in more than one reliable source. Here's the kind of scenario that I'm looking at. Suppose an editor finds a single (but not official) source that alleges that a living person is corrupt, a pedophile or war criminal. That is obviously the kind of claim that needs to be treated very carefully. If it's relevant, then there may be a good case for including it. However, at the very least such a contentious claim should be sourced to more than one reliable source, on the principle that it may not be significant if it's not been covered elsewhere. It's legitimate, of course, to ask editors to evaluate a contentious claim. But should it be added to an article on the basis of a single source, which may have its own agenda in promoting that claim? And what is to be done if something in an article is already present, but no further sources supporting a claim can be found?

BLP already provides that contentious claims should only be added if "corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources". The obvious corollary is that such claims should not be added if corroboration by "multiple, highly reliable sources" is lacking. I believe the onus should be on the editor who wishes to add the claim to demonstrate that it has indeed been corroborated, and that existing material that cannot be so corroborated should be removed. What do the rest of you think? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned about implementation. On the one hand, it's always a good idea to have multiple sources. But on the other, I wouldn't want to see every single claim in a BLP article have to be followed by a double footnote. I also would not want to see information being removed under the "not enough sources" clause. For example, if we have information in an article that's sourced to a frontpage New York Times article, and someone wants to challenge it, it might be reasonable to come up with some sort of "additional sources needed" tag, or have a discussion about it on the talkpage. But I wouldn't want to see people just deleting what appears to be perfectly well-sourced information and just say "BLP violation". That would become an enforcement nightmare. --El on ka 23:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't agree with this rule because often an important issue will just get covered by one source. It's best to judge on a case by case basis using reason. ImpIn | (t - c) 02:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Some fair points there. Thanks for the feedback; I'll have to have a think about this one. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If something is important, how is it only covered by a single source? That doesn't make sense. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 12:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with that logic is that it scales up: "If something is important, how is it only covered by ten sources?" I was recently in a dispute where over 50 sources were compiled to support some assertions, but editors who didn't want the material included said the sources just copied each other, that the media and scholars were biased, etc. As a practical matter, most writers will stop looking for sources after they've found one good one, and some editors have even gone through articles and stripped out excessive citations. I think the current text, that calls for "high-quality reliable sources", is sufficient. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP is an extension of V and NPOV, and cannot "trump" these policies. If wording is available in these policies, such as [[Exceptional claims in Wikipedia, these can be presented here as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding slander/libel cases

It seems to me to be counterproductive that we do not to date specifically indicate that notable allegations which have been found in court or elsewhere to have been scurrilous are not specifically indicated as being includable. One case in particular with comes to mind is Bill Janklow, regarding the unfounded accusations of rape made by Peter Matthiesen. Inclusion of information to the effect that the allegations were examined and found to be unsubstantiated in court, as was the case here, would seem to me to possibly be in the best interests of the subject, rather than potentially damaging. Such inclusion of statements that the allegations were found to be unsubstantiated would make it much less likely that they would be repeated in the future for the purposes of damaging the individual involved. In this particular case I have no doubt that the defamation case qualifies as notable enough for inclusion. Comments? John Carter (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If I understand your first sentence correctly, you want this policy to say that "allegations which have been found in court or elsewhere to have been scurrilous" are always includable in BLPs. Putting aside the problem of instruction creep, this seems like something that should be considered on a case-by-case basis and also an area where the subject's wishes should be given weight.--agr (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources (reliability)

The pertinent section of this page on sources says:

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link... Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

I have several comments and queries on what that implies, and what I see as (potential) serious flaws in it as a guideline/rule.

Firstly, is the implication that such sources should not be used about a living person that they may be more acceptable for non-living persons?
Secondly, a blanket (semi-)ban on "self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs" (excepting newspaper blogs) cuts out a LOT of potentially important sources, particularly in the area of articles on comic books.
- Until relatively recently, very little - if anything - has been written "officially" about the early creators of comics, but a lot was uncovered by dilligent fans from the 1960s onwards. Interviews with creators, articles on comics and creators, checklists, etc. were published by these fans in fanzines and self-published pamphlets. Much of this information is little-known and rarely reprinted - should they all automatically be frowned upon as sources?
- Is the suggestion that a "properly"-published book is automatically a better source than a self-published book? Does that include self-published titles that then find a more mainstream publisher, because that would seem bizarre logic!
- Similarly, a lot of current research and articles on comics draw on the research of the fans and the fanzines. So many creators have died that there is no longer any primary source material to write about these areas. Does a source become "better" when it is published more officially, even if it is identical?
- Some notable comics historians have websites and blogs. Mark Evanier is one such individual. His obituaries for various people often contain information that cannot be found elsewhere, and include much more insider information and facts than do "official" newspaper obituaries (and so forth).

Clearly it shouldn't be a free-for-all, but I think that the guidelines as stated are too strongly phrased and prohibit the use of some sources which are exceptionally useful. "Common sense," I feel, should be allowed some leeway, particularly with regards to zines, websites and blogs. It surely shouldn't be restricted to the point that only blogs, zines and websites written by the individual in question are acceptable. ntnon (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

On Teapot Tempests

A BPL issue I've witnessed repeatedly arises when the subject of an article is suddenly embroiled in a conflict or controversy in which one or more editors are involved, either as parties or as sympathizers. They then add a "Controversy" section to the article, detailing the recent (and often ongoing) conflict. Any experienced editor will recognize the syndrome and anticipate the edit war that ensues; for examples, see Jimmy Wales, Dave Winer, and many other pages.

To avoid the appearance of POV pushing, the skiller controversialist will include denials of the reported behavior. But this, too, is often problematic:

It was reported in [1] and [2] that Mr. Clump often beat his wife, although [3] cast doubt on the reports and says that, in any case, Mr. Clump no longer beats either his wife or his pony.

The underlying problem here is often one of proportion: on the one hand, we have an encyclopedic view of an entire career, while on the other hand we have a specific squabble that may be of great importance to the parties involved but which, because it is close to them and recently in the news, seems to carry more weight than it does. A small story in yesterday's New York Times seems like a bigger deal than a small story in the September, 1936 issue of the Boston Herald -- not least because the intervening years let us know whether that little story was the seed of something important, or became tomorrow's fish wrap.

A remedy for the syndrome would be to apply extraordinary requirements for notability on BLP entries regarding events less than (say) 6 months old. This would not unduly cripple discussion of newsworthy figures (although, of course, an encyclopedia is not a newspaper); you wouldn't have to wait six months to write "A. B. Clump Elected President!" But the presumption would be that, if "Clump accused of wife beating" belongs in the encyclopedia today, it will still belong in 6 months time. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Such "expansionism" might not be the result of efforts to merely "avoid the the appearance of POV pushing". It may be the result of something falling into the grey area in terms of whether it should be in or out, but we have just a binary option: include or exclude. Since you can't exclude and qualify, one must include and qualify. The qualification isn't thus a discretionary tactic for appearances but a necessary one. Anyway, we should try and imagine how a print encyclopedia that could be continously updated would handle the matter. I'd think your observations here would apply to WP:NOTABLE as opposed to just WP:BLP. It's not clear to me that there is a definable relationship between the age of a source and its notability or reliability.Bdell555 (talk) 08:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It is proverbially difficult to just the true notability of events that are happening now -- that's why we prefer to leave History to be written by the next generation. And it's obviously hard to judge the notability of events that are happening now and to you or to your friends. The combination yields endless disputes and does untold damage to the project: look, over the past year or two, and the number of adverse stories about Wikipedia in mainstream media that ultimately trace their origin to precisely this syndrome. BLP is broken. How can we fix it? Not, I think, by WP:NOTABLE alone, because to one side of this edit war it's obviously notable. A simple rule -- you'll have to wait six months -- might save an awful lot of "special enforcement" of BLP. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If things are broken I believe it is because human nature is broken. People have a regrettable tendency to gossip. Why don't print encyclopedias have as much of a problem? Because they have high standards in terms of who can edit. I think the solution is to decrease Wikipedia's accessibility to new and anonymous users in problem areas instead of trying to tilt our content policies. Perhaps we should apply your 6 month cooling off period to users as opposed to content such that BLPs are closed to users with less than 6 months experience?Bdell555 (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that "adverse stories about Wikipedia in mainstream media" may just mean Wikipedia has "arrived". When you've got millions of articles, you are going to have more bad ones than when you just had hundreds. We went from hundreds to millions regardless.Bdell555 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Jed Babbin article

