Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Current consensus

NOTE: It is recommended to link to this list in your edit summary when reverting, as [[WT:BLP#Current consensus]], item [n]. To ensure you are viewing the current list, you may wish to .

01. This list is currently empty. Feel free to expand it.

"Wikipedia:DENIALS" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:DENIALS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#Wikipedia:DENIALS until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The redirect discussion has been closed as “keep”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

History of the denial part of this policy

FWIW, I did some research regarding the "denial sentence". Here's what I found.... but I'll say up front this strikes me as FYI/background info. Bottom line? We have never had a discussion about how we should deal with denials.

The "denial sentence" first appeared in June 2013. Before that, the Public Figures subsection was not substatively changed for at least six months. [1]

On June 27 2013, user:JackofOz added the first version of the "denials" sentence. [2] with an edit summary giving no indication of any discussion. (As a side note, I looked at Jack's contribs from the time and could not tell what prompted this tweak. It's not in the talk pages.... there was no discussion about anything from March 2013 to Dec 2014.[3])

The Public Figures subsection remained essentially stable through Sept 17 2020 [4].

In Oct 2020 user:Valjean attempted to expand on the "denial sentence" (including a link to WP:MANDY) but was repeatedly reverted. [5]

On Feb 11, 2021 user:Ritchie333 changed the "denial sentence" to what it says today. [6] Ritchie also linked to WP:MANDY but the link to the MANDY essay was reverted. [7]. Again there was no talk page discussion, the edit summary sheds no light, and I can't tell from Ritchie's contribs what inspired this tweak.

I don't have a strong feeling about the redirect being debated, but since I did this research I figured I might as well document it. There you go.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your research. You missed at least one edit by Valjean (formerly known as BullRangifer) on 15 November 2019, which was immediately reverted by Ryk72. I don't think edits before 2019 have much relevance. Politrukki (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding to the sentence history: one "Oct 2020" revert was by PackMecEng, Politrukki on 5 October 2022 reverted more but Newimpartial on 6 October 2022 re-inserted. I do not see that there was consensus for the added clause. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The version in place from February, 2021 to October, 2022 is clearly the stable version and deemed to have WP:SILENTCONSENSUS. The new version, as amended October 5, clearly does not have consensus, silent or otherwise. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

It's absurd to claim that content that has repeatedly been reverted is "stable". Moreover, you're misreading the essay; silent consensus means that consensus is assumed until a disagreement rises. Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy, "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." If silent consensus is your only argument, I'm afraid it's not enough. Core policies should never be substantially changed without clear and unambiguous consensus. What kind of problem are you trying to resolve here?

I oppose the proposed addition per WP:CREEP. It's already established in the lead that BLP material must strictly adhere to NPOV. Any reasonable person understands that, for example, if we use 100 words to describe an allegation, a denial shouldn't take 500 words. So I don't understand what's the purpose of the proposal. Politrukki (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Text that has been stable for a prolonged period is deemed to have consensus. I recognize that you (and Masem) dispute this text, but that doesn't change the fact that it was stable and uncontested for more than 18 months. If you feel that this passage is now disputed and should be removed pending discussion, then that dispute includes the sentence that you left in place as well as that which you removed, since the text you prefer takes on an entirely different signification without the text you removed. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. If we want to remedy the fact that much of the content of this guideline section was added without prior discussion and survives only on implicit consensus, we should either leave the stable content in during discussion or remove everything that doesn't have prior discussion-based consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I was just going to start a new discussion, when I noticed this discussion (I have disabled user name mention notifications, but don't mind occasional user talk page messages). Thanks anyway. I concur there's no consensus for expansion. Quick recap: I first identified the problem in June when I noticed some weird text in the policy. I didn't edit Wikipedia after June, but when I returned, I consulted archives and found no justification for the text. Politrukki (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the added text needs more discussion before it can be added. It is too far inline with the highly contentious essay MANDY. There are points to it that are fair (like UNDUE), but it should not be worded as to effectively make MANDY policy. --Masem (t) 15:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Masem, this content was added in 2020; it has been stable since February 2021. By all means it can be discussed, but it is the stable version and should remain in place while this is discussed. The removal of this passage changes the meaning of the rest of the paragraph, which is no longer the STATUSQUO without this addition. Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s useful to keep in mind that “If one fails to deny an accusation, a denial is noticeably absent and is a cause for inference, the most common inference being that the accusation is true.” See Bilmes, Jack (1988). "The concept of preference in conversation analysis". Language in Society. 17 (2). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 167. doi:10.1017/s0047404500012744. ISSN 0047-4045.. Also, there is a journalistic standard of including denials. See "SPJ Code of Ethics", Society of Professional Journalists: "Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing." Retrieved 25 Sep 2022. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Journalistic standards requiring a WP:FALSEBALANCE are a significant problem with modern journalism, not something to be emulated. They differ from encyclopedic standards of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. It is worth reminding editors of this point. I agree with the inclusion of the extra material. It does not say to omit the denials; it merely reminds editors that we have other requirements that are relevant to the prominence and detail that we give to these denials that should also be followed. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree it does not say to omit the denials. But I’m not sure everyone else agrees with you and me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Including a sentence or even part of a sentence to state someone denied an allegation levied at them is no was a FALSEBALANCE, that's staying neutral per this policy and NPOV. What we don't want to do is to go so far into why they denied the allegation in a manner not covered by RSes, eg we don't want to use SPS to give that denial coverage that is unduly self-serving, for example.

And also, this points that being an encyclopedia, we should be careful about including allegations or such claims that do not have both wide coverage and a significant impact on the person they are directed at, or wait for the long-term view of the topic to resolve itself. Some allegations merit diddly-squat at the end of the day, and thus we should not include those even if they had wide coverage to start. But if we're going to be so reactive to include such allegations, we have every responsibility like journalism to simply express briefly any denials. Masem (t) 21:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand that this is your view, but I have not seen any evidence to date that the engwiki community broadly accepts this view. Newimpartial (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I also agree the MANDY sentence fragment should be removed immediately. Per NewsAndEventsGuy's excellent analysis above, there was no consensus to move any content from that essay to this policy in the first place. Per WP:TALKFIRST, all substantive changes to policy should achieve consensus before implementation. Even in cases of a user being BOLD at a Policy or Guideline page, the editor who adds disputed content is "strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards" once other editors "give a substantive reason for challenging [the addition]". Either way, the onus is clearly on the editor seeking to alter a policy to achieve consensus before addition, so it needs to go until such consensus is achieved. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no MANDY sentence fragment. MANDY would suggest adding "of course they would say that" to denials. The added text does no such thing. It merely reminds editors not to violate WP:NPOV, a core policy, in striking a false balance of prominence in coverage of denials. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that there are some who take the concept of “false balance” too far… who will argue a that including even a single sentence saying “X has denied these allegations” is “false balance”. We need to make it clear that this is not the case. If someone has publicly denied an accusation, we should report that denial - even in cases where “that is what they would say”. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That's one problem. The other problem is the editors on the opposite side of the coin, who will take a case of a person tried and convicted of a crime and spend twice as many sentences detailing the subject's excuses and denials as on the actual crime and its conviction, and then when pressed on the issue point to this text as overruling NPOV. That's why the text in question says to include the denial (in both versions under discussion) but to maintain a balance in its coverage. If you think we should have text that even the most tendentious and pov-pushing editor cannot possibly misconstrue, then that's just not a realistic hope. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

That any overt reference to MANDY was removed by other editors is neither here nor there. The sentence fragment "while also adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance." still contains the inherent misrepresentation of WP:FALSEBALANCE given in the MANDY essay—the only bonafide policy the essay cites. The FALSEBALANCE subsection of NPOV relates solely to "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories" such as "the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones", and how these "should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." None of this in any way correlates to the BLP policy. This interpretation of FALSEBALANCE should never have been added to this policy at all, much less without prior consensus. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely we have to have something in policy be able to point to those that want to give unduly self-serving coverage to the denials of those accused, particularly, when that coverage is only from non-RS (like SPS). But we have a contingent for experienced editors that champion the essay MANDY that as Blueboar points tend to want to wipe even a single sentence or phrase of denial from articles because "it's obvious they would say that". Starting with false balance is a problem here because it is not a false balance to include a brief rebuttal.

I still stand that there's a much larger issue around the broader trend of editors treating controversial BLPs and groups as a laundry list of every negative thing they can link to an RS without actual consideration of writing an article that will make sense in the 10+ year period. If we were not so much focused on every short term accusation or negative facet, we wouldn't have to be so worried as to writing the denials to those. But that's a question beyond this scope. Masem (t) 00:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Your obsession with wiping out all traces of MANDY is noted, but irrelevant. This clause is not about MANDY. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If someone has publicly denied an accusation, we should report that denial - if it is WP:DUE based on coverage in WP:RSes. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV are more central policies than BLP, so even BLP cannot override them - we can strongly encourage the inclusion of denials, but we cannot mandate them in situations where their inclusion would violate WP:V, WP:RS or WP:DUE, which is how some people have (incorrectly) interpreted the relevant text. It's important to update them to make that clear - ultimately, inclusion is based on the sourcing and due weight; there is no policy of "it is a denial, so we must include it no matter what WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:DUE say." --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Who besides Newimpartial now thinks there is consensus for the addition? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I think there's implicit + some affirmed support for the "while also" clause. Unless we naturally attract new voices, I don't think a change is warranted without an RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. I haven't state it here yet, but I support continued inclusion of the clause. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• At the very least, it is important to make it clear that the inclusion of a denial is still subject to WP:RS and WP:DUE; inclusion is ultimately decided based on coverage in sources, not based on "it is a denial, therefore it is included no matter what." It is flatly impossible for us to mandate the inclusions of denials when doing so goes against WP:DUE, and it is important that this page be worded in a way that makes it clear that no mandate exists (and, by extension, that you must do at least some work to establish that a denial is sourced to a WP:RS and is WP:DUE before including it - as policy non-negotiably requires for all inclusions that are challenged or likely to be challenged.) I feel that the stable version is better at it than the one with your proposed removal, but I don't think it goes far enough - I would replace while also with provided this can be done while, since ultimately WP:DUE is central and is a hard prerequisite for including anything. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  If we are going to require that denials require adherence to RS and DUE (NPOV in general), then we need to make sure that the inclusions of accusations also adhere to the same principles of RS and DUE. We are far too eager as an editing community to find one or two sources that make an accusation shortly after an event, and rush to include it on WP on the basis it meets RS and DUE. But that's what NPOV overall says to approach this as. We should have far better weight of sources, as well as enough time from an event, before such inclusions should be made, to make sure the accusation has merit and likely impact. At that point it is far more likely to be able to find the denial in RSes as well once it has reached that scale. But presently we have editors looking to find any fault reported in an RS to include in BLP, without waiting for a big picture to develop. And on those accusations that go nowhere, I would not expect to find RSes covering the denial.

  We need a far better balance on both the type of accusations we cover and when denials of those are to included. We are presently only focusing on the back end when the front end so needs remedy. Masem (t) 19:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, denials are subject to WP:RS and WP:DUE / WP:NPOV. They always have been and always will be; those are core policies that apply to all content, non-negotiably. If you've been restoring denials without a WP:RS or with the full belief that they are WP:UNDUE then you've been violating core policy and need to stop immediately. Obviously this also applies to accusations (especially when it comes to accusations, where the requirements are even more strict since they are BLP-sensitive). No article content is exempt from WP:V or WP:NPOV; nor is any consensus or policy permitted to create such exemptions, including on this page. If the current wording of this page has misled you into believing that a denial can be restored after being challenged without a WP:RS, or that it can be included completely without regard for WP:DUE weight, then that's a sign that we need to make the language more precise to avoid that sort of confusion. But regardless of the wording on this page, WP:RS and WP:DUE will always take priority; denials, like any other content, can only be included when compliant with WP:V and WP:NPOV. That is, has always been, and will always be the case; it is not something that discussions here can change. WP:V and WP:NPOV are Wikipedia:Core content policies and strictly supersede BLP in any cases where they contradict. --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Never said anything about adding denials, but instead tempering how quickly accusations against BLP get loaded onto pages just because one or two RS make such a claim. The solution to this aggression addition of accusations is not allowing equal inclusion of denials, but to slow down the additions of accusations. Masem (t) 19:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE already requires multiple third-party WP:RSes documenting a BLP-sensitive allegation or incident, and WP:BLPRS sets pretty strict sourcing standards, so if people are doing it with just one RS or with low-quality RSes then you already know what policies to point to and what noticeboards to go to if there's a continued dispute. But once it's past that point (ie. we have multiple high-quality RSes that pass BLP) it comes down to editorial judgment, which has to be made on a case-by-case basis - there are too many context-specific aspects to judging if and when something is WP:DUE. At that point, though, it's not generally an RS issue anymore; the requirements of RS have been satisfied. As PUBLICFIGURE says, If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. BLP is strict, but it is also deliberately constrained to well-defined rules, especially when covering public figures (who we often do have to cover extensive negative material about.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

DUE is also extremely subjective and in practice in such situations will be a popularity contest among editors, while the BLP policy is based in part on legal concerns; therefore I strenuously oppose any watering down of the text. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC) clarified Crossroads ^-talk- 15:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

It is my view that the whole passage should go to RfC. The options could be the version without the bit certain editors are contesting, the version with that bit, and no text at all on denials. Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The key points to me are that it needs to reference WP:RS, needs to reference WP:DUE, and needs to make it unambiguous that inclusion still depends on passing the requirements of those policies; people are interpreting it as allowing challenged material to remain without an WP:RS or without further regard to WP:NPOV, which is unacceptable. Something like If reliable sources report that the subject has denied such allegations, that should be reported too, provided this can be done while adhering to appropriate due weight and without giving them false balance. This makes it clear that WP:BLP is still subordinate to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

BLP is purposely stronger than those core content policies since it has potential legal ramifications. Parts of it still are bounded by those policies, but this is purposely stricter to make sure BLP articles are appropriately written. Masem (t) 19:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

No, that is entirely incorrect. BLP is an elaboration on those policies and is strictly subordinate to them; when they directly contradict, BLP has no force, and WP:V / WP:NPOV override it utterly, without exception. Nothing can override the core principles of WP:V or WP:NPOV, fullstop. They are non-negotiable, since they are foundational to our mission; WP:BLP, while very important, is not. This is laid out unambiguously in Wikipedia:Core content policies, with a clarity that leaves no room whatsoever for any good-faith disagreement - it states that The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. @Masem: - this is extremely important, so please acknowledge that you understand, and accept, that core content policy supercedes WP:BLP (though in an ideal world they shouldn't contradict, of course.) The core content policies are non-negotiable, fullstop, since they define our fundamental mission as an encyclopedia; while BLP is important (and serves to underline several of them), it is not one of them. It is listed on that page merely as one of the "other" content policies, not one of the central, core ones. It is clearly established on that page that other policies, like BLP, it cannot override core content policy; and this has been policy and practice on Wikipedia almost since its inception. --Aquillion (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Core content policies is an essay that is not backed by any consensus. You present not superseded as if it were a bedrock of Wikipedia; this lacks a policy basis. Wikipedia's actual treatment of policies is shown in WP:PG (policy, not essay). The lead is far less strident than you imply, and says Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. Your argument seems to be the main argument against inclusionism of denials, but lacks solid policy grounding. The inclusionist argument can rely on the WMF's dignity resolution, and IMO more. DFlhb (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This is backwards. The BLP policy is the special case scenario. The core content policies are the general case scenario. The BLP policy is how we apply the core content policies to BLP content. General rules never override special rules where special rules are applicable. That's why they are special rules. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia:Core content policies specifically say otherwise. This was established a long, long time ago and has always been the case - we cannot override core content policies. Special-case rules can help us navigate within them but cannot directly contradict them. We can say, for instance, "all denials are inherently WP:DUE", and that would be valid (although we might argue over that point), since saying that is at least notionally compatible with WP:DUE and, through that, WP:NPOV. But you can't say "you can include a denial, after it's been contested, without citing a source that meets WP:V", because straying from the need for such sources goes against our core mission. The core content policy page is completely unambiguous about that - there is no room to misread it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

If it is UNDUE to mention that a person denies an allegation, then it should be UNDUE to mention the allegation in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Why are you yoking the sources of the one to the sources of the other (since the sources are the basis of WP:DUE? What you just wrote would require that BLP content include unreliable sourced denials or exclude massively sourced "accusations" unless a denial can be found - is that really what you meant? Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Ultimately, what determines WP:DUE weight and WP:NPOV as a whole is sourcing. Only sources can make something due or undue; you cannot declare something axiomatically due without regard for the sources. That's non-negotiable, since it's fundamental to how Wikipedia works and is established by core content policy - we reflect the sources, we don't dig through WP:OR or the like to find things the sources don't cover. And the sourcing has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If (for example) an allegation about someone has massive sustained coverage across the entire spectrum of reliable sources and is central to the subject's notability, and the only source for a denial is a post on Reddit, then we are required to include the allegation and it would be utterly inappropriate to include the denial. An important caveat is that most things are somewhere between those extremes - we have a lot of leeway about what to include or exclude, most of the time; few things are so overwhelmingly central to a topic as to be absolutely required for inclusion, and few denials are so utterly poorly sourced that they unequivocally fail WP:DUE or WP:RS. If you are confident that any accusation with sufficient sourcing to establish that it is WP:DUE will also have the sourcing to establish that any denials are DUE, then you should be fine just relying on our existing core content policies; whenever you want to include a denial, just present the relevant sources and you're good. But you cannot make it a hard requirement to include something with total disregard for WP:V or WP:DUE; that contravenes core policy, which cannot be done even by consensus. If your desire is to make it so what we must always include denials, without exception and without any regard for the sources, then your only option is to start another website, because that is not and will never be compatible with Wikipedia's core content policies. --Aquillion (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I think you are incorrectly thinking there is a conflict. Wp:V isn't an issue so long as we can cite a source that is reliable for the claim. If the person denies it on their personal blog that is likely a sufficient source for that claim. Including three denial isn't a violation of NPOV since even a SPS can be a RS in this context. Thus the only issue is neutrality. If the accusation is due then the fact that they denied it is also due. It wouldn't be given equal weight nor should it be treated as truth, only that the denial had been made. So no conflict with V or NPOV. Springee (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Springee, no matter how badly you or other editors may want it to be the case, there simply is no consensus that the inclusion of denials that are never documented in independent sources is ever WP:DUE. However, I would thank you for articulating your minority position (If the accusation is due then the fact that they denied it is also due even if it can only be sourced to a personal blog) with such transparency and candor. Newimpartial (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don't confuse what you want to be true with what is supported by policy. Springee (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Please don't.

