Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Do no harm

Does anyone have a view about restoring the "do no harm" rule of thumb to the lead? It was there from 2005 until it was removed by Geni over objections in July 2008. [1] It said: "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is 'do no harm.'" It is still in the lead in slightly weakened form (and a bit wordy)—"the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment"—and perhaps that's good enough, but personally I prefer the stronger version. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Previous discussion about its removal here. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I very much prefer the current one. Although courtesy of popular reference to the Hippocratic Oath the rejected version might've had a better brand image, it (will often be interpreted as to) contradicts our core policy of neutral point of view. Emphasizing editorial judgment plus matters to consider is better. –Whitehorse1 00:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, having read the old discussion, I now think it might be better left out. There were a few good arguments against it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the current version also. Maurreen (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• One cannot "do no harm" and write a neutral encyclopedia. –xeno^talk 17:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"Private person" vs. "Living person"

Under "People who are relatively unknown," as of here, we had had:

"Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person may be cited if and only if: (1) it is corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources; (2) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and; (3) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth."

A change has been made from "potentially damaging information about a private person" to "potentially damaging material about living persons, whether public or private figures" (emphasis added).

This raises the bar concerning public figures, and it might introduce unwanted gray areas.

Further, if we do decide that's what we want, then that paragraph would no longer be directly related to the title of the section. Maurreen (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, that section is about low profile people, not "public figures". It's directly rooted in libel law, which holds a higher standard for private individual vs public figures. We should not dilute it. Gigs (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the version Maurreen wants is that it implies that damaging material about public figures doesn't need highly reliable sources etc., when of course it does too. The current version reads:

Any potentially damaging material about living persons, whether public or private figures, may be included only if it is corroborated by highly reliable sources, it is relevant to the subject's notability, and the Wikipedia article assumes no position on the material's veracity. But take special care when dealing with private figures so that Wikipedia is not responsible for extending the remit of the person's notability and does not become a secondary source of information about that person.

I'd be reluctant to add anything specifically rooted in the U.S. private/public distinction because we're none of us lawyers. What we're talking about here is simply that we don't want to intrude on someone's private life when their notability is not abundantly clear. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Previous version

Current version

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source, above.) Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person may be cited if and only if: (1) it is corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources; (2) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and; (3) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth.

Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and there is additional protection for people who are not public figures. Any potentially damaging material about living persons, whether public or private figures, may be included only if it is corroborated by highly reliable sources, it is relevant to the subject's notability, and the Wikipedia article assumes no position on the material's veracity. But take special care when dealing with private figures so that Wikipedia is not responsible for extending the remit of the person's notability and does not become a secondary source of information about that person.

The standards are lower for public figures. Any change that puts them on equal par dilutes the spirit of this section that we must exercise extra care for low profile individuals. Gigs (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In some countries there are extra protections for private persons, but we should not imply that public figures can be trashed with low quality sources. Material about living persons of any kind needs to be well sourced, esp. when it is negative or contentious. There are no bull's eyes on public figures. Crum375 (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the old version implied that. Gigs (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The way this new version is written, if Tom Cruise gets charged with murder, we can't cover it, because he's notable for being an actor, not a murderer. Do you see the problem now? This clause is about protecting the privacy of low profile people. It doesn't work when applied to public figures. Gigs (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's to take a very extreme interpretation of the sentence—that if a famous person killed someone it wouldn't be relevant to their notability. Something becomes relevant to someone's notability if they're getting a lot of coverage because of it. If you can think of different wording please do. My only concern is that we not imply that damaging claims about public figures don't need high quality sources etc. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 05:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Previous version

Current version

Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source, above.) Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person may be cited if and only if: (1) it is corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources; (2) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and; (3) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth.

Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and there is additional protection for people who are not public figures. Any potentially damaging material about living persons, whether public or private figures, may be included only if it is corroborated by highly reliable sources, it is relevant to the subject's notability, and the Wikipedia article assumes no position on the material's veracity. But take special care when dealing with private figures so that Wikipedia is not responsible for extending the remit of the person's notability and does not become a secondary source of information about that person.

-- Rico 07:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin wrote above, "The problem with the version Maurreen wants is that it implies that damaging material about public figures doesn't need highly reliable sources etc., when of course it does too."

It does nothing of the kind. 1) The section is now titled "Subjects who are borderline notable". Thus, it is not expected to have anything to do with public figures. 2) This special section for "People who are relatively unknown" does not negate or necessarily affect anything else on the page -- such as the section on "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material".

That section leads with the sentence "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability."

SlimVirgin also said in another comment above, "That's to take a very extreme interpretation of the sentence—that if a famous person killed someone it wouldn't be relevant to their notability." WP editors do have some widely varying interpretations. If by nothing else, that is evidenced by the widely varying views relating to the mass deletions in January.

Note that I am not proposing something new. Here's some history about the section now titled "Subjects who are borderline notable" -- On 19 December 2005, SlimVirgin added a section then titled "Presumption in favor of privacy".

That section included: "However, there are also biographies of persons who, while marginally notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, may nevertheless feel that they are private individuals, and who may object to being on the receiving end of public attention. In such cases, Wikipedia editors should exercise restraint and, in the case of a dispute, should err in favor of respecting the individual's privacy. ... (Examples redacted.) In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be 'do no harm.'" SlimVirgin herself introduced a distinction.

As of 9 November 2006, the relevant portion of the policy included: "Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability." (Emphasis added.)

The relevant sentence was changed from referring to "private person" to referring to a "living person" in this edit by SlimVirgin on 31 March 2010.

The edit summary says only "tidying writing". If indeed that was all that was intended, it should especially be no trouble to change it back. If SlimVirgin did intend something more, I ask her to at least put more care into her edit summaries.

In various conversations, SlimVirgin has repeatedly referred to "how policy is made." WP:POLICY#Content changes includes this: "Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change."

This discussion shows that there is no consensus for the change of the relevant sentence from "private person" to "living person" (or any alteration that includes public figures). Maurreen (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No consensus has been shown for the change of the relevant sentence from "private person" to "living person".

So I will change it back to "private person." Maurreen (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I still see no consensus to change the section and expand its scope from low-profile individuals to all individuals. Gigs (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the Biographies of living persons policy has been weakened by deleting, "and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution."

Would anyone point me to where consensus was obtained before deleting this?

Is it the consensus among Wikipedians that we want to include information that is irrelevant to the notability of borderline notable people?

I know that consensus among Wikipedians is not to water down BLP policy.

The Arbitration Committee just passed a motion declaring,

“ That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people [and] that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns. ”

Jimbo Wales just wrote,

“ We have a very strong need for a sense of responsibility about biographies, and this includes being extremely careful about repeating irresponsible allegations uncritically, and in cases like this one, pretending to ourselves that a random smattering of negative media reports gives us sufficient information to be able to write a proper and ethically responsible biography. ”

Should we bring more people into this discussion? -- Rico 20:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Explaining my revert

Rico, I removed what you added [2] because it's either repetitive or unclear, and we're trying to keep the writing tight. You added:

Never include derogatory information that is irrelevant to their notability. No derogatory material from third-party primary sources should be used unless it has first been published by a highly reliable secondary source. Focus on very reliable, secondary sources.

The previous sentence said "include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on secondary sources," so there's no need to repeat that about derogatory material. The part about using reliable secondary sources and then focusing on these is also repetitive; we should only need to say it once in that section. And finally I'm not sure that people will know what you mean by a third-party primary source. We already say focus on secondary sources.

What is it you feel is missing from the current text? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The section does say that, Rico. It says (my bold): "Any potentially damaging material about living persons, whether public or private figures, may be included only if it is corroborated by highly reliable sources, it is relevant to the subject's notability, and the Wikipedia article assumes no position on the material's veracity." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning a recent concern of yours, because it may be prompting your edit. An editor recently requested page protection for Carrie Prejean, a Miss USA runner-up, and you arrived at RfPP to ask that the protecting admin revert on BLP grounds to protect it on the version you preferred. [3] You quoted the ArbCom, which allows admins to do that with BLP violations. The edit you were objecting to was that another public figure said on his blog that Prejean's answer in a beauty contest was the worst reply in pageant history, and this was quoted by ABC News. You objected on the grounds that, in your view, another contestant had in fact given the worst reply, the source was not a pageant historian, and the source was an openly gay blogger.

While I agree with you, in the sense that I wouldn't have added that material either (it was a bit cheesy and irrelevant), it's not a BLP issue. The subject is a public figure, the material is relevant to her notability, and the secondary source was ABC News. And whether the blogger was gay was not relevant at all, obviously. My worry is that you have a very strict interpretation of BLP, and while that's arguably better than having too weak an interpretation, it's still problematic. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for ascribing ulterior motives to me, that were not my motives -- as I have made clear.

I was disappointed that you protected that page with the slag in it, despite the part of the Wikipedia:Page_protection#Content_disputes policy that incorporates BLP policy -- that I quoted to you[4] -- that was written to handle just such a situation.

No matter. The editors came to a consensus to get rid of the BLP violation that you claim didn't exist, as soon as the protection expired.

As someone that's edited Wikipedia as long as I have, I'm sure you know what the opinions of a passerby are usually worth.

If you are a mind-reader, feel free to write about what "may be prompting my edits."

Shall we discuss the policy? -- Rico 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Should content in question be deleted from BLP policy

Should, "and omit information that is irrelevant to their notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution," be deleted from BLP policy? Rico 22:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose weakening of BLP policy. The Arbitration Committee just passed a motion declaring,

“ That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people [and] that the enforcement of the policy on biographies of living people takes precedence over mere procedural concerns. ”

Jimbo Wales just wrote,

“ We have a very strong need for a sense of responsibility about biographies, and this includes being extremely careful about repeating irresponsible allegations uncritically, and in cases like this one, pretending to ourselves that a random smattering of negative media reports gives us sufficient information to be able to write a proper and ethically responsible biography. ”

I don't believe there is consensus is for weakening BLP policy. -- Rico 23:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Those sentences cover several different issues. I think that a good argument can be made for adding material to biographies that isn't directly relevant to the subjects' notability. Issues like marriage status, significant hobbies, place of birth, and education are not usually relevant to a person's notability but they are traditional content for biographies. However I agree that the other sentences should be kept. Primary sources should always be used with caution, if at all. Self-published sources, even by the subject, are also likely to cause problems.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The text in question was deleted from the section in borderline notable people, that "are not generally well known."

