Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

---

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

---

Titillating sources

Could we insert something either into BLP policy or an appropriate guideline asking people to be on the lookout for information in sources that was probably put there for the gratuitous or titillating value rather than because it was judged to be relevant to the subject's accomplishments? Looking quickly, I see no statement that discusses the dubious value of outing people's past lives, secret lives, connection to violent or disturbing incidents, sexual behavior or perceived behavior, or change of gender, just to take the obvious examples ... I don't see a statement in WP:BLP (although I see support for the sentiment at WP:BLPN), or WP:N or any of the guidelines or proposals in the notability infobox. Newspapers are awash with this stuff, and I keep hearing "but it's in my source, it must be notable". I think one thing that trips people up is, especially in style guidelines pages, we often side with the journalists against the academics, because many journalists have to write for a wider audience than academics, and journalists often have more distance from their sources and their peers than academics do. I think the generally journalistic tone of well-written Wikipedia articles may be confusing people into thinking that journalists' predilection for lurid and titillating details of personal lives are also okay, but WP:BLP seems to me to flatly reject this. Examples on request. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to this in theory. what wording would you propose, and where? Protonk (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph that sort of talks about this. Protonk (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

In practice, hard and fast rules have a hard time dealing with this. In many cases, "lurid personal details" an encyclopaedic and necessary to tell someone's story. No serious biographer would ever write a biography of Darryl Strawberry without discussing his drug problems; it's probably impossible to do so reasonably. We could never discuss Pierre Sévigny with any pretense of seriousness without discussing his having slept with a prostitute; it's an important, central part of his story, tittalating or not. For the purposes of tittalation is never something we'll agree upon - do other serious, reputable biographers consider it an important detail? If so, we probably should too. If not, maybe not. WilyD 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That reminds the that Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson includes a few pages devoted to...a discussion of how Johnson would name his member and show it to people in his office at the United States Senate(It's in Master of the Senate). I wonder if that is in the WP article. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't see anything. But if he did this to Franco and it started a war with Spain, you'd have to discuss it, titallating or not. WilyD 17:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Depending on your attention span on this, a few threads that pick up various pieces can be found at Wikipedia:BLPN#Porn actors' birth names, Talk:Anderson Cooper#Discussion, the whole talk page of Jan Morris, and WT:LGBT#Preparing for future discussion at WT:BLP. Instead of suggesting language, I'd rather stay neutral (at least, on the subject of the best addition to policy or guidelines) for as long as I can and see what direction consensus is developing, then try to suggest language that fits that consensus. Roughly speaking, there are two threads: 1. the idea in the popular press that certain people are "shameless" and entitled to a lower standard of privacy ... people who transition gender, gay people, etc. ... with the result that more details show up in reliable sources than would show up for other people, and 2. the recognition that gossip sells newspapers, but we don't have any newspapers to sell here. Two women kissing is hot, a past secret life of some kind is titillating, a connection as a victim or perpetrator of some violent but non-notable incident in the past is lurid, and stuff like this shows up in "reliable sources" all the time, but I believe there's support in Wikipedia for stopping to ask the question, "Why was this piece of information inserted into this newspaper article? Was it because it actually adds something to the reader's understanding of this person, or was it because it was of a "gossipy" nature?" - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My question is (and I'm sorry if it comes back to wording), in what way is the current wording of the policy inadequate in this respect? My thought is that it is adequate (especially if the above excerpt is considered in conjunction with WP:NPF) but that just because BLP has wide consensus doesn't mean that behavior is constrained. In other words, I don't think a discussion here will prevent editors from inserting "thus and such person is probably gay" should that appear in some widely circulated source. Maybe we need some wording to explain what "encyclopedic" means here? Like "try the 100 year test. If this would be appropriate to include in a biography of the subject 100 years from now, it is probably fit for Wikipedia. If not, then exercise caution in including it--Wikipedia does not depend upon publishing information first or publishing titillating information." Or something like that. Problem is (as I see it), we still come down to a subjective judgment which allows someone to say "nuh-uh, this is so encyclopedic". Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The only part of this that has urgency for me is a short section on transgender pronouns at WP:MOS; there seems to be rough agreement at WT:MOS that whatever the answer is, it's a policy answer and not a style guidelines answer, so as part of the general push to tighten the style guidelines, we will probably remove it; but we don't want to leave the people who relied on that paragraph hanging on this issue. So let's start there. A person writes 2 books that are not considered particularly notable, and after that, they have gender-reassignment surgery, and they're quoted in interviews saying that their gender is and always was male, and their name is now Frank. They would prefer not to be known as or called by the previous name. They write a third book, widely considered notable. All 3 books are reissued listing their new name on the cover (a practice that is common nowadays, if the books are selling well enough to warrant a reprinting); you can find pretty much everything that is notable about this person at Amazon.com and on Google by searching under the new name. An editor inserts the old name in the article; they claim that since there are both older and recent sources out there that list the old name, it's fair game, and since Wikipedia is required to be neutral, and some people believe this person "really was" female while others believe the person "was always" male, Wikipedia is required to present both points of view, including the previous name. Who's right? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wrote something that's trying to turn into an essay at User:Dank55/Essays#Privacy on the subject. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC) [Changed link and rewrote essay. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)]