Jed Babbin says his wikipedia page is inaccurate and has said that it has caused him problems - "HUMAN EVENTS’ Editor Jed Babbin has had to gently correct people more than once who introduce him using the Wikipedia biography of him because it’s inaccurate and out-of-date. “I do a great many radio interviews, and it’s amazing how many hosts use the Wikipedia bio to introduce me,” he said. “It is wrong in many respects and out of date -- by several years -- in others. I hate to correct a host on the air, but if they’re relying on Wikipedia, they should expect to be corrected. I can’t imagine any journalist relying on it as a source, or to even check quotes.” From this article. Perhaps someone should check this out. Remember (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That should have been Jed Babbin. 2ndAmendment (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

revised. Remember (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've copied your comments to WP:BLP/N which is the best place to deal with specific articles that are of concern Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Implications of the Bauer case

IANAL, but this Signpost article seems to imply that Wikipedia/WMF does not have anything to worry about from a legal perspective (ethics aside) with regard to having negative unsourced or poorly sourced information in biographies of living people. Do you share this interpretation? Skomorokh 11:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No. And never mind the foundation - that case dismissal was pretty clear that a suit could be brought against editors. GRBerry

Would you mind expanding your answer (with regard to the foundation)? Skomorokh 17:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Provided that courts agree that the WMF isn't the publisher of its projects, but merely the equivalent to the operator of a message board, it's immune from defamation lawsuits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. In that case, liability for what's written on Wikipedia falls not to the WMF, but to the individual writing it, just like on a message board. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That is how I interpret it, but would you say that is reliable enough information to have a "don't worry about the foundation" culture with respect to BLP? Skomorokh 17:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it got substantially more reliable with this court case, I'd say. As for whether it's reliable enough for the attitude you propose, I'm not sure, but I don't think we need to answer that. There are very good reasons for a stringent BLP policy (as you seem to acknowledge in your first post in this thread), and I don't see it as material for our purposes whether those reasons include WMF liability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was idly hoping for a reduction in BLP paranoia (specifically, admin decimation of articles on a whim) and a return to, you know, WP:V. Oh well, Skomorokh 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WMF liability has ever been the primary motivator behind BLP, since I think most of us have been operated under the assumption that the WMF was 230-immune. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I know it wasn't primary, but I thought it might have some weight in particular areas, for example in repeating widely known but controversial claims. Skomorokh 18:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(Disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer) But I have studied these issues. It's certainly a significant result. But it's a fairly low-level decision, and frankly, the position in favor of liability wasn't extensively argued. So by no means is it the last word on the topic. I think it can be safely said there will be other cases in the future. Moreover, there may be efforts to change the law, since it was passed before the sort of problem created by the use of Wikipedia as an attack-platform became evident. I'll predict that the more legal decisions go in favor of immunity, the more there will be a backlash to legislatively remove that immunity. The bottom line is it'll be a long time, if ever, before phrases like "does not have anything to worry about" would be applicable. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment Seth, that puts things in a useful context. Skomorokh 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Foundation wants to keep its projects healthy. Consider the effect of a lawsuit against arbcom. Does the foundation set up a defence fund? Does it contribute to that fund? Does it lose immunity if it does? Does it lose community support if it sits on its hands and does nothing if its editors and/or admins and/or editors are sued? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As others have said, BLP 'paranoia' as Sko calls it (don't agree with the wording but doesn't matter I guess) has never been much about legal concerns so the legal decision doesn't really affect matters much. Also, besides the US legal issues mentioned above which make this far from clear cut, it's worth mentioning that the WMF could potentially be sued for defaming someone who lives in another country in that person's home country, as shown by Dow Jones & Co. Inc. v Gutnick and a number of similar cases in different countries. The WMF could ignore such a lawsuit, but if successful, it may effect their ability to do business in whatever country that is, e.g. WMF chapters (maybe even donations), official representatives in those countries, hiring developers from there, hosting wikimania conferences etc etc. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I don't think the WMF would necessarily cave (as it doesn't seem to in the case of the Chinese government), but it is something to bear in mind. Le meas, Skomorokh 16:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rut roh, wikilawyering!

From the standpoint of some laws, a corporation or similar entity is considered a "person". Does this policy specifically apply only to individual human beings? It should probably say so either way. A previous discussion seems to imply that this policy only applies to human beings. In many cases, this falls under WP:WELLKNOWN. Something like Kirkwood Community College is probably WP:NPF, but it is a public entity. Proposed language change to WP:WELLKNOWN:

"The term person may include entities such as corporations, and this is the only section of the policy that uses person to mean anything but an individual human being. In the case of significant public figures and public entities such as businesses, political parties, and community organizations, there will be ~~a multitude of~~ reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia ~~biographies~~ articles should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

Alternatively, a proposed change to the lead:

"This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages. For the purpose of this policy, person only applies to individual human beings. Articles about other entities that might be referred to as a person must follow relevant wikipedia policies, particularly WP:NPOV and WP:SOURCES. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material."

(struck text removed, bolded text added). If the consensus is that this is just WP:CREEP, I see no problem with leaving it out. I'm partially wrestling with a question that's come up with the Intelligent Design page, where a lot of notable people have said a lot of very unkind things about the movement and the tone of the article is a matter of some contention. I'm not sure if the proposed text above would have any relationship to that article, but this page was mentioned on WP:NPOV and this jumped out at me as I was reading the article. I am not a lawyer. SDY (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a law degree but I don't pretend that that makes me any kind of authority. I don't think we need be concerned about our liability (as opposed to our policies and their enforcement) at all since it is not illegal to neutrally present notable, public domain material from reliable sources (or, if it is, the law should be defied).

Legally, corporations are persons. If we discriminate between individuals and corporations, that would suggest that "no hurt feelings" is a Wikipedia policy objective, something I consider a can of worms.

It's fair to argue that just because corporations are persons in the law that doesn't mean they ought to be. But I would note that there wasn't a certain "logic" behind current legal doctrines, they probably wouldn't have survived centuries of political and philosophical haggling.Bdell555 (talk) 09:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This policy is titled "biographies of living persons". Corporations may be persons, but I don't believe they are living. To the extent that the policy aims to avoid hurting people, I don't think corporations need be considered. However, to the extent that it aims to avoid lawsuits, the possibility of being sued for defamation (or similar) by a corporation ought to be taken into account as well.--Kotniski (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

These seem to agree with the consensus of the previous discussion I linked. I just think the policy could be a little clearer, that's all. SDY (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP stuff on the main page

First, let me state that I'm not here to propose or argue anything. I'm only going to ask a question. I got jumped on at ITN about it, so I want to get my preface in...

Has the issue of BLP standards been addressed as it relates to items on the Main Page? An example is the ITN item re:Anwar Ibrahim. It is well-cited in the article, but there is no citation on the Main Page itself. Is this a problem, or does the reference in the article suffice? --Elliskev 01:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would you want to cite stuff in a portal page when the references are right there in the relevant article? There's no need to clutter up the main page with that kind of fluff when you can keep it out of the places it doesn't need to be (portals and navigational pages) and keep it where it belongs (i.e, the article, which contains the same statements that you'll see in ITN and other portals and navigational pages, only containing references to go along with them). Adding extra references for the same statements everywhere they appear is simply unnecessary and ugly. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. That makes sense. Like I said, I wasn't actually proposing anything. I was just curious whether or not this had been considered. I kind of feel that it goes against the spirit of BLP, but I can also understand the point that references are actually avaialable; you just have to go to the relevant article to find them. Thanks for being more civil in your response than what I got at ITN. --Elliskev 12:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it goes against the spirit of BLP? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should have said that I kind of have a gut feeling that it may go against BLP.

