Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
BLP issues summary
Discussions
Guidelines (Also see policies.)
Policies (Also see guidelines.)
Projects
Tools
Other

RfC: The intersection of BLPSPS and PSCI (old)[edit]

withdrawn due to late-breaking feedback. Also dropped 2 since it was getting no attention Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 9 October 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.

Should any of the following be added at the end of the WP:BLPSPS subsection?

  • 1) However, if a living person promotes pseudoscience or fringe theories, or has published work that 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.[a]
  • 1a) Same as the above, but including at the end: "Content generated using such sources should be attributed if it goes beyond simple facts" [b]
  • 2) 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.

Notes

  1. ^ As examples only, commonly used sources for this purpose include Retraction Watch, Science-Based Medicine, and Quackwatch
  2. ^ "simple facts" are "X's medical license was revoked by Y on Z date." or "Paper A was retracted by journal B for given reason C"

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Policy/guideline background (old)[edit]

The two relevant policies are:

  • PSCI, which 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

    • WP:PARITY (part of the WP:FRINGE guideline that interprets PSCI) 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. ...

  • BLPSPS says:

Avoid self-published sources

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. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[1] See § Images below for our policy on self-published images.

--Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Policy background discussions (old)[edit]


  • Note. Some argue that Science-Based Medicine and Retraction Watch are under "editorial control" so BLPSPS does not apply; others says that they are "blogs" or "group blogs" and in any case not under editorial control of a "news organization", so BLPSPS does apply. One of the reasons for this RfC is to resolve these longterm disputes. The RfC question takes the stance of those who would exclude these sources in order to optimize the chances for long-term resolution.

--Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Usage (old)[edit]

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

BLPSPS/PSCI !votes (old)[edit]

