Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Acceptable source question

Hi all. Do we find academia.edu to be an acceptable source for citations in biographies of living persons? My gut says it's way too close to self-published but I'm occasionally wrong. Please ping me if you respond as I will not be following this page. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you give a link? Google scholar is one of the best publicly accessible source for citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC).

Google Scholar is not a source of anything, it's a search engine. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The intersection of BLPSPS and PSCI

It is about time to resolve this.

• WP:BLPSPS is important policy.
• WP:PSCI is important policy.

We have some tension between these, when a living person holds FRINGE views, especially on scientific matters.

Per WP:PARITY there are certain blogs that we use regularly to address PSCI issues.

This was tested most recently at two RfCs where the intersection of these policies was explicitly explored: here and a similar one here.

I propose that we add to this section of BLP, ~something~ along the following lines.

However, when a living person espouses pseudoscientific or fringe views, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to those views. Content about such views may be sourced to third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person. The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases.

We need to bring the written policy into line with community practice.

This is not an RfC but rather an initial discussion to prepare one, which should be broadcast widely. So please don't !vote at this time. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC) (clarify as this is being miscontrued to mean SPS by the subject which is absolutely not what this is about Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC))

I would support that addition to the policy page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Since I also sometimes clash with other editors (including some with extensive experience) on these topics, I also think that clarification is a good idea. Noting: WP:BLPFRINGE is also closely related and should also be reviewed as necessary. —PaleoNeonate – 19:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No. We don't sacrifice BLP just because someone espouses fringe views. The simple rule is that we cannot use a self published source as a source of material about a living person. We can, per WP:PARITY, use an SPS (if it is a reliable source) to critique fringe claims, but that doesn't give us permission to ascribe views to someone using SPS, as doing so would involve using it to source claims about a living person, as opposed to critiquing views that they hold.

In the David Wolfe example linked to above, what we did was agree to rewrite the text so that it was compliant with BLPSPS, per Jytdog's proposed wording. We didn't agree to the original wording, which was not compliant with BLPSPS because it used an SPS to ascribe views to a living person. - Bilby (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

In the RfC about Wolfe, we accepted a Forbes' contributor piece as a source - a SPS. That is the issue here. I will be dealing with this last-straw misrepresentation elsewhere this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The wording you proposed at the RfC was "He (Wolfe) advocates that people with cancer treat it with dietary supplements, and according to Kavin Senapathy he "demonizes life-saving vaccines and cancer treatments"." The SPS (by Senapathy) was used as a source of Senapathy's views, not to ascribe a belief directly to Wolfe. That was fine, and I supported that wording, as it was compliant with BLP because the first half used a non-SPS for the claim that Wolfe advocates the use of dietary supplements. I am ok with that per below. - Bilby (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

diff prior to the RfC at Wolfe: That would be a no again. We can't use the Forbes piece.. I will not respond further here unless it is to rebut yet further misrepresentations. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That was for different text that was not compliant with BLP, not the RFC text. I explained why here. Let's not revisit that discussion. - Bilby (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

diff prior to the RfC at Wolfe: We can't use the Forbes piece.. I will not respond further to you here unless it is to rebut yet further misrepresentations. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I should have said "we cannot use the Forbes piece the way it is being used". Sorry. However, a) I agreed to the text proposed in the RFC, using the Forbes piece, when it was used in a way that was compliant with BLP. And b), I explained why it couldn't be used as you proposed prior to the RFC here. - Bilby (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No. And please stop cluttering this thread. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

We absolutely should not be allowing an SPS to be used to say someone else's view is fringe. That claim needs to come from demonstration in non-SPS RS, otherwise, you basically open the door for random criticism. The case of a view being fringe must be asserted by RSes. --Masem (t) 19:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Masem this is very specifically about the intersection of PSCI and BLP. It is not about anything random. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

My point is that say X is the BLP who we consider has a fringe view. We cannot use a SPS claim by Y to say X has fringe views. (But this would also extent to any criticism about BLP X, regardless) I do agree on the OP that we can use SPS by X to succinctly describe what X's views are if they are not otherwise covered in the RSes that discuss why X's view is fringe. --Masem (t) 19:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you have it completely backwards and your interpretation would make WP wide open to big swaths of self-sourced content by FRINGE advocates. No way. I am sorry but you are not dealing with PSCI which is policy. Please do review WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE. Please. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with what you have quoted as a requested addition above. I should be clear that I absolutely agree on the cavaet in th\at - that RSes (not SPS) have said that X has fringe views must be present first before we are able to succinctly describe in factual manner their stance, if we cannot otherwise draw that from RSes. --Masem (t) 20:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You are twisting it and I appreciate that you are doing that here, in this early discussion; I have corrected it above to avoid wasting time this way further. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

As a point of information: Science Based Medicine is not an ordinary self-published source. It has an editorial board and fact-checking. David Gorski has a blog where he writes trenchant criticism of quacks, we typically do not cite that. He also writes at SBM, and we often do cite that. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean, I'm ok with saying:

"Person X believes Y. (Non SPS) Y is a discredited view. (SPS)" - this is fine per WP:PARITY.

I'm also ok with:

"Person Z argues that Person X believes Y. (SPS by person Z)" - this is what we've used elsewhere, and is ascribing a belief to the author of the SPS, which is fine.

What we can't do is:

"Person X believes Y (SPS)", as doing so is not compliant with BLP policy.

If the proposed wording is for the first two I'm fine with it. If it is to allow the third, then no. - Bilby (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of #1 there and this is consistent with "such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person". —PaleoNeonate – 20:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why not shorter, "But see also, Neutral point of view (PSCI), WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY, when discussing relevant ideas of living persons and balancing views. When discussing ideas, these may allow the occasional and limited use of qualified self-published sources by others." Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with something like that. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not in favor of the proposal as it seems vague and too much open to interpretation. Possibly it can be expressed in a clearer form. It is essential to recognize self-published sources cannot be used to establish notability, but, if notability is established otherwise, may provide information for use in an article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC).

WP:Notability? Notability has to do with whether you have an article, not what is in an article. Do you mean WP:UNDUE? This would not change WP:UNDUE (or Notability) at all, if something is undue or someone is unnotable, it will still be undue, and they will still be unnotable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me state a concern. I have reread the discussion in question and PSCI, and as long as we are talking specifically "fringe theories and pseudosciences" - things that there is general sourcing that say that the BLP's views fall within that, there's no issues. But too often, editors use the points of PSCI towards fringe views, which are not the same as fringe theories or psuedoscience. (Fringe views fall more under UNDUE, not PSCI). The language as written, applied to a BLP with a seemingly fringe view, would mean that we should include any random SPS that considers the BLP's view as "fringe". That's a problem. As long as that we make it clear this only applies to fringe theories and psuedoscience where there is sufficent RSes to affirm that the science is fringy/PSCI, then the language is otherwise fine. --Masem (t) 23:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Masem thanks for taking the time to work through this. This is not intended to allow "any random SPS" - the proposal above specifically addresses that with The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases. This is oftenScience-Based Medicine (SBM) as Guy mentioned above (and used in the Greger RfC cited in the OP); there are other responsible debunkers out there like Gorski (an editor of SBM). The SPS from Forbes discussed in the Wolfe RfC, this one, is more or less professional and suitable for WP. There are lots of other SPS about Wolfe like this one and say this one that I didn't bring to the table, and no one should. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

All I want to make sure, and this ties in and agrees with points below, is that we are talking a "fringe" view or theory or psci that has clear RSes that establish it as fringe before allowing SPS to counter the details of the fringe view. Without the establishment of the idea being fringe by RSes, that opens far too many doors for misuse. I know this isn't a problem if the issue is strictly limitied to fringe theories or psci, I'm just concerned that it could be taken to mean beyond that. --Masem (t) 16:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

As noted by both Doug Weller and Johnuniq and others in this thread, quite often there are not standard RS that directly address this stuff; mainstream refs are busy discussing mainstream things. Please especially see Doug's remark. Again the language is already widely practiced by very experienced editors; the goal here is to catch up the writing. This needs to be done carefully - hence this preparation. This notion that "there must be clear RSes that establish it as fringe" is distraction and misses the heart of the problem - namely that quite often there are no standard RS that address this stuff. WP:PARITY exists for good reason. I would not have brought this, if there was not an actual problem here. We would not have this as a practice already, if people were not already doing this, ratified by RfCs.Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not think any exception should be made in BLP for fringe views, any statement or action made by a living person should be sourced to BLP compliant sources, regardless of the fringeness of that statement or action. There is really no difference between talking about a person and talking about there work or views (eg. "he is an anti-vaxer" vs "He has published books claiming that vaccines don't work and cause autism") Both of these are similar negative material about a living person, so they should both be sourced to the same kind of high-quality sources. If there is a reason to be carful about sources in BLPs, doesn't that reason still apply when fringe topics are involved? Maybe saying "He says vaccines don't work(citing BLP RS), but vaccines do work(citing SPS)" would not be a BLP issue, but I cant think of a situation when a SPS would be the only source to debunk a bogus claim like this.

In short, we should not use SPS to attribute fringe views to someone anymore than we could use SPS for other claims about a person, and I don't know why we would need to use an SPS to debunk the fringe view once a BLP RS has established that the person holds fringe views. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Except editors do not agree with your peculiar claim that talking about scientific ideas and talking about people are the same thing, partly because Wikipedia bases its ethos on the evident fact that talking about ideas and talking about people are not the same thing. In fact, consensus has at least twice shown, you don't have consensus for your view of this policy, and consensus is opposed to your claim about ideas and people:here and here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you misread my comment, I thing BLP should fully apply (no SPS) when attributing fringe views to a person, but SPS could be used to say such a view is false once BLP RS have establisher that the person holds that view. (I agree with User:Bilby in his comment below about "chocolate levitation"). Tornado chaser (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Now I see where this debate has been heading. It appears to have its origin in [1]. I agree with the comment of Tornado chaser above and oppose the proposal. All sources fringe, SPS or not, must be consistent with WP:BLP. Self-published sources should never be used as a source for any material that could be considered contentious.Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC).

