Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

The intersection of BLPSPS and PSCI

It is about time to resolve this.

• WP:BLPSPS is important policy.
• WP:PSCI is important policy.

We have some tension between these, when a living person holds FRINGE views, especially on scientific matters.

Per WP:PARITY there are certain blogs that we use regularly to address PSCI issues.

This was tested most recently at two RfCs where the intersection of these policies was explicitly explored: here and a similar one here.

I propose that we add to this section of BLP, ~something~ along the following lines.

However, when a living person espouses pseudoscientific or fringe views, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to those views. Content about such views may be sourced to third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person. The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases.

We need to bring the written policy into line with community practice.

This is not an RfC but rather an initial discussion to prepare one, which should be broadcast widely. So please don't !vote at this time. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC) (clarify as this is being miscontrued to mean SPS by the subject which is absolutely not what this is about Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC))

I would support that addition to the policy page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Since I also sometimes clash with other editors (including some with extensive experience) on these topics, I also think that clarification is a good idea. Noting: WP:BLPFRINGE is also closely related and should also be reviewed as necessary. —PaleoNeonate – 19:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No. We don't sacrifice BLP just because someone espouses fringe views. The simple rule is that we cannot use a self published source as a source of material about a living person. We can, per WP:PARITY, use an SPS (if it is a reliable source) to critique fringe claims, but that doesn't give us permission to ascribe views to someone using SPS, as doing so would involve using it to source claims about a living person, as opposed to critiquing views that they hold.

In the David Wolfe example linked to above, what we did was agree to rewrite the text so that it was compliant with BLPSPS, per Jytdog's proposed wording. We didn't agree to the original wording, which was not compliant with BLPSPS because it used an SPS to ascribe views to a living person. - Bilby (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

In the RfC about Wolfe, we accepted a Forbes' contributor piece as a source - a SPS. That is the issue here. I will be dealing with this last-straw misrepresentation elsewhere this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The wording you proposed at the RfC was "He (Wolfe) advocates that people with cancer treat it with dietary supplements, and according to Kavin Senapathy he "demonizes life-saving vaccines and cancer treatments"." The SPS (by Senapathy) was used as a source of Senapathy's views, not to ascribe a belief directly to Wolfe. That was fine, and I supported that wording, as it was compliant with BLP because the first half used a non-SPS for the claim that Wolfe advocates the use of dietary supplements. I am ok with that per below. - Bilby (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

diff prior to the RfC at Wolfe: That would be a no again. We can't use the Forbes piece.. I will not respond further here unless it is to rebut yet further misrepresentations. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That was for different text that was not compliant with BLP, not the RFC text. I explained why here. Let's not revisit that discussion. - Bilby (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

diff prior to the RfC at Wolfe: We can't use the Forbes piece.. I will not respond further to you here unless it is to rebut yet further misrepresentations. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I should have said "we cannot use the Forbes piece the way it is being used". Sorry. However, a) I agreed to the text proposed in the RFC, using the Forbes piece, when it was used in a way that was compliant with BLP. And b), I explained why it couldn't be used as you proposed prior to the RFC here. - Bilby (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No. And please stop cluttering this thread. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

We absolutely should not be allowing an SPS to be used to say someone else's view is fringe. That claim needs to come from demonstration in non-SPS RS, otherwise, you basically open the door for random criticism. The case of a view being fringe must be asserted by RSes. --Masem (t) 19:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Masem this is very specifically about the intersection of PSCI and BLP. It is not about anything random. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

My point is that say X is the BLP who we consider has a fringe view. We cannot use a SPS claim by Y to say X has fringe views. (But this would also extent to any criticism about BLP X, regardless) I do agree on the OP that we can use SPS by X to succinctly describe what X's views are if they are not otherwise covered in the RSes that discuss why X's view is fringe. --Masem (t) 19:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you have it completely backwards and your interpretation would make WP wide open to big swaths of self-sourced content by FRINGE advocates. No way. I am sorry but you are not dealing with PSCI which is policy. Please do review WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE. Please. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with what you have quoted as a requested addition above. I should be clear that I absolutely agree on the cavaet in th\at - that RSes (not SPS) have said that X has fringe views must be present first before we are able to succinctly describe in factual manner their stance, if we cannot otherwise draw that from RSes. --Masem (t) 20:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You are twisting it and I appreciate that you are doing that here, in this early discussion; I have corrected it above to avoid wasting time this way further. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

As a point of information: Science Based Medicine is not an ordinary self-published source. It has an editorial board and fact-checking. David Gorski has a blog where he writes trenchant criticism of quacks, we typically do not cite that. He also writes at SBM, and we often do cite that. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean, I'm ok with saying:

"Person X believes Y. (Non SPS) Y is a discredited view. (SPS)" - this is fine per WP:PARITY.

I'm also ok with:

"Person Z argues that Person X believes Y. (SPS by person Z)" - this is what we've used elsewhere, and is ascribing a belief to the author of the SPS, which is fine.

What we can't do is:

"Person X believes Y (SPS)", as doing so is not compliant with BLP policy.

If the proposed wording is for the first two I'm fine with it. If it is to allow the third, then no. - Bilby (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of #1 there and this is consistent with "such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person". —PaleoNeonate – 20:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why not shorter, "But see also, Neutral point of view (PSCI), WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY, when discussing relevant ideas of living persons and balancing views. When discussing ideas, these may allow the occasional and limited use of qualified self-published sources by others." Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with something like that. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not in favor of the proposal as it seems vague and too much open to interpretation. Possibly it can be expressed in a clearer form. It is essential to recognize self-published sources cannot be used to establish notability, but, if notability is established otherwise, may provide information for use in an article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC).

WP:Notability? Notability has to do with whether you have an article, not what is in an article. Do you mean WP:UNDUE? This would not change WP:UNDUE (or Notability) at all, if something is undue or someone is unnotable, it will still be undue, and they will still be unnotable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me state a concern. I have reread the discussion in question and PSCI, and as long as we are talking specifically "fringe theories and pseudosciences" - things that there is general sourcing that say that the BLP's views fall within that, there's no issues. But too often, editors use the points of PSCI towards fringe views, which are not the same as fringe theories or psuedoscience. (Fringe views fall more under UNDUE, not PSCI). The language as written, applied to a BLP with a seemingly fringe view, would mean that we should include any random SPS that considers the BLP's view as "fringe". That's a problem. As long as that we make it clear this only applies to fringe theories and psuedoscience where there is sufficent RSes to affirm that the science is fringy/PSCI, then the language is otherwise fine. --Masem (t) 23:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Masem thanks for taking the time to work through this. This is not intended to allow "any random SPS" - the proposal above specifically addresses that with The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases. This is oftenScience-Based Medicine (SBM) as Guy mentioned above (and used in the Greger RfC cited in the OP); there are other responsible debunkers out there like Gorski (an editor of SBM). The SPS from Forbes discussed in the Wolfe RfC, this one, is more or less professional and suitable for WP. There are lots of other SPS about Wolfe like this one and say this one that I didn't bring to the table, and no one should. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

All I want to make sure, and this ties in and agrees with points below, is that we are talking a "fringe" view or theory or psci that has clear RSes that establish it as fringe before allowing SPS to counter the details of the fringe view. Without the establishment of the idea being fringe by RSes, that opens far too many doors for misuse. I know this isn't a problem if the issue is strictly limitied to fringe theories or psci, I'm just concerned that it could be taken to mean beyond that. --Masem (t) 16:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

As noted by both Doug Weller and Johnuniq and others in this thread, quite often there are not standard RS that directly address this stuff; mainstream refs are busy discussing mainstream things. Please especially see Doug's remark. Again the language is already widely practiced by very experienced editors; the goal here is to catch up the writing. This needs to be done carefully - hence this preparation. This notion that "there must be clear RSes that establish it as fringe" is distraction and misses the heart of the problem - namely that quite often there are no standard RS that address this stuff. WP:PARITY exists for good reason. I would not have brought this, if there was not an actual problem here. We would not have this as a practice already, if people were not already doing this, ratified by RfCs.Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not think any exception should be made in BLP for fringe views, any statement or action made by a living person should be sourced to BLP compliant sources, regardless of the fringeness of that statement or action. There is really no difference between talking about a person and talking about there work or views (eg. "he is an anti-vaxer" vs "He has published books claiming that vaccines don't work and cause autism") Both of these are similar negative material about a living person, so they should both be sourced to the same kind of high-quality sources. If there is a reason to be carful about sources in BLPs, doesn't that reason still apply when fringe topics are involved? Maybe saying "He says vaccines don't work(citing BLP RS), but vaccines do work(citing SPS)" would not be a BLP issue, but I cant think of a situation when a SPS would be the only source to debunk a bogus claim like this.

In short, we should not use SPS to attribute fringe views to someone anymore than we could use SPS for other claims about a person, and I don't know why we would need to use an SPS to debunk the fringe view once a BLP RS has established that the person holds fringe views. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Except editors do not agree with your peculiar claim that talking about scientific ideas and talking about people are the same thing, partly because Wikipedia bases its ethos on the evident fact that talking about ideas and talking about people are not the same thing. In fact, consensus has at least twice shown, you don't have consensus for your view of this policy, and consensus is opposed to your claim about ideas and people:here and here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you misread my comment, I thing BLP should fully apply (no SPS) when attributing fringe views to a person, but SPS could be used to say such a view is false once BLP RS have establisher that the person holds that view. (I agree with User:Bilby in his comment below about "chocolate levitation"). Tornado chaser (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Now I see where this debate has been heading. It appears to have its origin in [1]. I agree with the comment of Tornado chaser above and oppose the proposal. All sources fringe, SPS or not, must be consistent with WP:BLP. Self-published sources should never be used as a source for any material that could be considered contentious.Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC).