Wikipedia seems to have a very low threshold for who and what is notable, and information that is irrelevant to the notability of borderline notable people has been used to mask attack pseudo-biographies.

The last thing I think we should be doing is facilitating that. -- Rico 00:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you give any examples? It seems that this could cut both ways - if someone if primarily notable for something negative then additional background material could serve to "humanize" the person, and to create a "full and balanced biography".   Will Beback  talk  00:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

If a borderline notable person is only "notable for something negative", then "additional background material" -- "that is irrelevant to their notability" -- masks the lack of notability, and creates an attack coatrack (or pseudo-biography).

A better approach would be to create an article about that negative thing.

Do you think that all the policies and essays I'm mentioning are about things that don't happen? -- Rico 01:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I've seen a problem with this. Apparently, you have. Could you share some examples of where this has actually been a problem. Most biographies on Wikipedia include information that isn't directly relevant to the subjects' notability, so this does not seem to reflect current practice.   Will Beback  talk  05:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Support current version. Unless I am missing something, I don't see why material supported by reliable primary sources not directly related to the subject's notability should automatically be excluded, assuming it meets all other sourcing requirements. Certainly we should exclude such material if it's derogatory or contentious, or fails WP:V, WP:UNDUE, or otherwise violates WP:NPOV. We should not interpret or analyze primary sources, and not base the article on them. But if there is relevant and useful background information, for example scholastic or athletic achievements mentioned in some reliable database, why should we exclude it from the subject's biographical article? Crum375 (talk) 01:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to restore the text, and tweak it to only apply to derogatory slags,[5] but SlimVirgin reverted my imperfect edit two minutes later, rather than improving it.[6]

So for now, I would like to see if there is consensus for the one change that's been made clear to us what it was.

There have been around 150 edits to BLP policy in the last week, and most of them have been made by SlimVirgin.[7]

Seeing that several of SlimVirgin's other actions have been problematical for how BLP policy is incorporated into Wikipedia:Page_protection#Content_disputes policy,[8] WP:NPA and WP:Civility policies,[9], and our Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline and Edit warring policy,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] I would like to see if there is consensus among more than just one or two Wikipedians for one of the few changes that have been made clear to me what they were. -- Rico 03:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Rico, the diffs of your edits above show, to use your own adjective, "imperfect" additions to the policy, and thus should be reverted. For example, you added, "Never include derogatory information that is irrelevant to their notability." This is clearly wrong. There can be many situations where derogatory information is not important to a person's notability, but is very relevant for their biography. Of course such information must be well sourced and should not violate WP:UNDUE and all other applicable content policies, but we already say that. If you'd like to suggest a modification to the policy, by all means start a section on this talk page with your proposed language, and people will either shoot it down, accept it, or tweak it. But to try to force poor and confusing material directly into a core policy is not a productive tactic. Crum375 (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not try to "force" anything. The text in question was already in the policy, and was deleted. I made one edit and was reverted. Now, what I would like to know is, is there consensus for the original deletion. I had nothing to do with this change. This RfC has nothing to do with my edit.

First you wrote, "Certainly we should exclude ["material supported by reliable primary sources not directly related to the subject's notability"] if it's derogatory."

Now you write, "There can be many situations where derogatory information is not important to a person's notability, but is very relevant for their biography."

Your statements seem to contradict each other.

Keeping in mind that we are discussing borderline notable people, that "are not generally well known," how can you reconcile these two statements? -- Rico 04:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My statement about use of well-sourced derogatory information was general, not for "borderline notable" persons. For the latter, we already say that only information relevant to their notability should be used, so your edit was redundant. Crum375 (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! Excellent point, almost provably correct.

I should probably give it a rest when my eyes go cross–eyed from staring at a computer monitor.

What about, "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source"?

That was deleted too. -- Rico 00:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, if the subject is a borderline notable person, say a hero who saved a plane from a terrorist attack, and a respected online database shows that he had won some scholastic or athletic awards a few years ago. Should we disallow that information? 00:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

What if it's the mechanic that messed up on a plane that crashed, who is only known for dropping a Junior Mint into it.

Someone whose mom died in the plane crash starts a pseudo-biography about the man, and then adds information that is not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, masking the BLP1E attack coatrack.

Arguments that the bloke's borderline notable abound, because 109 newspapers published that the guy screwed up -- because it's leaked that the mechanic knew about the Junior Mint, and a transient media firestorm erupts, briefly.

The Yellow Journal publishes that he was a drunk, a neo Nazi, has gotten engaged to a footballer, wrote a book that sold 16 copies, that he's 5'11", and that his favorite color is blue-green.

The Wikipedians whose loved ones died really hate him, so they add everything from the Yellow Journal story into his masked pseudo-biography, splitting it up into different sections.

Someone from their support group gets a picture of him holding a beer bottle, and it's added to the BLP1E -- that on the surface looks like a biography that comes up to Wikipedia's standards.

His birthdate is found in public records, and it turns out he's attending University of Phoenix, so these things are added to mask the pseudo-biography.

If you recall, I only added it back into the policy about derogatory material.

By the way, I agreed with you. Did you read my question?

What about, "Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source"?

That was deleted too. -- Rico 04:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose all references in policies to the term "notability", which I do not understand. It appears to be defined by a series of rather malleable guidelines, all of which seem to be attempts to evade the primary directive expressed by our policy of verifiability. --TS 02:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Per Tony Sidaway's note, Wp:NNC indicates that notability applies only to article existence, not article content. If there's going to be a phrasing in policy to remove irrelevant/trivial information from BLPs, that's a separate question, but "notability" is not the banner under which such a limitation on content should be advanced. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content, but WP:BLP does. -- Rico 04:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Tony, the bit about excluding information not directly relevant to the subject's notability could be reworked—I think the spirit remains very important (i.e. that you don't go and plaster all sorts of personal details, even if verifiable, around the articles of fundamentally private people). " Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source." is absolutely critical, and I oppose any removal or weakening of that. Steve Smith (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Would you feel more comfortable if it read, "and omit information that is irrelevant to the suitability for inclusion [of borderline notable people]" (that "are not generally well known")?

How about, "and omit information that is irrelevant to their worthiness of notice [of borderline notable people]" (that "are not generally well known")? -- Rico 04:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the current wording; I'm just saying I could live with a rewording if it makes others happier. I think ""worthiness of notice" means the same thing as "notability" only in more syllables, so I don't really see any reason to make that change. Steve Smith (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Per TS, I also oppose any application of notability in this policy. We recently snipped out some "notability speak" from BLPNAME, we should get it out of this section too. (Worthiness of note or any rephrasings of notability are equally bad.) Gigs (talk) 16:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe:

• Wikipedia should include information that is irrelevant to the suitability for inclusion of people whose suitability for inclusion in the very public encyclopedia is borderline, that "are not generally well known"?
• Material from third-party primary sources should be used even if it has never been published by a reliable secondary source?

This is how Wikipedians mask the lack of suitability for inclusion of borderline notable people, that "are not generally well known" and create pseudo-biographies, coatracks and attack pages for BLP1Es. -- Rico 20:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability should not govern article contents in any form. Under a strict interpretation, you couldn't even include a date of birth in any article of someone borderline notable, since that's rarely "relevant to notability". The clause on third party primary sourcing is about doing stuff like going to the courthouse and digging up dirt in old court filings and then publishing it here. It's not meant to be anything else. The clause in the section right above this one includes even stronger wording about primary sources, so it really doesn't need to be mentioned again here. Gigs (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Note I've returned the policy to the last consensus version while this RFC runs. Gigs (talk) 00:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And I was reverted. Gigs (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There are two competing issues here.

• It's standard that the policy should be put back to where it was before the change, before the RfC is initiated.
• Whether the content in question should be changed while the RfC is going on.

I think SlimVirgin is flirting with WP:OWN, has an unbelievable lot of nerve, and it's been said before that "SlimVirgin has a tendency towards edit warring on policy pages."[17] -- Rico 21:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Look, while I understand your concern with "do no harm," the fact of the matter is that these articles are biographies, not mere summaries of why the subject is notable. Information that does not directly pertain to a subject's notability will be included necessarily. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We're flirting with the relevance standard of inclusion for all articles, which we've never been able to formulate. In principle content should only be added to any article if it's relevant to the article subject, i.e. the thing that is notable and worth reaing about. In the case of a person's biography, it is the person themself rather than specific things about them that is notable so things like parentage, nationality, education, occupation, and so on are often relevant because they help explain who the person is and what their life story is all about. Separating appropriate material of due weight from random information and salacious gossip is important everywhere, particularly here because we want to try especially hard get things right. I don't think the word "directly" particularly clears up anything, it's an emphasis word that doesn't really solve anything. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The deletion was from the section entitled, "Subjects who are borderline notable," that "are not generally well known"

"Subjects", meaning people.
I just wanted to make sure everybody understood that. -- Rico 04:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Subjects who are borderline notable -> People who are relatively unknown

I've restored the old title of this section. There are people who clearly pass our notability standards but are still relatively unknown. Standards like WP:PROF and WP:ATH set a pretty bright line and IMO low bar for notability. There are many "clearly notable" people under WP:PROF who are completely unknown out of a small field of specialization. In general, I think we should avoid making references to "notability" at all in relation to article content, as that has been discussed and rejected for many reasons. Gigs (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Following Maurreen's recent edit I'm not sure what this paragraph means.

Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and there is additional protection for people who are not public figures. Any potentially damaging material about private persons may be included only if it is corroborated by highly reliable sources, it is relevant to the subject's notability, and the Wikipedia article assumes no position on the material's veracity. But take special care when dealing with private figures so that Wikipedia is not responsible for extending the remit of the person's notability and does not become a secondary source of information about that person.

What does the "but" in the last sentence refer to? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the repetitive part and taken it down to the following, which removes the part under dispute yet says the same thing:

Wikipedia contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see above. Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable, and there is additional protection for people who are not public figures.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I think it's true to the original spirit before the disputes started. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources conflicting advice

Do not use primary sources, such as public records that include personal details, unless a reliable secondary source has already published the information; see above.

The above:

Exercise caution in using primary sources. [...]

So which is it, do not use them or exercise caution in using them? I'm not sure what purpose the second section (3.3) on primary sources serves. I think we should eliminate the 3.3 one and just keep the more detailed one. Gigs (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's exercise caution, and do not use public records not used by secondary sources. Just what it says. What do you see as the contradiction? The point of 3.3 is to include something about it in the privacy section, because that's where this kind of thing most often occurs, but because it's a sourcing issue the main point about it is in the sourcing section. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

How about merging it to "privacy of personal information" since that's primarily what it's concerned with? Gigs (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be to keep the bulk of it in the section about reliable sources, because it's about sourcing. If you really dislike the repetition, we could simply link in the second section to the first one, but say no more. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Gigs, would this work for you? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

BLPDEL

Per our conversation at BLPPROD, here's what I'd like to do to restore some of the caveats and spirit of the old BLPDEL policy.

1. Remove the word "summary" from deletion. -- The old version did mention the phrase "summary deletion" once, but I think it's best that we avoid this terminology altogether so as to not convey that this is some special authority outside of CSD and IAR, but rather is describing applications of CSD and IAR.
2. "material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified" The very first sentence of the old policy focused on improvement, further emphasizing that deletion should be a last resort
3. "Page deletion is normally a last resort." - this line was removed
4. Per the short discussion at WT:CSD, I have inserted the word "negative", as it is clear that deletion of negative contentious information is more important. Hagiographies aren't as pressing of a matter to require immediate deletion; this is reflected in G10
5. I have removed the "reference" to Jimbo's talk page. He says in the quote that it's not policy.
6. I have replaced "badly written" with "problematic". Like I expressed over there, we don't want anyone deleting an article because of bad grammar.

Deletion, salting, and courtesy blanking

Further information: Wikipedia:Deletion policy

Biographical material about a living person that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, problematic BLPs should be stubbed or deleted. If the page's primary content is negative contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, there is no obvious way to fix it, and there is no previous version of the page that is policy compliant, it may be necessary for an administrator to delete the page. The deleting administrator should be willing to explain the action, by e-mail if the material is sensitive. Those who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative. AfD and deletion review discussions may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion. After deletion, any administrator may choose to protect the article against recreation. Any policy-compliant material can be merged as appropriate into another relevant article, but anything merged in this way must comply with Wikipedia's licensing requirements; see Help:Merging#Performing the merger.

Where the concern is simply that the subject is borderline notable or has requested deletion, the issue should be addressed through normal deletion discussions.

I'm happy to discuss a compromise version, but please let's not rewrite history. The version before the copy edit did mention summary deletion (see the sentence in bold). Here are the two versions side by side:

January 2010 and earlier (bold added)

March 2010

Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion. Page deletion is normally a last resort. If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., due to questionable notability or if the subject has requested deletion) then this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion. Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard. The deleting administrator should be prepared to explain the action to others, by e-mail if the material is sensitive. Those who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative. Such debates may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion. After the deletion of a biography of a living person, any administrator may choose to protect it against recreation. [18]

While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written BLPs should be stubbed or deleted. If the page's primary content is contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; there is no obvious way to fix it; and there is no previous version of the page that is policy compliant, it may be necessary for an administrator to delete the page. The deleting administrator should be willing to explain the action, by e-mail if the material is sensitive. Those who object to the deletion should bear in mind that the deleting admin may be aware of issues that others are not. Disputes may be taken to deletion review, but protracted public discussion should be avoided for deletions involving sensitive personal material about living persons, particularly if it is negative. AfD and deletion review discussions may be courtesy blanked upon conclusion. After deletion, any administrator may choose to protect the article against recreation. Any policy-compliant material can be merged as appropriate into another relevant article, but anything merged in this way must comply with Wikipedia's licensing requirements; see Help:Merging#Performing the merger. Where the concern is simply that the subject is borderline notable or has requested deletion, the issue should be discussed in the normal way, rather than addressed by summary deletion.

My preference is the March version, simply because it's tighter, and so far as I can tell, it says the same thing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I looked back through the history to find when the issue of admin deletion discretion was first added. It was in May 2006 by UninvitedCompany, after discussion, who added: "While a strategy of eventualism applies to some other subject areas, where a weak article is seen as a starting point, badly written biographies should not be written and when found, should be stubbed or deleted." [19] It was backed up by ArbCom in the "summary deletion" provision of badlydrawnjeff in July 2007: "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy." [20]

Given that the text has withstood multiple copy edits over the last four years, and that it's been supported by ArbCom, I wouldn't want to see us weaken it without a very clear consensus beyond this page. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully support the earlier verbiage of "Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard." Lets go with that. Gigs (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

January version has been restored. Gigs (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:GRAPEVINE

I checked the places where WP:GRAPEVINE is cited... and pretty much none of them refer to it in the sense of "avoiding feedback loops", they refer to it regarding "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". There's a whole lot of incoming links there. While I get the reason why it was moved (because it seems to make more sense there), I think we might want to move it back. What do you all think? Gigs (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Maurreen (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this, might it be best to "deprecate" the shortcut by hiding it but still making it land on "remove contentious"? Gigs (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an even better idea. Maurreen (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on the usage of "Turkmen" and "Turkmenistani" on categories and templates

Please refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#Turkmen or Turkmenistani? for further discussion. Thanks. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 19:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Written by the enemy

There is a saying "Don't discuss politics or religion at a dinner party" because of the polarising nature of the subjects. The fact that these two subjects are the cause of the vast majority of world conflicts is proof enough. Couple that fact with the fact that a many universities, newspapers and publishing houses are funded and/or guided by a particular religion or political philosophy and you can see that such sources, whilst fundamentally "reliable" on many subjects, are inherently biased when discussing other religions or political philosophies. This is particularly relevant in BLPs. For examples - what the Arab press says about Israelis and vice versa; what the "The Washington Times" (founded by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon) says about other religious leaders or Democratic politicians; or Tyndale House Publishers says about non-Christians. So I suggest replacing this sentence in the "Criticism and Praise" section of BLP - "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content" with this one (or something similar) ""Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association and be careful of using "facts" sourced from publishers who are aligned to a different philosophy from the subject of the article, and avoid using "opinions" from such sources unless supported by other independent sources".Momento (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Stronger wording would just lead to more arguments about bias. Is the New York Times too liberal to be believed if it runs a story on a republican? Gigs (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

No doubt people will argue that all sources have some bias, whether known or not. But I want to draw attention to the most obvious cases, where the publisher has an overwhelming bias and yet is considered (by some) to be a reliable source. For example, Tyndale House Publishers (mentioned above) published a book called "Larson's book of cults" (Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House Publishers, ISBN 0-8423-2104-7). Tyndale House, whose profits go "to spread the Good News of Christ around the world", is clearly biased in favour of promoting Christianity. The author, Bob Larson is an evangelist who performed exorcisms of callers to his radio program. Clearly Larson's opinion would not be allowed in a BLP if Larson's book was self published but the fact that it is published by Tyndale House allows editors to insert his, predictably negative, opinion of a non-Christian in a BLP. My suggestion would mean that Larson's opinion, being "sourced from a publisher who is aligned to a different philosophy from the subject of the article" should be avoided.Momento (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

This would represent a drastic change in our sourcing policies and would lead to numerous disputes over which philosophy sources and subjects belong to. I hope this proposal isn't being made with an agenda.   Will Beback  talk  19:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of Primary Sources

Following up on my last request for some clarifying changes, here's another section that appears to be confusing people. Here are the first two current sentences of the Primary sources section

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material.

Two editors seem to understand this section as aimed at the revelation of personal details only.[21][22][23][24] They are arguing that using court records etc is fine as long as no such personal details are in them. e.g. "Though the paragraph is mangled, it is clear the concern is over revealing date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses" I believe that the policy's meaning is clear, but it may not be not as clear as it could be. How about this instead:

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use public records that include personal details (such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses), trial transcripts and other court records, or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material.

I personally think the dashes are elegant, but maybe parentheses and commas are more easily understood. Maybe others would have better formulations, as I've struggled a bit here... I wonder if it would be clearer if the examples of the "personal details" were placed in a footnote for example. Comments? --Slp1 (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I read over the FAC that spawned this request. You are reading the policy very incorrectly. It was never intended to prevent citing high profile primary sources when relevant. It's about doing things like looking up Bill Gates' speeding tickets and then adding information on them to his article, even though no secondary source had taken notice of the tickets. It's not intended to prevent the citation of primary sources associated with high profile accusations and court filings. Gigs (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, and this section only refers to minor things like speeding tickets, then that needs to be clarified in the policy. However, I'm not convinced, based on the opinions of other editors that I have read over the years about this matter. And just to be clear, though, I am not suggesting that primary source court documents be "prevented" from being used, just that, as the policy currently suggests (to me at least!), they should support points that secondary sources have reported on. So yes, if a speeding ticket was issued, but nobody noticed, that is clearly inappropriate. But primary sources can also be misused in a higher profile case, by delving into the court transcripts and selectively quoting someone's testimony/indictment to make the person look guilty or innocent or whatever, including information that no other reliable source has chosen to report on. The dangers of synthesis and giving undue weight are very high if people have free rein in BLPs to quote whatever they like from court documents, even if the trial itself has been mentioned in the media.

