Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Self-published sources as external links

What are editors' views? Are self-published sources acceptable as external links in articles on living persons? I mean here sources not published by the subject(s) themselves, but self-published sources discussing living persons from a critical perspective, or fan pages. --JN466 13:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are not what we desrcibe as self-published sources, but plain unreliable sources. The relevant policy is WP:ELNO, points 10 and 11. Large fan fora may sometimes be acceptable (e.g. Leaky Cauldron for JK Rowling), but in general should be avoided: there is no reason to link to the opinion of one or two people, certainly not when it is about living people. Fram (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources aren't allowed in BLPs, including not as external links, unless written or published by the subject, and even then with some caution because of the danger of linking to BLP violations. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, the present wording of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources is, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[4] See below for our policy on self-published images." There is no reference to their use as external links. Is this something we should address? --JN466 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My memory is that the EL issue used to be much clearer in this policy, but somehow got watered down. I've tweaked the EL section to make it clearer, I hope. It now says (diff):

External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.

Where we say "see above," it links to the "Avoid self-published sources" section, which explains when they're allowed. Does that work? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim, sounds good to me. --JN466 15:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that it wasn't clear. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work.Momento (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Images of signatures.

While these images may be okay for people as notable as the president of the USA, or the queen of England, surely they shouldn't be on the BLPs of minor politicians? A good criteria would be that if it's featured in a non-primary, verifiable, reliable, published, 3rd party source - it can go into the BLP. I suggest we specifically add this to wp:blp#Misuse of primary sources or wp:blp#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources.

See also Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons and previous discussion.-- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-07t07:37z, -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-07t09:57z

Comment - Some peoples' signatures are used on public legislation, renowned documents, or are of historical note. Most peoples' are not. If the signature has note in its own right then sure. But for most people it's closer to "non public information". The fact X is a member of some legislative body or that Y's signature is available publicly, does not mean we need to have it on their article any more than their home address or phone number (which is usually similarly public). Not convinced that "use in a 3rd party source" should be the sole criterion - will think about this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just add a single sentence to the policy allowing editors to "generally" remove signatures at the request of the subject. Done. Anything else in the public domain is fair game. Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe just amend: "Wikipedia includes full names, dates of birth, and (where noteworthy | for historical figures) signatures where these have been widely published by reliable sources and..." ? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Requiring opt outs puts us in the same camp as spammers. This will mostly affect people who aren't notable enough for any other encyclopedia, but is for Wikipedia - they shouldn't have to jump thru hoops. See also Commons discussion. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-07t14:11z

"Other encyclopedias don't do X" doesn't work for me as a rationale. I'm not sure an opt-out is required, it's more that most signatures just don't have much value from an encyclopedic viewpoint. Like home address or many other things - verifiable but not needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable people who edit Wikipedia: 2 essays

When notable people edit Wikipedia, to add detail or fix errors in articles on themselves or their work, they often do so in unawareness of our rules, and the end result is a lot of upset to them and others. Whenever situations like this aren't resolved amicably, it potentially leads to bad press for the project.

To help mitigate the problem, I've written a pair of essays, one addressed to Wikipedians, and one addressed to notable people coming here to edit Wikipedia articles related to them. They are

• WP:Hazing (WP:HAZING, WP:HAZ)
• WP:Notable person survival kit (WP:SURVIVALKIT, WP:NPSK)

Please link to them in cases where you feel they might be helpful, and feel free to improve them or leave feedback on their talk pages. --JN466 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool essays, thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Survival kit - nicely styled, but put some subheadings in the "Good things to do" section, it's too much like a "wall of text" right now.

Hazing - not so sure I like it. I've never seen anyone taking a "chance to show them how insignificant they really are compared to us" or "giv[ing] them a hazing just because you can". So these speak to matters that most people will feel don't apply to them. Plus, "hazing" usually implies a ritualized rite of entry which is the wrong term here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with FT2, "Hazing" doesn't work as a title, I think something similar to Please do not bite the newcomers would be better, the message after all is very similar, "Don't give celebs a hard time just because they are notable", the essay could probably also include some of the points in WP:BITE or at least refer to it. Roger (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. There's a ref to WP:BITE in the "See also" section, and I've added a link to it in the text as well. I've also inserted some subheaders in the survival kit.