What? The case you think it has an origin in [2] is entirely different, that case was including a statement by the the subject himself (and it was included), not someone else. Nothing here changes anything about statements of the subject, which will continue to be addressed using NPOV, Undue, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• The whole point of WP:PSCI is that reliable sources would rather bang their heads on a wall than spend time investigating whether yet another nonsensical claim is nonsense. An encyclopedia should not mislead readers with glowing accounts of how someone believes A, B and C without clarification that A, B and C are pseudoscientific claims with no basis in reason. Per WP:PARITY, it is often necessary to rely on an expert's statement (even if self published) rather than mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Johnuniq is absolutely right. Many fringe archaeological claims are never dealt with in academic publications. We're in danger of stripping some of our articles discussing people with fringe beliefs of any evidence that those beliefs are contradicted by members of the relevant professional community. I'm sure that's not what anyone here wants. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
    • This is true, but we need that distinction between discussing the belief that someone holds, and ascribing a belief to them. What we don't want is a situation where a self published source says, for example, "Doug believes that eating chocolate can cause you to levitate". If we don't have a reliable source, we can't claim that Doug holds this belief. But if we establish that Doug does hold that belief, we can use an SPS to point out that believing in chocolate-based levitation is nonsensical. Even with fringe beliefs, it seems too much of a risk to allow an SPS to ascribe those beliefs to people. That's my main concern with this proposed change - we need to ensure that it keeps the distinction between claiming that someone holds a belief and critiquing the belief once we establish that they hold it. - Bilby (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm familiar with only one RfC that tested this (this one), and it shouldn't have been closed the way it was. Core content policies can't be overridden by local consensus. The problem, as I recall, was that editors were allowing biomedical claims to be made without MEDRS sources. Then, having allowed them, they countered them with a self-published source. Would it not make more sense to disallow those claims in BLPs, rather than try to fix them with an SPS? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
        • It was closed appropriately. NPOV is also a core policy. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, im a bit confused by what exactly you are proposing. Do you just want to use WP:PARITY to allow the use of SPS to explain why a view is fringe once BLP RS have established the the subject of the article holds a particular view? Or do you want to allow SPS to be the source for the fact that the person holds a given view in the first place? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The two RfCs offered as having tested this idea are here and here. In the latter (David Wolfe (entrepreneur) (permalink), what appears to be a group blog is used to introduce a fringe claim (note 27). Note 24 is also an SPS, as is 28; the latter is used to introduce a fringe claim. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

In these cases we also had primary sources, my concern is if there are no primary sources or BLP RS, but ONLY third party SPS. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV, in the Wolfe case, 27 and 24 weren't considered in the RFC. 24 (Gorski) is used ok, in that it is an example of criticism about Wolfe, but doesn't make any claims about him; 27 (Babuschkin) is ok if the source is not considered to be self published (as it claims to have an editor, my assumption was that it was not an SPS). 28 (Senapathy) was the focus of the RFC. I supported that change, because the self published source was being used to support a belief held by Senapathy about Wolfe, not to attribute a belief to Wolfe, and a non-SPS was used to attribute the belief. However, the original wording using Senapathy's self published source to make a claim about Wolfe [3] was a violation of BLPSPS. Such a use was not supported in the RFC. I wish to ensure that any change to BLP will not permit the use of an SPS to attribute fringe beliefs to another living person, as was originally the case at David Wolfe. - Bilby (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Bilby, the policy says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." This is a core content policy. It can't be overridden by local consensus. RfCs that have been closed to the contrary shouldn't have been closed that way.

The point of the principle is that it's a line in the sand, so you don't have to twist yourself in knots working out whether the source is commenting on the person, or about her ideas, or about the ideas of someone commenting on her, etc. The answer to all of the above is: don't use SPS in BLPs unless written or published by the subject, and then only with caution. If that means weird claims can't be countered (assuming they need to be countered because they're not so weird that they're obviously untrue), then don't include them in the first place. Rewriting can solve a lot of these problems. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I am ok with that approach. I've found that the compromise was that we can't say "X believes Y" using an SPS from X, but we can say "X believes Z about Y" using an SPS from X, however I agree with you that the policy is stronger than that, and under policy the compromise has been an error. I'd be happy with just not including content sourced to an SPS in BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin you continue to ignore the problem that regularly occurs when living people hold fringe positions; we do not ignore PSCI which is also policy and just as essential. We have to -- and already do -- accommodate both. This is living consensus not local. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Bilby, the problem with using SPS in BPLs is that it means someone could write a document criticizing a living person specifically for use in that person's BLP. Now, any journalist could do the same, but to get things published in a newspaper there are layers of oversight you have to go through. If you're an SPS, you can dash something off in your pyjamas at 3 am and make it public immediately, whereupon it can go straight into a BLP. The whole point of our insistence on using professional sources is that they're accountable to someone (copy editors, editors, lawyers, publishers). SarahSV ^(talk) 00:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin that is a straw man. The proposal says "The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases." and in practice we don't use any such crappy blogs "dashed off at 3 in the morning" in these situations. I see that you don't wish to interact with me, so I will leave it there. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

In one BLP that I helped to write about a person with odd ideas, I restricted the article to the basic, extremely odd claims (ideas so strange that, if someone is going to believe them, they'll do that no matter what any source says), and I ignored anything that a reader might think was true, including health claims, claims about vaccines, etc. That worked very well. Just leave out anything you might need to counter with an SPS. Can anyone produce an example where (a) the idea was fringe, but not obviously crazy, such that it had to be countered by an SPS; and (b) the fringe idea had to be included for some reason? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

What was that article? I would be interested to see that solution. I will look for examples but this notion of ignoring PSCI is... dicey. I actually had a guy say to me in the grocery store the other day "My fridge broke and the meat turned into flies. That's what happens". (and yeah, I asked him if he really meant that) People have holes in their knowledge all over the place. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin you asked here for an example. I will be happy to bring some examples. In the meantime I await for your identification of the BLP article you worked on. Please identify it. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV, that works for me. Keeping things simple and not using self published sources other than those by the subject avoids messy gray areas and risk. - Bilby (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Related point re what self-published means

Something I've been meaning to bring up for a while is a confusion that sometimes arises when we talk about "self-published" sources. The problem isn't what the term self-published means, but rather the following distinction:

• Something self-published by person X, as a potential source for any random thing (WP:SELFPUBLISH), versus
• Something self-published by person X, as a potential source for a statement about person X (WP:SELFPUB).

Now and then in a discussion different people will be talking about different ones of these two without realizing it. We even have two confusingly named shortcuts (above) for them. Just something to keep in mind. EEng 05:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The debate here seems to be about the policy WP:SELFPUBLISH which advises Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. This seems to fit the case of the Brian Martin BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC).Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing this out, I belive this debate is about WP:SELFPUBLISH (not SELFEPUB). Tornado chaser (talk)

Yes the discussion here is about resolving the tension in the writing of two policies - BLP and NPOV, specifically WP:BLPSPS (with respect to WP:SELFPUBLISH) and WP:PSCI as implemented via WP:PARITY. Yes. As I noted above, there have been two RfCs now (and I can probably find others) where this tension has already been resolved by the community in practice; the discussion is about bringing the writing of BLPSPS in line with that practice. Written policy expresses consensus, and consensus is a living thing that develops. The writing needs to catch up. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUBLISH says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

WP:PARITY says "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals." This is so we can say chocolate dosen't make you levitate even if there are no research papers on the subject, not so we can say "John says chocolate makes you levitate" without a BLP RS. WP:PARITY also says "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." There is no conflict here, these policies make clear that BLP fully applies when we attribute fringe views to a person, but that we may then use SPS to critique that view, NOT that we can ever use third party SPS to attribute any views to a person.

What is being proposed is not resolving a conflict, rather it is making major changes to WP:BLP based on 2 local RfCs that established ROUGH consensus in favor of what MIGHT have been MARGINAL BLP vios (both cases it was presented as the bloggers opinion when the subjects' views were already established by other sources, and one specified that it was a CLOSE CALL based on INTERPRETATION of BLP, not overriding it)

What is the point of allowing third party SPS to attribute fringe views to someone? If we are just talking about critiquing views that BLP RS establish that the person holds, policy clearly already allows this, and the change is not needed. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You are not dealing with PSCI nor the reason that PARITY exists (mainstream refs are busy talking about mainstream things) nor with the fact that this is already widely practiced. The only goal here is to craft language expressing this. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought I addressed this, PARITY allows us to use SPS to debunk a bogus (psudo)scientific claim of fact, BLP does not deal with scientific fact so there is no conflict here, what BLP currently prohibits is using an SPS as the source for the fact that someone says something, but once we have a source for that PARITY allows us to use SPS to say that the persons statement is fringe/wrong/unsupported by evidence. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is about addressing views of living people.Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, It seems to me that your proposal could be interpreted as allowing either A or B, or maybe C but it is not clear which, could you clarify?

A "Person X says chocolate can make you levitate.(BLP RS) But chocolate levitation is nonsense.(SPS)"

B "Person X says chocolate can make you levitate.(SPS)"