  • Strong oppose to all proposals Strong oppose to all proposals 1 and 2, Oppose 1a It needs to be explicitly clear that SPS not by the subject may never be used as sources for the fact that a living person holds controversial/bogus/wrong views, this is to avoid wikipedia damaging anyones reputation without solid evidence. All 3 of the proposals on this RfC allow or could easily be interpreted to allow SPS to be used as a source for the fact that someone holds contentious or wrong views, we must avoid making an exception to our BLP standards that would allow accusations of pseudoscience without the same strict sourcing requirements that we have for other serious negative claims about living people.
Also the RfC question assumes that SBM and retracting watch are SPS, but since this is disputed (SBM in particular seems like it may not be considered an SPS) this RfC creates a false "all or nothing" choice, either allow SBM and RW as well as things that are indisputable SPS, or prohibit SPS but also prohibit SBM and RW. It is not necessary to support SPS being allowed at all to support the use of SBM and RW, since many consider these not to be SPS. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC) modified 21:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Bilby makes many good points in his comment below, regarding the the overlap between content about a person and content about their work, the problems with 1a, and the need to clarify rather than change policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1a and I'm extremely confused about the !vote above because the rationale given does not apply. Nothing in any of the proposals would permit using PARITY quality sources to establish that a BLP has espoused a fringe theory; it would only make it clear that PARITY quality sources may be used in BLP articles when talking about the PBLPs fringe beliefs. I'll also point out that current policy falls the same way, if you look at what is said by WP:PARITY, WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP and consider the intersection with any degree of rationality. It's just never made explicit. This is just making it explicit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all variants. WP:FRINGE (including its WP:FRIND section) is not a policy, WP:BLP is a policy, and guidelines do not override policies. Claiming a website has editorial control, and/or is a newspaper, is not a substitute for evidence. WP:PSCI is part of establishing NPOV but that is not the issue here -- even if the POV is perfectly neutral that's not relevant to the question whether it is self-published, so there's no "intersection". There have been errors about this in the past (as the Science-Based Medicine RfC shows), so it will be helpful if the closer states: "No, all blogs are self-published sources which are not acceptable for BLPs, the only exception is WP:BLPSELFPUB. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1a or as a backup, 2. First, this is already what we do in practice, and this RfC is just catching up the written policy to what is the living consensus ... except when scuffles break out where we have the same discussion over and over. Second, the core thing here is that the PSCI and BLP policies come into direct conflict when living people embrace pseudoscience or fringe ideas. That individual person's embrace/promotion of such ideas is often only discussed in the kinds of sources mentioned (we cannot use sources about the fringe or pseudoscience idea generally, that don't mention the person, as that is WP:SYN and not OK). 1a is how we resolve this already. So again all we are doing is catching up the writing with practice. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (1) Self published sources are bad, and should not be used against a BLP. Edit to neutral on this point. I've seen some well handled cases that look difficult to handle otherwise, but I'm still worried this could go badly in other cases.
    (2) Fringe theories and fringe individuals often receive little attention or critique in major or top quality sources. There needs to be flexibility to use lower-end sources (such as a college newspaper) to obtain adequate independent evaluation/reception/critique of the the fringe subject.
    (3) We must never give a reader the impression that fringe views or theories are anything other than fringe. That often means the mainstream view must be presented to supply appropriate context, even if the high-quality mainstream sources do not directly discuss the fringe view. Alsee (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm ok with using an SPS to add the opinion - expressed as an opinion - of the author of the SPS where it is a) deemed to be significant, and b) carefully used. I'm also ok with WP:PARITY allowing the use of an SPS when deemed reliable when we are writing about a theory, not a person, even if that theory is being covered in a BLP. So I don't see that we should have a blanket ban on the use of an SPS in a BLP. However, I don't see that this is what is happening with BLP as it stands. The current wording is:
"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 doesn't seem to prevent us from using an SPS in a BLP as source of material about a theory (rather than a person), based on the "about a living person" wording. That said, it is possible that this restricts us in using the SPS as a source of the author's opinion about the BLP subject, and if so I'm open to change given some strict restrictions. My problem is that these proposals risk allowing a third party SPS to be used as statements of fact about a living person, which isn't a place where we want to go. As to the proposals:
1) This seems to be saying that claims about a person's work are separate from claims about a person. The problem is that saying "X has published claims supporting anti-vaccination" may be referencing work they do, but it is also making a claim about the subject. We need to be careful to ensure that all claims we make about living people are very reliably sourced. Claims about a person holding beliefs or making claims - even if those claims are believed to be in their work - need to be handled with great caution.
1a) This finishes with "should be attributed if it goes beyond simple facts". The problem is that it is the facts which are in contention. Saying "X claims that water can cure cancer" may arguably be a "simple fact", but we can't risk making these claims based on a third-party SPS. The only thing a third-party SPS is reliable for in a BLP about the subject is the opinion of the author, not claims of fact. So I need to oppose this as well.