• Dan, I know this is going to sound, really, really, really awful, but I think that the best policy (in re:gendered pronouns and names) is to adopt one very similar to WP:ENGVAR. In tackling issues of gender identity, we can't argue consistently from one side across all cases or even with all editors. Was the person always a woman mentally and just became one biologically? Do we dictate that gendered terms swap at the moment of sex change? Do we (in cases where this is possible) assume the gender from birth to be the gender we use? This isn't an easy debate and we aren't the only ones having it. Just for literal MOS advice, I would adopt the terminology used by a preponderance of sources on that article and not require article to article conformity. I really think (except in the case of seriously inaccurate or confused sourcing) is the best way to make a clear set of rules without getting into a medical and philosophical debate.
• For the BLP issues with "titillating" copy. I don't know. Part of the job of selecting sourcing and editing articles is being proud of the sources you select and being proud of the article work you create. In the realm of BLP, I still feel it is within policy to remove material that is added for the purpose of gaining attention or because of some salient difference between the subject and society at large. It is most certainly presently policy to do so for non-public figures. I would do it on site and without comment. The notion of a "public figure" isn't strictly defined but it certainly isn't defined to mean "someone who does something outside social norms". For example, Thomas Beatie is a redirect and for good reason. I think that both the "gossip" language and the "NPF" language could be strengthened without too many negative effects. I'll try to think of some alternate wording. Protonk (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're on the wrong track, I just think it's complicated because there are a lot of very difficult cases to consider. For the case of someone who did nothing that Wikipedians might consider "notable" before their gender reassignment surgery, I have come around to a position very close to the position that most transsexuals take, regardless of whether there's a "reliable source" out there that represents someone boosting their newspaper's circulation by writing about the person's troubles; see my essay linked just above this message. For someone who made clearly notable accomplishments before gender transition, and who furthermore says they're comfortable with the previous name, the things you're talking about are important considerations, to me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to disentangle the MOS issue from the BLP issue (as much as can be done). I think that the BLP issue (pages being made for otherwise non-notable people who have change genders) is solvable by the current wording or a slight strengthening of the current wording. I think that it is fair to say that this community can be expected to delete articles like that (where the only salient point is the gender reassignment and it is probably only covered in RS for the reasons you not above). Maybe I'm wrong about that. For the MOS issue, I think that article by article consensus is the right way to go and that the MOS should avoid a process of standardization across articles. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK... I'm going to make a case in different terms...

Identifying a transsexual person by their name prior to transition is highly disrespectful. In terms of their gender, the only view to take is that of the general academic/scientific consensus, bing that a transsexual persons gender identity is immutable (proven by the failure of psychotherapy as an adequate treatment), and as such has been present since birth, even if it was not initially expressed. Luckily, this consensus ties nicely to a basic fact - people are who they are now, and are to be identified as who they are (a fairly fundamental issue when writing about a person really) - as such, to use the current pronoun to refer to them, whether now or in the past, would be a correct and neutral point of view on ho they are.

Furthermore, when it comes to the subject of an article, say, a journalist/author or a scientist, then the notable elements of that person for encyclopedic purposes are that persons achievements/actions/deeds. As such, if information such as a persons transsexual status is not relevant to those deeds/actions/achievements, and the subject of the article not overy notable for being a transsexual person (regardless of the number of sources that would support the fact that she/he is - google hits does not equal notability.... see for example the phrase "and the".), then such information on the subjects private life, especially if presented in such a way as to throw the subject's current identity into question, need not be in the article. If there is cause for it to be in the article, it should be added respectfully and not to the detriment of the person's identity (current).

When it comes to such a subjects previous name, they should not be referred to by it, for it is not who they are by nature of it being a previous name and identity... it's not who they are, and to do so would be needlessly disrespectful. The previous name a person has held is not in itself a notable aspect of that person, and as such should only be included whetre there is a reason to do so. Where it is included in an article, it must be mentioned, rather than being used to identify the person whome it no longer identifies. EG - "jane bloggs (born Joe Blogs/also known as Joe Bloggs)" would be wrong - especially in the lead of an article per WP:UNDUE, but "Jane Bloggs (previously known as Joe Bloggs prior to transition in...) would be more acceptable. Note that if there is cause to mention the previous name, then cause to mention the fact of transition is there by default.

As I see it, There is no reason that wikipedia shouldn't treat transsexualism (a medical condition) any less sensitively than the medical history of anybody else, or indeed, transsexual people any less sensitively than any other peson. Wikipedia doesn't have a policy on repspecting people I know, but it's not in the habit of disrespecting people for no good reason, or if there are perfectly acceptable ways of getting across all important/notable/significant facts related to them without showing undue weight to those issues that aren't particularly notable in and of themselves. If we don't consider a person notable enough to have an article soley because they are transsexual, then we shouldn't be making a big deal of it in articles on transsexual people unless they are particularly notable for that fact - and even then, being an aspect of their private lives and medical case notes, it should be dealt with in the least sensationalistic/titilating way possible, without undue weight. Crimsone (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that http://www.wpath.org/documents/Med%20Nec%20on%202008%20Letterhead.pdf (a statement written by WPATH, the leading international medical authority on how to treat transgender patients) made O'Donnabhain_v._Commissioner obsolete?

Here is an example of Wendy Carlos's thoughts on the matter:

• http://www.wendycarlos.com/pruri.html
• http://www.wendycarlos.com/ouch.html
• http://www.wendycarlos.com/faqs.html

--Sonjaaa (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly suggest we separate the questions of tiltilating sources which is a BLP issue from the issue of transgendered pronouns which is a much more a MOS issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, no. When it comes to the use of pronouns when referring to transsexual people (which is not the same as transgender pronouns) it is very much an issue with titilating sources, and especially relevant to basic human dignity. It's also an issue in terms of unnessecary divulgence of a subjects medical history, and giving undue weight to that (often irrelevant) personal information about the subjects private life as a matter of course. That's very much a BLP issue. Likewise, the unnessecary use of a transsexual person'r former name is an issue of basic human dignity, as is giving such a name undue weight in the article. Actually identifying a transsexual person by their previous name or insinuating that they can be identified by that name is positively abhorrent in terms of human dignity - they aren't that person any more, and quite possibly never were in anything but name alone. That too, is a BLP issue. Crimsone (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok. I see why there might be a BLP issue. But let's split this up: what we call them is a MOS issue. In general for almost any organization or individual we call them what they self-identify as. Moreover, for transexuals that's as I understand the generally accepted reference method. So that's easy to deal with. The other issues of transexuals are more problematic because in a variety of circumstances transexuals have engaged in notable behavior both before and after surgery or change in self-identification. In those cases, mentioning the history is relevant information to the readers. As to calling using the prior name at all to be "abhorrent" frankly I think that's a POV talking. Whether the individual was that person and what is in a name are deeply philosophical issues that we should be trying to avoid. If someone was a notable individual and changed their name prior to notability because they really disliked it and didn't like being reminded of it that wouldn't be substantially different in the overall issue; the degree is all that is different. I suspect that this is going to vary on a case by case basis. For example, if someone is a GLBT activist then it is hard to see how the person's history as a transgendered individual cannot be mentioned. If the person is say a chemist or a mathematician then it wouldn't be as relevant. In general, this should probably be decided on a case by case basis. But use of terms like "abhorrent" probably isn't helpful for generally deciding what to do. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