C something other than A or B

Tornado chaser (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Go look for sources about Ben Swann and vaccines. (really - go look) You will not find any mainstream sources discussing his views on vaccines. You will find a) him talking about "the CDC whistleblower" and the like (there is no question about that he has done this stuff); b) anti-vax sites cheering on Swann c) david gorski describing and debunking it. So the content is something like "Benn Swann has promoted conspiracy theories that vaccines are harmful; the scientific consensus is that vaccines are not harmful" (sourced to SBM and gorski). This is exactly the sort of thing where this is necessary. There is no question that he actually promotes this view. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems you'r supporting B, and I now understand your reasoning, however, this seems like the place to use a primary source to establish what his views are(you yourself said "You will find a) him talking about "the CDC whistleblower" and the like (there is no question about that he has done this stuff);" and than use SBM to debunk it (option A in my comment above) I still think B unnecessarily weakens BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The only reason I can see B being needed is if we want to talk about someones views but don't have any primaryWP:SELFPUB sources and also don't have any BLP RS, but ONLY have third party SPS, in this case, wouldn't the fact that the person held such views fail WP:V (and notability)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tornado chaser (talk • contribs) 22:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:Notability is about whether a page should exist. It is irrelevant to this discussion. I have nothing more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The gist of my argument was and is nothing to do with notability. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There is something to be said about "documenting a controversy" which (at least to me) means giving reasonable equal weight to briefly explaining side A says and what side B says, (or in the case for a fringe theory/psci idea, explaining what side A says and then that the rest of the scientific word has refuted this). The reactions from third parties, or the back and forth between A and B, there, that becomes what UNDUE or FRINGE regulates; if A's side is the fringe theory, we aren't going to include all their backup and proof why that is. (In the case of Swann, it looks like he believes the anti-vac position by claiming there was a conspiracy by the CDC to cover up the effects of vaccines, leading to autism. That's literally all that needs to be said to explain his point, we don't need the volumes how he connects his dots to get there. Now in Swann's case, I see what I think are RSes covering this position, as well as countering that position, so outside of perhaps linking to his SPS news segment as a reference for his position on anti-vac, there's no need to incorporate much more for Swann here. It's basically saying "Here's what B said, in their own words." so the reader can decide how to interpret everything else around it. But this same logic also makes it reasonable to include the SPS counterpoint from B if B is an appropriate expert in the field, if RSes otherwise don't explain enough why A's theory is wrong or disproven. --Masem (t) 19:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Masem I repeat, there are no RS other than Science-Based Medicine that describe Swann's views on vaccines. The sources are exactly as I described them. You will find him talking about it, anti-vax nutjobs discussing what he says, and skeptics debunking, the best of which is Science-based medicine. I mean this. If you think there are RS (other than Science Based Medicine) that describe Swann's vaccine views, please bring them. I have spent several hours looking but may have missed something but I doubt it. If you do not find anything please restate your remarks above. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking more in general here. Swann specifically appears to have sources from RSes to support describing his point, and the counterpoint of his views, so there's no issue there. But there are other potential cases out there where those views aren't discussed in RSes, and where we are looking to SPS to consider how to document the view and counterview. --Masem (t) 00:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you have lost me. What do you mean by "sources from RSes to support describing his point"? Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, you have not addressed the issue I raised here[4], and here[5], we can use primary sources to establish that he holds such views, and than use third party SPS to debunk those views. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I see no conflict between BLP and PSCI or PARITY. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me restate the question you are asking. You want me to answer as to why we should not give FRINGE promoters free promotion in WP by linking to their own fringe promotion. The answer to that is rather obvious. We don't. We rely on independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Break

Primary sources be used as sources about themselves WP:TWITTER, there is nothing wrong or "promotional" about saying "Ben Swann has said X (citation:Ben Swann), but X is nonsense(citation:David Gorski)." This is debunking, and in no way promotes any of Ben Swann's ideas. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Twitter as a source. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If we are talking about including the opposition to a person's view, but no RS actually describes the view, then it is NPOV to at least give a brief concise statement of the person's view using an SPS by that person, with full attribution. That is not an endorsement of the view, and simply needed to help the reader understand the opposition's logic and arguments. We aren't going to allow a massive thesis on that view, just a sentence to establish what the controversy is. Refusal to include what the BLP says about their own views in their BLP article even when we include what others have said about those views is clearly as bad as a problem as outright promotion of the BLP's views. It's a balancing issue. --Masem (t) 04:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

hmmm WP:GEVAL is relevant here. "Balance" is not the value (that is what POV pushers want and constantly complain that WP lacks). NPOV is the value. PSCI and FRINGE are not like mainstream topics.... Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem I guess is that there's not a good example specifically dealing with a BLP that has a view that falls in science-based fringe theories or pseudoscience where the person's view, if it is a matter for discussion, lacks any RS discussion about the person's views but where there is discussion countering those views. It's hard to demonstrate in hypotheticals. It's also goes back that what is being prescribed for fringes theories and psci is going to leak into instructions that will be read in the context of non-science fringe views.

Basically, it is not a false balance to say in a controversial topic the fundamental points of disagreement: "A believes X, B believes Y" It is a false balance to try to justify either point, much less try to create equal justifications for both points. But in the factual statement of disagreement, if we are missing any RS that gives us "B believes Y", then there is no harm to use a SBS written by B to assert "B believes Y", particularly if B is our BLP in question. But I have no easy case to point to to understand this in context. --Masem (t) 05:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, as long as the persons views are immediately debunked by the third party SPS, there is no problem with using a primary source to establish that the person holds the view, the text will still read like this: "X belives Y,[1] but Y is completely false.[2]" Which is not false balance, as it clearly states the wrongness of X's views and does not portray it as an equal controversy. 1=primary source written by X, 2=third party SPS. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Question: When the subject of a BLP holds a fringe belief, why is there a need to debunk the belief in the BLP? I would think that the place to debunk would be the article on the belief, not the BLP. If the subject of a BLP believes that eating raw eggs will cure cancer, why not simply state: “X believes that eating raw eggs will cure cancer”, and leave it at that? It isn’t as if the article is actually saying that raw eggs actually does cure cancer, it is simply stating what X believes. That does not require debunking. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If something is bogus, shouldn't that be made clear to the reader? see WP:PARITY. Also, what if someone holds a belief that is so rare and weird that there is no wikipedia article on such belief? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Because readers with cancer might start eating raw eggs. I agree that that kind of information shouldn't stand. The dispute here is whether to (a) include it and debunk it with an SPS if necessary; or (b) respect BLPSPS and leave it out if no non-SPS reliable source has addressed it. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I would argue if the case if the person just has a standard fringe theory believe (such as being a Flat Earther), where there's only variation (that the earth is flat) then we just link to that page and leave it at that. On the other hand, with a case like Swann here, where they hold a unique viewpoint, and criticism of that unique viewpoint, we need to have that explained in the article. --Masem (t) 21:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Ben Swann is a good example of a case where there's no need to mention the issue the SPS is used for. The article offers plenty of examples of his conspiracy theories, so the reader gets the full flavour. If no non-SPS has addressed the vaccination issue, leave it out. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think it might be okay to use an SPS to debunk fringe views, but not to say someone holds a particular view. "X says Y(BLP RS) but y is nonsense(SPS)" seems ok(and consistent with current policy without changes), but I am strongly opposed to changing policy to allow the use of third-party SPS as the source for

X says Y". Tornado chaser (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

This version of the article uses Swann as a source of his beliefs about vaccination, and MEDRS sources to debunk. Why was this changed to introduce an SPS to debunk it? This is a good example of what ought not to happen. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that SPS should not be used when other sources are available, the only time I might be ok with them is if RS establish that a person says something, and it is so silly that no RS bother to debunk it, I do not know any legitimate reason you would replace a MEDRS with an SPS. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

No one replaced a MEDRS source with an SPS. But someone has replaced Swann with an SPS. Swann is allowed as a source; other SPS are not allowed. The solution is (a) restore the version that I linked to above; or (b) remove the vaccination claim. But as it stands, that section violates this policy. And the claim that the SPS is needed to debunk is false; there are MEDRS sources doing it. Granted, they don't mention Swann, so you're having to IAR and engage in a SYN violation, but it has long been accepted that this is okay when needed for WP:PSCI. But note "when needed"; in this case, leaving out the vaccination claim is a valid option because nothing in the article hangs on it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I tried to fix this, but was reverted, any further discussion of this should take place at Ben Swann. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• I just read through this thread and almost everyone is saying the same thing, just in slightly different ways, and then vociferously disagreeing with the different way somebody else said something. I might as well contribute to the row by phrasing it in yet another, slightly different way:

It's perfectly acceptable to use WP:PARITY-qualified sources in a BLP article to discuss the fringe theories espoused by the subject. It's not acceptable to use WP:PARITY-qualified sources to establish that a living (or recently deceased) person has espoused a fringe theory. That would require a WP:BLPRS-qualified source, though a WP:PRIMARY source can also often be used as the explication of such views is rarely self-serving.

Now, feel free to continue furiously agreeing with each other until someone comes along and closes this thread as "no consensus". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree exactly. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Reformulated proposal

So summarizing the discussion, the rough consensus of the discussion of the discussion above is something like

• However, if a living person holds a view (as established by reliable sources including self-published sources by the subject) and that view is a well-documented pseudoscientific or fringe view theory, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to that view. Content about such views may be sourced to third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person. The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases.

There are wings on either side of the first version; I am on one of those wings, but this is what I see as the middle that most folks above are saying. Agreed?

There was also this alt:

• "But see also, Neutral point of view (PSCI), WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY, when discussing relevant ideas of living persons and balancing views. When discussing ideas, these may allow the occasional and limited use of qualified self-published sources by others."

We should pick one or the other and refine to get something we could pose in an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC) (addressed the "well-documented" and "theory" issues from masem below Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC))

Three things:

1) "that view is a pseudoscientific or fringe view", I think you mean "that view is a pseudoscientific or fringe theory" (since you point to FRINGE). If we are talking a non-scientifically-based fringe view (eg like a political position), this proposal should not apply to that

2) In the same phrase above, I would add "well-documented pseudoscientific or fringe theory", that establishes that it should be accepted that the idea is PSCI/FRINGE.

3) I would add in that discussions about the view should be keep in check through WEIGHT/UNDUE and other related factors. --Masem (t) 17:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Why do SPS have to be used to counter the view? Please give an example of an article where (a) the fringe view has to be included; and (b) the only way to counter it is with an SPS. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

To get the statement of the BLP's view in the BLP's own words for the most part, if this is not given by the RSes establishing the view as psci/fringe. --Masem (t) 18:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to be crystal clear that third party SPS can NEVER be used to say a person holds a view, but could be used to debunk a view only once BLP RS establish that the person holds such a view, alough I have not seen any case in which an SPS is needed to debunk a view (SBM is not a blog, so the issue at Ben Swann is not relevant). Tornado chaser (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Also, we need to make clear that this only applied to fringe "scientific" theories, not political positions, etc.Tornado chaser (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This would depend on if a fringe theory (including conspiracy theories) are also of a political nature (which they often are, although refuted by mainstream sources). Example being controlled demolition 911 conspiracy theories, alien-controlled U.S. government ones, Illuminati, child slave mars colonies, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 08:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate Good point, those are not exactly scientific theories, but are still fringe theories, and WP:FRINGE still applies. The distinction I am trying to draw is between theories (claims of fact, whether scientific or historical or any other fringe claims of fact) and opinions (which may be unpopular but are not objectively true or false). Vaccines are a good example, "vaccines don't work" is a fringe theory (it can be determined to be true or false), but "vaccines shouldn't be required" is not a fringe theory nor pseudoscience, just an opinion that could be motivated by belief in a fringe theory, or by libertarian anti-government ideology (which cannot be objectively determined to be true or false). Wikipedia should not be trying to "debunk" beliefs about morality or the proper role of government or other opinions, but should debunk false claims of fact. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

• My intention is to move toward an actual policy proposal. Please propose specific changes rather than making general points. Please be aware that it must be tight and not too detailed.