2) This seems to run into the same risks as 1), and I'm not sure it is needed if it is about an idea unrelated to a person. WP:PARITY allows us to say "This theory is unfounded" and use an SPS by an expert deemed reliable for that statement. But we still can't say "This person believes in X" based on a third-party SPS, even if X is an idea.
Ultimately, I think we're mostly handling this ok without the risk that comes from modifying BLP. We may need some clarity on whether or not a SPS can be used as a source of the author's opinion about the subject, and that may warrant a change, but otherwise I see the need as being for clarity in application, rather than in changing BLP to suit a very, very small number of incidents. - Bilby (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1a - Knowing Jytdog as an editor who runs a tight ship, I'd like to place the mansplaining of my support in an extended content section just below, out of the way, so as not to make a mess. My comments are there for anyone who wishes to read them. The brief version: I believe that PSCI is where this problem originates, with its vague call to arms for editors to engage in a War on Pseudoscience in BLP articles (I explain why below) but in the end I dont see any policy/guidelines etc which forbid it. (Folly, on the other hand—I see plenty of—also explained below.)  Spintendo  12:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Extended comment
I believe a large part of this issue comes down to the language and reasons given in PSCI. Let's take a look at that language.
  • "Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other." This is saying that when it comes to fringe ideas, the field should not be a level one. Jytdog's response to unleveling this playing field is by adding the counterweight he proposes in this RFC, a weight which requires high-level sources. But surely another way exists to unbalance the field. Would not removing the spurious claims also create a situation whereby "we are not describing these two viewpoints as equal"? PSCI does not state that the only way to ensure an unlevel playing field is by adding opposing material. But that might be too deletionist. So what about PSCI's other directives? Let's take a look:
  • "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." This appears to be a large part of the license with which this RFC is here. It is above all, a noble idea, to fight these spurious claims—but it is also an ominous one—and I see the beginnings of a crusade taking shape with that vague directive. Other editors here have expressed that concern as well.
  • That worry is cemented in this final PSCI directive: "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." "Any inclusion" it says. This appears to be the blank check which Jytdog wishes to cash. But before he makes it to the bank, Im wondering, what is that last sentence really telling us? I believe it's telling us that we should abandon the main front where these pseudoscience wars were previously fought (in the trenches of the main article's where they are described in detail) and instead take these battles to the local level - fighting them in individual BLP articles. In fact, according to Jytdog, that war has already come to these articles. What is odd about this call to arms is another directive from a policy/guideline quoted in the pre-RFC by Collect about how to deal with these discussions, mentioned in their "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 Wiki-linked 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. This appears to be telling us to disregard PSCI's urge to fight the battles within BLP articles, instead, suggesting we lead the fight back to the main "Wiki-linked" articles. And many would think that until they read the last line: 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." Wait a minute, where did that come from? Now it's telling us that there should be a discussion? Isn't that inviting the very same level playing field that PSCI warned us about? This is a major contradiction, and I think it is the crux of Jytdog's RFC. Even though PSCI tells us that these views should not be given the light of day, here it is that we are directed to allow these discussions to grow on BLP pages. This scenario—where one directive creates an environment which another directive flourishes in—is highly inefficient, and sadly, it heralds the dawn of this new War on Pseudoscience, now localized and fought in the new trenches of BLP articles. While I personally don't agree with this tactic, I don't see where it's prohibited; thus I reluctantly support it and wish our crusaders well.  Spintendo  12:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1a as the least bad option in this situation. If we have an article about a living person who has promoted fringe theories but where there aren't any high quality reliable sources discussing that person's promotion of those theories from a critical perspective, then we don't have any good options:
  • We could not include any information highlighting the mainstream perspective on those views. This contradicts WP:PSCI / WP:FRINGE and isn't good practice anyway, because it leaves the reader with the false impression that the fringe theory has mainstream credibility.
  • We could include general information about the fringe theory which doesn't mention the subject of the article. This violates WP:SYN.
  • We could not mention the fringe theories at all, which undermines the quality of the article and may render its existence pointless.
  • We could delete the article about that person, which doesn't have any support in the deletion policy and seems like overkill.
  • We could include the types of sources discussed in option 1 above to give some of the necessary perspective about those theories, while not using them for information about the person. This is still not ideal but I think it's better than the other options. Hut 8.5 19:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all proposals. BLP policy should not be modified for special cases. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC).
  • Reluctant oppose I'm generally opposed to the usage of SPS for virtually anything on en, and while I am very sympathetic to the goals here, protection of identifiable real life people is one of the most important things we do here. I can't bring myself to expand the criteria for using SPS, especially in BLPs. Sorry, but if all we can find to say that someone is a nutjob is the blog of an expert in the field, that isn't enough. We need reporting in secondary sourcing and editorial control and analysis. We should be reporting on the nutcases. We shouldn't be relying on SPS to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

