Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Blogs

Hi 4.250, your recent edit seems to contradict some of the stuff that follows, and WP:RS and WP:V, which says we may use questionable sources (for the want of a better word) as primary sources, but not secondary sources. You wrote: "They should never be used as primary sources: as sources of information about their authors. If the information can be verified by another source, use that other source as a more unbiased source of information. People lie and make mistakes."

Did you mean "never"? I was going to add a section about when it would be acceptable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I think KISS applies here. "Don't use questionable sources" is a good and proper GUIDELINE. Distinguishing between primary, secondary, and so on is simply not necessary. Going into detail on EXACTLY when the GUIDELINE can safely be violated simply feeds into the over wiki lawyering we already have too much of. We want 17 year olds to understand this stuff, not just old hands. I do mean "never", as in if you aren't sure enough to violate a guideline to do it, just don't do it. WAS 4.250 02:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Using an example that crops up regularly: do we call Stormfront "white supremacists" (which is how most people see them) or "white nationalists," which is how they see themselves? Most sources call them the former, so we do that too. However, we often also add that they seem themselves as nationalists, using Stormfront as a source. Under your edit, we would not be allowed to do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure you could. This is a guideline, not a law to be administered by anal-retentives with guns. I think you're forgetting the part where this is supposed to be fun. See quote on my user page, if you don't know what I'm talking about. WAS 4.250 02:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Thinking out loud again, and just using this as an example: Nick Cohen, well known British journalist, is often regarded as a Jew in part because of his name, and in part because he has controversially supported the war in Iraq, and is accused of doing so because of his Jewish background. However, he says he isn't Jewish, although he has some distant Jewish ancestry. If he were to publish this in his biography on his blog, [1] which has become quite a well-known blog in certain circles, and supposing it was not published anywhere else, should we be allowed to say, in your view: "According to Cohen, writing on his weblog, his Jewish ancestry is distant"? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If the data is ONLY on his blog, how is it "notable"? Suppose he lies or makes a mistake on his blog. "We are not a nrewpaper" We don't DO fact checking. Sounds like someone doing original research anyway. WAS 4.250 02:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the qualification that personal websites may sometimes be used, and I've listed the circumstances, but I don't know whether I've made it too complicated. I have a tendency to be wordy. On the other hand, I've been involved in editing a lot of biographies so I'm familiar with the issues that tend to come up, and I know what loopholes need to be closed.

This is a GUIDELINE. Loopholes don't exist if we Keep It Simple and just say "No". WAS 4.250 02:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The thing I'm trying to avoid is this: some blogs are currently allowed as sources according to WP:V and WP:RS — for example, a blog written by a professional historian could be used as a source of information about that person's field of expertise, although with caution because of the usual no-peer-review concern. But we could say "Professor Smith has argued that George Bush's analysis of the WMD situation in Iraq is self-serving" and we could link to Professor Smith's blog, so long as Professor Smith is a recognized expert on the WMD situation in Iraq. If we are allowed to do this, it strikes me as obtuse that we would never allow Professor Smith's blog to be used as a source on Professor Smith himself in his Wikipedia biography — saying, for example, "I am a Libran". I've therefore tried to list a set of circumstances in which it would be okay to use a weblog, and they are very limited (boiling down to: when it does no harm, and when no one objects). What do you think? If you think they should never be used, I'm prepared to be persuaded, but we need to think through the implications. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

We can say: Don't use questionable sources. Find a source that verifies the data and use it. See WP:V and WP:RS for possible exceptions. WAS 4.250 02:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying "this blog says x" is different from saying "x is true (Source - blog)" further, there are blogs and there are blogs. I trust the people at slashdot to uncover the nitty gritty inside software code or to provide links to sources. some blogs have demonstated their value in some area of expertise. Hey, maybe we could say somthing about "area of expertise" being an exception? Nah, let's Keep It Simple. Just say "No" and refer them to WP:V and WP:RS for posible exceptions. WAS 4.250 02:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying about keeping it simple. My concern is that in saying no here, and referring people to WP:V, we're simply transferring the problem elsewhere. At some point, we need to pin down when blogs may and may not be used. It's becoming more and more of an issue, as lots of people are setting them up and are sometimes using them as alternative places to publish (e.g. academics and journalists are doing this). So the distinction between credible, third-party sources and non-credible self-published sources is starting to blur a little.