Let me think about "haze" a little longer. The definitions Webster's gives for it are 1 a : to harass by exacting unnecessary or disagreeable work 1 b : to harass by banter, ridicule or criticism 2 : to haze by way of initiation.

I still think it may fit; the treatment notable people have received here has sometimes seemed quite heavy-handed to me. The fact that they are notable people creates a temptation to pull them down a notch. --JN466 18:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it? I've not seen that. I know it can be hard to find examples in retrospect, but can you think of any cases where someone finding they had an article was given an unreasonable hard time apparently because they were a celebrity rather than on an exact equal footing to other non-celebrity cases? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:DOLT describes a typical scenario. You might argue that what is described there is insensitivity rather than malice, but to the person at the receiving end of it, they're indistinguishable. :) I'll see if I can come up with something more specific; it'll require a bit of research. --JN466 01:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Another editor just reminded me of this ongoing situation, for example. While I don't know exactly when and how it started, and the subject bears some of the responsibility for the acrimonious nature of the dispute, it is a rather undignified dispute for an encyclopedia to have. --JN466 13:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The page actively suggests Wikipedians may engage in "roughing up" BLP subjects because they are celebrities and cautions they should not do so. The point is this page asserts a claim that I can't find any evidence for. Even in the cases stated (WP:DOLT, insensitivitiy, recent ANI) there is zero evidence of bad faith or negative activity on that basis and to write an essay as if there is... it's a bit as if someone were to go write an essay tomorrow that chastised Wikipedians for accusing politicians of spousal abuse in their biographies "just because they are politicians" and explaining we really shouldn't pick on politicians. I don't think this essay stands. WP:BITE says it all. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The essay argues that we should approach notable people who come here to edit, to add detail or fix errors, with humanity and sensitivity, bearing in mind that their Wikipedia entry is likely to be the top google result for their name, having a real and lasting effect on their lives, while most of us are shielded by a cloak of anonymity. Quoting Wikipedia rules at people in that vulnerable position, rules which we are familiar with and they are not, is a subtle abuse of power. It is not the same as throwing the book at an anonymous newbie who does not have a Wikipedia article. Deletion discussions like [1][2][3] may cause significant emotional distress to our subjects, and harm the project. I stand by what the essay is trying to say; it is only an essay, after all.

However, I'll continue revising it and will think about the points you made. The phrasing "Of course, this is our chance to show them how insignificant they really are compared to us, right?" was actually meant to be tongue-in-cheek; I appreciate it may not come across as such. I've reworded it to "Of course, this is our chance to throw the book at them, right?" I'll think about the title too. If you have suggestions, I am open to that. --JN466 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd add something to your survival kit that says how someone can submit photos of themselves for use in an article about them, specifically that such photos are generally welcome, they must be released with a license we can use and can be low resolution version of publicity photos if they prefer not to release a full resolution version under an open license. --agr (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. --JN466 01:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

MPs' scandals covered up on Wikipedia (UK Telegraph)

(MP refers to Members of Parliament)

“ Now there are suggestions that some have tried to rewrite history by deleting mentions of their career low-points from Wikipedia, the user-edited online encyclopedia.

An investigation has uncovered dozens of cases where MPs' biographical pages on Wikipedia were altered to remove details of past humiliations which had been added by members of the public.

Embarrassments which have been deleted include an MP who employed a male escort, an MP who lost his front bench job in a row over racist language, and a female MP whose ex-husband was arrested and deported.

On every occasion, the change was made either by someone working within the parliamentary estate or by a user who appeared to have links to the MP.

”