BLPSPS/PSCI discussion (old)[edit]

  • Isn't this already covered by WP:FRIND which a BLPSPS would fail for a conspiracy theorist? BLPSPS being allowed (in a limited fashion) does not mean it trumps other policy. If you spell this out for BLPSPS, this would have to be spelled out elsewhere as well.Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Nope, this arises from a series of disputes in which some people want to use these sorts of refs and other people cite BLPSPS, on BLP pages. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      • And if this were sourced to the BLP's published oped on some reliable published outlet (for an oped - for the attributed viewpoint)? I think FRIND already applies (and have argued this on various pages) - but if there is an issue, why not a more generic boilerplate - BLPSPS may only be used in as much as it does not violate other policies? There might be other policies specific BLPSPS runs foul of.Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • note - moved discussion below, out of !votes and into this discussion section. This is a response to User:MjolnirPants's !vote here. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

FRINGE/PARITY does not change the BLP sourcing requirements, it affects RS and UNDUE but does not allow anything that would otherwise be a BLP vio, wording for the RfC that would have more explicitly prevented FRINGE from being used to make exceptions to BLPSPS was suggested during the pre-RfC discussion, but not included in the final RfC, making it unclear whether this RfC is intended to create exceptions to BLPSPS.
As far as calling the views fringe once other sources have established that the person holds the views, wouldn't there be non SPS sources that are available to debunk it? if any mainstream sources mention the view at all they should say that it is fringe, if only blogs even mention something then isn't it UNDUE to have it in the wikipedia article at all? Despite multiple requests for examples during the discussion, no examples of a case in which wikipedia needs to talk about a fringe view but SPS are the only sources to debunk it were provided. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
FRINGE/PARITY does not change the BLP sourcing requirements Nor should it, nor would this require us to. I'm only getting more confused the more you type on this, because you seem to be responding to a proposal to let us use skeptical SPSes to make statements about living people, and that is NOT what is being proposed. I understand that I'm the only one saying this directly, but I'm still not sure why you are ignoring my very plain, simple and readable statements to the contrary and continuing to argue against a position no-one is taking.
As far as calling the views fringe once other sources have established that the person holds the views, wouldn't there be non SPS sources that are available to debunk it? If no RSes mention a certain view, but WP:PARITY level skeptical sources all label it a fringe view, then it's quite obviously a fringe view, and should be treated as such. I could name a hundred conspiracy theories, crank physics theories and alt-med woo theories that aren't covered in any RSes, but only in skeptical sources. To suggest that if a fringe theory exists, it is necessarily covered by RSes is to completely misunderstand what a fringe theory is. It's believed only by a tiny minority by definition, and as such, tends to be known about only by a slightly larger minority.
if only blogs even mention something then isn't it UNDUE to have it in the wikipedia article at all? First off, you're still making that incorrect assumption. In order for this proposed addition to come into play, the belief in those subjects needs to already be mentioned in RSes. Second; no. If only blogs mention something, then it's not notable. Whether or not it's due is an entirely different question, one that depends heavily on the subject at hand. When we are discussing a BLP where their belief in fringe theories is a notable part of who they are (to the point where said beliefs are mentioned in RSes, see my first paragraph above), then of course a brief description of those beliefs, along with expert rebuttals is due. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I am responding to a proposal that would allow SPS as sources for material about living people, because as I understand this proposal, it allows SPS to be used as sources for the fact that someone promotes a fringe theory, which would be a claim about a living person, would it not? Also, PARITY quality sources do not necessarily mean SPS, and I'm probably ok with using SPS to describe other experts reactions as long as the stuff sourced to SPS is not said in wikipedia's voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
as I understand this proposal, it allows SPS to be used as sources for the fact that someone promotes a fringe theory You are incorrect about that. I can not see any reading of the proposal which supports this. Note the following quote from the proposal:
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. (bolding added, italics in original). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I just read through the proposals again and I see where your coming from, but I still don't know where we draw the line between a person and their work. So we don't allow SPS to be used as sources for the fact that someone promotes a fringe theory, but what about calling a paper they published fraudulent? or saying that an article they published used misleading tactics? These are examples of describing the work, but accusing the person of dishonesty in the process. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
what about calling a paper they published fraudulent? This really isn't any different to the question "what about calling a paper they published fringe?" and thus it has the same answer: We would need RSes, and this proposal doesn't touch on that. Again, this proposal is about the theories themselves, not about the circumstances surrounding their publication. This is for when we have to explain what their theories are, and then meet WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL by adding what prominent skeptics think of those theories. So "fraudulent" would be left up to the RSes. Instead, this proposal would prevent others from arguing, for example, that Jim Bob's Theory of the Toenail Universe (TU) in which all matter is composed of God's toenails could use a blog post by PZ Myers describing the chemical makeup of toenails to show how ridiculous a theory it is. But we could not cite that same blog for claims that Jim Bob's Toenail Miracle Cream™ experienced a jump in sales following the publication of the TU, wink wink, nudge nudge. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep - it is the same distinction that we make every day here in WP -- the difference between describing an editor's behavior and attacking him or her personally. It is one thing to say that an edit violates policy or is incompetent, and quite another to call a person incompetent. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
That is a very good point. It is the same exact distinction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
As an example, would you say that we could use an SPS under these changes to source the claim "... is an anti-vaccine activist and, by way of conspiracy theories, has attempted to deny or discredit the scientific consensus that vaccines do not cause autism"? - Bilby (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Obviously not to the first part (before the "and"), and if one follows 1a, only with attribution for the 2nd part. Your !vote is self-contradicting and contradicts what you have done in practice, e.g your !vote in an RfC here where you proposed and said you would accept content about a living person's views based on an SPS with attribution. I delayed this RfC a month awaiting an answer with respect to 1a-- I pinged you twice (diff Sept 12 and diff on Sept 21) and I interpret your question here and your !vote as bad faith behavior. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Given that you previously stated that an SPS could be used to support that text, I am glad to see that you have changed your position. - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You do not understand my position and I will not be responding to you further, except to correct further misrepresentations. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, you wrote "we have been through this several times, most recently at David Wolfe (entrepreneur). Your view is not consistent with the community's", as the edit summary when you returned the SPS to support that statement. Your next edit, immediately following that one, was to start the discussion for this RFC. [1] Hence my wish for clarity on the issue. I do appreciate your statement that you do not see the outcome of this RFC as supporting such a use of an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I said nothing about the outcome of this RfC. You have misrepresented me yet again and are once again cluttering an RFC I have started with garbage.
