Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 25

Interview with the person as reliable source

Can an interview with the subject of an article be considered a reliable source?--Mycomp (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what you are sourcing. e.g. If in an interview Homer Simpson says his favourite food is doughnuts, then yes, however if Elizabeth Windsor claimed to be Queen of England, then I would want a more reliable source. Martin451 (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer.--Mycomp (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It does, however, have to be a published interview in a reliable source, not one you conducted yourself or watched on stage at a convention. --Orange Mike | Talk 11:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a complex question to answer in the abstract. Some of the things that make sources reliable are that they do fact-checking, they have editorial oversight, there is accountability and a process for issuing corrections should they make mistakes, there is a reputation for accuracy and neutrality. In the case of an interview there are far fewer concerns and they are of a different nature: did they accurately quote what the person said? Is it selective or cherry-picked, representative or out-of-context? If in translation, is the translation fair? I think there are a number of sources that are potentially unreliable as to facts that are actually trustworthy for reporting the transcript of an interview. Other sources by contrast are not trustworthy in that regard - for example, press releases often contain quotations attributed to a person that are actually made by the person's publicist. Advocacy journalists often misrepresent a person's statements. But that only goes as far as correctly reporting that a person actually said certain things. As for whether the things the person said are true, it has the same problem as any self-reported information. When Muhammad Ali said "I am the greatest" we can't simply take his word and "Muhammed Ali was the greatest"; the best we can make of that if reliably sourced is that he often made that statement. It may well have been true but we need third party sourcing for that. Hope that helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To carry this a little further, suppose the matter is an utterly uncontroversial claim such as that "X is left-handed". In normal circumstances one has no reason to doubt that claim. So whether this is an interview in the New York Times or one in a small town free weekly, we can probably say cite it for the proposition that X is in fact left-handed. Or better yet, "X says that he/she is left-handed" with a citation to the source. You never know why people say things about themselves, and even the best of sources are only incrementally more likely to question a person's claims when they simply quote them. This particular line of thinking is a bit of a stretch I must admit, I don't know whether there is a fully-developed approach to this on the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tut tut, I think one would have to be very careful to get a reliable source of a person's Left-handedness#Negative associations of left-handedness in language. Dmcq (talk)

If I have personal knowledge of a person's background and then use a newspaper report with which I am unconnected as a source, is this any more valid? If so, should it be signified and if so how? In particular, I am thinking about BLPs of famous sportsmen who were at University with me and their inclusion in the list of alumini of my University. Martinvl (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

DashBot false positives

Not sure exactly what the DashBot is looking for when it tries to identify unreferenced articles. However it got it wrong with Della Jones. Human editors can clearly see a reference source at the end of the article but apparently the bot can't. Perhaps its script could be modified to pick up this type of case. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Implicit sources

I was recently looking through a spree of wholesale content removal by JBsupreme (talk · contribs) earlier this morning, and something occurs to me.

If Arbcom are serious about effectively removing the word "contentious" from BLP without any RfC or assessment of community consensus, we should consider what constitutes "implicit sourcing".

Many of the articles JBsupreme touched were bios of authors, actors or performers including statements about their work -- X was in films A, B and C; Y wrote books D and E; Z performed with P and Q on F and G; Y wrote principally in Portuguese; Y's book D was set in the north-west of Brazil.

All of these statements are directly verifiable from the works identified, - ie sourced in as much as anything else is made verifiable by a reference to an offline source which can or could be checked.

If people are proposing to be this aggressive about removing anything and everything from a BLP unless every phrase has an explicit ^[ref], and the word "contentious" really is to be struck from policy, do we now have to write down black-and-white in policy that implicit sourcing can exist, and actually really is okay?

And if all the content in an article is of this kind, does it deserve an "unreferenced" tag? (Or if it has a relevant IMDB link, is that enough?).

I have to say I was shaken by the sheer amount of useful reader-informative content being quite uncaringly thrown on the flames. Jheald (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is some logic to what Jheald says, and I certainly agree that JBsupreme's editing has at times been questionable. Nevertheless, there are serious problems with the view Jheald has expressed. For one thing, if no sources are cited in an article then yes it does deserve an "unreferenced" tag, no matter whether all the information is of the sort that can be regarded as "implicitly sourced", because references are needed not only to verify the factual accuracy of the statements in the article, but also to establish notability. Notability can never be established from the subject's own writings. Then, even if we leave aside the debate about whether the word "contentious" should be included in WP:BLP, there are at least two problems with Jheald's interpetation of the idea that only "contentious" material needs to be removed. Firstly there is the question "who decides what is contentious": there is a case for saying that material to which anyone objects in good faith is ipso facto contentious. Secondly there is the fact that WP:BLP is not the only reason for removing unsourced material: for example even uncontentious material should be removed if it seems to be un-notable, and sources are the means for establishing notability.

The answer to "if it has a relevant IMDB link, is that enough?" is unambiguously "no", for the same reason as the answer to "if it is stated in another Wikipedia article, is that enough?" is no, namely that imdb is not a reliable source, as anyone can register and submit information.

Please note that none of this is a comment on JBsupreme's editing: I have looked at a small sample of that editing, and found much that was fine, and some that was open to question, but I have not done a thorough check of JBsupreme's recent edits, and do not wish to make a judgement. However, even if we take as black a view of JBsupreme' edits as Jheald does, is is a large leap from there to the conclusions that Jheald draws about allowing unsourced material to stand. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding IMDB, it depends what you're sourcing from IMDB. For casts of films and TV shows, the ultimately verifiable source is the film and TV show itself. IMDB is merely a proximate source, because it is more conveniently accessible. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" says WP:V. The converse is also true: unexceptional claims do not require more than unexceptional sources. Jheald (talk) 21:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jheald, third party sources are always welcomed but the work itself can be used as an implict source when no other source exists. JBsupreme's edits seem heavy handed and inviolation of the spirit of the law.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not in citation given

I see that a line in the lead has a failed-verification tag, but I don't see why this is necessary. It is correct, in fact, that the source provided (i.e., Jimbo's WikiEN-l thread) does not precisely verify the line. But it is equally true, as far as I can tell, that the source was not intended to "verify" anything in the first place. Because Jimbo states in the source that his message "is not a policy statement", the reference to the statement here could not have been intended to verify policy in the first place. Rather, the spirit of his thread is consistent with the spirit of what became policy here, and vice versa. In other words, the citation is a footnote, a cross-reference, that gives further information from a slightly different angle; it's not a "source" that has to line up exactly with the wording of the policy. So, IMO, the tag definitely is overkill. But if it would help, perhaps the citation could be framed more clearly as a cross-reference: <ref name=Jimbo>cf. some reflections by [[Jimmy Wales]]: [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046440.html "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information"], May 16, 2006 and [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-May/046732.html May 19, 2006]</ref> Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support removing the tag. Policy pages don't get article tags, period. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be worried by wrong references, but in general these project pages don't need reliable sources etc, and there's even a bit of policy saying so WP:POLICY#Not part of the encyclopedia Dmcq (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• The problem here is that the policy is currently protected on a version which contains a hotly contested recent change. The "not in citation" tag was apparently an attempt to note this problem; really, what should be done is {{underdiscussion|talk="unsourced or poorly sourced CONTENTIOUS material"}} added, and "not in citation" removed.--Father Goose (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Right, so even though many of us are admins, we're discussing what seems like a pretty obvious and trivial change. Jclemens (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not an admin. If I were, at this moment, I'd be bold and make the change. (Hint, hint.)--Father Goose (talk) 09:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please remove {{verification failed}} from the end of the 2nd paragraph and add {{underdiscussion|talk="unsourced or poorly sourced CONTENTIOUS material"}} beneath {{pp-dispute}} at the top. Read the text above this request (as well as that in #"unsourced or poorly sourced CONTENTIOUS material") for an explanation of why this edit is needed.--Father Goose (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I'm not sure about adding yet another message box to that page though ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Target for shortcut WP:GOSSIP

Do you think there is a section here that would be a suitable target for a redirect at WP:GOSSIP? It would be a useful shortcut when reverting additions of loose gossip to BLPs. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe WP:BLP#Reliable sources? The subsection lacks its own redirect and contains the word "gossip". Besides, the whole problem with gossip is that it's an unreliable source. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy strikes me as the best place. However, be aware that a just creating a shortcut with a name like that will cause problems -- some people will start removing just about any unseemly details "per WP:GOSSIP" while ignoring WP:WELLKNOWN. I wouldn't create such a redirect until we had a section that treated the concept of gossip comprehensively -- including an analysis of "when gossip is not gossip".--Father Goose (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Restoring "Contentious"--consensus reached?

As I read consensus right now, there are 2 editors who have supported the removal of the word "contentious" and 8 who have opposed such removal. Discussion on this topic is stale; consensus appears to favor restoring the previous wording, including the word contentious.

While the RfC may eventually modify the text of this page, the current text as it stands is not supported by community consensus. Nothing about SirFozzie's imprecation against editwarring through full protection demands that the wording stay unchanged until the RfC is finished.

If there are no further comments or objections in the next 24 hours, I will restore the text to the consensus version and remove the full protection, with no prejudice to future wording changes as a result of WP:RFC/BLP or additional discussions.

Comments on the wording of this policy page during the remainder of the RfC process are welcome. Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Maintain "contentious" as removal certainly appears to be quite unconsensus-like at this time. Collect (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This change has been made. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of pages

So how do I create a biographies page about the owner and managers of the company Im working on? It seems as though I dont have the indicating sources to make it "legit". Does anyone know how to do this? I can't find anything on it. Mjreuter (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Melody

Since you work for the company, it is inappropriate for you to be creating pages about your company or its executives. And there is nothing you can do to make the pages "legit" -- they were not deleted because you didn't write them correctly, they were deleted because another editor attempted to find any sources that might relate to these subjects and and found none. Badly written pages can be fixed, but pages about non-notable people cannot, because there is not enough verifiable information available for an independent editor to fix the page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Internet memes

The decision on which internet memes are given their own pages and which are not seems to be totally arbitrary. Why does the Star Wars kid's meme get a page while Afro Ninja and Elizabeth Lambert do not? The answer to that question prompts another: Why are any of these memes worthy of their own pages? It seems to me that the people who care enough to fight articles deletion processes tend to be relatively likeminded people who make decisions on what they believe is cool/funny/notable rather than what is objectively notable, and they are unable to take of their lens and objectively examine whether these pages meet the notability guidelines. Virtually all memes are NOT notable to people outside the socioeconomic/cultural sphere that Wikipedia's user-administrators are part of (a sphere that represents only a fraction of the English-speaking population of the world). They do not receive significant coverage (which is the hallmark of WP:NOTABILITY) outside of the self-driven blogs and websites that serve the relatively small internet-obsessed population from which most Wikipedia user-administrators are drawn. A smell-test for me is this: If Person X died tomorrow, would it receive significant coverage? I can't think of a single internet meme for which the answer would be "yes." So the BLPs of people who are really just known for internet memes likely never meet the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. They should be compiled on pages like List of Internet phenomena and viral videos, but that should be it.

If Wikipedia has aspirations to be taken seriously as a source of information in the future, it cannot continue to allow itself to fall into the trap of allowing the cultural biases of a majority of its administrators to allow pages to be created for memes that receive lots of attention among the administrators and their friends, but are little noted by the rest of the universe.

Apologies if I rambled a bit, but you get the idea. Niremetal (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your question should be addressed to Wikipedia talk:Notability. This page is for discussing changes to our BLP policy. The BLP policy is specific to the special ethical and legal responsibilities associated with articles about living persons. It's not clear to me how internet memes add any dimensions to such issues that are not already covered in the policy, e.g. WP:BLP1E.--agr (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is that WP:BLP1E is being ignored. Pages are posted of people notable only for a single internet meme surrounding them, but the rules relating to BLPs are circumvented because the page is ostensibly of "the phenomenon" rather than "the person." The page on the Star Wars Kid is the best example. Niremetal (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps merge the information from these various pages into a "List of internet memes" page. I do agree as to the fact that many of the personalities formed through memes are not notable in their own right and that it is solely the meme they are connected to that has gained notability. TomBeasley (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Help Needed Please

Hi

I've been trying to write a page for an artist here in Denver Colorado.

I guess my lack of understanding and computer savvy is preventing me from contributing to Wikipedia and the artist Ronnie Nelson.

I value Wiki very much and really wanted to contribute, but unfortunately I don't think I'm doing a very good job.

I don't want the artist to suffer because of my lack of ability in adhering to Wiki protocol as my knowledge is limited when it comes to writing a page, and I don't want Wiki to have a page that's not up to their standards.

I was receiving some help before from Wiki, but I think that person has since left Wiki and is no longer helping people like me.

Thank you for any help you can provide. I am willing to do whatever research is needed and give my time to make it good.

Thank you Bhaktirasa (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Bob

"unsourced or poorly sourced CONTENTIOUS material"

The "contentious" wording was first inserted in May 2006, using the "negative" word instead[1], it was then changed to "controversial" in October 2006[2], and it was changed to "contentious" in February 2007[3].

This is a long standing wording, it affects a lot of material, it has been disputed, and it should be discussed in the talk page instead of edit warring over it like you are doing right now because it doesn't allow you to mass-delete unsourced BLPs that aren't composed exclusively by contentious material. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Do I need to go to WP:RFPP for this silliness to stop? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:POLICY#Content_changes explains very well why this is bad. Someone makes a change to support his position in an active dispute that is still under discussion here. The community discussion has been going on only for 20 hours, and [ANI thread that started the problem] started only 23 hours ago and it's still active. The change to the policy has been disputed and reverted by two editors.

Once again: this change is disputed, take it to the talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there appears to be an edit war in progress I have full protected the page until the matter is sorted out here on talk. No doubt I protected the Wrong Version. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and was considering doing this myself. Edit summaries are no substitute for constructive discussion. Rodhullandemu 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You did protect the Wrong Version, and I've reverted back to the version of policy stable for nearly three years. I don't believe we should protect the Wrong Version of policy when policy was changed without prior consensus to advance position in a current dispute. Rd232 ^talk 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

no doubt protecting the "wrong version" helps advance your position, but that's par for the course in this area. R. Baley (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding WP:PREFER, I don't see Rd232 having a horse in this race, and WP:BURDEN applies to impose the duty on those seeking to change the wording of an embedded policy to bring it here for discussion first. Anyone thinking that such changes would sneak under the wire must be naive in the extreme. Rodhullandemu 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support the new wording. Since the original wording was added in 2006, time and time again we have been reminded that Wikipedia's system for protecting BLPs is broken. It's time to find some responsibility and get it fixed. Cla68 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Recent case in point. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's both controversial and contentious, although not necessarily negative. That's no reason to support either wording. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the change. No reason has been given except to support the deletion spree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Arthur Rubin. Pcap ping 04:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the change. A full RfC, with CENT input, is really in order here if people want to make the policy support the removal of ANY unsourced BLP info. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's not for us to decide if content is contentious or not. We're too removed from the person in question to be reliable enough to make that decision. Information that looks innocuous to us could cause the subject tremendous trouble. So, any unsourced material should be eligible for removal from BLPs. Cla68 (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Cla68 that we as editors are poorly qualified to determine what might be harmful to the article subject, or their employer, family etc. Going further, we should also have some sense of pride that we have done all we can to ensure the accuracy of a biography. As it stands, it often looks like we haven't bothered at all, which is all to often the reality also. Kevin (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• I actually think Cla68 makes a reasonable argument which is worth discussing further. But obviously any resulting policy change of such substance has to go through a substantive process, as per Jclemens. Changing policy without prior discussion (never mind consensus) in the middle of a heated dispute in order to advance a position within it? Forgive and forget, perhaps, in the highly heated circumstances. Rd232 ^talk

• I think it works better to try to make the change to the policy first and see if it sticks, if it doesn't, discussion is, of course, fine. By the way, I understand that ArbCom doesn't make policy, but their recent motion appears to support changing the wording to make it less subjective. Cla68 (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, in general, WP:BRD can be applied to policy - but that does not mean that in these circumstances you and those supporting your edits did the right thing (not least because the D got rather lost). Rd232 ^talk 08:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Restore long-standing wording and make a RfC to show support for this very important change. I note that the new wording has been used to mass-delete and mass-prod articles that were perfectly fine, articles on persons that passed notability guidelines with no problem, articles whose subject had tons of sources in google news that spoke only about them, etc. An admin has pointed out that some of the deleted articles were libelous, but that was already covered by the "contentious" wording.

Notice that BLP removals are exempt from 3RR, so this new wording allows to stub or delete any BLP, even it's about a very notable person, makes claims to notability, links to articles about his works, etc. BLP was created to protect people from libel and negative statements in their articles, not to mass-remove valid encyclopedic information about notable public figures just because the remover didn't do any legwork to find any source. What happened to WP:BURDEN? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• The new wording is already being used to remove any unsourced content on BLPs, even if it's not contentious [4]. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Support change of wording. All unsourced/unverifiable information on living people in an encyclopedia is unnaceptable. In fact, I find it "contentious." Simplify the wording to reflect the best interests of the encyclopedia -- all unsourced info to go, post haste. If an article is entirely unsourced, it goes.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose change of wording - Just another pointy attempt of explicitly ignoring community consensus to endorse previous disregard of community consensus (and policy).--Cyclopia^talk 14:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose change of wording without further community input.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The change was not discussed before and after reverting should have been discussed here per WP:BRD. It's shameful that experienced editors, who really knew better, edit-warred over it. It's also wrong, that Lar (talk · contribs) protected the page, since he made it very clear that they have a certain opinion in the current discussion and thus he should not have used his tools on anything that is about this discussion per WP:INVOLVED. On a side note, per WP:PREFER "administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war", which should have been done in this case in order to avoid making it look as if the protecting admin did so to have the page in their preferred version. Regards SoWhy 01:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Unfortunately, removing all unsourced information from BLPs (even non-contentious) would probably mean removing well over half of the information about living people on Wikipedia. We are just not at a situation where we can make such high demands. Also, protecting the "wrong version" here gives a false impression about current policy. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the change of wording, and oppose the alternate wording. The word "contentious" needs to stay in, or we'll end up needlessly deleting articles that should have been improved. We're capable of making the judgement as to what's contentious, and what might be seen as invading someone's privacy. Take a look at Doof (musician), for example - I can't imagine what in that article anyone could object to on privacy grounds. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternate wording

Part of the problem is a slight lack of clarity. I suggest a better version of the proposed revision would be:

Any material relating to a living person, appearing in any Wikipedia article, must be fully and reliably sourced. Unsourced or poorly sourced material must be removed immediately and may not be re-added until reliably sourced.