Obviously, there are on-going editing disputes in the individual articles talk pages in which I have not participated, but I raise this here because of its prominence globally and because I think in the normal process of editing WP:BLP and WP:COI would be handled routinely, and here it seems to have failed. patsw (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing the articles in question, it is almost impossible to comment on. But if the information is negative, then it needs to be sourced or removed. Ideally people might look to see if it sourced, but if it looks like it is just a negative comment, I could see people removing that type of stuff as a BLP violation. The key is, was there a reliable source for the material.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, it was sourced, most of it coming straight from the expenses documentation. The article implies in some cases, and does slightly more than imply in others, that the edits came from the MPs or their parties. It wouldn't be too hard to just go through and check some of these, but I would be surprised if most hadn't already been fixed. Indeed, the article specifically says editors have been reverted and warned already. -Rrius (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph article does list all the various articles involved. I think we should have a look at these articles to see which deletions were BLP violations, which of the deleted controversies and embarrassments were so notable that they should be in a politician's BLP, and so on. --JN466 16:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement for an embarrassment to be notable to appear in an article. patsw (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Very true. I was involved with one article in this topic area, Malcolm Rifkind (though it was not mentioned in the Telegraph article). Although MR had a very minor brush with the expenses controversy, an editor - SteamedTreacle (talk · contribs) - was seeking to make a big splash of it in the article [4]. Other editors agree on the talk page that this was grossly undue weight on what was essentially a non-issue.[5] Clearly, expenses were a significant issue for many MPs, but we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that every removal of expenses-related info from MPs' biogs was improper - at least in the case I was involved in, there was a good reason for doing so. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should point the finger at that editor re the Malcolm Rifkind article, which currently has not a word on expenses, when that editor was tangling with 194.60.38.198, an IP address assigned to "parliament.uk", in other words the very thing the Telegraph wanted to apply some transparency to. Both this Bloomberg wire story and this Daily Mail story feature Rifkind's photograph, such was his prominence in their stories, and you people have evidently backed up that editor inside the Parliament to suppress these reliably sourced stories totally such that there is now not the slightest hint of any expenses issue in Wiki's Rifkind article. This when the Scotland Herald suggests this politician's expenses over the years might have created such an issue as to push him to resignation: "... the sitting MP announced he would stand down at the next general election after allegations over his parliamentary expenses claims." On top of this, this case which you hold up to be the model, featured an editor you evidently agreed with saying that the whole discussion "should now be removed from this talk page"! Such is the commitment to transparency, that the issue is not just purged from the article, but it is supposed to be purged from the Talk page as well, apparently so that other editors (like myself) can't re-open the issue unless we come to the article with advance knowledge from other sources that there was ever a dispute. Not that I can really point the finger at the editor, given that concepts like "courtesy blanking", which is arguably just spin on the simpler concept of "cover up", have been thrown around at the highest levels of Wikipedia.Bdell555 (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, re-read the story you're citing. The story is from 2003 - six years before the expenses scandal - and the sitting MP it refers to is not Rifkind but Michael Trend, the then MP for Windsor (UK Parliament constituency), who had his own expenses scandal in 2003. Please take more care with your sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll grant that but I will not grant that I am citing "the story" because I am citing three, not one (and one could add another one if one included the Evening Standard's reference to Rifkind's expenses last November, and yet one more if one notes that the Sun thought these expenses worth at least passing mention). I can only marvel at the irony of you calling attention to the Michael Trend article, because all references to expenses in that article have been deleted! Now what was your argument again? That we should downplay concerns that articles about these politicians are being whitewashed? This is not the first time the Telegraph has called attention to the chicanery going on on Wikipedia and that the BLP crowd seems to instinctively defend.Bdell555 (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The deletion of expenses from the Michael Trend article is indeed odd. I can't justify it, given that it was a major issue in the MP's career, with widespread coverage and lasting effects. But please do note that it is the polar opposite of what happened with Rifkind, where it was mentioned in passing by a handful of sources over a couple of days, with no findings of wrongdoing and no persistent consequences. That is where the WP:UNDUE calculus comes in. If an event has a significant and major impact on a person's life or career then it's worth mentioning; if not, then probably not. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Rrius, when you say "straight from the expenses documentation", do you mean a primary source? Because that would be a BLP violation -- we shouldn't access court records etc. directly, unless they have been discussed in secondary sources. (Otherwise we are doing investigative journalism, rather than encyclopedia writing.) --JN466 09:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is unlikely that primary sources were used in any of the cases related to expenses. The expenses primary source data was leaked to the Telegraph, which then analysed and published a series of stories over many weeks. The Telegraph had a near monopoly on the expenses story, so few if any Wikipedia editors would have access to primary source data not published by a secondary source. Road Wizard (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the Telegraph did publish some of the primary source data on its website, if I remember correctly. That may be what Rrius refers to. A redacted version was certainly published by the Parliamentary authorities some time later. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness the media in general does not have a WP:BLP policy, or the electorate would never be properly informed. You would think this story would get some people to question whether Wikipedia should continue to serve the interests of incumbent politicians against unknown challengers by allowing the bios which exist for the more well known incumbents to be tilted with the WP:BLP policy, but given the excuses being provided here for deleting the scandals that Fleet Street found noteworthy, I see this bias is likely to continue.Bdell555 (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The story on Nigel Waterson seems a clear breach of BLP. No context and no charges brought. Not a notable encyclopedic incident. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Only two sentences in that article are cited to reliable sources and those two are the two you want deleted? Why don't we just turn the articles over to the political staff of these MPs for them to write? According to the Telegraph, in a number of cases that is basically what is happening on Wikipedia already so why not just call it what it is.Bdell555 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

