User:Atsme/BLP label

• WP:LABEL states that value laden labels may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Editors should also keep in mind that when using in-text attribution, to make sure it doesn't lead to an inadvertent neutrality violation.
• WP:BLP policy requires that we take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and strict adherence to Wikipedia's three core content policies WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:OR, the three of which are inseparable from each other and from BLP policy; therefore, when material is challenged as a BLP violation, it serves to reason that BLP policy would take precedence in the absence of strict adherence to the 3 core content policies or if a higher degree of sensitivity had not been exercised.

• The possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
• Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects.

Example cases

Two different cases were discussed at WP:BLPN wherein contentious labels were at issue, including Pardon of Joe Arpaio and Michel Chossudovsky. Valid reasons were provided addressing why contentious labels, which require in-text attribution, should not be used in the lede of a BLP, and in some instances, in the body.

Arguments for use

The most common arguments used to support the use of contentious labels in the lede include:

1. It's a term widely used by WP:RS to describe the person; therefore, it is appropriate to include it in the lede.
2. When multiple RS have described the person as ^{(insert contentious label)}, that makes it factual and justifies using WikiVoice without in-text attribution in the lede where inline citations are not required.
3. Omission of labels that define a person is WP:FALSEBALANCE
4. Contentious labels used with in-text attribution may leave readers with the impression it's a view held by few despite it being a widely held view.

Arguments against use

Unfortunately, this reasonable line of policy and logic is what leads to the disconnect of such labels in the lede and body in a properly developed BLP article. Take a person such as this guy who clearly is regularly called a conspiracy theorist in sources. In the body of a proper BLP, we'd start with their early life, their career, and then likely move on to criticism of his views and opinions, at which point we could include the laundry list of sources that describe his as a conspiracy theorist, with appropriate inline attribution (even if it as simple "He is frequently considered a conspiracy theorist by the media", without having to name all names. This is all well as good. We would not include these claims earlier before introducing his career because narratively it would not make sense 99% of the time - someone usually becomes labeled as a theorist due to the path their career takes, not because they set off in life to become one. So in the body, we're in good shape, no issues.
But then suddenly, this approach completely changes for the lede, per arguments presented above. We suddenly focus on calling a spade a spade, rather than follow the same logical flow that the body developed (career path and then criticism/labeling). And while I would agree that as long as we have the body well sourced that we don't need the lede to be sourced, this suddenly "reordering" of importance, particularly when we're talking broadly-shared criticism rather than 100% factual data, is problematic and will make it harder for people seeking the citations for the "conspiracy theorist" claims to find them. Arguably, this is one of the ultimate forms of POV pushing, even if that POV equates to the near majority public opinion about someone. The court of public opinion is not a reliable source, effectively. I know I've argued many times on this before and I don't want to repeat myself, but when it is phrased in the context of how we need sources in the body and the ability to leave sources out of the lede, the issue takes on a new light that shows this as a serious BLP/POV problem. To stress: in cases like this, its not an issue of having the claims of things like "conspiracy theorist" in the lede (as long as sourced in body), just the fact that editors want to strive to push those aspects out as the first sentence rather than focusing on the 100% factual "who, what, and where" parts of a BIO that nearly all other biographical articles are written to. --[1]MASEM (t) 20:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Opinion, not fact

The problem extends from the fact that the person is notable for what other people think about them, which is not a factual element ("X is a conspiracy theorist" is a statement of opinion; "Most source think X is a conspiracy theorist" is a statement of fact). Nowhere else on WP do we start an article (BLP or otherwise) with a non-factual statement. In no case of a first sentence in a lede do we talk about how great certain past world leaders have been, how terrible and vile that dictators and warmongers in the past have been, how well a creative work has been taken, how poorly taken the worst movie flops have been, how successufl a business has been, etc - except on this slim subject area of BLP articles of people and entities linked to the alt/far-right of late. I can fully understand why it seems sensible from "common sense" that we should lede off with that - the bulk of the media talks poorly of these people, we should reflect that, etc. etc. but that's ignoring the situation of the media today where there is no separation of fact and opinion. WP:RECENTISM is very important to keep in mind here. We bury our heads to the problem when we say its okay to consider the court of public opinion as "factual" to put these opinions front and center before any other non-disputed factual elements have been laid out. As a non BLP example. take Ishtar (film). It's claim to fame is being one of the worst films ever made. Does the article lede off with that? No - it gets past the facts (type of film, when released, who starred, who made, what the development was) and then introduces this worst-film-ever element by the last part of the lede. Same with these BLPs. Get a few sentences past the non-controversial facts that is written in a disinterested and inpartial tone, and then you're in the clear to establish why that person is really notable, if those core facts are not the reason why. There is zero policy or guideline that requires the lede sentence to establish notability, only that the lede at some point needs to state the reason for notability. But pushing these types of opinions to the first sentence is pretty much a POV against BLP that only occurs in this subset of articles, and it is inexcusable for us being an impartial work as well as against core policy. --[2]MASEM (t) 07:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Contentious labels in non-biographical articles

Another example of noncompliance with BLP policy occurs when material is cherrypicked from a RS for the purpose of disparaging a living person in a non-biographical article that focuses on a different topic, even though the topic may involve said person. While criticism cited to reliable sources is valid in a biographical article about that person per WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT, it is inappropriate when it is not central to the topic; thereby creating a BLP coatrack issue. BLP policy requires a dispassionate tone with strict adherence to NPOV which means we avoid the inclusion of quotes that coatrack unnecessary/irrelevant opinions that are not essential to the central focus of the article topic.

Attack pages

• WP:ATTACK describes an attack page as a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. The policy explains the procedures to resolve such issues using the {{dbattack}} template for speedy deletion, or blanking the page. With relevance to this essay and contentious labeling, the policy also explains that if the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject or a living person, and there is no neutral version in the history to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place. This is especially important if the page contains biographical material about a living person. The argument then becomes a matter of what editors should do when reliable sources use similar derogatory labels when describing a living person. The answer is that BLP policy should prevail, and the requirement for derogatory labels is unambiguous: use in-text attribution, and adhere strictly to the 3 core content policies that are inseparable; i.e., NPOV, V and OR. Problems arise when POV warriors insist that the contentious labels used to describe controversial people are factual because they are cited to multiple RS despite what BLP policy states.

Using BLPs to continue disputes

WP:BLPCOI While editors may include material — where relevant, properly weighted, and reliably sourced — about controversies or disputes in which the article subject has been involved, WP is not the place to "perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes". An editor who may have an ongoing dispute with the subject or who is a rival of that individual should not edit that person's biography given the COI - noting that "a conflict of interest exists whether or not decisions are affected by a personal interest; a conflict of interest implies only the potential for bias, not a likelihood."