This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.

My gut tells me that not having a readily available source does not reflect the greatest care and attention to verifiability.

I'm really just looking to hear alternate views. Like I said, it's just a gut feeling. --Elliskev 18:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Even if it were a problem, it would be a verifiability problem, not a living persons biography problem. I think you have a little bit of a problem understanding what BLP is for; BLP is just a broad statement that we should make sure to be extra careful with stuff in articles that we don't have a source for if that article is about a living person.

Still, you may want to rethink both verifiability and the implications of what you suggest; I think it would be more problematic to a BLP subject if we did what you suggest. When you look at the article on a living person, you expect all the information on Wikipedia to be in that article, you expect all the references to support that information to be found there in that article; people shouldn't have to spend time trying to hunt down references that need to be hunted down in archives.

Our committment to verifiability is, in a nutshell, "All things said have to be verifiable in reliable in reliable sources". There's no original research, there's nothing new being said that requires any additional verification.

Further along that line,ITN is a template, not an article; I've never seen a template with a citation in it, since those citations could easily be found in the relevant article; in any case, since it's easy to verify it if you want to, all you have to do is look at the source. All the people at ITN do is take a bit of recent events from an article and quickly summarize it and put it into a template with other similar bits of news. There's no SYN, no OR, and nothing that doesn't meet V already, or it wouldn't be included there.

I don't really understand why you would put citations in a template that goes on a portal; the information is already right there in the wikilinked article. What added benefit do you get by adding the same reference to the same statement found on the full article to a portal? Maybe I'm missing it, but there just doesn't see to be any benefit to that level of redundancy; you haven't really given anything to defend that position, so I'm kind of at a loss to discuss your "gut feeling" with you. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Dramatic sigh... This is obviously a failure on my part to put together a coherent comment.

When I say gut feeling, I guess I'm expressing my understanding of BLP. As I understand it, BLP takes policy and says ok... really. Per WP:BLP, Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity (emphasis mine). When I say spirit of BLP, that's what I'm getting at — extra caution. Realizing that there is nothing in that ITN piece that isn't readily confirmed by following the appropriate link to the article or simply Google-newsing the subject; realizing that trying to add citations to templates would be an insurmountable exercise in futility; realizing that I may just be taking realistic precautionary measure to the absurd extreme, I'm still left wondering if, the spirit of BLP is being reflected when we make exceptions to the standards set in BLP, i.e. Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely-viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends. Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies.

It's obvious that I'm a minority of one, which is pretty frustrating. In the real world, I'm not much of a wave-maker. I'm happy to accept a reasonable explanation of where I'm wrong. Unfortunately, I seem to have been (still?) so incredibly vague that it's impossible for anyone to address anything I say. That's understandable. Like I said. It's a gut feeling and I can't really expect anyone to look forward to the invasive surgery that it would require to see what's wrong with my gut. --Elliskev 00:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course, if there's a statement that isn't sourced on Wikipedia in the relevant article, then no, of course not, we shouldn't be putting it on a template that shows up in a portal as prominent as the main page; but the material isn't anything new or not sourced, it's really a moot point whether we copy the relevant reference everywhere we go.

You don't quite seem to grok the idea that there isn't anything new being written about the subject; the caution that BLP mandates requires we have to worry about adding new material, especially contentious material, that requires more sourcing that we can provide. But everything there has already been established; it isn't any new biographical material that we have to go over and reference again and again wherever it appears in a portal.

If we were talking about something new, then sure, we'd have to source it somehow, since that information has to be readily verifiable (per V); but other than your gut feeling and vague ideology, I can't come up with a scenario where having the references where the ITN item is discussed at length (i.e, in the article section detailing whatever recent events show up there) rather than on the main page doesn't suffice for verifiability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Subpage for BLP image policy

Image:Quinzel.png

I came here trying to find out if fair-use images were OK on biography pages when no free images were available. User:Gimmetrow deleted such a fair-use image from the Mia Sara page.

We seem to differ in our interpretations of WP:NFCC#1. It would be helpful if there were a subpage here that dealt thoroughly with image policy on biography pages. A page such as

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Images

My impression was that such fair-use images were OK in these circumstances, as I believe I have seen repeated examples of this. Should those images not have been on those pages?

I have other questions too. What width should fair-use photos be? I always thought they were supposed to be small, or of lower resolution. I would recommend though that they be at least 220 pixels wide so that they work in infoboxes. This particular infobox seems to be making the header image 220 pixels wide.

The reason I first edited the Mia Sara page was because I noticed the image sizing was messed up. I put a condensed version of the infobox to the right. See this version of the page to see the stretched, messed up image in context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mia_Sara&oldid=223606648

Here is a link to the version of the page with the corrected infobox with the clearer image sizing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mia_Sara&oldid=226418548 - the image by itself is to the right of this talk page. That is the full size of the image. Image:Quinzel.png

Another question I have wondered about is why I often see only photos of notable people when they are older. Shouldn't there be a variety of ages shown? It helps people realize who the article is about, and therefore why the people are notable.

I am sure there are many other points that could be covered by a BLP page on image policy.

And I hope this fair-use image is not deleted from this talk page until the discussion is over. See this page: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions --Timeshifter (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand your argument. The woman in questions is alive, isn't she? Therefore, at any moment, a free image could be created. Therefore, your argument for fair use fails.
Kww (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't read WP:NFCC#1 that way. It says:

No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding an image requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by a free one that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the image probably does not meet this criterion.)

In the meantime are we supposed to remove all fair-use images of living people, and wait around until a generous photographer happens to be around to snap a photo when these people make a public appearance? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much. We don't use fair use when a free image could convey substantially the same info, even if Wikimedia doesn't have that free image yet. If the subject is an actor still alive and working, then a free image could be taken. If the image is from a long time ago and the actor looks different now, or the image shows some critical event in the career, the image may not be replaceable. But that's not the case here; it's a recent character in fairly ordinary attire. For the article on the character, there is no free equivalent, so an image can be justified for an article on the character. (Note that any fair use requires some sort of "rationale", and someone wrote on for using that image in the article on the character.) Finally, fair use images should be ~~"in-lined"~~linked outside article space. Gimmetrow 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you are inventing a new policy: "If the subject is an actor still alive and working, then a free image could be taken." Also, fair-use images can be used on more than one page. See the rest of WP:NFCC. In particular see point 7: "One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article." Every use does not have to be written into the rationale on the image description page immediately especially if that use is under discussion. Only one use justifies keeping the image. Image use on talk pages is sometimes allowed. See the exemptions, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions. This is an obvious exemption as it illustrates a point of discussion concerning image sizing. I returned the image here, at least temporarily. There is no rush to remove the image. We can always remove the image later. Please talk first before acting. Your initial removal of the image both here on this talk page, and on the article page should have been discussed first, in my opinion.--Timeshifter (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions: "Non-free images may be used only in the article namespace.... They should be linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are the topic of discussion." Although I mistermed linking as "inlining" above, it's standard practice to not show fair use images on talk pages, but to link to them. WP:FUC#10 requires a separate fair use rationale for each use of the image. The image in question is justifiable for the article on the character; it's replaceable for the article on the actor. Gimmetrow 22:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria exemptions allows use sometimes on talk pages, at least temporarily to illustrate a point. "All other uses, even if legal under the fair use clauses of copyright law, should be avoided to keep the use of unfree images to a minimum. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus and so long as doing so is not in direct conflict with the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy." I believe it is rude on your part to keep removing the image, especially the distorted image, from this talk page, and especially since you are the only one so insistent. What's the rush? A few days to illustrate and discuss a point. I believe it is also rude to use your own independent interpretations of WP:NFCC#1 to remove it from the article. Repetition does not make your independent interpretation of WP:NFCC#1 a justification for removing it from the article. Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN. There are many bio pages of living persons with fair-use images on the page. So since there is evidence that points in opposition to your interpretation of WP:NFCC#1, then you might consider using the talk page before taking abrupt actions. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Bio pages of living persons should not use fair use images to illustrate something replaceable. That's not an "independent interpretation" of FUC#1; it's common practice. In this case, the image is not in danger of deletion since it has a justifiable use elsewhere (in the character article). But to merely identify the actor, it's replaceable. Replaceble requires opportunity for a free image, and equivalence - the actor is still alive and making appearances so there are opportunities for a free image, and this particular character image doesn't convey much that any other public appearance shot in everyday attire wouldn't convey. An exception would be an actor who no longer makes public appearances or who has aged and looks different now than when famous (no opportunity), or a screenshot of a particularly famous scene in the career (free image not equivalent). Gimmetrow 01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