In the case of the FAC that spawns this suggestion, there are many secondary sources that could be used to replace/support the primary sources. BLP says elsewhere "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject". Featured articles need to reflect this requirement to use high quality sourcing. And as a practical example of possible misuse, note that no defense documents are cited, and material from prosecution documents is frequently presented as "fact" (or at least they were until I and the nominator did some work on better attribution etc!)

I would be glad of the opinion of others on this. If I am misinterpreting this section it's important to know it. --Slp1 (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the FAC or the other links here, but it is incorrect to say that the caution against using primary sources in BLP cases only refers to minor things like traffic tickets. The problem with primary sources is that they lack perspective, and are therefore very easy to abuse, intentionally or not. Selectivity is one danger: we can pick out or highlight one part of a primary source over another, or even one primary source over another, thereby possibly distorting the picture in a POV, or simply mistaken, direction. Another danger is misinterpretation: since primary sources typically lack a top-level view of the subject, it's easy to misunderstand what they actually say. We need to use secondary sources wherever possible to give us that perspective, esp. in BLP cases, and if we do use primary sources, for major or minor items, they should be used with great care, in support of the secondary sources. Crum375 (talk) 17:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

To be clear the "only applies to minor things" was not what I was saying, that's some straw man Slp1 created. If the article represented defense or prosecution assertions as fact, then that's an abuse of any source, primary, secondary, or otherwise. Gigs (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I apologize that I have misrepresented your position. It was unintentional. --Slp1 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem with primary sources is not "asserting them as facts", since we can always use in-text attribution for any source, e.g. "X says Y." The problem with primary sources is that they are very easy to abuse or misuse, as I noted above, much more than secondary sources. The main reason is that primary sources typically lack sufficient (or any) built-in perspective or context. This vacuum tends to "invite" the addition of the needed perspective by Wikipedia editors, which often ends up being WP:OR, which is especially problematic in BLP cases. This is why we insist on basing articles on secondary sources, and using primary sources only to add details and support the secondary ones. Crum375 (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry if I muddied the discussion with the issue of attribution, which isn't by an stretch the most important primary misuse problem (though I suspect using them may increase the risk that this occurs). Otherwise, I think Crum375 has done an excellent summing up of how I have always understood the issue. I'm sure we've all seen quote farms where primary sources have been collected together to prove what a wretched person X is. Using court documents carries exactly the same risk of POV, OR research. It's not that they can't be used, but if they are, they should be in a supportive role to points mentioned by secondary sources. --Slp1 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to follow up on what Gigs said, though I'm not sure I understood his post. We're not supposed to use primary sources except to augment secondary ones, when it comes to living persons. So you couldn't go searching around to find out whether someone famous had been married before, for example, unless a secondary source had mentioned it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Both SV and Gigs have given similar examples: where somebody goes digging for information (about the existence of a speeding ticket/marriage) in primary sources that has not been mentioned in secondary ones. My understanding would be that this section goes beyond this however. Though I may be wrong, of course, and will be happy to be corrected. My understanding is that even if the court case has been mentioned in secondary sources, we should typically stick to the information mentioned in the secondary source, (and cite it by preference), and that we should generally not delve into the original court documents to find additional details. For example, it would be okay to write that X was divorced on such and such a day (cited to the newspaper); but not to find the court documents, discover that it was because he was accused of having affairs with pole dancers, and then include that information to the article (cited to the court transcript). In other words, does having had media attention on a court case mean that the primary source court documents are now open and fully useable as sources, or should we still be typically using (and citing) the available secondary sources, using primary sources mainly for support and clarification? --Slp1 (talk) 21:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, that's right, though the chances of a secondary source mentioning the divorce without mentioning the pole dancers are slim to zero, so it's not an issue that arises much. I think strengthening it to rule out entirely that we might extend coverage with primary sources would meet resistance. But extreme caution is definitely advised, and we should almost always just stick to what the media reports. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. I suspect you are right about the poledancers!! However, I think similar cases do happen fairly often. A concrete example is the Robert Latimer page where in 2008 an editor wanted to use large chunks of a doctor's trial testimony supportive of his view of the case. I and User:Nil Einne argued pretty much exactly your and Crum's points above on the talkpage. My view is that something similar is happening at Aafia Siddiqui and related BLP articles, where large chunks are/were sourced solely to court documents (indictments, testimony etc), and where the editors argue that primary sources are the best to use.

Which is where I came in. I am not wanting to strengthen this section at all. I think the content is fine how it is. However some rephrasing might be in order, because the current organization and details about "date of birth, home value, traffic citation etc etc", appears to have led some editors to think that the issue here is the release of private information, and that as long as court documents (for example) don't divulge dates of birth etc, they are fine to use. I made a suggestion for some punctuation changes above which I think would help clarify things above. I'd been glad of any comments and of course any better suggestions. --Slp1 (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem using brackets instead of dashes, if you think that'll help, but I wonder if it will be enough. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I added the brackets. [25] SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Slp1's opinion and SV's inclusion of brackets. Wiki is an encyclopedia not an investigative journal. Material in primary documents should hardly ever be used because, unless the editor includes the whole document in the article, the editor is selectively quoting from the document to illustrate a POV that the editor feels is not sufficiently covered by reliable secondary sources and that is not editing from a NPOV.Momento (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and furthermore, it's not only that the editor selectively highlights "juicy" bits within one primary document and excludes others, he is also picking one primary document to exclude (presumably) many others in the BLP subject's life. Both acts of selection, assuming no secondary source to back them up, violate WP:NOR, and likely WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, because it is this editor's personal and original idea that these selected pieces are relevant and important to the subject's notability and others are not. In BLP articles, we need secondary sources not only to interpret primary ones for us, but also to tell us that they matter and put them in perspective. Crum375 (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Random break

• The current policy is in no need of changing. I disagree with Momento’s characterization that editors will selectively pick & choose from primary sources and that somehow makes searching around for something to quote out of Readers Digest or some other secondary source preferable. Editors have in the past / can presently / will in the future pick & choose selectively no matter what the source; of that, you can be certain. Clearly, primary sources can be—but not always—more expansive than other sources, but Newsweek articles that haven an in-depth treatment of a subject (think: a Special Feature on Osama bin Laden) can be far more expansive than primary sources. Take the example of the Sealed Complaint against Aafia Siddiqui, it is plenty short. But, most important of all, the actual complaint is far more authoritative of a source to quote from than are secondary sources.

  Note also, that editors—and even admins like Slp1—can misquote anything, even our own guidelines. For she took a guideline that read like this at that time:

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Where primary-source material was first published by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy.

…and wrote here that it said this: You'll also note, looking at BLP policy that for BLPs, that we "Do not use .... court records or public documents" as sole sources. Compare her *paraphrasing* of what it said, with that cute “as sole sources” appended to the end of the quoted text, to what the paragraph really says. So misquoting stuff can occur on absolutely anything. In this case, we’re talking about an experienced Admin doing this.

I also think it unbecoming for her to have come here to pitch for her pet issue without having notified the other two editors active in that discussion that she had started what amounted to an RfC on this policy. Between that stunt, and the fact that she chose to title this section “Misuse of Primary Sources”, perhaps “Sneaking around and rallying to get my way” might have been more apt. Greg L (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a difference between the policy and Slp1's paraphrasing of it, Greg. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The guideline isn’t all that well written, but it is attempting to convey this: Be careful when citing public records that include personal details. You wouldn’t want to use them if they contain personal information like home phone numbers or someone’s business addresses unless that information has already been released into the public domain by newspapers and magazines. Greg L (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No, your paraphrasing is wrong. It incorrectly focuses on identity theft aspects, while ignoring the main issue of using a primary source as a sole source for BLP, which is generally prohibited. I think Slp1's paraphrasing is more to the point. Crum375 (talk) 02:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It doesn't say or imply that, Greg. It says that primary-source material can't be used unless secondary sources have already discussed the contents of the primary sources. An example: We have an article about you that explains how you're a well-known historian who has just won a major academic prize. I don't like you for some reason, and I recall that nasty business with your neighbour some years ago, which none of the newspapers have noticed. So I track down the court records, and I publish a summary on Wikipedia, how you trashed your neighbour's car after a dispute over the height of a garden fence, how you punched a family friend who tried to stop you, how the police found you shortly afterwards lying drunk in a puddle without your trousers.

Without this policy and the similar advice in NOR, there'd be nothing you could do to stop me because the material is indeed sourced. This is why we insist on using secondary sources. If no newspaper has seen fit to publish that about you, we don't see fit either. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Crum375: …while ignoring the main issue of using a primary source as a sole source for BLP, which is generally prohibited. Where is that written? Greg L (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP: "Do not use public records that include personal details (such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses) or trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Where primary-source material was first published by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've split the key sentence into two, and reversed the order, to make clearer that we're not only talking about phone numbers etc:

Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material was first published by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy.

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Such a rabid aversion to official documents is wholly unnecessary and unwise. There is clearly no need for such a radical change in policy as to eschew primary sources. It would relegate us to looking to Vogue magazine for germane information that will likely not be there. This is all that is required:

Exercise caution in using primary sources like trial transcripts and other court records or public documents. Do not use those that include personal details like date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses unless a reliable secondary source has already published the material. Where primary-source material was first published by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy.