    Use of the word "abhorrent" in this case is actually quite apt. You will note that I said that there is no problem with mentioning a transsexual persons previous name if it is available and nessecary to do so. However, calling them/identifying them by that nameis different - it is a mischaracterisation of who they are, and further still, is a needless mischracterisation liable to cause pain, distress, or discomfort. To cause pain, distress, or discomfort where it need not be caused is indeed abhorrent. In terms of the names of transsexuals, this is widely recognised - even by the UK government in the form of the seperate process that exists for Criminal Records Bureau disclosers, designed to ensure that a transsexual persons previous name does not appear in the report to an employer. Some might even go as far as to say that even the basic and fundamental mischaracterisation is so. The only variability in the issue on a case by case basis lies in whether there is a need to use the former name. If it does need to be mentioned, then the subject of the article need not be referred to by it, but rather, it need merely be said that the subject of the article used to hold it.

    In terms of the suggestion that the transsexuality of an LGBT rights activist who is transsexual is of great importance in an argument, I would have to put it to you, should all wikipedians that smoke and edit the tobacco smoking article have to declare themselves smokers? Ones identification and/or medical history is not always (and often isn't!) of great relevance to what one does. Just as I would expect a smoker to be able to edit Tobacco smoking from a NPOV, so should a LGBT activist be able to campaign without letting his/her gender identity or sexual orientation get in the way. It's a common misconception to think that it is so. Crimsone (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Update

See WP:Update for the September changes to all the Category:Wikipedia content policy pages (including this one) and also the most generally-used style guidelines (called, unsurprisingly, Category:General style guidelines). If anyone wants to take on the job of updating monthly content policy at WP:Update, please reply at WT:Update. Obviously, since this page is in WP-space, anyone can make any edit at any time, but it would be nice to get a core of "regular" updaters. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Pseudonyms

This has been discussed before but the page guidelines seem to have moved on a bit since then. What do you think we should do in the following case: Someone is well known under a pseudonym but has tried to keep their real name private.

1. The person is sufficiently notable to have a WP page under their pseudonym. Do we always include the real name?
2. Someone who doesn't like the subject has outed their real name on celebrity gossip website. Do we include the real name?
3. A WP editor has a photocopy of a legal document (a contract, copyright declaration etc.) proving the real name. Do we include the real name?
4. The photocopy of the legal doc is published on the scandal site. Do we include the real name?
5. The subject is charged and brought to court for something they did under their pseudonym and their real name is revealed in court. Do we reveal the real name then?
6. They are found not guilty. Does that change things?
7. The real name is outed on a television scandal show. Do we include the real name?
8. The real name is outed on a serious documentary on the BBC. Do we include the real name?
9. The subject is hiding behind the pseudonym because they are whistleblower who has uncovered illegal behaviour by influential people. Do we include the real name?
10. The subject is a shock jock stirring up trouble for others. Do we include the real name?
11. The subject is dead and historical research has revealed the name. Do we include the real name?
12. The subject is famous enough under their real name to have a WP page under that name though the fame is for completely unconnected fields? Do we link the two names then?
13. The subject is famous under their real name for opinions completely contradictory to their pseudonymous opinions. Do we link the names then?
15. Anything else?

Filceolaire (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

For me the Presumption in favour of privacy means that we have a bias against including the real name. I would !vote against including the real name except for case 13. In that case their own actions have made the connection notable. In the other cases their real name is only interesting to people who want to harass and stalk them. Why would we include it. It does not tell us anything interesting about them. If they don't want it public then we shouldn't include it. Filceolaire (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also say "include" under 11 (dead; has no presumption); and 12 (both notable; the connection is then notable). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Nigella Lawson

The article has a perpetual to and fro of edits between those who want to use her Honourific title "The Honourable" Which she is entitled to as the daughter of a peer, and those who point out that as she herself is not known to ever use it, the article should also not use it. Are BLP articles required to follow the usage that the subject is known to prefer or does it not matter? Roger (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes it "should not be included in the text inline". --Rob (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

CFD Discussion

Could people here please have a look at the CFD for the Cat:Living People? Thanks! Fram (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Help please with a BLP:NFP

So I'm new to Wikipedia (as my log will show) and am wondering about how to go about proposing an article for a living person? William A. Mobley, who isn't of top-tier notability, has been involved in some important elements of the beginning of the Internet era--he was CEO of a couple companies that were influential then--and been interviewed a couple of times?

My apologies if this is the wrong talk page to ask this question.

ATLongino (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And well answered. Thanks! ATLongino (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Softened wording on the use of some blogs as sources in BLPs

I've added some qualification to the "no blogs" rule in BLPs, to reflect existing practice. I've also modified the verifiability policy to reflect this practice. Please see my rationale on the verifiability talk page.