How is it replaceable? You are assuming that the image is replaceable. Maybe if we are lucky years down the line it might be replaceable. And WP:NFCC#1 says "available", not replaceable. Maybe your interpretation is not independent of other admins. But it is independent of what I believe is a logical interpretation of the spirit of WP:NFCC#1. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

available, or could be created. Generally shorted to replaceable.Geni 02:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"shorted to replaceable" is not logical, in my opinion. See previous discussion. I have started a more-focussed discussion at meta:Metapub#Wikimedia Foundation's Resolution:Licensing policy. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

~Well given the number of times Template:Rfu has been used it would appear there is community acceptance of the term.Geni 13:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

From {{Rfu}}:"This image or media may fail Wikipedia's first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information. ... Note if you believe that a free replacement image cannot be reasonably found or created please add one of the following without removing this tag: ..." --Timeshifter (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

But of course which is why we have a non free image of Jack T. Chick.Geni 14:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I initiated another discussion here:

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 37#Non-free images on biography pages --Timeshifter (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Naming the spouse or intended spouse -- when the subject has named him or her

For an article which already exists, does the inclusion of the name of a spouse or intended spouse have to satisfy an independent notability test for the spouse or intended spouse?
Provided that the name of spouse or intended spouse is not disputed -- having been stated by the subject in a reliable source -- isn't the inclusion of the name considered per se relevant, or is there a meaningful Wikipedia concept of an "irrelevant", unnamed spouse or intended spouse in a biographical article?
Provided that the name of spouse or intended spouse is not kept private by the subject -- having been stated by the subject in a reliable source, is there still a privacy test that needs to be satisfied before including the name?

To open the discussion: no, no, and no. patsw (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional question: If patsw is correct, then is WP:BLP#Privacy of names not applicable to spouses? And in that case, should that section be amended to make that explicit? --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal (as I read it, it seems to be superfluous, since you asked):

In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is stated by the article's subject, is verifiable by its wide publication in a reliable source, the presumption is that this event or intention and the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is public and not private.

The counter proposal:

In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is stated by the article's subject, is verifiable by its wide publication in a reliable source, the presumption is that this event or intention and the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse remains private and not public.

Please comment on its clarity, necessity, or lack thereof. patsw (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The answers should have been "no, yes, yes". The spouse need not be independently notable, but the names of spouses and children are subject to privacy restriction under almost all parts of WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy and especially WP:BLP#Privacy of names. All of Patsw's versions err in assuming the relevant test is a single reliable source. Widespread availability of data is evidenced by the data being published in many reliable and secondary sources. If the data shows up in lots of reliable secondary sources then it can reasonably be evaluated as well known and suitable for inclusion. If the data is only self-published by the article subject, then we shouldn't use it at all. Instead, refer to the family members as "wife and two children" or whatever is accurate without using names. GRBerry 05:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I will stipulate that the test is not a single reliable source but multiple reliable sources.

I don't understand the objection to what you call "data self-published by the article subject". When an article subject states "I am married to X" or "I am not married to X", isn't this an issue of assume good faith on the part of the article subject? This seems to be an obvious thing to me. If the contrary is actually the policy -- where has the lack of a citation for marital status caused the spouse's name to be deleted or changed "[subject] claims to be married to X", or "[subject] claims to be married". The case where a marriage, divorce, or legal separation is factually disputed is a separate case.

GRBerry's concerns address the question of accuracy and verifiability. However, this issue arose over a "presumption of privacy" when naming the spouse in an article when the article subject himself or herself names the spouse, and those secondary reliable sources are not presuming privacy with respect to the name of the spouse.

Revised Proposal

In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is stated by the article's subject, is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the presumption is that this event or intention, and the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is public and not private. patsw (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't verifiability, it's the privacy rights of the intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse. We shouldn't presume that the article's subject may waive those rights.--agr (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't giving an interview by the article subject that is picked up by the Associated Press and appears in hundreds of newspapers, creating a new presumption (or conclusion) -- that the article subject doesn't consider it private?

Is it now a requirement for there to be a corresponding interview by the named spouse (intended, or ex-) in multiple reliable sources to corroborate the marital status or change in marital status? Have there even been edits to support this interpretation of the BLP? Is any such corroboration even commonplace in the sources used by Wikipedia editors?

I don't believe that Wikipedia policies are helped by using words that have a specific meaning in American law, but yes, the proposed policy is to define what constitutes a consensus method for editors here to recognize with respect to actual changes in marital status, or declared intent to change marital status when stated by the article subject, what is private and what is not. I am not trying to be tendentious here. For example, if the article subject stated the venue of the wedding or honeymoon, while widely and publicly known, I wouldn't consider the venue relevant on its own to be added to Personal life section of the article. On the other hand for I plan to marry X, the name X is relevant on its own. patsw (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the article's subject considers it private, but whether the intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse considers it private. The current policy talks about a "presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability." I don't see a reason to reverse that. --agr (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking issue with the stated policy. Absent other information, editors can presume that for an article's subject, his or her spouse's name is private, or even the marital status is private. The essence of presumption is judgment in absence of information. What I am seeking is some guidance and consensus about how to apply the policy when there isn't an absence of information, and it is provided by the subject himself or herself, and appears in multiple sources.

Agr's interpretation of the policy appears to require a corroborating statement from the named spouse (intended, or ex-)[example: subject states she intends to marry X would require X states he intends to marry subject]. The Wikipedia is full of the names of spouse without a corroborating statement from the named spouse. In any case, such statements are not commonplace in sources used by Wikipedia editors.

So, are all those spouse name appearances we have now privacy violations of the Wikipedia policy where the spouse does not appear in secondary sources sufficiently to merit their own biographical article? Should there be a "purge the non-notable spouse name bot"? patsw (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any change. Current policy says there are a number of factors that should be weighed before including the name of a living person. That seems appropriate to me. We don't need an additional presumption when there are so many different situations that can arise. To change this policy you need a strong case the the current policy isn't working. I don't see it. --agr (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your interpretation of the existing policy is incorrect -- you appear to be reading into policy either a corroborating statement from the spouse test or a notability for the spouse test. If you want that interpretation to be definitive, go ahead and propose it as part of the policy. patsw (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking the BLP editing community to answer some of the questions I am raising. I am not suggesting a new "presumption" -- a judgment made in the absence of information -- on the contrary, I am talking about the cases where information is present. It's not presuming anything but recognizing when the subject states their marital status with WP:V in multiple WP:RS, and it is not disputed by the named spouse, it should be included in their biography. Are some editors are reading "presumption" as "assertion"? Should there be a "purge the non-notable spouse name bot"? patsw (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All spouses are known via public record (marriage documents), therefore, there cannot be any "privacy" to remove the name of a spouse, since all spouses are notable to a notable individual's biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision 2

In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name.