What? The case you think it has an origin in [2] is entirely different, that case was including a statement by the the subject himself (and it was included), not someone else. Nothing here changes anything about statements of the subject, which will continue to be addressed using NPOV, Undue, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• The whole point of WP:PSCI is that reliable sources would rather bang their heads on a wall than spend time investigating whether yet another nonsensical claim is nonsense. An encyclopedia should not mislead readers with glowing accounts of how someone believes A, B and C without clarification that A, B and C are pseudoscientific claims with no basis in reason. Per WP:PARITY, it is often necessary to rely on an expert's statement (even if self published) rather than mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Johnuniq is absolutely right. Many fringe archaeological claims are never dealt with in academic publications. We're in danger of stripping some of our articles discussing people with fringe beliefs of any evidence that those beliefs are contradicted by members of the relevant professional community. I'm sure that's not what anyone here wants. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
    • This is true, but we need that distinction between discussing the belief that someone holds, and ascribing a belief to them. What we don't want is a situation where a self published source says, for example, "Doug believes that eating chocolate can cause you to levitate". If we don't have a reliable source, we can't claim that Doug holds this belief. But if we establish that Doug does hold that belief, we can use an SPS to point out that believing in chocolate-based levitation is nonsensical. Even with fringe beliefs, it seems too much of a risk to allow an SPS to ascribe those beliefs to people. That's my main concern with this proposed change - we need to ensure that it keeps the distinction between claiming that someone holds a belief and critiquing the belief once we establish that they hold it. - Bilby (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm familiar with only one RfC that tested this (this one), and it shouldn't have been closed the way it was. Core content policies can't be overridden by local consensus. The problem, as I recall, was that editors were allowing biomedical claims to be made without MEDRS sources. Then, having allowed them, they countered them with a self-published source. Would it not make more sense to disallow those claims in BLPs, rather than try to fix them with an SPS? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
        • It was closed appropriately. NPOV is also a core policy. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, im a bit confused by what exactly you are proposing. Do you just want to use WP:PARITY to allow the use of SPS to explain why a view is fringe once BLP RS have established the the subject of the article holds a particular view? Or do you want to allow SPS to be the source for the fact that the person holds a given view in the first place? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The two RfCs offered as having tested this idea are here and here. In the latter (David Wolfe (entrepreneur) (permalink), what appears to be a group blog is used to introduce a fringe claim (note 27). Note 24 is also an SPS, as is 28; the latter is used to introduce a fringe claim. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

In these cases we also had primary sources, my concern is if there are no primary sources or BLP RS, but ONLY third party SPS. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV, in the Wolfe case, 27 and 24 weren't considered in the RFC. 24 (Gorski) is used ok, in that it is an example of criticism about Wolfe, but doesn't make any claims about him; 27 (Babuschkin) is ok if the source is not considered to be self published (as it claims to have an editor, my assumption was that it was not an SPS). 28 (Senapathy) was the focus of the RFC. I supported that change, because the self published source was being used to support a belief held by Senapathy about Wolfe, not to attribute a belief to Wolfe, and a non-SPS was used to attribute the belief. However, the original wording using Senapathy's self published source to make a claim about Wolfe [3] was a violation of BLPSPS. Such a use was not supported in the RFC. I wish to ensure that any change to BLP will not permit the use of an SPS to attribute fringe beliefs to another living person, as was originally the case at David Wolfe. - Bilby (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Bilby, the policy says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." This is a core content policy. It can't be overridden by local consensus. RfCs that have been closed to the contrary shouldn't have been closed that way.

The point of the principle is that it's a line in the sand, so you don't have to twist yourself in knots working out whether the source is commenting on the person, or about her ideas, or about the ideas of someone commenting on her, etc. The answer to all of the above is: don't use SPS in BLPs unless written or published by the subject, and then only with caution. If that means weird claims can't be countered (assuming they need to be countered because they're not so weird that they're obviously untrue), then don't include them in the first place. Rewriting can solve a lot of these problems. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I am ok with that approach. I've found that the compromise was that we can't say "X believes Y" using an SPS from X, but we can say "X believes Z about Y" using an SPS from X, however I agree with you that the policy is stronger than that, and under policy the compromise has been an error. I'd be happy with just not including content sourced to an SPS in BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin you continue to ignore the problem that regularly occurs when living people hold fringe positions; we do not ignore PSCI which is also policy and just as essential. We have to -- and already do -- accommodate both. This is living consensus not local. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Bilby, the problem with using SPS in BPLs is that it means someone could write a document criticizing a living person specifically for use in that person's BLP. Now, any journalist could do the same, but to get things published in a newspaper there are layers of oversight you have to go through. If you're an SPS, you can dash something off in your pyjamas at 3 am and make it public immediately, whereupon it can go straight into a BLP. The whole point of our insistence on using professional sources is that they're accountable to someone (copy editors, editors, lawyers, publishers). SarahSV ^(talk) 00:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin that is a straw man. The proposal says "The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases." and in practice we don't use any such crappy blogs "dashed off at 3 in the morning" in these situations. I see that you don't wish to interact with me, so I will leave it there. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In one BLP that I helped to write about a person with odd ideas, I restricted the article to the basic, extremely odd claims (ideas so strange that, if someone is going to believe them, they'll do that no matter what any source says), and I ignored anything that a reader might think was true, including health claims, claims about vaccines, etc. That worked very well. Just leave out anything you might need to counter with an SPS. Can anyone produce an example where (a) the idea was fringe, but not obviously crazy, such that it had to be countered by an SPS; and (b) the fringe idea had to be included for some reason? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

What was that article? I would be interested to see that solution. I will look for examples but this notion of ignoring PSCI is... dicey. I actually had a guy say to me in the grocery store the other day "My fridge broke and the meat turned into flies. That's what happens". (and yeah, I asked him if he really meant that) People have holes in their knowledge all over the place. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin you asked here for an example. I will be happy to bring some examples. In the meantime I await for your identification of the BLP article you worked on. Please identify it. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV, that works for me. Keeping things simple and not using self published sources other than those by the subject avoids messy gray areas and risk. - Bilby (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Related point re what self-published means

Something I've been meaning to bring up for a while is a confusion that sometimes arises when we talk about "self-published" sources. The problem isn't what the term self-published means, but rather the following distinction:

• Something self-published by person X, as a potential source for any random thing (WP:SELFPUBLISH), versus
• Something self-published by person X, as a potential source for a statement about person X (WP:SELFPUB).

Now and then in a discussion different people will be talking about different ones of these two without realizing it. We even have two confusingly named shortcuts (above) for them. Just something to keep in mind. EEng 05:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The debate here seems to be about the policy WP:SELFPUBLISH which advises Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. This seems to fit the case of the Brian Martin BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC).Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing this out, I belive this debate is about WP:SELFPUBLISH (not SELFEPUB). Tornado chaser (talk)

Yes the discussion here is about resolving the tension in the writing of two policies - BLP and NPOV, specifically WP:BLPSPS (with respect to WP:SELFPUBLISH) and WP:PSCI as implemented via WP:PARITY. Yes. As I noted above, there have been two RfCs now (and I can probably find others) where this tension has already been resolved by the community in practice; the discussion is about bringing the writing of BLPSPS in line with that practice. Written policy expresses consensus, and consensus is a living thing that develops. The writing needs to catch up. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUBLISH says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

WP:PARITY says "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals." This is so we can say chocolate dosen't make you levitate even if there are no research papers on the subject, not so we can say "John says chocolate makes you levitate" without a BLP RS. WP:PARITY also says "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." There is no conflict here, these policies make clear that BLP fully applies when we attribute fringe views to a person, but that we may then use SPS to critique that view, NOT that we can ever use third party SPS to attribute any views to a person.

What is being proposed is not resolving a conflict, rather it is making major changes to WP:BLP based on 2 local RfCs that established ROUGH consensus in favor of what MIGHT have been MARGINAL BLP vios (both cases it was presented as the bloggers opinion when the subjects' views were already established by other sources, and one specified that it was a CLOSE CALL based on INTERPRETATION of BLP, not overriding it)

What is the point of allowing third party SPS to attribute fringe views to someone? If we are just talking about critiquing views that BLP RS establish that the person holds, policy clearly already allows this, and the change is not needed. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You are not dealing with PSCI nor the reason that PARITY exists (mainstream refs are busy talking about mainstream things) nor with the fact that this is already widely practiced. The only goal here is to craft language expressing this. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought I addressed this, PARITY allows us to use SPS to debunk a bogus (psudo)scientific claim of fact, BLP does not deal with scientific fact so there is no conflict here, what BLP currently prohibits is using an SPS as the source for the fact that someone says something, but once we have a source for that PARITY allows us to use SPS to say that the persons statement is fringe/wrong/unsupported by evidence. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is about addressing views of living people.Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, It seems to me that your proposal could be interpreted as allowing either A or B, or maybe C but it is not clear which, could you clarify?