Your change is a result of our discussion at BLP/N [1] and does not reflect what is being said. I've reverted it. SPS continues to "never" be an acceptable source for information that is "about a living person." Mishlai (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The status quo wording has been there for some time so it should not be lightly changed. It's not strictly true though.Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What is strictly true, then? Cool Hand Luke 14:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're discussing a gray area over at BLP/N, so if you have any thoughts or links on interpretations of WP:BLP that expand upon the text being not strictly true, that might be helpful to our discussion. I guess my question is more like "What isn't strictly true?" Mishlai (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Privacy of limited public figures

The current BLP policy classifies individual in two catgories: public and non-public figures. This is unsatisfactory in practice because recent debates surrounding such individuals have deadlocked. The dichotomy also doesn't reflect the US jurisprudence, which governs the English Wikipedia. A limited public figure is someone who thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Since this is an intermediate category between public and non-public, the Wikipedia privacy policy should reflect this fact, and allow only background information germane the controversies that the individual in question takes a public stance on, subject to the usual requirements on verifiability and reliable sources. I propose adding the following to the BLP policy.

“ Background information about limited public figures may be included in Wikipedia if the information is reproduced by third-party sources in connection with the individual's public statements or actions. ”

Thoughts? VG ☎ 10:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer something like

“ Background information about limited public figures may be included in Wikipedia only if the information is reproduced by third-party sources in direct connection with the individual's public statements or actions. ”

It's just that bit stronger. I think it important that info that is published simply in order to smear someone isn't included for limited public figures. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

=====================================
I don't know if this might sound naive or not:

“ Background information about limited public figures may be included in Wikipedia once the information is independently disseminated by at least two outside (of Wikipedia) nationally recognized media outlets (web, print, audio and video) and are deemed complimentary to the individual as a limited public figure. Nothing denigrating nor derogatory should be necessary to elucidate an article about anyone. ”

By restricting inclusions to complimentary information, we can prevent edit wars and disorder among contributors. With my version, we can avoid complaints about dragging a figure "through the mud," as has been happening with this most recent example (that we've been dealing with the past few weeks). --VictorC (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposing Victorcoutin's version. Censoring negative information just because it's negative would severely compromise Wikipedia's credibility. VG ☎ 12:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Vasile and disagree with Victor, in the strongest possible terms! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The concept of two outside outlets is almost meaningless. I would propose instead that we use some sort of legal standard. To that end I would suggest that we use the European standard of privacy, as many of the users and editors of WP are, in fact, subject to that law. This would have the advantage of making WP policies uniform in all BLPs instead of having multiple standards. http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/1998/0507technology_litan.aspx and http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PLPR/2003/55.html to indicate that is is not just true of Europe. Adopting such a sensible rule, in accord with an increasing body of criminal and civil law, would protect WP from legal action as well. This is, I trust, of substantial importance to WP, its admins and its foundation.

WP:LIBEL links to several articles, including http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1219/p02s01-usju.htm  : "Lawyers arrived.

"They came armed with a litigation strategy: If information published in the US could be accessed via the Internet in remote international locations, American publishers could be sued overseas for violations of foreign law. And the First Amendment, the crown jewel of the Bill of Rights and pillar of US press freedom, would not apply in such lawsuits.

"Last week, that litigation strategy became an international legal precedent after it was endorsed 7-0 by the High Court of Australia. The Australian court ruled that a Melbourne businessman is entitled to file a local libel lawsuit against Dow Jones, publisher of The Wall Street Journal and Barrons, as a result of information in an article that could be downloaded from Dow Jones's New Jersey web server."

In short, prudence and law coincide. Just because you can "find" information does not mean that you can publish it under law. I suggest this alone is sufficient to establish new WP policy for BLP. Collect (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Fortunately, we are hosted within the confines of a different jurisdiction. The complete lack of Wikimedia's presence in some other country makes it meaningless to do what you describe. The current incarnation of Muhammed makes Wikimedia criminally liable under Sharia law in many countries with high concentration of Muslims, where it is a criminal act to depict the prophet; does it make sense to sacrifice information and content for the sake of such laws that don't apply to our own servers?

That article also says "In November 1986, Saddam Hussein and the Revolutionary Command Council of Iraq authorized life in prison for anyone who "publicly insults" the Iraqi president. In cases where the insult is deemed "flagrant," the penalty is death.". Are you saying that you'll be executed by the authorities here in the states for publishing inflammatory material on a blog about that particular dictator? It doesn't work that way; unless they can find a compatible statute on their own books, other countries won't even extradite you, let alone do your work for you.

