Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 28

Self-published sources

I would like to change the wording of this, because the current wording has opened up a loophole. It says:

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject."

Because it says "about a living person," this has been interpreted to mean that it's okay to use self-published sources in BLPs so long as the material in question is not about a living person.

The particular situation is about a climate-change group blog partly controlled by a Wikipedian. It was being used as a source in a BLP about a climate-change skeptic that the same Wikipedian has criticized on and off-wiki. The use of this blog as a source is being defended because the material it was used as a source for was not directly about the BLP. [1] (It was rejected as a source in this BLP several weeks or months ago, by the way, so this proposal to change the wording isn't related to that decision; it was raised again recently only as an example on the talk page.)

I would therefore like to change that sentence to clarify that self-published sources are never allowed in BLPs unless written or published by the subject:

"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources in BLPs, or as sources of material about a living person in any other article, unless written or published by the subject."

SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 15:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB cover this already. We shouldn't make it a violation of BLP policy to cite a self-published source when the claim being backed up isn't biographical. Gigs (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ww should use a degree of common sense. There is a BLP that I intend updating shortly concerning the professional status of somebody. I expect to have verifiable source that the person concerned ceased to be on the professional register during a specific period because his name "fell off" the register. That person, in the Wikipedia talk page concerning himself gave the date of his resignation from the register. If that date ties in with the registers, themselves, but names the date rather than the year, should the LP be quoted? Martinvl (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources written or published by the subject are fine. This section is about self-published sources written or published by someone else. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gigs that this is adequately covered by the combination of policies involved. I don't see the need to add the BLP nuclear options to resolve situations as the one presented. The "harm" involved is tangential enough that standard editing/dispute resolution processes should be sufficient. Jclemens (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a hypothetical situation: a biography about a scholar on ancient Persian pottery. Say he was involved in a dispute over the dating of some shards. Let's also say that the leading expert on the topic has self-published his opinion in the matter. Would that be an unusable source for a sentence like "Smith believes that glaze was used as early as the 5th century BCE, while other experts, including Jones, have proposed a date as late as the 3rd century." In a usage like that, I don't see that there's necessarily a problem.   Will Beback  talk  07:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue here was a climate-change blog being used as a source in a BLP about a climate-change skeptic. The argument of the editors who inserted it was that it wasn't a BLP violation because the material supported by the blog wasn't directly about the subject. In fact that argument wasn't correct as it was about the subject's work, but ignoring the details of that specific case, the current wording allows a blog antagonistic to the subject to be linked in the BLP, so long as it's used to support a non-subject-related issue. I find that problematic. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 11:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but if it's a non-RS blog, then it gets nuked as a non-RS--no 3RR exemption, but 3O or other DR processes should support the removal, right? Still not seeing the problem. Jclemens (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

proposal to prevent "sideways" avoidance of BLP bans

"Anyone barred from any specific articles concerning any individual or group, or any topic where BLP concerns might reasonably be seen to exist, is also barred from making edits referring to that person, group, or topic in any other articles or associated talk pages where the same person or group, or same topic where BLP concerns have been raised, is mentioned." (Italicized emendation to avoid claims that this is over-broad)

The purpose of such an addition would be to prevent "sideways" avoidance of any article or topic restriction by either adding a person, or group, to another page not directly mentioned in such a ban, or by adding or deleting material in any such page. It is thought that this is best suited for an addition to WP:BLP as policy, as then it would be applied uniformly across WP, rather than trying to add such language one person at a time. This would also clearly not be used as an ex post facto change of any current bans or restrictions, but would apply henceforth. (in other words, it is feasible to state "after 1 July 2010" or the like in the text) Collect (talk) 11:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Opposed, for various reasons. First, its WP:CREEP. If the edits are bad under BLP, they are bad anyways, and can be sanctioned as appropriate. It's also open to gaming and lacks a clear definition. If we all agreed where "BLP concerns might reasonably be seen to exist", a lot of things would be a lot easier. Finally, your wording is extremely broad. It would exclude someone banned from Barack Obama to edit Illinois or David Souter or Afghanistan or Al Gore or Bruce Springsteen or Delaware or Oath of office of the President of the United States or Aretha Franklin or Georgetown University or I hope you get my point. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It would say that someone banned from editing Barack Obama could not say "Barack Obama is called 'Nobama' (reffed)" in the Illinois article. It would not bar them from ever editing Illinois unless the BLP issue was raised there. I have altered the wording now to eliminate that straw man argument. I trust this alleviates your concerns. Collect (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this in response to a specific problem? Let's not make policy changes without a need.   Will Beback  talk  19:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No - especially since no change here would affect any existing restrictions. It arose in a discussion with Lar wherein I iterated my long-standing opinions about BLPs. Had you read User:Collect/BLP to see the sort of problems occurring? Collect (talk) 23:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I read the intro and I couldn't follow what you're saying. Maybe it needs some polishing before it's ready to to show to others.   Will Beback  talk  17:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's an easy one. Is this article a BLP?