I'd like to leave this version up for a day or so at least, and ask other people to comment: for example, people who edit WP:NOR and WP:V a lot, people on the mailing list, members of the arbcom (who have ruled a couple of times recently about biographies) and editors who have Wikipedia entries and who've been on the painful end of trying to make sure their entries aren't full of nonsense. Would that be all right with you? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem at all. I like planting seeds and watching others water them. I do question dealing with blogs on a guideline dealing specifically about "articles about living persons". We SHOULD refer them elsewhere for detailed instructions about blogs if detailed instructions about blogs are to be provided. But I won't touch it for a while as per your request. I excell at NOT doing stuff ;) WAS 4.250 02:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Other issues

Well done - these look good. However, some suggestions

• We need a section to cover where a book by an author such as Kitty Kelly makes claims or a claim that is not supported in other books by more reputable authors.

• We need a section regarding claims made about other people that are not the subjects of the article and the need to be fair to them.

• Finally, we need a section stating that biographies should aim to inform not titillate. We should also make sure our biographies where possible are appropriate for readers of all ages. Some biographies by necessity will contain adult information ie Linda Lovelace but we should make sure that the information is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Capitalistroadster 04:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

NO censorship. NO "think of the children". Information for FREE people, by FREE people. WAS 4.250 05:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV is policy, and non-crap writing is needed. I shudder to think of the misapplication of this policy by e.g. fans of pop stars. Our pop star articles read like hagiographies already - David Gerard 18:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Privacy issues

I think this page should include guidelines related to invasion of privacy issues. Many WP articles are about people who are (it seems) notable enough to warrant a WP article, but who nevertheless are (or consider themselves to be) non-public persons. I think WP policy should reflect deference to the privacy interests of such persons. --FRS 06:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree absolutely and totally ... and I have not the slightest idea on how to even BEGIN with dealing with this. In twenty years, will everything about everybody be known to anyone who cares enough (to search or pay X dollars)??? This is far far wider than Wikipedia. We must CARE. But the ratchet moves onward. WAS 4.250 06:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. How about Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons_deserve_special_sensitivity#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy? I've also created a shortcut for the page, which is WP:LIVING to make it easier to find, and this page is WP talk:LIVING. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Another point, taking into consideration the example presented about unfounded allegations that someone might have "touched" a child inappropriately, is that there would necessarily be more than simply the subject of the article involved. It would be absolutely paramount that no information could be included which might lead to the identification of any child alleged to be involved in anything like this. I'm tempted to say "particularly if it turns out to be a malicious hoax" but in actual fact it would be damaging to any such child no matter what the circumstances. This would obviously apply to other third parties, even those viewed as less vulnerable: this could so easily turn into a tool to cause maximal collateral damage. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Long Overdue

And well done to all involved in writing this. This needs to be policy. Agnte 10:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV needs a lot more prominence here

As it reads, this is far too easy to take as advocacy for Sympathetic Point Of View. Which is NOT NPOV, and is frequently in conflict with it. - David Gerard 12:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You could look at it from this point of view:

• in other articles we would be "neutral" in that all information might be included, but with hefty citation of sources to establish whether a given "fact" might be trustworthy;
• in this kind of article we would be "neutral" in that we include only "facts" which can be established as trustworthy.

In other words, we err on the side of caution whilst remaining neutral. If this means that Wikipedians have to take extra care and expend extra effort on this type of article, then this is likely to prove A Good Thing ®. HTH (heck, hope it makes sense :-) HAND Phil | Talk 14:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've edited or commented out some of the more blatant SPOV in this proposal - David Gerard 15:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No argument as far as the subject of any given article goes. I'm merely trying to point out that collateral damage should be avoided: we should not be including third-party names—which might cause real damage—without exceptional justification. In the theoretical example of the person maliciously accused of behaving inappropriately with a child, the fact of the accusation might be necessarily included to preserve NPOV: the name or any other details of the child should almost certainly not be. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 16:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