A "Person X says chocolate can make you levitate.(BLP RS) But chocolate levitation is nonsense.(SPS)"

B "Person X says chocolate can make you levitate.(SPS)"

C something other than A or B

Tornado chaser (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Go look for sources about Ben Swann and vaccines. (really - go look) You will not find any mainstream sources discussing his views on vaccines. You will find a) him talking about "the CDC whistleblower" and the like (there is no question about that he has done this stuff); b) anti-vax sites cheering on Swann c) david gorski describing and debunking it. So the content is something like "Benn Swann has promoted conspiracy theories that vaccines are harmful; the scientific consensus is that vaccines are not harmful" (sourced to SBM and gorski). This is exactly the sort of thing where this is necessary. There is no question that he actually promotes this view. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems you'r supporting B, and I now understand your reasoning, however, this seems like the place to use a primary source to establish what his views are(you yourself said "You will find a) him talking about "the CDC whistleblower" and the like (there is no question about that he has done this stuff);" and than use SBM to debunk it (option A in my comment above) I still think B unnecessarily weakens BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The only reason I can see B being needed is if we want to talk about someones views but don't have any primaryWP:SELFPUB sources and also don't have any BLP RS, but ONLY have third party SPS, in this case, wouldn't the fact that the person held such views fail WP:V (and notability)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tornado chaser (talk • contribs) 22:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:Notability is about whether a page should exist. It is irrelevant to this discussion. I have nothing more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The gist of my argument was and is nothing to do with notability. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There is something to be said about "documenting a controversy" which (at least to me) means giving reasonable equal weight to briefly explaining side A says and what side B says, (or in the case for a fringe theory/psci idea, explaining what side A says and then that the rest of the scientific word has refuted this). The reactions from third parties, or the back and forth between A and B, there, that becomes what UNDUE or FRINGE regulates; if A's side is the fringe theory, we aren't going to include all their backup and proof why that is. (In the case of Swann, it looks like he believes the anti-vac position by claiming there was a conspiracy by the CDC to cover up the effects of vaccines, leading to autism. That's literally all that needs to be said to explain his point, we don't need the volumes how he connects his dots to get there. Now in Swann's case, I see what I think are RSes covering this position, as well as countering that position, so outside of perhaps linking to his SPS news segment as a reference for his position on anti-vac, there's no need to incorporate much more for Swann here. It's basically saying "Here's what B said, in their own words." so the reader can decide how to interpret everything else around it. But this same logic also makes it reasonable to include the SPS counterpoint from B if B is an appropriate expert in the field, if RSes otherwise don't explain enough why A's theory is wrong or disproven. --Masem (t) 19:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Masem I repeat, there are no RS other than Science-Based Medicine that describe Swann's views on vaccines. The sources are exactly as I described them. You will find him talking about it, anti-vax nutjobs discussing what he says, and skeptics debunking, the best of which is Science-based medicine. I mean this. If you think there are RS (other than Science Based Medicine) that describe Swann's vaccine views, please bring them. I have spent several hours looking but may have missed something but I doubt it. If you do not find anything please restate your remarks above. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking more in general here. Swann specifically appears to have sources from RSes to support describing his point, and the counterpoint of his views, so there's no issue there. But there are other potential cases out there where those views aren't discussed in RSes, and where we are looking to SPS to consider how to document the view and counterview. --Masem (t) 00:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you have lost me. What do you mean by "sources from RSes to support describing his point"? Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, you have not addressed the issue I raised here[4], and here[5], we can use primary sources to establish that he holds such views, and than use third party SPS to debunk those views. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I see no conflict between BLP and PSCI or PARITY. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me restate the question you are asking. You want me to answer as to why we should not give FRINGE promoters free promotion in WP by linking to their own fringe promotion. The answer to that is rather obvious. We don't. We rely on independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Break

Primary sources be used as sources about themselves WP:TWITTER, there is nothing wrong or "promotional" about saying "Ben Swann has said X (citation:Ben Swann), but X is nonsense(citation:David Gorski)." This is debunking, and in no way promotes any of Ben Swann's ideas. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Twitter as a source. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If we are talking about including the opposition to a person's view, but no RS actually describes the view, then it is NPOV to at least give a brief concise statement of the person's view using an SPS by that person, with full attribution. That is not an endorsement of the view, and simply needed to help the reader understand the opposition's logic and arguments. We aren't going to allow a massive thesis on that view, just a sentence to establish what the controversy is. Refusal to include what the BLP says about their own views in their BLP article even when we include what others have said about those views is clearly as bad as a problem as outright promotion of the BLP's views. It's a balancing issue. --Masem (t) 04:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

hmmm WP:GEVAL is relevant here. "Balance" is not the value (that is what POV pushers want and constantly complain that WP lacks). NPOV is the value. PSCI and FRINGE are not like mainstream topics.... Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem I guess is that there's not a good example specifically dealing with a BLP that has a view that falls in science-based fringe theories or pseudoscience where the person's view, if it is a matter for discussion, lacks any RS discussion about the person's views but where there is discussion countering those views. It's hard to demonstrate in hypotheticals. It's also goes back that what is being prescribed for fringes theories and psci is going to leak into instructions that will be read in the context of non-science fringe views.

Basically, it is not a false balance to say in a controversial topic the fundamental points of disagreement: "A believes X, B believes Y" It is a false balance to try to justify either point, much less try to create equal justifications for both points. But in the factual statement of disagreement, if we are missing any RS that gives us "B believes Y", then there is no harm to use a SBS written by B to assert "B believes Y", particularly if B is our BLP in question. But I have no easy case to point to to understand this in context. --Masem (t) 05:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, as long as the persons views are immediately debunked by the third party SPS, there is no problem with using a primary source to establish that the person holds the view, the text will still read like this: "X belives Y,[1] but Y is completely false.[2]" Which is not false balance, as it clearly states the wrongness of X's views and does not portray it as an equal controversy. 1=primary source written by X, 2=third party SPS. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Question: When the subject of a BLP holds a fringe belief, why is there a need to debunk the belief in the BLP? I would think that the place to debunk would be the article on the belief, not the BLP. If the subject of a BLP believes that eating raw eggs will cure cancer, why not simply state: “X believes that eating raw eggs will cure cancer”, and leave it at that? It isn’t as if the article is actually saying that raw eggs actually does cure cancer, it is simply stating what X believes. That does not require debunking. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If something is bogus, shouldn't that be made clear to the reader? see WP:PARITY. Also, what if someone holds a belief that is so rare and weird that there is no wikipedia article on such belief? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Because readers with cancer might start eating raw eggs. I agree that that kind of information shouldn't stand. The dispute here is whether to (a) include it and debunk it with an SPS if necessary; or (b) respect BLPSPS and leave it out if no non-SPS reliable source has addressed it. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I would argue if the case if the person just has a standard fringe theory believe (such as being a Flat Earther), where there's only variation (that the earth is flat) then we just link to that page and leave it at that. On the other hand, with a case like Swann here, where they hold a unique viewpoint, and criticism of that unique viewpoint, we need to have that explained in the article. --Masem (t) 21:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Ben Swann is a good example of a case where there's no need to mention the issue the SPS is used for. The article offers plenty of examples of his conspiracy theories, so the reader gets the full flavour. If no non-SPS has addressed the vaccination issue, leave it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it might be okay to use an SPS to debunk fringe views, but not to say someone holds a particular view. "X says Y(BLP RS) but y is nonsense(SPS)" seems ok(and consistent with current policy without changes), but I am strongly opposed to changing policy to allow the use of third-party SPS as the source for

X says Y". Tornado chaser (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This version of the article uses Swann as a source of his beliefs about vaccination, and MEDRS sources to debunk. Why was this changed to introduce an SPS to debunk it? This is a good example of what ought not to happen. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that SPS should not be used when other sources are available, the only time I might be ok with them is if RS establish that a person says something, and it is so silly that no RS bother to debunk it, I do not know any legitimate reason you would replace a MEDRS with an SPS. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

No one replaced a MEDRS source with an SPS. But someone has replaced Swann with an SPS. Swann is allowed as a source; other SPS are not allowed. The solution is (a) restore the version that I linked to above; or (b) remove the vaccination claim. But as it stands, that section violates this policy. And the claim that the SPS is needed to debunk is false; there are MEDRS sources doing it. Granted, they don't mention Swann, so you're having to IAR and engage in a SYN violation, but it has long been accepted that this is okay when needed for WP:PSCI. But note "when needed"; in this case, leaving out the vaccination claim is a valid option because nothing in the article hangs on it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried to fix this, but was reverted, any further discussion of this should take place at Ben Swann. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I just read through this thread and almost everyone is saying the same thing, just in slightly different ways, and then vociferously disagreeing with the different way somebody else said something. I might as well contribute to the row by phrasing it in yet another, slightly different way:

It's perfectly acceptable to use WP:PARITY-qualified sources in a BLP article to discuss the fringe theories espoused by the subject. It's not acceptable to use WP:PARITY-qualified sources to establish that a living (or recently deceased) person has espoused a fringe theory. That would require a WP:BLPRS-qualified source, though a WP:PRIMARY source can also often be used as the explication of such views is rarely self-serving.

Now, feel free to continue furiously agreeing with each other until someone comes along and closes this thread as "no consensus". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree exactly. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Reformulated proposal

So summarizing the discussion, the rough consensus of the discussion of the discussion above is something like

• However, if a living person holds a view (as established by reliable sources including self-published sources by the subject) and that view is a well-documented pseudoscientific or fringe view theory, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to that view. Content about such views may be sourced to third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person. The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases.

There are wings on either side of the first version; I am on one of those wings, but this is what I see as the middle that most folks above are saying. Agreed?

There was also this alt:

• "But see also, Neutral point of view (PSCI), WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY, when discussing relevant ideas of living persons and balancing views. When discussing ideas, these may allow the occasional and limited use of qualified self-published sources by others."

We should pick one or the other and refine to get something we could pose in an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC) (addressed the "well-documented" and "theory" issues from masem below Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC))

Three things:

1) "that view is a pseudoscientific or fringe view", I think you mean "that view is a pseudoscientific or fringe theory" (since you point to FRINGE). If we are talking a non-scientifically-based fringe view (eg like a political position), this proposal should not apply to that

2) In the same phrase above, I would add "well-documented pseudoscientific or fringe theory", that establishes that it should be accepted that the idea is PSCI/FRINGE.

3) I would add in that discussions about the view should be keep in check through WEIGHT/UNDUE and other related factors. --Masem (t) 17:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Why do SPS have to be used to counter the view? Please give an example of an article where (a) the fringe view has to be included; and (b) the only way to counter it is with an SPS. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

To get the statement of the BLP's view in the BLP's own words for the most part, if this is not given by the RSes establishing the view as psci/fringe. --Masem (t) 18:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to be crystal clear that third party SPS can NEVER be used to say a person holds a view, but could be used to debunk a view only once BLP RS establish that the person holds such a view, alough I have not seen any case in which an SPS is needed to debunk a view (SBM is not a blog, so the issue at Ben Swann is not relevant). Tornado chaser (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, we need to make clear that this only applied to fringe "scientific" theories, not political positions, etc.Tornado chaser (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This would depend on if a fringe theory (including conspiracy theories) are also of a political nature (which they often are, although refuted by mainstream sources). Example being controlled demolition 911 conspiracy theories, alien-controlled U.S. government ones, Illuminati, child slave mars colonies, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 08:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate Good point, those are not exactly scientific theories, but are still fringe theories, and WP:FRINGE still applies. The distinction I am trying to draw is between theories (claims of fact, whether scientific or historical or any other fringe claims of fact) and opinions (which may be unpopular but are not objectively true or false). Vaccines are a good example, "vaccines don't work" is a fringe theory (it can be determined to be true or false), but "vaccines shouldn't be required" is not a fringe theory nor pseudoscience, just an opinion that could be motivated by belief in a fringe theory, or by libertarian anti-government ideology (which cannot be objectively determined to be true or false). Wikipedia should not be trying to "debunk" beliefs about morality or the proper role of government or other opinions, but should debunk false claims of fact. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• My intention is to move toward an actual policy proposal. Please propose specific changes rather than making general points. Please be aware that it must be tight and not too detailed.