While relisting AFD discussions, I came across this article, Otto Divosta (AFD discussion.) It's not clear to me whether or not this person is still converting oxygen into carbon dioxide.

This got me thinking. If it's not clear whether or not a "contemporary person" is alive, then perhaps we should assume that he/she is until a reliable source is produced saying otherwise. Should something like this be written into the BLP policy and if so, how should we define "contemporary person"? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, as it comes up often. I'm surprised there's nothing in the policy about it. The last consensus I saw is that we presume people are still alive for as mnany years as anyone has ever lived, something over 110 years. There's no birth date for Otto Divosta, but there's also nothing to indicate he was born more than 110 years ago.   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's 123 years. See Category:Births of the last 123 years and Category:Living people. I have now added this to the policy. Not sure if this is the best place in the policy to put the wording, and discussion would be welcomed.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 02:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words and anonymous sources

• Beware of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

This text appears under the "Avoid gossip and feedback loops" section. It was mostly written in March.[2] Almost all sources use what we would call "weasel words". Further, many reliable sources either attribute material to anonymous sources (especially when writing about governmental matters), and many reliable sources make assertions with no attribution whatsoever. While it's important to avoid repeating idle gossip, these two warning would seem go far beyond that.   Will Beback  talk  21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this was to apply to "claims of fact" where anonymous sources have a pretty poor record for acuracy. Even when printed in a RS, but where such things as "An anonymous source said Jane Roe was drunk at the Oscars"-type stuff, "Some people said Jane Roe is the illegitimate daughter of Lillian Russell" or "The Daily Blurb tabloid says Jane Roe is in love with Bat Boy" or "Some state Jane Roe is an alien" or "Several people suggested Jane Roe is guilty of rape". Without a pretty clear bar on such material in a BLP, the problems found in User:Collect/BLP will recur. (Note: "Jane Roe" is not a real person) Collect (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That material is clearly gossip, and would be even if it were attributed. "Sally Smith said Jane Roe was drunk at the Oscars" isn't much better. I just read a piece in the New York times that uses an anonymous source for a positive comment about someone:

• I heard about Sister Margaret from an acquaintance who is a doctor at the hospital. After what happened to Sister Margaret, he doesn’t dare be named, but he sent an e-mail to his friends lamenting the excommunication of “a saintly nun”: “She is a kind, soft-spoken, humble, caring, spiritual woman whose spot in Heaven was reserved years ago,” he said in the e-mail message. “The idea that she could be ex-communicated after decades of service to the Church and humanity literally makes me nauseated.” [3]

My point isn't that we should include gossip, it's that using an anonymous primary source doesn't make an otherwise reliable secondary source unreliable, nor does the use of terms like "recently" or "many people". Before the March edit, the text said to "be wary" instead of "beware", which I think had the effect of strengthening it excessively. Sure, it's good to look at such sources more carefully, but they aren't prohibited or even discouraged if they're otherwise suitable. If there are no objections I'll change it back.   Will Beback  talk  05:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I swapped the "beware" and "be wary".[4].   Will Beback  talk  09:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Preface to a change with regard to extreme claims found in reliable sources

I would like to make a change to WP:BLP which makes clear that making a controversial claim abut living person X requires better sourcing that making the same claim about a non-living person. The background are these two discussions on WP:BPLN: [5] and [6]. For now, I don't have exact language in mind. I seek comment from other editors. Some points:

1. I like the phrase "Contentions claims require exceptional citations"
2. The key example is the situation in which a reliable source reports that "Person X wrote extreme claim Y." No one disputes that the reliable source says this, but other editors do not believe that Person X actually wrote that. They demand a direct citation to the writings of Person X. If none can be produced, then the claim is removed from Wikipedia even though it was found in a reliable source.