No "think of the children" arguments, if you please. What are the nonchildren? Chopped liver? What about the mentally handicapped? the physically handicaped? the poor? the elderly? the innocent? Error on the side of caution. Do no evil. We don't need to single out children as a special category. We are ALL special. WAS 4.250 21:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Should go further

IMHO, this policy should go further towards placating potentially injured parties, even if that involves a minor violation of NPOV. We really, really don't want to be sued. If an allegation of sexual misconduct is published in one newspaper, and cited in WP, and turns out to be wrong, it's really not good. On the other hand, a widely reported allegation that has undergone due investigation (eg, Lewinsky) is obviously fair game. Perhaps we should require two independent sources for libellous claims? In any case, unless the allegation is really important to the person (as it clearly is with Clinton/Lewinsky), does it really matter? Does WP really lose much if an article about an astronomer is all about his work, discoveries etc, and fails to mention the credible but unproven allegation that he inappropriately touched a student once? Unless it had consequences for his work ("Smith was forced to resign from Uni of Zarba following unproven allegations of sexual misconduct"), what is the relevance?

Publishing anything defamatory without rock-solid proof (in the form of very credible sources) is little more than rumour mongering, and I don't think we should do it. Stevage 15:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

If you want to try to vote out NPOV, that'd be a Board matter - David Gerard 15:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard: I fail to see anything in Stevage's remarks above that comes close to a suggestion of trying "to vote out NPOV." Did you mean to post your comment somewhere else or am I missing something? --FRS

"even if that involves a minor violation of NPOV" - you'd think it was a minor procedural matter rather than (say) the very first policy of the site. - David Gerard 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I take your point, and would not myself endorse the first sentence of Stevage's post. OTOH, I find nothing violative of NPOV policy, or overly SPOV to the living subjects of WP articles, in telling editors to be extremely careful about materials that are arguably defamatory or an invasion of privacy. The defamatory part of the equation can be dealt with by rigorous application of existing policies regarding reliable sources, citations, etc. Sensitivity to privacy issues is more of a judgement call, and is not well addressed by other WP policies, imo. --FRS 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it comes down to, is a rock solid belief in NPOV worth fighting a legal battle over? Members of my family have been involved in an ultimately (after 7 years) successful legal battle. They were in the right - but the cost of the thing was horrendous. So I'm just saying, we may end up "publishing" information which is technically not libel - but the closer we sail to the wind, the more likely someone is to get sued, and that will suck for everyone. Stevage 17:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This page isn't going to decide that NPOV goes, and has no business even slightly implying that it does - David Gerard 18:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Then it should be reduced to the statement: "For biographies of living people, all potentially libellous or defamatory statements not sourced to highly credible verifiable sources should be removed immediately."Stevage 19:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That's why weasel words were invented: so writers could disclaim liability, pretend "neutrality", and publish potentially defamatory text about what would otherwise be a prisitine and glowing reputation of a notable personage. Hence, "rumoured to be...", "questionable dealings", "alleged wrongdoing" etc. nobs 19:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much. Start with that (i.e., the Clear Guideline to apply: "Be very hardarsed with references in living persons' bios"), then explain why. Then the guideline is the right way around. An editorial guideline should not have a preamble - David Gerard 00:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Parties in legal cases

Good work. Need to add policy that prevents people involved in a legal case from editing articles related to people in the legal dispute. There is documented bias in these cases.

People have the right to sue each other, but they have no right to edit Wikipedia.--FloNight 12:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This thing is about three times usable length

In its attempt at providing guidelines for all eventualities, it's too long to read and just enough to intimidate. Needs a severe tightening - David Gerard 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's also backwards - it starts with a background, and ends with the "and therefore" bits. Great for an essay, wrong for guidelines. It should start with the "don't do this, that or the other", and possibly have a paragraph or two of background/justification. Stevage 17:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I've asked Snowspinner to have a hack at it - he's currently trying to make the MOS into something a human might read, which it most assuredly is not right now - David Gerard 18:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that it's too long. If you leave out material, you introduce loopholes and confusion. As it stands, it's fairly comprehensive (though there are suggestions above for more sections), and the sections make it easy to get through. Policy pages are generally used as reference works anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

All the blog stuff can go into a seperate guideline proposal for blogs. WAS 4.250 21:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Then it won't be something for people to read and take in, but as something to whack them with later. That's the problem with the MOS - the only people actually using it are (1) those writing it (2) the querulous. This proposal is too long to read, take in and apply simply.