I'll also add that the desire to turn well-sourced descriptive adjectives into "accusations" in an attempt to mandate the assertion of self-published denials is also not supported by policy, no matter how much certain editors wish it were so. Newimpartial (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You not liking it is not the same as policy not supporting it. Springee (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

If there is a basis in WP policy for treating well-sourced descriptive adjectives as "accusations", that basis has never been shared with me on any Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating issues here. This is a discussion about accusations made against a person. "Senator X is accused of hitting his wife" cited to a number of reliable sources. We certainly can and should include that the Senator denied the accusation even if it only comes from his own press release. That the senator is accused isn't a "descriptive adjective", it's a statement that he is accused of. No one is denying the accusation exists, but the senator is denying the facts made in the accusation. You seem to be thinking of labels such as "X is a violent activist". Where violent is a contentious label. Even in that case it may be important to include a denial but that might be harder to find a specific 1:1 denial of such a label. Springee (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You keep making stetemtents that you happen to believe, but which have no basis in WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I've shown they are policy compliant. You are deciding they aren't because you don't like it. Sorry, that isn't how policy works. Please stick with policy based arguments. Springee (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

What is your basis in policy for We certainly can and should include that the Senator denied the accusation even if it only comes from his own press release? For You seem to be thinking of labels such as "X is a violent activist". Where violent is a contentious label. Even in that case it may be important to include a denial? Or for If the person denies it on their personal blog that is likely a sufficient source for that claim? You haven't shown any basis in WP policy for these claims - they appear to represent only your personal beliefs on these matters. Sorry, that isn't how policy works. Newimpartial (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

"Our fundamental mission" is itself subject to the relevant actual real-world laws, so no, I do not support the contention that BLP is utterly subject to other content policies. In theory, a group of Wikipedia editors could decide that a crappy source is good enough for a highly derogatory claim about someone they personally dislike, and that the denial is UNDUE; there is no way to objectively prove them wrong as if a critical mass of editors agree, the pixels on a screen in content policies can't do a thing about it. For legal reasons, however, such carte blanche cannot be permitted, and if the problem was bad enough, it is very likely the WMF would get involved with an office action. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We already accept self-published sources by a subject of an article, so the argument that a denial needs to have secondary coverage seems based on nothing. Beyond that, Im a little concerned that people are opposed to including a denial of wrongdoing by a subject of one of our articles. If the sources are emphatic about the guilt notwithstanding the denial then that will be reflected, along with the denial. Also, these bit about implicit consensus is missing the important part. Once challenged, that implicit consensus vanishes, and unless it was ever an explicit consensus you cant just maintain the status quo as the standard from which a new explicit consensus must be formed to change. nableezy - 03:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

As I have said previously, there is simply no basis in policy for including denials without independent sourcing, much less a requirement to do so. Denials should certainly be included when it is WP:DUE to do so based on the available, quality sources.

I recognize the point about IMPLICITCONSENSUS and have acknowledged it above. However, it is the whole sentence that would have to be removed pending a new consensus emerging (If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too, while also adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance) since there is clearly at present no consensus for If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too without the rest of the sentence. Newimpartial (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

All too often in these matters, DUE amounts to 'when Wikipedia editors like the source or the person' and UNDUE is the opposite. UNDUE is far, far too subjective to base a policy with legal ramifications on. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that legal ramifications couid result from excluding poorly-sourced denials from WP articles? If so, that's a bold move. Newimpartial (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We already call self-published sources by the subject of an article reliable for information about themselves. This argument that it then is not reliable for a denial they make about themselves makes no sense to me. Why is anybody even against this? I dont get it, why are you against including that somebody has denied a serious claim of wrongdoing against them? nableezy - 14:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has disagreed with you on self-sourced denials being reliably sourced. Most of this conversation has been about whether or not they're due. It's not even particularly about inclusion vs. exclusion. I've seen people make false-balance-style arguments that article coverage of denials should be equal in length to coverage of allegations. I can't think of many other parts of policy that say a specific kind of content needs to be included, and if we're going to keep such a statement, I think it's a good place for an NPOV reminder. I can conceive of cases where I'd think the appropriate weight given to a denial is zero, but I can't remember encountering any in the wild. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah: it isn't a question whether a self-sourced denial is ABOUTSELF reliable; the question is whether these are always WP:DUE to include. The stable text of this policy for over 18 months stated that they weren't automatically DUE but rather that they are subject to WP:NPOV and specifically WP:FALSEBALANCE considerations. Clearly several editors want to litigate this in a direction that would endorse the blanket inclusion of denials.

I will point out, although it hasn't been part of the "speaking out loud" in this discussion, that some editors have tried to use this section as grounds to include BLP disavowals of labels they don't like, no matter how widespread the use of the term is and no matter how weak the sourcing for the disavowal. Now my own view is that a BLP subject (or their publicist) can't turn just any statment made about them into an "accusation" - and provide a pretext for this passage to be invoked - just by issuing a denial. However, any reshaping of this policy so that it can be used to support something like a journalistic "right to response" is likely to be weaponized by editors who want to rewrite FRINGE BLPs so that they reflect the BLP subject's perspective more than those of the reliable sources - a phenomenon we already see again and again and again (witness the edit history of Graham Linehan for a case in point). Newimpartial (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Re my question Who besides Newimpartial now thinks there is consensus for the addition? I've seen none so far. Re Aquillion's claim WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV are more central policies than BLP, so even BLP cannot override them er, Aquillion's false belief that WP:RS is a policy convinces me that Aquillion's claims shouldn't be believed without checking. Re Aquillion's claim WP:V and WP:NPOV are Wikipedia:Core content policies and strictly supersede BLP in any cases where they contradict. -- although this is irrelevant since there's no contradiction, I did check. WP:NPOV says "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." i.e. it's the principles that can't be superseded not the policy -- and if it was interpreted as "the policy cannot be superseded" then that would mean it can't be superseded by WP:NOR or WP:V which doesn't appear to be what's claimed. Re Springee's refutation of Aquillion: I agree with the example that a denial on a personal blog might be acceptable on the subject's BLP, and if that's a minority view then WP:BLP is a minority view. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

So given that there is no consensus to be seen, what do you think about the three-option RfC I suggested above? Newimpartial (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Your proposal includes an option for no text at all on denials which is a complete non-starter. Now that would be sneaking the MANDY essay back in; the whole point of that essay is claiming that including denials is optional even when well-sourced. Crossroads ^-talk- 15:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Then all the more reason to have an RfC to produce a consensus text on denials. At the moment, there appears to be NOCON. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

In a three-option RfC: If the option to accept the sentence fails, does that mean the WP:DENIAL shortcut will be removed despite the "keep"? For the option to accept the added phrase, is there objection to reverting your re-insertion before starting the RfC? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We are essentially workshopping at this point, but I was envisaging three options: the stable February 2021-October 2022 version (with the phrase you don't like), the pre-2020 version (without the phrase you don't like), and no paragraph at all.

And just so that we're clear, the reason for including the third option is so that it can be considered explicitly; otherwise that could result - even if nobody intended that - in the event of a non-consensus close if the RfC were only to consider the first two options.

I have no opinion at this point on the DENIALS redirect; I'd rather consider that issue after this proposed RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

My mention of a "WP:DENIAL shortcut" was incorrect and irrelevant, I apologize for it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

This is exposing the biggest problem around UNDUE in that there are editors out there that take it mean that we must wear blinders to any information that doesn't exist in RSes, and only thnk about how to summarize situations from the majority viewpoints that RS publish. While we should absolutely be striving to use mostly RSes in articles, and should not be looking at fringe viewpoints only covered by sources that will never be reliable, UNDUE should not make us blind and deaf to what exists beyond RSes, even if those sources aren't RSes. For example should I look at an issue like abortion in the US after Roe was overturned, and focus only on the RSes discussing it, I would ear find that the anti-abortion stance appears as a minority viewpoint given how harsh the media and commentators support pro abortion rights and criticize those on the other side. But we know that within the US the issue is really closer to 50-50 simply based on a political makeup, and it would be wrong to overweigh pro abortion or underweigh anti abortion.

Now when it comes to accusations and their denials, it is absolutely wrong to take the stance that the viewpoint if the person accused is trivial or fringe - they have a clear vested interest in the matter, even if it is a many-vs-one aspect. Just because their denial is not reported in RSes doesn't mean we should ignore it. When we are documenting any controversy, we should aim to include statements of position from both or all sides irrespective of the weight of sources. And then if further commentary is DUE then we can apply RS and weight of sources to add more. Eg if X accuses Y of domestic abuse, with myrtle sources covering X's stance but no one covering Y even though Y denied it on Twitter, am we should write something like "X has accused Y of abuse, which Y has denied. X has stated that (list if what Y did)".

and of course, this all still comes around to the need to think about ling term pictures of articles before we start adding content related to accusations. Just because an accusation has been reported in multiple sources does not require us to report it... DUE is not mandatory (as that would be incompatible with many parts if NOT), as well as against BLP. (PUBLICFIGURE is also not mandatory) Unfortunately we have too many editors that rush to include any breaking news as soon as it comes out, and thus makes it hard to temper DUE inclusion of accusations. Masem (t) 15:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

• Denials would be less of an issue if we used more discretionary judgement on when to report on accusations. Sources reporting accusations really need to be at the highest level of reliability, avoiding gossip rags and “gotcha” journalism. Always ask whether the accusation itself is DUE. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  There I agree. Newimpartial (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

  In the general sense I agree too, but I think we could benefit from the addition of something in the current DUE language that rather recent coverage as well as a burst of coverage without a long tail should be diminished in value when considering whether to include by DUE or not particularly with BLP involved, along with source quality. This would create a better buffer on inclusion of accusations that should diminish the implied need to include denials. Masem (t) 21:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial You still intend an RfC, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, if anyone wants to amend the status quo, yes. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The amendment to the status quo was done on 11 February 2021 as explained earlier, with edit summary = "Public figures: Mandy". Newimpartial re-inserted after it was removed and later expressed a view that the whole passage should go to RfC, but now isn't proposing one. Even Newimpartial admits there is no consensus for it, and nobody has claimed one, in this thread. So I expect that eventually WP:ONUS will prevail and the tolerance for this addition's existence will end, but acknowledge discussion about alternatives may not be over yet. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

PG, if you want to change the policy, hold an RfC. If your issue is that prior changes didn't have enough consensus behind them, let's not exacerbate that problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Peter, you have offered no evidence that there is now any more consensus supporting the status quo of 2020 than there is suporting the 2021-22 status quo. If your intention is to claim NOCON, that status applies to the whole paragraph, not only to the portion of it that you don't like. Many editors, including myself, have explicitly objected to the paragraph version without the phrase to which you take umbrance. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I’d like to see accusations in passive voice strongly discouraged. I encountered this, for example, at the Giorgia Meloni BLP (“she has been accused….”). No matter who the BLP subject is, passive voice for accusations is lousy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Discussion has died down, nobody has claimed there is consensus, and among the flaws is the fact that people could be encouraged to suppress denials which are in fact legitimate. I reverted the bold edits here and here and here so that the sentence is the status quo ante: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." Alas, Firefangledfeathers four minutes later re-inserted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

A bold edit that aside from this discussion, seems to have been stable since March 2021 (over a year and a half) kinda stops being a bold edit. I agree with what Firefangledfeathers and Newimpartial have said above today, as well as what other editors have said previously about denials always having been subject to RS, and NPOV. If you wish to remove that sentence, make an RfC about it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That would require that I accept that it was stable, that I accept it was no longer a bold edit, that I accept that WP:ONUS doesn't say "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.", that I accept that my objection has something to do with denying that denials are subject to RS. I can do none of those things. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that WP:V, and by extension ONUS applies to the project space, when discussing content that is original to Wikipedia. If you're citing a real world example within the project space, yeah that would be subject to V, but the sentence on due weight and false balance isn't really citable to anywhere else.

As for accepting that it was stable, between 13 March 2021 when the link to MANDY was removed, and the removal of the remainder of the paragraph on 5 October 2022 (a period of 1 year and 7 months), there was a grand total of 6 edits to the public figures section:

• A wikilink to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE on 31 July 2021
• An undo of the wikilink to NOTPUBLICFIGURE on 31 July 2021
• A minor copy-edit on 31 July 2021
• An expansion of an example on 11 November 2021
• A bold addition of another example on 5 September 2022
• Removal of the boldly added example on 5 September 2022

None of these 6 edits touched the paragraph that you seek to remove. Content that isn't edited for 19 months is pretty much within the definition of stable. If you wish to dispute this, fine. But I think you'll need a time machine if you want to prove that this content was not stable for that period. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Peter, regardless of the things that you refuse to accept (the last of which I find completely impenetrable), you do have to accept that there is no consensus to restore the 2020 status quo version of the passage. WP:ONUS is not a license to pick a multi-year-old version of a policy page, boldly claim that no subsequent changes to a certain paragraph have consensus, and insist that said version of said paragraph be restored. If you want your version back, you need an RfC: otherwise the only options are the 2021-22 status quo or no paragraph at all, because your version of the text does not now have consensus as many editors have pointed out. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Saying it was my version could make someone think I was responsible for the 2021 version, I wasn't. The statement about what I'd be unable to accept was in response to "make an RfC", I won't. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Whatever, Peter. WP policy doesn't really care what you will or won't accept. Newimpartial (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Which policy do you mean? Politrukki (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any policy saying, pay attention to what one editor will or won't accept in determining consensus (or in establishing what is or isn't stable content, for that matter). Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The above is a good case study of why one should watch policy pages like a hawk; once something gets entrenched in there, it's much more difficult to remove. If it had been reverted in early 2021 none of this would have been an issue. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like it, instead of pining for a TARDIS or DeLorean to go and change history, why don't you launch an RfC and seek to change the policy? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

History of WP:DENIALS part deux

There are a lot of missing facts here. The addition of the "while also adhering" phrase is clearly disputed, and there was never any consensus for it. Per WP:ONUS (policy), The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The previous version was clearly the status quo:

• The denials sentence was added in 2013. There was literally an RfC here in February 2014 about the inclusion of denials, and though it was never properly closed, there was almost unanimous consensus for it: [8]. Therefore, there was affirmative consensus for its inclusion, not WP:SILENTCONSENSUS (which is essay, not policy).

• The section in its entirety was upheld by some in related discussions over the following few years [9], [10] ("The wording in WP:PUBLICFIGURE is longstanding and has served us reasonably well thus far"), and was repeatedly scrutinized [11], with the denials sentence kept perfectly intact. It was also plainly treated as consensus (see WhatamIdoing's Jan 15th reply and Nomoskedasticity's June 8th reply for example).

• Over the years, attempted changes to that phrase have been consistently reverted [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. It was explicitly treated as the "status quo" [18].

Some argue that the only status quo versions are the disputed 2021-2022 addition, and the pre-2013 version. That's absurd, and is clear Wikilawyering. The base sentence fragment has been undisputed since 2013, for almost 10 years. The idea that the whole paragraph would need to be removed, since the disputed addition changes its meaning, is also bogus; changes in meaning are precisely why the addition requires consensus.

Some editors act as if WP:STATUSQUO WP:SILENTCONSENSUS, and WP:STABLE are binding policies; wrong, they are essays, and cannot be used to resolve disputes without consensus. WP:SILENT is also clear that silent consensus is nullified if the addition is ever disputed.

Arguing that the addition cannot be removed without an RfC is also nonsense, and clearly contradicts WP:ONUS (policy). WP:POLICY (itself a policy) states that the purpose of policies and guidelines is to state what most Wikipedians agree upon. WP:CONSENSUS (also a policy) states that Bold changes are rarely welcome on policy pages. Improvements to policy are best made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others. That was not followed here. To support a clearly-disputed statement in a policy (not an article), which was added with zero consensus, against previous affirmative consensus, and to place the onus for seeking consensus on those who dispute it, contradicts multiple policies and is not acceptable. I'll note that an RFC to reinstate the disputed passage is not currently called for. DFlhb (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop WIKILAWYERING. Almost two years of a stable version with implicit consensus don't go up in smoke just because YOUDONTLIKEIT, and the idea that a 2014 discussion that was never formally closed is now binding over the next 8 years of editing and discussion on Talk is either extremely poorly considered or tendentious - and I have no need to venture an opinion as to which. What matters is what policy text has consensus right now, and your assertion that this was determined in 2014 and that subsequent EDITCONSENSUS and Talk discussion have no standing is complete balderdash, I'm sorry to say. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT refers to arguments that cite no policy, or don't explain why it applies. I cite policies extensively, and why they apply. I never claimed a past consensus is binding; I said there is no consensus for the addition, and no consensus to remove the original sentence fragment; no more, no less. You claim that something I haven't said is "tendentious"; fine.