I will say that if I had my druthers we could use these high quality SPS without attribution. I have been trying to compromise with you and others and will accept 1a, which is why I proposed it. I have no desire to interact with you due to your horrible and self contradictory behavior on this issue. Do not ask me further questions. Do not try to state my opinion. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
My apologies - I incorrectly read what you were saying. Then if you see 1a as a compromise, I assume you mean that 1 and 2 could potentially allow for an SPA to be used in this manner. This is not consistent, if I understand it correctly, with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants's reading of the changes - which is why the question came up. I appreciate the 1a compromise, even though I cannot support it with the "simple facts" exception. - Bilby (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────User:Jytdog Criticizing someones work, especially calling it fringe, casts doubt on whether they are a good scientist (i.e their reputation), thus BLP must still fully apply, with no exceptions. I might be ok with attributed SPS so we can include the reactions of experts. User:MPants at work, it looks like this proposal still allows us to state SPS-sourced stuff in wikipedia's voice, and i'm a bit confused how you can talk about the theroy and not the person if Jytdog is saying that the source has to mention the person to not be SYN. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Tornado chaser, and BLP does not change what PSCI requires. As you have throughout this, you continue to try to find ways to evade the direct conflict that arises when both policies are at play. Both are policy. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog I am not trying to evade anything, please remember to AGF, I am aware that both are policy, I never questioned that. It seems to me that this conflict could be adressed by allowing attributed SPS, but I don't see how it is necessary to use SPS-sourced content stated in wikipedia's voice, nor do I see anything in the RfC proposals that explicitly prevents SPS sourced content from being stated in wikipedia's voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You've started a 2nd respond thread to my comment above. I have indented it further to clarify it is different from the 1st. 1a is there to address the attribution concern. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Jytdog The problem with 1a is that it still allows statements of fact sourced to SPS to be said in wikipedia's voice, as it only requires attribution if the SPS-sourced content "goes beyond simple facts". Tornado chaser (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep that is what it says. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Jytdog I cannot support a proposal that allows SPS as sources for facts that implicate a living person's reputation without attribution. What exactly would be considered a simple enought fact not to need attribution under this proposal? Tornado chaser (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This is exactly the sort of thing that led me to lose faith in your honesty at the MfD: Just above, you mention "statements of fact sourced to SPS to be said in wikipedia's voice", which Jytdog agreed was in this proposal, but then in your response you suddenly change that to "SPS as sources for facts that implicate a living person's reputation without attribution" (em. added). You changed the definition of the very thing you're discussing mid discussion in order to continue to support your position. If your position cannot be argued without dishonest rhetoric, then your position is logically untenable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
But per WP:UNDUE if no good enough sources discuss something we don't put it in wikipedia, are you saying you would consider something WP:DUE even if only blogs talk about it? As for the other scientists reactions I would consider a proposal that required attribution for SPS sourced material, but not saying anything sourced to an SPS in wiki voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Your argument is circular. If there are decent SPS we use them regularly, giving appropriate WEIGHT per PSCI and the rest of NPOV Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Can you provide a single example of a case where it has ever been necessary to use BLP content cited to SPS stated in wikipedia's voice? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
See the examples provided in the subsections above. As before, I will not be replying to you further in this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I'm confused why you think it is any more acceptable to use SPS as a source for saying someone is a pseudoscience proponent than it would be to use SPS as a source for any other serious negative claim about a living person? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, the threshold for something or someone to pass Notability for an article is rather low, and doesn't ensure there is adequate independent critique of fringe theories and individuals. In particular someone can pass NACADEMIC with zero independent sources, and someone can be Notable for reason X while filling their article with stuff like their fringe publications on Y. At this very moment, I'm dealing with a BLP of someone Notable for TWO overturned-on-appeal convictions of a terrorist bombing and a bomb-plot, who also published a conspiracy theory "book translated to ten languages" with the loonybin Globalresearch publishers. He also founded a "Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies" (it appears to be little more than a blog) to publish his fringe ideas because... according to him... he was being censored by a conspiracy of (1)universities (2)academic institutions (3) governments and (4)corporations. And he gets published and cited on a cluster of alt-media conspiracy sites. I do have some usable sources to work with, but it's difficult. Especially when there's active pro-fringe editing to deal with at the article. Alsee (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, you mentioned SPS being used. In the RFC I did support two categories of sourcing against fringe, but I'm wary that using SPS against a BLP is a well-intentioned Pandora's box. I might reconsider if I'm pinged with a sufficiently persuasive response. I want us to be able to deal with fringe effectively, but SPS is very concerning. Alsee (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Alsee it is what we already do. See the subsections above Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Policy_background_discussions and Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Usage. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The fact that we already do this (possibly in violation of policy) does not mean we should continue. Also, many uses of SPS are attributed, wich may be ok under current policy, and whether attributed SPS are ok under current policy should be clarified before using them as justification for changing this policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Policy is not a dead, written letter. We have solved the tension on the ground, article by article and RfC and by RfC. All we are doing is catching up the writing with practice -- with living policy --, in this specific field. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Peter Gulutzan you are not dealing with the part of PSCI that says: "An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." PARITY only comes into the BLP issue when there are no non-BLPSPS refs to do this; that is quite often the case, as mainstream scientists are busy doing mainstream science. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I did. By the way "should" does not mean "requires". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. That's true, but we should do, what we should do. That is how this place works. The conflict between policies arises when we try to do what we should do. We have worked it out on the ground; we just need to catch up the writing to reflect that. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 9 October 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.