Greg L (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not a radical change; it's what the policy said before, but it wasn't clear enough. I can find some diffs for you if you like where Jimbo has made this very clear in the past. Not that he dictates policy, but he did help to shape this one. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 02:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Uhm hmm. Says you. Seems clear enough to me. You say it wasn’t clear and when it is made clear by you it means what you think it means. Though convenient, that isn’t entirely right. If we can’t even agree on what the current wording means, then I think we need a widely advertised RfC on something as fundamental as when and where to rely upon primary sources (the most authoritative kind). And while we’re at it, we can also address special circumstances, such as notable public figures of infamy like Osama bin Laden, who is in an altogether different camp from Senator Byrd and may merit specific treatments. Greg L (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg, your proposed version would allow, for example, digging up "dirt" about a subject in an obscure court record by a Wikipedian and adding it to his BLP article. This conflicts with our longstanding policy of not basing BLP material on primary sources except to augment secondary ones. And BTW, as distasteful as it may seem, we treat the bin Laden BLP with the same care as the Byrd one. Crum375 (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Just as an example, I found one diff of Jimbo removing material based on a lawsuit from a BLP because it had not been covered by reliable sources. [26] This has been the position for a long time on WP, even before it was written into policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• You, Crum375, keep on employing that ol’ self-referential debate stunt where you wrap some statement in Truth, Justice, and the Wikipedian Way®©™ and write stuff like This conflicts with our longstanding policy of not basing BLP material on primary sources except to augment secondary ones. Well, what you are saying conflicts with our longstanding policy of citing reliable sources. See? Again, you are attempting to buttress a position that is supported only by a guideline that is poorly written and ambiguous. As I wrote above, it is time for a widely advertised RfC on this, since something as important as quoting from reliable sources must be established by community consensus after it receives wider input than three Wikipedians who are the only ones eager to discuss things at this hour.

  And to you, SlimVirgin, Jimbo does not a consensus make. He, more than anyone, holds “community consensus” on the alter of The Right Thing (with a capital R). It’s late here. I’m done for the evening. Arguing with two editors results in too many ECs. Goodnight. Greg L (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't dictate consensus, but he reflects it, and I can tell you that this issue has been widely discussed and agreed, on WP and on the English WP mailing list. No one wants to see people with agendas publishing original court documents on WP for the world to read, in order to blacken the names of living people. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Not always. Moreover, consensus can change; particularly when someone like Slp1 tries to take a guideline and misapply it in an unforeseen direction. I think it is clear from WP:COMMONSENSE that notable public figures of world-class infamy necessarily have to be treated differently because quoting from CIA transcripts and official government documents is much preferred to digging something out of Seventeen magazine (which might also mention that Osama bin Laden has minty fresh breath in the morning). Again, we need an RfC due to the importance of this issue. It will not be solved by we three. Greg L (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you say what the particular issue is that you brought you here? The reason I ask is that applying the policies carefully almost always suggests a common sense solution, so if it doesn't in this case it would be good to know that. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 12:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg, WP:BLP and WP:PSTS are policies, not "guidelines", and they say that we can't base articles on primary sources except to augment secondary ones. I mentioned that it's longstanding because it's more than just the written words, it's how the site operates. Crum375 (talk) 03:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Repeating a mantra does not make it true. Goodbye to you. Greg L (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Luckily truth is not required in WP ;). Seriously, though, just because myriads of editors are not jumping to Crum & SlimVirgin's defence does not mean there is support for your viewpoint that primary sources are ok to use whenever we would like. See WP:PSTS, and WP:V. Using primary sources separately from secondary sources is WP:OR. Leave the research to the media and scholars, and merely report what they say in a balanced manner. That is the only way to get neutrality, because primary sources are open to interpretation, and do not present a balanced view of the subject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 05:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Using primary sources is not always original research. Thousands of media-related articles use the media they are about as a primary source, and no one has a problem with it. Gigs (talk) 12:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Crum, you are also wrong, primary sources are used constantly on their own. Peer reviewed academic journal articles are primary sources. Good luck telling people they need to limit themselves to pop-sci news articles instead of journals. Gigs (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Gigs, the policy doesn't say never use a primary source: "Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 12:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. What the policies say and what is being represented here seems to be disconnected. I think we all agree that the spirit of this is to prevent people "digging up dirt" in primary sources that hasn't attracted any secondary source attention, and also to protect otherwise unpublished personal information. Lets not go overboard with extrapolations. Gigs (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree with SV's change of emphasis. Removed "first" from "first published" because it is redundant. And rejected Greg L's "covered" because it is meaningless.Momento (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg didn't make that edit, I did. See the section below. Gigs (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, there is absolutely no question that the only sane interpretation of the policy is that we can't base articles on primary sources except to support material already in secondary sources. This isn't just a question of wording, but a longstanding principle borne out of NOR— and now all the more strengthened for BLPs given the explicit mandate by the foundation to consider respect and decency towards biography subjects. SlimVirgin's rewording properly reflects this. — Coren ^(talk) 14:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The main issue is that editors classify sources as primary at their leisure. Editors here do not classify sources as primary according to recognized scientific knowledge, but according to their own knowledge framework. There is no sense to debate policies if a group with biased thoughts judges others policies violation. Usually a small group of editors choose which is a reliable source to a subject and judges NPOV according to their own POV. WP has not NPOV, although it has NPOV policy, just because usually a small group of editors assumes the ownership of some articles. Each WP article is a POV of a small group of editors interested in the subject, although many have shallow scientific knowledge of them. WP editors indeed make OR, although WP has a NOR policy. Many articles are OR of a small group of editors that have a consensus. There is not such a thing as NPOV in WP; POV is ever of a group of editors that repeals other editor's contribution with a different POV, as Crum, for instance, do all the time. We can verify that all articles that he contributes to, he doesn't allow other contributions, and revert all other POVs. All articles that he participates as an editor are his personal articles; they could even be signed; they may be named CrumPedia articles. Sdruvss (talk) 01:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Another random break

• The primary matter at issue has been SLP's insistence that primary sources, such as an indictment, be deleted as refs. Instead, she maintains, we must use a secondary source, which reflects what the indictment says. She raised that point of view most recently vis-a-vis the Aafia Siddiqui article.

Some thoughts/reactions:

1. This is the BLP guidance. Obviously, the above language was about protecting BLPs. Not about which is a better source: primary or secondary. We know that, in part, from the language itself. We know that in part because the text was inserted into the BLP section, not into an over-arching section. And we know that because ...
2. Primary Evidence as the Best Evidence. ... primary sources are viewed as more accurate than secondary sources for purposes of verifiability in the real world: for example, courts in English-speaking countries. Sure, wikipedia is not a court of law. But the desire to have verifiable information is the same both here and in those courts. For centuries now our best legal minds in the western world have concluded that primary sources are the "best evidence". "Secondary" sources, in contrast, are held in such low regard that they often are not even allowed into evidence at trial.
3. The "Risk of Synth, OR, and Undue Weight" Myth. The notion that the risk of synth is lesser if we rely on secondary sources is hogwash. Why? Imagine – an indictment is handed down on person x. Written by a lawyer. Signed by a grand jury. Supported by an affidavit attested under criminal penalty of perjury. It contains the precise terms of the charges against person x. The indictment is available to all of the general public, on-line. Which is the better source, to answer the question of what the charges are against the defendant in the indictment? The indictment itself? Or, say, what perhaps some 18-year-old college stringer majoring in phys ed writes in what we consider an RS, say ... The Electronic Intifida. Does anyone really believe that that the EI would be the superior source? Haven't we all heard of the game of telephone? Are we aware that news reporters often have agendas that not only are not restricted by wikipedia's POV policy – but that are driven by POV? That synth is in their blood? Or that they make their money often by "giving undue weight"? Add to it this little bit – the 18-year-old may have been told that as a general matter, unless he is using quotations marks he had better watch out for copyright issues, and may believe he therefore must change the words around just a little bit. Does anyone think that that really leads to a higher-quality source, in terms of reflecting what the indictment in fact says?
4. The "By Using Secondary Sources We Will Avoid POV" Myth. This is another myth. Why would one think that an editor couldn't selectively quote from the The Electronic Intifada to say what is in the indictment? Or even that his choice of the EI as a source reflects a POV? And isn't it, just maybe, possible that The Electronic Intifada itself has a POV? I'm just saying. So, now we have the risk of their POV, coupled with the risk of the editor's POV. Clearly, deletion of primary sources would increase the risk of POV.
5. The "Perspective" Myth. It was mentioned that secondary sources have "perspective" that primary sources do not have. Sure. The perspective of the writer. But that's not necessarily a good thing. It can easily be a POV, undue weight, uninformed perspective.
6. The "Non-notable Information/Digging Up Obscure Dirt" Myth. Notability (of both the case, and the information in the article) would of course still be a wiki guideline, whatever source we use. So the argument of "non-notable information will come to light", and "we will be deluged by obscure dirt" does not impress me. The rules on synth and undue weight would also apply, same as always.
7. What Would Chief Justice Roberts Do? In addition to the question of the admissibility of evidence at trial, discussed above, what do courts do, when it comes time for written argument? Do they say – Hey guys, we'll allow you to refer to textbooks and law review articles (secondary sources), but please don't poison us with dreaded caselaw (primary sources). Of course not. They accept both – and it is the primary sources that have the greater weight.
8. What Would Professor Dershowitz Do? What do law review articles do? They accept both. And in the event of conflict, the primary sources have the greater weight.
9. Real-world. Let me lay off The Electronic Intifida for just a moment. I have some experience with primary and secondary sources, as going back nearly 30 years I've written law review articles, federal legal opinions, and spent a good deal of time with the press. What I've seen comports with what I've said above. A relatively recent real-world example: After Bear Stears crumbled, The Wall Street Journal ran an article about the indictment of the co-head of one of Bear's failed sub-prime hedge funds. Front page. Top right-hand column. The headline was about what the indicted fellow had written in an email, as reflected in his indictment. The headline blared "Highlights From Bear Indictment: "The Entire Subprime Market Is Toast". Now, was the sense of what the fellow had written? Not so much. Instead, what he had written was "if the CDO report is true, then the market is toast". (emphasis added). A slight difference, no? Where do we find that golden accurate and verifiable information? In the on-line indictment. The primary source. Precisely the sort of document that Slp has been telling me I must delete. And replace with the necessarily-less-accurate secondary source. In our effort to reflect with verifiability what is in the indictment, the primary source will always be the best source for that purpose.
10. Another silly example. By analogy: If the NY Times runs an editorial whose opinion I wish to refer to in an article, the editorial itself would be a primary source. Why should I have to find an article in the Brooklyn Eagle that mentions the conclusions of the NY Times article, and use that as my ref? Replacing the NY Times article as a ref? Clearly, the NY Times article is better, for the purpose of ref'ing what is in fact said in the NY Times article.
11. And another. The Yankees have their team stats, and press releases about their trades, on their website. The Academy Awards site does the same with their award information. Why would one think that any other site is more reliable for verifying the fact that Player X was traded, or that Actor Y won the Best Actor award? Clearly, as a general matter, the primary source is the better source.
12. Replacing Primary Sources. In criticizing the Aafia Siddiqui article, Slp wrote that we must "Support/replace the primary sources". (emphasis added) When the article was at FA, SLP objected. Her first complaint? She found it worrying that "primary sources (court records, indictments, psychiatric/psychology/forensic evaluations, affidavits) are liberally used, often without secondary sources to support them, in direct contravention of BLP's Misuse of Primary Sources section." Replace the primary sources – the gold standard of our evidence? Not only should primary sources not be replaced, but inasmuch as they are clearly superior to secondary sources, where the information in the two differ, the primary source must be the one that we rely on.
13. Secondary sources. If available, high quality, and supporting the textual information that is supported by the primary source, of course a secondary source can be helpful. Sometimes they supply contextual information that the primary source has no reason to provide. Or notable analysis. I've no problem at all with secondary sources being used – and even encouraged, as second or third refs, where they are helpful. But it makes zero sense for us to – as SLP has been insisting I do, over many talk pages now – replace primary sources, or delete text that is supported only by an indictment, due to what I believe is a misreading of the poorly written criteria above, and a lack of sensitivity towards the applicable policies, real world practices, and common sense.