Comment

Marital status is relevant to a biography.
The name is relevant to a biography.
The ordinary means of satisfying verifiability is sufficient, there is no higher standard to be applied.
There has never been, there does not now exist a Notability (People) test required for the inclusion of the name of a spouse.
A complaint that privacy has been compromised can be handled by the WP:OTRS system.
This modification of WP:BLP is not a new thing but an attempt to align the existing practice and existing reality of the Wikipedia's of inclusion of spouse names in thousands of biographies of living persons with the WP:BLP policy. patsw (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Related policy proposal

I've proposed a new policy related to BLP at Wikipedia:Obscure public information. Please direct discussion to the talk page there. --Tango (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Pseudonyms

After much discussion on whether or not Wikipedia should reveal pornstars real names I've proposed the wording for a new section on all persons using Pseudonyms to be added to the BLP page. Unfortunately I put it at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing_BLP_concerns#Proposal_for_a_vote instead of here.

Can we have the vote there?Filceolaire (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Existence of WikiProject Tags a Violation of BLP?

This question stems from a discussion at Charlie Crist you can find here. To sum up, he is the current governor of Florida. Rumors have been circulating about his sexual orientation, and they have been printed in some reputable newspapers. They can be (and personally I think, probably are) gist for a political rumor mill. Crist is on the short list of VP running mates for John McCain. Because his political profile is increasing, and to deal with the rumors, WP:LGBT placed a Wikiproject template on Crist's talk page. It has been removed.

I recognize that some of this issue overlaps with what the purpose of a Wikiproject is, but my question here is: does the placement of a Wikiproject template on the talk page conflict with WP:BLP policy for information in the article? Please keep in mind that {{LGBTProject}} does not state that the subject of the article is or is not gay, only that material in the article falls within the scope of the project "to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia". I appreciate your responses. --Moni3 (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Moni, I've responded to your post on my talkpage in similar fashion, and I will again state that, like it or not (or correct or not), adding the "LGBT" tag carries some real-world connotations that are possibly construed as POV. Right or wrong, I strongly feel that the LGBT wikiproject should not be included in the Crist article until if/when Mr. Crist either confirms or denies the sentiment that he is in fact gay (or not). Without reliable sources, we are merely projecting based on substandard sources perhaps, and based perhaps on our own wishes, his orientation. I'm not "the bad guy" here, merely a Wikipedian. I would state the exact same argument for any BLP without reliable third party sources, regardless of the issue. Keeper ǀ 76 01:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Justification for WikiProject tags?. While I know this is moving the discussion to yet another location, I feel it's the best place since this issue may go beyond BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB conflict

Can someone review Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source ?

I am involved in a WP:SELFPUB dispute now. It seams this section in in conflict with WP:SELFPUB becasue it says the material must be "writen" by the source. This apears to excluded self-published material with others' help. Can this be beter clarified? I don't want to have a technicality occur in my dispute. It seems the purpose is in line with "self-published material, not self-writen material. I made a change and my disputed friend reverted it. A outside review would be appreciated. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think "written" is better as one can "publish" stuff one disagrees with for for a variety of reasons. "Written" is very vague. The point is that the person agrees with the content. "Written" better conveys that. "Published" is more of a commercial type act and can be motivated by one's employment or contractual agreements. Perhaps both should be replaced with a more clear description of the idea that the point is that the person actually conveys his agreement with the content, rather than is merely is a link in the chain resulting in its availability to be read. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point has to do with the editorial process, how much the subject is involoved and has editorial control. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons." Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source says "Self-published material may be used in BLPs", but it does not mention anything about third-party sources. These two linked sections seem to not be working together. Per the information at WP:PRIMARY, maybe Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source should say something like "Self-published material may be used only as a primary source in BLPs and then only if written by the subject himself." The confusion, for me at least, is the missing reasoning behind the rules - the degree to which the person is in agreement with the content in the source. In any event, both sections should be consistent with each other. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Perhaps, I mean, "Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself and then only as a primary source." Suntag (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the proper wording is written. If the material is published (say, an autobiography published by a reputable publisher), then selection and control have been exerted. Citing barack obama's autobiography in his page might have some POV issues, but it is a reliable source. SELFPUB refers to vanity press, blogs, personal websites, 'zines, etc. written by the author that don't have editorial control or selection. "written" also allows us to distinguish published autobiographies that make claims about other people from personal blogs that make claims about other people.

As for the issues with 'publishing with help', that is a whole 'nother can of worms. What is and is not a vanity press is disputed heavily on wikipedia. Few vanity presses self-identify as vanity presses (for obvious reasons), so most arguments rely on third party assertions (website X says publisher Y is a vanity press) or argumentation (they won't publish without the author buying books as a "partner", ergo they are a vanity press). Both of those methods of reasoning have limited success. Sometimes the suppositions of wikipedians and random english major websites are not correct. Sometimes they ARE correct but not enough to overcome the chorus of "Nuh-uh!" from people who claim things like "but he has sold X copies, that means it isn't a vanity press". Those issues can't be fixed with a wording change in BLP. they usually need to be addressed case by case on WP:RS/N. Protonk (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Do no harm

I've removed this since: a)it makes no sense. There is no action that does not cause harm to someone. b)it fundimentaly conflicts which the perpose of an encyclopedia c)People keep useing it to try and supress any negative information about subjects no matter how well cited.

While obviously it is is important to be darn sure of any negative information before putting it in an article there are far better ways of expressing this a rule of thumb.Geni 13:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the intent of the phrase continues to be misunderstood, I agree we need to replace that phrase with something better. Harm can be caused by not including important negative information. Harm can be caused to other living people by over-praise of the BLP subject. The point is that harm as a concept is one concept to be considered when exercising editorial judgement. The problem is that we have too many people trying to substitute rules for editorial judgement. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "when it comes to includeing negative information the case for it being true must go beyond reasonable doubt" Only slightly better phrased?Geni 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not "negative information". That issue is "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". It is another misconception of this policy that it is all about either libel or negative data. Praise for X can make Y look bad. Unsourced neural sounding data can contradict what he said in a court case or elsewhere and make him look like a liar. The point is not negative data. The point is to exercise thoughtful, careful, caring editorial judgement. And when you interact with people, treat them with common courtesy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the recent edits. Substantive changes to policy require broad consensus. In particular the "do no harm" wording links to an essay Wikipedia:Avoiding harm that explains its meaning in some detail. Removing it significantly dilutes the meaning of the policy. --agr (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Essays are not policy.Geni 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case any rule of thumb that needs an essay that long and winding that even then can't really come to a conclusion is firmly in worse than useless territory.Geni 16:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quite. If there's something we want to say here, we ought to say it in clear words without relying on extraneous writings. But as far as I can see there is no significant content in this sentence that isn't already contained in the rest of the policy, so we would do well to delete it (or at least rephrase it, as had been attempted before the revert).--Kotniski (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Essays are not policy, but the fact that this policy links to it gives the essay weight for BLPs as an explanation. The phrase "do no harm" has been in the BLP policy since November 19, 2005, three days after the policy was created. The phrase is an old medical dictum that has its own article, Primum non nocere. Maybe a better explanation of what is meant is warranted, but I object to removing it.--agr (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I rather expected someone to bring up the medical context. You realise that if followed appendicitis would have a rather higher mortality rate and that most forms of anti-cancer chemotherapy would be right out? I wasn't kidding when I said the phrase has no place in rational theory. I'm aware how long the phrase has been on the page. I'm also aware how long it hasbeen causeing problems. Yet another attempt to ah "explain" it won't help. It's been tried. We have a whole fricken essay that tries and fails. No enough. The principle is fundimentaly flawed and no amount of explaining it will fix that.Geni 01:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "rational theory" is or what it has to do with Wikipedia. We are not trying to produce bright line rules that cover all cases. Rather we are trying to guide editorial judgement. There will always be hard cases and people who use the policy inappropriately. I don't see where "do no harm" is causing undue problems. --agr (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case the rational theory of how to constuct an encyclopedia. do no harm has no place in that. It tends to cause problems when it acts an enabler for people trying to push a POV or with insanely extreamist aproaches to this policy. In any case the sentance serves no useful perpose which is alone enough to justify it's removal.Geni 04:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I favour removal. It is inapplicable in practice, and can be used to violate WP:NPOV. The only thing it can helpfully mean is that wikipedia should not contain content about someone that is not already prominent in the public domain, i.e. that is not verifiable with reliable sources. And we already know that. Ty 04:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is the guiding principle on this matter. A coatrack article is non-neutral and should be fixed (or removed if it can't be fixed); a hagiography is also non-neutral and should be fixed (or removed if it can't be fixed). "Do no harm [to individuals]" is just not our mandate. It is a sub-portion of NPOV mutated into something that contradicts NPOV, and is errant. If we are applying NPOV correctly, "do no harm" is unnecessary at best, destructive at worst. We should not leave it in the policy when it causes such problems.--Father Goose (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I also favor removal. Our mission is to provide free knowledge. We do harm to that mission when we remove well-sourced information that someone may not happen to like. This, and only this, is our first rule. Everything else, everything else we do, is subordinate to it. If writing a neutral and complete article means we step on a toe, we step on it. If the person would prefer a hagiography, they're welcome to go write one on Myspace. This does not mean, of course, that we should tolerate attack pieces or coatrack articles—these are by definition non-neutral. But we should similarly not tolerate unduly positive articles, when well-sourced negative or controversial information is also available. We go for neutrality in every article, every time, and we under no circumstances suppress information which otherwise passes our inclusion policies. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we're going to need a strong consensus to remove a pivotal phrase which has been around for three years. People should briefly state their position on this issue; side-debates should occur elsewhere to reduce the noise. We're going to have to let this debate stew for at least a week to gather people's opinions; it should probably also be posted as a RfCpolicy, and on the Community Board. My position is that it should stay. II | (t - c) 06:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you overstate the importance of this one sentence. It doesn't say anything specific enough to make it key to any aspect of the community's behaviour. However by remaining here it makes the policy less clear and opens up the possibility of misinterpretation. In my view we should either get rid of it, or (if it is claimed to add something to what is already in the policy) reword it so that people can see what it means.--Kotniski (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be open to a reword -- or rather, I was. Unfortunately, I just scrutinized the policy to see what form that rewording could take, and I saw that the simplest way to fix it would be just to remove the two sentences that say "do no harm". The "presumption in favor of privacy" section gets it right, but the words "do no harm" lurch into the absolute, and undermine the reasonable, balanced advice given everywhere else in the policy.