"Talk discussions" do have standing, but there is no consensus here for the change. You misinterpret WP:EDITCONSENSUS, which says: "the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement". As has been pointed out above, a silent consensus dissipates if several editors dispute the addition. If it were otherwise, then all 2-year old content on Wikipedia would need affirmative consensus to alter, and that's not how it's done.

As you say, what matters is what text has consensus right now.

• There was consensus for the original phrase. There was never consensus to remove or change it; there is still not one now. Focusing on it is a red-herring.
• The addition was WP:BOLD, and was later disputed by several editors. WP:ONUS (policy) says the onus for seeking consensus of a reinstatement is on those who favor it. As of now, there is still no such consensus.

Policy is extremely clear here, and I'll note that you haven't addressed a single one of my policy-based arguments (as opposed to things I never said). DFlhb (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, please. WP:ONUS states that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The sentence fragment you insist on including is disputed content, absent the additional phrase that was added in early 2021. Unless you are going to argue that ONUS doesn't apply to policy pages, you have to recognize that there isn't now a basis in policy for inserting your preferred version.

It doesn't matter that there was once consensus for the sentence fragment - once there is no longer consensus for it, WP:ONUS dictates to exclude it; it doesn't say "pick your preferred past version and recert to that". Policy does not require consensus to remove the disputed fragment; once it no longer has consensus, it should be removed. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You are significantly muddling the waters. I am not "insist[ing] on including" or "inserting" anything, and you are not removing anything; the reverse is happening. You make the same misconception in your reinstatement edit summary. Your exact argument applies to you, not me.

It is not "my preferred" version. It was endorsed by a past RfC. It can be overriden by a new RfC, of which there is currently none. From my reading, no one here has disputed the fragment's inclusion except you. The addition is disputed, and directly contradicts the RfC, which favored inclusionism. You allude to WP:CCC, but it, too, backs me up: "in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion."

The strong encouragement to follow 0RR/1RR for policy changes, combined with ONUS and the fact that the addition contradicted an RfC, mean that this revert was likely inappropriate in the first place, especially since it misstated the presence of a consensus (silent consensus no longer applied after that revert, ONUS did; and that silent consensus went against explicit consensus). I urge you to undo your latest revert. DFlhb (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

So, I assume thet the RfC you mention on this issue was this one. If so, I would point out that the RfC addresses a hypothetical, Assume for the sake of argument that we have material in a biography that mentions criticism of a living person..., and cannot reasonably be construed as endorsing any particular policy language. It also, of course, was not closed, and seems to have been a sideline for editors engaged in particular disputes around the articles for certain living or recently deceased people. The idea that that RfC expresses a consensus that is still in force and that mandates the inclusion of the sentence fragment in question seems deucedly peculiar.

There is indeed a strong encouragement not to edit war to bring about policy changes, and the status quo here is the 2021-2022 policy text. You can either have that policy text (as status quo) or you can have nothing at all (per ONUS to remove disputed content); what you can't do is cherry pick a disputed pre-2021 text and say "this is the consensus version" based on a 2014 RfC that wasn't about the policy language at dispute. Which is why I keep saying to those interested in changing the status quo, "let's work out an RfC". Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:RFC: "Neither 'closing' nor 'summarizing' are required." It not being closed has no bearing on consensus.

The RfC overwhelmingly (and explicitly) supported including denials from self-published sources, and non-notable/undue denials that were never covered by a WP:RS. That directly contradicts the disputed addition. Contradicting past affirmative consensus (RfC, no less) requires new affirmative consensus. Not met.

I feel you are significantly misstating the situation: there was a bold change, against consensus. It was disputed (and still is, with most editors against). There is no "time limit" beyond which implicit consensus turns into explicit consensus, so it can't overturn the RfC.

You also seem to misread WP:QUO, it's an essay, which suggests an option to avoid edit wars (don't touch the content until the discussion ends). It clearly doesn't mean the disputed content gets to stay forever. Since this discussion is heavily leaning against inclusion (with 4 in favor and 8 against), there's no need to keep the addition any further, as would be appropriate if this discussion was 50/50. I've also provided substantive policy-based reasons for going back to the (actual) status quo (my argument on false balance's applicability).

User:Firefangledfeathers's reinstatement relied on his assumption that there was no prior consensus. Perfectly reasonable, but I've now shown otherwise. Given the way this discussion is going, why keep it? We don't even agree on the wording! It's hard to call it a status quo by any common sense definition. DFlhb (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS as written does not and can not apply here. ONUS is part of WP:V, which explicitly applies only to the mainspace. Not only is this a policy page in project namespace, our policies are not based around reliable sources. They are content original to Wikipedia, and so cannot be verifiable in the way that article content can be. If you want to say that the spirit of ONUS' last sentence; The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, then by all means say it. But please do not overstate that as policy that must be followed in this circumstance.

The version that is currently in place is the version of the policy that has been "live" for 1 year and 7 months. Whether or not you disagree with the current version doesn't really matter. It is the version of policy, that any editor checking the policy at any point during that time period will have seen and been familiar with. As such it is also the version that presumably will have been referred to in editorial disputes on biography articles.

Some editors here are seeking to change away from that version, to an earlier version. And by and large that's fine, with the exception that the change towards the earlier version is disputed. Now if we were discussing this in March/April 2021, I would agree that it should be for the editors seeking to change the policy by including the disputed section to workshop and launch and RfC seeking consensus for that addition. However a significant amount of time has passed, where that text was not challenged or removed. Accordingly, it is not unreasonable to see this as the inverse situation where editors are seeking to change the policy by excluding the disputed section, and so it should be on them to workshop and launch an RfC seeking consensus for that exclusion.

Were it not for a change in policy that has otherwise been stable for a significant period of time, I probably would say "Fine, I'll launch an RfC seeking consensus for inclusion". However because this is policy, and because even the temporary exclusion of the disputed sentence (in the event of the RfC finding consensus for including it) would result in a policy change that many editors would otherwise be unfamiliar with, I have to say that in order to keep disruption to a minimum, the current version of the text should stay until an RfC finds consensus for it to be removed.

Ultimately though, and I say this with some sense of irony due to what I've just said earlier in this reply, editors here are arguing over which version of m:The Wrong Version of the policy to keep while a consensus process happens to figure out the right version. So does it really matter which version is in place while an RfC is held on whether or not to include it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your in-depth argument, but it seems silly on its face that a removal should require an RfC when the addition didn't require one, especially since we have, by my count, a preliminary consensus of 8-to-4 for removal.

This also significantly blurs the line between implicit and explicit consensus. Per WP:CON there is no longer any implicit consensus, since the addition was disputed. Even if there were still an implicit consensus, it can't overrule an explicit consensus, let alone an RfC. I explain above why the addition directly contradicts the RfC results; to keep it would violate WP:PGCHANGE ("It is, naturally, bad practice to recommend a rejected practice on a policy or guideline page"). Further, the addition clearly failed WP:TALKFIRST; an RfC can only be "overturned" by another RfC, and that ball is in your camp.

All the policies I cite in this comment are content policies, which explicitly apply to all of Wikipedia, including this page. I also think WP:ONUS's applicability is more nuanced, but I'll stick to concision. I'll also note that the insistance on keeping the contested addition is unwarranted, since the "denials" phrase never applied to adjectives in the first place, only accusations. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, the effort to override the RFC-approved version and to require a new RFC to remove text that only some present editors support, and that only got in there because some of us (myself included) weren't paying enough attention in Spring 2021, is a textbook case of WP:WIKILAWYERING. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I explain below, restoring the pre-March 2021 version represents a substantive change in policy away from a version that has been stable for almost 2 years, as it would represent a significant change in practice for how denials are treated in biographies.

I agree that how this was added in March 2021 was bad. It should have been discussed, and it could have been reverted at that time. However that didn't happen, and as a result that WP:PGBOLD addition has become our stable version via the passage of time. Any editor who has looked at or referred to the policy over the last two years will have seen that sentence.

Ultimately though, conservative handling of policy aside, why are we expending so many words over m:The Wrong Version? Why not just have the RfC to seek a consensus to exclude the section and be done with it as has been repeatedly suggested? Best/worst case (perspective dependent), you will only need to wait for roughly thirty days for a potential consensus to exclude that section, and then the problem will be solved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Because unfortunately the way the Wikipedia system works, the "status quo" plays a major role in the outcome in the case of a "no consensus" closure, which are common. Personally, I think such closures should be deprecated - the whole point of an RFC is that there's an intractable dispute that needs a definite outcome one way or the other, and "no consensus" is rarely helpful. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, there is no "RfC-approved version". The RfC was about a hypothetical, and did not engage with the policy text. Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

In terms of whether or not to exclude the section, I have a rough head count of 6 in favour, 7 against, 1 no strong feelings either way, and 4 I can't classify. And even within that rough head count, there's a fair bit of nuance beyond a straight "A, B, C are in favour of inclusion, and D, E, F are in favour of exclusion". So I don't really think you can draw a consensus from that either way.

With regards to IMPLICITCONSENSUS, how you interpret the text depends on where you're deciding the starting point to be. Using the flowchart there as an illustrative example, there seems to be two versions that can be fed into "previous consensus". Either the version that has stood since 13 March 2021, or the version immediately prior to that.

If you use the version from 13 March, then the content that was removed would be treated as "make an edit", the restoration of it is answering yes to "was the article edited further", and everything since has been the path on disagree and "seek a compromise". However, if you use the version prior to that, then the 13 March 2021 edit would be treated as "make an edit", and the first removal of it on 5 October 2022 is answering yes to "was the article edited further", and as before everything since has been the path on disagree and "seek a compromise".

What IMPLICITCONSENUS alone seems unable to handle is the situation we find ourselves in, where there was a significant lag time between the content being added, and it being removed. WP:BRD is better set up to handle this type of discussion, though it too suffers from the problem of identifying which edit should be considered bold, and which the revert.

With regards to the February 2014 RfC, I do not see it as the trump card being put forth. Had that discussion been referred to and used to revert the March 2021 change, even a month or so after the addition, I would agree largely agree that those editors in favour of keeping the content should launch an RfC seeking inclusion. But that did not happen, and the content was not challenged until almost 2 years later. That is a pretty strong, even if silent, indicator that consensus had changed.

However having said all of that, this is a policy page, the policy as it is currently written has been the live version for well over a year, and even a temporary removal of the content while an RfC is undertaken would result in a substantive change to how denials are treated on biographies compared to current practice. Yes the March 2021 change was also a substantive change, however it has also been the live policy for a substantial period of time. When it comes down to deciding which substantive change should take precedence, I have to side with the version that has been most recent stable live version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my count of detractors and supporters, which I triple-checked (and which doesn't count me). I'll also note that you dispute the application of WP:ONUS, yet reference WP:STABLE, an essay, in multiple comment.

That is a pretty strong, even if silent, indicator that consensus had changed. You think? Even this discussion shows no consensus!

Your arguments about which change is the one to analyse, or that stability on a policy page represents consensus, is also a red-herring. It's still trying to replace an RfC with an implicit consensus, which would be unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. I'll note that the previous version was far more stable; edits that were very similar to the current proposal have been consistently reverted as recently as 2020 [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. The fact that one edit slipped through does not represent any consensus. DFlhb (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Your argument might be coherent except for the minor detail that the RfC was not about the text of the policy. Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Despite your claim, the RfC explicitly endorsed including self-published denials, and denials that are not widely covered by WP:RS. The addition directly contradicts that RfC consensus. The "RfC version" is simply the one that doesn't conflict with said RfC. DFlhb (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, third time, restores their preferred version. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

The stable version, you mean. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:STABLE itself says a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. DFlhb (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe Peter was simply trying to reflect onto me my use of the term "preferred version". The difference is that his preferred version (and yours) precedes February 2021. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the RfC version should be restored per ONUS. It's understandable that such a change may go unnoticed and it's clear no discussion supported the change. Springee (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

And yet WP:PGBOLD quite clearly states Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You are misreading it. It clearly explains that changes should not be reverted just because there was no discussion, with no substantive edit summary. That doesn't remotely apply here; it's meant to codify that WP:BOLD applies to policies and guidelines too, and that undiscussed changes are not in-and-of-themselves inappropriate. DFlhb (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Springee, there is no RfC version. The RfC was not about the policy text - it addressed a hypothetical case. Newimpartial (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial: And what about the multitude of other talk page discussions @DFlhb: listed above, all of which discussed the original sentence of "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." DFlhb was 100% correct in their reading of Wiki policy above. This sentence was introduced nearly a decade ago not only as a result an RfC, but multiple talk page discussions here. There was no such discussion for the addition, and it has been disputed by multiple editors. The path forward is clear: an RfC is needed for the addition. Per policy, the disputed content should be removed. All this talk of implied consensus and status quo is unnecessary, and the edit warring is blatantly disruptive. Either initiate an RfC for inclusion, or it's ArbCom time. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Homeostasis07, I'm not sure what metaphysics you subscribe to, but it seems improbable that policy text could be added as a result of an RfC that took place in the following year. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It still appears that you are failing to understand ONUS and for what ever reason you are concerned that you can't otherwise get consensus to support your view. Springee (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Started an RfC below, because enough is enough of this. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably the best way to resolve this. DFlhb (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Figured it was either this or an ANI... eventually progressing to ArbCom. Why not try some diplomacy? ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break/discussion of proposed change

FYI, the new essay Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply has just been published today (November 8, 2022).

Given the above, let's specifically discuss the proposed change without tangents about ONUS or QUO. This is necessary anyway before any RfC is warranted.

As of this message, there is currently neither consensus for a change; nor on what that change should be. Its current wording is problematic: it misrepresents WP:FALSEBALANCE, as the basis for some denials being unwarranted; but FALSEBALANCE explicitly targets scholarly and scientific POVs, not allegations of crime (see User:Homeostasis07's comment above). It is also distinct from WP:DUEness.

As proposed, the change is likely to discourage inclusion of some denials altogether. That's also problematic, since scholars find that the absence of denials commonly prejudices people into believing accusations are true (see User:Anythingyouwant's comment above for references). Current policy already requires we include enough details for any substantial accusation; readers can make up their own minds on whether to believe any denial (many won't).

I'll note that including denials is just about respecting basic human dignity; even WP:RS can be overtly sensationalistic, and there is deep past consensus on the need to be careful when including some accusations. Some editors in this page's archives specifically call out the risk when it comes to alleged dating impriorieties (Gamergate) and sexual allegations (which can have strong racist undertones). It's meant to protect victims (of defamation or harassment), not abusers. Trying to soften this policy seems misguided, and may increase the WMF's legal liability.

On its merits, the idea that the current wording justifies denials for well-sourced adjectives (not allegations) is also false, and extensively addressed by existing policies and consensus. The current wording also specifically applies to such allegations. DFlhb (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

regardless of anything else, I have inline tagged that line with"under discussion", such that more can get involved and provide input particularly if there is an RFC. This bett eliminate the edit warring going on from both camps. --Masem (t) 23:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that, Masem. It's amazing how many editors invoke WP:QUO in favor of their version but don't quite manage to read even the entire first paragraph in that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that the current version misrepresents FALSEBALANCE, as it's used in practice. You state that FALSEBALANCE explicitly targets scholarly and scientific POVs, however in practice it is applied to all reliable sources, be they scholarship or not. While scholarly sources are preferred, we also heavily base our articles on WP:NEWSORG content, which I think we can all agree can be biased. Were we not to apply FALSEBALANCE to such content, then we would include all manner of non-mainstream POV content in articles that are based on non-scholarly sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are entirely misreading me; my argument is not about sources. I'm claiming that WP:FALSEBALANCE specifically applies to scientific or scholarly viewpoints (broadly interpreted). That section in its entirety, the included BBC quote, and all the listed example are explicit on this. FALSEBALANCE applies to treatment of pseudoscience, not to allegations in BLPs. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I said this elsewhere but our wording at DUE omits the weight of expects or those with authoritative or central knowledge, stressing sheer proportion of sources. It is never a false balance to include a statement from a known leading expert in a field that may be contrary to everyone else, we just make sure it is attributed, and if it reflects a personal stance, avoid unduly self-serving information. A false balance would be trying to include an army of armchair "experts" on a topic they have no established recognition in. Or if there is enough RS sourcing on this viewpoint, to be very clear it is attribute and established as a minor viewpoint as to not give it equal weight to the majority POVs. Masem (t) 00:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't think I am. How do we, as editors, determine the mainstream point of view on a subject, any subject, without sources? How do we ensure that our articles are written neutrally, without reading and assessing sources? How do we ensure that our non-scientific and non-scholarly content, like the vast number of biographies, are neutral in their content?