Those are just some off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Not dealing with substance here, but since my name and views have been cited here, for the record let me state that I have never said that "primary sources, such as an indictment, [should] be deleted as refs", that editors should "delete text supported only by an indictment", (both above) that I am "militating for deletion of all of [primary sources] from the article,"[27], or seeking to prevent "the citation of high profile court documents" (below). In fact, I have consistently said that while articles, especially BLP and FA articles, should be based on secondary sources, primary sources are fine to use as long as they support to material discussed in secondary sources. [28][29][30][31]. This view, as far as I can see, is solidly based on policy and the consensus of almost of the editors in this discussion. --Slp1 (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

First, I would like to congratulate Epeeflech for his brilliant reasoning, which I totally agree. But allow me a comment: on many occasions which is considered to be a primary source in his comment, it would be considered a secondary source in a scientific framework. We must consider that primary sources are those who participate or were involved, or were originated by the facts being related. An evidence presented in a court is a primary source of a crime (for instance, that is being the subject of a WP article), but a sentence issued by a grand jury is not. A newspaper article reporting a sentence is tertiary source of the crime. First, the subject of the WP article must be clearly defined, if it is the crime per se or, by other side, the controversial judgment of the criminals. If the subject is the crime, primary sources are those artifacts, testimonies, documents, produced in the crime scene or immediately following it. Time is a very important variable to classify sources as primary. They are originated or produced at the same time of the focused subject, and they are usually raw data. Secondary sources make use of the primary sources artifacts, and tertiary sources report secondary sources conclusions. The main distinction between a primary source and a secondary source is that a primary source is validated by a secondary source which has power to do it. Someone telling that saw a crime doesn’t necessarily assures that there was a crime, but a judge issuing a sentence is a proof that the crime happened. Newspaper news are tertiary sources of the crime, or could be a primary source if it is a journalist comment about the crime. Sometimes we don’t have access to the secondary source’s document, and we use a newspaper which had access to secondary source document, and use them, as could be named as a “proxy” to the secondary source. The source is not the newspaper, it is just the messenger. Newspaper news are secondary sources only about facts and events: rained yesterday..., there was a accident..., there was a crime yesterday... As can being noted, a newspaper can be primary, secondary or tertiary source. I totally agree with Epeeflech thoughts, but what he considers to be a primary source, I would sometimes consider to be a secondary source if we apply a scientific framework. Sdruvss (talk) 13:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Published vs covered

[32] Surely a secondary source merely republishing a primary source is not our intent. Gigs (talk) 14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that correction (apologies to GregL). And "a secondary source merely republishing" is exactly my intent. A reliable source may "cover" a divorce but unless they "publish" the exact text of a primary source it shouldn't be used.Momento (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a strange interpretation, and I don't think it reflects the intention of the policy. Gigs (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's... a stretch. It's certainly not the intent; otherwise there would be absolutely no point in referring to the primary source at all (and it's clear that this would be nonsensical). — Coren ^(talk) 14:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Gigs, the intention of the policy should be that material used in an article should be "published" by a reliable source, not just that the event or situation was "covered" by a reliable source. Numerous news organisations have "covered" Michael Jackson's death but unless a reliable source has "published" the contents of a police or coroner's report, we shouldn't include an excerpt in an article about MJ.Momento (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are often the most reliable sources. The main relevant issue here is that they sometimes contain obscure information that may not be widely known. We should not effectively become the original publisher of this information. Trying to use this policy to prevent the citation of high profile court documents about a case that has attracted major nationwide media attention is not what this policy is about. If the primary sources are being cited in a way that is cherry picking or includes original analysis, then that's improper as per WP:NOR and should be rectified, but it has little direct bearing on this policy. Gigs (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, primary sources are notoriously unreliable. Eye witness reports of a robbery are regularly contradictory. And court documents where people are disputing civil or criminal proceedings are, by their nature, contradictory. Theoretically, a reliable secondary source reporting on a robbery or a court case will summarise the various viewpoints and provide its readers/viewers with an objective and accurate synopsis. At the very least they will not say "X shot Y" as an eye witness might say in a court document but rather "F said that X shot Y".Momento (talk) 15:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we are getting derailed. "Published" has unintended consequences. Does Wikileaks or Smoking Gun publishing a copy of a primary source make it suddenly admissible? If no, then we want to say "covered" not merely "published". Like Coren points out "coverage" is already part of our policy lexicon, I don't think it's vague. Gigs (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)'

If a secondary source covers the existence of a primary source, it's reasonable to include a courtesy / external link, media file, etc., to that primary source, barring any particular reason to the contrary (if it is an attack site, for example, or discloses private information about living people). For example, if a Wikipedia article contains a sourced description of a YouTube viral video and it's relevant to the subject of the article, we can include a link to that video if consistent with our copyvio / nonfree rules. But we can't use the primary source to stand for more than it does, meaning no original research, opinion, analysis of the primary source unless that's covered in a reliable way in the secondary source. That's true whether or not the secondary source republishes the primary source. Whether a newspaper merely describes a video, contains a link to it on YouTube, or hosts on its web server, the newspaper is not vouching for the accuracy of the facts asserted in the primary source, it is just allowing readers to see for themselves as a courtesy. The primary source cannot verify facts in the article that are not verified in the secondary source, because there is no fact-checking, analysis, no staking of the reputation of the secondary source on the accuracy of the contents. We aren't supposed to say "in the video hosted on the CNN site, so-and-so was doing X" based on watching it. It has to be in the source. A classic case where this arises is in a news report of a lawsuit, criminal case, government report or finding, etc. The newspaper will say "federal officials filed a criminal complaint charging so-and-so with X". That verifies that federal officials did indeed file the complaint containing the charge. But we can't look at the complaint and say "so-and-so is suspected of X" (or did X), because that is from the primary source, not the secondary source. I hope that's clear. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite correct Wikidemon. Keep in mind that peer reviewed journal articles are primary sources. As well, it's entirely fine to watch a film and then develop a plot synopsis based on the primary source, nearly every one of our articles on film and TV does. Another example: a written work of fiction is the most authoritative source for the spelling of a character's name. In your court/news example, it would be fine to look at the court document to get the particular statute that the person was charged under, even if the news article just said "gun charges", without specifying a particular statute. Reporting facts from authoritative primary sources is not forbidden, we do it constantly. Gigs (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it goes to show you the danger of generalizing. I hadn't considered peer-reviewed journals, or some other special cases. Plot summaries are an exception to our usual sourcing standards. You'll note that I was talking about describing what a subject is doing in a video based on watching it (Paris Hilton unzipped...), not a plot detail (Spiderman jumped from the...). In specific topic areas (e.g. law, mathematics, medicine, science, sports) presumably expert editors are often allowed to create content that could otherwise be considered original research, synthesis, etc. You have to know the subject area to know what is a credible fact and what is not. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm breaking off GregL's comment and subsequent into a new section. Wikidemon, do you support changing it to "covered"? I note that you yourself talked about secondary sources covering primary ones, rather than re-publishing. Gigs (talk) 18:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to "discussed". "Covered" is vague", and "published" makes no sense (if material is published in a secondary source then it's no long a primary source). The point of this exception is to allow illustrative details or quotations from a primary source. Gigs gave a perfect example above" a secondary source may say someone was indicted on "gun charges" and it's acceptable to check that indictment to see the precise statutes that were allegedly violated. So long as the primary source is reliable, it shouldn't be necessary for the text to have actually been published in a secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  19:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Relative privacy

• Momento, you’re confusing Avoid self-published sources with primary sources (court transcripts and indictment papers). The former are often unreliable. The latter seldom are. Your point about civil papers being a contest between opposing parties with back & forth allegations (not a summary of fact) is a valid one and means that needs separate treatment.

  I agree with Gigs; Primary sources are often the most reliable sources. Repeating from the earlier thread, BLP is presently ill-equipped for notable public figures of world-class infamy like Osama bin Laden, who necessarily must be treated differently because quoting from CIA transcripts and other official government documents is much preferred to digging something out of Seventeen magazine (which might also mention that Osama bin Laden has minty fresh breath in the morning).

  It would be wise to have caveats about “being careful” with primary sources for living figures of world-class infamy (as one should with any source since they can all be quoted out of context). I find it the height of absurdity to interpret policies intended to protect people like David Letterman’s privacy as a result of the recent extortion attempt, and use that to eschew primary sources like an actual White House press release or an indictment paper by a U.S. attorney because Wikipedia prefers citing Readers Digest. We need to specifically address this in BLP.