Jimbo Wales seems to agree with this position [7]. Thanks for any comments/suggestions that people might have. David.Kane (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Of course the claim must be attributed to the source and possibly not presented as mere fact, but in general if RS say something and there are no UNDUE/NPOV etc. problems, we report it. WP:WELLKNOWN. What editors "do not believe" (or do believe) is irrelevant for the encyclopedia. What RS say is relevant. --Cyclopia^talk 15:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Further comment: Of course if the claim can be backed up by primary sources, all the better, and we can present it as something more factually. Of course if the sources are of dubious reliability, etc., we can discuss on a case by case basis. But in general, giving more credit to what editors believe than to RS is a recipe for disaster and crumbles NPOV in pieces. --Cyclopia^talk 15:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia: So, the standards for the use of reliable sources are identical for both living and dead persons? If that were true, then there does not seem to be much point in having a special WP:BLP section. That seems to be inconsistent with what Wales writes.

Sorry to come in late here, but I want to agree with Off2riorob on the philosophical point here. "Contentionus claims require exceptional citations" is a concise statement, beautifully put. Now, as to this particular issue, and whether that burden of proof has been met, I don't think so, but I am not certain. I read enough of the discussion which follows to think that is almost certainly has not been met, but I applaud that people do seem to agree that in order to claim that Jenson "has recommended separate curricula for Blacks and Whites" we need it from his own words, not the synthesis and conclusion-drawing of his critics. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Or am I missing something? David.Kane (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You are missing that:

1)BLP is mostly a reinforcement of already existing policies, as stated in the very first sentences of BLP policy itself. It is not a jolly that makes the BLP articles wholly independent from other policies and that allows any change of policy no matter how crazy. For a start, WP:WELLKNOWN is part of WP:BLP and says that we can report negative claims and even negative allegations, if there is RS coverage.

2)What Jimbo says is not automatically law (unless in special circumstances). See WP:JIMBOSAID for a proper essay on the matter. --Cyclopia^talk 16:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The general standard has been "exceptional claims requires exceptional sources". "Contentious" is a difficult standard because it's so vague. If I disagree with an assertion, does that make it contentious? I believe that this proposla is inspired in part by an assertion that someone who has a reputation for making controversial statements about race and intelligence made a controversial statement. If that's the context, it might not be an exceptional claim. To use an even more obvious hypothetical, if there's an assertion that a famous racist made a racist remark, that claim might be contentious but it isn't exceptional.   Will Beback  talk  17:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Per the below, if BLP is reinforcement of the existing policies, it would be helpful if those were accurately portrayed in the article. I.e., the sentence Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. and whether and when Opinion pieces can be sources of facts about what people have said, written or done. It also might help clarify the blog issue above. "Contentionus claims require exceptional citations" is a nice phrase. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would take issue with "contentious" claims requiring exceptional sources. Any information about which there is disagreement is considered "contentious" in WP parlance. An "exceptional" claim is something altogether different. see WP:REDFLAG and [8]. For standard contentious material, we should just follow the normal NPOV process and attribute opinions to their claimants.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 22:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Of course, the whole article has to be checked against other current policies (WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR) to make sure that there haven't been some important or significant changes - or longstanding ones! - that are not reflected here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion pieces and BLP

I just left this message on WP:RS and then reading here was surprised to see there is no discussion of Opinion Pieces at all. Policies have to be more consistent.

Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion reads: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. It also reads There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source.

What if a negative opinion piece says "Mr. X has said '[some outrageous statement].'" Or "MS. X has [done some outrageous thing]." Under what circumstances can it be used?

• Can it be used if the Opinion writer doesn't give any attribution, even if a search reveals a WP:RS news source, transcript, interview or something self-published by Mr. X that had the exact same words or deeds? (And editors then patch that reference on as a second WP:RS.)
• And what if there is an attribution (He said this at some event) but no confirmation from a WP:RS?

I used to think it was OK, but having read the above, and heard from an admin that opinion writers can't just throw "facts" around, I now have to wonder if it is indeed something that needs to be addressed in both WP:RS and WP:BLP policy articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll find your question handled mostly in the section above, "Preface to a change with regard to extreme claims found in reliable sources." RT-LAMP (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"the primary vehicle" vs "a vehicle"

Agree with Xeno

This edit by Xeno [9] doesn't water down BLP as Jclemens says in their edit summary when reverting it. On the contrary it is as Xeno says, Wikipedia "shouldn't really be a vehicle at all" for "the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". I think the edit is good and should stand.Momento (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "the primary" vehicle is the proper wording. NPOV means that we will report on titillating claims already reported in reliable sources and become a "vehicle" for them, in some sense of the word. Xeno's edit could be construed as a strict form of "do no harm" that would go as far as compromising NPOV. Gigs (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I was going to revert my own edit this morning after I thought about it more last night. I realized that sometimes we must spread titillating claims about people's personal lives when they are widely reported in reliable sources. Basically, what Gigs said. Thanks for the courtesy note, too. I agree that 'do no harm' is not a principle we can adopt and still claim neutrality; though we should consider harm. –xeno^talk 12:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