This has the merit about being clear about how Draconian it is. You want that? So argue for it. Possible variation: specify that the reliable source needs to be given inline and in a precise form (i.e. a link or ref in external links section, or general book ref in Sources section, etc, is not enough). Could also specify use of WebCite for URLs where possible, so that deadlinks don't defeat verification in five years.

Rd232 ^talk 13:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So, do we make a RfC on restoring the long-standing wording? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support alternate wording. We cannot predict what will or will not be contentious and/or controversial. For example, let's say that a particular unsourced statement seems as innocuous as a pretty picture. Then somebody makes an unexpected fuss, and things start to get complicated. BLP has to be Draconian, because there are living people with more money and power than the Wikimedia Foundation, and their ability to disrupt the project if they see something they don't like is, I would think, greater than that of the most vandally vandals. Also, WP is about community and collaboration, and community and collaboration consist of the efforts of living people. There are notable individuals who edit Wikipedia, and if somebody notable sees even positive false information about themselves on here, they may be disinclined to think highly enough of the project to make contributions of their own. To these ends, I would think that BLP is the core policy of Wikipedia; and that if any one policy should be more "Draconian" than all the rest, then BLP would be the one. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Update for January

One of the unreverted edits from January wasn't included in the monthly Update; please see Wikipedia_talk:Update/1#January_2010 for discussion. - Dank (push to talk) 14:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There's been no discussion that I know of to remove this page from content policy, so I'm reverting that edit of Jan 31. Feel free to revert me. - Dank (push to talk) 05:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove the word "contentious"

See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content. This will make things a lot clearer for the future. Wikipedia should not be in the habit of encouraging and sanctioning having unsourced material in articles about WP:BLPs. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Meta-question: where all is input being sought for this? I don't see anything at the RFC/BLP/Content page that points to this discussion here. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not so fast The RfC just got started, this shouldn't be pushed through so quickly. ThemFromSpace 02:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose The qualifier is there for a reason. You're opposed to that reason, but the RFC has conclusively demonstrated that consensus does not support the removal of that qualifier. Anyone may remove anything unsourced at any time per BURDEN. Only legitimately contentious material in BLPs, however, is blessed by the community to be 3RR-exempt and admins given an essentially blank check to enforce its removal. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. Unsourced material in BLPs is simply not acceptable in any way, and is contentious by definition. UnitAnode 04:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Not the appropriate venue for the discussion (as it will be covered in the RfC), and it's a bad idea. Agree with Jclemens, and suggest that it be strengthened to "potentially libelous". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Per Jclemens. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries, was worth a try. :) Cirt (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This was meant to be an informal proposal for a discussion, not a vote... Sorry bout that... Cirt (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I think we're all agreed that a thorough, community-wide discussion on the word's presence and meaning is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks, Cirt (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP sourcing is based on V and NOR. These say that everything in Wikipedia must be attributable (a source must exist for it somewhere) but not everything must be attributed (the source needn't always be added to the article). Sources must be added for anything challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. To take this one step further with BLPs, and to say that everything must actually be attributed, is going to lead to requests for sources for the simplest and most obvious of issues. Therefore, I think I would prefer to see the word "contentious" remain, or some equivalent word. But it's worth bearing in mind that V is the sourcing policy, not BLP, and it is very clear that "anything challenged or likely to be challenged" must be sourced, so the circumstances in which the policies as written now (no change needed) would not allow us to remove unsourced material from a BLP are thin on the ground. The only time we wouldn't allow it would be if someone were really being a dick. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Slim. Robert K S (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

op-eds

Could somebody please explain to me why an op-ed, regardless of where published, should be an acceptable source for claims about living people, especially contentious claims? I can understand if a secondary source references those claims that it may be acceptable to cite the secondary source, but without that why should a person be subject to unverified, and perhaps unfounded, claims made against them by a single person being published in the number one google result for their name? nableezy - 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is my take. An Op-ed is the opinion of a person, published on a reliable source, typically a mainstream news publication. From the point of view of "verifiability", it is highly verifiable because any reader can verify that person X has stated that his opinion is Y. It is also notable by definition, since the publication presumably has a wide circulation. Whether this is a reliable source would depend on the context. If the author is a respected academic writing about an area he has expertise in, and about which he has previously written in academic publications, I can see how his view about Y could be cited on WP, e.g. "Prof. X has said Y.[1]" If this is a contentious BLP issue, it would be good to have several sources, or individual authors, with the same or similar view(s). In the scale of acceptability for contentious BLP issues, I would consider a single op-ed borderline, unless written by a very respected and well-known author. If there are more sources supporting the same view, it would become more acceptable. So acceptability as a reliable source would depend on the quality and quantity of the sources representing a given view, and their expertise in the subject matter. And in general, the opinions should have in-text attribution. Crum375 (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry, I shouldnt have used a wikipedia word. I didnt mean "verifiable". Forget that word, what I mean is an unsubstantiated charge made by an individual that is not backed by the source itself. Lets say that I, for whatever reason, have an op-ed published in a local newspaper, and that op-ed contains "XLP exhibits behavior similar to a Nazi". Should you be able to put in XLP's biography that "According to Nableezy, XLP's behavior is similar to a Nazi"? nableezy - 05:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The chain is being extended, probably inappropriately. If newspaper A (reliable) says that book B (under discussion) says fact C (contentious) about person D (living), we still have no reason to cite what book B says unless B is, itself, notable. Jclemens (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, if you are a prominent politician, political scientist or historian, with numerous publications and citations, and you write an op-ed in a large, respectable mainstream newspaper about Mr. XLP, saying his behavior is similar to a Nazi, WP could in theory write that "Prof. Nableezy has characterized XLP's behavior as a Nazi." This is assuming that other mainstream sources have not disputed this characterization to the point that Prof. Nableezy's version is in a tiny lunatic-fringe minority, in which case it should not be mentioned at all, due to WP:UNDUE. Crum375 (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, as I noted above, for contentious BLP allegations it would be better to have more than one source, unless that source is very prominent and respected. Crum375 (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I know under the policy my op-ed could be cited, but I dont think it should be. When you allow such sources you end up with a collection of personal opinions, not a biography. If another source thinks my characterization of XLP is noteworthy and they mention it then we should be allowed to include it, but referencing my own opinion piece to make a defamatory charge against a living person should not be allowed. nableezy - 19:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal opinions are not invalid per se. For example, if a prominent expert gives an article subject a high commendation, it adds relevant information about that person, and could belong, in principle, in his biography article. Same if an expert criticizes a person: if the expert is reputable and well known for his expertise in the subject matter, his opinion counts and is relevant. Sure, we need actual accomplishments, life events and career details, but notable criticism or praise by experts or prominent people is no less important or relevant. Of course, as with all BLP matters, we need to be extra careful to only present contentious matters if they are very well sourced and conforming with all other relevant policies. Crum375 (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I am not sure I understand your point about "referencing my own opinion". Your question was about op-eds in general, and so were my answers. Are you saying that an editor is using his own published op-ed piece as a reference? In that case, it would be no different than an editor referencing his published book or scientific paper, and in such cases we need to be extra alert for any COI, though COI would not necessarily invalidate the source. Crum375 (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant the imaginary "Prof. Nableezy" who wrote the op-ed added by some editor to an article. nableezy - 20:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, if Prof. Nableezy writes an op-ed, it's effectively a published (non-peer reviewed) paper, or a book. If some editor uses this opinion as a source in an article (with in-text attribution), it would be acceptable assuming the prof is an expert in the subject matter, per my above comments. Crum375 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding pictures of other people to someones BLP

What should be the level of reason to include a picture of another picture to a BLP, there is one of jimbo,s mate on jimbo,s page but this is not about that, I would say to add someone else there would have to be a very strong connection or adding pictures of people that say perhaps have similar views on things or were both speakers at the same conference, adding loose associations like this imo gives undue weight to the picture and asserts a strong connection which in this case there isn't one, perhaps a comment should be included in the guidelines to clear this up, the article is the Nick Griffin article and the picture is of David Irving in this section There is some discussion on the talkpage, I took the picture out with the edit summary of; removing Irving picture, there is no reason to add his picture which gives undue weight to their association and involvement this was reverted asking for discussion, the support for inclusion so far on the talkpage are..basically, that they were at the same conference speakers and one person said the picture broke up a big body of text, the two people do not have a strong association at all and imo having a picture of another person should only be there if they have a very strong association, I would appreciate someone having a look, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in the specific case, but I would say that if the other person is verifiably indentifiable, that is, a secondary source (or a primary source by the subject of the article) says who the person is, then it is out there in the public domain, and we could include the identity. I say "could" because I believe we should be cautious when dealing with living people and there are circumstances in which we might not want to identify the person. Or might want to exclude the picture entirely.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Wehwalt hasn't looked at the article in question. The picture is of Irving by himself, not with Griffin. Since Irving is a notorious figure to many, that is troublesome. I think the image might be OK if the caption puts it in context. I'll suggest that on the article's talk page. Note that WP:BLPN may be a better place to discuss this.--agr (talk) 14:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Revive Wikipedia:Neglected articles?

Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Revive_Wikipedia:Neglected_articles.3F. This could help find problems greater than just those with referencing or not. Maurreen (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Massive Tightening of BLP Inclusion Criteria

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Wrong venue, and there is an existing proposal for this anyway.

---

I was recently reading On Wikipedia's article comparing Wikipedia to other biographical sources, and like many people, I was rather shocked by it. The basic gist of their article is that the majority (~70%) of Wikipedia biographies don't have a counterpart on paper in any standard source (interestingly, at the same time, Wikipedia contains only a small fraction of the biographies found in standard sources). The 30% of biographies that do have a paper counterpart, however, draw 87% of all BLP-related pageviews (which is to say that hardly anyone is interested in the other 70%).

As such, I would like to propose that Wikipedia only allow BLPs about subjects who are the subject of a biography somewhere else on paper (including but not limited to an entry in a biographical dictionary, a magazine profile, etc.). People about whom information is only found in IMDB, sports statistics databases, or in the context of news articles about other people, events, etc. should not qualify for inclusion. If we implement this change, we will be left with a much more manageable number of biographies (which all have high-quality sources available), and the BLPs lost will only be the ones that were hardly read and edited to begin with. I think this would eliminate an enormous percentage of BLP-related worries. HH Nobody (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: HH_Nobody and his contributions WP:SPA and WP:Sock? Okip (formerly Ikip) 09:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is described at Wikipedia:BLP_problem#Dead_tree_standard and is a proposal I think we should be willing to explore as a community. We may not adopt it fully, and may add on certain caveats, but we should consider whether these biographies contribute to our goal of being a good reference work rather than the mistaken notion that we are trying to be a compendium of every fact ever regardless of significance. Manageability is also a significant issue that, with 3 million articles and counting, we can no longer afford to ignore Fritzpoll (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I would personally have no problem restricting BLP pages to those which have an article on (say) the top 3 paper encyclopedias. All others could be redirected to articles about topics which make them notable. And just to emphasize, this is for living persons only. Crum375 (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the top 3 paper encyclopedias? --Conti|✉ 18:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the points made by FritzPoll. --JN466 22:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• If the facts of a living person's life are easily sourced through reliable sources, why not have an article about them? It's the BLPs that are far more marginal (sourced only to one or two sources, of dubious reliability) that I'm more concerned about. For example, would their be a net gain from not having an article on, say, Jake Gyllenhaal who, while not currently the subject of a paper biography (at least not one that I've yet seen), is certainly notable, and the facts of his life pretty easily established. I'm all for tightening up the BLP policy a ton, but I'm not convinced that this is the way to do it. We need to get crappy BLPs, about marginally (at best) notable people off the site. That is the big problem, at least in my view. UnitAnode 18:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  Indeed, but the question is what defines "marginally notable". Dead tree, in a sense, is designed to give a line in the sand where it is clear that an individual is worthy of encyclopaedic attention. You have to be careful when loosening that definition: for example, your definition "sourced only to one or two sources, of dubious reliability". What is "dubious"? Is it one or two? If two, why are three sources ok, but not three? I'm happy for a more liberal definition that has a desirable effect, but you need a clear line in the sand definition of "marginal notability". DEADTREE is one, can you conceive of another? Fritzpoll (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, Jake Gyllenhaal has biographies on many dead trees. He is in Who's Who, Almanac of Famous People, and Contemporary Theatre, Film, and Television among others. Really, looking at dead trees is a way to sort out the marginally notable types. Anyone of unquestioned notability will be found in at least one biographical dictionary. HH Nobody (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  Those aren't encyclopediae. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  HH Nobody is suggesting that biographical dictionaries be included as well. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I personally don't see the need to move that far away from our idea of this not being a paper encyclopedia. Yes we need to make the notability criteria clearer, and possibly even stricter, but to say that we need to restrict it directly to paper encyclopedias would be against every idea that this site was formed on in the first place. We have become the de facto standard for encyclopedias whether we like it or not, therefore it is our decision what is or is not notable enough to become a part of the encyclopedia. If anything we could raise it, at least, to a fairly large mention in a notable book, which would be much more acceptable, as there are a lot more books than there are encyclopedias. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no need for this proposed change, we can set our own standards rather than aping paper sources. "People about whom information is only found in IMDB, sports statistics databases, or in the context of news articles about other people, events, etc. should not qualify for inclusion". Isn't that already the case? Such people would fail the WP:GNG, no? Many bios may currently exist that go against that guideline, (e.g. due to fanboys creating them using bots from lists of athletes), but do we really need new rules on this? If you come across a bio of an actor for whom the only information available is in the IMDB, WP:PROD or WP:AFD will deal with it. Fences&Windows 15:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is an interesting idea but fails to account for differing standards in different fields. We would be better off by tightening our standards by requiring a BLP to meet both GNG and the specific criteria of a field instead of GNG or the specific criteria. Racepacket (talk) 04:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Many of the biographies of individuals whose talk pages populate Category:Biography articles without listas parameter fail GNG but pass the specific criteria test. This idea seems to call for the tightening of the specific criteria. Take a few moments to pick a page at random from the index of Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. Go quickly through the entries on the page. Notice how many articles fit a specific criteria but would not fit another. Notice how many articles have but a single source. I don't know that we need to go as far as is proposed but tightening the criteria would be a very good idea. JimCubb (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - A few notes: 1) Far more BLPs promote their subjects than the ones that contain criticism. This is part of the reason that we have too many BLPs. 2) A factor that should be taken into account is BLPs from non-English speaking countries. 3) A list of BLPs based on page views and the last edit would be helpful. Sole Soul (talk) 07:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm afriad I don't quite agree. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 10:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. You go from saying that the paper-counterpart articles draw 87% of the pageviews to the conclusion that "hardly anyone is interested in the other" articles. Not so -- 13% of our huge number of pageviews is still an awful lot of pageviews. Furthermore, those might be more important, on a per-pageview basis, because we're giving those people information they can't readily get anywhere else. JamesMLane t c 10:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with the objective of trying to enforce BLP policy, but I don't think this is either necessary or sufficient. The people who are not subjects of biographies are often those who are not thought of in terms of their private lives, but rather in terms of their work: the public aspect of such notable people belongs in an encyclopedia. Most BLP violations that I have found (and removed) have been in articles that are not about the person being discussed. I don't think any of the rules need to be strengthened, they just need to be enforced. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts for the RfC

An encyclopedic entry should not be dependent on another encyclopedia having said entry. However, the bar needs to be raised at least above "been mentioned in lots of newspapers recently" and, in my opinion, much further - the exact line is the subject for this debate. We need a line that determines marginal notability, for several reasons:

• Preventing the accumulation of an unmaintainable number of articles such as though that have caused the recent problems
• Preventing damage to real people via the same (see WP:BLP problem) - people lose interest in some of these articles very fast and they are then left untended. Whatever our individual views of the contents of an encyclopedia, it is not good for us or for the unwilling subjects of these biographies that some random, possibly marginally notable articles are left lying around for us to have endless debates about.
• Preventing the endless arguments about what marginal notability is at countless AfDs

I think we need to discuss these issues - there is a developing critical mass on BLP issues, and it is worth having this discussion and making changes in this area now before events overtake us. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• How many people need to read an article before we say that it's worthwhile? There are probably some math articles that get almost no readership but are invaluable to the few people who do read them. Meanwhile, articles about the political scandal of the day may get lots of readership but if they're too new or stubby they may not be useful. I don't see any particular need to toss out all of the different WP:NOTE guidelines affecting people. That would be a major change to the encyclopedia, and it would take a long time to reach agreement and implement. We already have PROD and AfD as a mechanism, and I think the outcome of these discussion fairly reflects people's consensus on the matter. I think incremental change is more likely, where over time people reach some kind of understanding of just what it takes for a professor, or author, or athlete to be notable. Wherever we draw the line there are going to be biographies near that line, and articles that are not sourced well enough or written well enough to establish notability even if it is there - so I don't think the number of AfD discussions is going to change no matter where we draw that line. We already have WP:NOT#NEWS, ONEVENT, and INHERITED to deal with some of the problem cases. If they aren't being enforced stringently enough in your opinion I think it's reasonable to propose a stronger wording for them, or some examples, or just advocacy here and there to change people's opinions. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• I sincerely doubt we can lay down a bright line as to where the margin is. At least, not one that would correctly capture our intent -- hard rules on Wikipedia are never a good idea. Some bios are marginal because they lie on the margin -- and if for whatever reason we move the margin, a different set of bios will lie on the new margin.--Father Goose (talk) 10:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an online resource. Why should Wikipedia only restrict itself to sources printed on chopped up trees? Amentet (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• If a process emerges from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase II for (a) working through the unsourced BLP backlog and (b) raising sourcing requirements for new BLPs, this will mean existing notability standards being enforced much more stringently. I suggest that the effects of that should be seen before thinking about raising notability standards - despite the fact that I'm quite sympathetic to exploring the idea. Rd232 ^talk 15:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Existing policy makes much more sense than anything like what's being proposed. We have to WAIT for someone who just became important to appear in print before we can have an article on them? (We didn't even have an entry on Sarah Palin 'till December '06.)