Suggested rewrite: Start with "Be very hardarsed with references in living persons' bios" (the Clear Applicable Guideline in a sentence), then explain why. Then the guideline is the right way around. An editorial guideline should not have a preamble - David Gerard 00:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and please change the title to "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" - the title itself advocates Sympathetic Point Of View. Actually, I think that's my main problem with this guideline - David Gerard 00:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've moved it. Hope that's okay with everyone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree. Even if it made my trying to edit this talk page go through some interesting glitches. :) Stevage 00:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Though I find "persons" excessively formal. Is there at least a redirect in place?

A move automatically creates a redirect at the old title, but moves the history - David Gerard 00:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you :-) I've posted my suggestions to wikien-l as well. I'll calm down now, promise ;-) - David Gerard 00:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

slime-mold beetle

Perhaps the long contentious Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are now species of slime-mold beetles may be an appropriate test case for,

• no sense of glee or excitement about negative material, no snide tone, and no undue laboring of the criticism

and other proposals to see how sincere we really are. Wikipedia:Biographies on living persons deserve a special sensitivity#Tone of the writing. nobs 18:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Bad writing on George W. Bush? I am shocked, shocked! - David Gerard 18:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

attempt at rewrite

I'm going to attempt a rewrite per my wikien-l message at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/temp - David Gerard 15:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, rewrite first draft done. I've taken Slim's version and more or less turned it backwards — start with guidelines and rationale, save long rationales for the end. I've also written it as tightly as possible, though there's probably a lot more that can be tightened up. Hack away - David Gerard 16:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the re-write. It gets to the point much faster and is reasonably clear. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Morven and Nobs01 have hacked at it slightly as well. I've just gone through the above talk page and added stuff based on it. I don't think we need to denounce blogs at length - anyone who thinks a random blog (as opposed to a high-quality blog, e.g. Groklaw) is a credible high-quality source isn't going to be swayed by a guideline. This is a "what to do" guide for editors that have a clue, because editors that don't will not take it in anyway.

Anything else important that should be added? I'd still like to make it shorter. In particular, the example of the academic is way too long - do we have a shorter real-life example we can remove the names from and use? - David Gerard 18:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

David, I've found that even editors without a clue, so long as there's a degree of good faith, will take the policies seriously so long as there are no loopholes. If it's nailed down, they tend to work with them. Regarding blogs, WP:V or WP:RS (I forget which) allows them only where the blogger is using their real name and is an acknowledged expert in the field he's being used as a source for, or is a well-known professional researcher of some kind e.g. political researcher or journalist. So anything on this page should be consistent with that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that covering every single possible loophole produces a guideline that is hard to read and comprehend.

Seems to me that you're talking about people with absolutely no social ability, and no ability to extrapolate using common sense, who are however able to comprehend even quite complex rules so long as they cover all eventualities - pretty much an Asperger's syndrome kind of mindset. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"When self-published material may be used as a source" should include that the material is Referenced from that source, not just External link & Further reading. nobs 18:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Not clear what you mean, Nobs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it says now that self-published material may be used as a source after certain exceptions have been met, then discusses how it may be listed in the further reading section or external links. But it does not specifically state that the self-published bio should be specifically cited as the source of content for the namespace. Also, should we presume after secondary sources become available, much of the self-published material should be replaced? Thanks. nobs 19:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Parallel editing is going to make things confusing. What say people if we either merge these versions or replace the current one with the one at /temp? — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the version at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/temp as a baseline for further editing.--FRS 21:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 21:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The above is now on this page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

a few comments

I think this is a very good idea to write this, so thank you to Sarah :-)

A few ideas or comments just boiling in my mind.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikipediAhimsa : i like this page, which is more than 3 years old. It reminds me very much of the introduction of the policy proposal, in particular in describing the point of the totally abashed editor trying to correct, sometimes in all good faith, an article about him. It reminds me of this music performer, listed months ago amongst homosexual performers, correcting the wp entry, being rebutted ... and discovering that possibly 30 mirrors were repeating the claim on wikipedia. He was most polite, but answering him "yes, we made a stupid mistake, and right, we are morally responsible of 30 sites claiming this, but we can not do anything"... must have been real tough to him. I wish that we avoid such things in the future. There is a reason why so many history books do not publish information on current people, but rather wait for 20 years before doing so :-) We can not do this, but we should be *super* careful in the information we add in our articles.