If you are on a "wing" that objects to the proposal at all, please don't clutter this drafting effort; you can oppose at the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You said you would find an example of where this was necessary, so please do. That is, an article where (a) the fringe view has to be included; and (b) the only way to counter it is with an SPS. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) replied above. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't create a distraction. This proposal would be a major change to a core content policy. Therefore, please offer one example of where this change is needed; not just wanted but needed. Otherwise, it's unclear what you're requesting. Do you want to use an SPS (other than the subject) to support that a BLP holds a certain view? That would be unacceptable, so presumably not. Do you want to use an SPS to debunk a fringe view a BLP holds? If yes, why does it have to be an SPS? And does the fringe view have to be included? These are important questions. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I think this "However, if a living person holds a view (as established by reliable sources including self-published sources by the subject) and that view is a well-documented pseudoscientific or fringe theory, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to that view. Content about such views may be sourced to third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person. The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases." seems to address the BLP issues, but should be clarified by adding at the end "But third party SPS may never be used to say that a person holds a certain view".

What I do not understand is how "a well-documented pseudoscientific or fringe theory" could possibly lack any non SPS sources to debunk it (this would seem counter to the definition of "well documented"). Tornado chaser (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

From an entirely different angle:

Biographies of living persons as well as articles where WP:BLP applies to the mention of living persons should stress material of biographical value regarding the person. Where the views held by the person are of significant biographical value to that person, the claim that the person holds such views should be stated clearly and concisely with a Wikilink to the topic, but without extensive discussion in the BLP. Such Wikilinked articles will likely present a discussion of the general views about the topic, and are generally sufficient to demonstrate controversies about that topic to the reader If an extended discussion of the topic is proper for some reason in the biography, such as a belief held notably by the one person, then such a discussion may then include the views of others.

This position would then be much more comprehensive than just "fringe theories" but include topics of all types. Debates about theories are generally better placed in the articles about those theories rather than being inserted like condensed soup into multiple biographies, in my opinion. This would also reduce bickering by an order of magnitude, I suspect. Collect (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Collect i appreciate the new angle. It is useful. However this is really focused on articles about living people; quite often this issue comes up in articles about other stuff and as you know BLP applies everywhere. This is less useful in those contexts. I am interested to see how folks react to this.Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Made clear the "of living persons" part - dunno why I elided it at the outset. I figure it makes sense to stop all the use of biographies to make the same points over and over <g>. Collect (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Which still doesn't address the issue of mentions of living people in articles that are not biographical, where BLP still applies... Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Expanded per your suggestion, although I had thought the intent was fairly clear. :) The goal is to have stuff about "pseudo or real" be kept to articles on the belief or theory etc. and not pasted in every article where a name is mentioned. Collect (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Collect thanks for that tweak. I just came back to re-read all of this. The last sentence of your proposal, leaves the fundamental question unresolved -- namely, what kind of sources can be used for those "views of others"? SPS or not? Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

The SPS exclusion still applies in all cases. "Others" here then must refer to the views of other persons which meet the Wikipedia sourcing requirements as well. Sources forbidden by Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not get a "bye" by this. OK? Collect (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Collect thanks for replying. I see. So this is not about resolving the tension at all, and ignores what WP:PSCI provides. Thanks again in any case. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

The intent is to prevent abuse of policy in order to link living persons to controversial topics in such a manner as is detrimental to WP:BLP. Nor does this suggestion "ignore WP:PSCI" but seeks to assert the primacy of WP:BLP which I trust you agree is a higher level policy. Collect (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Collect, that's too facile. BLP means that we apply all the policies with great care; BLP is never an excuse to violate a policy. PSCI is part of NPOV which means that especially on a BLP page, we do not propagate pseudoscience. The tension comes in with how to do that, given the requirement for strong sourcing in a BLP and given the not uncommon lack of sources typically considered strong that address the specific person's pseudoscience/FRINGE views -- remember we also cannot violate WP:SYN by using some stronger source addressing the topic generally. Hence the proposal, to help navigate between this Scylla and Charybdis in our policies.Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Too facile? Nope. Using a BLP to iterate how horrid their pseudoscience is when there is already a link to that position does not have anything to do with promoting or denying pseudoscience. It is related to giving undue weight to an issue already fully covered on Wikipedia and linked to as well. in a BLP. I demur on your attitude on this issue. NPOV is satisfied by a single simple link to the pseudoscience article involved, and is abridged by giving an iterated précis of such an article in the BLP. If the Wikipedia article clearly goes beyond the relevance to the person's actual views, then we should elide the Wikilink. Collect (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Collect this is what I mean about blowing off PSCI. First, each article needs to stand on its own if it is printed or mirrored somewhere else. In addition, here is what PSCI actually says::

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked. See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help with deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience.

First, do you see how it says "by proponents" in the first sentence there? To the extent said proponents are living, we are directly intersecting with BLP. Do you see how it says "An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included."

When you reply again, please do actually engage with the PSCI policy, spirit and letter? Thanks. (This is actually helpful for thinking through the RfC; both passages are going to have to be presented to help people engage with them... so thanks at least for that) Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

TL,DR.? You appear to accuse me of somehow forgetting that PSCI requires massive copying of the same stuff in any article or BLP which has the remotest connection with the evil belief. Sorry, but that is not a sane thing to do. Articles about living persons should primarily deal with the actual biographies of those persons and not be compendia of rebuttal for every belief they have had. is my stance. Lo alecha hanlacha ligmor. Our task is to present biographies with the salient material relevant to the biographies, not to make sure that every tangent is given full coverage in a biography. The Wikilinks in a BLP are sufficient to let readers understand how evil the person's beliefs are. Saying that a person has a Wikilinked belief is not promoting such a belief in Wikipedia's voice whatsoever. I trust this is clear. Collect (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

I have never said anything about, or even close to, "copying massive amounts of text". To deal with the thing you are talking about (which has nothing to do with the issue of sourcing) the quoted PSCI policy directly discusses the issues of WEIGHT already, which makes the putative objection all the more strange and invalid. This is in any case no longer an authentic conversation and I will not be responding further. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

If we don't have sufficiently strong sources for something, why not just follow our current policy and exclude the poorly sourced material per WP:UNDUE? Tornado chaser (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

PSCI is current policy. It is pasted just above. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

PSCI does not say we have to mention the persons' belief at all if it would be UNDUE, just that if we mention a pseudoscientific belief we must clearly say it is pseudoscience. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

If there are no BLPRS that say "X believes Y", then it is undue to put "X believes Y" in a wikipedia article, and PSCI has nothing to do with this. The issue with PSCI appears to be if we do have sources for "X believes Y", how to then debunk Y, as we are discussing under "Break 2". Tornado chaser (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose use of self-published sources for any purpose except to report views of self-publisher about themself. Views of the self-publisher about other people are not acceptable as a source (I think I am repeating myself).Xxanthippe (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC).
  • There is nothing here to be !voted on. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC) I will be posting an actual RfC soon. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please give me a ping if an RfC is started. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC).

Jytdog, you said you would provide an example of where an SPS is needed[6], please do. (Science-Based Medicine seems not to be considered an SPS[7][8]) So using it at Ben Swann doesn't require any policy changes. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Read what I actually wrote there. You should avoid taking what people write out of context. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Can you clarify how you think I have misinterpreted you? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Break 2

I just read through this entire discussion and it does seem like the same arguments are being made over and over without progress (this is not an accusation against anyone, I have contributed to it too). As far as coming up with actual wording for an RfC, I think Jytdog's Reformulated proposal is decent but may need a few tweaks, besides the clarification that "third party SPS may never be used to say that a person holds a certain view", and the question of what is a "well documented" fringe theory, I can also see possible confusion regarding the previously mentioned distinction between political and scientific fringe views, particularly when a political view relates to scientific issues, for example views on environmental regulations or vaccine requirements. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC) updated 16:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, how about

However, if it is established by BLP-compliant sources including self-published sources by the subject that a living person supports a theory (as opposed to a political opinion) and that theory is documented to be pseudoscientific or fringe by BLP-compliant sources, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to that theory. Content about such theory may be sourced to expert third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the theory, not the person.

I hope that this will enable debunking and mentioning the reactions of other scientists per PSCI and PARITY while maintaining strong BLP protections. I disagree with Collect in that I support some debunking in the BLP article, but in no way does this mean "massive copying" is needed. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

You are still missing the WP:SYN problem. Writing "X promotes Y in books and lectures (BLP-compliant source) and Y is pseudoscience (sourced to standard RS that doesn't mention X)" is WP:SYN and other objections like COATRACK get raised as well. Where the unusual sources come in, is discussing the mainstream scientific view on particular views of a particular person. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog I see where that could be construed as SYN, but if this is really SYN, then the policy change we need is a very narrow exception to SYN for cases like this, rather than weakening BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with the frame that this is "weakening" BLP. It is bringing BLP and NPOV into alignment on a very specific issue. If you insist on using the "weakening" frame then why in the world would you think it is better to "weaken" OR, our bulwark against the very natural tendency of people to abuse our openness to express their own ideas here, and a much earlier policy? Here is the earliest version of the OR policy - it is exactly about the FRINGE/PSCI issue, interestingly. And here is the 1st version of BLP; created 2 years later; you can see the essence of BLP is "follow the other P&G rigorously). That is exactly what I am trying to do here. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think BLP and NPOV conflict, applying BLP and NPOV together does not result in any contradiction, but may require a marginal SYN violation. However, I am not convinced that it is SYN to say "X believes Y,[1] Y is false.[2]" as this does not synthesize anything that the sources do not explicitly state (assuming source 1 says "X believes Y" and source 2 says "Y is false". If we need to change polity it should be easier to craft a narrowly tailored exception to SYN to allow "X believes Y,[1] Y is false.[2]" without allowing a bunch of OR, than it would be to weaken BLPSPS without opening the door for opinionated and poorly fact checked blog posts being used as sources. I say "weaken" because you are proposing less strict sourcing rules, a "weaker" policy, as a solution to the alleged conflict between BLP, NPOV, and SYN. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