Venue

Did anyone even notice that this is the wrong venue to discuss inclusion criteria? WP:BIO is the guideline for inclusion. This policy is about dealing with contents in articles that are assumed to be in scope, possibly with the exception of the WP:BLP1E criteria, which governs article focus. Pcap ping 21:24, 9 February 2010 (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.

Talk page headings

Should a bot add a BLP talk page heading (such as {{BLP}}) automatically to all talk pages of articles in the category Living people? I was surprised that the talk page of Dale Begg-Smith didn't have an easily visible BLP header until I added it. Andjam (talk) 09:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The talk page of "Dale Begg-Smith" uses the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} template, so the usual way to insert the BLP heading is to add the |blp=yes parameter to the template (which is what I've just done). No objection to your proposal, but the bot will also have to:

• check to see if {{WPBiography}} appears on talk pages, and insert |living=yes into that template; and
• check if {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} (or {{WPB}}) appears, and insert |blp=yes into that template.

There may be other such templates that require similar treatment. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I was sure there was a bot that did this, but I guess it was only a one-time thing. User:LivingBot ran this task in May 2009. You can probably ask for him to run it again. Mahanga^Talk 19:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

This policy is about biographies of living persons. However, if there is, say, an article about a family, where at least one member is still alive, I assume this would come under the BLP policy, although it doesn't (as far as I know) specify this in the policy. Arising from that: if there is an article that is about a group of people, such as a family, some of which are dead, does the same policy apply to statements exclusively about them, if they are very closely related to someone now alive? Jhbuk (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The policy applies to information about any living person that is contained within any article, whether it is in a bio about them, a bio about someone else, or any non-biographical article as well.--Father Goose (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I was thinking more about how closely something has to be related. If there was an article about a dead person, but they still had a living widow, then would comments exclusively about the dead person come under the policy? They could still cause offence, but would it still be a legal/libel issue in the same way? Jhbuk (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Dead is dead: [5].--Father Goose (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. BLP does not apply to deceased persons. But, as the policy makes clear, articles about deceased persons are still subject to other key Wikipedia policies such as verifiability, so rumours can be deleted on the ground that they are unreferenced, for example. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't think BLP would apply to a group of people (related or otherwise). As a family is effectively an unlimited group, at what generation would the BLP no longer apply? If one grandchild (or great^5-grandchild) still lives, the family lives on. Loftwyr (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

A request for consistent application of NPOV and BLP

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#A_request_for_consistent_application_of_NPOV_and_BLP. THF (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Revision deletion

I'd like to think that when I remove the occasional defamatory BLP edit through revision deletion that I would be doing it with the full backing of this policy, yet I find no mention of it either here or in the deletion policy. Should something be added? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's covered by "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Maurreen (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

However even this policy doesn't go so far as to suggest such content should also be removed the history, whilst there is a huge section in the policy dedicated to article deletion which also talks about reversion. Maybe I'll just add something, or maybe the deletion policy page would be a better place... -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Curious about what "person" includes for the purposes of this policy.

Some unknown editor threw a cat among the pigeons over at Talk:Sister Boom Boom, The original kerfuffle was over whether SBB should be categorised under "American nuns" or "Fictional nuns", but I don't have a dog in that fight.

The interesting thing was that the article vary clearly stated that Sister Boom Boom was a performance persona created by a Jack Fertig (since retired by same) ... but the article bore a BLP tag, and some of the editors commenting seemed rather insistent that Sr. Boom Boom is a living person. Can the good people over here, who may or may not eat sleep and breathe BLP, shed some light on this? What status does such an entity as a performance persona hold under BLP? There seems to be a grey area here -- Divine would seem to qualify, or would if she were still alive, as her creator was never really known for anything else, may or may not have lived as Divine for extended periods of time, and I doubt if many people would know his name. If the status of a "living person" is to be extended to entities of this sort (who aren't born in the usual sense of the word and don't have much of an existence independent of their creators), there must be some sort of qualifications.

So, guide us all -- is a performance persona merely a "fictional character", or does it, with persistence and success, acquire some qualities of personhood (in a Wikipedia context) in its own right? What qualities and when? Getheren (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm extremely reluctant to extend BLP to fictional personae because – they're fictional. A real living individual behind a persona is of course protected by BLP. But should we start removing material from, say, the articles about Dame Edna Everage or Sir Les Patterson because they are considered to denigrate these characters (who, I should add, are deliberately provocative)? No. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that Sister Boom Boom also serves as a biography page for Jack Fertig, it's a BLP. Same for Divine. But not for Dame Edna vs. Barry Humphries. To the extent that anything said about the performance persona might as well be said about the real person as well, treat it as BLP material. Jack Fertig ran for office "as" Sister Boom Boom -- that's a living person either way.

The correct category for Sister Boom Boom I think would be Category:Drag nuns. However, since that might prove to be a category of one on Wikipedia, I'd go with no category at all. While Boom Boom could have been a real transnun or for that matter, a deliberately fictional nun, my feeling is that she was neither of those things. You could also just go with Category:Nuns.--Father Goose (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is the Biographies page of guidelines editable?

The article seems to be a clearly outlined set of guidelines that help people with Biographies in wikipedia.Why have it open to change? Aint there any fixed rules?Isn't this discussion page for comments,questions,proposed changes to policy?I'd lock the previous page but it's only my opinion.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is carved in stone on Wikipedia - to do so would be an affront to the ethos upon which the entire project is built. Roger (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No fixed rules.--Father Goose (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Query from the "content" part of the RfC

Posted here to get more input per suggestion, as the issue of "what is 'contentious?' ought to be addressed, IMHO, farily thoroughly.

How do we handle, for example, a case where a source gives details about a libel suit which the subject of the libel wins and the offending medium retracts the libel? Is it proper to list the libel on the grounds that it is still sourceable per WP:RS and WP:V? Or is the knowledge that the material has been retracted sufficient to bar insertion of the material into the BLP? Should we just note that the suit existed and avoid detailing it? (fictional example: John Roe sued 'National Tattletale' over a claim that he murdered his ex-wife. The 'Tattletale' retracted the claim.) If the claim is only detailed in the footnote, is that proper? Or should the entire detailed information be off-limits per the new rulings on contentious material? Where no libel suit existed, but a source retracts a statement, is the original publication still RS for WP purposes?

Additionally, in the case of an allegation of a crime which has not resulted in a prosecution, is the name of the non-notable otherwise accuser properly included in the article? Is there a point at which the accuser becomes notable becasue the name has been reported afterwards? Thanks - I hope this clairifies "contentious" a tad. Collect (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

1. If something is widely published about a well-known person that the person claims is untrue and harmful to the person's reputation, and the person therefore instigates a lawsuit, also widely reported, and the source of the allegations then settles with the persons or has a judgement against them on this issue, also reported in reliable sources, then it behoves WP to carry the details of what the source said, what the subject said in response, and the outcome of the lawsuit. If you try to mention the incident without mentioning the details, you get a censored mess: "The NYT said something defamatory about Jack Jones. Jack Jones sued and won a $10M settlement." Nonsensical. Should read: "The NYT claimed that Jack Jones was having an affair. Jack Jones sued and won a $10M settlement."
2. Your second question has been considered and judged upon by senior admin Jehochman. I think you should accept his decision and not go forum-shopping. ► RATEL ◄ 01:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazing that you show up here -- this post was made in response to a request from Maurreen. That you somehow view it as "forum shopping:" is regrettable. And please note that the current BLP discussions concerning "contentious" material do not seem to conform with your stated position that you seek to tear down people in their BLPs <g>. The purpose of a BLP is to provide encyclopedic information on the people, that is all, Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This PA is irrelevant and imputes motives to me that I do not have. ► RATEL ◄ 04:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Persons vs individuals

I revert a change that changed "persons" to "individuals". This has been discussed before, here but in the context of persons vs people. I think that "persons" is sufficiently precise, like wikt says "Plural form of person; used to refer to them individually, rather than as a group". So persons already implies individuals. Gigs (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

the problem is that persons can ALSO mean unnamed groups of people-- like "a crowd of onlookers"--and the rule should not apply to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjensen (talk • contribs)

Not in any version of English I've heard of. :) Gigs (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

the point is that the rule should apply to named persons: "John Doe," not to an unnamed person ("someone in the crowd threw a bomb")Rjensen (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

People can be harmed without being named. Someone in the group of three threw a bomb—that could identify without naming. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

indeed, lots of damage can be done by naming groups, but this policy is about biographical information on living individuals. Rjensen (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My point was that individuals can be identified without being named. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So then... uniquely identified individuals? I like the gist of RJensen's changes, but see your point as well. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem with the current wording exactly? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The rule is too vague and a careless rule will invite endless trouble. Try "Wall street speculators caused the crash of 2008." That is negative information about real, unnamed persons. I believe it should NOT be covered by this rule. Rjensen (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't restore this again over objections. It's a policy, it has to be stable. Can you give an actual example of the current wording having caused a problem? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

what's the objection to clarifying the meaning of a proposed new rule? Rjensen (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Perhaps an RfC, or simply pausing to allow others to provide input, would be preferable at this point? I agree that there's a good cause for such a clarification, but SV's concerns and request for discussion prior to change are not unreasonable, either. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen has a point. I am open about the specific wording. Maurreen (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Anything that risks reducing the sweep and force of this policy is not a good idea. Individuals can be identified through group membership if it's a small group, and by being described in certain ways. To add that they must be named before BLP kicks in would obviously leave a massive loophole. Again, I ask Rjensen to show an actual problem that has arisen from the current wording. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Granted, but if we address that concern and focus on identifiable natural persons, we remove the ambiguity RJensen correctly cites. Whether or not it's been a problem in the past, he makes an excellent point that BLP does not apply e.g. to a company made up of living persons. Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rjensen, you're out of order reverting like this. When people object to a major change in a core content policy, you stop to discuss it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs}

21:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly am discussing it--SlimVirgin refuses to explain his objections. Perhaps I misread him but SlimVirgin seems to want the rule to apply to unnamed people. That will make history and politics articles very difficult to write. Does anyone here really want ANY criticism of a GROUP that now exists to fall under the "living biography" rule? I'm sure none of us do and so we should be explicit now. The trouble will come from an editor who says "we are not allowed to say XYZ about group ABC so I can always remove it." That will be endless trouble for articles that no one here has thought about. For example, there can be no quotation from an expert that says, "Congress in 2010 is ineffective"--or for that matter "Congress in 1960 was ineffective" (because Senator Byrd was in that Congress). Rjensen (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You're talking about the problems the current wording will cause, as though that wording has just been added. It's been there for years, so please show us an actual problem it has already caused. The kind of wikilawyering you're citing above would get short shrift. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that, as in defamation law, the policy should apply to persons whose identity is reasonably identifiable from the text and context, whether or not directly named. __Arxiloxos (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with "identifiable" as a standard. There was a little wikilawyering along these lines regarding the CRU incident, applying BLP to groups of people in a way that I thought was inappropriate. Gigs (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec to Arxiloxos) And that's a very difficult thing to establish, because it depends on who can recognize the person from a certain description, and that depends on levels of knowledge we don't have access to. Someone needs to show an actual problem with the current wording before changing it. It has been in place for years, and I've never heard this complaint before. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of this "fallacy of unknowable knowledge" being applied to arguments. It's simply not a valid argument, it's just a type of Argument from ignorance. We have to make judgment calls based on the information we have available. It's all we can do. Gigs (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, and the information I have at present, based on several years of helping to enforce this policy with the current wording, is that it has caused no problems. If I'm wrong about that, please show me some diffs. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Slim Virgin keeps talking about the past--we're talking here about the future. It's totally unclear right now whether or not he believes the policy applies to groups: can he please tell us what he reallly thinks and we can move on. Rjensen (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, no, someone does not need "to show an actual problem with the current wording before changing it."

Rjensen perceives a flaw in the current wording. Some of us agree with that perception.

No one has shown an actual problem that would arise from addressing this flaw.

SlimVirgin, would you address Rjensen's point? Do you think the BLP policy should apply to Congress as a whole, for one example? Maurreen (talk)`

Maurreen, for someone to turn up to complain about wording that has been there for years and claim it must be changed or it will cause problems, but then can't produce a single example of a real problem it has caused, is clearly absurd. No, of course I don't agree with the Congress thing, but has anyone ever tried to claim that? If not, it's a straw man, a red herring. Some real examples please. Fourth time of asking. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Slim here. A lack of problems in the past is a very good indicator that there will likely be no problems in the future. Let's not fix something that has worked fine for years. Kevin (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Slim, your argument about the relative lack of problem with the current wording is more persuasive than the other one. But I think that's because most people are treating it as as "identifiable" were already present. In the sense that policy should document practice, I don't think we'd be going to far out of the way to add identifiable in there. I did point out one example... a mess of ink spilled on the talk page for the CRU hacking incident. Eventually a FAQ question was added to the talk page that actually does use the phrase "identifiable person" to qualify the distinction about what claims should be treated under BLP. That did calm the debate over it somewhat. Gigs (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect there might be problems by adding the word "identifiable" to the policy. News media often don't disclose the identity of minors, but that doesn't give them license to say whatever they want about said minors just because they aren't identified by name.

This initiative to address the "individuals vs. groups" problem strikes me as likely to create a bigger problem than any it solves. If we get more incidents like the one Gigs mentions, we should revisit the issue, but for now, I'd just leave it alone.--Father Goose (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I don't really feel strongly either way. Gigs (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Father Goose is right, Gigs. Anyone who has tried to write an article (not for Wikipedia) in the face of a publication ban against identifying the people involved knows how stretchy a concept "identifiable" is to a court. Identifiable to whom? To the world, your colleagues, your closest friends, your mum? This isn't something we can play around with here, because it's too complicated and too much rests on it. Anyway, bear in mind that BLP is just V, NOR, and NPOV writ large. Editors shouldn't be trying to force poorly sourced contentious material into articles by arguing that certain living people aren't identifiable, and that therefore it matters less. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 07:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to come up with simple universal rules, much easier to apply it to the case of a particular article. I suspect that much of the disagreement here is over the former. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC regarding applying notability to article contents

There is a current RfC at Talk:Incidents_at_SeaWorld_parks#RFC:_including_or_excluding_victim_names regarding applying WP:BIO1E notability standards to article contents. Gigs (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Are external links considered "sources" when the content of an article is verified by them?

The discussion above made me think about scores (probably hundreds) of articles that have external link(s) which verify all or most of the content, yet get tagged with BLPunsourced or unreferencedBLP. While some of these external links won't meet our reliability standards, others do. Should these articles be tagged as BLP sources (since there is a reliable (or in some cases not-quite-reliable) source for the content? I know we want inline citations whenever possible, but I would think an article with no inline citations is "sourced" if there are external links which verify the content. Best regards. Jogurney (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done some of those -- sometimes changing the hedder to "Sources", removing the "Unref" tag, and replacing it with "Refimprove" or somesuch. Maurreen (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes EL are sources, and sometimes they aren't. I usually change them to {{BLP sources}} if the article has more than a couple sentences and only has EL style sources. If it's a very short article that doesn't have any obviously controversial claims and has a general source at the bottom, I'll just untag it. Gigs (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think if we use information from a single web page such as a news piece, then it is a source. On the other hand, a link to a deep website such as an online encyclopedia (i.e. our competition) or some kind of portal should go under external links. The difference is that in the first case it's just technical information about where we got our information from and perhaps a little more can be found, and in the second case it's an explicit recommendation to the reader to surf to that site for more in-depth information or perhaps a more interactive experience. Hans Adler 22:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On that same note I just came across a ref to the front page of a news site. That sort of link is obviously an EL and not a source. Another ref on the same article was a deep link to a staff bio that is a somewhat acceptable source under WP:SELFPUB. Really it just has to be played by ear. It'd be hard to find rules for all situations. Gigs (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Restore "contentious" to GRAPEVINE to clarify and maintain current status quo

It appears that the content RfC to define or eliminate the term "contentious" has stalled with no consensus. I propose that the WP:GRAPEVINE section of the policy be amended to include the following underlined word:

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material See also: Wikipedia:Libel Remove any contentious unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith; or which is a conjectural interpretation of the source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon a source which does not meet the standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability (though see self published sources, below). [Remainder of section to be left unchanged.]