Second point is I think that the page may be too long. But I also understand that length. What I would recommend is also making a nice and gentle page, where this is summarized and things explained gently to the newbie. This one is too long for the newbie. The page for the newbie should also mention "contacts" nearly at the top of the page. When an editor edits his own biography, he should be given a link to the policy page (this one here) and to the shortened newbie oriented page, so that he understands a bit more what is going on here and what he should do in case things get hot !

I am not so happy right now with the paragraph called Legal threats. Here is why

Legal threats implies a certain stance. It implies that what is important is the fact the person is making a "threat". I do not think this is a good approach to the issue. It should be more "lenient", maybe rather be something of the type "contacts in case of the editor wants to go on legal grounds" or "legal contact" or something of that type. More neutral. Not a title implying the one complaining is already an "ennemy". He might be acting in all good faith and he might actually even be right in his complaint.

Of course, an editor trying to "save" the page from the *bad* and *dangerous* newbie will perceive this as a legal threat. So, it may be important to differenciate two pages : one intended to the editor trying to "keep" the page as is. And one intended to the "newbie" trying to fix his biography... Because the goals of the two pages are different. The first one (for the editor) will contain guidelines of policy for the editor, as well as strong recommandations about what to do in case of legal threats, as well as recommandations to be avoid biting newbies. The second one (for the newbie trying to fix is biography) should contain quick explanations of how the system work, explanations of what is gonna happen to him if he edits with too much "energy" and who he should contact in case he wants to raise the issue with non-involved people (mediation or legal approach).

The other point is this one. While it make sense to tell an editor to have a legal threat be forwarded to the foundation, there is a danger in saying this. First because it will imply that the Foundation is necessarily the entity to attack (in short, the legal publisher). The second because it might imply that the editor himself is not responsible of what he writes. Which is NOT true. If an editor here keeps writing someone is a rapist, and this is untrue, the Foundation should act as soon as possible to remove the lie, but the editor writing the lie is definitly the original author of the lie, and as such, the one legally responsible. So, I believe the text should be rewritten so as to avoid to imply the Foundation is the publisher and is legally responsible.

I would also personally recommand against putting the office adress here, as the more often it is mentionned, the more difficult it will be to update when necessary. There is a link which might be best : Wikipedia:Designated agent. I would also recommand against putting a phone number. Finally, adressing the correspondance to danny@wikia.com does not look very professional :-) please remove it. There is no reason to let an email adress with a first name, nor with the name of a firm unrelated to Wikipedia. It could frankly be very confusing. We are starting to receive emails adressed this way "Dear Wikia people". I do not think it is suitable.

That is all I can think of immediately. Thanks a lot for this. Anthere

Please edit as you see fit! In particular, as a Board member you're someone who should be diving into the legal section to fix it or remove it entirely - David Gerard 10:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Professor Molester

In this example, perhaps we could show the difference between an "allegation" made in print, and a sworn "allegation" made under oath, like a police report. nobs 20:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you take a look at the Warren G. Harding article - scandal section - you'll find an example on how Wikipedians have tried to deliniate legend from fact. Unfortuntaly, the legend seems to demand top priority rather than the explanation of how the scandals originated, whether they have been based on inuendo, if their existance is true and based up fact. OnceBitten 15:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Self-published material

I think this is a very well-written and thought-provoking page. I fully support it as a guideline to support editors. It speaks to two audiences simultaneously - the subject of the article (who may be an editor) and the rest of the community working on the article. This page does an effective job of communicating to both audiences. While it is longer than many of our pages, I don't think it is too long for the topic.