I don't think so. The only laws that matter are those of California, where Wikimedia's charter resides, and those of Florida, where its servers are colocated. If someone wants to file a suit under some statute that applies only in a subset of countries not including this one, then they can go right ahead; it doesn't really matter anyway. If they had something strong enough, then they'd file a local suit in the US, which would quickly get thrown out unless it actually had merit. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's not as simple as your stipulated concept of two outside outlets, please note - nationally recognized media outlets, that's what my version refers to. Perhaps that's all you were trying to say. In addition, Wikipedia itself, isn't it subject to the privacy laws of the state of Florida? The company is based in California, but aren't the servers based in Florida? If we are going to start needing to cite privacy laws here, we are going to need a lawyer. I am not qualified to make decisions at this level. I don't know Floridan privacy law. I don't know European privacy law. I don't know Chinese privacy law. Additionally, if we are going by foreign privacy laws, shouldn't we be going by the most restrictive laws in the world then? Should we search for a country that has the most restrictive laws? Perhaps Singapore or Communist China? --VictorC (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wikimedia has no assets in those countries. There's nothing they can do. Even in a criminal case, someone (not sure who; it would depend on how Wikimedia is organized, something I'm not particularly knowledgeable of) would be extradited if and only if there was a compatible law on the books here, but that simply isn't the case in US. Everything relevant to this discussion is a civil matter under US law, so thats a moot point. The Safe Harbor laws that are mentioned are useful to multinational corporations with assets in both the EU and the US. We don't exist in the EU. It doesn't matter. Why would we go by someone else's standard of privacy? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Granted. But we aren't lawyers, we don't know the law. If we try to be lawyers we're being silly, and it would be pointless. I refuse to try to pretend I know the law. All we can do is try our best to come together and work out something acceptable. --VictorC (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• As incredible as it is, some of us actually do have experience in law, and I assure you, what Collect is putting forth makes zero sense. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually WP has a real nexus in many countries (not any with Sharia law, just to assuage that fear). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation which appears to claim that having offices in foreign countries does not give foreign law any effect as the foreign offices have no authority over WP articles. The Australia case mentioned above did not require that DJ have a server in Australia, and, indeed, the case presumed the article came from a NJ server. Also the Australia case was a civil one. Thus, in Australia, unless WP has another argument other than nexus, the precedent is clear. I submit that where the legal trends are clear (Sharia straw argument notwithstanding) that WP ought reasonably adopt such standards. I would also point out that individual editors are also bound by the laws where they live -- thus a UK editor could easily be sued under UK law regardless of the fiction that the material resides in California (againm see the Australia case). Or WP can take its chances. A few million dollars would actually end it entirely. Collect (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. Even though the Foundation's counsel has already made it quite clear, I just wanted to make sure that you understand, since its fairly obvious from your comments here and below that you don't. What individual editors do is their own business; continuing the more extreme example of above, regardless of Wikipedia policy, you can't blaspheme Muhammed. You can't legally criticize Communist Party leadership in China without suffering legal repercussions, although you could certainly do so here on Wikipedia. Its an editors own responsibility to not be stupid and be aware of the relevant statues in their own countries. Even if they aren't, to get a subpoena for an editor's information, there has to be a compatible statute in the jurisdiction the subpoena is being issued in (i.e, Florida/California), or it won't be issued. Hell, the UK administration shouldn't even have a method of knowing that some material originated from within their borders. So, yeah, theoretically, a UK editor could be sued under UK law regardless of the location of the final product, but I wish them good luck meeting the burden of proof without the cooperation of the Foundation in finding out who the editor is. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

←This discussion seems to have moved firmly into legal territory: the question is how we make sure the BLP policy protects the project and the foundation from legal assault. Since (as has already been said) none of us are lawyers, I think we need to stop thrashing around in the dark, and ask the foundation's legal counsel. I've sent him an email asking him to look at this. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Mike Godwin replied to my email. His response is below. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

“ The Foundation's official position is that we are subject to American law, including the state and Constitutional law doctrines governing defamation in the United States. The Foundation would oppose any BLP policy that recognized and attempted to adapt to the defamation laws of any other jurisdiction.

We are of course aware that some individuals may attempt to sue is in a foreign jurisdiction and attempt to enforce such a judgment in the United States. We have prepared for that possibility.

Under no circumstances should the BLP policy be altered as a reaction to perceptions of the risk of defamation liability in non-U.S. jurisdictions.

”

This line is here to clarify that the next quote is not from Mike Godwin (only previous one is). VG ☎ 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• =====================================
  Collect, you have not presented a version. Please put "your money where your mouth is" or I'll have to start wondering what you're doing in this section. I have a revision (NOT ACCORDING TO AUSTRALIAN LAW NOR BRITISH LAW. I AM NO LAWYER):

“ Background information referring to limited public figures added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Collaboration is required in an adjacent comment for each entry (or deletion) by at least one other editor. At least two current, nationally recognized, independent, citations verifying the information are necessary. These must be media outlets such as web, print, audio and video which are verifiable and kept up to date. If the information is not deemed complimentary to the individual it must be impartially presented in as clinical a manner as possible. Nothing denigrating nor derogatory is desirable to clarify an article about anyone. ”

By restricting inclusions to clinically, impartially presenting information, we can discourage edit wars and disorder among contributors. The requirement for collaboration will prevent reverts and restores to a great extent. --VictorC (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I like VG's original version. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly endorse Theresa Knott's version of the proposed policy. It is very specific, strong, comprehendable, and adds a seriously needed dimension to BLP. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • After Careful consideration, I agree fully with Arthur Rubin. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I also like the expansion of the BLP policy into three categories of living persons as suggested by VG. A form of triage, as it were, as it provides for limited public figures rather than the all or nothing pigeonholes currently available. And Theresa's addition of the word direct in modifying connection seems more in line with the spirit of BLP. — Becksguy (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral/Ok with the SQ I guess I can't get too fired up about NPF as it is. I agree NPF is far too strong a provision for most biographies, but I'm not sure that classification into divisions is ultimately worth the trouble. I can waffle on LPF just as much as I can on NPF--did Joe the Plumber intend to thrust himself on the public scene to influence events or did he just ask a question outside his home to a presidential candidate? How do we determine that he thrust himself on to the public scene? Anyways, changing BLP to add this little provision will also face a lot of resistance. I'm not saying "it will be hard so don't try", but I am saying that we should work these smaller kinks out before bringing this to a wider audience. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support the concept, but approach is seriously flawed - the proposal here is is directed to limiting the WP:WELLKNOWN exception to BLP, not to carving out a new class of exceptions or to broadening BLP in the first place. In theory the threshold for including any material in any article is that it is notable (using that term in the informal sense, not WP:N sense, to mean worthy of inclusion in the article - a standard nobody has agreed on but roughly, relevant to the notability of the subject of the article). So yes, anything about anything should be sourced to reliable sources as relevant to the subject of the article. However, we often include various biographical details about people - where they are born, who their parents are, their nationality, a quote by them, their interactions with people and events, and so on, and do not to a great deal of analysis. The encyclopedia is full of neutral, uncontroversial details about people, either in articles about the people themselves or as random details in non-BLP articles. If the material sits unchallenged for being poorly sourced, scandalous, derogatory, opinion, etc., there is no reason to remove it. The real issue here is information that would violate BLP but for WP:WELLKNOWN - scandals, controversies, allegations, untried cases, acquittals, investigations, suppositions, bad reputations, involvement in disputes, pejorative opinions, name-calling, guilt by association, prurient or embarrassing personal details. The original proposal is the closest to being acceptable, but teasing it apart there are three problems. First, it applies to material that would otherwise be prohibited by BLP, not all "background information". Second, the question is not third party sourcing - it is not sourcing at all. It does not matter how reliable the sourcing is - some information is just not allowable unless there's an exception to BLP. Finally, "public statements or actions" is too limited of a way in which people become limited public figures. In this way our concept of WELLKNOWN is a bit different than the legal standard (the standard itself is quite complex and evolving, and it would be hard to import the concept directly into Wikipedia). I would simply say "notability" rather than public statements or actions. Other attempts to create new procedures (2 reliable sources) or new standards for reliability suffer from WP:CREEP and will create uncertain results - if you introduce new, untested language into a major policy and try to interpret it across the project you might get unexpected and unfortunate results.Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to turn BLP into a more damageing weapon than it already is. The second suggest leaves way to much room for rule lawyering.Geni 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think VG's statement is the best formulated which would improve Wikipedia.