The absence of the word "contentious" has been interpreted to mean that as the policy is currently written the contentiousness requirement does not apply to the immediate removal of unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith. See the View by Kevin in the content RfC for the details of that interpretation. The current wording of the policy does leave itself open for that interpretation, but for the reasons discussed below the current state of consensus about the page does not support that interpretation. The proposed amendment would foreclose the assertion of that interpretation, maintain the status quo of the article, and avoid disruption resulting from an incorrect interpretation of policy being asserted.

Prior to this talk page discussion. this edit and, six minutes later, this edit, all in June, 2009, the phrase upon which Kevin's argument relies did, in fact, have the word contentious in it. (It read, "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced...") The first edit, however, did in fact introduce the concept of objection–equals–contention into the policy, and did so without objection even though it had been raised on the policy talk page. The edit summary of the second edit makes it clear that the second edit was only intended to be a stylistic change incorporating the first change into the article. However, because the title of WP:GRAPEVINE is, "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material," the second edit obfuscated the meaning of the first edit. (I presume in good faith that the second edit was not intended to have that effect, but it did.) The discussion on the policy talk page regarding these edits attracted only the proposing editor and one other editor and only two days passed between the date of the proposal and the day the changes were made. Because of the limited number of editors involved, it cannot be reasonably denied that WP:CONLIMITED would hold that consensus was not reached on the first edit, especially after the minutes–later second edit prevented "adequate exposure to the community" by making it appear that the objection–equals–contention edit had never actually been added to the policy.

(Moreover, even if one presumes for the sake of argument that the first June, 2009, edit did reflect consensus, there were two subsequent attempts to remove the word "contentious" from the lede of the article, see here and here, both of which resulted a huge amount of vigorous discussion on this talk page and elsewhere among many editors, and resulted in the consensus that the word ought to be restored to the lede. It was so restored here with the edit summary "it is contentious material that must be removed without discussion, obviously, or else every single unsourced sentence would have to go, no matter how inocuous" and here with the edit summary "restore 'contentious' per discussion on talk and to harmonize summary with the rest of the policy". Both of those directly addressed the question of whether information must be contentious to be immediately deleted and concluded that it must, thus reversing any consensus which could be argued to support the first June, 2009, edit. The only argument which might be made in opposition to that conclusion is that the arguments about the word in the lede did not (as far as I know, but the discussion could be buried there somewher and I missed it) specifically address the question of whether an editor's objection could itself constitute contentiousness. That argument is, in my opinion, specious since the practical effect of good–faith–objection–equals–contention is to remove the contentiousness requirement from the policy except in those cases in which the objection is made in bad faith (and since we must presume good faith, virtually every such objection would have to be deemed to be in good faith). Moreover, the tenor of the discussions about the lede and, especially, the edit summary which said that the replacement of the word "contentious" was to "harmonize summary with the rest of the policy" clearly indicate that the consensus was on those occasions to not allow objection–equals–contention. This entire line of reasoning, however, is almost certainly neither here nor there since WP:CONLIMITED would seem to unquestionably kill the June, 2009, edits.)

(This proposal was first made at the Content RfC, but was withdrawn before any responses were made to it.)

Respectfully proposed, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Until now, there have been no objections to the change in 9 months, surely that indicates that generally people are happy with the current wording of that section, and invalidates your argument about how this wording came to be. Kevin (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If folks can get past "tl;dr" , that argument is fully addressed above in more than one way. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Support The section title governs the interpretation of the content, and "contentious" is already in the section title. Likewise, the removal of "contentious" from the lead was reversed based on community input just a few weeks ago. It's clear that what TransporterMan is proposing is already within the intended and generally assumed meaning of the paragraph in question. I see no reason why it shouldn't be in the body text of this paragraph as well. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Support -- Details should support the lede, unless there is compelling reason not to. In this case, there is minimal reason. Maurreen (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC) -- Update -- My point is to support this distillation by Jclemens. As long as that is clear, I'm not particular about the details. Maurreen (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Support As clearly intended. Collect (talk) 23:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Support Section content reflects its title, and "contentious" makes up part of the title as well as embodying the entirety of the section inc. the quoted para. I agree with arguments above that solidly support it as clear & lucid, and see no reason not to include it. Whitehorse1 23:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. That was added in its first form here [6] [7] on June 11 last year. Before that it said, "Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability." SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Support a fairly minor change to bring the paragraph in line with the rest of the policy and it's own section title. Gigs (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Support - useful place markers are being removed and time and effort diverted to trying to avoid unnecessary threats. Opbeith (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Support.As per all the above comments. Off2riorob (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose I oppose this in the strongest possible terms. If we cannot verify a statement about a living person it goes. That has long been the policy of Wikipedia, and this written version should not be written so as to dilute it and to mislead newer editors. The days when statements could be left because "it's common knowledge", "I read it in a blog", or "it could be true" are long gone. Let's not perpetuate the thought processes and language of our feckless past. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 13:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC) (Refactored — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

I'm hoping that you are failing to understand the context here. The issue here is not whether unsourced or poorly sourced BLP information can be deleted but when and with what effect. Unsourced or poorly sourced information can, whether it is BLP information or not, always be deleted either boldly or after discussion on the talk page, subject to the three revert rule. The difference here is that the WP:GRAPEVINE section of WP:BLP says that (contentious) unsourced or poorly sourced BLP information can be immediately deleted without prior discussion on the talk page and creates what amounts to a "no revert rule": an exception to the three revert rule which makes it a violation of policy to revert the deletion even a single time. In short GRAPEVINE makes deletions of unsourced or poorly sourced BLP information easier, faster, and more binding. The issue in this proposal addresses the question of whether, in effect, all unsourced or poorly sourced BLP information comes within GRAPEVINE's special handling procedures or whether just contentious unsourced or poorly sourced BLP information comes within GRAPEVINE. More particularly it addressees the question of whether the removal of the word "contentious" from the first clause of GRAPEVINE had the effect of changing the BLP policy to extend GRAPEVINE to all unsourced or poorly sourced BLP information, not just contentious information. I hope that you will consider reversing your "oppose" to a "support". Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I think this is implicit in practice, but it would be better to spell it out. So make the proposed change, but after the proposed sentence add Remove uncontentious unsourced material if a reasonable attempt at sourcing it has been made, and failed to find adequate sources. Such material may often be usefully moved to the relevant talk page to prompt further discussion and investigation. Rd232 ^talk 14:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Rd, perhaps I'm mistaken but I believe these changes were proposed and failed to achieve consensus in the content RfC. Part of the reason, in my opinion, that RfC failed is that there were so many counterproposals that no one of them could achieve consensus. Would you consider amending your response, above, to make it a clear "support" or "oppose" on just the issue currently at hand without apparently conditioning it on the additions? Once this is decided, then you can make a new proposal to add them to GRAPEVINE with or without the addition of "contentious." I know that's a lot to ask, but I think it's important to get a clear vote on this proposal. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Rd232s addition but link to WP:PRESERVE instead of WP:BEFORE. WP:BEFORE is about AfD nominations, not content. (This comment may be relocated if Rd232's proposal is broken into its own section) Gigs (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As much as I oppose making RD's proposals part of the current proposal, I also want to state my opinion about them. In my opinion, WP:PRESERVE does not require an editor to seek sources for an unsourced or poorly sourced assertion (BLP or otherwise). By "require" I mean that an editor may be criticized, but cannot be legitimately blocked, for failing to make a good faith effort to seek such sources before {{fact}}–tagging or deleting unsourced information. It is worth noting that WP:BURDEN refers to such source–finding as a "good practice," not as a "policy" or "rule". Moreover, PRESERVE says, "As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot. If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve content you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change." (Emphasis added.) To say that PRESERVE should trump GRAPEVINE ignores the italicized language: the whole point of the contentious-information debate is that unsourced contentious BLP information does not belong in a finished article. Having said that, however, I do think that the second sentence of the quoted language may, along with Jimmy Wales' May 19, 2006 07:49:31 comment on the matter, constitute a mandate to preserve immediately–deleted information on the article's talk page. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC) (Grammar fixed. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

When did I say that PRESERVE should "trump" anything? WP:EP doesn't "require" a search, and neither would rd232's proposal. WP:EP is a more relevant place for that link in rd232's proposal to land than WP:BEFORE, which is pretty irrelevant. There's definitely no mandate to copy information to a talk page. Not everything Jimbo says is gospel. Keep in mind that our policies aren't "binding", they are supposed to document best practices. Gigs (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• transporterman, you're destined to disappointment in your hopes. Unsourced tripe should be removed. If somebody edit wars it back in then they're the ones at fault. This is implicit in our BLP and we should spell it out so that the warriors cannot hide behind other policies such as the three revert rule. this proposal is well intentioned but it goes against several policies far more important than that. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 16:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's too bad. There simply isn't any possibility that the current state of consensus (i.e. the last consensus which existed before the content RfC was begun) on this matter does not support your position, with the sole possible exception being the argument given in View by Kevin (which is what this proposal is about). Your position was proposed as a change in policy in the Content RfC (see the View by KieferSkunk) but failed to obtain consensus. You are, of course, free to re–propose that change (and I, you might be surprised to learn, would support that proposal, just as I did the view of KieferSkunk), but I think that it would be in vain, since it was just tried and failed. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC) (Corrected typo. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

Don't let the conversation be derailed. Gigs (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note please: this policy and V say that any unsourced contentious material must be removed from BLPs immediately. Not may be, not might be, not can be, but must be removed. The section as currently written contradicts that by introducing the notion of "good faith". It's not a question of good faith or bad faith. We don't care about faith. If it's even slightly whiffy, and there's no good source, it must go. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point that currently the section as written addresses all unsourced material, not contentious unsourced material (and that it currently includes the "good faith" part, which is perhaps unhelpful; it's obviously motivated by the recent debates). In addition, whatever else happens, I do think the relevant policy should at least include a suggestion to move potentially useful unsourced material (contentious or not) to the talk page for further discussion/research - rather than simply delete it. Rd232 ^talk 19:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What has happened with this policy is that it's been edited too much by people who aren't familiar with the other policies, or who don't edit much, so it's become internally inconsistent, and inconsistent with the other policies and best practice. No matter what this page says, unsourced contentious material must be removed, and not moved to talk because BLP applies to talk too.

So that needs to be restored to the policy. We can argue separately about whether all unsourced material should be removed. But the thing about "good faith" must go, and that paragraph should be restored to its pre-July 2009 state, or whenever the "good faith" business was added. I'm going to restore the section to that state, and then we can argue whether "contentious" needs to be removed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"BLP applies to talk too" - yes, but to a much lesser degree. Contentious content is routinely discussed on talk pages which is not acceptable for inclusion as is, but given tweaking and/or better sourcing, may be. Rd232 ^talk 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the strange wording in this section was due to it being written more for the case when an editor objects to material in a manner other than removing it. Like someone leaving a note on the talk page. In any case, as long as we put contentious back in to the first sentence, I'm OK with deleting the "good faith objection" phrase. Gigs (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is so hard about this?

• Unsourced, non-contentious and/or non-BLP material: can be deleted per WP:BURDEN at any point. Deletion is subject to 3RR.
• Unsourced, contentious, BLP material: must be deleted as soon as noticed per this policy. NOT subject to 3RR, people reinserting it obstinately may be blocked for doing so.

Anyone can delete anything unsourced at any time. Unless it's problematic/contentious unsourced BLP material, however, the "big hammer" doesn't come out. The policy set needs to make that clear, even though it's covered in a couple of different places. Jclemens (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree on the deletion of "good faith" and would note that it was introduced into the sentence in the same edit that took out "contentious." — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment -- My guess is that the change from "contentious" to "objects in good faith" was meant to be roughly synonomous, whoever made the change might have been trying to clarify "contentious". Any which way, I think there's wide agreement that what Jclemens said is the policy. Maurreen (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember that being the reason for the change. Kevin (talk) 22:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If "contentious" is inserted and "good faith" deleted, the "to which an editor objects" seems both redundant and open to the argument (as it is now, too, BTW) that an editor can't remove the material until some other editor objects, that is, that the objecting editor cannot be the removing editor. I think it should say, "Remove any contentious material which is unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith; or which is a conjectural interpretation of the source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or which that relies upon a source which does not meet the standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability (though see self published sources, below)." I'm going to boldly change it to that and see if it sticks. Here we go... — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP of ownself

Part four remarks: "4. There are certain things you have a complete right to expect, and also things you cannot expect. It is important to understand these." What on earth does this mean? An official policy should be clear, and this is far from it. Sandman888 (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've boldly removed it. That entire section could use a once over. It's bordering on assuming bad faith of people that challenge their own biography. It should be making more constructive points instead of warning people preemptively not to be assholes. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Helping non-editors fix BLPs

The blog | On Wikipedia suggests. "Every BLP on Wikipedia should have a visible link that reads '"Contact us about a problem with this biography.'" (toward the bottom, paragraph begins with "It is frustratingly hard to contact Wikipedia...") Maurreen (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I second that. Anthony (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Where does the link lead to? Roger (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help seems the best choice.--Father Goose (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Presuming for a moment that there's consensus to do this, we could probably implement it via javascript, something akin to what was done for {{BLP editintro}} (see proposal & implementation for that template).--Father Goose (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a start. What do you think so far?

I don't know enough to finish the coding (and realizing that the idea will need further feedback). Maurreen (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is very much needed! My comments and questions:

1. Are we talking about a link or a banner? Where should it be located? Will the link be on the article page, the edit page, or both? (edit: there's something on the edit page, though it's neither concise nor direct and contains five links. On the sidebar, there's already "Contact Us" and "Help", both of which are solutions (albeit not ideal).
2. Both the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (moreso the Noticeboard) pages need to cleaned up to be as simple and direct as possible. Instead of having a whole block of text that will probably overwhelm the reader, we should have a large, bold link to create a new discussion topic (similar to Help Desk).
3. How about just asking a couple inexperienced Wikipedia readers to act as if they've discovered a libelous statement and see what they would do and where they would go to fix it. Will the look in the sidebar and click "Contact Us" or "Help"? Then what? Are they able to find their way around to the right page. Or maybe their first action is go to the talk page? These are some usability aspects that need improving throughout Wikipedia.

We really ought to get some more comments on this. Mahanga^Talk 19:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

1. I imagine a standard-size template, linking to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. I would put the template on the article page. The point is to make clear and *obvious*. Also, there's a related tag on the talk page.

3. Maybe we could even find people not experienced with WP as testers.

4. With all the good points you've brought up, maybe we should move this discussion. Maybe to Wikipedia:BLP problem or its own page ... maybe Wikipedia:BLP help, Wikipedia:BLP article template, Wikipedia:Helping subjects of biographies or ...? Maurreen (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Standard-sized template would probably be too much, imo, even though it's common to encounter some sort of banner on a given page. I was thinking of just including some text below the article title (something like this: [8]).

It's probably premature to move it, but if this proposal does get enough comments, we can set up a new page. I've linked to this discussion here. Mahanga^Talk 23:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the notification should be at the bottom of the page, not the top. Readers and editors have shown a real hatred of banners on Wikipedia in the past -- even something small like the metacontent you link to will raise objections. I think it's fairly likely that the subject of a BLP is going to read all the way through the article, so a notification at the bottom, as long as it's adequately visible, should do the trick. IMO.--Father Goose (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(cross posted from Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Making it easier for people to report issues about their biographies on Wikipedia) I sort of addressed this in my reply at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Attempt to Contact BLP Subjects, but this is a bit different take on the subject. There are means to contact the WMF, which are linked to from the footer on every page here. If the Foundation feels a need to make it easier to contact them, then I'm fairly sure that they could do that on their own. I'm still concerned about the effect that anything like this would have on the concerns detailed specifically in Wikipedia:Autobiography, and also mentioned in Wikipedia:Biography and even Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. You've gotta admit, it's pretty tough to maintain an objective viewpoint about yourself.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps we could cut the middleman crap and have a direct email address: "Email info-en at wikimedia dot org if there is a problem with this article." Or whatever the special email address is for BLPs. harej 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are two demos: one for an article with no amboxes up top, and another for an article with an ambox. harej 01:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless the goal is to get OTRS flooded with mail and make replies take twice as long, that's not a good idea. 1) Any message needs to make it extremely clear that OTRS is a point of contact for subjects and their representatives. OTRS does not have the manpower to be the BLP police. 2) Any message should link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) or we'll get tons of "lock this page," "delete the page," "use my official bio," and "give my agent editorial control" requests. Mr.Z-man 02:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it should be Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) instead of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. Although Mahanga makes a good point that it really should be neither -- whatever page we send them to should be simple, simple, simple.

I'd also like to reiterate that the notice should be at the bottom not the top. I am pretty strongly under the impression that the community will yank it off the page if it's at the top.--Father Goose (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Father Goose, good points about putting the template at the bottom. Will do.
2. V = IR and Mr.Z-man, the short answer to your general objections is that we (the template supporters) have more faith than you do. A little longer answer is that 1) such a template, or something similar, is likely to be more effective at improving the accuracy of BLPs than our current efforts; and 2) the point of the template is to communicate -- to make it easier for people to do what they can already do (such as edit and discuss). The template would not change any of our practices, policies, etc. We're an open encyclopedia; we're just making the invitation more clear.
3. The template should not go to an e-mail address. Aside from how much e-mail that might spur, it would be too much of a change at once.
4. harej, your demos are aesthetically appealing, but I think the template should be more obvious -- such as by having part of it in red.