List articles according to religion or sexuality

We've come across an interesting conundrum at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#People_sometimes_described_as_Scientologists_who_deny_they_are_Scientologists. In the specific case being discussed at the noticeboard, it's about a list of people according to religious affiliation. WP:BLPCAT says self-identification should be the primary criterion in categorisation according to religious affiliation or sexual preference (without commenting on list articles), and WP:NPOV says we should reflect reliable sources. That creates a problem where living people have been described in reliable sources as belonging to a particular category, while they themselves say they do not belong to that category. As I see it, we have two options:

• We could argue that WP:BLPCAT should be extended to list articles, so people should only be included if they self-identify as Scientologist, gay, Christian, Jewish, bisexual etc.
• We could argue that per WP:NPOV, we should simply follow reliable sources; so if a reliable source describes someone as a Scientologist, or gay, etc., that satisfies the inclusion criterion for the corresponding list article, and balance can be restored by representing the individual's self-identification along with the characterisation in reliable sources (described as "X" in RS1, says he is not "X" in RS2).

Any BLP specialists who want to chip in at the noticeboard discussions would be welcome, but is this something we should also address in the policy? --JN466 04:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If we follow self-identification, we should also honor self-disassociation. I don't think that "reliable" sources should trump what a subject directly states in matters of religion or sexuality. As we all know, even the most reliable sources are sometimes wrong. Yworo (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. If a heterosexual person says, "I had a homosexual experience when I was at school, but I am not bisexual", then they shouldn't be listed in List of bisexual people, for example. For that matter, if all they say is, "I had a homosexual experience when I was at school", they shouldn't, on the strength of that statement alone, be listed in List of bisexual people, either. Similarly, if someone says, "I did a Scientology course once, but I never became a member", they arguably should not be listed in List of Scientologists. But it's a tricky question, as I pointed out over at BLPN, and I'd welcome further input. --JN466 16:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Coming from BLPN I agree we should follow BLPCAT here when it comes to lists. However mentioning any relevant widely discussed and well sourced disputes may be okay in the article Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we should handle religious affiliation and sexual preference the same here? For example, if there have been allegations that a person is gay, or bisexual, and the person has denied it, should that person be listed in articles like List of bisexual people and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and the controversy discussed there in detail? --JN466 00:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, that's the nub of the issue. If there are several sources categorizing in terms of sexuality/religion/political affiliation/race/etc, but the person has denied it (again, from a good source), does WP represent both sides of the debate, giving weight to the various opinions? In my experience, usually no: if this or that celebrity is reported reliably as stating "I am not gay," for example, their article doesn't include a section preserving a debate about it. Why should affiliation with a cult/religion/group (whatever, I don't have a view) be treated differently?KD Tries Again (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

but a list does not appear on that persons page, and the self identification clause comes with a very very specific qualifier that it is only used in categories because "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers". Lists however do carry disclaimers and modifiers...and in the case of list of scientologists quite a lot of information about what the sources say. Catagories in WP:BLP refers to actual categories, not categorizations like scientologist, Jaden's above statement is awkwardly worded in this case.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Check out the very first sentence of [[6]] WP:BLP. The policy covers information about living persons added to "any Wikipedia page," as it obviously must. To take an easy example, speculation about the sexuality of living persons can't evade the policy by being moved from the persons' individual pages and added to a "list."KD Tries Again (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