The modification that the material must be complimentary is completely unacceptable; WP:UNDUE would then clearly require that all such material be excluded, even more so than the current standard for non-public figures. If the modification were that the material be non-controversial, that would place it near the current standards for non-public figures, but still more strict, which seems counter-productive.

Theresa's version seems too subject to Wikilawyering; does the third party source have to actually make the connection, or is it obvious from their placement of the information; or do they state the connection is obvious, without stating they believe it to be true? Too many problems, although clarification is possible.

The requirement that it be in more than one secondary source is interesting, as we can never be sure who used background information from another source. I'd lean against that, but certainly would want enforcement of that requirement to be suspended for at least a week for new information, and a month for old information, after notification on the article, article talk page, relevant Wikiprojects, BLPN, and to the people responsible for adding the material (if such can be determined). I mean, it's a new requirement, and additional secondary sources would normally be removed if they essentially say the same thing. VictorC is attempting to clarify his statements, but (aside from the unacceptable ban on "denigrating nor derogatory"), the new "clarification" is clearly not verifiable. Requiring comments? I don't think that's ever been done before.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

VG's version looks the most sensible at this point with Theresa's version as second preference. Deliberate removal of well-sourced information simply because it is negative is not an acceptable option. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to go with VG's version, with the caveat that in many cases, controversy or issues from someone's past do become connected with their present actions, even if there is no clear link between the two (when one becomes public, one's past is often examined). The main necessity is verifiability from high quality sources, if they've chosen to make information public, we do nothing wrong in citing them. I don't think more than one source should be a requirement, especially if the source in question is of very good quality, but it's of course never a bad idea. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that people do not tend to interpret BLP prohibitions narrowly. Many people treat it as expansively as possible as an ironclad rule. This is a little rough, but to frame this properly as a contour of WP:WELLKNOWN how about adding a new paragraph to that section, just below the two examples:

“ In the case of limited public figures, such material should only be included if it is relevant to the notability of the article's subject or to the actions or statements that made the person a limited public figure. Otherwise the material is subject to the stricter limitations described in other sections. ”

The post above was made by User:Wikidemon. VG ☎ 22:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike Godwin made the following comment (by email to me, posted here with his permission): "I don't have a strong preference for your limited-purpose public-figure provision as against Theresa's -- either seems fine to me." VG ☎ 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm quite familiar with how out of control BLP has gotten. To be clear, I don't support any expansion of it beyond that negative or potentially controversial information regarding a living person must be drawn from a high-quality, reliable source, and must not be given undue weight. Anything beyond that, where the information is well-sourced and verifiable, is a content dispute and should not be handled with the sledgehammer that BLP is, but rather through normal editing and if necessary dispute resolution. So realistically, I support saying "Use decent sources." If reliable sources have decided that some information about a person is relevant, there is no privacy issue—information published in reliable sources is by definition not private. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking admittedly as someone relatively new to this discussion, I can't see what's being added here. I can see the distinction between a NPF and a LPF, but I can't see the difference between the sense of VG's or Theresa's proposed text, and what the WP:NPF section of the policy already says. Have I missed something? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Under Theresa's wording the connection to the material would need to be closer. In particular, I suspect that the intended distinction is whether Joe the Plumber's tax lien would be close enough to be included. Under VG's wording the answer is yes. Under Theresa's wording the answer is arguably no. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading your response, I've realised my last posting wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about the difference between VG's and Theresa's versions. It's the difference between either of them, and what we already say in the WP:NPF section of the policy. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 01:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My version (having been asked to provide one) "WP, recognizing the reasonable right of personal privacy under United States law, recommends that in any Biography of a Living Person that any information which is considered defamatory of that person by two or more editors must be readily available from a primary source which has no restrictions on its use, also be available from at least two completely unrelated secondary sources, must be directly relevant to the notability of that person, and shall not be entered into the BLP without specific consensus by the editors working on the article." (abbreviations and acronyms to be filled out as needed) Thus placing inclusion as something requiring consensus, and requiring that any records must be fully public under the law of the place where the records are found. Seems fairly clear? (it took a little time) (I trust this answers what I am doing in this section) Collect (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Clear yes. Good idea not at all. The primary source availibility requirement. This means that any record which is leaked to the press even if it is reported in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and a hundred other reliable secondary sources we'd be unable to stick it in. And that's just for starters. Godwin made clear above we don't need and shouldn't have anything like this. Enough already. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I avoid any use of any foreign law as an argument. And, yes, I feel that material "leaked" to the press is not something which belongs in a BLP, f'rinstance the identity of the "Olympic Bomber" where the newspapers and broadcasters had to pay quite large settlements to Mr. Jewell. By your standards, he would immediately had a BLP id-ing him as a bomber. If we believe the material is not lawfully obtained, it is reasonable for us to wait a bit. We are not a newspaper, are we? Another example. Autopsy photos of Dale Earnhardt were printed. They came from Florida records, and so did not have a presumption of copyright. Ouhgt they be permittedd here even though they were not legally obtained, on the grounds they are, technically, public records? We will harm no article by this, and will harm fewer people. Collect (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For your first example, we have words in the English language that can be used to describe someone who is suspected of a crime but not yet convicted of the same. Moreover, we can and do use them. For your second example, we have standards for images, one of which being that it improves the article in some way. I find it difficult to believe that there would ever be consensus that autopsy photographs improve an article in any meaningful way. This isn't necessary. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I can give more examples -- making your points joyfully moot. What is clear, moreover, is that the Crookes case is highly important to Wikimedia Foundation, and it is likely part of the General Counsel's reasoning. Also the use of an "approval system" under test also makes it problematic as to whether Wikimedia can endorse any solid BLP rules, as they would certainly be used in court cases. A little research shows precisely why this entire discussion is likely very touchy at this point. At least this won;t get to someone mentioning Hitler <g>. I still feel it is better to err in favor of privacy than to err against it. Collect (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean Crookes V. Simone? That's a terrible example on your part. It was dismissed because Yahoo wasn't registered to do business in Canada, and as such, there was no jurisdiction for them, and because of the statute incomparability, the suit couldn't be carried in the US. It's a wonderful illustration of how your examples would actually turn out, but I don't see what that has anything to do with anything from where you're standing. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Crookes v. Yahoo was dismissed on the grounds that no one proved a person in BC read the material -- not because Yahoo was not registered in Canada. I went back to the court decision. The court did not rule on "statute incompatibility." Sorry 'bout that. Collect (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