I only disagree on one point. I would like to change the sentence "Blogs, personal websites, and other self-published materials are usually not regarded as credible third-party sources..." to read "... are never regarded as credible third-party sources..." and to delete the entire section currently headed as "When self-published material may be used as a source". Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "... personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution ..." An encyclopedia is, by definition, a tertiary source. We may go to a primary source to fact-check a secondary source but we should never use a primary source to create content. To do so would make us a secondary, not a tertiary source. This section creates confusion and appears to allow the use of the self-published material as an allowable source for content. We should simplify this page with a strong and simple rule that self-published material is not a credible source. Let's deal with the rare exceptions as exceptions. Rossami (talk) 02:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm thinking particularly of bios of creators of encyclopedia-worthy subjects, where the creator's blog will often contain interesting and relevant descriptions of what they did. We have a lot of these. e.g. "Doe described his anthropological work on the Xists in a blog entry [1] as: 'A complete waste of money, brains and time.'" It's an editorial judgement call, not a "never".

We must be careful with guidelines such as this not to try to legislate clue. It's a waste of time and results in bloated guidelines the clueless won't read and the clueful find hard to use seriously - David Gerard 10:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a band-aid when Wikipedia needs surgery

You need to explore four additional areas:

1) Florida statutes and case law regarding invasion of privacy. Here's one place to start: http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/RHandbook01.nsf/1119bd38ae090a748525676f0053b606/dfc00ac22467b7f5852569cb004cbc2a

2) State and federal law that distinguishes and defines a private person as opposed to a public person.

3) Wikipedia as a special case: Anyone can come along and sabotage a biography, which means that biographies on living persons have to be locked down in some fashion. A court would take a dim view of Wikipedia's "anyone can edit anytime" if someone attempts to present this as a defense of Wikipedia in a legal proceeding. Remember, it is an open question whether Wikipedia would be considered immune from torts under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as an interactive Internet service provider. Even if it would be, there are more than a few legal scholars who already argue that Wikipedia is playing a completely different role than, for example, a provider such as BellSouth, and should be treated differently under this law.

4) Subjects should be notified that a biography is in progress, and they should be invited to participate, and if they prefer not to have a biography, then it should be deleted. This relates to the above point: Many subjects will not enjoy the prospect of checking their bio every day if it isn't locked down, and would prefer that it be deleted. Daniel Brandt 04:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

"Subjects should be notified that a biography is in progress, and they should be invited to participate, and if they prefer not to have a biography, then it should be deleted." I know you'd like this, but no, it's not going to happen - David Gerard 10:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

his source

http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/RHandbook01.nsf/1119bd38ae090a748525676f0053b606/dfc00ac22467b7f5852569cb004cbc2a says

"One man's gossip may be another man's news, but distinguishing between the two is often the key in determining whether the press is guilty of "invasion of privacy." Whether an article or broadcast is newsworthy, whether the information was gathered in an objectionable fashion, whether truthful information is nonetheless highly offensive -- all are considerations in weighing individuals' claims against the news media. Invasion of privacy is a tort, a civil wrong, which can lead to jury trials and potential claims for compensatory and punitive damages. It also places judges in the unfamiliar and uncomfortable role as "editors" of last resort. The right of an individual to be free from invasion of privacy can be expressed in several different ways. Sometimes it is called the right "to be let alone." Cooley, Torts, 29 (2d ed. 1888). Often it is seen as a geographical area, "a kind of space that a man may carry with him into his bedroom or into the street." M. Konvitz, Privacy and the Law: A Philosophical Prelude, 31 Law and Contemporary Problems, 272, 279-80 (1966). Invasion of privacy is a relatively recent addition to American law. Rather than evolving from the English common law, as did libel, invasion of privacy can be traced directly to an influential article by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, later to be a Supreme Court Justice [Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890)]. They argued for the creation of a private remedy -- a lawsuit -- to vindicate privacy rights. Writing before the era of electronic eavesdropping, telephoto lenses, and other modern technology, Warren and Brandeis prophesied that "mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that `what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the housetops'." Id. Not surprisingly, American courts today do not look kindly upon the media in these cases. However, the media's exposure to liability can be minimized through a grounding in privacy law. A two-step process determines whether the press is liable for invasion of a person's privacy: [...]" WAS 4.250 06:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

{{Notable Wikipedian}}

I've added a note to the new version suggesting that users identify themselves on the talk page of their biography using {{Notable Wikipedian}} (and copied it to Wikipedia:Autobiography. Assuming that violent disagreement fails to ensue, could someone please clean up my rather clunky prose? Ta muchly —Phil | Talk 11:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Defamatory statements

The policy reads:

Potentially libellous or defamatory statements not sourced to highly credible verifiable sources should be removed.