FALSEBALANCE is a lens through which we assess the sources and determine how to write our content. This can be articles based primarily or exclusively on scholarly research, and it can equally be articles that are primarily or exclusively based on NEWSORG content. If we do not apply FALSEBALANCE to Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, no. Whether an article is sourced entirely to NEWSORGS is irrelevant, we shouldn't promote a false equivalence between flat-earth and proper science. That's all "false balance" means, not just on Wikipedia (again, it's very explicit) but in the scientific literature. You may be using the term coloquially, but we're referring to a specific Wikipedia policy here. The term you're looking for is dueness.

WP:FALSEBALANCE is very well-worded to address pseudoscience, but highly disturbing when applied to BLP accusations: we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it (the rest of the sentence, predictably, talks about scholarship). DFlhb (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and the equivalent of false balance would be saying "he didn't do it", not simply reporting a denial that journalistic sources typically include. FALSEBALANCE, DUE, and so on are all based on sources; saying that X denies it when the media typically includes denials is inherently DUE; the false balance if anything is removing the denial based on an argument that Wikipedia is like a 1960s court case. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree; I just see a reference to FALSEBALANCE as an explicit encouragement to sometimes exclude denials, and I don't think that's appropriate. DFlhb (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

If we are being neutral and impartial (as NPOV demands), when there is a conflict that has not yet been resolved by any authority to that (such as a judge in a legal case, or the scientific community on a scientific topic) we should not be taking sides and present the fundamental conflict stating what both/each side has stated. Now, that's not saying like we need to apply formal debate-like space rules for each side; if one side is clearly better supported by RSes, we can absolutely go into more detail about that side of it, while only allotting a sentence to the other. For example "John Smith is considered racist by many journalists, though he has denied it. <extended paragraph citing incidents journalists assert lend to that racist association". That is absolutely within the framework of NPOV, BLP, and DUE, not giving any false balance (treating Smith as innocent) nor equal weight. --Masem (t) 03:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Back up to the topic: I don't see how WP:FALSEBALANCE should not apply in all instances where there is consensus reality (settled facts in court, strong documentation about events, scholarly consensus) even though some BLP subject wants to dispute the characterization of their actions or whether reliably documented events actually happened. There is nothing in the relevant section of WP:BLP to exclude such instances, and editors make "right of reply"-style arguments for the inclusion of marginally sourced or self-published denials in such cases literally constantly, even with the current language about denials. The kinds of changes you are promoting, DHIfb, will only strengthen the hand of such FRINGE POV advocates whether you expect that outcome of not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll first note my distinction between contentious labels, and allegations of misconduct; I think we agree on the former, and I maintain that they're not covered by the denials sentence, so I'll solely focus on the latter.

The denial phrase is in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is about allegations, so the denial phrase wouldn't apply when courts have ruled. I'll note that FALSEBALANCE doesn't cover court judgments, under my analysis above.

Strong documentation about events, and scholarly consensus, outside of BLPs, should obviously follow WP:FALSEBALANCE (its wording is clear). But for BLPs, I question what "strong documentation" would mean, or what possible "scholarly consensus" could apply (e.g. calling Pinochet a dictator is a label, not an allegation; and he's dead, not BLP).

If you gave examples of strong docs or scholarly consensus, that would apply to BLPs, and would be about allegations (rather than labels), I'll address them; I can't think of any such cases. That's why I don't think FALSEBALANCE (again, referring actual text of that Wikipedia policy, not the colloquial term) applies here. DFlhb (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but I'll stick to the Graham Linehan example. We have the scholarly source I cited stating that This online transphobia has been spearheaded by former comedy writer Graham Linehan.[25] We have multiple good sources noting that he has engaged in anti-transgender campaigns/activism; even his allies at The Telegraph refer to him as a vocal critic of transgenderism. So the RS consensus that Linehan has been actively engaged against trans people / trans rights is rather strong. But Linehan and sympathetic editors repeatedly propose that his comments proposing that he is not anti-trans ought to be platformed in the article. Presenting both the consensus view and Linehan's own view as attributed statements on an equal footing would strike me as a perfect example of WP:FALSEBALANCE (one of these perspectives is FRINGE) - as would, to give another example, platforming Linehan's self-published statements when he was banned from Twitter for violating its policies against hateful conduct. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the specific situation, but I'm not sure that "Everyone says he's guilty, but he denies it" is really putting these contrasting claims "on equal footing". We do not accept that logic in all subjects ("Everyone says he's gay, but he denies it" would never be accepted in any article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that if the denial is included, it's hard to give a good impression of the balance of sources. So for example, which of these is the best phrasing for Richard B Spencer:

• Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978)[1] is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist[2][3][4]
• Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978)[1] is often accused of being an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist[2][3][4], but he denies it[5]
• According to expert on the radical far-right Tamir Bar-On[1], New York Magazine[2], Vanity Fair[3], the Associated Press[4], Slate[5], CNN[6], Tablet[7], the Evening Standard[8], the Christian Science Monitor[9], Katherine Mangen writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education[10] and the New York Times[11], Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978)[12] is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist. However, he denies it[13].

Do you see the issue here? If the denial is included, in order for it to receive proper weight relative to the other sources, all the other sources must be mentioned to give a good idea of exactly how much in the minority Spencer is with his denial. But that's hugely unwieldy in this situation. Simply not mentioning the denial is the best representation of the sourcing here. Loki (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's be clear: your first point is about WP:LABEL, which tells us to attribute rather than use Wikivoice no matter how many WP:RS use a label; not about WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Your first example is in theory not compliant with policies & guidelines, and the RFC's option 3 wouldn't change the Wikivoice issue at all. Your second and third examples are very much strawmen, which would never be used in practice. "Often accused" is casual language, not encyclopedic, and is a vast understatement. And listing every attribution is never, ever done. The only reason your first example doesn't violate MOS:LABEL, is because he openly admits to being a white supremacist; that's the only way we can use Wikivoice there. If he didn't admit it, what it would say, is: "(unanimously?) classified as a neo-Nazi and white supremacist by scholars", or something to that effect. There are ways to obey MOS:LABEL without whitewashing, and we can stop attributing (and start using Wikivoice) with no problem once he's dead. If you concede that we should attribute (if he hadn't admitted it), I'll enthusiastically concede that a denial wouldn't be appropriate for Spencer's neonazism (and emphatically not in the lead), even if he hadn't admitted anything. I can see how adding dueness to the denials phrase would address this, but I'd rather it be addressed in a far more direct way, by clarifying WP:PUBLICFIGURE to say that denials aren't warranted when the scholarly consensus is clear, for example. Even with "dueness" added to the denials sentence, you'll still have people chiming in on talk pages, arguing that "it's due!"

The problem with adding dueness so we can skip denials based on extreme examples like Spencer, is the same problem that lawyers, humanists, and philosophers have all pointed out for centuries: "the law isn't meant to protect the guilty, but the innocent". That's what BLP guideliens are for, too. I've seen several BLPs (not of fascists or transphobes) where labels that were only used by a few WP:RS were stated in Wikivoice. That's both a potential legal problem for Wikipedia (which isn't clearly protected by Section 230), makes for a worse encyclopedia, and victimizes people needlessly. If just a few WP:RS use a label, a denial is fine. Is scholarship uses that label, the denial might be due somewhere in the body within a very specific context; but wouldn't be due in the lead. Don't you think this clarification of WP:PUBLICFIGURE would be more productive? DFlhb (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If the Spencer lede said "He is known for his white supremacist and antisemitic and pro-Nazi activities" there would be less of a problem. Wikipedia editors do not constitute a tribunal to judge living people.Assigning labels in our voice exceeds our mission and often leads to mischief. We can make the point very well without labels.--agr (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I looked into it deeper, and it seems that I was wrong, and (unsurprisingly) he "denied" being a Nazi. I think the wording you propose would be fine then, under WP:LABEL, and I agree that it wouldn't whitewash things. DFlhb (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think WP:FALSEBALANCE or False balance are applicable to what negative labels we attach to people. I think editors have fallen into a trap of thinking the phrase "false balance" means exactly that and is applicable for wherever you might think the balance is incorrect. But the Wikipedia policy, as others have pointed out, is very much geared towards facts that can be addressed by the hierarchy of scholarship that determines what is accepted mainstream view. This generally works very well and doesn't lead to significant disputes between well established errors. The Wikipedia article is about journalism giving both sides to a well known controversy where one side clearly should be emphasised as mainstream and the other fringe, and has some overlap with our policy. Think about it, it isn't generally a problem in journalism to label someone while also give incorrect weight to the other labels. Journalists are typically very opinionated about which label is correct and likely wouldn't give the time of day to the other side.

As others have noted, a label accusing someone of a crime automatically gives weight to the judgement of the courts, even if the accused claims innocence. We don't, I think, have a problem with stating someone is a murderer while also noting whether they accepted their guilt or not.

The issue with negative labels, such as anti-vaccinationists, white nationalists, anti-semites or in the example some editors are disputing and citing, is anti-trans (or even more provocatively is transphobic) are not dealt with by an authority like the court. These labels typically come from the newspapers, and for those sources we don't have an established hierarchy of authority, reliability and impartiality like we do in science and medicine. We have a very crude concept of whether a newspaper is generally reliable or not, which ignores whether the piece we are citing is standard news reporting or is in fact an opinion piece by a columnist or even is a guest piece by someone outside of the staff. And we know that newspapers are generally biased along political and social lines, with very few news sources (e.g. BBC) having any kind of requirement for neutrality.

On an issue like trans rights, both sides apply labels to the other side and it is difficult to determine which label Wikipedia should lead with or use uncontested. I've seen some arguments on the page Newimpartial links that even do original-research on whether a label is appropriate. Which smells a bit like someone saying John Smith can't possibly be "racist" because "race" is a discredited concept in science.

The presence of these conflicting MANDY/NOTMANDY essays demonstrates that Wikipedia does not have a firm idea of how to handle negative labels. The current policy text deals with "allegations" which covers all sorts of things, some of which may be easier to resolve. We need to think specifically about negative labels and I suggest we have a sentence dealing with that separately from our advice on allegations. But please, drop the links to WP:FALSEBALANCE or False balance, as they aren't at all relevant. -- Colin°^Talk 10:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, thanks for the example. I took a while to reply because I wanted to read all the Graham Linehan talk page archives, and give deep thought to this whole BLP issue. I was indeed wrong on the denials phrase. I again apologize for the length, it's important I break down other policies too.

By my reading, here's what current policy says:

• MOS:LABEL is clear that labels should be attributed, not said in Wikivoice.
• The denials phrase of WP:PUBLICFIGURE would indeed likely recommend we mention that Lineham denied being transphobic (not necessarily in the lead! But at least in the body). I was wrong to state otherwise; and do agree it would be required. But I disagree the RFC's option 3 would change this.
  • Under option 1, it should plainly be included, yes.
  • Under option 3, a denial needs to meet two new criteria: WP:DUE, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. The latter is inapplicable, as I'll explain at the end of this comment in the reply below, so option 2 and option 3 have identical meaning. That means, for option 3, WP:DUE is the only additional criteria that denials have to meet. So let's look at WP:DUE:
    • If WP:RS mention that he denied being transphobic, it's plainly due, so it should still be included.
    • The 2014 RFC found that self-published denials are also due. It seems we were both wrong: option 3 adds a new criteria, that self-published denials met all along per the 2014 RFC. Option 3 does not "overturn" the 2014 RFC, since it's completely perpendicular to it. If you want self-published denials to be undue, what you need is not option 3; you need to get consensus that self-published denials are undue, since, currently, they are.
• His fringe views on trans people (for example, comparing puberty blockers to eugenics) should be mentioned per WP:BLPFRINGE. When we explain his views, we should follow the wording used by reliable sources, not his own (per common sense and every policy).
• Whether his arguments that he's not transphobic should be expounded on is covered by WP:DUE and depends on reliable sources. Self-published arguments (rather than a denial) should not be included, per WP:DUE.
• WP:FALSEBALANCE has strictly nothing to do with any of the above. It is explictly about articles on topics. Linehan is a person, not a topic. WP:PROFRINGE is what you're looking for, and it does tell us that we shouldn't include wording he proposes, that makes him look better, because that would be unduly self-promotional. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is in no way a loophole to that, under any wording.

This comment is purely about trying to interpret what the rules currently mean, not about changing them, so I'd appreciate if everyone else here would double-check my reasoning. I want to make sure I got this right, because if I did, then option 3 was motivated by a misunderstanding all along.

If I understand you goals correctly, your correct next steps would be the RFC on self-published denials being undue. As for me, I still prefer the denials phrase reverted, but that wouldn't affect your goals at all, I'm sorry to say. I believe that the fact you believe otherwise is a result of misinterpretation. DFlhb (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are misreading WP:FALSEBALANCE, the scope of which pertains to topics, not articles about topics as you propose here. The idea that WP:BLP policies belong to one set of articles and other policies like WP:FALSEBALANCE belong to another set of articles is one of the great myths of Wikipedia: none of these policies operate at the article level (few things do, actually, outside of editing restrictions like 0/1RR). Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I wrote my reply in a Word doc, and removed my arguments related to falsebalance for brevity, before posting, and meant to replace it with a very shortened version; that bullet point was not it, and I meant to remove it too. (I'll note you are not addressing 90% of my comment.)

The crux of the paragraphs I removed, which I guess I shouldn't have, hinged on the fact that WP:FALSEBALANCE indeed is about viewpoints on topics. And clarified the difference between mentioning a denial for a label (which has nothing to do with presenting his viewpoint), versus counterarguments to WP:RS coverage (which are arguments, not denials, and therefore were subject to false balance and dueness; but again, they're not denials). The conclusion proposed changing WP:BLPFRINGE or WP:FALSEBALANCE to clarify the obvious: that counterargument to WP:RS coverage aren't due. I'll restate my main thesis, that this RFC won't achieve your hoped-for reduction in people disagreeing on talk pages (as evidence by people disagreeing right here about what option 3 would mean). DFlhb (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Denials

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus for the page to include option 1, namely including denials if they exist, as it received more !votes than everything else combined. I will leave it to others to make the change. Gusfriend (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Which option should this page include?

Option 1: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too."

Option 2: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too, while also adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject."

Option 3: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too, while also adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance."

Option 4: Remove all forms of this sentence. option added by Loki (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC) question reworded for neutrality by DFlhb (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC); option 2 added by Homeostasis07 on 02:28, 9 November 2022

Context

Here's how this passage of WP:BLP evolved:

• Wording equivalent to option 1 was added on June 27, 2013

• It was copyedited to match option 1 on December 9, 2019

• It was changed to match option 3 on March 13, 2021

With a few bold edits and reverts in between. This RFC was preceded by the discussion above. A previous 2014 RFC addressed denials.

Note

This RfC concerns specifically the text found in WP:BLPPUBLIC. General BLP policies and related issues are set forth througout the BLP page. SPECIFICO talk 16:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey (RfC on Denials)