RfC: The intersection of BLPSPS and PSCI restated[edit]

Withdrawn. This has no chance of gaining consensus Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 21 October 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.

Should any of the following be added at the end of the WP:BLPSPS subsection?

  • 1) However, if a living person promotes pseudoscience or fringe theories, or has published work that 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.[a]
  • 1a) Same as 1), but including at the end: "Content generated using such sources should be attributed if it goes beyond simple facts" [b]
  • 1b) Same as 1), but including at the end: "Content generated using such sources should be attributed."

Notes

  1. ^ As examples only, commonly used sources for this purpose include Retraction Watch, Science-Based Medicine, and Quackwatch
  2. ^ "simple facts" are "X's medical license was revoked by Y on Z date." or "Paper A was retracted by journal B for given reason C"

-- Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Policy/guideline background[edit]

The two relevant policies are:

  • PSCI, which 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

    • WP:PARITY (part of the WP:FRINGE guideline that interprets PSCI) 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. ...

  • BLPSPS says:

Avoid self-published sources

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. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[1] See § Images below for our policy on self-published images.

-- Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Policy background discussions[edit]


  • Note. Some argue that Science-Based Medicine and Retraction Watch are under "editorial control" so BLPSPS does not apply; others says that they are "blogs" or "group blogs" and in any case not under editorial control of a "news organization", so BLPSPS does apply. One of the reasons for this RfC is to resolve these longterm disputes. The RfC question takes the stance of those who would exclude these sources in order to optimize the chances for long-term resolution.

--Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Usage[edit]

-- Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

BLPSPS/PSCI !votes[edit]

  • Support 1 or as a backup, 1a or 1b. First, this is already what we do in practice, and this RfC is just catching up the written policy to what is the living consensus ... except when scuffles break out where we have the same discussion over and over. Second, the core thing here is that the PSCI and BLP policies come into direct conflict when living people embrace pseudoscience or fringe ideas. Retraction Watch is considered a blog by some, but it is the go-to source for retractions and is highly regarded. Ditto Quackwatch and Science-Based Medicine in their fields. An individual person's embrace/promotion of such ideas is often only discussed in the kinds of sources mentioned (we cannot use sources about the fringe or pseudoscience idea generally, that don't mention the person, as that is WP:SYN and not OK). Variations of 1 are how we resolve this already. So again all we are doing is catching up the writing with practice in a specific field. Folks who don't work on FRINGE matters may not be aware of this issue, but this being an open project, we have people pushing FRINGE/PSCI ideas in wide swaths of WP, from health and medicine to engineering to archeology to cyptids and so on. Deleting the page is often not viable, and being silent is often not what we should do per PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1a with 1 as my second choice. This is how the current consensus operates in every single case I've seen, and is functionally identical to to proposals I've supported generally or specifically in prior discussions.
Oppose 1b as it violates WP:ASSERT, an existing policy. I am reading "simple fact" as something uncontroversial and unremarkable, such as the statement that a work was published by a certain publisher or on a certain date. Alternatively, I could see it being a fact stated elsewhere in the article using a non-SPS source, or even a WP:SKYBLUE level fact. In any of those cases, attributing it would present a false impression of uncertainty to the reader. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to 1 and 1a, Support 1b It needs to be explicitly clear that SPS not by the subject may never be used as sources for the fact that a living person holds controversial/bogus/wrong views, this is to avoid wikipedia damaging anyones' reputation without solid evidence. 1 could be interpreted to allow SPS to be used as a source for the fact that someone's views are contentious or wrong, we must avoid making an exception to our BLP standards that would allow accusations of pseudoscience without the same strict sourcing requirements that we have for other serious negative claims about living people. Criticizing someones work, especially calling it fringe, casts doubt on whether they are a good, honest scientist (i.e their reputation), thus BLP must still fully apply with no exceptions, rendering 1 unacceptable. 1a still allows us to state some SPS-sourced stuff in wikipedia's voice, and the definition of "simple facts" is likely to be a source of disputes given the contentiousness of PCSI-related articles. I'm also a bit confused how you can talk about the theory and not the person since Jytdog has repeatedly said that the source has to mention the person to not be SYN.
1b looks ok, attributed SPS would allow us to include the reactions of experts the the fringe theory, thus solving any conflict between PSCI and BLPSPS, but would avoid stating any BLP-implicating SPS-sourced content in wikipedia's voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
My struck comment above highlights the upsides to 1b, but SarahSV and Littleolive oil point out some legitimate downsides to it, so I am not ready to take a side on 1b yet. (note, I say SarahSV made good points, but the stuff about the legal dept, seems like overkill, alought I'm no defamation lawyer) Tornado chaser (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. I would prefer a situation where a person's advocacy of bullshit cannot be sourced (for or against) other than from reliable independent sources. I would not cite Gorski's blog, or Novella's, as a source anyway. Quackwatch is RS, as is Science based Medicine, so this is not an issue for those sites. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. WP:BLPSPS is an important safeguard that we should not abandon lightly. It means that no individual can post something about a living person directly to their own website, with none of the usual checks and balances, then add it to Wikipedia as a source. This is an extremely important principle. For BLPs, we need to rely on sources that have some kind of professional editorial process in place. I've asked Jytdog several times for a real example of the problem his proposal is trying to solve, but the question was ignored. It seems to me that if RS don't mention a fringe view, and if it is the type of fringe view that readers might believe, then we should not include it in a bio. Rather than including the fringe view, then feeling forced to use an SPS to counter it, why not just leave it out? Another issue is that this will lead to the promotion of certain self-published websites. If we are even considering abandoning BLPSPS, we should involve the Wikimedia Foundation legal department, because it may have legal consequences. SarahSV (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1a with 1b as my second choice. When we're dealing with Fringe associated BLPs, I think attribution to sources is very important. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all I misread the original policy. No SPS at all please. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose And my comments on the first RfCs in this series remain the same. I fear we have now reached a point where continued iterations of the same Change ringing do not advance the project. Collect (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all per Sarah. I'd add there is a sense that fringe and pseudoscience are so grievous that we can throw out the standards we would normally use to make sure content is neutral. In fact the opposite should be true. If we have information that might lead us to add POV content whatever it is, then our standards should be upheld with even greater stringency. There are many instances of proposed content that are beyond the pale in terms of fringe and pseudoscience; we deal with that with scrupulous adherence to our policies rather than adjusting policy to suit the need to illustrate our disgust with the potential content-a POV response.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Oppose all these attempts to compromise WP:BLP policy, as clearly explained by SarahSV. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC).
  • Oppose per Sarah. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sarah and my comment in the first round. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per my comment in the previous (withdrawn) RfC above. Please let's have a formal close this time. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sarah. -Obsidi (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. There are certainly cases where WP:parity can be reasonably invoked in a context covered incidentally covered by WP:BLPSPS, but those analyses can be made as matter of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a case-by-case basis on relevant talk pages; trying to append them at the end of the language cautioning against SPS as RS as a general matter only muddies the waters of an already somewhat convoluted piece of policy. The result would be a kind of rule creep that would only be more likely to mystify editors and put them at cross purposes, rather than make consensus easier to arrive at. I believe that most experienced editors are quite capable of weighing the relative importance of these two principles in the context of individual articles (and yes, I do envision that there are examples where parity should take precedence over the general concern over SPS) and deciding on an approach which better guarantees to the WP:Neutrality of the article in the aggregate. The proposed solution here would only tie their hands and entrench certain positions--though I do appreciate the good-faith motive behind it all. Snow let's rap 04:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