You are denying there is a good faith dispute here; there is nothing more to say. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog You appear to have misunderstood me, I don't see a direct conflict between BLP and NPOV, but I assume good faith of every editor here. And I get your point about SYN, I just disagree about the solution. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

This whole discussion is driven by the application of PSCI through PARITY, which creates tension with "No SPS" in BLP. You wrote: I don't think BLP and NPOV conflict. You are denying the freaking reality of the disputes that have occurred over this, in addition to denying the good faith dispute. In addition your understanding of SYN as expressed in that diff is utterly incorrect -- the example you give is classic SYN. Perfect SYN. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe that all editors in a discussion should assume good faith unless there is obvious evidence of bad-faith editing (which I have not seen here). As for the disputes that have occurred over this conflict of policy, the two RfCs mentioned as examples of the conflict between NPOV and BLP involve blog posts that are attributed as the views of the blogger, not stated in wiki's voice, these I would not interpret as BLPSPS violations, since they are using the blog as a source for nothing but the blogger's opinion, but maybe this should be made explicit in the policy. At Ben Swann, the whole SPS issue can be avoided(if SBM is even an SPS in the first place) by using Swann as a source for his own views, and then one of the many MEDRS that say vaccines don't cause autism, this is where the SYN issue comes in. I get the argument that BLP and NPOV conflict, but I think the best solution would be to clarify that SPS can be used as a source for what the blogger said about the subject of the article, as long as none of what the blogger said is stated in wiki's voice, and to adjust WP:SYN. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, content in a BLP sourced from an SPS-not-by-the-subject should be attributed. However, this is at least the second incorrect thing you have written here trying to wave this actual tension in policy away (above you wrote BLP does not deal with scientific fact so there is no conflict here -- here you write that if it is attributed as the views of the blogger it somehow OK - this policy says no SPS-not-by-the-subject and people in this very discussion are reading that plainly and without wiggle and saying that even that is not OK.

There is a tension. Some people want to eliminate it completely in favor of BLP (overriding PARITY and thus PSCI or using WL and ignoring the part of PSCI that says "state the mainstream view prominently"). Some people appear to want to loosen SYN in order to manage the tension. I and others are seeking to clarify that with regard to PSCI/BLP, the community has already loosened that part of BLP; I am recommending that we catch this policy up with practice. There are certain SPS-not-by-the-subject that we regularly use to implement PSCI even in BLP content; yes we attribute it when we do that. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The way I think this is best handled is to say that the statement "According to Alice, Bob ..." is primarily a statement about Alice's views on Bob, rather than a statement about Bob himself, while saying "Bob is ..." and using Alice as a reference, would be primarily a statement about Bob, and therefore something we can't do. Given that the relevant line in BLP states that an SPS cannot be used "... as sources of material about a living person", this hangs on the distinction between using an SPS as a source for material about the subject of the article, and using the SPS as a source for material about the author's views on the subject. If we can clarify that distinction it may be all we need to do. We'd always need to be careful about giving the SPS author's views undue prominence, but I don't see that this would require loosening BLP so much as clarifying how it should be interpreted. - Bilby (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting and I appreciate that. Above it appears to me, that you took a difference stance, in which based on your indenting, it seems that you agreed with this statement saying no SPS-not-by-not-subject, period end of story. Have I misread, or are you taking a different stance? (I think changing is fine, that is not a criticism; i am just seeking clarification to avoid misunderstanding). If you are considering that SPS-not-by-not-subject are OK in some way, what language would you propose to clarify the BLPSPS policy? Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

The policy is fine - if we word it so as to weaken the policy we create a problem. What is needed isn't a change in policy, but simply to recognise the distinction between using an SPS as a source of material about a subject, and using an SPS as a source of material about the author's opinion on the subject. I don't see that this is forbidden by BLP as it stands, which is why we've used this approach before.

To clarify, I would not support using a third party SPS (for example, Bob) to write "Alice supported Wakefield's discredited vaccine-autism link", but I'm ok with using Bob to express Bob's opinion about Alice - "Bob has claimed that Alice is a supporter of Wakefield's discredited vaccine-autism link" - as the first example is not and should not be accepted under BLP. Noting that with the second a case would still have to be made that Bob's opinion is not being given undue weight. Do you agree with this distinction? - Bilby (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC).

Bilby's statement above is exactly my position on the issue, but stated more clearly than I did. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I will consider including "must be attributed" in the RfC proposal. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Good, the RfC needs to be very clear that third-party SPS can never be used as a source for any BLP Material that is stated in wikipedia's voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

What about this[9]? (don't worry, I didn't mess with the policy, the diff is from my sandbox) Tornado chaser (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Really no. Doesn't mention PSCI and "must be attributed" is different from "this is only the authors opinion". Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with saying "must be attributed to the author and not stated in wikipedia's voice" instead of "this is only the authors opinion", that would actually be better. PSCI isn't specifically mentioned because this suggestion is meant to apply to everything, even if it's not PSCI or fringe, but it still addresses the SPS issue that was coming up in PSCI areas by allowing SPS to be used as sources in BLPs as long is such content is attributed. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, are you aware of a case in which it is/was necessary to use third-party SPS as a source for BLP content stated in Wikipedia's voice? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

retraction watch

Another related issue here is Retraction Watch which is pretty much The Source for content about retractions. It is a blog. We use this all the time; it is cited 355 times in en-wp.

There also should be a carveout from BLPSPS for this. This is not about PSCI, but is related in the orbit of the shadow side of good science. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Once we know that an article is retracted (by reading retraction watch) shouldn't we be able to find a non-SPS to use as the source for the retraction? This way we wouldn't need to change policy but would still be able to say when something has been retracted. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Retraction Watch includes the source of their information, so this would be a solution. That said, Retraction Watch employs Alison McCook as editor along with a staff writer and a researcher, so perhaps it should not be regarded as an SPS. [10] - Bilby (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes perhaps but part of what I am trying to do here is make reasonable carveouts to prevent CWOT arguments with respect to what we already do. Somebody can argue BLPSPS for retraction watch. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Couldn't the time-wasting arguments be prevented by using another source? That should be easy since retraction watch cites their sources. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Taking into account the above...

However, if a living person has engaged in or promotes pseudoscience or fringe theories, or work that undermines is inconsistent with accepted scientific or scholarly methods, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to that theories or work. Content about that person's theories or work may be sourced to high quality expert third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the theory or work, not the person.

Notes

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC) (redact per EEng Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC))

• This seems more vague than your "reformulated proposal"[11], which at least said that third party SPS could not be used to attribute views to a person, something that should be made clear in any proposed change. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm very unhappy with "undermines accepted scientific or scholarly methods" -- it has a kind of "enemy of the people" feeling to it. Say "inconsistent with accepted [whatever]" or maybe "in opposition to..." or something like that. EEng 22:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• User:EEng that's helpful, done. That is to deal with use of RetractionWatch and similar. Was trying to state it generally; the "inconsistent with" is good. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support as the duty of an encyclopedia. The internet is full of junk claims and fads and if an article about person P says they promote idea X, readers should be told (in WP:DUE amounts) what is known about X. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• This is still not voting time? In any case, I also support this wording. —PaleoNeonate – 02:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• getting there :) Some people are going to really hate this, and i want to kick the tires plenty. I only thought of Retraction Watch in this context the other day and this proposal should have incorporated it all along. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Jytdog, It still should be adjusted to prevent the use of SPS to attribute views to a person, as your previous proposed version did[12] and requiring attribution of content sourced to SPS would also be an idea. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

My problem here is the "or work". What we can't risk doing is saying something like "Person X had a paper retracted from Nature (see SPS)", or "Person X argues for <discredited theory> (see SPS)". Commenting on someone's actions or their beliefs can be commenting about their work, but it can also be commenting about the person. Thus we end up with a possible conflict. Holding a controversial belief, or having your work retracted, are serious claims that need proper BLP-compliant sources before we can make them, and we can't create an exception for certain types of claims. What we can potentially do is express the opinion of an author about a person, but only as an opinion, and that's not clear in this wording. I'd also add that the three examples don't seem like great choices - Science-Based Medicine has editorial control, Retraction Watch has editorial control and in almost all of these situations can be replaced with more reliable sources, and QuackWatch has an advisory board. - Bilby (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. You are saying a few different things there and I don't see how they all hang together. That is what it is. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Bilby's argument seems clear enough to me. Reliable independent sources are needed to support any claim in a BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC).

That is an accurate high level summary of the proposal as well. These are independent RS for the content specified. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this would address Bilby's concerns, but it would be possible to specify that if the PARITY/SPS source discusses the person, not only the views, it may not be used, or alternatively, that only commentary about the views, rather than about the person, should be summarized. Generally, for the views themselves, unless they are very fringe and borderline notable (but pass AfD despite FRINGEBLP, where resorting to PARITY may be necessary), we can find better sources than SPS that are about the topic itself, rather than the person. —PaleoNeonate – 14:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Or that any opinion about the person should be clearly attributed as opinion of the SPS's author, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 14:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

User:PaleoNeonate...I think the proposal is clear (almost beats to death) the "only views/work not the person" thing..... About the notion of "RS for the topic", we need sources that discuss the person and the view or work, otherwise the content is legitimately removed per WP:SYN. The reason why we reach for these particularly blog-like refs is that they do discuss the specifics and say "person X advocates for Y". We often need them in order to comply with PSCI. I've been thinking about the "use only with attribution" thing. It is absurd to say "According to Retraction Watch, X paper by A was retracted for Z." Retraction Watch is an RS for this and we can just say "Paper X by A was retracted for Z". Yet is clearly bloglike. SBM and Quackwatch are the same. But... I may include an option "If such a source is used, it must be attributed" as a second question in the RfC.... Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Using Retraction Watch as an example, it has an editor, staff writer and researcher, so I wouldn't regard it as an SPS and would be perfectly ok with using it without any change to BLP. However, if it was regarded as an SPS, we would have to say that we couldn't use it, but we could use the source which Retraction Watch uses (which is almost always the journal from which the paper was retracted). The problem is that we risk harming the BLP subject if we make significant claims about them using an SPS, given that a self published source doesn't have the safeguards we would expect from a publication with editorial control. Saying that a professional researcher has had a paper retracted is major claim, and one that could do significant harm to their career - we would want to ensure that the sources we use for this claim are highly reliable. Similarly, saying that someone propagates conspiracy theories, or argues for a disproven vaccine theory, or even that they push psuedoscientific alternative medicines, are all serious claims, and we would want to make sure that there are safeguards ensuring that these claims are accurate before we add them to a BLP. It is different if we are expressing a claim as an opinion - it is one thing to say that a person is supporting a conspiracy theory, but it is another to say that a person was accused of supporting a conspiracy by (author of an SPS), so long as it is worded in that manner. But we can't risk making potentially damaging claims as facts about a living person using any source that does not meet our BLP standards. - Bilby (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