If you are on a "wing" that objects to the proposal at all, please don't clutter this drafting effort; you can oppose at the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You said you would find an example of where this was necessary, so please do. That is, an article where (a) the fringe view has to be included; and (b) the only way to counter it is with an SPS. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) replied above. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't create a distraction. This proposal would be a major change to a core content policy. Therefore, please offer one example of where this change is needed; not just wanted but needed. Otherwise, it's unclear what you're requesting. Do you want to use an SPS (other than the subject) to support that a BLP holds a certain view? That would be unacceptable, so presumably not. Do you want to use an SPS to debunk a fringe view a BLP holds? If yes, why does it have to be an SPS? And does the fringe view have to be included? These are important questions. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this "However, if a living person holds a view (as established by reliable sources including self-published sources by the subject) and that view is a well-documented pseudoscientific or fringe theory, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to that view. Content about such views may be sourced to third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person. The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases." seems to address the BLP issues, but should be clarified by adding at the end "But third party SPS may never be used to say that a person holds a certain view".

What I do not understand is how "a well-documented pseudoscientific or fringe theory" could possibly lack any non SPS sources to debunk it (this would seem counter to the definition of "well documented"). Tornado chaser (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

From an entirely different angle:

Biographies of living persons as well as articles where WP:BLP applies to the mention of living persons should stress material of biographical value regarding the person. Where the views held by the person are of significant biographical value to that person, the claim that the person holds such views should be stated clearly and concisely with a Wikilink to the topic, but without extensive discussion in the BLP. Such Wikilinked articles will likely present a discussion of the general views about the topic, and are generally sufficient to demonstrate controversies about that topic to the reader If an extended discussion of the topic is proper for some reason in the biography, such as a belief held notably by the one person, then such a discussion may then include the views of others.

This position would then be much more comprehensive than just "fringe theories" but include topics of all types. Debates about theories are generally better placed in the articles about those theories rather than being inserted like condensed soup into multiple biographies, in my opinion. This would also reduce bickering by an order of magnitude, I suspect. Collect (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Collect i appreciate the new angle. It is useful. However this is really focused on articles about living people; quite often this issue comes up in articles about other stuff and as you know BLP applies everywhere. This is less useful in those contexts. I am interested to see how folks react to this.Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Made clear the "of living persons" part - dunno why I elided it at the outset. I figure it makes sense to stop all the use of biographies to make the same points over and over <g>. Collect (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Which still doesn't address the issue of mentions of living people in articles that are not biographical, where BLP still applies... Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Expanded per your suggestion, although I had thought the intent was fairly clear. :) The goal is to have stuff about "pseudo or real" be kept to articles on the belief or theory etc. and not pasted in every article where a name is mentioned. Collect (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Collect thanks for that tweak. I just came back to re-read all of this. The last sentence of your proposal, leaves the fundamental question unresolved -- namely, what kind of sources can be used for those "views of others"? SPS or not? Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The SPS exclusion still applies in all cases. "Others" here then must refer to the views of other persons which meet the Wikipedia sourcing requirements as well. Sources forbidden by Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not get a "bye" by this. OK? Collect (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Collect thanks for replying. I see. So this is not about resolving the tension at all, and ignores what WP:PSCI provides. Thanks again in any case. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The intent is to prevent abuse of policy in order to link living persons to controversial topics in such a manner as is detrimental to WP:BLP. Nor does this suggestion "ignore WP:PSCI" but seeks to assert the primacy of WP:BLP which I trust you agree is a higher level policy. Collect (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Collect, that's too facile. BLP means that we apply all the policies with great care; BLP is never an excuse to violate a policy. PSCI is part of NPOV which means that especially on a BLP page, we do not propagate pseudoscience. The tension comes in with how to do that, given the requirement for strong sourcing in a BLP and given the not uncommon lack of sources typically considered strong that address the specific person's pseudoscience/FRINGE views -- remember we also cannot violate WP:SYN by using some stronger source addressing the topic generally. Hence the proposal, to help navigate between this Scylla and Charybdis in our policies.Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Too facile? Nope. Using a BLP to iterate how horrid their pseudoscience is when there is already a link to that position does not have anything to do with promoting or denying pseudoscience. It is related to giving undue weight to an issue already fully covered on Wikipedia and linked to as well. in a BLP. I demur on your attitude on this issue. NPOV is satisfied by a single simple link to the pseudoscience article involved, and is abridged by giving an iterated précis of such an article in the BLP. If the Wikipedia article clearly goes beyond the relevance to the person's actual views, then we should elide the Wikilink. Collect (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Collect this is what I mean about blowing off PSCI. First, each article needs to stand on its own if it is printed or mirrored somewhere else. In addition, here is what PSCI actually says::

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked. See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help with deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience.

First, do you see how it says "by proponents" in the first sentence there? To the extent said proponents are living, we are directly intersecting with BLP. Do you see how it says "An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included."

When you reply again, please do actually engage with the PSCI policy, spirit and letter? Thanks. (This is actually helpful for thinking through the RfC; both passages are going to have to be presented to help people engage with them... so thanks at least for that) Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

TL,DR.? You appear to accuse me of somehow forgetting that PSCI requires massive copying of the same stuff in any article or BLP which has the remotest connection with the evil belief. Sorry, but that is not a sane thing to do. Articles about living persons should primarily deal with the actual biographies of those persons and not be compendia of rebuttal for every belief they have had. is my stance. Lo alecha hanlacha ligmor. Our task is to present biographies with the salient material relevant to the biographies, not to make sure that every tangent is given full coverage in a biography. The Wikilinks in a BLP are sufficient to let readers understand how evil the person's beliefs are. Saying that a person has a Wikilinked belief is not promoting such a belief in Wikipedia's voice whatsoever. I trust this is clear. Collect (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I have never said anything about, or even close to, "copying massive amounts of text". To deal with the thing you are talking about (which has nothing to do with the issue of sourcing) the quoted PSCI policy directly discusses the issues of WEIGHT already, which makes the putative objection all the more strange and invalid. This is in any case no longer an authentic conversation and I will not be responding further. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

If we don't have sufficiently strong sources for something, why not just follow our current policy and exclude the poorly sourced material per WP:UNDUE? Tornado chaser (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

PSCI is current policy. It is pasted just above. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

PSCI does not say we have to mention the persons' belief at all if it would be UNDUE, just that if we mention a pseudoscientific belief we must clearly say it is pseudoscience. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If there are no BLPRS that say "X believes Y", then it is undue to put "X believes Y" in a wikipedia article, and PSCI has nothing to do with this. The issue with PSCI appears to be if we do have sources for "X believes Y", how to then debunk Y, as we are discussing under "Break 2". Tornado chaser (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose use of self-published sources for any purpose except to report views of self-publisher about themself. Views of the self-publisher about other people are not acceptable as a source (I think I am repeating myself).Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC).
  • There is nothing here to be !voted on. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I will be posting an actual RfC soon. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please give me a ping if an RfC is started. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC).

Jytdog, you said you would provide an example of where an SPS is needed[6], please do. (Science-Based Medicine seems not to be considered an SPS[7][8]) So using it at Ben Swann doesn't require any policy changes. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Read what I actually wrote there. You should avoid taking what people write out of context. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Can you clarify how you think I have misinterpreted you? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Break 2

I just read through this entire discussion and it does seem like the same arguments are being made over and over without progress (this is not an accusation against anyone, I have contributed to it too). As far as coming up with actual wording for an RfC, I think Jytdog's Reformulated proposal is decent but may need a few tweaks, besides the clarification that "third party SPS may never be used to say that a person holds a certain view", and the question of what is a "well documented" fringe theory, I can also see possible confusion regarding the previously mentioned distinction between political and scientific fringe views, particularly when a political view relates to scientific issues, for example views on environmental regulations or vaccine requirements. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC) updated 16:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, how about

However, if it is established by BLP-compliant sources including self-published sources by the subject that a living person supports a theory (as opposed to a political opinion) and that theory is documented to be pseudoscientific or fringe by BLP-compliant sources, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to that theory. Content about such theory may be sourced to expert third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the theory, not the person.

I hope that this will enable debunking and mentioning the reactions of other scientists per PSCI and PARITY while maintaining strong BLP protections. I disagree with Collect in that I support some debunking in the BLP article, but in no way does this mean "massive copying" is needed. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You are still missing the WP:SYN problem. Writing "X promotes Y in books and lectures (BLP-compliant source) and Y is pseudoscience (sourced to standard RS that doesn't mention X)" is WP:SYN and other objections like COATRACK get raised as well. Where the unusual sources come in, is discussing the mainstream scientific view on particular views of a particular person. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog I see where that could be construed as SYN, but if this is really SYN, then the policy change we need is a very narrow exception to SYN for cases like this, rather than weakening BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with the frame that this is "weakening" BLP. It is bringing BLP and NPOV into alignment on a very specific issue. If you insist on using the "weakening" frame then why in the world would you think it is better to "weaken" OR, our bulwark against the very natural tendency of people to abuse our openness to express their own ideas here, and a much earlier policy? Here is the earliest version of the OR policy - it is exactly about the FRINGE/PSCI issue, interestingly. And here is the 1st version of BLP; created 2 years later; you can see the essence of BLP is "follow the other P&G rigorously). That is exactly what I am trying to do here. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think BLP and NPOV conflict, applying BLP and NPOV together does not result in any contradiction, but may require a marginal SYN violation. However, I am not convinced that it is SYN to say "X believes Y,[1] Y is false.[2]" as this does not synthesize anything that the sources do not explicitly state (assuming source 1 says "X believes Y" and source 2 says "Y is false". If we need to change polity it should be easier to craft a narrowly tailored exception to SYN to allow "X believes Y,[1] Y is false.[2]" without allowing a bunch of OR, than it would be to weaken BLPSPS without opening the door for opinionated and poorly fact checked blog posts being used as sources. I say "weaken" because you are proposing less strict sourcing rules, a "weaker" policy, as a solution to the alleged conflict between BLP, NPOV, and SYN. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The conflict between deadnaming and ABOUTSELF, versus VERIFIABILTY and previous RfCs

Over at WT:MOS, Yndajas has raised an off-topic thread about deadnaming of the transgendered. Said party has been pointed to this page about 5 times but continues re-discuss the matter on a page where the issue is not going to be resolved, so I'm opening this discussion for them. (I suppose WT:V or WP:VPPRO could also have worked, but this seemed the most narrowly tailored policy-not-guideline talk page).