BLPSPS/PSCI discussion[edit]

  • Jytdog I suggest changing "should be attributed" in 1b to "must be attributed" as some in the previous RfC seemed to think that "should" meant it was optional and I think "must" makes it a bit clearer, but other than that 1b looks decent. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question What problem is this trying to solve? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    • User:A Quest For Knowledge PSCI and BLPSPS come into conflict when there are living people who promote pseudoscience. Quite often there are only SPS or group blogs, or edited blogs) such as the ones mentioned, where we find mainstream scientific perspectives on that person's promotion of pseudoscience. There are people (often pushers of pseudoscience but not always) who seek to remove such sourced content on the basis of BLPSPS which says "never" use SPS. When this comes to an RfC we always choose to permit the SPS in these cases. This is just catching up written policy with community practice, to end the time-wasting arguments. You can see an example of this at Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur) which was resolved through an RfC that permitted use of a Forbes' contributor blog - an SPS. That was a tremendous waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It never fails to amaze me the way WP can get so pedantic over codifying a practice into policy, yet every time that practice can be used, WP rallies behind it without reservation. I have literally seen people who are !voting "oppose" above support this in practice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is no consistent practice and that is a major point here. In using blogs/ self published sources we are talking about a no-oversight situation. This means that declaring an expert and an expert opinion is often a subjective decision. The fact that there are editors here opposing overarching standards for inclusion and suggesting discussion for sources with out oversight indicates caution. We have to remember that not only science/pseudoscience/fringe topics have potential sources referencing blogs and self-publication that we might use and or question. Other topic areas do as well. In adjusting this policy we would potentially open a Pandora's box while setting a precedent. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC))
There is no conflict between BLPSPS and other policies -- no precedent could be set by this. I do understand that you would oppose this proposal. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course, I didn't mention other "policies" above. I am however referring to the fact that fringe content is also a possibility in other topic areas. In bypassing the safe guards the BLPSPS policy gives us in reference to science which I believe is what is being asked for here, we do open the door for bypassing it in other topic areas as well. I find that once the wall has been broached in one area arguments for broaching it in other areas follow. Specific sources which stretch the boundaries of the policy should be discussed on an individual basis. You're right in thinking I am not concerned with the time this takes. In my mind, there is no rush when the quality of the encyclopedia is at stake.
Its not a good idea to question the motives of the people who respond to an RFC as is happening here. This brings into question your own motives. I am explaining why I and others oppose this proposal; please leave it at that. Anything else is misguided assumption. If you have concerns with my editing you know where to go with that. Please feel free(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC))
So you also disagree with "never" and acknowledge that we use SPS as discussed in the proposal. But instead of agreeing to write down what we do all the time when this conflict arises (which is all that policy is), you are opposing. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The argument by Littleolive oil above is extraordinarily bad. It starts by grossly misrepresenting the subject of this RfC (as popular as that may be here, it's still a gross misrepresentation), then somewhat clumsily uses a slippery slope argument before concluding with some unprompted and hypocritical berating of another editor. Even so, Jytdog's response is also flawed, though it at least limits itself to implied accusations of bad behavior rather than stating them outright. I strongly suggest neither part continue as this argument is not likely to accomplish anything useful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog. "All the time" is a subjective judgement and that's my concern. Let me summarize my position."Specific sources which stretch the boundaries of the policy should be discussed on an individual basis" rather than adjust the policy to support the "all the time" position. MPants. I believe and hope all editors commenting here including the editor who set the RfC did so in good faith. Your comment here and Jytodg's response question that. I do not tolerate criticism against editors who are acting in good faith very well and as I have in the past I will always suggest there are better ways to proceed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC))
WP:STICK ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 17 October 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.