See my remarks above here and here. In any case one of the things it sounds ~kind of~ (but I am not sure) like you might perhaps be saying, in your post above, is that you might perhaps accept this with the "must be attributed" rider. (maybe you don't understand that when I write "must be attributed" I mean "the content must say, 'According to X,' and must not be in Wikipedia's voice.") In any case, you will be able to !vote when the RfC goes. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Back in the RFC on Michael Greger, the closer, Cyberpower, noted that core issue in the debate was with how to manage talking about a person's work but not the person. You've added "work" into the proposal, but it doesn't fix this issue - it is still uncertain where "work" ends and "person" begins. Saying "A paper by X was retracted" is, in a sense, talking about their work, but it is also making a statement about the person. So can you clarify - do you believe that your proposed change would allow a third-party SPS as the source for a statement such as "Nature retracted a paper written by X", or "X has argued for the discredited vaccine-autism link", and if so, do you see these statements as commenting on the subject, the subject's work, or both? - Bilby (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The addition of "work" had nothing to do with "views" vs "person". It has to do with work as in work (a publication) as well as scientific labor (research methods and research conclusions). I introduced "work" so we could clearly bring in Retraction Watch and the like and to better ground the proposal in the kinds of situations where we need this.

On work vs person, yes the Greger passage is about about work (rhetoric Greger deploys in his videos (works), in which he distorts the science in order to persuade people), not the person.

a) "PersonX is a fraud" (statement about a person) is very different from b) "PersonX's paper, Y, was retracted because it included fraudulent data" (work) and c) "PersonX promoted creation science, a form of pseudoscience" (views). The distinction between a) on the one hand and b) and c) on the other, is clear as day and as I already noted, the proposed language above beats the distinction nearly to death. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

"Person X promoted theory Y, a form of pseudoscience" is a serious claim about a living person that needs to be sourced to a non-SPS for inclusion in wikipedia, we don't want to open the door for poorly vetted claims about living people. As for the sources you propose using, SBM dosen't seem to be considered an SPS[13][14] and you even said it wasn't[15], so allowing the use of SBM is a pretty weak argument for changing policy, as this policy change would allow less reliable sources than SBM (with SBM being already allowed under current policy). With retraction watch we can just cite the source that RW cites, rather than citing RW, so this dosen't seem like a reason to change policy in this way either. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for clarifying this. This is what I believed that your stance was. Unfortunately, I don't see that it is compatible with BLP. In the case of a retracted paper, it is not just a paper that was retracted, but a person who had their paper removed. It is not just a claim that Creation Science is being promoted, but that the subject is acting to promote the theory. While there may be a difference in degree between saying that someone is a fraud and that someone's research was retracted, both are still claims about the person, and both can do harm. If we get these wrong we can do significant harm to the individual's reputation and career, which is why we've always insisted on high quality sources. I'm also very strongly opposed to the idea that we should remove some of the protections provided by BLP in cases were we disagree with a person's views. To single out one group of people and say that they are to be given lesser protection is not something we should ever do here. - Bilby (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I answered the question that I understood you to ask, about the distinction between discussion of the person, and discussion of their work or theories. As I said before, based on some of what you have written, I believe you would accept this proposal with the rider: "content generated using such sources must be attributed". Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Bilby, to be sure there is no misunderstanding, does the language "Content generated using such sources must be attributed." address what you have expressed at various points in this discussion, for example here, with "According to Alice, Bob ...". Please answer clearly yes or no, and if the answer is no, please provide concrete alternative language for this bit. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: this makes sense to me. --K.e.coffman (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:Could you clarify weather you agree with Bilby's comment or Jytdog's proposal? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The #Revised proposal at the top of the section. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Public documents

This page says that "public documents" are not good references. Could somebody clarify that in the article (and list more examples), I don't know what is and what isn't a "public document". -- 213.149.61.113 (talk) 22:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm about to remove it. It was added here, and it's not clear what it refers to. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

More discussion needed. There is some subtlety here. The original text went on to read "to support assertions". Should this be changed to "to support unproven assertions", as court records of legal findings in civil or criminal matters can be considered to be reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC).

I don't see the phrase "to support assertions", but, in any event, court records are not normally considered acceptable sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

?? I must have been looking at a different-dated version. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC).

(ec) Is it really appropriate to remove wording that has been in the policy since 2007 without prior discussion? If it is unclear, it needs clarification, not removal. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Xxanthippe: "to support assertions not also made in reliable secondary sources" would be better, since the intention (as I have always understood the policy) is to avoid the use of unsupported primary-source material where the possibility of misidentification (i.e. someone else of the same name), later amendment (e.g. a conviction reversed on appeal) or simple clerical error (i.e. entries on a database not subject to external scrutiny) are too great. There is also the issue of weight: if the only source for something is an entry on a database, does it belong in an article? 86.147.197.31 (talk) 23:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

There is plenty of subtlety here that needs consideration. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC).

"Public documents" was added without discussion and was clearly overlooked. The problem with that section is that it has changed over the years, and now says don't use court transcripts at all when they are, in fact, excellent sources if used properly. What it means is don't use court cases to write about someone when the person or the case isn't otherwise notable. Don't go searching through court records to find a nasty divorce or a minor crime, then start quoting documents. Don't use public records to obtain date of birth, etc. But if someone notable is convicted of a serious crime, and high-quality secondary sources have written about it, then of course you can augment those sources with court transcripts, so long as you're careful. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The concern is twofold. One is the possible misuse of primary sources in order to make claims which no one has deigned to repeat in a secondary reliable source. The second is the issue of privacy inherent in most court records to begin with, and the ability to promoote matters which are legally confidential in a public venue (such as legal addresses of celebrities, names of minor children and the like). We are not saying "public documents are false" but we are saying that Wikipedia relies on secondary reliable sources, just as primary medical papers are not generally accepted as sources, even though we do not accuse them of not being factual. I think this covers the issue. It appears obvious, moreover, that the intent is to include arrest records and other documents which may contain similar material. Collect (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like some more clarification: are sex offender records for rape a good source for articles on living persons if there are no secondary sources? Related: are sex offender records primary sources? I would argue that sex offender records are secondary sources with court records being primary sources. 213.149.61.113 (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sex offender records are primary sources as Wikipedia defines them. And they wouldn't be 'good sources' even if they were secondary, and even if there weren't potential issues with misidentification etc that I have discussed above. They lack the necessary detail to merit inclusion in an article. I suggest you stop trying to wheedle your way around Wikipedia policy, since you aren't going to win this argument. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 00:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Reference for "Wikipedia defining sex offender records as primary sources"? Regarding your later point, there need be no issues with misidentification regarding sex offender records, because they include photographs. Regarding your point about sex offender records lacking detail, I disagree that they lack detail. Regarding your last sentence, I would appreciate you not using insulting words such as "wheedle" against me; and also am I in an argument? 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are under the misapprehension that photographs cannot be misidentified, I can only suggest that you do a little research on the subject. And if you aren't arguing against Wikipedia policy, you are certainly giving the impression of doing so. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not arguing against Wikipedia policy, I am trying to get a clarification of Wikipedia policy, because it is currently seemingly so vague as to be nonexistent in this respect. In other words I am trying to get relevant Wikipedia policy created. 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment. You are free to make a proposal regarding a policy change, as is anyone else. I would advise against doing so on the basis of a single dispute though, as it is unlikely to gain much traction. You need to demonstrate that there is a significant issue. And familiarity with the way existing policy has been interpreted is going to be necessary if you are going to convince anyone of the merits of a proposal. You should probably also read the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution on Biographies of living people [16], as Wikipedia policy on this topic has to take this into consideration. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, but I hope someone more involved will try to change the page / write RFC. 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Break

• I don't agree with everything anyone says here. People's language is imprecise when policy calls for precision. The one thing I know is I am opposed to any change to current policy without a well-worded RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Collect, your edit summary was highly misleading. My edit removed the phrase "or other public documents", because it wasn't clear what it referred to. You wrote that you had reverted me: "Undid revision 852720606 by SlimVirgin (talk)". But in fact your edit added "or similar documents such as arrest records". I don't mind your edit, but saying that you reverted me makes it appear that I had removed those words. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The "edit summary" is the default one provided by the Wiki system - my aim was to clarify what you deemed a vague edit. Sorry about that, but my attempt was to reach a logical state. I did not intend in any way to impugn your position - my aim was to make the poor wording (which "public documents" was) and to seek a rational consensus wording. OK? Collect (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I don't really understand the explanation, because you didn't revert me; you added new words. But regardless, it's done. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

So now "public documents" public are banned again without a definition of what public document is, or at least some more examples. 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

"Arrest records" and the like seem to be the reasonable intent of policy. Collect (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You did not explain anything, what is "like" arrest records? 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

To expand on what Collect says above, we cannot possibly give exhaustive definitions of every word or phrase used in a Wikipedia policy. And nor do we need to, since Wikipedia isn't a court of law. It is clear what the intent is, and that is what matters. You aren't the first person to try to use court records or similar documents in a biography, and the response has always been the same: they aren't suitable on their own. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 00:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

NO, it is not clear what the intent is! 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear enough to everyone else here. Nobody has supported using sex offender records as a sole source in a Wikipedia biography. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

[17] seems pretty clear. "XXXX has a rape conviction. It is easy to find official references in sex offender databases. looks like you wanted to use them. Collect (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

You are on the wrong sub-thread, but I did not argue for using sex offender records as the *sole* source in an article. But since you are bringing it up, it is not clear from the policy page if rapist databases are to be considered public documents for the purposes of the paragraph. I mean, TBH "public document" as far as I understand refers to all "public" "documents", thus banning ALL POSSIBLE REFERENCES. -- 213.149.61.113 (talk) 00:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Something you need to understand here. As I have already stated, Wikipedia is not a court of law. It is a website, owned by a charitable foundation and run by volunteers. The ultimate decision as to what content is or isn't included in articles is determined by three things only: applicable law (e.g. libel etc), what the Foundation permits (though they have very little input, and rarely get involved in disputes), and the collective decisions of contributors. Whether you personally find policy clear or not isn't really of much concern. Most regular contributors understand that when there is disagreement, discussion followed by consensus is the way to get things done. And contributors who aren't prepared to accept that not everything is going to go their way tend not to stay around for long. We are trying to write an encyclopaedia, and don't have endless patience with people who seem more intent on engaging in endless debate than on actually doing something useful. 86.147.197.31 (talk) 01:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

To quote SlimVirgin: "public documents" alone is meaningless. It seems like you WANT endless debate, considering how much you use empty and condenscending phrases instead of contributing to the relevant discussion. -- 213.149.61.113 (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Collect's edit—"or similar documents such as arrest records"—was significantly better than "public documents". We don't have to offer a list, but giving arrest records as an example makes it clear what we mean. The phrase "public documents" alone is meaningless. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Would "official records" implying records held by an authorized established body be better than "public documents", which might mean somebody's blog? Anyhow, please no more changes to the policy until consensus is established here. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC).