(outdent) I know that the BLP policy extends to any page, what I am saying is that WP:BLPCAT is a policy specifically for categories because when a person is placed in a category that title appears on their page without further elaboration. this is the reason why categories use self decoration as the standard rather than WP:V which is the standard for WP:BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A fair point, but it then seems that List articles, which indeed aren't covered by WP:BLPCAT do need policy consideration. You will argue that List articles can include disclaimers and modifiers, so there is no problem. I don't agree: for one thing, WP:BLPCAT says that Category names do not include disclaimers and modifiers; neither, necessarily, do List names. [List of Scientologists] - no disclaimer or modifier there. If there are modifiers in the article? Well, if we're going to say that someone who has specifically denied being gay/a Mormon/whatever, can nevertheless be listed by Wikipedia as such if a source can be found, that seems to be a big change in the approach to BLPs, and one which should only be made by community consensus.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

well categories are strictly a name with no additional information which appears on the person's page, which is why they need greater consideration. Lists, when done right (and I know that there are many lists out there that need some major readjustments in this area) have an area of explanation in the lead as well as within the list (as we see in the scientology list). more explanation occurs after the name when it comes to the sources and what they contain. so a reader would have to be really reallllllly dense to just observe a name on the list and ignore the rest of the information. more importantly their name on that list would only come up for people interested in the list itself, it doesn't appear anywhere else that they are on that list (so the audience actually has to read the article to get to the name) so there is a lot more needed to get to the persons name than just reading the title of the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the information in the cases under discussion is the individual denying on the record that he or she belongs in that list or in that category. You won't, I think, find the statement that X is described as gay in X's main article once X has categorically denied it, no matter whether the allegation can be sourced here and there. Should the statement then appear in a list featuring X, protected by some sort of disclaimer? Would WP host a list of celebrities "described as gay"? There's a muddy area here, and it's not just about scientology.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I guess it depends on how notable the controversy is. Let's assume the New York Times asserts its belief that governor X is gay, or bisexual—because he is alleged to have had sex with rent boys (see Telegraph article linked in the previous talk page section), or was seen exiting a gay porn cinema or whatever—and there is a controversy about it, because governor X has always been an outspoken opponent of gay rights. X subsequently makes a statement in which he denies being homosexual, and says that he is considering suing the New York Times for libel. All the major papers report the case. In this case, because the controversy is notable, it will likely end up being mentioned in governor X's biography here. On the other hand, we probably should not list governor X in our "List of gay/bisexual politicians" unless and until he himself describes himself as gay, or bisexual, just as we should not apply the gay or bisexual category. --JN466 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. Take Kevin Spacey. His bio page records media speculation about his sexuality, and his own response. But he doesn't then get included on the [List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people], albeit with a disclaimer. I think it would be consistent with Coffeepusher's position to include him, but I think that's a change of policy (in spirit, if not in letter, as there isn't explicit policy re List articles) and requires community consensus.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

We are in full agreement then. Should we draft something to address eligibility criteria for list articles based on religious affiliation and sexual preference? --JN466 09:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest amending the language in WP:BLPCAT for this purpose. A very rough draft:

"The case for inclusion in a List article must be made clear by the main article text and its reliable sources. Lists grouping individuals by religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with inclusion in Lists that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, List of Criminals [I made that up] and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."

KD Tries Again (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

You all are talking about putting this in the list guidelines right? Gigs (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of incorporating a reference to list articles in WP:BLPCAT. The current wording is:

---

Categories (current wording)

See also: Wikipedia:Categorization of people

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

---

Here is another proposal for how we could amend it:

---

Categories (proposed wording)

See also: Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. These principles apply equally to the creation of lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, as well as lists and navigation templates which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation.

---

What are editors' views? --JN466 23:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• Simpler wording, try something like this:

Contentious and sensitive categories - Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so contentious categories or categories not directly relevant to the subject should not be applied unless verifiable from very reliable sources, appropriate for BLPs (if applicable), and does not give undue weight. At a minimum the matter must always be sufficiently relevant to merit adding the category and broadly agreed by reliable sources. It is usually not enough that it is true, it must also be relevant or significant in the context of the subject's biography or article.

For very personal matters such as religion, ethnicity, and sexuality the subject should have self-identified, or the matter widely agreed by reliable sources and significant in their biography. For implied criminality, the matter must be significant to their biography and the crime actually convicted and not (yet) overturned. For other matters that tend to be seen negatively (affairs, scandals), the matter must be significant to the biography and well attested in reliable sources. (See false light)

These principles apply equally to lists and navigation templates based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included have a poor reputation.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the grammar in some of the above sentences. :) That wording would also change current categorisation practice, by removing the requirement for self-identification. There have been many sources, for example, stating that Kevin Spacey is gay; even a government source: [7]. (They apologised a year later, and removed him from the list.)