  The key distinction here is that people like Senator Byrd and David Letterman have a right to privacy. Consequently, the public’s right to read factual information in an encyclopedia—one that is edited in a collaborative writing environment by volunteers with wide-ranging skills—must have restrictions to ensure that privacy is not lost and that information is factual. Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki, who has National Security Council and presidential authority to assassinate him even though he is a U.S. citizen, have little to no right to privacy; Osama lost that when he decided to fly big planes into buildings and make a calendar date synonymous with terror. The only obligation Wikipedia has for such figures is to ensure the public has information that is accurately and authoritatively cited; such references can be Readers Digest, but not exclusively so. Greg L (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  Actually, Greg, you got that exactly wrong. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, Osama bin Laden has strictly exactly the same rights to privacy that David Letterman does. We do not distinguish between BLP subjects — to do otherwise would run afoul of NPOV — and we do not "judge" one subject against another. Either a source is okay to use or not, and that depends only on what the source is and how it is used and not on who the source is about or whether you agree with it or not. — Coren ^(talk) 16:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Well, you have your opinion, but I find it to be nonsense. There is nothing in our regular citing policies that opens the door to flouting Neutral Point of View. Greg L (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Except that it's not an opinion, it's the fundamental principle on which Wikipedia was founded and our "prime directive" as it were. You're welcome to disagree with it, but any attempt to shift policy away from NPOV is pointless because strictly academic: the neutral point of view is sine qua non, it is not negotiable, and cannot be overriden by local consensus — even if the community suddenly rose up unanimously against it tomorrow morning. You have exactly two options: abide by it even if you disagree or contribute to some other project. — Coren ^(talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Greg, Coren is right that we don't differentiate regarding right to privacy generally, the only exception is low profile individuals, who we give a little extra protection to. Definitely no differentiation between two high profile individuals. Gigs (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Gigs. You are citing the way things are now, which is stick-in-the-mud mentality. I am not addressing how things are now. I am talking about introducing some WP:COMMONSENSE for this special class. Citing a CIA transcript is far superior to quoting from Seventeen magazine for topics like Osama bin Laden; that much is just too obvious. So, on the subject of talking about something new (which means please desist from chanting mantras about “how things presently are), I would propose wording along the lines of as follows:

Living public figures of world-class infamy such as Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki are not subject to the special restrictions pertaining to this BLP page; they are covered by all other requirements applying to regular subject matter. As with regular subject matter, text and citations pertaining to living public figures of world-class infamy must comply with the requirements of verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research.

Greg L (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

And we are telling you that such an idea would have a snowball's chance in hell, since it's way out of sync with our current policies. Gigs (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please explain “we”. Sounds ominous and big. Yet, methinks it small and foolish, perhaps from a small cabal that fancies itself as the keepers of this venue. A nice broad RfC on this will flesh out some other ideas and arrive at a broader community consensus, which tend to be indicated on things of such importance. Articles on persons of world-class infamy doesn’t require “a high degree of sensitivity”, they require a high degree of accuracy. As Gigs pointed out here, primary sources in these cases are typically the most authoritative and accurate and typically have no bias. One can get just about any POV-pushing slant they want from secondary sources like Fox News (which tends to be right-wing POV-pushing) and similar secondary sources on the other side of the fence. There are no shortcomings whatsoever to relying upon primary sources like government and prosecutor documents for these cases. That is just too obvious. Greg L (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

An RfC would be a non-starter. Whether a BLP subject is an beloved person or a reviled one an orthogonal issue to BLP standards. There's no moral judgment involved, not because we're taking a stand about morals or people's rights in doing so, it's just not relevant to the issue. Saying that a lower standard should apply to terrorists is like saying that whereas normal people have a fever at 99 degrees Fahrenheit, terrorists don't have a fever until they hit 100. What is relevant is that a notorious terrorist like Bin Laden is highly notable, so most anything one could say about him is widely known and could be solidly sourced. We don't need a specialized category of person for that, it's just true in practice. Name any accurate information about Bin Laden, and you can find solid sourcing for it. Is there anything in particular behind this? Is there anything relevant and of due weight contained in a CIA report that is not published in a reliable source? Surely, if the report and its contents are worth noting, someone has covered it. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think this can’t be addressed by an RfC, you are mistaken. That is not how Wikipedia works. Everything is governed by community consensus. You and a handful of others do not define “community consensus”. The issue here is only about citing to primary sources for these sort of articles. Since terrorists have no right to privacy, there is no problem citing from CIA transcripts or other public records. In fact, doing so is preferred so the information is accurately and authoritatively cited. The alternative (looking primarily towards secondary sources) tends to be especially biased on these topics. This is just about holding these sort of articles to all the standard requirements, nothing more, nothing less in order to ensure accuracy. Greg L (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Most things are determined by consensus, with BLP being a partial exception. Sometimes it's good to know when you're out on a limb. I'm not purporting to dictate the rules, I'm just saying an RfC would be pointless because it's clear what the result would be. Editors won't make a carve out for bad people who have no privacy rights (I don't think that's the law anywhere). Are you claiming there is a special need when dealing with notorious terrorists to use sources that we don't use for regular articles? Are terrorist articles less accurate than others, so they need special help? I just don't get it. As I was saying, if the CIA report is an important thing itself we can describe the existence and contents of the report based on secondary reports -- those will surely exist if the report is noteworthy. If no secondary sources have seen fit to cover the report, who are we as Wikipedia editors to decide on our own that it's worth covering here even if nobody else does? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) "Everything is governed by community consensus" is incorrect. The foundational principles are fixed, so are legal concerns and Foundation directives. In this particular case, it so happens that what you propose goes against the very nature of one of those: it's a non-starter. If you (somehow) managed to get consensus to go against NPOV, it would simply be overridden. The exercise is exactly as pointless as to try to declare a King of the United States. — Coren ^(talk) 17:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

GregL, my "we" wasn't meant as some kind of vague appeal to authority, it merely meant myself and Coren. Gigs (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Came across as a Queen’s ‘we’. And citing Five Pillars was quite akin to stating “Well… God and the Bible backs me and says I should smite you” with no factual basis whatsoever. (See expanded response on that one, below). Greg L (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Greg, just as a matter of interest, which is the case that sparked this? The reason I'm asking is just to make sure the policies are being correctly applied to it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Aafia_Siddiqui/archive1 Gigs (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It’s time to address this issue here

• (*sound of sipping coffee*) Your argument is shear nonsense, Coren. You cite foundational principles, which comprises things like Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia has a neutral point of view as if that—by some wild logic—backs your absurd position and undermines mine. Funnier still, you reference our list of core principles that contains Wikipedia does not have firm rules (chuckling now).

  There appears to be a cabal here that fancies itself as being solely and uniquely qualified to make the “big decisions” on fairness and accuracy issues surrounding living people. I see true fear ripple in posts whenever I mention RfCs to broaden the discussion to gather greater community input. The issue of terrorist-related articles can fully well be addressed with a whole new WP guideline page that is independent of this one. Oh yes it can. And it can be done by inviting w-i-d-e community input and much discussion. Like WP:MOSNUM, it would simply be a separate but harmonious extension of WP:MOS. Now, I suggest that if you people want to continue to be relevant, then step up to the plate, please, and properly address this situation. Terrorists of world-class infamy are in an altogether different class than people like Senator Byrd. Anyone with a mental rigidity that prevents them from seeing this reality could find themselves buried in a venue where your voices are lost in a sea of rational thought. Greg L (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  • Go make your proposal and run your RfC. A reality check might be good. Gigs (talk) 17:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Gigs. Good luck. Make sure you also address how we determine who the members of this "Terrorists of world-class infamy" group are. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The fun part, of course, will be to attempt to determine it neutrally. — Coren ^(talk) 19:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
      • No worries, as neutrality will soon be a thing of the past. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 20:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Joshua/LiberalFascist: Quoting you: No worries, as neutrality will soon be a thing of the past. It would be nice if you might constructively assist with thoughtful suggestions and observations rather than hop up onto your soap box and utter fear-mongering nonsense. The issue isn’t the least bit complex. There will always be editors who will quote (or misquote) any source in a citation.

          This was brought to light because of the case of Aafia Siddiqui. Suppose we have this text: She was charged in the Assistant United States Attorney’s complaint, that she fired an M-4 rifle at officers and employees of the FBI and the U.S. armed services. It is clearly preferable to have a Note [8] to a citation reading Sealed Complaint in U.S. v. Siddiqui, which was written by the Assistant United States Attorney. This way, Wikipedia is citing the most reliable and authoritative source available. It beats the heck out of citing what is supposedly in the actual complaint after it has been liberally filtered by POV-pushers like Rachel Maddow of MSN or conservatively filtered by Rush Limbaugh on his radio talk show. Perhaps you feel the facts on Wikipedia are perfectly well established because we have citations that essentially say, “Because Seveneen magazine said that was the wording in the complaint.” Personally, I much prefer grown-up references for simple matters of fact—you know—the sort of citations one would find in a fine print encyclopedia.