Trifecta

WP:RS says reliable independent secondary sources. Arrest records and offender databases are primary. They should only be used for uncontroversial facts. If multiple reliable independent sources say X was arrested, or X is in prison, then the official record can support the date of arrest or the place of imprisonment. We can't use these for sources for the fact of arrest or imprisonment, not least becasue there may be someone else with the same name. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Honestly I'd stay away completely. Computerized data that hasn't passed through a human mind specifically interested in the subject just has too many ways to go wrong. An overlong exposition of mine on primary sources (mostly about census returns, but similar principles apply) is here [18]. EEng 23:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Observation - A mug shot (also other details of the arrest information) should eliminate the possibility of mistaken identity in many or most instances. That being the case, surely the fact of the arrest is not "controversial"?

WP:NOR which has the most extensive coverage of this subject among "core" WP policies says this: Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. 23.91.234.76 (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Primary sources are best used for non-contentious claims, such as date of birth, occupation, place of death etc. I would not use police reports or court records for contentious claims; this may be WP:OR and / or WP:UNDUE. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: assumptions of death for persons with birth date unknown

The section §Recently dead or probably_dead outlines how a person whose date of birth is 115 years or more ago can be presumed to be dead. However there are many cases, such as Yusra (archaeologist), where birth dates are unknown and we only have dates where the person did a noteworthy event. This tends to be the case for a lot of stubs, such as L._Doran (an Indian cricketer who played in the 1950s). This policy page currently offers no guidance on these cases.

Action: Add the following to §Recently dead or probably_dead: When a date of birth is not known, a person is assumed to be covered by this policy if the earliest event in their lives mentioned in the article occurred within the last 100 years.

This is a conservative policy, (like the 115 year rule). Almost all such events which would be in scope here would be have done while the person was over 15 years old. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 13:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Almost all is not quite good enough... there are some infants who become known for one event (a kidnapping victim for example)… best to keep the line of demarcation at 115 years. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I would think that there's common sense exceptions, if the last known event has more details we can predict an age from. If the last event was that they were meeting their great-grandchildren for the first time, we can safely assume they had to be 45-50 years then, for example. If we have no reasonable metric of age identification, but the event is something that involves what an adult would normally do, then 100 years seems fine. --Masem (t) 13:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

As Masem said, there are theoretical common-sense exceptions. However I've never actually seen an article where this would apply. A child who makes the news almost always has their age quoted in the story, from which a DOB can be inferred. My motivation of this was sweeping though Category:Biography_articles_without_living_parameter when it was backlogged last year, and there were a lot of stubs for sportspeople and minor politicians without dates of birth, where it's certain they were 15 or older at the time they did the thing that made them notable.

We could have 115 years since the event as the rule, but that seems overcautious, even for BLPs. 115 is already extremely conservative, less than 50 people have ever lived that long. The chances of a +100 year-old person's notable event being within the first 15 years of their life (but that not being recorded in the details about them) AND that person still being alive (yet not famous for being extremely old) requires the coincidence of extremely unlikely events.

Even if we have to go for 115 years since event, such text would be better than the current policy silence regarding this. --LukeSurl ^{t c}

• Support 100 years from any known event Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
• As this discussion didn't get much attention, I've WP:BOLDly added text: If dates of death and birth are unknown, editors should use reasonable judgement to infer from dates of events noted in the article if it is probable the person was born within the last 115 years is therefore covered by this policy, leaning on the side of caution.. I think this reflects current practice. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 09:32, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
• This addition was reverted by User:Bbb23, who I'd like to invite to discuss here. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:58, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• I suggest an RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• RfC opened below. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:37, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Waycross (band)

Waycross (band) doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. While they did chart on a major Billboard chart, they utterly fail WP:V. Literally the only sources I found are a college newspaper (which only gives WP:ROUTINE coverage due to one of the members being an alumnus of said college), and a single post from an unreliable looking blog. A search for "Ben Stennis" + "Waycross" turns up absolutely nothing. Even Gbooks has zero results. The only hits for the song are lyric databases, YouTube uploads, and false positives. Literally the only reputable source I have that even gives the names of the members is the Joel Whitburn Hot Country Songs book, which is already given a citation in the article alongside the college newspaper and a now-broken link to CMT's upload of the video. As far as I can tell, there is not a scrap of information out there on these guys. Usual country music sources like Country Standard Time, Taste of Country, and Roughstock.com also turn up nothing. While the song "Nineteen" does have an article, it's still very short and focuses mainly on Billy Ray Cyrus's cover of it.

tl;dr: I am convinced that these guys utterly fail WP:BAND due to the lack of sources. Is my assessment accurate? Should someone take this to AFD? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Should BLP apply to towns? Why or why not?

I note that guiding spirit of BLP is "We are not here to make people sad" it it's reasonably avoidable.

I note also that BLP now applies to recently deceased persons. Dead people don't have feelings and don't care about their reputations -- they are dead, as dead as Charlemagne. The section on this says BLP applies to "material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends". So this establishes the precedent that that the feelings/welfare of groups of people other than the subject are in play.

The "Legal persons and groups" section says "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons". Towns are not any of these things, although they usually are legally constituted entities (if not unincorporated), but not a Legal person according to that article, it doesn't seem. This distinction may be splitting hairs, but on the other hand the section does deliberately and specifically make the point of applying only to legal persons.

The entire section says:

This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies. The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources.

So... writing negative stuff about a town will make a lot of people sad. Nothing in this policy mentions towns either way. So I'd think it doesn't apply... but should it?

It is a tough call. Most of our town articles whitewash the history of towns, and I'm sure you can figure out why. So since rules (are supposed to) codify practice, this'd be another reason to add towns here.

For the example that makes me ponder this question, see Talk:Cleveland, Texas#RfC: 2011 rapes. IMO stuff like this is useful info for the reader to to answer the question "what is the deal with this entity" on an encyclopedic level in addition to the usual stuff about when it was founded, how many parks it has, what the climate is, what highways run near it, etc. However, that is debatable, and it probably makes the people in Cleveland, Texas sad, certainly damages its reputation, and probably causes some material damage to the town, and so if it was a living person we would probably not include it... Herostratus (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind issues like WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NEVENT and the like. Just because there's a major crime that reflected poorly on the town, if it was only covered at a local level, it's probably not appropriate for us to include it. (To counter, we know cities like Detroit and Chicago have very high crime rates, but that's backed by numerous national studies. That we're not going to hide). --Masem (t) 01:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Well yeah but that's a different issue. It's a valid point but FWIW WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't apply (one of my peeves is people constantly cite it based on the title, without having actually read it) and I mean it's a pretty significant thing to know about that town. It aids the reader's understanding of "What is this place? What is it like?" IMO, although others may disagree (and there's an open RfC at the link).

But I mean, if it was a person, you'd want to bend over backwards to err on the side of protecting the person's feelings (or those of his loved ones if he's recently dead) and reputation. If you're bending over backwards to do that, there's a strong case for not including info like this. If you're not bending over backwards, the case is weaker. So that's the question: should we? Herostratus (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No, BLP policy does not apply to towns, but all of our other content policies and relevant guidelines do apply. The purpose of these policies and guidelines is to maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, not to avoid hurting the feelings of town residents. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I really don't feel BLP can be stretched this far. What seems much more relevant, though, is WP:UNDUE. Is this really relevant given the town's entire history, or are you just committing recentism? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Question about using a person's real name

Requesting any input on a question raised at Talk:The Cutting Room Floor (website)#What name to use for one of the designers/maintainers of this website? The issue is this: we do know the real name of the person, who is mentioned in several places in the article text. He uses only his online handle at the subject website. The article as originally written (in March) used his real name with a mention of his online handle. He has now asked us, in an off-wiki message, not to use his real name, but to refer to him only by his online handle. Does BLP policy offer any guidance on this situation? Are we required to use his real name since it has been published elsewhere, or can we respect his request to be named only by the handle he uses in his work for the subject? --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia deals with what has been reported in reliable sources. That an individual wants to maintain a particular mode of branding is of no particular importance in determining the content of Wikipedia articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@MelanieN and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I assume that when MOS:SURNAME says 'best known by', it means 'most often referred to as such in reliable sources'? Adam9007 (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

There's a chance that it might be suppressed (not in the "oversight" sense, though perhaps that as well) if the subject contacts the Volunteer Response Team, explains the situation, and provides a good rationale for why including the name is a concern, MelanieN. I doubt it would work, but I have seen it work before to suppress the real name of Vermin Supreme (see the article's talk page) as a "privacy violation" due to concerns about his family or whatever, even though it's cited in the sources used in the article. I have also seen it work in other situations for other personal data, like birth dates and whatnot. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC); last edited at 14:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. We went ahead and did it as per WP:SURNAME, which was also the way the most detailed source had done it. (At first mention, real name "best known as" the handle, and then just the handle through the rest of the article.) I agree about OTRS and tried to email the person to suggest it, but I'm not sure if the email went through. However, the person did come to the article talk page, and while he was not happy with that outcome it didn't sound like he was going to pursue it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Rape By Force conviction with Megan's Law website as only reliable source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Suppose there is a Wikipedia article about a living USA musician in which it is not mentioned that he was convicted of rape and is a registered sex offender. The source for this is a Megan's Law website with an entry that clearly identifies the musician by a "mugshot" photograph, name, date of birth, etc; with no other secondary sources about the conviction available. The entry notes the musician's offense as Rape By Force.