• Option 1: Option 3 was added to this policy page on February 11, 2021 by a user who also linked to the essay WP:MANDY. This included MANDY's misinterpretation of the WP:FALSEBALANCE policy, which relates solely to "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories" and how they "should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." This in no way corroborates accusations of denials being excluded, or that the mere mention of a denial equates "false balance". Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Please note that this !vote incorporates a misinterpretation of the scope of WP:FALSEBALANCE. That passage weighs against the idea that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity, and "mainstream scholarship" covers many of the "allegations or incidents" that BLPs would prefer to dispute and issue rebuttals for. The list that begins with "conspiracy theories" and "pseudoscience" is a set of examples - and there are also a number of BLP rebuttal/denials that rely on conspiracy theories or other WP:FRINGE claims. Newimpartial (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Strong support 1, oppose 2, strong oppose 3 & 4. We should explicitly favor including denials for allegations of crime or misconduct. That doesn't mean we give the same word count to denials and accusations; the denial needn't be more than a few words. But it's crucial to include denials for these allegations. Omitting denials will unduly bias readers towards believing the accusations are true, as scholarly sources show (see this whole reply: [26]). This is about respecting basic human dignity, and shouldn't be softened. DFlhb (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The very lead of WP:BLP is also explicit that WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR strictly apply (emphasis not mind). Saying so again here is unnecessary, excessive, and may be confusing. I also endorse Homeostasis's view of FALSEBALANCE, which is completely misapplied. Options 2, 3 and 4 will likely lead to denials being inappropriately excluded; denials for serious allegations are almost always due, but, as User:Masem hints at, that won't be obvious to all. DFlhb (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3. WP:NPOV is a core content policy. We should not subvert it even in such cases. It is important to remind editors of that and to clarify that, when handled properly, there is no contradiction between that and this: including denials does not mean focusing on them to the point of a false balance. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Additional comment. My opinion above was formulated at a time when the RFC effectively only asked whether we should change from option 3 to option 1. Someone appears to have changed the bold text on my opinion to make it correspond to the newer 4-option version of the RFC. It is accurate that I prefer option 3 but I also think that making so many options confuses the issue, again, after it has already been more than adequately muddled in earlier discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Option 4 also acceptable per XOR'easter's reasoning below. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Non-neutral RFC. This is not an "amendment". It has been stable on this page for two years now. The current wording is what you're framing as the "amendment", and what you're framing as the status quo is the actual amendment you want to make. I oppose this amendment and support the status quo but I think this RFC should be entirely remade, because it's currently both non-neutral and confusing. Loki (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC) Struck due to RFC rewording, actual !vote below. Loki (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The text in the opening statement was as neutral as I could make it, given the circumstances on this talk page the past month. Opening statement has been amended further still to address any concerns. The original prose "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." had been incorporated into this policy for almost a decade, as evidenced by DFlhb, via both an RfC and numerous talk page discussions. This is the community-approved status quo version. Per both WP:ONUS (policy) and the WP:SILENTCONSENSUS essay you cited when reverting the policy, the amendment to the sentence has no mandate, since it has been disputed by at least 6 different users over the past month. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 > 4 > 2; oppose 1: As David Eppstein says above, WP:NPOV (and WP:V) is a core content policy, so the actual policy is per Option 3 regardless of what this page says. Option 3 is therefore a clearer expression of this policy than Option 1 and having to correlate it against WP:NPOV and WP:V separately. Loki (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC) amended with ordering Loki (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Alice in Wonderland RfC - this RfC presents language that has not been stable on this policy page since the beginning of 2021 as though it were the current language, while depicting the language that has been stable on this policy page since February 2021 as though it were now an amendment. It seems designed to convince readers that down is up and up is down, and to vote accordingly. Newimpartial (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC) new !vote below Newimpartial (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. Between the first three versions, I would pick the shortest one mainly for the sake of conciseness. I don’t see the additional language adding much, because policies like WP:Undue will apply to some extent regardless. The added language really doesn’t seem to make much difference, it’s certainly not a license to delete any denial completely, given that it says to include denials “while" (not "if there is a way of") giving due weight and balance. I don’t have any opinion yet about which of these versions is the status quo, I only have an opinion about which version is better. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• It depends Personally I think the additional text is correct, but in alignment with a reading of UNDUE that recognizes that that a short denial is nowhere close to creating a false balance or attempting ot give equal weight. That seems to be essential to all this. --Masem (t) 02:15, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, then 2 then 3. If a subject has denied an accusation, that fact should always be included. Beyond that our policies and guidelines like undue and no false balance of course apply. I don't see a need to reiterate them here, much less leave open a possible interpretation that they can be used to exclude a simple denial in some cases.--agr (talk) 03:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3. If an allegation is DUE it should have garnered sufficient discussion in RS for it to be presented NPOV. If the subject denies the allegation, one would expect that to receive satisfactory coverage as well, but if it doesn't then we don't need to report it. And MANDY doesn't link to WP:FALSEBALANCE, it links to the article false balance, which is pretty much consistent with the NPOV section WP:BALANCE. JoelleJay (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3. Per NPOV as explained by David Eppstein, Loki, and JoelleJay. --Hipal (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think I like 2 or 3 because I think some editors will read those to mean, exclude if weight or false balance would be an issue. The concern about false balance and weight are legitimate but we should be clear that exclusion is not the way to address those potential problems. I'm going to hold off on !voting because I think 1 is the only option that makes it clear the denial should be included while the others, as written suggest only if inclusion wouldn't create false balance/weight issues. With some word smithing to make it clear that weight etc should be addresses by how not if the denial is included then I would say any of the 3 are acceptable. I'm holding off !voting in the event such changes are suggested. Springee (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3/Option 2 - Either of these is correct (slight preference for 3 which is clearest), giving clear guidance that the denial should be appropriately covered without giving it undue weight. Option 1 is acceptable but lacks sufficient guidance on treating per WP:NPOV. Oppose option 4 which certainly allows editors to ignore WP:NPOV. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 Since there are some special rules that apply to BLPs, it's useful to remind editors that WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE are still in full force on BLPs. NightHeron (talk) 10:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - in such cases, where RS or BLPSELFPUB sources, state the denial - we must do so. There is no case we can be absolutely sure he didn't do it; and if he explicitly denies it, we should say so - and even go slightly on the subject's side of UNDUE. #2 and #3 are likely to be abused when the subject denies the accusations, but reliable sources all think he did it. Animal lover |666| 10:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. If allegations are included in an article that a living person has committed a crime, then we must always include the subject's response to the allegations whenever that response is known. If we can only source the response to unreliable or partially reliable sources we must include with attribution (e.g. The Daily Mail reported ...), although if the only coverage is in such publications then always reconsider whether inclusion of the allegations is DUE. Options 2 and 3 imply that it is sometimes permissible to exclude the subject's response, but it is not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thryduulf, this RfC is not particularly about criminal allegations. Part of your vote also makes it seem like you support considering WP:DUE when deciding whether to include the response.

  Since we have a different subsection about criminal allegations (WP:BLPCRIME), I'd support a brief statement about including pleas/denials with roughly the same language that is endorsed here. People looking for our policies on describing criminal allegations are unlikely to look for an important caveat in §Public figures. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• The section being discussed (WP:PUBLICFIGURE ) is about potentially-defamatory statements; though this includes crime. And I fully agree with your second paragraph. DFlhb (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) In which case this RFC is badly presented as it mentions only "denials" and follows a section explicitly talking about crimes, and there is nothing in the proposed text including or excluding any type of allegation. Regardless, it whenever allegations (of any sort) are included in article it should always be a requirement to include the subjects response to them. DUE comes into play in deciding whether to include the allegations, in how much space to give the response to the allegations, how they are presented (e.g. quotes vs just a statement) and whether or not to include responses to the response, but the response itself should always be present in some form. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Why? If we have a hundred strong sources that Richard B Spencer is a neo-Nazi, why do we have to include his denial? This is different from what we would do in any other situation, including if a separate person denied the allegations.

  I agree that a subject's denial of allegations definitely ought to be given more WP:WEIGHT than normal, but not infinite weight. Loki (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  If we have a 100 strong sources saying a person is a neo-nazi then obviously the allegations are DUE for inclusion and deserve more weight and coverage than the subject's denial of those claims but their denial should still always be included. It doesn't need to be more than a single sentence but it does need to be there. If you describe that as infinite weight (I don't) then yes, it does deserve that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  But why? What's the reasoning here? You keep on asserting that we must always include denials, but since this is an RFC, the weight of your vote is not the mere fact of it but the reasoning behind it. Loki (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 As long as it is fully attributed If someone denies an accusation we shous include that. Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - the accused's response to allegations is always WP:DUE. Also, it's a basic tenet of journalistic ethics to report the accused's response to accusations when accusations are reported, so every RS will always report the denial, so it'll always be DUE. There is no way around it. The reason is because of obvious basic principles of fairness. If someone is accused of something, of course it matters whether the person admits or denies the allegations. Option 2 is OK as a second choice; I prefer the shorter version. Opposed to Option 3 because WP:FALSEBALANCE isn't applicable to this issue per others' comments above. (Also I agree we should not link the Mandy essay because I don't think it explains this issue well.) Levivich (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  So if RS do not report a BLP subject's response to something (which may or may not otherwise be considered an "allegation"), should a denial be included in an enwiki article based on ABOUTSELF sources? Please see the second RfC, below. Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Does that ever happen in real life? RSes report an accusation, the accused denies it in public, and the RSes don't report the denial, so we only have the primary ABOUTSELF source available? I kinda don't believe it happens. I think if sources don't report the denial, then they're probably not really RSes, or it's only because we're in the short time period between when the RSes publish the accusation and when the RSes publish the denial. Is this a real issue? Levivich (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  This often happens when it is the media itself making the accusation of part of the larger group that makes it. The dangers with modern journalism which have taken a more proactive role in their reporting Masem (t) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Examples? Levivich (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Additionally, if the allegations are too recent for the person accused to have had chance to respond then it is going to be exceedingly rare for the allegations to be DUE for inclusion. In those rare cases where inclusion that soon is DUE, we should accompany them with a statement along the lines of "{{as of|date}} $subject has not responded to these allegations". Indeed, we should include something like that whenever the subject has not responded, regardless of how long they have had to do so (which includes reporting explicit "no comment" responses). Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  The problem I have with this is in determining what counts as an allegation. Some of the anti-MANDY activists would undoubtedly seize on this principle to insist that any reported incident that might be seen as reflecting negatively on a BLP subject be accompanied by a subject has not responded blank space to "insert denial here", which would be an absolute catastrophe for our articles on people who are uncontroversially documented as doing controversial things. Newimpartial (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  which would be an absolute catastrophe for our articles on people who are uncontroversially documented as doing controversial things. how and why would this be a "catastrophe"? What is the justification for not reporting this? Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  The justification for not reporting this is that the high-quality reliable sources on which our articles are based so not typically do so (where they do, we probably should). Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a small-town local newspaper. Newimpartial (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Imagine a celebrity shot someone. For the sake of argument, it's on camera and in lots of newspapers, clearly WP:DUE. Regardless of whether we have to say "[CELEBRITY] denies the allegations" if the celebrity has in fact denied the allegations no matter how well-verified they are, it's obviously absurd to say that if the celebrity has not in fact denied the allegations.

  The more important problem here is that on a page like David Icke, it's problematic even to say that he doesn't think he thinks he's a conspiracy theorist. (Of course he doesn't, we report that he believes what he says and that oughta make it clear that he doesn't think he's a conspiracy theorist.) If we go beyond that to say, for instance, that Icke might say nobody's proven the queen wasn't a lizard-person, then we're just pushing WP:FRINGE beliefs in the guise of a denial nobody has actually made. Loki (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Levivich, you may not have seen the many, many times I have seen anti-MANDY activists insist that an RS characterization or a well-documented event counts as an "allegation" or an " incident", and therefore that a SELFPUB rebuttal must be included in the BLP article (and also typically that the RS characterization or event be taken out of wikivoice and given the same standing as the denial). This isn't a hypothetical case. Newimpartial (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Of course I haven't seen that, which is why I'm asking for concrete examples. I also don't know what an anti-Mandy activist is. What I do remember is seeing people cite Mandy as justification for removing Julian Assange's denial of rape accusation from the article. That was wrong, it should have been included, and in the end, it was, in part because of this line in BLP policy. So option 1 unless someone can show me a slew of real examples where option 1 posed a problem. Levivich (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Here is a long but otherwise typical example from Talk:Lauren Southern; she or her people visit the page regularly to insist on the exclusion of well-sourced characterizations or the inclusion of SELFPUB denials. The instance in question was settled in relation to the existing (Option 3) language by including a denial that was picked up by RS and excluding other denials that were SELFPUB; had Option 1 been in place, only WP:IAR could have been deployed to prevent the inclusion of FRINGE, self-serving denials. Newimpartial (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Denails are not the same type of arguments as FRINGE. The latter deals with pseudoscience and conspiracy theories that have been soundly rebutted by academics and others, meaning WP should never even consider fringe topics as being legitimate concepts. Treating denials of yet proven allegations as FRINGE is immediately hostile to BLP, and cannot be an avenue we take. Masem (t) 15:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  What do you mean by yet proven allegations? I have seen you say that enwiki should wait for more than ten years of scholarship before accepting characterizations of events and of public figures in wikivoice - if implemented, that would result in a lot of WP:FALSEBALANCE about events (like the 2020 US election and the January 6 Capitol Hill debacle) to which WP:FRINGE most certainly applies. A "false flag" rebuttal of the event published by a Capitol Hill protester on Facebook is not DUE for inclusion in a Wikipedia article just because it exists, even though it may be SELFPUB by a BLP. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  We are talking like when BLP are called racist or similar language, which are things that cannot be proven by any authoritative source. We can only wait to see long long-term coverage handles such claims, if they stick over the test if time. This isn't covering something like the Jan 6 false flags; it has been determine by courts, reputable academics and politicians as a hostile attack on the Capital, so any denials that claim peaceful protests do fall under FRINGE so we'd not include the false flag complaint. That's also not an allegation directed at the BLP. Masem (t) 15:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  It is for BLPs who are known (reliably sourced) to have been part of the attack. Also, I don't think other editors agree with you that we can't identify a public figure as "racist" or "alt-right" without 10 years of scholarship, and I can't understand the categorical distinction you are trying to make between allegations and FRINGE claims - of course most denials of accusations don't involve FRINGE claims, but a number of them do. Newimpartial (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  If a Han 6 protestor tried to deny by claiming the false flag "it was a peaceful protest" route, and importantly not challenging their involvement. that would be following the established FRINGE aspect related to Jan 6, and thus properly wed minimize that denial. On the other hand, if that person made a denial that was more personal to them like "I wasn't there, you have me mixed up" or "I was way off from the building cheer others on" that would be nonFRINGE denials that should be include. There is a subtle but significant distinction here. Masem (t) 16:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  The Southern case is an interesting one. Should Wikipedia cover self declared change in view/perspective/heart etc of it's not in a RS. That's a hard one since I can see why it would be similar to a denial but it's not the same thing since this isn't a case odd disputed claims. The same might be true of an MD who changes their perspective on a controversial medical topic. I don't think denial applies in such a case. It might be good to have something that does but we currently don't. It may also be hard to decide when such a disavowment is genuine ( in which case I think we should cover it) vs when it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. That's a case where I would probably say no if we only have a SP claim but yes if the claim is published even in a normally poor source. Springee (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Graham Linehan is another figure who has, along with his followers, tried to edit his page to remove what he regards as false "allegations" and to include poorly-sourced denials. Option 1 would make it much easier for them, and their allies in editing that page (some of whom are among the principal authors of the anti-MANDY essay), to do so. Newimpartial (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  We're not talking about the same thing. "Alt-right", "white supremacist", and "anti-transgender activist" are not allegations or accusations, they're characterizations. They're labels. The text at issue in this RfC is from WP:BLPPUBLIC and talks about allegations and accusations. The example given in BLPPUBLIC right before the line being discussed is a politician alleged to have an affair. The difference is that an allegation or accusation is about something someone did, not something they are. If the politician denies having the affair, we should include the denial (as will all RSes). If a BLP subject disagrees with the labels an RS applies (like "alt-right" or "far left" or whatever), that's a whole different issue (MOS:LABEL). Levivich (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  I have made precisely the argument you are making here, about the scope of allegation or incident, but the anti-MANDY faction typically won't hear of it. Another example, where I don't have a diff at hand, was at one of the Florida politics articles where certain editors were arguing that a self-published rebuttal of something that was simply RS reporting, not an allegation or incident needed to be included because of the "right of reply". This kind of argument is being made constantly to relativize facts that are part of consensus reality and characterizations that are universal within high-quality sources. Move to Option 1, and I can guarantee that these arguments will proliferate and become more successful, even though a few well-intentioned Option 1 !voters are only thinking about actual unproven allegations and incidents. Newimpartial (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Allegation of kabobs nearly always result from what someone did, and more often the cumulation of things they did, and are meant to harm the person's reputation, so we should see them similar to allegations with legal ramifications. Masem (t) 16:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  I really hope the use of "kabobs" here was intentional. Newimpartial (talk) 16:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  The dish was alleged to be a kabob,^[1][2][3] although the chef denied it.^[4][5][6] Levivich (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  The LABEL said it was a kabob. Newimpartial (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  If an allegation is unproven then we cannot report it as fact in Wikivoice, regardless of what anybody else says or doesn't say about it (per WP:NPOV). Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  I am not taking about unproven allegations, but rather "proven" ones (by whichever standards of evidence are relevant to the claim). Newimpartial (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  User:Newimpartial, you are talking about contentious labels (not allegations), which are covered by WP:CONTENTIOUS and WP:DUE. Contentious labels are additionally covered by WP:FRINGE if they have anything whatsoever to do with scholarly or scientific topics. This is very clear, and is existing policy.

  The denials phrase explicitly says "such allegations" (referencing the "messy divorce", "affair" examples), and emphatically doesn't apply to contentious labels.

  The reason for your opposition to option 1 seems to have been founded on a misunderstanding: you believe your preferred wording would enable us call Lauren Southern "alt-right" in Wikivoice, for example, and that option 1 would prevent us from doing so.

  Wrong! Lauren Southern was already called "alt-right" in Wikivoice back when this text followed option 1!. So was Mike Cernovich, also before option 1 was changed.

  You're proposing a potentially-dangerous watering down of something that is solely meant to protects innocent or vulnerable people (by letting them defend themselevs from potential defamation). This won't have any effects on Lauren Southern, trust me. But it will harm the dignity of many, including racial, ethnic, gender minorities, who are more likely to be covered sensationalistically by the media, and for whom allegations of crimes are more likely to be believed. Obviously, this applies to everyone else, too.

  (I hope you'll read this comment carefully, as I do yours, to minimize the need for back-and-forth clarifications, and that you'll address the substance of it; I take responsibility for not "getting" the core of our disagreement earlier, which could have saved both of us a lot of time.) DFlhb (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Please note that I linked to a discussion on Talk:Lauren Southern that was settled while the Option 3 language was in place and following the logic of that language. That isn't a straw man argument, and the fact that pages have been edited to acceptable outcomes without the support of optimal policy language isn't really an endorsement of suboptimal policy language IMO. Also, please don't use gotcha (Wrong) markup when you strawman (seems to have been founded in a misunderstanding) my argument - by doing so you will not minimize the need for back-and-forth clarifications in spite of any intention to the contrary.

  The fact remains that certain editors consistently have, and will continue to insist on a "right to reply" for characterizations applied to BLP subjects and that they have, and will continue to deploy this passage of policy text to do so. The fact is that this policy text is not limited to accusations of legal or clear ethical wrongdoing, nor is it limited to accusations that are "not yet proven" - in its plain meaning, it continues to apply even after a court case is settled or after RS scholarship has been written, and enhancing the "right of rebuttal" for UNDUE content from BLPs is the opposite of an encyclopaedic objective. Newimpartial (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Apologies in advance for the length. I've read both that discussion and the page history. It is common on these talk pages that such contentious terms are disputed, especially by various IP or red link users, and occasionally by subjects; Wikipedia explicitly encourages that, and no policy change can prevent disputes. Certain editors insisting on certain changes, or disagreeing with you on policy interpretations, is inevitable, no matter what any policy says.