The gist (with various drama elided):

• City of York Council election, 2015 includes lists of (non-notable) candidates.
• One of these is User:Yndajas under their prior name. There is no article about this person (and likely won't be).
• Yndajas wants this name removed from the 2015 article and replaced with Ynda Jas, their current name, but not the name used in the election or in sources about it.
• Yndajas suggested [9] that the table heading "Candidate" was a label of identity of the candidates in the present tense, while "Name on the ballot" would just be historical information.
• So, the table heading was changed (though this makes it inconsistent with other such articles); Yndajas returned to the claim that it's still deadnaming. Cf. WP:ONEHANDGIVES.
• WP:ABOUTSELF policy clearly would permit us to change references to this person's old name to the new one, for present-tense material (e.g., if the subject had their own article, or was in the news again for something post-namechange).
• Three back-to-back community RfCs at Village Pump concluded against the idea of changing names in historical material (e.g. Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics will continue to say "Bruce Jenner" not "Kaitlyn Jenner"):
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#Clarifying/updating WP:BIRTHNAME with respect to MOS:IDENTITY
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive_121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals
• Yndajas nevertheless proposes that the ABOUTSELF principle should be permitted to apply to the historical context, and has supplied self-published proof [10] by Ynda Jas (who presumably really is User:Yndajas – we have no basis for doubt) that they use that name exclusively not the old name; it's clear that Yndajas is offended by use of the old name's use here.
  • However, because the subject is non-notable and just mentioned in passing on WP in one list article, with no further context, there really is no way to tie that back-then name to Ynda Jas today. I.e., Yndajas is basically self-deadnaming by pursuing this debate, which seems a bit WP:POINTy and casts doubt on the emotional-harm claims made by this party (as does their continued maintenance of a website that uses the old name; see below).
• A consequence of making a BLP rule that ABOUTSELF can be retroactively applied is that we would end up with a verifiability problem:
  • If the election list article says "Ynda Jas" this will not be findable in any sources cited for that article and that information in it.
  • This could be resolved-ish with a footnote explaining that Ynda Jas as listed in our article corresponds to whatever name is found in the source. But this is likely to simply be claimed again to be deadnaming, just less obvoius deadnaming.
  • Idea: Maybe WP:OTRS could accept e-mailed proof of a claim (they way it handles proof of copyright permission for images, etc.), but then suppress it from public, non-admin view in the actual article. I don't know if that's ever been suggested before.

I see no obvious way to resolve this, but I do know that WT:MOS can't make up a new change to sourcing policy for bios of living people; it's the wrong venue no matter what the potential outcomes of such a debate might be.

PS: The deadname was incidentally mentioned in the WT:MOS thread in a (good faith) post of the subject's website as evidence [11] (turned out to be their old website [12]); it has the deadname as its domain name. This might need to be WP:OVERSIGHTed, though I already redacted the link, so it's only available in the old diff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

They are not notable. That means that Wikipedia neither cares about nor documents their life events. It is a straight up BLP violation for us to discuss the personal life of a non-notable person mentioned in passing in one of our articles. It is arguably promotional for them to be pushing for this since a major effect of changing the name in the list is to link their new name with their candidacy on Wikipedia resulting in SEO for the new name.

While Wikipedia articles should be written with sensitivity towards living people is also must be written with sensitivity to the factual historic record i.e we do not change history because someone is offended by it. If there were an article about this person it would be appropriate to add a 'changed name to' comment linking to their article (to note why we are linking to a differently named article) because the name change would be part of the record along with their continuing notability. I regret that this person is caused distress by their previous name being listed but evidently all material related to this election everywhere uses the prior name as should we. Jbh ^Talk 18:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks SMcCandlish for bringing this here and summarising the issue. I had not yet done so as this as the situation is causing me significant anxiety and distress, and navigating this side of Wikipedia is not something I'm an expert in so I really didn't have the energy to do it yet. As I said elsewhere, I continued to respond on the other thread by responding directly to the resistance I was facing, not for the sake of repititiont (and with no drama intended, only reasonable argumentation).

I hope you don't continue to class this as bickering, drama or whatever else, but I'll continue to respond to points raised with no drama intended.

First, a tip: "transgendered" is an outdated and offensive term. "Transgender" and "trans" are much better.

If anything, this sounds like drama (or attempting to cause it) to me: "no article about this person (and likely won't be)" (perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds like "you'll never be noteworthy", which doesn't bother me but feels like an unnecessary jibe)

I didn't suggest it would be okay to use "Name on the ballot" and then continue to deadname me, I simply said the historical accuracy argument that seems very common on this issue would be more valid/appropriate if it said something like that. You changed it to be non-standard and now it is historically accurate - I accept that - but the issue remains.

I can't see where it says that WP:ABOUTSELF guidance is limited to present tense references - perhaps I'm missing something?

I'm not self-deadnaming beyond providing a link to my old website for the purpose of evidence - you'll note that I've consistently referred to my deadname as "deadname" or "[deadname]". Further, my old website is not maintained - it's live but not maintained (maintained in my understanding meaning continuing to be updated as per usual). As I've stated elsewhere, I'm in the process of shifting to my new website and the old will redirect once the new is finished and then disappear when domain name registration and hosting expire. I've slowly been updating links to my old website to link to my new website. It is being phased out. Does this cast away your doubt of my claims of emotional harm, or at least address this specific point of evidence for such a claim?

I already gave permission at least twice to have a footnote stating that the name on the ballot was different, and I will accept this as a solution in my case (but argue this is not appropriate for many trans people less privileged than me). It's not ideal, but it's better and less invalidating than being deadnamed in the main body of the article.

As I've said, I'm happy to provide evidence of thr name change if it helps resolve this issue.

Jbh - I've argued elsewhere that using notability as a criteria for not deadnaming trans people creates a two-class system where you must earn your right not to be deadnamed. Surely not a fair and ethical approach?

I'm not asking for my personal life to be discussed, simply that my name on the page reflects who I am rather than an old label.

This is absolutely not for promotional or SEO reasons - this feels like an unfounded mischaracterisation of me/my motives. I've been fairly clear on why I don't want my deadname holding a prominent place on Wikipedia, and I don't care about (or even have much awareness of) any SEO implications. The issue is more the other way around - if people go to my website and read that I stood for election and then research it, they might find the old name. I don't want that. The footnote solution would at least reduce the risk. I'm not interested in people researching and finding my website from Wikipedia, and highly doubt that would have a significant effect - how many people are going to read the page and search for an unelected candidate?

As I've argued elsewhere, it is historically accurate to say Ynda Jas was the candidate - Ynda Jas is the person who ran. It's less accurate to say [deadname] ran. Yes, it is accurate to say [deadname] was the name on the ballot, but this is an unnecessary use of non-standard practice when other solutions are possible. Sticking to records when there is good evidence of a change and when it causes undue harm is not good, ethical practice. Yndajas (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID, under the subheading Referring to the person in other articles, advises: "Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis." User:Yndajas is mentioned once under her former name at City of York Council election, 2015, with no individual description apart from party, and number and percentage of votes. This context suggests the candidate's subsequent name change is not relevant to that page, and need not be substituted. KalHolmann (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I regret that having your previous name in the article in question is causing you distress. The issue though is that you were a candidate under that name not your current name. That is how it is recorded in contemporaneous sources and that is the name our readers would be looking for when they read the article. Changing it would require we explain to our readers why it was changed and our BLP policy would require we document both the change and why it is relevant to the article.

The reason notability comes into the equation is rather simple. Wikipedia's content policies say that we do not write things about non-notable people which are not documented in reliable sources as being directly relevant to the subject of the article the person is mentioned in. This protects people who are not subjects of WP biographies from having their lives opened to documentation simply because they were mentioned in an article and keeps articles from becoming coat-racks and/or attack pages. Because of this we would be violating both our BLP and Notability policies to shoe-horn a discussion of your transition and name change into an article wherein neither have any relevance to the subject. Should you ever have an article, we would be able to put a note in which links to your article where it would be appropriate to discuss your life.

The cruel fact is that if a person is not notable then our policies say we do not update our readers on them - we do not mention their marriage, death or anything that occurs with them outside of the scope of the article where they are mentioned. WP:BLP is binary in this: Notable we can discuss the details of their life; Non-notable we may only discuss them within the context of a particular article. There is no 'carve-out' for people who transition and change their name or for any other kind of identity affirmation nor do we get into existential issues like name v. identity. Such issues are intensely personal and matter a great deal to the individual but, unless the subject of commentary in reliable sources (Which would usually mean the person is wiki-notable with a biography where such could be appropriately addressed.), they are not encyclopedic. Jbh ^Talk 03:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

But policies that are harmful surely need reconsideration? Even if you have a standard ruling (which I argue can be harmful), could there not be a process by which an individual can request an exceptional change to information about them? I read in the LGBT guidelines about the principle of doing no harm - well this is doing harm, so either the policy needs changing or there needs to be some nuance/guidance on exceptional circumstances. Also, as I've said, I'm not asking for my personal life to be discussed in any detail - I'm allowing it in a very limited way (e.g. "name on ballot was [deadname], but has since been changed by deed poll") in my case if that's the only way my current identity can be respected to your and other's satisfaction. That's all it needs, and surely the MoS's suggestion to use context to decide which name to use can be interpreted to include using a current name out of respect and to avoid doing harm, especially when requested by the individual? A one-size-fits-all solution isn't always helpful, and the MoS itself seems to recognise that. I don't think context should just be taken to mean historical context/what was used at the time.