Surely everybody can agree that it would be good to note the rape conviction in the article about the musician, but there seems to be opposition to using the the only available source from some editors.

Is it appropriate to use the source to establish the rape conviction in the musician's article? -- 83.177.85.253 (talk) 11:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

With the information you have provided here, I suggest it is not appropriate. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 11:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree: if more reliable sources did not discuss it, maybe we also shouldn't. —PaleoNeonate – 12:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

An official government Megan's Law website (California) is not unreliable. -- 83.177.85.253 (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I have not changed my opinion. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 13:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: I meant more than one reliable sources, not that the source wasn't. —PaleoNeonate – 13:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

No. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The Megan's Law website entries are not similar to court records. -- 83.177.85.253 (talk) 13:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sports fans and political endorsements from actors

Hi all, was looking at Jason Bateman and was tempted to remove a line about him having endorsed Bernie Sanders, and another line about him being a fan of a sports team, as both seem rather trivial to me. Is there a consensus in favor of including or excluding such information? If not, should we try to establish one? Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the article Talk page, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove all unsourced DOBs from BLPs?

Per WP:DOB (which is partially motivated by WP:AVOIDVICTIM, according to 1, 2, etc.), it seems imperative that BLPs do not contain unsourced dates of birth. Is there any reason a BLP would be allowed to contain an unsourced date of birth? wumbolo ^^^ 13:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if you cannot source a birth date, then it should be removed. Birth year is likely more common (When sources have language like "The 26-year actor, now starring in..." which we can back out the year), but exact birthdate is likely not as well known. --Masem (t) 15:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

@Masem: there are tons of unindexed unsourced dates of birth. I doubt they will be sourced/removed anytime soon. With BLPs, contentious material should be removed as soon as possible, and since unsourced DOBs are both contentious and easy to find with a bot, I wonder why they all wouldn't just be removed. It takes a couple dozen seconds to search for a reliable source for an unsourced DOB, and it will take too much time before they are all sourced or removed. wumbolo ^^^ 11:12, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

An issue is that sometimes the source for the date is not immediately (in location) attached for the date, which is an acceptable practice when done right. That is, if I start one's "Early life" section, "So and so was born Dec 31, 1970, to parents John and Jane Smith in New York City.(citation here)", that covers not only the date in the body, but in the lede and any infobox. Some bios even omit the DOB in the body but the sourcing is actually there for it. So this is less a bot-oriented task and one that should be "if you see an unsourced date with no support, remove it." --Masem (t) 13:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• Having a bot remove supposedly unsourced DOBs is totally crazy and would cause far more harm than good. Also, I don't automatically remove unsourced DOBs when I see them. I remove them if they are challenged or if there is a dispute, i.e., someone changes one unsourced date for another. DOBs are not inherently contentious.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• It is important to understand the distinction between unCITED and unSOURCED. A bot can flag where a DOB is unCITED but not where it is unSOURCED. Blueboar (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Blueboar, Bbb23, Masem, and Wumbolo: we should also be concerned about including full DOBs, see WP:BLPPRIVACY which says "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it." I interpret that as meaning celebrities, probably OK to have full dob, most academics, no. Etc. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Mugshots as primary picture for people not notable as criminals?

Daniel Baldwin is one case. He's a probably a B-list celebrity but his cover photo is a mugshot from an arrest, because that's the only publicly available headshot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Baldwin#Less_judgemental_photograph

It seems this is far from ideal, and a policy might be appropriate to use no photo at all if this sort of photo is the only one available.

-- Geekeasy (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd definitely say not appropriate, it gives the wrong impression. It might be the only free image but we can't mislead either particularly with BLP. --Masem (t) 15:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on adding text regarding applicability of policy to persons with dates of birth unknown

In what cases should BLP policy apply for articles about persons for whom there is no confirmation of death, nor a date of birth? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Currently the §Recently dead or probably dead section has instructions regarding the applicability of this policy for persons for whom it is not known whether or not they are still alive. This states that, for such persons, BLP applies if they were born in the last 115 years. However this assumes the date of birth is known, which is often not the case — especially for stub articles. Practically, the only chronological information to go on are usually one or two dates when the person did something. Examples of these, with links are to current versions at time of this post, are:

• Amélie Le Gall - Earliest dated event: competing in cycle races in 1895. Certainly dead.
• A. Lawrey - Earliest dated event: competing in the 1908 Olympics. If alive, he'd have to be 110 plus however old he was when competing in the Olympics. Certainly dead.
• Yusra (archaeologist) - Earliest dated event: participating in an archaeological expedition in 1929. Very likely dead, but it's plausible she could have been a young adult in 1929, which would give a DOB within 115 years.
• L. Doran - Earliest dated event: playing cricket in 1951. Could quite possibly still be alive.

There should be some guidance regarding whether these are BLP-covered, as the current policy is silent.

I suggest the following text to add to the end of the §Recently dead or probably dead section.
If the date of birth is unknown, editors should use reasonable judgement to infer—from dates of events noted in the article—if it is plausible that the person was born within the last 115 years and is therefore covered by this policy.

This is effectively the most cautious side of current practice. Note the use of the word plausible which instructs editors to be very conservative. Practically, editors could assume a person may have been as young as 16 for most types of events, unless it is noted they were a child. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

comment Absent a known date of birth, the latest likely date of birth may be used for purposes of this policy. as being shorter and sufficiently clear. Collect (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment I prefer plausible to likely in this case. Likely is subject to a wider range of assumptions which may be personal opinion. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Is it a BLP violation to state that a person has committed a crime when sources say the person has allegedly committed the crime?

I keep getting reverted by the same editor who claims I'm vandalizing these articles when trying to edit the following statements (green) in accordance to what the sources used to support them say (blue). Are these BLP violations?:

• "Providing logistical support for terrorist operations".[19] what the source says: "She was responsible for directing some MEK operations from Iraq, suggesting that she was sent to the US and then to Canada, to act in an organizational capacity."

• "In 1982, she was accused of leading a terrorist attack against the Iranian government on behalf of the organization".[20] what the source says Samadi became a member of the MEK in 1980 and was an active fighter for the organization against Iranian targets in the 1980s, including alleged terrorist attacks in Tehran in 1982

• "Providing logistical support for terrorist operations".[21] what the source says Robab Farahi-Mahdevie was alleged to have masterminded the 1992 attack on the Iranian embassy in Ottawa

There are a few more, but may be best to keep it concise for now. Thanks for the feedback. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

To keep it concise, Yes, follow the reliable sources. At least one reliable source must state that the person has comitted the crime (or words to that effect, like convicted of, found guilty by a court etc.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Peter (Southwood), thanks for confirming. However, the issue is that I've already tried that a couple of times, but I keep getting reverted by the same user. The same thing is also happening on other pages concerning Islamic Republic of Iran political opposition individuals (and groups), where serious accusations are being made backed up with either fringe sources or sources that don't support the claim being made. I've tried talking to this user, but this has led nowhere. The user also has a history of getting into edit wars about these topics, so I'm trying to avoid all the mess that comes with that. Any thoughts? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

With regard to "Providing logistical support for terrorist operations" that does seem to be directly supported by the source give, albeit in a section title rather than in the text below the title. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:05, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, just noticed the title. However, the short paragraph that follows does not specify or verify what this means. Would this title alone then be enough to confirm a person has provided logistical support for terrorist operations when no other source (including this one) specifies or verifies this? Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:16, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Headlines and section titles in articles, even if from RSes, should not be taken as anything as "fact" if that's the only place the information is given. These are frequently added by copyeditors and not by the actual writer prior to publication, so should not assumed to have the same editorial control and fact-checking applied to the RS itself. --Masem (t) 13:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

An issue has been raised about appropriate external links and the website included in an infobox for someone accused of a crime awaiting trial.

Already raised and answered at WP:ELN#Infobox link to The Maria Butina Legal Expense Fund. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An issue has been raised about appropriate external links and the personal website included in an infobox for someone accused of a crime awaiting trial. If possible reference What_Wikipedia_is_not#PROMO, What Wikipedia is not promotion, in your response.

Specifically, can the personal website listed on a Wikipedia page of someone accused of a crime contain a link to a legal defense fund or information that might support the defense of that individual? Can you be specific about why or why not?

Under what circumstances can a link to a legal defense fund be included in a Wikipedia article? For example, does it matter if the legal defense fund is controlled by a trustee? Geo8rge (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

We would never allow a direct link to a defense fund drive from a WP article, that's just against WP:ELNO (straight up WP:NOT#PROMOTION). On the other hand, if the person's appropriate website that is otherwise acceptable by WP:EL does happen to include a pledge drive link, we'd still allow the main link to be included; we don't control what the person's website publishes and we're not directly publishing the funding link. A comparative example is that we will happily link to ELs for the home pages bands and the like but not to their merch page even if their home page has those links. --Masem (t) 20:45, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people and groups accused of sexual misconduct since the Me Too movement

Opinions are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people and groups accused of sexual misconduct since the Me Too movement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

the WELLKNOWN exemption

WP:BLPCRIME presently:

This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN.

For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

If we look back to the end of 2005:

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so neutral point of view needs particular attention.

Make sure all categorizations are relevant, verifiable and obvious from the article content. For example, add only people convicted of a crime in a court of law to Category:Criminals

This seems like a much more solid guideline. WP:CRIME appears to support this 2005 interpretation rather than the current interpretation:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law.

At what point were policies changed (and by whom?) where it became acceptable to refer to living people as criminals prior to their being convicted of crimes? Why would someone being well-known be grounds to abandon the policy of speaking of them neutrally prior to conviction? 70.51.193.44 (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)