Thanks for all your comments. Maurreen (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it should be attention-getting, which makes it all the more important that it be at the bottom so as to minimize its impact on someone who is merely reading the encyclopedia. Harej's demos are so subtle that I didn't even notice the notification until I remembered to actually look for it.--Father Goose (talk) 09:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think it should be at the bottom so that it's not too distracting, yet still visible. In addition to a template like this, improving the existing help pages is key. Mahanga^Talk 05:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

What should template link to?

Some options:

• An e-mail address
• A new page
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help
• Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject)
• Other?

My preference is, at least initially, for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help or Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject), although I'm open to new suggestions. Using pages that already exist has two advantages: They are already accepted by the community, and the template won't be delayed by the need to make a new page. Maurreen (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP/Help, since that's what the "Contact us" page says should be the starting point anyway. But in the meantime, we should work on drastically simplifying the advice on both pages. If I were a person with a problem, I'd be scared off by the acres and acres of text there.--Father Goose (talk) 09:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pages to rework

/Draft BLP help

Just for organization, these are the pages that should be reworked (add/remove text, bold/enlarge text, etc). Add other articles in need of improvement.

• • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard -- (linked from template:BLP)
  • Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help -- (linked from template:BLP and Article problem/Factual error)
  • Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) -- (linked from going to Wikipedia:Contact Us in sidebar and bottom)

Thanks. I've started /Draft BLP help, to replace Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. Maurreen (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Noticeboard template update

I reworked the BLP Noticeboard page. The draft is located at User:Mahanga/Sandbox2. It was clear to me while editing it that the wording was targeted towards Wikipedia editors (mentioning 3-revert rule, etc) and not readers. I removed much of it, though some could probably be added back if needed. They were just links pointing to more policy pages. I haven't changed much of the introductory text and anyone is free to edit it. Mahanga^Talk 07:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am thinking the current noticeboard should stay, because its purpose is for the editors. But maybe a different page, maybe like the one you drafted could be used by the BLP subjects. Maurreen (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can use Mahanga's draft as a subpage or subsection of the BLP/Help page, as a complaints board for BLP subjects. On the other hand, do we want to steer them toward OTRS preferentially?--Father Goose (talk) 06:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I would not make it a subsection, because I'd like them to have more of a specific, special area. As to the other two choices, it's a trade-off. I wish we would get wider input. Maurreen (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's my draft of the BLP/help page. Broad enough? Sufficient information? Comments are welcome. Mahanga^Talk 08:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

1. Slightly historical info -- Template talk:BLP#OTRS note
2. I'm thinking we shouldn't delay the template just to simpklify the pages. The template would still help in the meantime. But I could use a little technical help with the template. I don't know how to make the box. Maurreen (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As in, how to make it show up? Try a post to WP:VPT. Or maybe User talk:RockMFR, who created the BLP editintro and associated code.--Father Goose (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I made the box, and it's now at Template:BLP help.

But I haven't yet publicized it further, for wider consensus. Maurreen (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Where will the template be placed? I don't think there's a high chance of a banner appearing on article pages. Mahanga^Talk 08:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It'll go on the bottom of the articles. I'm hoping that placement will raise little objection.

But it should probably be publicized first; I haven't gotten to that yet. Maurreen (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at Template talk:BLP help and publicized it at WP:VP. Maurreen (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

IMDB

I was trying to clean up sourcing on entertainment personalities. Most I found had IMDB sources already named. I removed the tag and was hit by threats to have my account blocked because IMDB is considered unreliable. Obviously the majority of your entertainment personalities, BLPs mostly, have the IMDB as the source. The majority have that as the ONLY source. To now call it unreliable does serious injustice to the majority of such articles and brings them under threat of the Speedy deletion of unsourced BLPs proposals.

The prime contention is that IMDB listings are self generated. While this may be initially true, I happen to have an IMDB listing under my real name. It does not list all of the credits I wish it listed, because IMDB has a secondary checking system. If the information a subject enters does not conform with what is already known about the project for which they are credited, it won't get listed. An IMDB listing is a hard thing for actor wannabes to get. Do the people criticizing IMDB as a source understand how this works, or do they make assumptions from seeing the first layer? And does wikipedia wish to invalidate the majority of its entertainment listings based on this assumption?OsamaPJ (talk) 18:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

IMDB is user-updated, which makes it unreliable, period. Anyone can create an account and add information to any listing. The "secondary checking system" to which you refer is merely a group of administrators who prevent blatant vandalism and misinformation. They are not specifically fact-checking against reliable sources, and the site does not require new additions to be sourced the way we do. Your statement that "If the information a subject enters does not conform with what is already known about the project for which they are credited, it won't get listed" is completely untrue, unless I was to try and add the fact that I played the title role in Harry Potter. An IMDB listing is not a "hard thing to get" at all, providing the credits you are submitting are reasonably believable. Yes, much of the information at IMDB happens to be accurate, but plenty is not. The site has been well-used as a reference on Wikipedia because it is an easy source, and editors get lazy when it comes to sourcing. Do you think it's an accident that IMDb link parameters have been removed from infoboxes and are now relegated to external links only? IMDB is a great source of information but cannot be relied upon as a reliable source. I'm sorry if this negatively impacts biological articles, but BLPs are an area where we have to be especially diligent with the facts. Many of the articles you were working on may be notable to some degree (minor TV writers and such), but I don't see what the huge loss would be if they were ultimately deleted as unsourced BLPs per policy.— TAnthony^Talk 19:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not "unreliable period". Reliability is contextual. IMDb shouldn't be used for anything contentious since it mostly falls under WP:SELFPUB, but it is a source, and it has some minimal editorial standards for fact checking and accuracy. All proposed changes to listings are vetted by IMDb staff prior to updating listings. If anything, it's slightly more reliable than the average WP:SELFPUB source since there are some third party editorial standards that help prevent blatant misinformation. The IMDb user comments area is like any other forum of course. Gigs (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that we don't have a policy requiring sourcing. Maurreen (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And for innocuous material, even a poor source is better than no source. Maurreen (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Given we're talking about BLP's here, IMDB should not be used to source any disputed content in such articles. --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The "minimal editorial standards for fact checking and accuracy" Gigs notes above do not meet any real threshold for reliability. I can go to the site right now and add any minor actor of my choosing as a guest star on the latest episode of Law & Order and I can assure you it won't get rejected. IMDB can instead be listed as an external link for those interested in more information, reliable or not; this is what external links are for. Yes, it seems harmless to have IMDB as a source for an actor's film credits, but the underlying reason that sources are even there is to establish notability and help the article meet the requirements of WP:ENT and WP:BIO. A list of credits is useless if we cannot be sure they are accurate; there is really nothing stopping someone from cleverly falsifying credits on IMDB in order to bolster the notability of a Wikipedia article by extension. IMDB citations would be basically useless in an AfD, so to address OsamaPJ's original query, even with IMDB references the sourcing maintenance tags should remain intact in these articles until adequate sources are added. We get used to not being vigilant about sourcing "innocuous" or non-controversial info because it is infrequently challenged, but references become a lot more important when trying to improve an article's status or get it through an AfD. I don't buy into the "poor source is better than no source" in most cases because as I said above, IMDB is the lazy man's source; plenty of reliable sources are out there for the same information, people just have to look (and these sources aren't necessarily on the internet either). And if no one can find another source that says I played Jack Smack on Desperate Housewives last week, maybe I don't deserve a Wikipedia article.— TAnthony^Talk 21:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

After looking into this more, OsamaPJ is confusing references with external links, and has been mass-changing External links sections into References section while removing tags indicating the article has no references. While IMDb is usually an acceptable external link, changing it from an external link to a reference is inappropriate. I agree with the other editors that feel such mass-changes are vandalism disruptive. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is an overstatement.

From WP:VAN -- "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." Maurreen (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And regardless of whether any blocking should or should not be done, it's not good to threaten blocking at the first notice of an infraction, which appears to be the case from OsamaPJ's talk page. Maurreen (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would not classify OsamaPJ's edits as vandalism and he has stopped his mass changes pending this discussion. But Ronz is good to remind us of the actions that started this debate. I think we can agree that regardless of the IMDB issue, OsamaPJ's changes as described are not appropriate. The "block threat" was to get his attention, as he'd already zipped through a couple dozen articles and had somewhat rebuffed the objections of others (in good faith). — TAnthony^Talk 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree he was doing it haphazardly and without enough care, but it would be a shame to discourage him so strongly if he really does want to help with BLPs and sourcing. I'll leave a note for him to check out WP:Mistagged BLP cleanup, since that seems like what he was trying to do. Gigs (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Point taken ;) — TAnthony^Talk 23:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is that IMDB credit listings are generally reliable, but IMDB biographies, trivia sections, and other such material is generally not. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a position on IMDB per se. But the "pro" side might get further if they would link to something that shows evidence of editorial standards there. Maurreen (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

IMDBs page on vetting. I agree with "The Hero" as well. I would not rely on anything but the listings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigs (talk • contribs)

This is great PR, but for the record I still want to make it clear that while you may choose to "rely" on the listings, they are not truly "reliable" in a strict sense, especially in the case of the more "minor" people whose articles rely on them. If we can't find other reliable sources out there to confirm these facts, then the staff at IMDB can't either. I work in the entertainment industry and have added credits to IMDB for myself and friends; I personally know them to accurate, but I can also acknowledge that in many cases there are not online or readily available real-world sources to prove them, and none have ever been rejected.— TAnthony^Talk 23:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, like I said before, probably shouldn't be used to back up anything contentious. Credits can almost always be verified against on-screen credits for primary sourcing anyway. (Yeah I know there's plenty of exceptions) Gigs (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you knew what passed for "fact checking" at just about every newspaper, you wouldn't consider them reliable either. I'd say there's no such thing as a reliable source, but there are degrees of reliability when it comes to specific pieces of information. For credited cast & crew on widely released films, IMDb achieves a high degree of reliability. For every other type of information on IMDb, not so much.--Father Goose (talk) 04:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In case it's useful: There is some (old '09) discussion exploring this on a project page here. –Whitehorse1 22:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Which tag is appropriate for BLPs cited to IMDB only, {{BLP unsourced}} or {{BLP sources}}? Per WP:Mistagged BLP cleanup#How to do it, is IMDB "inadequate" or "questionable"? Flatscan (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

{{BLPrefimprove}} Pohick2 (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If IMDB was being used to source biographical info, personally, I'd remove such citations and if nothing remained, tag as unsourced. If it was being used to source filmography info only, I'd go with {{BLP sources}}. A mere external link to IMDB would count as unsourced.--Father Goose (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. A comment at WT:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people#IMDB refers to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard archives. WT:Citing IMDb has a few discussions. Is there a single link somewhere that's good to reference when tagging or stubbing? Flatscan (talk) 05:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would it cease to be a source for filography info if someone omits ref tags and puts it in ELs? I don't think we should tag differently based on formatting of sources. Gigs (talk) 02:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The cite is important because it makes it explicit whether IMDB is being used to cite filmography info or biography info. If the article was mostly filmography instead of biography, I'd count the IMDB link as a reference, but I'd also change it into a citation and double-check that it backs up the filmography info given in the article.

The presence of a citation implies that the material was checked against the source. A mere external link implies... well, that the person has an IMDB entry, which may or may not back up any of the content in the article.--Father Goose (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources and should not be used as sources within articles, nor should any mirrors or forks of such articles be accepted as reliable sources for any purpose." therefore i conclude, i can use IMDB as a source, but with care. this would not be contentious, except that people are using Unreferenced BLP as a deletion screen. an external link implies that the article may predate the inline references standard. Pohick2 (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#IMDB as a source? for a discussion about establishing a policy, guideline or central discussion on IMDB. Maurreen (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Are there article "templates" for certain types of people?

I would like to know whether there are set forms for creating an article on a particular type of person, for example, Thinkers. In some of the articles I've been editing recently, there does not seem to be any consistency to how the sections are structured. But I think in many cases the articles would benefit from a structure. For example: Life, Ideas, Oeuvre, List of publications, etc. At the moment they are different things on different pages. I may be overrationalising the process, but in my opinion it would be good to have a clear "model" on which to contruct pages about critical thinkers, cultural theorists, philosophers of all stripes, etc. Thanks. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Every life and career is different. As is every subject in general. Articles should be structured organically according to the information available. However, you could always look at an article on a similar topic for pointers on what broad areas to cover, and general ideas for how to structure it.--Father Goose (talk) 06:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You could also discuss the matter on the WikiProject Philosophy talk page. There may be guidelines and/or conventions on how the project likes "its" biographies to look. Roger (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Relatives' names

First of all, I don't want to start a fight, I just want the opinions of a few editors to clarify an issue. Having written Tim Cross, I deliberately omitted the names of his children, grandchildren etc despite their mention in several of the sources I built the article on. My question, however, is about one of his sons, who is a serving Royal Navy officer, which means his name is a matter of public record, irrelevant of his father, though he is not notable himself. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to name him in his father's article since his name is public record. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the particular individuals involved. I think this is properly editor's discretion. You no doubt have reasons why you left out the relatives' name. When I recently did Antonin Scalia, I named his nine children in the infobox, with married names, because these names are public record and they are all adults. I did not mention that his eldest daughter had a well publicized brush with the law. I think in dealing with living people, we allow considerable discretion to editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It is tempting as it is so related to the fathers topic field, but I started asking myself, what would naming him benefit the reader and not at all was the answer so considering that, why name him, I think no. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I would not have named Scalia's kids were they not mentioned by name in a semi-authorized biography. One is independently notable and three or four others have gained public attention at some point. I think it is editor discretion, with eyes on BLP and balancing acts.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's editorial discretion here, yes, and our discretion should be No. If he's not notable on his own, and no encyclopedic purpose is served by naming him, then we should respect his privacy. causa sui (talk) 21:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to all for the advice. I'll err on the side of caution and omit the name since it makes little difference to the article as a whole. Much obliged. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Would appreciate comments or suggestions for Template:BLP editintro

Please see Template talk:BLP editintro#Proposed small expansion. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I've noticed that most biography pages are Semi-protected. Keyboard mouse (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

More problems in the section Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing_with_articles_about_yourself

A few days ago, Sandman888 noted a problematic sentence in WP:BIOSELF, and Gigs noted the section could use an overhaul. I agree.

Look at the third item:

Very obvious errors can be fixed quickly, including by yourself. But beyond that, or if disputed, there are "basics" that you will need to know if you wish to do much more, or make it easier.

I'm more or less OK with the first sentence (although examples to illustrate the borders would be helpful), but what on earth does the second sentence mean? Sounds like someone started a thought, and abandoned it.

I've decided to be bold and add substitute the following sentence, as a first step toward improvement:

But beyond that, or if disputed, post suggestions on the article talk page. If the results are still not satisfactory, place {{adminhelp}} on your talk page, and an administrator will try to help. If that is still not satisfactory, please read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to identify options.

--SPhilbrickT 17:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that we try to give them a route easier than the normal dispute resolution process, such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help. Maurreen (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Were you thinking it should replace the third sentence, leaving adminhelp as a second option, or replace both sentences, as the option beyond the talk page?--SPhilbrickT 23:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where it should go. My main point is to take WP:DR off the table. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I made the change. Maurreen (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Template to help subjects of BLPs

I'd like to draw your attention to Template:BLP help, which was discussed at the top of this page. So far, there has been only one objection. If anyone has any comments, please make them at Template talk:BLP help. Maurreen (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

BLPNAME conflicting with WP objective

Sorry if this has been brought up ad infinitum, but I've run into a few cases recently in which editors have cited BLP and BLPNAME specifically as a reason not to include names of people within event articles, mainly because they are considered "victims", have a right to privacy, and the inclusion of a name is not critical to the reader's understanding. This can be countered in a number of ways depending on the individual situation, but I'd like to posit something a bit broader: The objective of WP is to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. When a person's name is mentioned in many, most, or nearly all reliable sources on a notable event/topic, a reasonable person can conclude that regardless of "privacy" concerns, the name's inclusion is necessary for the article to be comprehensive.

Sometimes I think we're getting our objective mixed up. Our goal is not to protect peoples' privacy but build an encyclopedia. In the process we've come to acknowledge that we need to do more to prevent spreading false, malicious, biased, and badly-sourced information, especially on living people. After all, that harms the project. We do not concern ourselves with issues of privacy. Sometimes peoples' names should not be included in articles because of WP:UNDUE. After all, giving undue weight might not present a neutral point of view on a topic, and that harms the project. Privacy has nothing to do with it. Rarely, names should not be included because it violates American law. I honestly have no idea if that has ever happened, but again, we have nothing to do with privacy. That is dealt with by legislation and courts.

Once it's in the reliable sources, it's an editorial decision whether or not to include names, not a privacy one. Does the exclusion of this name make our article less comprehensive than the sources? Does the inclusion of this name violate project rules like undue weight? Those are the content questions we should be asking. We are in the building a comprehensive encyclopedia business. We are not in the privacy business. Joshdboz (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed at an RfC, linked to in the section immediately above this one. Comments should go in that RfC to avoid spreading the debate. Fences&Windows 03:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope for a broader debate, as I think BLPNAME is bad policy, or in the least is being applied in ways that harm the encyclopedia. Joshdboz (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. It's a shortsighted "think of the (insert class here)" logic. Fact is, we exist to be an objective source of information, and should have no filter on such things beyond that of the RS press: if the victim is named on CNN, etc. who on earth do we think we're helping by not including that information in the appropriate Wikipedia article? Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's room for middle ground. On the one hand, trying to apply a policy about "living people" to dead people is going too far. On the other hand, the golden rule is a good principle. To base too much of our decisions on other sources abdicates responsibility. To say that we don't care about privacy is to place too high a priority on WP and ourselves, and not enough on people who might be affected by what we do.