  I somewhat agree with your argument which begins with The fact is that this policy text is not limited [...]: but no option in this RFC addresses it substantively.

  Denials may still be warranted:

  • After court cases are settled (see the Innocence Project, a primary source which is clearly undue if it's the only one raising doubts and no WP:RS has covered their claims; yet still merits inclusion)
  • After scholarship has ben written (this applies more to politicians and major figures, right? The way they deny allegations is likely noteworthy in-and-of-itself; their denials could be grotesque, or discredited by later scholarship (even if that scholarship doesn't mention the denial), which I'd consider noteworthy, to give readers an indication of a subject's trustworthiness, reliability, or character). And to bring up a separate but related point: MEDRS may say some orgs are, say, transphobic, but I doubt they'll call individuals transphobic, no? So I'm unsure how that would apply to BLPs; I'd appreciate examples.
  • There is no reason to blanket-ban self-published denials, which may be due; let's say multiple WP:RS mention that a denial exists, but not its actual claims; it may well be appropriate to include the claims.

  My point is that common sense prevails here; there's nuances to everything, and we should avoid excessive detail here when specific issues are best settled on article talk pages. Trying to enshrine a "one-size-fits-all" rule for when denials should or shouldn't be included isn't within the purview of a Policy, and wouldn't prevent any article disputes (the more detailed a policy is, the more material there is for Wikilawyers to twist). We should Emphasize the spirit of the rule (as WP:PG states), and trust that editors may make mistakes, but will eventually get it right. WP:PG states: Verbosity is not a reliable defense against misinterpretation. We should use direct, concise writing. We should use footnotes [...] for further clarification, not inline policy changes.

  The wording I support says "should be reported", not "must". That's clear enough to me to allow for common-sense to prevail, which it should, as opposed to a top-down "edict". I've argued why I think option 3 is too ambigious and will likely lead to misinterpretations, which could promote talk page disputes rather than prevent them. Right-to-rebuttal should be determined on a case-by-case basis on article talk pages, as is currently done. It works well. DFlhb (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  My point remains that your "should be included" language, in the absence of the caveats that have been present in the policy text since 2021 will (almost by definition) encourage the interpolation of self-published and marginally reliable "rebuttals" that are UNDUE and self-serving. I also disagree that it is the place of Wikipedia to platform self-published denials after conviction until independent RS have covered them, and I don't see the point in including denials self-published by public figures in cases where these are ignored by both contemporaneous RS and subsequent scholarship. (On your transphobia example, This online transphobia has been spearheaded by former comedy writer Graham Linehan [27] is undoubtedly a BLP claim whether or not it is an "allegation or incident", and regardless of whether it is a statement to which WP:LABEL would apply).

  For the record, I do agree that once RS have lent WEIGHT to a denial or rebuttal it may be appropriate to source additional detail from the ABOUTSELF source, but that isn't a denial sourced only to ABOUTSELF material in the sense of the other RfC . Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Here's another way to look at the issue: if we carve out a domain in which SELFPUB statements must be included regardless of DUE and NPOV considerations, then the question will once and forever be, "how large is this domain?" In this scenario, editors will have a strong incentive to WP:GAME the domain to win content disputes by expanding the scope of what count as "allegations or incidents". Keeping the current language doesn't entirely prevent the problem from arising, but at least it doesn't make it worse (which will be the result of Option 1). Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 first, Option 2 second; Option 4 before option 1 - I fail to understand the objections to the WP:FALSEBALANCE hyperlink; there are certainly many denials or rebuttals offered by BLP subjects where the quality of sourcing that something actually happened as described is very high (including RS "scholarship") even though a BLP subject denies it.
• Many "Option 1" !voters appear to believe that the policy passage in question applies only to unproven allegations or incidents, as though once legally proven or documented in high-quality scholarship the supposed "right to rebuttal" would conveniently no longer apply. However, I see no justification in either the policy language itself or in the behaviour of anti-Mandy advocates on BLP pages to expect these editors not to use an Option 1 RfC outcome to shoehorn BLPSELFPUB and other poorly sourced FRINGE denials into BLP pages, and to insist that allegations and incidents that have been "proven" in court or in high-quality scholarship be presented out of wikivoice as attributed statements in FALSEBALANCE with the subject's denial. Newimpartial (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Allegations/accusations that are proven are no longer allegations or accusations. But to take an obvious example: if someone is prosecuted for a crime and pleads not guilty and is convicted and nevertheless maintains their innocence, we would and should report that they nevertheless maintain their innocence, and furthermore, every RS would also report this. Even if an entire nation were accused of something (like war crimes) and denies it, we should report the denial. What is the other option, anyway? That we omit the denial? Why would we do that? The truth is, these three options are really the same. A denial will always be reported by RS and so it will always be DUE for inclusion. Also, what the subject of a allegation/accusation/criticism/complaint/controversy has to say about it will always be relevant, obviously, just as it will always be relevant who is making the allegation/etc., just as it will always be relevant what the applicable authorities (eg courts) decided about it. We always "hear from the accused." This is just how the world works, and I really am straining to understand what actual real-life examples we are concerned about here. The right to rebuttal is basic journalism ethics, and it applies even to convicted murderers on death row. Levivich (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

    Please see my comments in the discussion of your !vote. I have seen plenty of cases where BLP subjects deny elements of consensus reality and where these denials are not picked up at all by responsible media; there are also plenty of cases where anti-MANDY activists pick up marginally-sourced (but not fully SELFPUB) denials as grounds to place consensus reality and FRINGE perspectives on equal footing. If you are imagining the scope of this language as only covering allegations of crimes and similar wrongdoing (affairs, etc.), you are experiencing a failure of imagination in relation to the way the DENIALS text is already used onwiki, before any watering down of the current language. Newimpartial (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

    If you are imagining the scope of this language as only covering allegations of crimes and similar wrongdoing this RFC wouldn't clarify the scope in any way, it just increases the bar for including all denials, including criminal ones. I'd strongly support an RFC that actually addresses what you point out; this isn't it. DFlhb (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  The corralary that many option 2 or 3 supporters may feel inclusion is a given but they are concerned regarding weight given to a self published denial vs RS coverage. Others may think those options mean the denial itself can be viewed as Undue. At least I think this it's getting to the core concern. Springee (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Criticism of Newimpartial's reference to certain editors as "anti-MANDY activists". Point taken

Who are these anti-MANDY activists? Are they fighting in the streets with pro-MANDY activists? If you are referring to Wkipedia editors it might be better to avoid using such loaded terms. Springee (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC) I am trying to develop a shorthand for advocates and promoters of the anti-MANDY essay. Work with me, here. Newimpartial (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC) Just as we avoid applying labels to BLP subjects, we should avoid applying labels to our fellow editors. Try to make your argument without lumping the people who disagree with you into a group and labeling that group. What you're doing--referring to editors who disagree with Mandy as anti-Mandy activists--is WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Stop thinking about content disputes as being a fight between groups. Levivich (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC) If I gained an admin privilege every time I was referred to onwiki as an "activist" editor for transgender rights (which I'm not), I would be a BUREAUCRAT by now. However, I don't think characterizing editors who advocate for or against a particular online policy essay as "activists" falls into the same category of behaviour. I do think we need language (other than "inclusionist", which I think is misapplied here) to talk about this issue. And "pro- and "anti-MANDY" seems more precise to me than "pro- and anti-denials", since the difference between MANDY and anti-MANDY is whether or not to include more perfunctory and poorly-sourced denials; there is no question on either side whether denials given attention by good sources are to be included - they are. Newimpartial (talk) 15:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC) Heh, so I guess the notion of not grouping and labeling editors is just off the table? FWIW, Newimpartial, it seems to me that in every discussion where I see your name, you adopt this "us-vs-them" mentality. I'm serious: try looking at the world without pigeonholing people into "pro-" and "anti-" camps. Levivich (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC) There are two kinds of editors: editors who group editors into two kinds, and ones who don't. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC) Touché! Levivich (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)I

• Option 1– Options 2 and 3 are unclear, suggesting that denials can be excluded if someone argues that including a denial would be undue or ‘false balance’. Denials should always be included; the total amount of coverage of denials/accusations may be subject to considerations of due and balance.Sweet6970 (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 - while I agree with what option 2 says, I don’t think the policy needs to explicitly say it. DUE/UNDUE always applies, so stating that it also applies to denials is simply unnecessary instruction creep. Blueboar (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  The problem is, if we don't include it here, we get a lot of denial-maximalists who insist on including all denials for any allegation no matter how well proven it is. Loki (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Presumably by allegations you mean "transphobic", not "cocaine user"? I've asked someone else before, but I'd appreciate an explanation for why WP:CONTENTIOUS and WP:DUE don't already cover the former. The BLP section we're discussing is specifically about things like the latter, as clarified by the examples it gives. I don't see how watering down the wording would help you. No policy change can prevent editors misinterpreting policy. DFlhb (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) If a person verifiably denies an allegation against them, we should report they deny it. How well proven it is is irrelevant. Per NPOV we present the relevant facts in proportion to their DUE weight, without making value judgements, and the let readers make up their own minds. A person's denial of an allegation against them is always DUE. What differs is how much weight we give it with then article relative to the claims, but it is never zero. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  But that's not in here, or WP:DUE. Nothing is always WP:DUE. WP:DUE is a matter of sourcing, not content. Loki (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  I suspect that the closer may have difficulty parsing the difference between Option 1 !votes based on the premise that DUE applies anyway, so it need not be mentioned, and Option 1 votes assuming that all denials should always be included so DUE isn't relevant. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  DUE does matter - it is just that mentioning a denial is always DUE. Even if that wasn't the case, the practical difference between your options is zero, so it doesn't matter. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Always due for allegations, not for contentious labels (which WP:PUBLICFIGURE doesn't cover). This RFC blurs the two, and I'm highly distressed that a consensus for 3 (or god forbid 4) would apply to both, not just the latter, despite many voters here seemingly only addressing the latter. DFlhb (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  But you have editors like Masem arguing that these are not separate issues - it isn't only Option 3 !voters who see a connection. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  I believe that is a minority view, but regardless, I feel this RFC should actually address whether there is a connection (which IMHO would address your arguments, mine, and others' far better). It seems that's the main point of contention that led to the RFC in the first place; not the wording. DFlhb (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  It may not matter to how the resulting text of this policy is written, but it does matter to what it ought to mean. If some Option 1 !voters believe rebuttals can be excluded based on DUE (e.g. in edge cases, because DUE always applies) and other Option 1 voters believe that all self-published rebuttals must always be included, then one of the two groups will be dissatisfied with the way the resulting language is interpreted (or possibly each of them may be disappointed part of the time). Newimpartial (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I think if none of us even agree on what the options would mean. DFlhb (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3 Per WP:NPOV and WP:V, strong oppose of option 1 for all the reasons people have already mentioned. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: should we blow it up? the RFC was (very reasonably, but unilaterally) started by one editor; none of the options or wordings were workshopped beforehand.

There seem to be very strong disagreements, not even on what option to pick, but on what these options mean, and what their scope is. Does it apply to crimes? to contentious labels like "racist"? (I don't think the section we're discussing even covers this; yet others seem to solely focus on it. It seems to be a major point of contention, yet the RFC doesn't even address it). It feels like we're all arguing about different things.

I'd like to borrow from User:Newimpartial's idea below, and propose we pause this RFC for now, and, together, workshop a new RfC that reflects everyone's consensus. I'm thinking of a multi-step RFC, again borrowing from Newimpartial's idea, where we have individual subsections about "how should the policy apply?" (does it apply to crimes? contentious labels? misconduct? how should self-published denials be treated? under what criteria is it undue? should such criteria be listed inline, or in an endnote?). The current RfC would be binding for at least a few months, but I don't think it would make anyone happy. It may indeed be wiser to start with seeking consensus on application and working out way back to wording. Highly interested in thoughts. DFlhb (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd be fine to do that; I'd also be fine for my RfC below to be euthanized prior to the worshipping process for a new RfC/new RfCs. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll give the eulogy, you play the organ. DFlhb (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of killing off a RfC after pale have replied but I think out makes sense here. It seems we now at least agree on the question. Better phrasing should fall out once we have a consensus on that. It also means of there is ever a disagreement editors can point to the talk page discussion to understand intent. I would suggest pinging all participants both now and once a new Rec launches. Springee (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I've started a new subsection to workshop a new RFC here, feel free to join. My comment above argues in favor of blowing up the current RFC, since it already seems headed to an impasse no matter how long it runs for, with editors disagreeing on what the options would mean. Note that there isn't yet consensus that a new RFC is warranted, it's still just a proposal; not enough editors have chimed in on it yet.

Pinging users who participated, as per Springee's suggestion, I agree that's warranted. Homeostasis07, Newimpartial, David Eppstein, Loki, Anythingyouwant, Masem, agr, JoelleJay, Hipal, Springee, Sirfurboy🏄, NightHeron, Animal lover, Thryduulf, Slatersteven, Levivich, Sweet6970, ActivelyDisinterested. I think that's everyone. DFlhb (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, I am happy with a new RFC as it's clear this isn't going to come to a consensus any time soon. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm also okay with pausing the RFC and workshopping now we have a better idea of what areas are contentious. Loki (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, please This is only going to insitutionalize misunderstanding and discord. Would need to be very sharply defined and provably needed in addition to core policies, which IMO already give enough guidance. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm highly sensitive to the issue of discussing in a vacuum without taking into account how our changes relate to other policies, since any changes would have a large impact. How sharply-defined do you think this initial workshopping proposal is? I'd highly appreciate any input on how we could make it appropriately-sharp. DFlhb (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry, @DFlhb: but I believe this RfC can serve an important purpose in any future talk page discussion. The primary purpose here is to address the issue of "implied consensus" that certain users raised in discussions above. One way or another, that can't be argued again after this. And the completion of this RfC does not impact any future RfCs, in my opinion. Things can be reworded in future RfCs to accommodate the result obtained here. Either way, this is an issue that needs to be resolved before substantive progress can be made. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1, when serious accusations are made against a person and they deny it, we should mention it. It can be very brief, but this is typically what is done in reliable sources. Yet, many proponents of WP:MANDY - which is what inspired the addition of the clauses found in options 2 and 3 - suggest such should be excluded even when it's reported in many sources because doing so is allegedly UNDUE, which brings Wikipedia out of step with reliable sources when done. More on this at WP:NOTMANDY. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1, as I don't see why we would want to put anything in the way of adding reliably sourced denials. Often the recipients of damaging accusations are also the subject of media bullying and bias, and do not necessarily have access to the full range outlets to present their side of any stories. The only thing that putting obstacles in the way of using any available reliable sources will do is reduce the likelihood that the article will fairly reflect both sides of the argument per WP:NPOV. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Question What if the only source for the den[ial of] such allegations is in a self-published source (e.g., Twitter)? Wouldn't that be unduly self-serving in many cases? And what if the allegation also makes a claim about a third party (e.g., "The person who accused me is a known liar who always lies")? In any situation like this, policy would forbid us from including any details of the denial. Accordingly, none of the given options sound quite right to me. XOR'easter (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't believe so. It arguably is self serving but the key is "unduly". I view unduly statements/comments as ones that putting someone to above where they started. So the reputation of Dr X is at 0. Dr X is accused of abusing patients. Now their reputation is somewhere in the negative since even if we decide the allegation is false, it's not like we think more of Dr X for being accused. A denial may make us think the accusations are less likely to be true but they will never raise Dr X's reputation to somewhere above where it started. Dr X talking about his great therapeutic breakthrough would be unduly self serving since it would be a self published claim that tries to raise his reputation above it's starting point. Springee (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  It might help if we separate denials from rebuttals. A blunt statement mentioning that the subject denies the allegation is purely an ABOUTSELF statement, allowed under SPS. But once you start going into the details - the reasons why the subject denies the allegation or his rebuttal of the allegation, we potentially cross the line into talking about third parties… where we would need a non-SPS source. Blueboar (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  In some cases the denial is all that is required, certainly, but sometimes the comments with them are significant even if self-published. For example if Miss Smith accused Mr Jones of raping her at a party, there is a difference between Mr Jones saying "I was alone with Miss Smith, but we didn't have sex", "Miss Smith and I had consensual relations", "I have never met Miss Smith", "I didn't rape Miss Smith, it was Mr Bloggs" and "I was in a different country with Ms Doe at the time". How we should cover that depends on the context (including the details of what is alleged), so the only one-size-fits-all rule we can and should have is that when allegations have been verifiably denied, we include the fact of the denial even if it's only an an SPS. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 i.e. return to version before the bold edit that added the clause. The addition could mislead editors into thinking that denials can be suppressed because someone deprecated the publication. I am aware of the previous RfC (11 to 1 in favour of "mention and/or link to the response/rebuttal"). I am aware of the attempt to abort this RfC. I will not respond to heckling. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 3 It is clear from the longevity of the clause that it is generally agreed a denial should be reported if given. That is an explicit clause overriding WP:DUE. However it is also evident some people view a denial as including in Wikipedia the content of the denial, and that is not gererally agreed. I think we need the extra clauses to deliniate the extent of the override - it only includes saying it is denied and having a citation. Anything more has to follow policies as normal. NadVolum (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

But if it is spelled out in other policies, do we actually need to repeat and spell it out in THIS policy? I think part of the argument against option 3 is that it is instruction creep. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1 In a worst case scenario, if a denial is clearly false (remembering that this is primarily targetting people who claim not to be anti-vax or racist, rather that people accused of crimes), this will be evident to any reader if they look at the sources provided. However, if we leave out a denial, we risk causing significant harm to the subject, especially if not including their denial of the accusation might falsely lead the reader to assume it is true as only one side is given. On thst basis, the default position should be to include all denials even if editors agree that they should not be given much weight, with weight being an issue for local consensus rather than policy. - Bilby (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 I don't believe this was broke. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1 Not sure DUE is needed to be mentioned. However, I seems this whole thing has arisen by editors citing this section to deal with, as Levivich notes, labels or characterisations, which is covered by MOS:LABEL. It is easier to resolve allegations that someone did something or said something, whereas resolving how we describe someone is hard. As I noted in the section above, we should not link to WP:FALSEBALANCE or False balance. However, I think the issue of what label we give someone is too important for MOS and should be covered here. But it likely needs a lot of thought, and should be dealt with separately from other allegations, for which the existing policy was fine. -- Colin°^Talk 11:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 I don't see why we are carving out a policy exception for one particular type of content. If the denial is self-published, then WP:BLPSPS applies, and the language here amounts to an insistence that no denial can ever be unduly self-serving. We need the freedom to debate that where appropriate, not an edict forbidding us to do so. If the denial is reliably reported elsewhere, then we don't need any of these sentences at all, because WP:NPOV and WP:DUE would give sufficient reason to include it. Overall, I find it really weird that any particular type of content could be made mandatory at the policy level, and I don't like editorial discretion being overridden outside of break-glass-in-case-of-emergency emergencies. XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  WP:BLPSPS applies for self-published statements in general. There was a 2014 RFC, and the consensus was that denials always merit inclusion, even if self-published. This RFC cannot 'overturn' that, since it focuses on wording and doesn't address that question explicitly. I think removing the sentence would just mislead people as to this consensus.