They didn't need to rule on the compatibility of extra-jurisdictional law, since no one made a motion for the review thereof; it isn't the job of the court to go find out if a suit can be made somewhere else. You seriously don't expect a court to do the job of counsel, do you ("Sorry, it appears you can't try this case here! However, upon review, Defendant is registered to do business in California (US), New Mexico (US), and New York (US); further review of the statutes thereof reveals that your best chance is to try this case in New Mexico! Good luck")? There were a lot of reasons that the case was dismissed; they noted they probably didn't have jurisdiction, that the 'real and substantial connection' test hadn't been met in proving that widespread defamation had occured within their jurisdiction, and a few other things that aren't really relevant to this discussion. All in all, its a poor example for pretty much everything. It was a mess of a case. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And, again, for what its worth, we don't need to ensure that the records are public under copyright law in another jurisdiction. We don't have (meaningful) assets anywhere, and unless there's a compatible statute on the books locally, they can't bring suit locally, as I've said several times. So, no, we don't need to ensure the public-domain nature of something in some other country. Even in some warped world where we did, we'd have to do it for EVERYTHING, not just for BLPs, since copyright law isn't BLP-exclusive. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Supra. Current court cases may well determine otherwise. And current tests by WF may change the legal state of affairs. Collect (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's always the case. Fortunately for...pretty much everyone...there is no retroactive punishment or ex post facto law. If something happens that changes the climate with regards to this, then we can adapt to it without suffering for operating under previous policies while precedent was different. There's no point in trying to anticipate those changes and constantly re-aligning our policies before we need to. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ex post facto" has zilch to do with this. The question here is civil law, not constitutional limits on criminal law. The only real reason to do nothing is because several issues are already in litigation. Collect (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in continuing this discussion, at least until you gain a basic understanding of the ins and outs of the US legal system; retroactive liability has everything to do with this; or, to be more precise, your arguments only hold validity in an environment where civil suits are allowed to take place retroactively; that is, you do x, x becomes actionable in civil court three months later, and someone sues you for your earlier practices of x. For obvious reasons, this isn't allowed in the US. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, there is no Western legal system anywhere where this happens (with the notable exception of a few environmental laws, where companies are held retroactively liable for toxic waste dumps). "No ex post facto laws" doesn't just apply to Congress; its a principle that holds true in tort law as well. Precedent only holds true for suits after the fact. Its a fairly simple concept, really; how are you supposed to know that something is going to be actionable at some future date? The idea that people should be held accountable in the past under current precedent is simply ridiculous.

All we can do is keep ourselves aligned to the current climate. If the current climate changes, then fine. We can adapt then. But since there's no such thing as retroactive liability in this field, so we shouldn't waste all kinds of time dealing with every possible outcome of every possible court case. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your assumptions as to what I know or don't know are an invalid form of argument. The civil action for invasion of privacy already exists in law. Thus changes in how courts treat those actions is not "ex post facto" in any sense of the legal term. As court decisions are made, claims about what is, or is not, actionable changes -- but the underlying laws do not change. Unless, of course, you think that evolving court decisions make something "ex post facto"? And curiously enough, precedent for civil matters does not only hold true for civil matters initiated after the court actions cited -- precendent is for civil actions tried after the court decision cited. All this is moot as WF has interests in current actions. Collect (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, you need to review the concept of retroactive liability. As court decisions are made, precedence changes. Definitions, standards and burdens change with precedent. The climate changes. Tort law changes. New legislatures get elected, the civil code of a given state changes. One of the central tenets of any legal system is that you can't make (most) things retroactively actionable. If what you're trying to get at is "Invasion of privacy is already actionable", certainly, yes; however, you're mistaken if you think that as the details thereof and other things that change with precedent aren't immensely important elements of that don't enjoy the same kind of treatment, even if it isn't hard-coded into federal documents. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. I think this policy will not resolve the struggle over what is, and what is not, relevant to a public figure or a limited public figure. When a person has become a public figure or limited public figure or icon or meme, a wide range of biographical information about that person becomes relevant. It is the only way that the individual's actual self can be compared and contrasted with their public self. What weight to give the information when considering the veracity or authenticity of the individual should be left up to the reader — but the information itself, particularly when already widely reported and/or a matter of public record — needs to be there. I disagree with Victor's "complimentary only" bowdlerization of people's lives, but I also disagree with Vasile's proposed language. It seems to present more points of contention:

• "and allow only background information germane [to] the controversies..." allows people to squabble over what is germane, see the tax lien issue re Joe the Plumber
• "reproduced by third-party sources in connection with the individual's public statements or actions..." allows for the same squabbling; is something "in connection," or is it not? If published in a third-party source, the information is presumably notable in connection with the individual's celebrity, if nothing else — whatever the original impetus for their appearance in the public eye, no matter how much their prominence was initially time- or issue-limited.