Andries changed this to:

Statements that are normally considered potentially libellous or defamatory not sourced to highly credible verifiable sources should be removed. However statements perceived by a person as defamatory or libellous, only because of his or her extraordinary claims about himself do not demand such a high degree of credibility. For example, if a person who has made the extraordinary claim to having invented a perpetuum mobile then questioning or criticism of this claim, though perceived as defamatory, by this person or his believers does not need to be sourced to a highly credible sources, but instead normal standards of credibility and verifiability apply here.

The above misinterprets what defamation and libel is. Defamation:false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions. Libel: a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person. Criticism of a person is not libel or defamation. Making false accusations is. As we, as editors, cannot make value judgments in respect of the truth of falseness of a statement made against a person, we have to rely on the guideline of "reputable sources" and provide highly credible and verifiable information as it pertains to accusations.

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO Andries' intent is fine, but it went into the wrong section. We simply shouldn't include any extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. For the special case of over-unity quack, it was recently noted [2], that an overly enthusiastic description of inventions may even lead to legal troubles with misguided investors. Perhaps somewhat far fetched, and in my POV lost investments in perpetuum mobiles are just another tax on stupidity. --Pjacobi 23:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

We simply shouldn't include any extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. That is a given. I agree 100% with this statement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

But a person who has invented a perpetuum mobile may feel that questioning of his claims is a false accusation and hurts his reputation and is thus libel. I think that questioning of such claims does not need such highly credible sources when compared to e.g. an assertion that a scientist (whose notability is unrelated to his sex-life) had an extra-marital affair. I mean, in the case of Sathya Sai Baba questioning of his claims of materialization is seen by his followers as a false accusation and hurts his reputation and is thus libel. Following the current version of the guideline means that we can only write that Uri Geller is a fake if a highly credible source says so, not just the private opinion of Richard Feynmann? Should we remove Richard Feynmann's opinion from the Uri Geller article? This contradicts my common sense. In such cases, normal standards suffice. Andries 23:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No, Andries. Libel has a component of malicious intent. i.e. a person knowing that the statement he is making is false and making it anyway with the purpose of harming their target. This comes to play not so much about claims of superhuman powers, but about allegations of sexual harassment against a person, for example. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

And how do you distinguish between malicious intent and non-malicious intent? I cannot distinguish. Several proponents of Sathya Sai Baba believe that the critics of Sathya Sai Baba (incl. me) have malicious intent by accusing him of sexual harassment. Andries 23:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, you can't. As editors cannot make value judgments in respect of the truth of falseness of a statement made against a person, providing highly credible and verifiable information is crucial in such cases. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, but the main difference is that this is related to his notability: he made claims of purity and attracted followers as a consequence. This claim is extraordinary and he has to provide extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is not on his ex-followers, who say that he has sexual relations as most people have (though some of them are abusive and constitute sexual harassment). So normal standars apply here, not extra highly credible sources. Andries 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, step back a bit. Perpetuum mobiles, miracle healings, spontanous materialisations and sexual harassments are extraordinary claims. It cuts both ways. --Pjacobi 00:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

No Andries, again you are confusing things. If a notable person was fired from his post because he was found guilty in a court of law to have been sexually harassing a subordinate, and we write about that instance in this person's biography, that would never be considered libel, would it? And why not? Simply because it is a verifiable fact that he was fired for that reason. What you are referring above is an issue that falls beyond this encyclopedia as defined by its three governing principles of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that claims of purity are a lot more extraordinary than an assertion of having a sexual relationship. And I also think that sexual harassment is a lot less extraordinary than materializations and miracle healings etc. Andries 00:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I continue to disagree. Andries 00:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow... What claims of purity have to do with libellous/defamatory statements? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