  And secondly, removing the passage, and relying purely on other policies (like DUE) would also introduce ambiguity, since some might argue that even a denial covered by WP:RS isn't due (since it's usually only mentioned in passing by news orgs).

  There are two issues: what the consensus is on how to treat denials (policy), and how to express that consensus (wording, which is all this RFC focuses on). Since this RFC is purely about the latter, and doesn't address the former; and since the 2014 RFC explicitly addressed the former; this RFC is simply malformed, and would constitute an improper 'overruling' of the 2014 RFC. I'll note that several of the people who called for this RFC expressed an intent to exclude some denials. DFlhb (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Option 4 otherwise Option 3. Our editing works best when we keep our core policies at the forefront and do the messy work of collaborating on how to apply them to the infinite variety of situations, sources, content, and considerations that apply to specific article content. The more we try to specify subsidiary or derived mandates, the less likely we are to find appropriate solutions to the actual issues and problems that arise in creating article content. Our overriding BLP, NPOV, RS, and V policies need to be applied case by case and we should not elevate any of the proposed wordings to ironclad rules that have the force of law. They are not flexible or detailed enough to be operationally useful. They're rules that sound nice in the abstract but it's not obviou how to apply them to the real-world editing issues that arise. SPECIFICO talk 02:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. The short and sweet direction. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. If allegations are serious enough to merit inclusion in an article, readers are surely entitled to know whether the subject has denied them or not. Frankly, a bizarre question to ask. 'Due weight' could never justify excluding such a denial, so doesn't really come into it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. We need to do our job right. As a matter of fairness to living people who are harmed by gossip and rumors published by those so-called "reliable" publications who pick quarrels and provoke trouble, we should give space to the people in our articles when they issue credible denials of rumors and gossip. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 > 3 > 2 WP:NPOV, and by extension WP:DUE, is a core content policy. It is non negotiable. It's a fact that many denials are considered by the balance of our sources to be non-credible, and are not given any airtime. To require every denial to be included as option 1 states, especially in situations where our sources do not include them, is to contravene both the spirit and the letter of WP:DUE. If a denial of an allegation is only self-sourced, then to quote from DUE If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true, or you can prove it.
  Option 4, the version that removes the sentence on denials completely, best fits within how we define and apply policy, as it allows for inclusion of denials when they meet DUE/NPOV. Option 3 and 2 are a close second/third, as they make it explicitly clear that any denial must be tempered against our core content policies. Option 1 unfortunately, as I said a couple of sentences ago, violates policy and encourages inclusion of denials regardless of how they are reported by reliable sources. To the editors who are making arguments on scope creep, I would remind them that not all editors are intimiately familar with every policy. In cases where it can be unclear how to apply conflicting policies, such as in this policy, it is better to be explict as to how those policies interact with each other. Not only does this prevent unnecessary repetitive discussions across many article talk pages and noticeboards, it also makes our labyrinthine policies clearer to new and otherwise unfamiliar editors. Accordingly I would see the extra text in options 3 and 2 as WP:NOTCREEP as it is a helpful additional instruction that succinctly states community consensus and avoids harm when the alternative (option 1) is unclear. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:14, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 4 > 3 > 2. As explained above, we decided whether to include something based on WP:NPOV and WP:V; it is completely inappropriate to require specific inclusions without reference to those things, which form the core to our project. We cannot simply ignore sourcing and weight out of a desire to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As a reminder (which many people seem to be overlooking), this entire section is about public figures where the allegations are well-documented in multiple high-quality sources; at that point reporting them on Wikipedia has no real risk of harming them, since they are well-known and this is part of the core principle behind WP:PUBLICFIGURE - but giving undue weight to denials could potentially harm our neutrality and, by extension, our overall mission. Option 1 is against core policy (because it implicitly instructs editors to ignore NPOV and V and to include things with no regard for sourcing) and is therefore not something that can be implemented by consensus; even if the text were to say that, it would be inaccurate and denials could (and would) continue to be removed if they completely failed the requirements of WP:NPOV and WP:V. Some editors above have argued that "due weight" could never justify excluding a denial; if they genuinely believe that to be the case then the other options should also be acceptable to them, but the fact that we are here and arguing the point makes it clear that that is not the case. --Aquillion (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Option 3. The wording makes it seem highly subjective. Styx (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
• Option 1. The subject’s denial has special standing beyond usual due weight. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

  Why? XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. I think weight will depend on case by case and complexity of each situation. A basic and balanced overview of the accusations and of the denials should be the norm. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't quite follow the rationale here. If we need to acknowledge that what we write may depend on case by case factors and the complexity of the situation, why endorse a rule that short-circuits judgment? Why would including a subject's self-published denials always and in all circumstances make for a balanced overview? XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 1. If someone who has been accused of something verifiably denies it, we would be remiss to exclude that information. It certainly need not rise to the level of "false balance", but at minimum, "X denies the allegation" should be included. I cannot even conceive of a case where even that brief addendum would violate due weight or create a false balance, so discussing those is unneeded clutter. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade: please explain where you see the word "verifiably" in Option 1. Option 1 says we should always include denials. It says nothing about requiring those denials to be in reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  Reliable sources depend on context. In this case, "X denies the allegation" would even be reliably sourced to, for example, a self-published source where X denies it. Of course in reality, reliable sources generally will note that an allegation is disputed or denied. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  "Generally" is not the same as always. Option 1 is a demand that applies in all cases, regardless of what reliable, independent sources say. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

  The proposed sentence would not alter this policy in the way that is being inferred here. This policy has an entire section above this proposed sentence regarding the use of primary sources, verifiability, self-published sources and poorly sourced material. This RfC is in addition to Wikipedia's core content policies, not in opposition of. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 04:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I've read it, gone away, come back days later and read it again, and I can't see it as a mere "in addition". It's "in opposition". Or, at best, in contradiction with the previous section that you mention. XOR'easter (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  XOReaster, could you expand a bit and explain why you think it is in opposition/contradiction? I don’t think it is, but maybe there is something I am not seeing. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I can express my take more clearly than I have in my earlier comments (probably I can't). The gist is that option 1 demands we do something, whether or not the sources we rely upon indicate that we should. It deprives the community of opportunities to discuss gray areas and edge cases. It insists that the gut-level "gosh we don't want to be unfair" reaction must override careful thinking. XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• Option 3, followed by Option 2 gives people a chance to respond to accusations while preserving the importance of due weight and the argument made by MANDY. Andre🚐 02:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Question Do editors feel the addition of the weight and false balance phrases mean that denials shouldn't be included in some cases even if they have been made? This seems to be the core difference between those who support and those who object to the added phrasing. Springee (talk) 12:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Arguably - and that is a problem. The whole Mandy issue has provoked extensive controversy, with many editors vigorously insisting that denials need not always be included. If 2 or 3 are adopted, I think it is inevitable that some of those editors will argue against including a denial based on those weight and false balance phrases. Otherwise, they will say, what are those phrases there for? That in turn will waste a lot of editorial time and energy. Better wording might to say that a living person's denial of an accusation should always be included, however the extent to which the accused's denial is covered should be governed by weight, etc. In my opinion, the "however" clause is superfluous, but if some feel reference to those guidelines is needed, it should be made clear they apply only to the extent of coverage, not the simple mention of a denial. --agr (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  This captures my thoughts. WP's neutrality policy means that unless a dispute had reached a legal or academic/scientific conclusion (as in the case of pseudoscience which can be disproven), the dispute should be considered unresolved and we should strive to briefly lay out the argument from each side of it, which in the case of a person accused of something that would be their denial. That doesn't mean we need to provide equal time coverage of each side, that should be decided by the weight of sources, but the brief summary should be present as long as some acceptable sourcing (including BLPSPS) can be used for WP:V. If a BLP has been accused but no published source gives their denial, we are not required to include anything about that. Masem (t) 13:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect wording I'd appreciate if supporters of option 3 would explain why they think WP:FALSEBALANCE is applicable. People seem to be confusing the colloquial use of "false balance" with the actual Wikipedia policy (which option 3 links to). See arguments here on why some of us think WP:FALSEBALANCE doesn't apply at all, or is being incorrectly applied colloquially when it already has a Wikipedia-specific meaning. DFlhb (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I have replied to this in the section above, where I believe it is more on topic. Newimpartial (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect wording - There's a problem with option 3. WP:FALSEBALANCE is the critical issue, but its test of all sources covering the subject is going to be misunderstood to mean all sources covering the denial. That's a kind of forking. In the context of our WP:NPOV page, it's clear that we are to follow the weight of all sources covering the broader context of the people and events surrounding the denial. But we know from years of stalemated talk page disputes that the language in option 3 leads some editors, usually an enthusiastic minority, to select contemporaneous sources that quote a denial and disregard a much larger body of sourcing that provides the context and reaction to the denial. Perhaps some editors will respond to the question raised above by [[Ping|Springee}} and we can arrive at unambiguous language for the proposal. Otherwise, my current view is that option 4 is the best of the list. SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Answering the original question, yes - my impression is that inclusion of the weight and false balance wording does allow for denials to be excluded. IMO the subject's response to allegations must always be present if the the allegations are. Even if it's a weasel-worded denial that has been widely and repeatedly ridiculed by other parties, even if the evidence for the allegations is incontrovertible, even if the denial doesn't make any sense, even if the allegations are subsequently proven true in a court of law, we must include that the subject does (or did) deny the allegations. Balance and weight determine how we present the response, and how much space we give it relative to the allegations and any responses to the response, but not to the inclusion itself. Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Is this concerning any allegations? GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Workshopping a new RFC

I'll note there is as yet no consensus to close the above RFC, or start a new one; I'm just workshopping ideas in case other editors agree a new RFC is warranted. Here's an initial proposal, and please feel free to contribute:

A new RFC, with subsections addressing specific points of contention about denials. There would be a survey & discussion within each subsection, we'd gather the consensus for each subsection, and at the end we'll workshop how to word our changes, and discuss those options. Here are initial subsection headings I can think of:

1. Should policy recommend, forbid, or be neutral on the inclusion of denials for contentious labels? (e.g. transphobic, cult, fundamentalist...) edited 22:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
2. Should policy recommend, forbid, or be neutral on the inclusion of denials for allegations of crime, or personal misconduct?
3. Should policy recommend, forbid, or be neutral on the use of self-published denials, for either or both of the above?
4. What should the threshold be, for inclusion of allegations of crime or personal misconduct?
5. If most scholarly sources use a contentious label, should it be stated in Wikivoice, or attributed? updated 22:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
6. If scholarly sources haven't weighed in, but most WP:NEWSORGs use a contentious label, should it be stated in Wikivoice, or attributed? edited 22:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I think any discussion of the standard for inclusion of contentious labels belongs in a WP:DUE RFC, not a BLP RFC, but I can easily see the opposing case. "Recommend, forbid, or be neutral" would allow discussions to address these points substantively; feel free to propose alternate wording. DFlhb (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think this also needs to make sure we go into how contentious labels are used, and why denials might be important. I have seen arguments posited that because no reliable source explicitly denies the contentious label, the contentious label should be treated as a fact statement and written in wiki voice as opposed to being attributed in LABEL. I think this is especially pertinent to labels that implicitly include moral judgements. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, that seems like a relevant issue. DFlhb (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I think another question worth considering is whether the recommendation to include denials/rebuttals is specific to situations where evidence is limited (such as initial accusations and during a trial or hearing), or whether the same standard continues to apply as academic and other high-quality sources accumulate after the events in question. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I also think the question of my previous RfC, below - whether the recommendation to include rebuttals includes all self-published ones as well as ones that receive RS attention - ought to be considered at an early stage, not after language has already been drawn up. !voters in the prior RfC seem to have held differing views on this that did not correspond to their !votes. Newimpartial (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, the RFC would be multipart, and all questions would be run concurrently (I've seen precedents of that); it would keep each discussion more streamlined and focused on one point. So the self-published denials question would come before we draw up any wording at all. DFlhb (talk) 02:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd choose both, the current RFC and a new one. As I see it, the current RFC is about undoing this WP:BOLD edit from Feb 2021, in light of the objection (see the page history) that it now has WP:SILENTCONSENSUS. I think that should be allowed to run (frankly, I think the edit should be reverted because it was bold, and should be reverted unless it has affirmative consensus at this point, but we can argue about that later).

Separate and apart from undoing that edit, it's worth having a broader discussion as outlined above, which affects multiple policy areas, such as WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:SPS, and MOS:LABEL. I think those are unclear and would benefit from being clarified. But in the meantime, that bold edit should be undone. Levivich (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I would agree in the abstract, but that revert would never be accepted, and it's simply more productive to focus on this proposed RFC (which, once closed, would remove the entire denials sentence, and replace it with whatever the new consensus supports). For the same reason, keeping the first RFC open to determine consensus on the wording would be futile, when the dispute is about deeper problems of how the policies apply, rather than how this is worded. DFlhb (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think there are two main issues here. Number one is "what is an allegation?" and number two is "when a subject denies an allegation, what standards should we use to decide whether and how to include that denial?". I don't think those are RFC-ready wordings since they both include a whole lot of sub-issues, but, for instance, we saw a bunch of confusion up above whether an accusation of a crime, a conviction for a crime, an accusation of non-criminal misconduct and a contentious label are all equally "allegations" (and also whether the level of sourcing matters).

I don't like the way you've split the headings above because I think you're mixing issues. What policy should do depends on what an allegation is, and the headings above dance around that question. (I also think that "crime" is a special category here in the minds of many editors and maybe should be split out to WP:BLPCRIME rather than being lumped with "personal misconduct".)

My preference would be to have a two-part RFC. Part one would be Which of the following should be counted as an "allegation" for the purpose of WP:PUBLICFIGURE? and part two would be Given that we are dealing with an allegation against a public figure, which of the following possible denials should be included? Then we can figure out exact wording later. Loki (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate this. I've tried to stay "high-level" when it comes to grouping allegations, so the policy can stay focused on the "spirit of the rule". That's why I group crimes and personal misconduct together (I think common sense is enough to define the latter: allegations of cheating, and such. We can also amend the examples if anyone wants to, but they're quite clear as-is). "Crimes & personal misconduct" and "contentious labels" seemed to be the two coherent groupings that arose out of the above RFC.

I think asking editors to determine the scope of WP:PUBLICFIGURE would be far too narrow a focus. We should be able to address crimes & labels separately, but your proposal would keep them lumped together, resulting in a constrained discussion.

• If an editor opposes denials for contentious labels, wouldn't they want those to count under PUBLICFIGURE, hanging their hopes on the "due weight and false balance" clause being kept?
• If an editor supports denials for contentious labels, they'd similarly want them to count under PUBLICFIGURE, but would hang their hopes on the "due weight & false balance" clause being removed.

We'd be at an impasse again, since there would be "gaming" of the votes.

For the purpose of the discussion, we should be as open-ended as possible, and focus on how we think the policy should apply, in the abstract; we can figure out how to implement that consensus afterwards. DFlhb (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I see two root objections here:

We should be able to address crimes & labels separately, but your proposal would keep them lumped together -> I agree we should, but I disagree that my proposal does, because those can be separate options under question 2.