Another good factor to consider is weighing any potential good any potential harm Maurreen (talk) 06:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Oops, I meant to say, "weighing any potential good against any potential harm. Maurreen (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, agreed that people need to stop citing BLP when talking about dead people. As for a middle ground, all I'm saying is that we should not base decisions like name inclusion on privacy concerns because it is irrelevant. If someone's name is published in a verifiable, reliable (or unreliable) source, it is by definition public. That being the case, our decision of inclusion should be based on our time-tested policies of NPOV, no OR, verifiablilty, and WP:NOT. It should be a content based decision, not a privacy based decision. If it's reported significantly enough for inclusion, privacy is irrelevant because it's already clearly public. I just want to avoid these Orwellian situations where a name is plastered all over CNN and yet editors claim privacy as a reason for exclusion. Joshdboz (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that that section now goes too far. It was expanded on July 12, 2009, by Jacklee in this edit, citing Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive:Privacy of names. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've laid out the current and previous versions below. I prefer the former version myself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

July 12, 2009 version

Current version

Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if the names have already appeared in the media, where: they are not in themselves sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article; for instance, because: they are only named in third-party published sources because they are related to or associated with notable individuals; they are only named in a few third-party published sources; although they are widely named in third-party published sources, such sources only have trivial content on them (e.g., minor accidents, criminal offenses and public outbursts); or they are not directly involved in the article's topic; or they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy. Examples Gossip Magazine has reported that actor John Doe and his wife Jane have a three-year-old daughter named Booboo Happy Flower. In spite of the entertainment value of the name, this does not make the child notable in her own right. She is only in the media because she is related to Doe and for the novelty of her name. The fact that her name has appeared in one or more celebrity magazines, newspapers or websites may be an instance of self-promotion or scandal-mongering, and does not make her notable. Thus, her name does not belong in an article on John Doe. Actor John Doe has lent his name to a campaign for tough criminal sentences for heroin addicts. Newspapers have reported that his adult son was arrested for possession of heroin. In spite of the irony of the public allegation the son is not notable in his own right, and his privacy should still be protected. Following the arrest of John Doe's son, Doe publicly recants his previous stand and now promotes treatment for heroin addicts. The son's arrest may now be included in the article about John Doe, although his name should still not be mentioned, even if it has been widely reported in the media, as he has still not become notable in his own right. Where names are redacted, editors are encouraged to explain why on the article's talk page.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree: the former is better than the current. Really, BLP cannot both be expansive and serious--then we're talking flies and shotguns. BLP concerns should be narrowly drawn so that the unparalleled use of tools is permissible and reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate the way the current BLPNAME invokes notability guidelines inside a content policy. If anyone wants to see the confusion this is causing, they need look no further than the above linked RfC. I prefer the old version as well. It describes something like notability, but it avoids using the N-word. I think this will help people understand that notability is really not about limiting article contents. I don't think the old version is perfect, but I think it's better than what we have now. Gigs (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not perfect, and as I said above privacy is often a redundant consideration if something passes our BLP reliable sources standards, but the former wording is much more preferable than the current version. The main point should be "Use caution and take a hard look at your sources", not "These are innocent people, and heck they're not even notable". Joshdboz (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that there was a discussion on the matter before the guideline was changed, and it was not originally my proposal though I supported it at the time and did much of the redrafting. The changes simplified the language of the policy and also attempted to provide more guidance to editors, in addition to expanding its reach. However, there was a recent proposal, which I agreed with, to liberalize BLPNAME by okaying the mention of the names of family members who have been named in reliable third-party sources where there is a neutral or positive connotation. (I believe the discussion is in Archive 24 but for some reason I cannot access that page at the moment.) The main concern is to avoid naming non-notable persons in situations where there is a negative connotation to a notable person, for example, naming the wife and children of a convicted pedophile simply because they have been mentioned in reliable third-party sources. I think there was consensus for tweaks to BLPNAME along those lines. However, the original proposer did not go ahead and update the policy. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this was a fairly major policy change, but it wasn't discussed by that many people. It has introduced complications and a lack of clarity. The problem with all our policies is that some people interpret them very literally, so the fewer loopholes for misunderstanding, the better, and that means the writing has to be tight. I think we should return it to the previous version. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus in this small conversation to go back to the pre-July 2009 BLPNAME. What might be the best way to elicit more views? Joshdboz (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think going back to the old wording is the solution. It was too vague and did not provide editors with sufficient guidance. Also, by directing editors to discuss disputes on the talk page, the old wording was inconsistent with the general rule in the BLP policy that contentious information in BLPs should be deleted without discussion. The sentence "Where names are redacted, editors are encouraged to explain why on the article's talk page" in the new wording was intended to remove that inconsistency by indicating that violations of BLPNAME could be deleted without discussion. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 17:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree mostly with above, with some caveat. Cases in which indeed names are included only by a few sources and/or are irrelevant even as search terms: in this case, I'd be for not including the name, to avoid unnecessary exposure. But there are indeed many others in which names are extensively reported by media, and so Wikipedia doesn't add significantly to the exposure. A case-by-case approach should be the guidance. --Cyclopia^talk 17:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC) --In short: the former version was better. --Cyclopia^talk 17:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can now access Archive 24, and the last time this matter was debated was at "Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 24#Privacy of names and children/relatives of celebrities". Here's the rephrasing I proposed:

Privacy of names [1st revision]

Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if the names have already appeared in the media, where:

• they are not in themselves sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article, for instance, because they are only named in published third-party sources because they are related to or associated with notable individuals;

and

1. being named in connection with the subject of the biographical article can be embarrassing or dangerous to them (e.g., if the article's subject is a convicted criminal or a wanted terrorist, or works in the adult film industry);
2. it is sufficient to identify them by their affiliation with the article's subject without naming them;
3. they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy; and/or
4. the article's subject has actively tried to preserve their privacy.

An exception may be made where:

• the non-notable persons are closely related to or associated with the article's subject;
• the article's subject is notable for positive or neutral reasons; and
• the names of the non-notable persons have either been disclosed to the media by the article's subject or have otherwise been widely published in reliable third-party sources.

Consider, though, whether referring to these non-notable persons in the article is useful for increasing understanding about the article's subject, or is merely trivial information.

Examples	Suggested action
The names of the wife and children of Ihava bin Hidin, a wanted terrorist who has orchestrated suicide bombings that have resulted in deaths, are published in a newspaper article.	Applying criterion 1, the names of Ihava's wife and children should not be disclosed in the article about him. There is a risk that people may try to harm them because of their hate for Ihava.
It is disclosed on an established website reporting entertainment news that Betty Boomz, a well-known porn actress, has an adult daughter who is training to become a nun.	Applying criterion 1, Boomz's daughter's name should not be mentioned in the article about Boomz. Consider also whether the information, which is trivial, belongs in the article at all.
Actor John Doe has lent his name to a campaign for tough criminal sentences for heroin addicts. Newspapers report that his adult son was arrested for possession of heroin. In spite of the irony of the public allegation, the son is not notable in his own right.	Applying criterion 2, it is permissible to mention that Doe's son has been arrested, but his name should not be mentioned in the article about Doe.
A news report states that famous sportswoman Waheeda Ismail has been seen in the company of a man who is otherwise not notable.	Applying criterion 2, the fact that Waheeda is dating may be mentioned in the article about her, but the man should not be named. However, consider whether the information, which is trivial, belongs in the article at all.
Peter Chen is the education minister, and has frequently stated that educational standards in government schools are the same as those in private schools. He has always kept his wife and minor children out of the limelight. A journalist tracks down Chen's children and discovers that he has sent them to an exclusive private school abroad.	Applying criteria 2, 3 and 4, the fact that Chen has sent his children to a private school abroad may be mentioned in the article about him, but the children should not be named.
Barack Obama is the President of the United States. He is married to Michelle Obama and has two daughters, Sasha and Malia. As of 2009, Obama's daughters are minors and are not notable in their own right.	Applying the exception, they may be named in articles about Barack and Michelle Obama.
Actor John Doe and his wife Jane have given an exclusive interview to Gossip Magazine about the birth of their daughter Booboo Happy Flower. Despite the novelty factor of her name, the child is not notable in her own right.	Applying the exception, Doe's daughter's name may be mentioned in the article about Doe.

Where names are redacted, editors are encouraged to explain why on the article's talk page.

The view might be taken that the table of examples is unnecessary, but in my view they demonstrate how the criteria might apply. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that. I admire the obvious thought and effort you put into this, and I bet that in many cases the outcome editors chose will be similar to the examples. I simply don't think Wikipedia needs such an expansive policy on name privacy, because taken too literally it can lead to widespread self-censorship and second guessing, and everything we deal with is by definition already public, not private. Comparing the two policies, I agree that your draft is actually the clearer of the two, and while I prefer the less expansive previous version, it too introduces the concept of notability in article content, which is a bit troubling. I'll try to take a harder look tomorrow. Joshdboz (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea of using the notability standard was proposed by another editor, and it was done because it is a well-established concept and to avoid introducing a new (and possibly unclear) standard for determining whether family members, etc., are significant enough to be mentioned by name in articles. But do have a look at the proposed rewording and comment on it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's way too long, and sends the absolute wrong message. Notability was never intended to govern article content. It's bad enough that the current wording has lead some people to believe that notability should directly govern article content. This proposed wording makes that implication even stronger. Notability is a big, sprawling, sometimes self-contradictory, contentious mess that very few people can agree on. We should avoid it whenever possible. Gigs (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What if the table of examples was omitted? As I said, I think the examples are helpful, but I suppose they are not essential. In my view the problem with the old wording is that it was too vague and did not provide editors with sufficient guidance.

Also, if notability is an inappropriate standard, what other standard should be used? The former wording was not clear about this: "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it ..." Also, notability was in fact part of the former wording: "The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger." — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Gigs is 110% right: Notability is about article existence, not content, and this would directly contradict Wp:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All right. Then what standard should be used? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Bot lists 300 articles, tagged as unreferenced BLPs, which have 5 or more references

There is a new bot which I requested and Tim created:

Possibly around 20% of articles tagged as unreferenced BLPs have references

This bot lists 300 articles, tagged as unreferenced BLPs, which have 5 or more references. The bot list is updated daily.

The bot output is here: [9]

Thanks. Okip 02:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It shows up blank to me. Gigs (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

How to correct articles wrongly tagged as Living Persons

I have hunted all over for a description of how to remove or change the tag the says an article refers to a living person. I know the person in question -- Arnold Allen -- is no longer living, because about 10 years ago I was contacted by someone writing his obituary. I just don't know the date, so I can't correct the article, but I also don't know how to remove the BLP tag from the article. I suggest that these directions be documented somewhere with the BLP policy, or if it's there now, that it be made a lot more prominent, like placed right at the beginning of the article, or at the top of the list of "see also" links. Chris Loosley (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing the tag is easy enough--it says category:living people.

In the case you mention we have no confirmation of death (and he received a PhD in the early sixties so he could easily still be alive). I see that he is now tagged as possibly living, which seems reasonable if he's suspected to have died.

You say an obituary writer contacted you about ten years ago, but I don't know whether you are taking into account the fact that obituaries of the famous are often written well in advance, to enable timely publication. Tasty monster (=TS ) 13:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes regarding summary deletion

(changes regarding summary deletion)

Wikidemon, I restored the wording of the badlydrawnjeff decision, which seems to have been removed without discussion. I didn't add any wording from the recent ArbCom motion. Remove that new link by all means, though I see no harm in including it as a see also. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Your changes seem to change the wording in a way that runs against consensus from the recent BLP RfCs. Reviewing both your immediate changes,[10] and those made in aggregate since March 1[11] I see the following items for which consensus does not seem clear:

• Addition of subheading "Summary deletion" - skews wording to suggest incorrectly that policy favors summary deletion in situations described by section
• Changing Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. to Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be rectified or removed immediately. - skews procedure to be more favorable to content deletion, which seems to run against consensus on BLP content RfC
• Removing "if the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." and "Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard." in favor of to " Any administrator acting on their own judgment may delete a biography of a living person if they believe it significantly violates this policy and there is no earlier version that is policy compliant" - This would significant expand administrator discretion, and the range of situations permitting summary deletion. There is no clear consensus for this, and in the case of summary deletion for reasons of being unsourced it goes against consensus from the recent RfC.
• Removing "Page deletion is normally a last resort." - This analog of WP:BEFORE is a rather important point. A change to favor unilateral summary deletion by admins needs consensus, and consensus seems to be running the other direction.

The newly written essay is a skewed interpretation of a flawed ArbCom motion disposition - there is discussion on ArbCom pages of removing it from the ArbCom area, and questions whether it belongs in WP space at all in its present form. If we were going to link to anything it would be the actual motion but ArbCom's actions there are flawed. Further, I do not think the 2007 Arbcom decision reflects current consensus on deletions, so it should not be added to the wording in a way to suggest that policy follows this particular statement . ArbCom interprets and enforces policy; it does not create it. When was it removed?

Given the extent of changes to a very contentious area of policy under current discussion, we should stick with the current version and establish consensus for changes. Normally there would be discussion and an RfC if necessary, but there are already two RfCs regarding unsourced materia. Expanding that to cover other BLP deletion matters right now might complicate attempts to draw these to a close, and covering the same ground again would be redundant.. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, WD, that was quite a lot to read. I did two things apart from tightening the writing. (1) I restored the wording from the badlydrawnjeff decision in 2007 that used to be in the policy and which seems to have been removed without discussion that I can find. That explains when summary deletion is appropriate. And (2) I added a link to the new ArbCom motion, which you objected to so I removed it again. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Any administrator acting on their own judgment may delete a biography of a living person if they believe it significantly violates this policy and there is no earlier version that is policy compliant" is from the badlydrawn decision in 2007. It isn't new, and it's what admins have been acting on since then, and in fact before then. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 16:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wikidemon that this edit does not reflect consensus in any way. Immediate summary deletion for merely being unsourced was widely rejected at the RfCs. If your intent was to "tighten the wording" then in the process you have inadvertently changed the substance. It used to describe the deletion of what amounts to attack pages under the normal CSD. You changed it to give license to the kind of speedy deletion that the community showed pretty much no support for at the RfCs. I've restored the original wording for now. Gigs (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what you think was changed. The badlydrawnjeff decision had widespread consensus then and now: "Any administrator acting on their own judgment may delete a biography of a living person if they believe it significantly violates this policy and there is no earlier version that is policy compliant." See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs, July 2007. I'm concerned here that people are trying to weaken the policy, but this is the wrong climate for it. The Foundation and ArbCom both support a strong BLP policy. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"and not because the article is unsourced or poorly sourced or in some other way non-compliant" Being unsourced or poorly sourced is not a valid reason for speedy deletion, that was specifically and soundly rejected during the RfC. Gigs (talk) 19:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WikiDemon. The recent RfC consensus was very much contrary to the changes proposed by SlimVirgin. Jogurney (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to restore the page to the relatively stable version of 18 March. Maurreen (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Current consensus needs to be shown to add the Badlydrawnjeff case or material about summary deletions. Maurreen (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You removed a link again that was removed without consensus. And for some bizarre reason you removed two shortcuts. This is the second or third time you've recently reverted edits of mine on core content policies in their entirety without even glancing at them, then proceeded to criticize me, and it's not appreciated, Maurreen. Kindly desist. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 23:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Maurreen, I don't see where a consensus developed to remove the reference to the Badlydrawnjeff case. Also, the wordings you reverted were copyedits that were clearly superior to the version you inserted. What you called a "more stable version" in your edit summary was clearly no more stable than anything else; see the changes since January alone. I'm restoring the copyedited version, and let's continue the discussion here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

When and under what circumstances was the badlydrawnjeff link removed? In any event ArbCom doesn't create policy, nor are the pronouncements of ArbCom there in accordance with the policy that exists today. There isn't consensus for applying what ArbCom says in that case, and in any event the pronouncements were made with reference to the facts of a specific case that is now expunged. A statement of principles is made to resolve a specific case. Remove the case and the statement of principles is out of context. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the diff of the removal of the badlydrawnjeff case. Maurreen (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to have been added between here and here. Maurreen (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it seems to have been removed intentionally, and a while ago. I don't see any reason to re-add it. The decision doesn't make policy, it runs counter to consensus if applied broadly without reference to the facts of the case, it's stale, and because it's courtesy blanked it doesn't even illustrate an application of policy. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And it was fairly controversial at the time. Had it become consensus since, that would be obvious without linking to it; but it seemed, at least until quite recently, to be extreme even among ArbCom cases. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

For anyone supporting summary deletion:

1. Admins are given additional tools, not additional authority.
2. I'm interested in any real or hypothetical examples that would justify summary deletion, that would be supported by consensus before or after the fact, that would fall outside our current speedy deletion criteria. Maurreen (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

SV

SV, you say, "This is the second or third time you've recently reverted edits of mine on core content policies in their entirety without even glancing at them, then proceeded to criticize me."

Where is this alleged criticism?

You have no knowledge of whether I glanced at the edits, did more or did less.

And my reversions of you are certainly no worse than yours of me. Maurreen (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Moved to user talk page. Maurreen (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

After SlimVirgin criticized me, she deleted my reply from her user talk page. Maurreen (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:TPG#User talk pages that is accepted practice and acknowledgement that xhe has read your post there. If you don't like it, there is always the option of writing on your own talkpage and using {{tb}} to draw your correspondent's attention there.User:LeadSongDog come howl 16:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Maureen's minor changes to BLPNAME

In the above fray it seems that some minor copyedits to BLPNAME that Maureen made were reverted. If no one objects I think we should restore them, they were uncontroversial and good. Gigs (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Privacy of Personal Information

Sometimes it is only when confronted with a specific issue that possible ambiguities in a policy emerges. The policy currently states:

Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known persons where the dates:

• have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release; or
• have otherwise been widely published.