Years of birth[edit]

I've opened a discussion at WP:BLPN#Years of birth to discuss whether we should remove years of birth from bios when the subject requests. We remove dates of birth, per WP:BLPPRIVACY, but should we also remove the year if asked (assuming it isn't widely available)? I've had quite a few requests for this over the years, all from women, so I'm wondering whether we should add something to the policy. Any input there would be very welcome. I would bring it back here as a proposal before adding anything to BLP. SarahSV (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Use of Satire and Parody in Articles about Living Persons (public figures)[edit]

This is not the correct forum for this discussion. If it belongs anywhere other than the article talk page it came from, it's at WP:BLPN where we discuss BLP issues for particular articles. This talk page is for discussion of changes to the policy not for the application of the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:57, 18 November 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.

Ask for comments from the community regarding the use of parody and satire for public figures in articles dealing with living persons. Both Parody and Satire are protected free speech and are an important part of modern literature. Most modern societies which value free speech allow the use of satire and parody as important forms of free speech to comment on matters of public importance, which includes the right of anonymous speakers (such as Wikipedia editors) to promote vigorous public debate on matters of importance to society as a whole. I am requesting comments and suggestions as to what rules, if any, should be applied. Since Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, many of these sources produce editorial cartoons and other materials which serve to comment on issues affecting society as a whole. Banning the use of satire and parody in articles about living persons has a chilling effect on free speech and the rights of anonymous speakers to write from opposing and complementary viewpoints.

I am asking any interested editors what the policy currently is for living persons, and what specific rules would apply to the use of parody and satire in articles dealing with living persons who are prominent public figures. As the BLP policy is currently worded, the use of satire or parody when used to refer to a living person appears to be a violation of WP:BLP. Octoberwoodland (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Note for the benefit of confused readers, this thread is spillover from Talk:Killing of Jamal Khashoggi#Cartoon of killing of Khashoggi. ‑ Iridescent 07:18, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Context matters - a satirical cartoon is essentially an opinion/op-ed piece (in visual form). Thus, all the caveats and restrictions that govern whether we include an opinion in a BLP (and when and how we do so) apply to satirical cartoons. Who drew the cartoon matters (a cartoon by a well known political cartoonist should be treated differently than one drawn by some random yahoo)... where the cartoon appeared matters (one that was published in a major newspaper should be treated differently than one appearing in a fringe outlet). Also, we would have to include some form of in-text attribution with the cartoon (so the reader knows WHO’S opinion is being expressed by the cartoon). In other words - some cartoons will be OK to include, While other cartoons will not. It has to be judged on a case by case basis. Blueboar (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Problems Most cartoons will be WP:NFCC material, and can only be used under very strict conditions to begin with. So, we may have an inherent WP:DUE problem with cartoons that are free (as those are the only ones that can be even possibly used without extensive in-text discussion of the cartoon itself). I agree that we also need to generally view them as opinion in a BLP and also there maybe more specific issues like WP:BLPCRIME. We are also not writing satire (that's The Onion's etc job) so we have to follow WP:BLPSTYLE. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
These are fantastic comments and explain the issues precisely. Can someone propose an additional section to the WP:BLP policy page which directly addresses satire and parody for living persons? This exception should only apply to public figures and not private individuals. Adding the two paragraphs with some minor edits under a subheading Use of Satire and Parody for Public Figures above seems to cover all the salient points such as issues of fair use, how to evaluate a satirical cartoon, whether or not the cartoon is from a reliable and reputable source, if the cartoon violates WP:BLPCRIME, etc. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:39, 18 November 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.

Bios RFCs[edit]

We've two active Rfcs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government concerning infoboxes of politicians. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)