I appreciate the sentiment behind "do no harm" -- but it's the wrong sentiment for an encyclopedia.--Father Goose (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't appear to have produced any arguments to support your position. Appeal to antiquity is a logical fallacy.Geni

I don't think it's advanced as a logical argument, just a principle of prudence, like the statement in the United States Declaration of Independence that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes". In this instance, however (as in that historical example), I believe the case has been made. I favor removal -- or, since it's out as of this writing, I favor keeping it out.

A question for the proponents of the phrase: Can you give an example, actual or hypothetical, of a dispute where "do no harm" would come into play and would dictate a result not already called for by the other policies that editors have cited above? JamesMLane t c 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - the debate over including the real name of the Star Wars kid. His name is verifiable and doesn't raise point of view problems, but is still desirable to leave out (and currently left out), because its inclusion adds nothing meaningful to the article and could do harm to a living person. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If something adds nothing meaningful to the article, then there's no reason to include it, whether or not it's perceived by some editors to do harm. JamesMLane t c 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are a lot of examples when something adds nothing meaninful to the article but is allowed to remain. One of the problems is, in a lot of cases a significant amount of stuff doesn't really add anything meaningful but when taken together do help to make an article more complete. And in any case it's pointless to argue with another editor who feels something does add to the article if there is no harm in leaving it behind. Real names are a good example. There is a long running dispute about what sort of sources we need to include real names (particularly of pornographic actors). In most cases, real names don't really add much to an article. Nor do birthdates. But they do add to a sense of 'completeness'. So I'm not going to argue with an editor over the inclusion of this information when it's clear there's no reason to exclude it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway perhaps a better example is Genie (feral child). This article refers to a person who suffered serious abuse & neglect as a child, something from which she never recovered. At the time she was discovered, her real name was published in a fair number of sources. However since then, most sources (which are academic) referring to her have not referred to her real name. There is other information like where she currently lives which editors have proposed adding (although no sources have came up for this so it remains a RS issue). During the discussion of the name the 'do no harm' principle was frequently brought up and was one of the reasons IMHO the name was removed. Some people argued that the information was not meaningless since it e.g. could have been used by a relative (and a bunch of other reasons). Note that even if there are arguably other reasons why something should be removed, the do no harm principle often arises and from my experience it usually helps focus the discussion in a positive way (I appreciate that this is not always the case). I agree with "Gnangarra". The most important thing about the "do no harm" principle is that it sums up the policy in a simple way. It helps (many but not all) people understand that BLP is not about libel or legal stuff, (and from my experience a lot of people think BLP is just about protecting wikipedia from libel) but about the fact "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives" (as the in a nutshell bit says) Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you give actual examples of where the phrase has caused a problem? Replacing "do no harm" with "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement" is a significant dumbing down of this policy. Such a change requires good reasons and a strong consensus based on a widely advertised discussion.--agr (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it's a dumbing down - it simply explains more explicitly what is meant. Obviously we don't literally mean "do no harm" - that would mean include no criticism of anyone ever, however justified. So better to have wording that says what is meant, than something that needs an essay somewhere to try to explain that it actually means something different.

Sure I can give examples. The phrase is routinely bandied about at AfDs regarding biographies ([9] [10] [11] [12] [13]), commonly in a way that completely undermines NPOV. ("Is Richard Stern harmed by the existance of the WP article? He says yes. Therefore let us do no harm." This logic -- which is typical of invocations of "do no harm" -- would allow anyone to get anything they disliked deleted from the encyclopedia.) The principle of "do no harm" has many passionate advocates, but Wikipedia is governed by consensus, not by passion. There was and is insufficient consensus to make WP:HARM policy, but WP:NPOV is one of our most broadly embraced principles. When "do no harm" undermines NPOV, it does harm. It is simply not one of our guiding principles, and should not be portrayed as such.--Father Goose (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

in the simplist form do no harm means exactly that, in case of a BLP stating that a person has died when they havent is doing harm. I can a remember a discussion where an editor posted that the subject of the article had died, this person is estranged from their family. A family member contacted the Foundation asking for more information, it took over a week to establish that the edit was an error during that time the family was of the belief that this person had died. 'Do no harm should be seen as its presented it a quick, easy to remember catch phrase that encompass the whole context of BLP, it transcends the understanding of all editors from the 100,000 edit count old timer to 10 edit newbie or first edit IP. Yes its vague yes its glitzy, but what it is is effective prose and it serves a legitimate purpose as everybody understands its basic meaning. That being said if a better turn of phrase can be created that conveys the context of BLP so succinctly then put it up for discussion, I'm open to improving Wikipedia, its policies, its content at every opportunity. Gnan garra 17:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