          And quoting another of your doozies: Make sure you also address how we determine who the members of this "Terrorists of world-class infamy" group are. I find that to be still more nonsense. Wikipedia policies work perfectly fine with general principles, such as this, from WP:Notability: The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention by the world at large to support a claim of notability. So I might respond to you with a rhetorical question: “Well, good luck trying to address how we determine what ‘significant attention by the world at large’ means.” To that, I respond, the community gets along perfectly fine when we use WP:COMMONSENSE. Greg L (talk) 16:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

          P.S. Is it OK, Joshua, if I append a superscripted ^{Rabidly neutral, common-sense, and scientific} suffix in my auto-signature? Were you thinking you were going to do a better job influencing middle-ground Wikipedians when you stand up in contemplative debate with a sign hanging around your neck reading “LiberalFascist”?? That is certainly your right to do so. (Seems odd to me, though…) Greg L (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Confused

The issue I'm not following is why the writers of the Aafia Siddiqui article couldn't simply find secondary sources for the material. The article as I understand it was at FAC. That plus BLP means the sources must be high-quality. Some material was sourced to court documents that have almost certainly been discussed by newspapers. One of the reviewers asked to see these newspaper articles. Why could they simply not have been provided, rather than coming here to change the policy? And if there was important material that genuinely hadn't been discussed by any secondary source (which I find unlikely), it may have been material that was problematic in some way. Hence the request for secondary sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 14:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue I’m not following is why, for straightforward matters of fact, like what is actually in the Assistant United States Attorney’s complaint, one would even want to cite from a secondary source. Earth calling WP:COMMONSENSE. (*Echo, echo, echo*) Greg L (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As a tertiary source, Wikipedia relies mostly on secondary sources. It doesn't matter what the primary source is — we assume all sources we use are reliable, or else they would be rejected at the door. The reason we prefer secondary sources is that they add perspective and interpretation: "What does this really mean? Where does it fit in the big picture? Is it important enough to mention?" We may cite any reliable primary source (in principle), but the text we add should be primarily based on the secondary source(s), with the primary source(s) adding details, not pointing in new directions. Crum375 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Because then you're interpreting a primary source yourself. For all you know, that document has since been stricken, invalidated by procedure or by order of a judge. Having a reliable secondary source analyze and report on the primary sources is what Wikipedia does. Primary sources, especially legal documents, require careful analysis in a very wide and oftentimes complicated context which most editors are not qualified to do, generally do not have all the necessary information to do, and wouldn't be allowed to if they could.

You're arguing that it's okay to do original research if they're bad guys. We're trying to explain to you that neutrality demands we make no such distinction, and that any rule that says we can or must is necessarily without effect. That is just not Wikipedia is. — Coren ^(talk) 17:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no adding “perspective and interpretation” in straightforward matters of fact such as what is in the Assistant United States Attorney’s complaint. Problems arise *because* pure facts have added perspective and interpretation introduced by your secondary sources. Why? Because they often have to digest and condense information for the attention-deficit crowd with a remote control in their hands. Why did I have to just write that?? Greg L (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting you, Coren: You're arguing that it's okay to do original research if they're bad guys. Well there’s your problem. You think citing the Assistant United States Attorney’s sealed complaint when stating what it says amounts to “Original Research”. Go read that that means and call me in the morning. Greg L (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:CIV, Greg, your attitude is not productive. And please also read my reply above: even if the words of a primary source are clear, it would only address one of the three reasons for a secondary source. Crum375 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

What is not productive is saying others don't read replys when you also don't read them. Sdruvss (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, it is original research by any significant meaning of the term. "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." [emph. orig.] Extracting meaning from a legal document is a complicated process that requires a great deal of interpretation, analysis and understanding withing a large and fuzzy context (especially in common law systems). Vocabulary and usage may differ subtly (and sometimes radically) from the usual plain English. It requires a great deal of specialized knowledge to do properly, and fragments out of context can be misleading and confusing to the layman. — Coren ^(talk) 17:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not original research. Quoting documents is not 'extracting meaning'. If some other editor judges it violates NPOV or UNDUE he may balance it. Sdruvss (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• “Analytic, synthetic, interpretive.” Uhm… yeah… Suppose we have this text: She was charged in the Assistant United States Attorney’s complaint, that she fired an M-4 rifle at officers and employees of the FBI and the U.S. armed services. It is clearly preferable to have a Note [8] to a citation reading Sealed Complaint in U.S. v. Siddiqui, which was written by the Assistant United States Attorney. This way, Wikipedia is citing the most reliable and authoritative source available. It beats the heck out of citing what is supposedly in the actual complaint after it has been liberally filtered by POV-pushers like Rachel Maddow of MSN or conservatively filtered by Rush Limbaugh on his radio talk show.

  If you had read a darned thing I wrote on this page, I wasn’t proposing relaxing (NPOV), (V) and (NOR) requirements for living figures of world-class infamy. Those requirements won’t be the slightest bit different from that required of any other article on Wikipedia. I am pointing out that such articles are not subject to the extra restrictions of BLP, which exists to ensure the privacy rights of people like Senator Byrd are preserved and we don’t falsely *report that he died*. Living people of world-class infamy (terrorists like Osama bin Laden) have no right to privacy and accordingly, to ensure factual evidence is properly buttressed with an authoritative citation on Wikipedia (and precisely because the issues are emotionally charged), we avoid secondary sources when presenting pure matters of fact, like what is in a CIA transcript.

  I find that your writings, Coren, don’t make sense and you obviously don’t comprehend the issues. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  (ec/2) And you fail to realize that the very act of making the distinction is necessarily pushing a point of view, and that "avoiding secondary source" is exactly what original research means on Wikipedia. Let's use bold to make sure it's obvious what the point is: If every secondary source reports X in a certain way, then so must our articles. Skipping the secondary source to go to the primary because it's "less emotionally charged" or "more true" is exactly what OR is meant to prevent. — Coren ^(talk) 17:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

  • "She was charged in the Assistant United States Attorney’s complaint, that she fired an M-4 rifle at officers and employees of the FBI and the U.S. armed services." is poorly worded, no matter what the citation. As for this discussion, I don't see how anything productive can come of it. Drop the stick and back away slowly seems to apply. Gigs (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
    • “Drop the stick.” Perhaps. Or, since I have little patience for absurdity, start a widely advertised RfC in an entirely different venue to clarify this point. I find that there is an exceedingly small cabal here (such as someone with “LiberalFascist” in his autosignature) that fancies itself as uniquely having the capacity to appreciate the fine nuances of international law, Truth, Justice, Fairness, and The Wikipedian Way©™®, or however it is that this little wp:ownership club sees itself. A few of you think the sun rises and sets here on BLP. It doesn’t; I guarantee that. Methinks some of you are a bit too eager to think that people of world-class infamy (terrorists) are properly covered by BLP, which calls for “sensitivity” and “ensuring privacy”, none of which has jack to do with terrorists. My point is simply that terrorism-related articles are no different from any other article on Wikipedia (NPOV, V, NOR, etc). It is becoming increasingly clear that Wikipedia needs a special [WP:] section to deal specifically with this special class of article precisely because it brings out passionate and often-highly biased Wikipedians. Greg L (talk)^{Rabidly neutral, common-sense, and scientific} 17:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)  ;-)

(before ec) Legal sources are problematic because they require specialized knowledge and skill to interpret. Using an indictment filed by a prosecutor to verify that the facts claimed by the prosecution are true is particularly problematic. Parties in court, prosecutors included, don't assert facts as a service to the reader. They say things either because they think it will win their case, or because they have been forced to by the litigation procedure. For every incriminating claim prosecutors make, there is an argument by the defense that the statement is untrue, or misrepresents things, or is irrelevant, or should be excluded from evidence as a matter of procedure. Anyone who has been involved in litigation knows that one party, and usually both, are lying. The entire process of rules, evidence, argumentation, deliberation, judicial findings, etc., is to determine a set of legally-relevant facts that will resolve the case. We have self-interested parties, lawyer-advocates, and a jury of twelve peers deciding what is and is not the case. The truth and importance of those facts, even within the court system, only applies to the parties and matter at hand. Here,[33] Greg L wishes to use the text of Aafia Siddiqui's recent indictment to a claim prosecutors are making, that police found incriminating literature in her purse, based on the police report. That's exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't do, taking a prosecutor's word for what police are claiming. There are far too many reasons to list why this could be untrue, distorted, insignificant, or irrelevant. If it is truly the case, and it matters, journalists, legal analysts, and eventually historians will note it and we can report it. If no reliable source has said so, either there's a reason why it's unsafe or irrelevant to report this as true, or else it's just not the sort of thing that's gained anyone's attention -- meaning, it's not noteworthy, and it's not Wikipedia's place to take note of things that nobody else thinks are worth saying. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

…untrue, distorted, insignificant, or irrelevant. Nonsense. We’re talking about what is the best source to cite as to what crimes Aafia Siddiqui was charged with. What do you cite(?), why the charges. If one writes that “She was charged by local authorities with possessing a concealed weapon” and there is an indictment paper that says precisely that (“concealed weapon”), then that source is much better than quoting Rachel Maddow, who might say “Aafia Siddiqui had articles in her purse you would find in any woman’s purse.” Or Rush Limbaugh, who might say she was charged with “being in possession of dangerous weapons.” This is obviously hopeless. I have to actually go make a living. Moreover, I find that your imagination appears to run wild here. Greg L (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should have expected an insult, given that others who try to explain things here also get that treatment. I definitely second the "drop the stick" advice. I see you've made many thousands of edits here on Wikipedia over a span of years. Yet some of the additions you were trying to make to that article are, beyond being poorly sourced, just weak writing all the way around. The example above, repeating as true a prosecutor's claim about what police found in Siddiqui's purse, shouldn't be in the second sentence of the lede even if properly sourced. That's not what a lede is for. As someone who does understand legal matters to some degree, I would personally review the source documents, not just the prosecutor's statement but the defense, the proceedings, and the findings and opinion of the court. I would look to reliable news reports, and expert commentary and analysis. I would look up the relevant statutes and case law. And I would never simply quote an indictment as a summary of what happened, not unless I were advocating for a particular side of an argument and thought it fit in. The impression I formed after doing so would be my personal opinion, however strongly felt, and not allowable as article content here because it is original research. You claim you're the one being rational here, but how can you propose such a silly argument that court documents are better than news because Rachel Maddow and Rumbaugh aren't believable. They are unreliable sources too. So what? In a case like this we have well-written pieces from respected legal scholars and impeccable news organizations. If it's worth saying, someone reliable will have said it. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

::::“If it's worth saying, someone reliable will have said it” - not necessarily. What matters is if it is verifiable. Sdruvss (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)