Also, just to be clear, my pronouns are they/them/their etc (I saw she used a couple times). Yndajas (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe I, and several others, have clearly explained Wikipedia's policies on this and the reasons behind them i.e. you have made your request and repeatedly received an answer. That answer and the policies behind it are not going to change just because the result is not what you desire. I understand this is very important to you but the community has discussed this issue, both in general and specific cases, several times and has come to a consensus not to do what you ask (see MOS:GENDERID). I really do not believe that you continuing to press here for a special exception will be productive. I suppose you could open an RFC at Village Pump Policy but I suspect the answer there would be the same you have received elsewhere. It would also very likely contribute mightily to a Streisand effect. Jbh ^Talk 15:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

To respect trans people, when we write about them once they identify as trans and begin to transition, we write about them using their preferred name. This is very common in the library world, when we replace the dead name of an author in authority records with their preferred name so that every catalog record about a book or article they had written will be retrievable using their preferred name.

While it is true that Wikipedia cannot control the artifacts out in the world which have the dead name of a person, we can be respectful and change dead names to preferred names for living persons--especially if they personally request such a change.

RachelWex (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

But with authors, we generally use the published names - if that changes over time, then we go with that. The issue here is that there is no published form of the new name. StAnselm (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What counts as published? My new name is online in various places and in print (for a publication) in at least one. Yndajas (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for your distress. We assume you are who you say you are but we cannot be certain, and we cannot use what you say as a Wikipedia User in the article. It may be that further groundwork discussion has to happen through WP:OTRS because we are presumably talking about a living person, there are a chain of facts that need WP:RS, and we assume but cannot know that is you. Just be aware, you may ultimately have an outcome tying both names more closely and prominently together. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I hadn't even considered the SEO angle, nor the idea that even engaging in a discussion like this might raise BLP policy problems. I have tried to avoid (and encourage others to avoid, and redact as necessary) any discussion of the deadname that actually identifies it. My point in raising it here was to put it in the proper venue; if this venue wants to just hat this matter, I have no objections. This isn't exactly my haunt, and I'm not sure what is perennial rehash on this page.

@Yndajas: Re "bickering, drama": that was in reference to the ad hominem and other unconstructive material I collapse-boxed in the original thread. I'm not implying that the entire discussion is bickering and drama, or I would not have bothered bringing it here. About '"transgendered" is an outdated and offensive term', The GLAAD Media Reference Guide doesn't agree, and simply suggests it's a redundant construction and inconsistent with other terms; I don't see much out there about it being "offensive" other than material written by TG language-reform activists. I'll avoid the term on the basis of redundancy. Your old site is maintained, because it's live and that's not free. It's not like a wicked gang of thugs is forcing you to have that site up and running. If you cared as much about deadnaming in the real world as you seem to here, you would have taken that site down a long time ago. So why are you "activisting" about deadnaming on Wikipedia? It smacks of WP:POINT. And linking or referring to it is deadnaming yourself, since the entire domain name consists of nothing but that deadname with a .co extension. You're free to do that all you want, but in my view it torpedoes your argument here. "There is no article about this person (and likely won't be)" is not drama, it's an observation that we have zero evidence you are even potentially WP:Notable for anything other than having run for local office a few years ago. Approx. 99.9884% of living persons are not notable, minus some percentage of bios we definitely need to have but don't have yet (we have about 870,000 BLPs, and the world population is about 7.5 bil ±100 mil), Ergo, saying you likely will not be notable isn't an insult, it a statistical near-certainty. You are clearly searching for ways to find offense in everything people say when you aren't getting what you want, and that won't fly here. I'll let others address the rest of this; I brought you to this page for that reason – others who spend more time on BLP matters are much better able to address ideas like "using notability as a criteria for not deadnaming trans people creates a two-class system where you must earn your right not to be deadnamed", and other more substantive statements than the trivia I've responded to.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: ooppss... I did not mean to imply that discussing the matter here was a BLP violation. It seems my telepathy failed when I wrote "It is a straight up BLP violation for us to discuss the personal life of a non-notable person mentioned in passing in one of our articles" What I intended is it would be a BLP violation if we were to go into details of a person's life in an article where those details are outside of the scope of that article e.g. discussing a candidate's gender identity in an article concerned only about election results. I am pretty convinced that this is not a case of someone trying to backdoor "unsourced or poorly sourced controversial information" into a BLP out of malice and that they are who they say they are but what they want to do probably sets a record for the number of PaGs violated by a single good faith edit request. Jbh ^Talk 02:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC on AfD's about recently dead BLP subjects

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RFC on AfD's about recently dead BLP subjects

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Heavy SNOW despite the ongoing heat waves. — JFG ^talk 08:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should WP:BLP and WP:CSD be changed in such a manner?

1. Add a clause in WP:BLP deferring the AfD nominations for pages already older than 90 days for at least another 90 days after their deaths. This rule would only apply to pages that have remained in the main space for the aforementioned period, in effect establishing that editors have been accorded ample time to nominate the article before the person's death.
2. Create a WP:CSD category for recently created pages on non-notable subjects that recently died. All other articles on possibly notable subjects can be moved to draft space and required to be fully realized before publication. Perhaps even require submission to WP:AFC.

This RfC was created here, because it is related to admin behaviour, involves at least two separate policies, and this is a highly trafficked discussion page.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Then moved here.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support as OP to both #1 and #2 per my explanation in the closed discussion WP:AN above. A deletion tag on a BLP who has not even been buried is insensitive to the real world. Human dignity, as codified in the April 2009 Wikimedia Board of Trustees resolution is a basic tenet underlying our policies on the biographies of living people. However, I have changed my thinking on this after seeing the comment there by Ad Orientem; they are correct in that pages created in a sensationalized manner are also an issue. I am also guilty of this myself. Which is why I proposed the counter clause in the criterion for speedy deletion to prevent those cases as well, and not give editors free rein to create such pages unchecked.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely not to both. I find the whole notion of a separate deletion process for the recently deceased utterly baffling, and I assure you that in the vanishingly unlikely event this proposal is accepted, you won't find a single admin willing to enforce it. Yes, articles are disproportionately likely to be nominated for deletion when there's a significant change to the topic (in this case, the subject's death), as those are the occasions on which articles are edited more heavily than usual and consequently when they appear in the recent changes feed and come to the attention of uninvolved editors. That's Wikipedia's processes working correctly, not a bug that needs fixing. I find the argument you've made elsewhere, that an AfD notice on a biography is somehow an insult to the article subject, utterly spurious—quite aside from the fact that the person is considerably more likely to take offence if they're alive to read the article, and that consequently your argument would be an argument for a moratorium on the deletion of BLPs altogether—this argument would also mean we couldn't delete an article on any incident in which someone was killed or badly injured. Incidentally, I think, you're seriously missing the point of the WMF resolution you're linking above. What they meant by Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest is that they were concerned we weren't deleting biographies as often as they felt we should.) ‑ Iridescent 2 22:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I have never said it was an insult to the subject. It is insensitive to the psychological effect on their families in a mentally fragile time in their lives. It does more harm than good. The subject is dead. They have no opinion on the matter. Their families, on the other hand, is a different subject. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

And to your comment about the Board of Trustees, if what you say is true, why did they add the caveat "or removing information". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're trying to convince people that the WMF resolution means the opposite of what it said, you're on the wrong page, since most participants in this discussion were there for the events which led to it and know exactly why that particular language was used. It was in response to multiple complaints from relatively marginal figures (and one relatively marginal figure in particular) that biographies were being created without their consent and consequently affecting their right to private life, and also to a case regarding a high-profile acquaintance of Jimmy Wales who felt that Wikipedia's biography of her was biased and gave undue weight to a particular incident. The resolution was intended to make it clear that with regards to biographies, we shouldn't be creating articles (or adding material to existing articles) without a justifiable reason to do so, and as a default position we should be removing anything questionable unless a case could be made for retaining it. ‑ Iridescent 2 08:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Iridescent, who as usual, makes the points on these sort of things better than I possibly could. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent. If AFD's are considered an insult that could apply to the living every bit as much as to the recently deceased (or long deceased for that matter) in which case WP:NOTCENSORED is relevant. MarnetteD|Talk 22:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal is clearly being made in good faith, but there is not the slightest chance of this passing. I would encourage the OP to withdraw this before things get ugly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, open to abuse and excessive process to boot. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think that the potential "insult" to those connected to the deceased subjects are really any concern of ours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - With some sympathy, but really this is the end result of having biographies on non-notable people. The fix for which is... deleting them earlier. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd consider up to a 14-day moratorium on AfDs of recently-deceased people, for the practical reason that reliable secondary sources about people's lives is often published in the immediate aftermath of their death. AfDs that need to discuss sources published during the AfD are generally unproductive. There is no deadline, and I'm sure we can find a way to have Twinkle tag the pages "for future AfD". 90 days is far too long to wait, and a CSD criterion definitely isn't called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. My argument has been that if the AFD is worth it, it will still be worthy after a while. It can keep. There is nothing stopping us from using WP:A7 for the clear cases.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I appreciate the kind-hearted intentions of the OP, but I don't think these suggestions are feasible. Lepricavark (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, with respect, for reason above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose per all of the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent. BethNaught (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above. I wonder if a WP:SNOW close may be justified? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

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

Public documents

This page says that "public documents" are not good references. Could somebody clarify that in the article (and list more examples), I don't know what is and what isn't a "public document". -- 213.149.61.113 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm about to remove it. It was added here, and it's not clear what it refers to. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

More discussion needed. There is some subtlety here. The original text went on to read "to support assertions". Should this be changed to "to support unproven assertions", as court records of legal findings in civil or criminal matters can be considered to be reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC).

I don't see the phrase "to support assertions", but, in any event, court records are not normally considered acceptable sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

?? I must have been looking at a different-dated version. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC).