Caution should be exercised with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.

My questions:

• Should other words than "notable/notability" be used in paragraph 4? "Well-known", perhaps? Notability has a specific meaning on WP, which can cause confusion. For example, it is argued here that this section cannot apply because the article has survived an AFD (and thus the notability of the subject has been established). I'm sure that is not the intent of this section, given that we shouldn't host non-notable BLPs on WP at all!
• Do the two criteria for the inclusion of dates of birth (ie where/by whom the info has been published etc) apply only to well-known people, or do they apply to all subjects? It seems otherwise that nothing is specified re verifiability for the "less well-known".
• Does the "subject complaining" section only apply to less well-known subjects or to all? The current formulation with "or" (When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains) seems clear enough to me, but clearly not to others.

My initial proposal for a rewrite would be something like:

With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly many regard their dates of birth as private. Particular caution should be exercised with the inclusion of personal information of less well-known article subjects people.

Wikipedia requires that dates of birth of BLP subjects living people should:

• have been published in one or more reliable sources linked to the persons such that it may reasonably be inferred that the persons do not object to their release; or
• have otherwise been widely published.

If the subject is less well-known and/ or complains about the inclusion of their date of birth on Wikipedia, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.

What do others think? --Slp1 (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Maurreen (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should jut say "people" rather than "article subjects" or "BLP subjects"? The latter terms seem to suggest that the guideline only applies to people who are the main subjects of articles. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I would also change the "and/or" to just "or." Maurreen (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point JackLee. Should it be living people, though, just to make clarify that this doesn't apply to the deceased? I've made some changes based on both your remarks. --Slp1 (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added a couple of extra changes, marked by un-italitized text. In particular, I added about the inclusion of their date of birth on Wikipedia to clarify what the complaint needs to be about. --Slp1 (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Maurreen (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the section as it's currently written. Slp, what do you see as the benefits of the proposed changes? I read your arguments but didn't quite follow. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I'm less wedded to the changes I proposed to the verifiability/inclusion section. (The first 3 "paragraphs" of the current policy). I can see how this is supposed to emphasize that we should have the birthdates of well-known people only, and my revision has lost that.

On the other hand, I see the other parts as needed/desirable improvements. I like

• The contextualization of the privacy reason for this part of policy at the beginning.
• The avoidance of "notability/notable" concept. This is typically used to determine article existence, not to decide on appropriate content. In particular, the phrase "When in doubt about the notability of the subject..." has led editors to say that because a not-very-well-known person's article has survived an AFD there is "no doubt about notability", and this cannot apply.[12][13]. It's an understandable confusion, but I presume not what was intended.
• The clarification that the subject's wishes/complaints (about the inclusion of full birthdates) are considered irrespective of their "notability". Because this passage is included in the paragraph about "less notable" people, editors have been arguing that it only applies to the less notable group, and not to all.[14] There is also confusion about whether complaints we pay attention to have to be generalized or whether they can be specifically directed at WP.[15][16]

There may be other ways of addressing my concerns, however. --Slp1 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: the notability of the person confusion, I think it's clear what's meant but you could change it to: "Where the subject is of borderline notability, or if the subject complains, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." "Borderline notable" or "borderline notability" is a phrase that's often used nowadays. I didn't really understand your second point (and I note that a lot of your diffs are from one editor, Pigsonthewing). I think the sentence above is very clear—particularly "or" if the subject complains. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit

I've gone through and tried to streamline the page for flow without changing the meaning of anything. There was a lot of repetition, and sentences in inappropriate sections.

• Before: 3908 words, 25 kB readable prose, 40 kB overall.
• After: 3197 words, 20 kB readable prose, 33 kB overall.

Slp1, I tried to take your concerns about the dob section into account. It now reads:

With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes dates of birth where these 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. Where the subject is borderline notable, or where any subject complains about the inclusion of a date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted.

SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great. Your edit addresses most of of my issues. I've made a minor change which does not change the meaning but in my view improves the flow.[17]. --Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good, and thanks for fixing my spelling. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

I am going to restore the previous top and header to the "Deletion" section. The new version shifts attention from improvement to summary deletion. Maurreen (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It just looks weird now though. I'm going to reduce it to one header again until we can decide on something better. Gigs (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That is better. Maurreen (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Challenged or likely to be challenged section

This section is redundant with the lead and WP:GRAPEVINE. What was the logic in pulling it out like this? Gigs (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the core of the sourcing policy, V. The BLP policy on sourcing is the same as V, and it's worth stressing that. The only difference is that for BLP issues we have to remove non-compliant things immediately, whereas normally we wait a little for people to find sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any point in mentioning it yet again there. It's in the lead, it's in grapevine, we don't need to say it a third time. Gigs (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be in grapevine, so we could remove it from there. It clearly needs to be in the lead and in the sourcing section. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not in grapevine. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Remove any contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced" means the same thing. Gigs (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't mean the same thing. The first is about what needs sources, which is from V. The second is about what should be removed immediately, which is unique to BLP. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've merged them, retaining the major points of both. Gigs (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons → Wikipedia:Information about living persons — The policy page currently includes all information about living persons being quoted on Wikipedia, while the page title is focussed only on biographies, which can tend to mislead readers as it is clearly overprecise. Note: There is an existing page Wikipedia:Living persons that is only a redirect to the current BLP policy page. ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 05:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's proposed naming conventions and guidelines.

• Oppose, on the basis that this is a (possibly appropriate) change to the policy itself that should not start with polling. Open a discussion of the merits or drawbacks of the proposed rename first; poll later only if consensus for the change is unclear. None of us can offer an informed view as yet, so a thumbs up/down format is a poor way to open a discussion. We haven't even had a chance yet to discuss names other than the one you're proposing.--Father Goose (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, seems like a bad idea for a few reasons, not to mention that you probably want to move it to the project space and not article space, and that the term is synonymous with a lot of current discussion. This is a project page, so concerns over its scope are less critical too. Shadowjams (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose on the procedural grounds pointed out, but also I oppose the idea in general, because the policy specifically deals with biographical information, not all information about living people. Gigs (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• I agree with Father Goose. Discuss first. Maurreen (talk) 08:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly alright. Thanks for the responses. Regards, ▒ ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

ArbCom resolutions

I've also started a separate section listing ArbCom resolutions relevant to BLP, because Wikidemon objected to having specific sections from these linked in the text. If there's still an objection I wouldn't mind if we moved them to See also, but I think they do need to be listed somewhere in the policy. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 01:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I deleted these two:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, July 2007.
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/BLP deletions/Motion, January 2010.

ArbCom doesn't make policy. There is definitely no consensus of support for the January 2010 case. Maurreen (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky business. On some level I'd like to note what the Arbitrators have decided "is policy", as that is ultimately what will be enforced, but in cases where their rulings do not accurately reflect the broad community's view, such rulings should not be incorporated into policy.--Father Goose (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is not whether to incorporate them into policy (they're arguably already part of policy), but whether to list them in their own section, along with the Foundation resolution. We list essays, so it's hard to argue that we can't list ArbCom cases. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And to try to give it context would probably open another can of worms. Maurreen (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

At least in the January case, several Arbs that supported the motion later on said that their statement should not be taken to encourage the same type of behavior in the future. Another compared the actions to civil disobedience. All in all it's extremely clear that that arb motion should not be cited in any policy anywhere ever. Badlydrawnjeff, while a cleaner case, seems to be sufficiently embodied in the current section on summary deletion. Gigs (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The pronouncements ArbCom makes in badlydrawnjeff, if taken out of context to apply to the entire project, do not reflect policy. ArbCom cases are decided with respect to specific editors and edit histories, and it's often a mistake to take the statements of principle as broad pronouncements. In this case the context is missing because the case has been courtesy-blanked. If we're analogizing this to case law it would be a depublished opinion. The specific issues I see are:

• "Where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned...such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached". This is true to some extent but not as an absolute rule. The reason for removing content has to be a plausible good faith content objection made on BLP grounds - not a breaching experiment, process objection, or non-BLP edit. In those cases content removal can be reversed in the usual WP:BRD manner (subject to WP:RS / WP:V and other content concerns), and the norm is to leave things as-is until consensus is reached for removal. Further, some deference is paid to long-term status quo, and prior discussion or consensus on the matter.
• "Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete [a BLP]...if they believe that it...violates any aspect of the relevant policy". This should not be applied broadly as it could encourage problematic deletions by rogue or involved administrators, as in the recent Arbcom case. Administrators' judgment should not go against consensus about what the policy means, they shouldn't do it over active objections, mass deletions need consensus, and improvement is preferred over deletion.
• "The article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so". This is not the policy. As with any deleted article, they can be recreated in a form that answers the objections that lead to deletion, e.g. in NPOV fashion, adequately sourced, etc.
• "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy".I see no basis for this statement, and without seeing the facts of the case it is hard to know what Arbcom is getting at. When someone raises a BLP objection (or any objection to any article), one only needs to meet the specific objections that have been raised. There is no special call here for going down a checklist of each policy section to prove that content complies. BLP is an exclusionary policy, and you cannot prove a negative (i.e. prove that there is no BLP violation).

If any of these principles, or others from the case, are truly policy, then surely we have a better source for it than to cite an old redacted case. If this is the only place these statements appear, it is not very convincing. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind where we list them. It can be inside the policy (which Wikiedemon has objected to), or in their own section, or in See also, but there's no reason whatsoever not to list them somewhere. We even list essays in See also. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Three of us above have given reasons not to list them. Maurreen (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned that Maurreen is reverting me and arguing against me just because it's me. This has happened on another policy, and it's something that should be nipped in the bud because this is an important policy page, and personal issues shouldn't get in the way of its maintenance and development. I'm also concerned that she has in some way taken against the ArbCom. I'd therefore appreciate if others could weigh in with arguments.

It's true that ArbCom doesn't decide content, but it does decide behavior, including the behavior of admins, which is in part what their BLP cases have been about. I'd therefore appreciate if others could weigh in to explain why we are linking to essays, and to one ArbCom case, but not to all relevant ArbCom cases. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 18:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

SV, when you want to take a cooperative approach to any perceived problems, let me know. But please focus on content, and not on editors. Maurreen (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with linking to it in See Also. FWIW, I don't think anyone is singling you out. Gigs (talk) 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll move them all to See also. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Echoing Gigs, FWIW, I don't think anyone's singling you out. I disagree with linking to them in See also though, and favor removal. Onsite in general, linking to an ArbCom case in a policy or guideline can sometimes be a good idea, such as in WP:CITE. (Edit: Actually, it looks like it's the fn guideline that links, though each carry the same advice.) It can explain something perhaps counter intuitive to a reader; for instance, a user preferring a specific citation style may genuinely feel transforming to that en masse is best. Other times it can be unnecessary. Linking to essays can be helpful, say if they provide a pithy outline of a policy aspect used in practice, or give exposition on underlying principles. In this instance, I'd say the linked-cases should be removed, for the reasons I gave below. –Whitehorse1 20:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Four. I agree. The principles are clearly espoused in the policy; 3–4, particularly, are well enshrined in verifiability and sp-deletion policies. The case, was heard 3 years ago. We've come a long way in our handling of verifiability, quality of sourcing, and notability. Expectation and practice are far different to how they were in early 2007. None, of the Resolutions give solid benefit by their inclusion. In some cases, they're almost shoehorned in; the protecting children's privacy one irrespective of how one may feel it's an important decision, is largely unrelated to this policy concerning writing and maintaining material about third-party living people, dealing as it did with blocking or removal of personal information users who appear to be children post on and by themselves in userspace. The resolution from earlier this year, as others express above, was substantially more divisive than committee decisions normally are, to the point in excess of 100 members of the community felt moved to sign a statement in opposition. As the policy banner speaks of widely accepted standard, it's a contrast if an item is liable to focus contention or discord. Where little benefit derives from inclusion, removal would seem the best option. –Whitehorse1 19:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my views. Normally I'd want to document something like this, but these ArbCom cases are easy to misinterpret and were probably even misstated in the first place, or do not apply to anything beyond a single case. The January 2010 motion prompted another case almost immediately afterward, and the ArbCom's response to that one was even more cluttered: [18].

These cases verge toward a schism between the community and the Committee, but given that policy is community-driven, I think we should restrict ourselves to documenting only the community's views, not ArbCom's personal take on these issues. On this and other policy pages, it is our obligation to communicate to one another and to ArbCom what our stance is on policy matters. It is up to them to enact that stance as faithfully as possible.--Father Goose (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added them to See also per Gigs as a compromise. I don't recall any schism in the community over the badlydrawnjeff case—what it said was already in the policy, as I recall. The problem with this situation—and I'm not referring to you here, FG—is that people aren't familiar with the content policies, and therefore regard certain ArbCom decisions as new, or as attempts to drive policy, when in fact policy (this one or the others) already explicitly or implicitly said the same thing, and the ArbCom was simply responding to that. I'm not referring to the January 2010 decision which was about admin behavior, but about some of the others—though even the Jan 2010 decision was rooted in this policy.

I wouldn't want to see anyone try to strike up a "BLP policy versus ArbCom" situation on this page, because the Foundation, the ArbCom, the community, and this policy have always been in broad agreement. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 19:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears that two people in this discussion favor including the cases, and four favor removal. Maurreen (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no broad agreement concerning the January 2010 case. Have you seen the community's reaction? Maurreen (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the thing you're linking to. The ArbCom settles disputes. It doesn't make policy, and in particular it doesn't make content policy. I'm entirely in agreement with that. Essays also don't make policy, and nor do guidelines, but we link to them in See also because they're relevant community processes, and they're there for further information, which is what a See also policy is about. You want to act as though those cases don't exist. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Arbitration Committee has the authority to settle disputes by applying accepted Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but it has no authority to make policy. For this reason, the motion (permalink) about to be passed in the current BLP deletions arbitration case only settles the dispute about the specific mass deletions, blocks and other actions at issue in that case. The motion is not to be understood as changing or superseding general deletion policy and process as applied to the biographies of living persons, and it should be considered void if and insofar as it might have been intended to have that effect. Instead, any policy change should be decided by community consensus, starting with this RfC.

The BadlyDrawnJeff case is based on an out of date version of the BLP policy, in particular the "do no harm" principle, which has since been changed to a stance more compatible with WP:NPOV. But the January 2010 motion was even more problematic; a great many users voiced an opinion that ArbCom went far beyond what is specified in policy (or endorsed by the community) by suggesting that summary deletions of BLPs solely on the basis of their being unsourced is acceptable behavior (let alone policy). I truly wish we could say that "the ArbCom, the community, and this policy have always been in broad agreement" -- ArbCom and the community were very much out of sync regarding this particular case, and it is the community that gets to specify what the policy is.

Normally I'd have no problem with "See also"s of this nature. But there is something of a schism here, or at least there was one regarding that motion. When it comes down to it, either ArbCom's views were 100% in sync with policy, in which case we don't need to link to them, or they weren't -- in which case we shouldn't link to them.--Father Goose (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

When did the "Do no harm" principle change, in your view? It's right there in the lead: "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A hypothetical compromise would be to link to the cases but put them in context. But trying to do so would be opening a possibly bigger can of worms. Maurreen (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

"Do no harm" was specifically rejected as policy during the formulation of the BLP policy. This is documented in WP:HARM. It has never been the policy. Some people just repeat it a lot as if it were. I guess they figure if they repeat it enough, people will think it's true. Gigs (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, at one time WP:BLP did say "do no harm". But stated in such absolute terms, it tended to be used to trump all other policies, including NPOV. It has since been softened to "the possibility of harm must be considered". The issue of harm continues to be addressed by the policy but "do no harm" is no longer the specific principle.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Father Goose (talk • contribs) 21:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in the policy. It has always been there in some form that I recall. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder FG... When those words used to be included they were prefaced; "a rule of thumb is to do no harm". Gigs (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing in my support for including the ArbCom motions in some form ("see also" seems to fit the bill well) in this policy page. While I agree that ArbCom doesn't make policy, the links are completely relevant to the broader topic. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

While it's a true and important point that the ArbCom does not set policy, nor should it rule on content, I cannot see why one wouldn't include these links here, since they're quite relevant to this policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I would ask the people commenting here to bear something strongly in mind. This is one of the most supported policies on Wikipedia. It is one of only two policies, along with NPOV, that the Foundation has thrown its weight behind. It has community support, ArbCom support, Jimbo's support, and it's nicely harmonized with other content policies that are themselves strongly supported. No attempt should be made to weaken or undermine the letter or the spirit of it.

The January 2010 ArbCom decision mixed up a number of issues in an unfortunate way. What a lot of the community objected to was the method that some admins used, and the statements that some made that appeared to disregard community processes entirely. I don't support those statements. I think it was unfortunate that the ArbCom appeared to lend strong support to them, though I suspect they wouldn't do it now if asked again—or wouldn't do it in quite the same way, at least.

That should not overshadow the content and policy issues. This policy has always stressed the importance of high-quality sources for BLPs. The position that unsourced and poorly sourced BLPs may be subject to summary deletion has been in the policy for years and admins have been acting on it for years. That the ArbCom upheld that aspect of the admins' actions is really not that controversial. It was the numbers, the speed, and the intemperate remarks that were problematic, and the ArbCom's support for those aspects has unfortunately thrown all its BLP decisions into question.