For example, If somebody (such as Sathya Sai Baba) says that s/he is is always pure then even the accusation of the slightest taint of egoism may be considered defamatory by him/her or his/her followers. Of course when s/he makes such a claim then accusing him/her of sometimes being egoistical does not need to be sourced to highly credible sources, but instead normal standards apply. Andries 00:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

(outdent)Let me give you an example, If person XYZ says: "I am capable of levitating", I could argue: "please provide evidence that you do, by means of a report by an independent and reputable person witnessing that phenomena". I can then write in XYZ's biography at Wikipedia what this independent and reputable person witnessed. If a critic of person XYZ says, "XYZ is a rapist", I could argue, "please provide a reputable and verifiable source that confirm these allegations." If I get these, I can write this in the biographical article of XYZ. If there aren't such sources (even if I may believe this person's statement), and as I am as an editor working under specific guidelines, and to protect Wikipedia against accusations of libel, I will not write these allegations in the article. As Pjacobi succintlty put it We simply shouldn't include any extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Note that defamation is a "false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions", not the perception of such. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not extraordinary that a man who is virtually untouchable and who has immense authority sometimes uses this authority to get sex from men that he considers attractive. It is not extraordinary to have sex, even if a person claims to be 100% pure. Andries 00:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What has this to do with this discussion? We are discussing Wikipedia policy as it pertains to biographies, not morality. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Questioning extraordinary claims of a person, such as 100% sexual purity, does not have to be sourced to highly credible sources, but instead normal standards apply. Andries 00:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I fail to follow your logic. Questioning extraordinary claims is not the purpose of Wikipedia, is it?. Reporting on such questioning by reputable sources is. Nevertheless, we are discussing issues related to libellous and defamatory statements made in biographical articles in Wikipedia? please stay on subject. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

When does biography cease being a biography?

In reviewing other encyclopedic forms, biographies are concerned with the person, and discuss the merits which demonstrate the qualifications for entry. But does the policy address at what point does an entry cease to be about the person, and more about what brings that person the notariety? Two examples, (but not to be construed as comments on the following Wikipedia entries for either example):

• At what point does a biography of Isaac Newton tip into an extensive explaination on the theory of gravity?
• At what point does a biography of former British Secretary of War John Profumo tip into an complete explaination of Christine Keeler and the subsquent scandal known as the Profumo Affair?

I know that this is really rather subjective, but biographies are about the person and should be NPOV. OnceBitten 15:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that you cannot separate the one fromn the other. After all, a person's notability is based on the person's life-work. A summary of achievements of the person can be included with links to articles discussing these achievements if warranted. In the case of John Profumo, the article as it stands now, (one long paragrah about the affair, and very little about his lifework, makes the article not NPOV. I would summarize the long paragraph and provide a wikilink to Profumo Affair. I will try just that. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Its simply a judgement call about when one article should be two or two articles should be one and this editorial question comes up all the time, not just on bios. WAS 4.250 18:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Looking up the word biography, I find "An account of a person's life written, composed, or produced by another: a film biography; an oral biography." from the American Heritage dictionary.

When I want a biography on Abraham Lincoln, I don't need a complete run through of the Civil War, thats why there is an article on the Civil War. When I want a biography about Abraham Lincoln, I don't need an examination of Mary Todd Lincoln's eccentricties unless they impact the man and his administration.

My point is that an article promising to be a biography should be just that a biography, not an all inclusive missive. OnceBitten 22:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merged the draft one with this one

I've merged the two pages so we can start editing only one of them. I've left the draft more or less as it was, with the following changes:

• I deleted the sentence "Strive for an article that both the person's greatest fan and greatest enemy could not reasonably dispute." I find the reference to "greatest enemy" problematic. I know it's qualified by "could not reasonably dispute," but I still worry it means we're aiming to cater to people who have exceptionally strong feelings about the subject of the biography.
• I kept the arbitration ruling.
• I deleted the sentence advising editors to send legal threats to the Foundation and not reply to them, following Anthere's point above.

Other than that, it more or less says what was on the draft page. Is everyone all right with this merger? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've redirected the other page to this one. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've added subparts to the privacy section, to show a different level of deference to public vs non-public figures. --FRS 23:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)