(ec) Is it really appropriate to remove wording that has been in the policy since 2007 without prior discussion? If it is unclear, it needs clarification, not removal. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Xxanthippe: "to support assertions not also made in reliable secondary sources" would be better, since the intention (as I have always understood the policy) is to avoid the use of unsupported primary-source material where the possibility of misidentification (i.e. someone else of the same name), later amendment (e.g. a conviction reversed on appeal) or simple clerical error (i.e. entries on a database not subject to external scrutiny) are too great. There is also the issue of weight: if the only source for something is an entry on a database, does it belong in an article? 86.147.197.31 (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There is plenty of subtlety here that needs consideration. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC).

"Public documents" was added without discussion and was clearly overlooked. The problem with that section is that it has changed over the years, and now says don't use court transcripts at all when they are, in fact, excellent sources if used properly. What it means is don't use court cases to write about someone when the person or the case isn't otherwise notable. Don't go searching through court records to find a nasty divorce or a minor crime, then start quoting documents. Don't use public records to obtain date of birth, etc. But if someone notable is convicted of a serious crime, and high-quality secondary sources have written about it, then of course you can augment those sources with court transcripts, so long as you're careful. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The concern is twofold. One is the possible misuse of primary sources in order to make claims which no one has deigned to repeat in a secondary reliable source. The second is the issue of privacy inherent in most court records to begin with, and the ability to promoote matters which are legally confidential in a public venue (such as legal addresses of celebrities, names of minor children and the like). We are not saying "public documents are false" but we are saying that Wikipedia relies on secondary reliable sources, just as primary medical papers are not generally accepted as sources, even though we do not accuse them of not being factual. I think this covers the issue. It appears obvious, moreover, that the intent is to include arrest records and other documents which may contain similar material. Collect (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like some more clarification: are sex offender records for rape a good source for articles on living persons if there are no secondary sources? Related: are sex offender records primary sources? I would argue that sex offender records are secondary sources with court records being primary sources. 213.149.61.113 (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sex offender records are primary sources as Wikipedia defines them. And they wouldn't be 'good sources' even if they were secondary, and even if there weren't potential issues with misidentification etc that I have discussed above. They lack the necessary detail to merit inclusion in an article. I suggest you stop trying to wheedle your way around Wikipedia policy, since you aren't going to win this argument. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Reference for "Wikipedia defining sex offender records as primary sources"? Regarding your later point, there need be no issues with misidentification regarding sex offender records, because they include photographs. Regarding your point about sex offender records lacking detail, I disagree that they lack detail. Regarding your last sentence, I would appreciate you not using insulting words such as "wheedle" against me; and also am I in an argument? 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are under the misapprehension that photographs cannot be misidentified, I can only suggest that you do a little research on the subject. And if you aren't arguing against Wikipedia policy, you are certainly giving the impression of doing so. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not arguing against Wikipedia policy, I am trying to get a clarification of Wikipedia policy, because it is currently seemingly so vague as to be nonexistent in this respect. In other words I am trying to get relevant Wikipedia policy created. 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. You are free to make a proposal regarding a policy change, as is anyone else. I would advise against doing so on the basis of a single dispute though, as it is unlikely to gain much traction. You need to demonstrate that there is a significant issue. And familiarity with the way existing policy has been interpreted is going to be necessary if you are going to convince anyone of the merits of a proposal. You should probably also read the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution on Biographies of living people [13], as Wikipedia policy on this topic has to take this into consideration. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, but I hope someone more involved will try to change the page / write RFC. 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Break

• I don't agree with everything anyone says here. People's language is imprecise when policy calls for precision. The one thing I know is I am opposed to any change to current policy without a well-worded RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Collect, your edit summary was highly misleading. My edit removed the phrase "or other public documents", because it wasn't clear what it referred to. You wrote that you had reverted me: "Undid revision 852720606 by SlimVirgin (talk)". But in fact your edit added "or similar documents such as arrest records". I don't mind your edit, but saying that you reverted me makes it appear that I had removed those words. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The "edit summary" is the default one provided by the Wiki system - my aim was to clarify what you deemed a vague edit. Sorry about that, but my attempt was to reach a logical state. I did not intend in any way to impugn your position - my aim was to make the poor wording (which "public documents" was) and to seek a rational consensus wording. OK? Collect (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I don't really understand the explanation, because you didn't revert me; you added new words. But regardless, it's done. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

So now "public documents" public are banned again without a definition of what public document is, or at least some more examples. 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"Arrest records" and the like seem to be the reasonable intent of policy. Collect (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You did not explain anything, what is "like" arrest records? 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

To expand on what Collect says above, we cannot possibly give exhaustive definitions of every word or phrase used in a Wikipedia policy. And nor do we need to, since Wikipedia isn't a court of law. It is clear what the intent is, and that is what matters. You aren't the first person to try to use court records or similar documents in a biography, and the response has always been the same: they aren't suitable on their own. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

NO, it is not clear what the intent is! 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear enough to everyone else here. Nobody has supported using sex offender records as a sole source in a Wikipedia biography. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

[14] seems pretty clear. "XXXX has a rape conviction. It is easy to find official references in sex offender databases. looks like you wanted to use them. Collect (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You are on the wrong sub-thread, but I did not argue for using sex offender records as the *sole* source in an article. But since you are bringing it up, it is not clear from the policy page if rapist databases are to be considered public documents for the purposes of the paragraph. I mean, TBH "public document" as far as I understand refers to all "public" "documents", thus banning ALL POSSIBLE REFERENCES. -- 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Something you need to understand here. As I have already stated, Wikipedia is not a court of law. It is a website, owned by a charitable foundation and run by volunteers. The ultimate decision as to what content is or isn't included in articles is determined by three things only: applicable law (e.g. libel etc), what the Foundation permits (though they have very little input, and rarely get involved in disputes), and the collective decisions of contributors. Whether you personally find policy clear or not isn't really of much concern. Most regular contributors understand that when there is disagreement, discussion followed by consensus is the way to get things done. And contributors who aren't prepared to accept that not everything is going to go their way tend not to stay around for long. We are trying to write an encyclopaedia, and don't have endless patience with people who seem more intent on engaging in endless debate than on actually doing something useful. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

To quote SlimVirgin: "public documents" alone is meaningless. It seems like you WANT endless debate, considering how much you use empty and condenscending phrases instead of contributing to the relevant discussion. -- 213.149.61.113 (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Collect's edit—"or similar documents such as arrest records"—was significantly better than "public documents". We don't have to offer a list, but giving arrest records as an example makes it clear what we mean. The phrase "public documents" alone is meaningless. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Would "official records" implying records held by an authorized established body be better than "public documents", which might mean somebody's blog? Anyhow, please no more changes to the policy until consensus is established here. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC).

Trifecta

WP:RS says reliable independent secondary sources. Arrest records and offender databases are primary. They should only be used for uncontroversial facts. If multiple reliable independent sources say X was arrested, or X is in prison, then the official record can support the date of arrest or the place of imprisonment. We can't use these for sources for the fact of arrest or imprisonment, not least becasue there may be someone else with the same name. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I'd stay away completely. Computerized data that hasn't passed through a human mind specifically interested in the subject just has too many ways to go wrong. An overlong exposition of mine on primary sources (mostly about census returns, but similar principles apply) is here [15]. EEng 23:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Observation - A mug shot (also other details of the arrest information) should eliminate the possibility of mistaken identity in many or most instances. That being the case, surely the fact of the arrest is not "controversial"?

WP:NOR which has the most extensive coverage of this subject among "core" WP policies says this: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. 23.91.234.76 (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

BIO1E vs. BLP1E

Right now the BLP1E section of this page says, not-very-clearly:

The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals.

Does that mean biographies of all low-profile individuals, living AND dead?? That means that the "1 EVENT" rule is enough to torpedo all BLPs, and biographies of (dead) low profile individuals (WP:LPI). Or just living low-profile individuals? But this implies it is NOT enough to torpedo BIOs of dead people who sought the lime-light and had no problem with self-promotion. For example, what about a BIO for the world's shortest man (a Tom Thumb) if he gave newspaper interviews and accepted awards? All else in his fame in the fruit of his being short (1 event). Perhaps this rule doesn't work on BIOs of 1E (dead) people even if they do NOT self promote, as we don't care about the privacy of dead people as much? If that is really true, then there should be a mirror-image guideline under WP:BIO for self-promoting 1E DEAD PEOPLE (like Tom Thumb) and even for really-short dead people who never joined the circus, and were shy. In fact, if WP really intends the notability rules to change when a person dies, it should very clearly (somewhere) spell out how. It doesn't. I cannot logically infer it, as the language is not clear. We need a clear "WP:BDP" (biography dead people) policy. SBHarris 09:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

One event is usually taken to be one actual event, and not a characteristic (eg being the shortest living person). That is, we're looking at the idea of 15 minutes of fame-type people, where after those proverbial 15 minutes, they are/were nobodies again, particularly if they were nobodies before the event. 1E is a combination of both privacy and looking at the bigger picture related to notability, as when it comes to notability, we want more than a burst of coverage (what one gets with a singular event) and instead more enduring coverage. --Masem (t) 13:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand that. I want to know if there is any difference in the application of this in BLP for living people, vs. BIO for dead ones, as the lines from the policy above suggest there IS. What do the bolded lines above MEAN?? See my example. What about an BIO article for the oldest woman ever Jeanne Calment, if she is already dead. Or the tallest man ever. Etc. SBHarris 21:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The principle difference in the actual applicaon of BLP1E and BIO1E in that we should be more cautious in the case of a living person, and err on the side of caution to not include since we could affect their privacy. We still want to be cautious for someone who has died to report neutrally on them, but we're far less worried about privacy at that point. --Masem (t) 21:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Whether people are dead or not is mostly irrelevant to this issue. The main point of the one event (1E) issue is that, if you have a notable event, then the many people who may have been caught up in it are not thereby separately notable. For example, a disaster such as the sinking of the Titanic involved many people but only those who were especially central or distinctive will tend to have articles – people such as the designer, captain or special survivors. It doesn't mean that people with only one claim to fame are therefore not notable. Many people are only famous for one thing and we have articles about many thousands of them. This is not a problem. The main problem is that people continually misunderstand this and so make facile attempts to delete notable subjects. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but you have NOT explained the quote above. It says: WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals And it also says that WP:BIO1E, which it differentiates from WP:BLP1E, IS different. Okay, how? If being dead is irrelevant, as you claim, them BLP1E = BIO1E, end of story and off. The quote takes pains to say that isn't so. SBHarris 08:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: assumptions of death for persons with birth date unknown

The section §Recently dead or probably_dead outlines how a person whose date of birth is 115 years or more ago can be presumed to be dead. However there are many cases, such as Yusra (archaeologist), where birth dates are unknown and we only have dates where the person did a noteworthy event. This tends to be the case for a lot of stubs, such as L._Doran (an Indian cricketer who played in the 1950s). This policy page currently offers no guidance on these cases.