As we seem to be agreed that lists and navigation templates should be governed by the same principles as categories, I propose that we add the final sentence stating so, which in your version is more or less the same as in mine. We can then look at whether BLPCAT requires other changes, but there seems to be agreement that categories, lists and navigation templates are different versions of the same thing, and that the same BLP considerations apply. --JN466 16:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sentence added, subheader adapted: [8]. --JN466 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this is what I was thinking, just adding another sentence that says "and the same goes for lists". Looks good to me. Gigs (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Self-identification is a bright line which it would be a pity to lose. The discussion here really came out of examples where individuals specifically denied a categorization but editors suggested giving equal weight to sources affirming it. I think consistency between categories and lists reflects the spirit of BLP policy.173.2.230.224 (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Suggestion regarding the Biography of Living persons statement on article talk pages

I would like to recommend a change to the way we identify articles as biographies of living persons. Currently we have a parameter in the Wikiproject biography banner and in the wikiprojectshell template (and possibly others) to identify an article as being about a living person. I would like to recommend that this logic be placed in the Talk page header vice these 2 templates, for several reasons.

1. Currently the logic for the BLP statement is built into at least 2 differnt places; the WP Biography banner template and the Wikibannershell template. From a policy standpoint, neither in my opinion, is the right place to put a "Corporate Wikimedia" policy regarding something as contentious as blp (no offense WP BIO). Having this blp statement under bio implies some ownership of the blp statement by that project, which they do not have. Same applies to the WPBannershell. As I understand it, the "blp policy" is/was established and owned by the Wikimedia foundation as a way to deal with problems related to blp violations. The Talk page header is a more WP generic template and in my opinion offers a more WP Corporate ownership of the BLP policy to the general population.
2. The talk page header offers links and guidance on conduct and policy regarding behavior on article talk pages. Something that in my opinion is extremely important to blp articles arguably above all others. Adding the BLP statement to that template seems inline with its purpose.
3. Currently logic must be maintained in at least 2 separate locations, the WP Project banner and the WP wikiproject shell template to display the blp banner. By adding the logic to the talk page header the logic would only need to be maintained in 1 place vice 2 or more. Reducing/simplifying the logic and maintenance for the other 2 or more templates.
4. Current policy states that the Talk header should be given top billing on the articles talk page. Another policy states that the blp statement should be on the top. In order for the blp statement to display on the top, the talk header must be moved down, causing a conflict in our own policy. Adding the logic to the talk page header would eliminate the differing rules we have in place and would force the blp statement to be on the top of the page (assuming the talk header is at the top which in most cases it is).
5. The verbiage in the talk page header is such that it disrupts the flow of the talk page heading when banners are on top of the talk page header. Adding the blp statement to the talk page header will allow a more appropriate flow than currently exists by allowing the talk header template to remain on the top. --Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Makes some sense but not all talk pages have talk headers. –xeno^talk 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Your right but it should be relatively easy for a bot to plant it if it doesnt already have it in a blp article. --Kumioko (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• According to Jarry1250's Toolserver Tools there are 145,228 transclusions of {{talk header}} but 481,012 transclusions of {{BLP}} (note the numbers gap is even bigger than implied there as the header is used on non-BLP pages too). The only way your proposal will work is if the header becomes mandatory on all BLP articles, which is a major shift from the current position. In answer to point 5, I don't see how incorporating BLP will fix the problem; the point of the BLP template is that it is visibly separate to other banners, so the "flow" will be the same even if the code is combined. Road Wizard (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that count, thats an excellent point and your right it would be a major shift, but we have "shifted" before so at least the precedent has been set. As for the flow comment what I meant was that the flow should look something like BLP banner, talk page, then probably WP Biography banner (I think this should be top billing for banners on blp's but thats somewhat of a minor thing), then other banners or talk page templates as appropriate. Instead of the current way which is BLP banner, WP Bio, then talk page (so the template that would provide the introduction/help to newbys has know been buried in the banners, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

    One possible way around the problem without changing current practice too much would be to have a new template with calls to both {{talk header}} and {{BLP}}. Transclusions of either template could then be activated or deactivated as needed for each page (e.g. {{new-header|blp=yes|talkheader=yes}}). Road Wizard (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)