I sincerely appreciate Vasile's attempt to resolve this, but don't think the language proposed is the way to go. Material must already have decent sources to appear at all, and "in connection with..." can't conclusively resolve disputes; "connection" is in the eye of the beholder. Thank you, Vasile, for taking this on, and for giving me notice. (I also disagree with Collect, whose proposed sourcing policy is too extreme to be practicable, as JoshuaZ said.) Finally, truth is a defense in all actions for libel and defamation; the possibility of embarrassment should not prevent Wiki from being truly encyclopedic. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 08:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I really don't think we need to make BLP more of a damaging weapon than it already is. If someone is border-line notable, then the only thing we can do is determine whether or not to keep an article on them via consensus on a case by case basis. Its far too subjective to allow any kind of standards like this to become policy, and will only lead to more problems. We're an encyclopedia, not a PR outlet. It isn't libel if its true; we shouldn't let negativity be any more damning to a BLP than it already is. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC

"Unlike libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy" http://www.cvc.sunysb.edu/334/ethics/Privacy.html And, IIRC, the issue is "Privacy", no? Collect (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We already have policies for that. Its called "coverage in reliable third-party sources". Its why we don't cite someone's tax records in their biography unless there's already coverage of it. Do you have an example of a case where that wasn't sufficient? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Celarnor cites a point all too often forgotten in the "privacy" discussions: If we have good, reliable, published sources for a piece of information, that piece of information cannot, by definition, be private. It is, at that point, rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse, public knowledge. To speak of information published in reliable third-party sources widely available to the public as being "private" beggars belief, yet I see it happen all the time.

Of course, if we don't have good solid sourcing for a given piece of information, we're dealing either with something unverifiable or the product of original research, and can get rid of it regardless. Given this, there is no need for the "privacy" sections. Information which is genuinely private, that being, not published, is already prohibited. Information which is not private, that being, has already been published in reliable sources, does not need to be prohibited. We are not "invading privacy" by publishing already-published, already-public information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

IOW, had WP been around for the Jewell case, the "widely published information" which was later found libellous would have been fine here? Seems odd -- since WP practice has been to completely delete any articles where real libel might be found. Collect (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I imagine we would have removed it once it was found to be libelous, then covered the libel case. What's wrong with that? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, one would hope we would follow the same standards that any responsible publication would, in referring to alleged crimes and suspects in crimes where there has not been a conviction. Once it became clear that the allegations were false and the suspicion groundless, we would have quickly updated the article with that information (and, indeed, the Richard Jewell article does indeed detail the now-discredited allegations to provide context). It's not libelous to state that someone is suspected of a crime when they really are a suspect, that is, at that point, fact. Stating that someone committed a crime when they are only a suspect, on the other hand, is unethical, but one would hope we would avoid that in all cases. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP for a soon prominent person.

I'm having a hard time understanding some of the verbage in the BLP article, as to what's appropriate as a source/third party reference for creating a BLP. I'd like to create a BLP for a former cheerleader for a NFL team, who has been and is currently a beauty pageant winner and participant. She won her state championship, and will represent her state at Miss USA next year. There is a website for the state that she won in, and it has a biography for her. Can this be used as a source??? I would imagine I should leave out information pertaining to a dance studio she co-owns??? The particular state pageant she won is a Wikipedia article, but unlike her suceesors, she does not have her own article. I would like to remedy this. Please advise. TBird100636 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have adequate sources to start with. The site reporting on the pageant is a primary source if it belongs to the pageant organization itself. Secondary sources would be newspaper articles about the pageant etc. Why do you think it is necessary to leave out "information pertaining to a dance studio she co-owns"? Roger (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you'd leave out the dance studio info, either. It is probably a matter of public record, and it fleshes out (you should pardon the expression) her biographical data. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 08:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is this person? Which state pageant did she win? When? Roger (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt putting in the info about her dance studio would be putting in too much personal information. However, she does have a website for the dance studio, so if it makes the article more verifiable or relevant I will put it in then. To answer your question Roger, she is the recently crowned Miss Rhode Island USA 2009. She was also Miss Teen Rhode Island USA in 2002.TBird100636 (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How can a 17-year-old girl be a former NFL cheerleader? -- 76.98.14.41 (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-living persons

Under what circumstances would a BLP tag be applicable to a biography of a non-living person? Please see Talk:Anne Pressly. At least two editors are adding the tag. I don't understand the reasoning, but maybe it's just me being dense. --Elliskev 13:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't want to sound crass, but let the body cool. My guess is that if you come back in a week or some it will have become clear to drive-by editors that she is, in fact, deceased, and the tag can stay off without issue. BLP does mean living persons, but we should bear in mind that she died a pretty horrible death very, very recently and that we are still the most public face of that (Actually, the 7th most public face). I don't think you are doing anything wrong by removing the tag, just that it might be easier to do so after a few days to a week. Protonk (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag. Extensive prior community discussions to extend BLP to the recently dead have not gained a community consensus to do so. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My brain cells' community consensus is to apply the same standards everywhere. If this is much ado about talk page banners, might as well add a living=untilrecently option to the "yes/no" template, then maybe everyone will be happy. — CharlotteWebb 19:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. As long as it is clear that BLP would not apply to the deceased. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the BLP tag should apply to articles dealing with people who are still alive mentioned therein -- such as spouses and living children? Or some subset thereof? (As opposed to articles where everyone involved is really dead.) Collect (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to pick an acceptable standard and apply it to people, horses, ghosts, roads, ships, and pokémon alike. — CharlotteWebb 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)