Action: Add the following to §Recently dead or probably_dead: When a date of birth is not known, a person is assumed to be covered by this policy if the earliest event in their lives mentioned in the article occurred within the last 100 years.

This is a conservative policy, (like the 115 year rule). Almost all such events which would be in scope here would be have done while the person was over 15 years old. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Almost all is not quite good enough... there are some infants who become known for one event (a kidnapping victim for example)… best to keep the line of demarcation at 115 years. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I would think that there's common sense exceptions, if the last known event has more details we can predict an age from. If the last event was that they were meeting their great-grandchildren for the first time, we can safely assume they had to be 45-50 years then, for example. If we have no reasonable metric of age identification, but the event is something that involves what an adult would normally do, then 100 years seems fine. --Masem (t) 13:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

As Masem said, there are theoretical common-sense exceptions. However I've never actually seen an article where this would apply. A child who makes the news almost always has their age quoted in the story, from which a DOB can be inferred. My motivation of this was sweeping though Category:Biography_articles_without_living_parameter when it was backlogged last year, and there were a lot of stubs for sportspeople and minor politicians without dates of birth, where it's certain they were 15 or older at the time they did the thing that made them notable.

We could have 115 years since the event as the rule, but that seems overcautious, even for BLPs. 115 is already extremely conservative, less than 50 people have ever lived that long. The chances of a +100 year-old person's notable event being within the first 15 years of their life (but that not being recorded in the details about them) AND that person still being alive (yet not famous for being extremely old) requires the coincidence of extremely unlikely events.

Even if we have to go for 115 years since event, such text would be better than the current policy silence regarding this. --LukeSurl ^{t c}

• Support 100 years from any known event Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Waycross (band)

Waycross (band) doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. While they did chart on a major Billboard chart, they utterly fail WP:V. Literally the only sources I found are a college newspaper (which only gives WP:ROUTINE coverage due to one of the members being an alumnus of said college), and a single post from an unreliable looking blog. A search for "Ben Stennis" + "Waycross" turns up absolutely nothing. Even Gbooks has zero results. The only hits for the song are lyric databases, YouTube uploads, and false positives. Literally the only reputable source I have that even gives the names of the members is the Joel Whitburn Hot Country Songs book, which is already given a citation in the article alongside the college newspaper and a now-broken link to CMT's upload of the video. As far as I can tell, there is not a scrap of information out there on these guys. Usual country music sources like Country Standard Time, Taste of Country, and Roughstock.com also turn up nothing. While the song "Nineteen" does have an article, it's still very short and focuses mainly on Billy Ray Cyrus's cover of it.

tl;dr: I am convinced that these guys utterly fail WP:BAND due to the lack of sources. Is my assessment accurate? Should someone take this to AFD? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Should BLP apply to towns? Why or why not?

I note that guiding spirit of BLP is "We are not here to make people sad" it it's reasonably avoidable.

I note also that BLP now applies to recently deceased persons. Dead people don't have feelings and don't care about their reputations -- they are dead, as dead as Charlemagne. The section on this says BLP applies to "material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". So this establishes the precedent that that the feelings/welfare of groups of people other than the subject are in play.

The "Legal persons and groups" section says "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons". Towns are not any of these things, although they usually are legally constituted entities (if not unincorporated), but not a Legal person according to that article, it doesn't seem. This distinction may be splitting hairs, but on the other hand the section does deliberately and specifically make the point of applying only to legal persons.

The entire section says:

This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.

So... writing negative stuff about a town will make a lot of people sad. Nothing in this policy mentions towns either way. So I'd think it doesn't apply... but should it?

It is a tough call. Most of our town articles whitewash the history of towns, and I'm sure you can figure out why. So since rules (are supposed to) codify practice, this'd be another reason to add towns here.

For the example that makes me ponder this question, see Talk:Cleveland, Texas#RfC: 2011 rapes. IMO stuff like this is useful info for the reader to to answer the question "what is the deal with this entity" on an encyclopedic level in addition to the usual stuff about when it was founded, how many parks it has, what the climate is, what highways run near it, etc. However, that is debatable, and it probably makes the people in Cleveland, Texas sad, certainly damages its reputation, and probably causes some material damage to the town, and so if it was a living person we would probably not include it... Herostratus (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind issues like WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NEVENT and the like. Just because there's a major crime that reflected poorly on the town, if it was only covered at a local level, it's probably not appropriate for us to include it. (To counter, we know cities like Detroit and Chicago have very high crime rates, but that's backed by numerous national studies. That we're not going to hide). --Masem (t) 01:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Well yeah but that's a different issue. It's a valid point but FWIW WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't apply (one of my peeves is people constantly cite it based on the title, without having actually read it) and I mean it's a pretty significant thing to know about that town. It aids the reader's understanding of "What is this place? What is it like?" IMO, although others may disagree (and there's an open RfC at the link).

But I mean, if it was a person, you'd want to bend over backwards to err on the side of protecting the person's feelings (or those of his loved ones if he's recently dead) and reputation. If you're bending over backwards to do that, there's a strong case for not including info like this. If you're not bending over backwards, the case is weaker. So that's the question: should we? Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No, BLP policy does not apply to towns, but all of our other content policies and relevant guidelines do apply. The purpose of these policies and guidelines is to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, not to avoid hurting the feelings of town residents. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I really don't feel BLP can be stretched this far. What seems much more relevant, though, is WP:UNDUE. Is this really relevant given the town's entire history, or are you just committing recentism? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about using a person's real name

Requesting any input on a question raised at Talk:The Cutting Room Floor (website)#What name to use for one of the designers/maintainers of this website? The issue is this: we do know the real name of the person, who is mentioned in several places in the article text. He uses only his online handle at the subject website. The article as originally written (in March) used his real name with a mention of his online handle. He has now asked us, in an off-wiki message, not to use his real name, but to refer to him only by his online handle. Does BLP policy offer any guidance on this situation? Are we required to use his real name since it has been published elsewhere, or can we respect his request to be named only by the handle he uses in his work for the subject? --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals with what has been reported in reliable sources. That an individual wants to maintain a particular mode of branding is of no particular importance in determining the content of Wikipedia articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I assume that when MOS:SURNAME says 'best known by', it means 'most often referred to as such in reliable sources'? Adam9007 (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a chance that it might be suppressed (not in the "oversight" sense, though perhaps that as well) if the subject contacts the Volunteer Response Team, explains the situation, and provides a good rationale for why including the name is a concern, MelanieN. I doubt it would work, but I have seen it work before to suppress the real name of Vermin Supreme (see the article's talk page) as a "privacy violation" due to concerns about his family or whatever, even though it's cited in the sources used in the article. I have also seen it work in other situations for other personal data, like birth dates and whatnot. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at 14:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. We went ahead and did it as per WP:SURNAME, which was also the way the most detailed source had done it. (At first mention, real name "best known as" the handle, and then just the handle through the rest of the article.) I agree about OTRS and tried to email the person to suggest it, but I'm not sure if the email went through. However, the person did come to the article talk page, and while he was not happy with that outcome it didn't sound like he was going to pursue it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Rape By Force conviction with Megan's Law website as only reliable source

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

---

Suppose there is a Wikipedia article about a living USA musician in which it is not mentioned that he was convicted of rape and is a registered sex offender. The source for this is a Megan's Law website with an entry that clearly identifies the musician by a "mugshot" photograph, name, date of birth, etc; with no other secondary sources about the conviction available. The entry notes the musician's offense as Rape By Force.

Surely everybody can agree that it would be good to note the rape conviction in the article about the musician, but there seems to be opposition to using the the only available source from some editors.

Is it appropriate to use the source to establish the rape conviction in the musician's article? -- 83.177.85.253 (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

With the information you have provided here, I suggest it is not appropriate. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree: if more reliable sources did not discuss it, maybe we also shouldn't. —PaleoNeonate – 12:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

An official government Megan's Law website (California) is not unreliable. -- 83.177.85.253 (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not changed my opinion. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: I meant more than one reliable sources, not that the source wasn't. —PaleoNeonate – 13:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The Megan's Law website entries are not similar to court records. -- 83.177.85.253 (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

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

Sports fans and political endorsements from actors

Hi all, was looking at Jason Bateman and was tempted to remove a line about him having endorsed Bernie Sanders, and another line about him being a fan of a sports team, as both seem rather trivial to me. Is there a consensus in favor of including or excluding such information? If not, should we try to establish one? Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article Talk page, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove all unsourced DOBs from BLPs?

Per WP:DOB (which is partially motivated by WP:AVOIDVICTIM, according to 1, 2, etc.), it seems imperative that BLPs do not contain unsourced dates of birth. Is there any reason a BLP would be allowed to contain an unsourced date of birth? wumbolo ^^^ 13:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if you cannot source a birth date, then it should be removed. Birth year is likely more common (When sources have language like "The 26-year actor, now starring in..." which we can back out the year), but exact birthdate is likely not as well known. --Masem (t) 15:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Mugshots as primary picture for people not notable as criminals?

Daniel Baldwin is one case. He's a probably a B-list celebrity but his cover photo is a mugshot from an arrest, because that's the only publicly available headshot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Baldwin#Less_judgemental_photograph

It seems this is far from ideal, and a policy might be appropriate to use no photo at all if this sort of photo is the only one available.

-- Geekeasy (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd definitely say not appropriate, it gives the wrong impression. It might be the only free image but we can't mislead either particularly with BLP. --Masem (t) 15:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)