According to some of the preceding comments, it is being misunderstood and misapplied. I think the phrasing I tried to introduce at least tried to address those problems.--Kotniski (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We still haven't seen examples. Switching from an imperative ("do not harm") to a passive suggestion ("one of the factors to be considered") is a major change that requires more than the opinions of some editors.--agr (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nyet that the former is irrational is alone enough to remove it.Geni 18:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually part of the problem. The more we recite trite little mantras like this, the less they mean. — CharlotteWebb 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Politics and the English Language#Six rules ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I wholly disagree that "do no harm" is irrational. Why is "do no harm" the central component of BLP and why is BLP policy? Simply put, "do no harm" means "don't expose Wikimedia to a lawsuit". I fully realize that slander, defamation, and the publishing of private information are covered by WP:V and WP:NOR. However, WP:BLP places special emphasis on these other policies because it truly is the Achilles' Heel of Wikipedia. The theory behind "do no harm" is that the republishing of already published reliable information, even if negative, does no harm, because whatever harm there may be has already been done by the original sources. As Wikipedia is never the publisher of original thought, Wikipedia should, by policy, never be able to harm anyone. Given this perspective, I feel that "do no harm" is not only incredibly rational, but sums up WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR very well. I have a real fear that turning "do no harm" into a subjective editorial 'judgment' is a mistake and undermines the special emphasis that BLP provides. I don't have a problem, however, with additional text defining exactly what "do no harm" means. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So to try and make do no harm logical you have to redefine it to a point that it ceases to mean what it says. Interdentally "don't expose Wikimedia to a lawsuit" is largely meaningless given safe harbour provisions. But back to the core suggestion that if it has already been published wikipedia cannot do further harm. Firstly wikipedia has a higher profile than many reliable sources. Secondly wikipedia's profile doesn't go away. That political promise made 5 years ago that everyone else has forgotten about? Wikipedia hasn't and wikipedia is still at the top of the search results. Why do you think we keep running into politicians removing cited info?Geni 19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Google's page rank has absolutely no bearing on our policy. At all. I also didn't redefine "do no harm", I explained what it means to me and the meaning I took from it. Perhaps "harm" means something different to you than it does to me, but that just indicates that we need to clarify what "harm" means rather than to simply remove it. Also, if Safe Harbor is so absolute, why does WP:BLP exist at all when everything it covers is just a rehash of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR? It's because we must get BLP articles right, because if we don't it exposes the project legally. It's really that simple and says so right in the "In a nutshell". -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss the reasons for the existance of BLP. Your claim was that "do no harm" means "don't expose Wikimedia to a lawsuit"". Are you seariously claiming that that is not a redefinition of "do no harm". You relaese that under that reading "do no harm" would not conflict with putting person X is a shitheaded moron into an article (insult isn't actionable)? As readings go I would suggest this one conflicts with english as it is commonly understood.Geni 21:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm seriously saying that -- or rather I'm saying that the spirit behind "do no harm" is to not expose Wikimedia legally. I'm also seriously saying that "do no harm" sums up the purpose of WP:BLP very nicely and that purpose is not expose Wikimedia legally. I'm quite serious when I say that "harm" means "legally actionable harm" and "ethical harm". I'm very serious when I say that with this definition of harm it should always be preceded with the words "do not" -- not "should not" and never "sometimes". I'm also serious when I say that the current version that references "harm" in terms of "editorial judgement" undermines the whole purpose of WP:BLP and the gravity it attempts to impose. Feel free to disagree, but please don't question my seriousness. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The legaly actionable is taken care of by the safe harbour and the ethical harm is too ill defined.Geni 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We are now officially going in circles. When I say that I take "harm" in a legal context, you say that legality doesn't matter. When I explained above that WP:BLP talks about legal responsibilities not only in the "In a nutshell", but also the first sentence, you remarked we aren't here to discuss the purpose of WP:BLP! I've expressed my opinion and am hereby dropping my WP:STICK. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Achilles had two heels, by the way. — CharlotteWebb 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also favor removal. this is an essay which, regardless of what links to it, has no force of policy. Because we link to it from WP:BLP, we introduce a means for people to push positive POV on a subject. BLP is sufficient in scope and explanation to describe how we should treat defamatory information on all BLP's or overly negative information on marginal BLP's. treating this essay as if it were a policy (which is strikingly common) circumvents the process by which we would normally reach consensus on policies and creates an unnecessary hurdle for editors who wish to create a factually accurate and neutral biography. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the essay on do no harm, with mention of the phrase do no harm. Many policies link to essays intended to clarify various parts of policies. Of course, these essays should be treated as essays and not a binding part of policy. Even BLP currently links to Wikipedia:Coatrack which is an essay; and also links to a bunch of guidelines and a bunch of articles. Clearly these articles and guidelines are not policy, but this doesn't mean we should remove the part of policy that references them. Worst case scenario, we should remove the reference (wikilink) but not the part of policy without good reason. Note that according to the above discussion, the phrase has been part of BLP since 3 days after it's introduction in November 2005. The essay was created in mid 2007 [14] Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am. thank you for the correction. Protonk (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This entire discussion is itself proof of the need to have rewritten "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"" as "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement". Policy was NEVER "do no harm". "Do no harm" was always just one of many important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement. Any policy sentence so consistently misread by some editors needs to be written to be more clear. We did that. We made existing policy clearer. Policy was not changed. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Which editor here expressed the opinion that policy was solely about "do no harm"? Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could be argued that my statement said this (I said that my interpretation of "do no harm" summarized WP:BLP pretty well). However, I think the fundamental problem here -- which has NOT been addressed by the rewording -- is what "harm" means. What is harm? I took harm in a legal sense, meaning actionable legal harm. It appears that ZuluPapa below made the same assumption by using the word "libel". Others seem to interpret "harm" in another way, including any negative statements, statements that the subject disapproves of, etc. Given that we can't agree what "harm" means, I completely disagree with WAS 4.250 that anything is clearer. Taken from my legalistic point of view, applying "editorial judgment" is not only a change, but totally against several policies (and WP:IAR doesn't apply in this case, in my view). However, taken from the other definition of "harm", WAS 4.250's change is completely reasonable. The problem is the word "harm". I think, at this point, the best thing to do is either a) define "harm" or b) remove any mention of "harm" whatsoever. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We are concerned with both legal and ethical issues here. Our current policy says "Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so." Ultimately we are relying on the judgement of our editors. We simply cannot define everything. I am still waiting for examples of actual situations where the "do no harm" wording created significant problems.--agr (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at my post from 31 July, above.--Father Goose (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That post points to Orwell's Politics_and_the_English_Language#Six_rules. See rules 3 & 4. We are going from a concise imperative that has a whole literature behind it to a long, passive admonition that any editor can read as supporting what ever editing choice they prefer. The reason I insist on examples is to see where actual confusion occurs, so we can make clarifications that are needed rather than treating this as a writing exercise. --agr (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, I meant my post from 00:50, 31 July 2008. I'll just repeat it here:

Sure I can give examples. The phrase is routinely bandied about at AfDs regarding biographies ([15] [16] [17] [18] [19]), commonly in a way that completely undermines NPOV. ("Is Richard Stern harmed by the existance of the WP article? He says yes. Therefore let us do no harm." This logic -- which is typical of invocations of "do no harm" -- would allow anyone to get anything they disliked deleted from the encyclopedia.) The principle of "do no harm" has many passionate advocates, but Wikipedia is governed by consensus, not by passion. There was and is insufficient consensus to make WP:HARM policy, but WP:NPOV is one of our most broadly embraced principles. When "do no harm" undermines NPOV, it does harm. It is simply not one of our guiding principles, and should not be portrayed as such.--Father Goose (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Having thought about this a while (even going back a long time if you look in the talk archives of this page and the essay that is of later date than the policy), I believe I can conclude the following: 1) the community is more concerned about harm to specifically identifiable individuals (usually, but not necessarily an individual named in the biographical material) than to large numbers of unidentified individuals - the community may not even support giving any weight to the effect on large numbers of unidentified materials; 2) the community cares more strongly about material that might give rise to a legal cause of action than it does about other material that might be harmful; 3) the community is generally willing to listen to any of a subject's concerns and adapt in reflection of them when it can do so without jeapordizing NPOV (classic example: replacing one picture with another suitably licensed picture at the subject's suggestion). Those observations may help everyone understand what is meant here. GRBerry 16:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the deletion of "do no harm". It is an invitation to ignore and override all of Wiki's other policies, including WP:NPOV. The flip side of "do no harm" is "do good". Is it legitimate to argue that "yes, it is a NPOV violation, but I'm 'doin good!'. The world is a happier place, as I unilaterally visualize it. Your neutral rendering creates 'harm'!"Bdell555 (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In theory "Do no harm" is great. In practice it can be used to delete all manner of biographical information. A recent example concerned singer Clay Aiken. It has been widely reported that he artifically inseminated a friend of his. Editors insisted that the information be removed from the article lest the mention in the Wikipedia article do harm to him. Since there is no limit to "do no harm", the fact that it has been published a hundred other places is not sufficient. While the particular story may simply be gossip, the "do no harm" clause sets a standard different from the rest of the policy, and different from other core policies like NPOV. If an editor chooses to assert that something in an article may do harm, how can that even be rebutted? If it's kept it should be better defined. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent example to talk about. It is far from clear to me that this information is relevant to an article about a singer unless, say, he wrote a song about it. I'm not saying exclusion is clearly required under BLP but it certainly demands caution. If the article included the mother and baby's names, that would really raise a red flag in my mind, regardless of how widely the information was reported at the time. My concern here is that the changes we are discussing here are aimed at weakening the BLP policy, not clarifying it.--agr (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside this not-so-"excellent" example, it's not a settled issue that it shouldn't be weakened. Weakening the policy DOES NOT mean weakening enforcement of the policy. I might add that even if BLP policy was weakened to nothing at all, I happen to believe that if neutrality, reliable source requirements, notability requirements, and no original research/synth requirements were fully enforced across Wikipedia, the vast majority of the problem BLPs would be solved right there. How many problem BLPs have the attention of many editors from varying backgrounds? Not many, I suggest: most problem BLPs principally suffer from a lack of attention. Now how do policies typically get used? They get cited by some users against other users who are acting inconsistent with policy. When policy parsing arises, you've thus already got a battle of editors, and the policy is being cited in order to win the battle for one side. The talk about Wikipedia's "BLP problem" is accordingly a red herring, since in the vast majority of cases, the problem is a lack of time and effort to edit in the face of isolated and ignorant opposition or, even more commonly, no opposition at all than in confronting groups of editors who can't be dealt with with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE, and WP:OR such that a "strong" WP:BLP club has to be given to one side of the dispute as well.Bdell555 (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If an editor rasies a concern that the subject belives the info to be harmfull. Then they would have a stonger point, then just saying it's harmfull by itself. It really takes harm to be acknowleded to really be harmfull, to the parties and community. "Do no~~t continue~~ harm" Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

For me the "do no harm" principle is a safe heaven for both legal and ethical issues, as it covers multiple Wikipedia policies in a simple wording. It needs to stay and the essay rewritten to give those editors a hand who have neither a legal nor an ethical education. -- 3vil-Lyn (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggest considering WP:NPF in this discussion

Hi the WP:NPF requirement for a secondary source under conservative assumptions of harm (libel) from negative information is relevant here. The truth can be better verified with a secondary source. Zulu Papa 5 (talk)

For clarification, my point about harm, not matter what Vagueness for a Continuum fallacy or Slippery slope is that we must prevent it. So any definition that aims to not prevent harm with WP:NPF as the standard, no matter how defined, will not be beneficial. Harm is the most simple and relevant definition to me. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

NPF is a subsection of BLP for a reason. We add an explicit hurdle for marginal BLP's because wikipedia is likely to be the single most public thing in their lives. This does not apply for public figures for whom wikipedia is one of dozens of public views. That difference results in our treating marginal BLP's with considerable care, even bending NPOV to ensure that we don't provide an unfair portrayal of a private person. applying that standard to someone like Barack Obama is wrong. It results in content that is boosterish and unhelpful. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. It seems like there are far greater incidents when this should apply on Wiki than when it shouldn't, therefor seems like it safe to assume WP:NPF unless under the most obvious cases of politicians and celebrities. I mean, I feel like some editors consider some BLP's a Public Figure becasue the subject has some small status or notability above them. I am dispute with an editor with a bias toward negative info that just ignore this standard to be cautious, ever after many warnings from me and others that it might be best to apply it. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, where the line can and can't be drawn is a good discussion to have. I don't know how much NPF is enforced in practice. My guess is that it should apply to a large majority of BLP's, but that we don't need to define it broadly in order to do that. I hope that makes sense, if not, I can clarify. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I see it as up to active editors, in my case there have been several complaints by others (maybe even directed by the article subject), which is reason enough. General rule is "no foul no harm", when someone cries foul, even remotely realted to the subject, then best to clean-up with WP:NPF. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a poor interpretation. It leads to the incentive to "massage biographies" for semi-public figures. If I am a semi-public figure and I am interested in improving my public image, all I would need to do is claim that some harm has been done and the biography would be scrubbed of offending material (under NPF). This violates the whole basis for making a public encyclopedia. We don't want private and disproportionate control over content and tone. There are exceptions, of course. WP:NPF is one of them, but it should deal strictly with non-public figures. Foundation action on BLP's is another exception. In that case we simply have to trust that the foundation wouldn't delete, redact or protect a biography without due cause. Broadening either of those exemptions under the supposition that they 'do less harm' is damaging to the encyclopedia and against WP:NPOV. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I see your point as which side of safty must the issue fall, on the subject's side or on wiki free speech. Well, for good reason most folks have sided on the protection of privacy and human rights for non-public figures. The editors must uphold these principals. Remember, Wiki is a non-profit which is a subtal form of government ownership. This issue carries the same weight as an invasion of privacy. The Foundation should not have to get involved if editors act responsibly. The Foundation is the last resort for appeal. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I'm being clear. WP:NPF is good policy. It should be followed. It stops from hurting people by turning their most public online image into an attack. But applying NPF to everyone who isn't an avowed celebrity is wrong (I know I'm oversimplifying). this isn't a "free speech vs. don't harm" issue. That isn't a dilemma I have presented. The issue is that application of NPF for most people in BLP or application of NPF on request violates WP:NPOV and reduces the legitimacy of the encyclopedia. Read NPF again, please. All BLP's are required to be sourced from reliable sources and factually neutral. Applying NPF to an existing BLP would require that even source material not relevant to the subject's notability be removed. For figures who are more than marginally notable, BLP is sufficient to protect their reputations. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. I agree except when there is reason to believe the subject has issues with the material, then it's safe to apply secondary source requirement. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me add, the standard here is primary and secondary sources are required, not just some harm has been done. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The standard for BLP's is that reliable sourcing is required, that has nothing to do with NPF. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not following you well here. I meant the standard specifically to non-public figures a.k.a not well known. This is what I mean by WP:NPF, this link does not go right there. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Let me be more clear. "In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability" That sentence is the important one in my eyes. The other sentences in NPF talk about why NPF is a good idea or repeat admonitions made elsewhere (with the possible exception of the "use primary material from the source with caution" bit). All BLP's require a stringent standard of sourcing and demand the removal of defamatory language. but only NPF gives specific guidance on what negative material must go. For an example, let's take Alvin E. Roth. Not a public figure, but not marginally notable. He's been covered in secondary sources, he's written several books, he's offered lots of commentary to the media, etc. If we assumed (for the sake of argument) that Roth was caught plagiarizing or doing some other cardinal academic sin and that this offense was reported in reliable sources but not widely reported. It is possible (though not likely) that the scandal would not be too large. If the scandal was small (ie reported on by parochial journals or press), we could further make the argument that an accusation of plagiarism was not relevant to his notability. We would be required (if we accepted those two caveats) to remove it per NPF but not per BLP. We would have used a policy designed to protect individuals to scrub a biography of negative information. BLP only requires that that information be from a reliable source, not be defamatory and result in the article being factually neutral. BLP would allow us to include that negative detail in his biography. NPF would not (unless coverage were so widespread as to result in the negative fact being part of the subject's notability). That is my point. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent and thoughtful response, do you mind if I lobby you to reflect this in my Request For Comment? Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#RfC_-_WP:NPV_violations. Is it inappropriate to ask, this? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is inappropriate. I've summarized my thoughts at the RFC. Protonk (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)