For the purpose of the discussion, we should be as open-ended as possible, and focus on how we think the policy should apply, in the abstract; we can figure out how to implement that consensus afterwards -> I agree, which is the whole reason I'm proposing the two questions in the first place. Loki (talk) 00:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've added two new options, on how we should treat value-laden labels. I feel like having an RFC-based consensus on this would allow us to address this question specifically in the policy, which would obviate tons of talk page disputes. How we treat 'accusations' might also affect how people want to treat denials, so it seems relevant. I think we should launch the new RFC soon, so interested in comments DFlhb (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I notice that in [28], question 5 has been changed from

"Should policy recommend, forbid, or be neutral on the inclusion of denials of contentious labels? (e.g. transphobic, racist, alt-right)" to

"Should policy recommend, forbid, or be neutral on the inclusion of denials for value-laden labels? (e.g. transphobic, cult, fundamentalist...)"

I think the change blurs the issue. "Philanthropist" could be considered a value-laden label. What is at stake here are labels that the person labeled would almost always object to. Such labels are usually applied by people who disagree with the person labeled. Perhaps a better name is attack labels. There is no formal body for adjudicating such labels, as opposed to courts of law for criminal offenses, and they are therefore an expression of opinion rather than fact. As such, BLP policy prohibits such labels from being applied in living persons in Wikipedia's voice. Articles can still cite reliable sources for a subjects views, as well as notable criticism of those views attributed to the critics.--agr (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem I see here is the general lack of agreement on-wiki about what labels count as "contentious" (or "usually applied by people who disagree with the person labeled", if that is your preferred operational definition). There has been a high degree of consistency in discussions on BLP pages supporting the inclusion of the labels "far right" and "alt right", for example, even when the BLP subject contests the label, so long as they are widely used in the editorial voice of sources and are not contested in other RS. I for one regard "far right" and "alt right" to be essentially descriptive, rather than normative, just as I regard the term "white supremacist" (when properly supported by sources) to be the correct (objective and neutral) term rather than "race realist". That doesn't mean individual editors or groups of editors - or readers - don't carry value-laden attitudes towards those labels, but the same is true of BLP attributes like "British" or "female" or "athlete". Just because editors and readers carry affect towards a descriptor does not prohibit its use, and BLP subjects do not have to agree with a descriptor to allow its use - WP:BLP has never enjoined otherwise, in spite of some sloppy language in LABEL. Newimpartial (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

My edit was just meant to adopt MOS:LABEL's wording verbatim: "value-laden labels", since the debates about denials repeatedly involved MOS:LABEL, and it seems relevant.

I think "attack label" is too subjective, because many people will argue the labels are descriptive, not biased. "Value-laden" seems like the best compromise, since again, MOS:LABEL itself is contested here, and that's the wording it uses. DFlhb (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's worthwhile to point out that while the section header for LABEL is contentious labels. The policy text starts out with Value-Laden labels with a link to our article on loaded language. Certain terms include connotations that include norms and values. Such as things that have the suffix phobic have the connotation of irrational and excessive fear. However what is irrational and excessive is itself normative, what is irrational and excessive only exists within a set of value boundaries. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the thrust of Kyohyi (talk · contribs) above comment is, but indeed LABEL is a short cut to the WP:Manual of Style/Words to watch section "Contentious labels". Furthermore, LABEL applies to all articles. BLP sets a higher standard and the term Contentious label is used there as well. I thought the point of this workshop was to clarify the issues. Changing terminology from that used in the policies under discussion does not seem a step in the right direction.--agr (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That's fair; I missed that the heading for MOS:LABEL was indded "contentious", not "value-laden". I'll change it back, seems proper. DFlhb (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks.--agr (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

My point was that contentious labels is largely talking about loaded language. Language that people can argue has a perfectly neutral and descriptive denotation which can also have a connotation that is emotively loaded. I used the example phobic because transphobic is one of the examples listed above. We can have a neutral and even situationally correct denotation on a word, but it can still have a normative connotation associated with it. --Kyohyi (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Ahh, agreed. Another problem with labels like ...-phobic or ...-denier is that they tend to be elastic, often covering far more that the plain meaning of the phrase. So our article on Climate change denial says "Climate change denial can also be implicit when individuals or social groups accept the science but fail to come to terms with it or to translate their acceptance into action." I would propose that any new RFC include an option to prohibit applying a contentious label to a living person in Wikipedia's voice.--agr (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2022 (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.

RfC on self-published rebuttals/denials

Should WP:BIO mandate the inclusion of rebuttals and denials that are sourced only to the BLP subject of the accusation?

Context: an RfC held in February, 2014 mandated the inclusion of such rebuttals and denials. Since that time, a number have editors have argued on various article and policy Talk pages that denials should be subject to the usual provisions of WP:RS sourcing and WP:BALANCE. Therefore, the community should decide whether its view on this question has changed since the 2014 RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• No - the inclusion of denials of accusations by BOO subjects should be subject to the usual principles of reliable, usually independent sourcing and WP:BALANCE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs)
• No-ish - denials IMO should have some inherent WP:WEIGHT but there shouldn't be an automatic inclusion of denials absent all other factors. I would support "should usually be included" but not that denials should always be included with no caveats. That contradicts WP:V and WP:NPOV and so can't actually be the case no matter what we put here. Loki (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, that being said, this RFC is also not fully neutral. I would like to just rip up both RFCs and start over with the three pronged one Newimpartial proposed earlier. Loki (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  I agree it's not fully neutral. Additionally, a three-question RfC would require that we all agree on the wordings of these three options; sounds unlikely. Editors in both RfCs are of course free to suggest alternative options (e.g. "option 1.5"), which may gain consensus on their own. My real issue with this RfC is that it concerns applicability of the policy, when I think we should first agree on the wording. DFlhb (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  This question is a clearer version of the hypothetical 2014 RfC question linked immediately above. It seems ironic to me that you have argued that the 2014 RfC gave explicit consensus to the pre-2020 policy language, but that a re-asking of the same question - in clearer and less hypothetical terms - cannot be used to assess whether consensus has changed. Newimpartial (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  I guess we disagree on what "clearer" and "hypothetical" mean, too; the scope is strictly identical, except for the highly biased "mandate" wording (most policies are "shoulds" or strong shoulds", almost none are "musts").

  You again put words in my mouth, which I've asked you not to do: you well know I'm not saying an RfC can't determine consensus has changed. I'm saying it's inappropriate to have an RfC on the implementation of a policy, when we haven't even agreed on the policy's wording. The 2014 RfC was explicitly said (by its opener) to be a discussion on interpretation, but the wording was stable back then. Reopen this after the first RfC closes. DFlhb (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Why do you think my question is about the implementation of a policy? Rather it is asking what editors believe policy ought to be. If you truly understood the 2014 to about the implementation of existing policy language, then you could not use it (as you did, above) as evidence that the police's wording had consensus. It seems more logical to me (and less susceptible to wikilawywring) to establish first what behaviours editors want policy to enjoin or discourage, and then decide on language likely to produce the desired effects. Newimpartial (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Close this RfC Why does this RfC exist when there was one above on the same subject? Springee (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

As explained above, this RfC asks what behaviour the BLP policy should encourage or forbid concerning these denials, which is a different (and rather more precise) question than the above. Newimpartial (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Close this RfC I don't even understand the question raised here. Are you asking if Wikipedia policy changes over time? The answer to that is yes. Are you proposing any specific changes to policy? No. So what's the point of this? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

The question is, Should WP:BIO mandate the inclusion of rebuttals and denials that are sourced only to the BLP subject of the accusation? That is, has consensus on this matter changed since 2014. I find this was a much clearer question than the above RfC (and I formulated this question before seeing the other). Newimpartial (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

That's an RfC for the WP:ABOUTSELF talk page, not here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the language on this page to do with denials did not receive explicit consensus through the 2014 RfC linked above? Because that is the argument your collaborator in that RfC is making. Newimpartial (talk) 02:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Uh... no. And what do you mean by "your collaborator"? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

DFIhb made that argument. And when I looked at your RfC, the two of yourselves to be coordinating on it (pls see the edit history prior to that diff). Newimpartial (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Close this RFC The previous one is at least neutrally words and doesn't try to beg the question. --Masem (t) 02:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

What question do you think this one tries to beg? I have tried to be transparent about the question asked. Newimpartial (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Close RfC - This was opened after another RfC on the same subject, no doubt inadvertently, presumably arising out of the same issue. Regardless of background, it should be closed as the other RfC exists, and the other RfC is clearer on the policy question being answered, and on what the expected outcomes would be. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. As long as we can verify that a subject has responded to allegations, we should always include that response - ABOUTSELF clearly applies so there is no issue with sourcing only to the subject themselves (they are always a reliable source for what they say about themselves). If there is doubt about whether they have responded or not (e.g. only published in a deprecated source) we should include it with appropriate caveats ($source reported that $subject denied the allegations; some sources state that $subject denied the allegations, others report they made no comment; etc). Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Agree with Thryduulf. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Include for poor exclude from rich A significant and burdensome amount of the denial requests in Wikipedia come from paid editors. Western society in general tends to favor rule of law. At Wikipedia's scale and considering Wikipedia's grassroots approach to media, I do not think that is helpful. Scamming Wikipedia is an industry sector which I would guess to be valued around US$50 million annually as evidenced by Wikipedia:List of paid editing companies and community rumors of other paid editors. Wikipedia unusually presents media about the rich and poor alike, and I think it is useful to have separate sets of rules for powerful versus normal considering that we have evidence of Wikipedia disinformation attempts by the wealthy. If someone meets criteria in Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual then Wikipedia can cite their self-published counter statement so long as it is modestly published anywhere. For high profile individuals, Wikimedia editors need not volunteer their time to provide them human labor. Like cuckoo birds, they squeal loudly asking for resources as if they are equal, but they are parasites consuming the resources we have for volunteer peer to peer support. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I amended my statement in italics to clarify that I am talking about paid editing as a major source of denial requests; it not my intent to change the subject. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, abort Our top-level prime directives cover issues such as this. Excessive detail is going to produce infinite misunderstanding, discussion, and discord. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
• Flawed question… Denials and Rebuttals are not the same. Denials should always be included. Rebuttals? not so much. Blueboar (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps unfortunately, the last RfC on this issue (which it has been claimed gave CONSENSUS to a version of this policy text) addressed responses and rebuttals, not denials. Making that distinction an element of our policy framework would be a novelty, and one I might well endorse. Newimpartial (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  Agree with Blueboar on that distinction too. Crimes: yes, labels: depending on WP:RS. I completely misstated it; I agree with Blueboar's actual wording 00:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'd like to get a second opinion on this though: WP:BLPSELFPUB excludes claims "about third-parties". Given that alleged crimes can involve third-parties, would that prevent us from mentioning a denial (even without quoting from it)? By my reading, a denial is about one's own conduct; even if it involves other parties, it doesn't make claims about them; so it would be allowed. Is this the consensus? Would it need to be clarified at some point? If you two think it's consensus, I might boldly add a footnote to clarity this. DFlhb (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  If no claims are made about third parties then obviously it's not relevant (e.g. Person A makes an allegation against Person B and Person C; Person B saying "I deny all involvement" says nothing about Person C). If there is an explicit joint statement made (e.g. "We both deny all wrongdoing") then again no claims are being made relating to third parties so again it's fine. If Person B says "I didn't do it, it was all Person C" then we should just include that Person B denies the allegations. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  While I back closing the RfC, in case it runs, I concur with Blueboar - denials have inherent weight, rebuttals definitely not. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Close this RFC - There's already another RFC on this topic, taking place. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• No - WP:DUE still applies, we should not mandate inclusion of anything, especially obvious "X denies the allegations" quotes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

  X denying the allegations is not "obvious" and including the denial does not imply inclusion of quotes - we can say in wikivoice "Joe Bloggs denies the allegations" or "John Smith's manager issued a statement denying Smith had any involvement" without needing to quote anything. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. We have no right to make any accusation against a BLP without giving a brief statement (at least) about his or her reaction to it to the degree that this is known. A person's self-published work is reliable under certain conditions - all of which, except authenticity, clearly apply; if authenticity can be esatblished, then we have a reliable source. (Note that while the content of the denial may be unduely self-serving, the fact that he made a denial isn't; and a denial is a statement about the person himself, not his accuser) Animal lover |666| 18:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is this different any different than the question asked by the good sir @Homeostasis07? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Bad RFC, someone please close it; as noted repeatedly above, it is clearly redundant to the RfC above under #RfC on Denials. At best it was opened at nearly the same time by mistake, at worst it is WP:FORUMSHOP and I'll note that OP is all over the other RfC too. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• redundant RFC --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

• Redirect location but Yes-ish. WP:BIO seems the incorrect place as it is a notability guide, not a content policy item. Perhaps a better location for the mentioned RfC held in 2014 would be at WP:NPOVFAQ ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

In my view, the community deserves an opportunity to deliberate on this question without having to explore the convoluted history of policy language that has addressed this question in various ways Newimpartial (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

In my view, the community is exhausted by three or four consecutive RFCs on the same subject and adding a fifth in quick succession will only continue to reduce the turnout and lead to a pseudo-consensus dominated only by the most tireless crusaders, not really who we should be focusing on in deciding this issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The "messy divorce" example

The above discussion prompted me to read WP:BLPPUBLIC and I'd like to raise the other example listed there for discussion:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

• Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."

I think the "messy divorce" example should be removed or possibly replaced, because it's not a good example for the issue being discussed. First, we'd never say "messy divorce" because of MOS:LABEL (which is what those words are linked to) and MOS:TONE. That has nothing to do with BLP; we wouldn't use that language for a historical figure either. (Also, all divorces are messy just as all affairs are "torrid"; those are just clichés.) Second, whether we mention the divorce or not is a WP:DUE consideration, not really a WP:BLP one. If someone got divorced, that's not an accusation or an allegation, that's a fact. And if someone's divorce was "messy," that's a characterization (and an unencyclopedic one to boot). So I'm not sure what the allegation is in "messy divorce" that someone might conceivably deny: that it was not a divorce? That it was not messy? Overall, I think this just isn't a good example. The other example (about an alleged affair) seems far more on point. Not sure if we need a second example at all? Thoughts? Levivich (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is not a good example for the reasons you mention. Loki (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

It certainly needs reworking… on first reading, I am not sure if the example is trying to say we should omit mentioning the divorce entirely, or just telling us to omit the allegations made by the various parties in the divorce (“She cheated on him”… “He abused her”… etc.) Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree this example would never occur in practice, and is useless.

On its face, though, I'd rather we have more than one examples, since no matter what policy changes we decide, their application would be nuanced. In the first RFC, editors pointed out that many editors already misinterpret WP:PUBLICFIGURE; I think there's room to add one or two examples to tackle that, once the workshopped RFC is closed.

We can discuss whether to keep or delete this one now, but I'd suggest we hold off on proposing any new examples until the proposed RFC is closed. DFlhb (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Divorces can be messy, like my parent's divorce. The word is good to use in my opinion. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• The real life example: was a divorce of a public figure due to an alleged affair. Andre🚐 02:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes on BLP

Forgive me if this has been discussed recently, but I came across this topic via the RfC for Talk:Laurence Olivier and Talk:Maddie Ziegler. Apparently there are some very strong opinions about utilizing infoboxes on WP:BLP articles. It's my understanding there's no policy for when to include and not include an infobox.

The history of this discussion has been contentious and it ended up at ArbCom. ArbCom has urged the community to go make a policy for infoboxes. Since there is no current policy, this topic is being fiercely debated article by article by some of the same editors.

I'm not sure what the answer to this issue is... small articles with little information aren't good candidates for infoboxes. However, articles with a readable prose of 15kb or more are improved with infoboxes. It might not be possible to standardize something like this as apposed to a sport club article infobox, but I thought I'd ask here so perhaps this article by artile conflict can be ended. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Balaram Pokharel

From: Kharpa to Rupnagar to Bhaktapur Balarampo (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of contentious information in an article

Hi. There is a discussion of contentious information in Talk:Tudor Dixon, under the thread "Restoration of contentious info in place of neutral language ". If you have the time and the interest, it would be nice if you share your input there. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"External links" to publishing platforms - blogs, twitter, etc

The "external links" section for biographies of living persons often includes online content created by or on behalf of that person. Are there any standards for what is noteworthy? For instance, the Twitter account for Eric Topol is listed among External Links. Dr. Topol has recently created a Mastodon account. Is that account considered notable enough to include in the links? Should the links strive to be inclusive, or should they be limited to what the editors judge to be the 'primary' publication medium for the person? AdamChrisR (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Old accusations

I just removed some old rape accusations from the bios of MLB players, and now I am second-guessing myself. Even when Kobe Bryant was alive, the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case was clearly noteworthy, even though it never even went to trial. Are old accusations against public figures fair game, as long as said accusations received significant coverage? DefThree (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd look to whether the accusations have sustained coverage, are they brought up in other otherwise unrelated articles about subject, and did they have an impact on the career/brand/life of the person. If it was a one day story, it really doesn't survive the test of time. Slywriter (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Birthdates

Some who shall remain nameless seem to have a huge anal-retentive problem with birthdates pretty much overwhelmingly agreed upon by consensus by a myriad of independent sources if they are not actually vetted by a birth certificate and/or the actual anklet from the birthing hospital. Can we all just get along by saying a reasonably documented birthdate *might* be enough in the overwhelming majority of cases, and that it will have a minimal deleterious effect on the well-being of those subjects? Mary McDonnell thanks you, and Kaitlin Olsen thanks you. TashTish (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)