We would be wrong to allow that to happen, or to allow it to affect this policy. Please let's not continue to get substance confused with modus operandi. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Substance:

1. Summary deletion of BLPs with a sole reason of lack of sourcing -- is not supported by consensus. Period.
2. Nor am I aware of any summary BLP deletion that would be supported by consensus that is not covered by any speedy criteria. Maurreen (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Maurreen. I'm not aware of any policy which endorses summary deletion of BLPs by sole reason of lack of sourcing, and the recent RfC indicated that there is a concensus that no such policy should be in place. Jogurney (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This policy upholds that, and has done so for years. If someone objects to something, it becomes contentious. If no source has been supplied, it can be removed, and if the whole BLP is like that, it can be deleted. This is not something new. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose a literal reading of the policy would allow someone to challenge unsourced BLP content simply for being unsourced (but that would be a very poor reading of it in my view). In any case, the recent RfC came to the opposite conclusion, summary deletion of BLPs for the sole reason of lack of sourcing was not endorsed. Jogurney (talk) 03:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's the only reading there is, Jogurney. If I add something to a BLP, and you disagree with it for whatever reason, I have to source it or it gets removed immediately. If the whole article is like that, and no sources are forthcoming, it gets deleted. Admins have always done this, with the support of the ArbCom, the Foundation, and Jimbo. What the RfC opposed was mass summary deletion, but that did not affect the badlydrawnjeff decision or this policy, neither of which touch on mass deletion.

The fact remains that if today someone were to create an unsourced article on you that contained some horrible allegation that could damage your name, your family, and your job, and no source could be found very quickly (and I mean within minutes), I could delete it as an admin without further ado, and you'd be very grateful for that. Let's not forget that bottom line. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that contentious unsourced material can be removed on sight. We just shouldn't assume that any unsourced information is per se contentious. Consensus is that content it is not contentious simply because it is unsourced (there needs to be some other reason as you suggested above). Jogurney (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

But how would you know it's not contentious if there's no source? Maybe even the existence of an article about you would be contentious, in your opinion—an article that I might regard as entirely innocuous might be something that would get you into trouble in ways I couldn't imagine. This is the point of always, always requiring reliable sources, so that a living person edit is never left to a Wikipedian's own judgment. The people who are criticizing the ArbCom and the recent speedy deletions have to remember that this policy is here to protect your mum, your neighbour, or your children should any of them be unlucky enough one day to have a WP bio.

Something becomes contentious on WP as soon as it's challenged. That's how we have operated for years. If you challenge something, it needs a source, and without a source it can be removed. The only difference with BLPs is that unsourced material that's challenged—or is the kind of thing someone's likely to challenge—can and should be removed immediately. The speed is the only issue that's special to BLPs. Nothing that the ArbCom or the RfC said has changed that, because it's fundamental policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid we're talking around each other. I agree with everything you have said except that lack of sourcing makes something per se contentious. You haven't explained why it would be, and consensus is against such an idea. Jogurney (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to you in the Contentious section below. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Terrible bias

I think SV is referring to this: "There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." (emphasis added)

This reflects a long-standing fundamental Wikipedia principle, supported by many Wikipedians, the Foundation, and Jimbo. The recent mass-deletion debate was about mass deletions, and many editors (such as myself) elected to stay out of it. In any case, if anyone, admin or not, decides to remove a specific unsourced statement or article (not as part of a mass deletion campaign), and others are resisting (but no sources are immediately found), it becomes by definition contentious unsourced material, and may be summarily removed. If it's a BLP, since it is now contentious, it may be deleted at the admin's discretion. Again, this should not be conflated with mass indiscriminate deletions, for which there is no consensus. Crum375 (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I read Mr. Wales' comment as indicating content which cannot be (readily) sourced is per se contentious and should be removed immediately. That makes sense to me but certainly doesn't go so far as endorsing summary deletion on the grounds of lack of sourcing. Neutral, factual information which is currently unsourced (but could be readily sourced) just doesn't rise to that level. Jogurney (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If something which is being challenged can be "readily sourced", then a source should be quickly provided by the editor supporting the addition or retention of the material. If such source cannot be immediately found, then it's not "readily available". If an editor or admin decide to remove that material, it should be removed until such source can be found. This is the essence of WP:V, and is even more crucial for BLP related material. Crum375 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me also add that the term "neutral, factual information" is meaningless without a reliable source supporting that characterization. Crum375 (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added sources to several thousands of unsourced BLPs over the past few years, and in more than 90% of these cases the article contained no contentious material (and no material that could not be readily sourced). There were some articles that were completely unverifiable (probably hoaxes) or simply not notable which I proposed for deletion or sent to AfD (all in-process deletions), but very, very few could have caused any harm to the subjects (typically because of blatant and childish vandalism like "he iz gay"). I agree that BLPs should follow WP:V, but sourcing the BLPs is the best way to accomplish this, not summary deletion. I read Mr. Wales' comment to say that only when the information cannot be sourced that it is contentious and immediately deletable. When the information can be sourced, it should be sourced, not summarily deleted. Jogurney (talk) 16:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If the material is readily attributable, a source can be quickly found and added on request (i.e. when "challenged") and the issue is resolved. We are focusing here only on cases where there is no reliable source readily available (e.g. by a quick google search), and the supporting editor cannot provide one when challenged. Then, according to WP:V, the material should be removed. If it's a BLP, esp. if it's negative, it becomes more urgent to remove it. Per admin's discretion, the article may be summarily deleted in such cases. Crum375 (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the key. The information becomes contentious only if a quick search yields no reliable source to verify. The lack of a source does not make the information per se contentious (and immediately deletable). I think the wording used in the policy ought to make this clear. Jogurney (talk) 16:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The current version says: "If the page's primary content is contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced; there is no obvious way to fix it; and there is no previous version of the page that is policy compliant, it may be necessary for an administrator to delete the page." Can you explain why in your view this is incorrect? Crum375 (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with that statement (contentious material which is unsourced is not what I'm worried about). My concern is that SV was suggested that deletion for no grounds other than a lack of sourcing has been endorsed somewhere - yet I have seen no examples of this. Jogurney (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe an example will help me be clear. There is a BLP which contains the following statement only with no sourcing: "John Doe is a footballer who scored the first goal for Doeland at the 1986 FIFA World Cup finals." There are plenty of published reliable sources online and in print which could confirm this information (which is unlikely to be viewed as negative by an objective reader). Should the lack of a source constitute grounds for immediate deletion? I think not. The information would need to be contentious, and I read Mr. Wales' comments as saying the information would only be contentious if it were unverifiable (meaning the reliable sources which would indicate whether John Doe did participate and score a goal at the World Cup had no record of such). Jogurney (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think in some cases deletion should be made immediately if there are no sources and the material is contentious, since the mere act of googling and finding appropriate reliable sources can take time, during which Google may scrape that version into its cache. Also, if the material is challenged and there is no appropriate reliable source provided within a reasonable time, it should be removed pending availability of such sourcing, per WP:V. Crum375 (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur, but I'm opposing the idea that uncontentious material which has not been challenged can be deleted simply for a lack of sourcing. Jogurney (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what the policy (which I quoted above) currently says, and not what SV said. And as I noted above, unsourced material becomes "contentious" if some editor or admin challenges it, at which point, per WP:V, it requires a source, or may be removed by any editor. Admin deletion would normally be reserved for unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person, but it's up to admin discretion. Crum375 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

SV posted this above: "The position that unsourced and poorly sourced BLPs may be subject to summary deletion has been in the policy for years and admins have been acting on it for years." I believe we are both saying that this is only true if the material is contentious and cannot be sourced. Maybe all we need is for SV to clarify, but I read that post as indicating uncontentious but unsourced BLPs can be summarily deleted (which is wrong). Jogurney (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Subject to summary deletion" is a good way to put it. It does not mean that we go around with a bot mindlessly deleting every such article, but it does mean that if no source can be found in a reasonably short time, the material will be removed, and in some cases (like unsourced negative BLP allegations) the article will be deleted or stubbed. Again, the material becomes "contentious" as soon as it is challenged and there is no immediate source available. This is fully consistent with our long-standing policy, the Foundation's position, as well as Jimbo's statement which I quoted above. Crum375 (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not as exact as I'd like, but I suppose it can be read the way I think it should be - lack of sourcing is insufficient in itself for summary deletion, but material that cannot be sourced is contentious and should be deleted. Jogurney (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Material that cannot be sourced is by definition not attributable, and thus does not belong in article space, BLP or not, per WP:V. It becomes contentious once an editor recognizes it as unsourced and challenges it, and a source is not found within a reasonable time. It can also be contentious external to WP, because of the nature of the specific topic. But the point is that once any material is challenged, it must be reliably sourced, or it will be removed. We do this more aggressively in the case of BLPs, esp. for negative material about a living person. Crum375 (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the language on the policy page, and confirmed by a number of discussions, that "contentious" refers to something problematic about the words in the article, not the wikipedia process of challenging it. In other words, if I say that content should be removed my challenge doesn't change whether the material is contentious or not. However, if I say "I think this needs a citation because x", where x is an issue with the content (including that it is simply of dubious accuracy or that I don't believe it without a source), I think that's contentious material. Something as simple as "Lady Gaga started playing piano by ear from the age of 4" could be contentious because, in this case, lots of parents make exaggerated claims about their kids' abilities and people tell tall tales about the talents of musicians, so I wouldn't really believe it's true unless a publication with a record of fact checking and accuracy looked into it and felt comfortable saying it. It's not that the material is libelous or anything, just that it's kind of dubious without a source. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your definition of "contentious" is not what we mean on WP. If I challenge unsourced material for a source, can't find one myself and none is provided within a reasonable time, as far as I am concerned, that challenged material is contentious. According to WP:V, even if we ignore the word "contentious", that material must be removed, because unsourced challenged material does not belong in article space. The actual process of removing it, and the related prosecution speed, depend on the specifics. If it's a minor issue with minimal potential consequences, we can afford to wait a while, in case a source turns up. In other cases, esp. BLPs with negative allegations, we need to act immediately, including a possible admin deletion. But getting back to "contentious", I see no practical difference between that word and "challenged or likely to be challenged", which is very specifically covered by WP:V. Crum375 (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't follow from the logic of the policy language, which describes contentious as a property of the material prior to its being deleted. The policy page says that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". If the act of removal is what makes it contentious, then this sentence, repeated three times on the page, makes no sense. The word clearly means something in that sentence, which means that it limits the range of material to be removed. The page says that material may be contentious if it is "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable". This is a special class of material that "should" be deleted without waiting for discussion, and may not be reinserted without a source. However, if a drive-by editor were to delete, say, a filmography on claim that it is unsourced, without first trying to source it, mentioning it on the talk page, attaching a fact tag, or the other usual steps, it's best for the regular editors to just revert the deletion and invite the person to follow a more reasonable process. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted does not preclude material being contentious because it is being challenged, or is likely to be challenged. It is not (necessarily) the act of removal which renders it contentious, but our assessment of the material. The point is that since WP:V clearly states that any unsourced material which is challenged or likely to be challenged must be removed, the exact definition of "contentious" doesn't really matter. What does matters is the urgency of the action: does it require immediate removal, or even admin deletion, or is a {{fact}} tag sufficient? This is where we need to use our judgment and common sense. But as a general rule, any unsourced material which is challenged or likely to be challenged is subject to removal, with the speed and type of removal dependent on the specific situation. Crum375 (talk) 23:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We agree, I think. But the challenge has to be good faith - in the case of BLP that means it has to be contentious. The term is left undefined, perhaps deliberately. But there has to be something about the material beyond mere lack of sourcing. Same with WP:V. The key word is assessment. If someone has made an assessment and decided that there is some reason to challenge it, that is good enough. By contrast, if someone is running around deleting stuff to prove a point about sourcing, there's no consensus for that and it's not a legitimate challenge. SlimVirgin used the "Paris is the capital of France" example, which is pretty obvious. I stand by my filmography example. Most filmographies, book lists, and discographies do not have citations. In my opinion they all should, and when I work on articles I find a reliable source (and not just IMDB or the DVD jacket) for every film. But we simply haven't enforced that. If I went around and started deleting them, I would be going beyond BLP and even WP:V, not to mention making a big mess and wasting lots of time. My sentiment that filmographies should all have citations does not make the content contentious or unverifiable, it just means I have a content position and an idea what to do about it, that may or may not have consensus. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we do agree. I consider all policies to include an implicit "good faith" clause, so a "challenge" must be a good faith challenge, etc. I agree with you that if someone is running around with a bot slapping {{fact}} on every sentence that doesn't end with a footnote, he'd be acting disruptively. But if an editor takes the time to read an article, evaluates the sources and challenges some unsourced material, it would require a source. Then, if there is no appropriate source forthcoming, depending on the specific situation, a range actions could be warranted, from a simple fact tag and a talk page post, all the way to instant admin deletion. We need to assume both common sense and good faith for this site to function, since written rules can never nail down all situations, and even if they did nobody would read all of them. Crum375 (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave an example below, WD, of something that looks perfectly okay, but which could be problematic for the subject. We can't tell what's problematic until we've seen the source, that's the thing, which is why all unsourced material about a living person is a problem. Remember the principle is that WP must not be a first publisher of material like that. So as soon as you see unsourced BLP material, it's ipso facto contentious because it looks possible that we are the first publisher. Every unsourced BLP sentence raises that red flag. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

January 2010 motion

I personally don't question most of ArbCom's BLP decisions. But the January 2010 motion, for the variety of reasons you (Slim) cite in your second paragraph, paints either an unclear, misleading, or possibly even wrong picture of what the policy is and how the ArbCom intends to uphold it. As you point out, the ArbCom would probably word that motion differently if they had the chance to do it again.

Since the motion is probably not a good representation of ArbCom's stance on BLPs (or if it is, it embodies the schism I mentioned), including it in the BLP policy (even just as a "see also") will serve more to obfuscate than enlighten. It doesn't belong here because, as written, it is out of sync with the community stance expressed by the policy itself.--Father Goose (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that the ArbCom is the only body (along with the Foundation) able to uphold the BLP policy and in particular to uphold admins' interpretation of it. That's what they did. You may disagree with it, and I do agree that it got several issues confused. That's why I'm not arguing that we should incorporate it into the policy as a whole. But at the same time we can't pretend it doesn't exist, because there are lots of people who do agree with it. It seems to me that a See also is a good compromise. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

By "lots of people" you mean 10 or 20 vs the hundreds that disagreed with it? Gigs (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't help to exaggerate. :) Lots of people (including Jimbo) do agree with the summary deletions and the ArbCom's support for them—no point in pretending otherwise. We link to essays in See also that maybe only one person has written or supported, so we can't justify excluding ArbCom. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, ArbCom went much further than policy.

The disagreement about whether to include the cases is not about whether we as individuals agree with the results. In the January case, it's about the fact that the community does not support the result.

ArbCom's mission is not to uphold pollicy. ArbCom's mission is to decide user conduct disputes. Maurreen (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It absolutely is part of ArbCom's mission to uphold policy, and to rule on what admin actions are justifiable in upholding it. That's their job and that's what they did in January. You can disagree with their decision, but you can't say it wasn't their decision to make. What they don't do is make policy, and particularly not content policy. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

SV, your comments reflect at least a difference in semantics.

The point is that the decision is not supported by the community. Maurreen (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree at all that ArbCom's support of factors in that isolated case—which wasn't even a full case but a swift motion, has rendered worthless or invalidated its corpus of BLP-oriented decisions.

It is possible for an isolated case that is not struck down to be flawed, or valid yet believed problematic by many; without, however, affecting the whole. The committee has concluded appeal cases identifying irregularities and noting markedly problematic considerations in past findings. In no way does this invalidate the body of decisions or the institution of ArbCom itself. Nobody in this discussion aims to subvert or weaken the policy in whole or in part, in letter or spirit.

I've said already in an earlier comment, linking and referring to cases or essays in some instances may be helpful on occasion. Nonetheless, it's not necessary everywhere, nor is matter of course linking of cases that involve factors in the same area of focus as the policy desirable. The history or the how it came to be is rarely if ever germane to a policy or guideline page. Simply, the cases inclusion may be needlessly contentious and provide none or scarce additional benefit. –Whitehorse1 22:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise?

I have added short contextual notes to the two disputed links to ArbCom cases. Maurreen (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it as part of a longer-than-usual "see also" section, with suitable disclaimers. Also, having concentrated on the single point of disagreement here I note that SV has made a large number of uncontroversial improvements to the organization, wording, format, and finer points of the policy page, and carefully gone step by step so that it's easy to see the changes. I haven't gone through the very latest yet but I agreed with all the others as of a few hours ago - good job, and much appreciated. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

←Link to the two ArbCom motions, but also link to the community's reaction. Maurreen (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A few of have agreement in principle to contextualizing links to the ArbCom decisions. Is anyone against including context with the links?

I have introduced a couple of ways to add context. Does anyone else have other ideas about how to do so? Maurreen (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem leaving them raw. In my experience no one much in the wider community directly accepts ArbCom rulings as any kind of policy, so I don't see a lot of danger in raw links being misconstrued. That said, I wouldn't have a problem with labeling them something like "background information" or "related disputes" either. Gigs (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've tried the following approach ([19]) -- the links are "raw", but combined in a section with the BLP RfCs which serve as rebuttal regarding the points where the community disagreed with the Committee. I also decided to remove the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy link, since I can't see what bearing it has upon the BLP policy -- there was a disagreement over a proposal that never passed, and arbcom mediated the disagreement.--Father Goose (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept that. Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)