And I endorse that last sentiment, Xeno. We're here to be an encyclopedia. That means we're going to be covering a lot of notable things that do indeed reflect poorly on living people. Our effort should not be to minimize harm to living people, hoping to develop an encyclopedia in the process. Rather it should be to build an encyclopedia, minimizing harm to living people to the extent that that is congruent with encyclopedia-building. The core parts of BLP--demanding impeccable sourcing for things that could actually hurt people's lives--are in no way incompatible with V and NPOV. They are, however, incompatible with being nice about everything. WP:NOTCENSORED is as important a sentiment to building an encyclopedia as "do no harm". Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I had thought that a significant difference between an encyclopedia and the media is that we don't "spread titillating claims". Yesterday a very reputable newspaper reported that a local politician was filmed exiting a gay bath house. It's well sourced, it's on the front page, should I go to his article and write "X was reportedly seen leaving a gay bath house"? I hope not. Today the politician has resigned as a result of the newspaper article and, in my view, the claim has moved from "titillating" to "relevant". It is now the cause of his resignation as a senior minister which was the basis of his notability and why he has a BLP. And now, quite rightly, his BLP notes his resignation as a minister because he "used his taxpayer-funded car to visit a gay sex club". The difference, to me, is that repeating that a person went to a gay bath house which is entirely legal is a "titillating claim" and something we should leave to the media but once it has a marked effect on their notability it becomes a relevant to an encyclopedia.Momento (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

UNDUE seems like sufficient ammo to handle that situation well enough. I strongly caution against putting things into BLP directly that can--and almost alaways should--be handled without the 3RR exemptions and other nuclear options. Jclemens (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, there's is now a backlash against the TV station that videoed the politician. The main argument being that his sexuality "remains his private business until it affects his public life". That is a stance that Wikipedia should embrace and "not be a vehicle for spreading titillating claims about people's lives" unless they impact on a person's public notability.Momento (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Forewarned, the minister actually resigned before the video aired. It also came out that his visits to gay bath houses had been known to the cabinet for years,[10] even though he campaigned as a family man. The premier commented: "Human beings have complex and messy lives and sadly sometimes those situations have negative consequences for those around them".[11] That's quite true. We should neither reveal nor hide that messiness, but instead just verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. "Do no harm" is an excellent precept, but it should be taken to extremes. The harm comes from having one's visit to a sex club has been aired repeatedly on national news and from resigning. While a neutral recitation of those facts in a Wikipedia article may be an unpleasant reminder of the past, it shouldn't be counted as causing harm.

Is "titillating claim" really a clear concept? Titillating: "pleasantly stimulating or exciting" - "1. To stimulate by touching lightly; tickle. 2. To excite (another) pleasurably, superficially or erotically." If we're going to have a fuss about this maybe we should define what we're talking about.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect "titilating" is as ambiguous as "obscenity"--the "I'll know it when I see it" standard. Titilating expects that purient enjoyment is a motive; I think it's essentially a synonym for schadenfreude--when something exists just to benefit by someone else's misery, is it really encyclopedic? Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

If that's the issue then perhaps we can say it more directly. Perhaps a better, though similar case study is the recent semi-outing of George Alan Rekers. He was caught with a male "rentboy" and had to resign from a homosexuality change organization, NARTH. The reporting on hypocritical behavior by activists and politicians often has an element of schadenfreude, but that doesn't mean we should exclude it if it's otherwise relevant.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is this discussion a "fuss" Will? And we're not discussing "do no harm", we're discussing whether Wikipedia should "be a vehicle for spreading titillating claims about people's lives". I don't think it should.Momento (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly it should not be a vehicle for that. The Rekers BLP has been an awful BLP issue, still is, clearly his target market (LGBT people) have turned up at his BLP to add as much titillating attacking commentary from whatever weak tabliod, opinionated locations as they can. There has been a degree of resistance to such additions in the article but the talkpage has been a cacophony of violations. Off2riorob (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, what do we mean, precisely, by "titillating"?   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to go over the Rekers case, but tittilating would be the embellishments that add weight to someones POV. A massage gets the embellishment naked added to it. Long strokes close to the penis and so on, the titillation and add ons, that are put into tabloid reports to titillate and sell papers. Off2riorob (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

One version I saw recently used the phrase "genital touching". That seems like a dull, non-titillating description. But if by prohibiting "titillating details" we mean to exclude any interesting or telling details, then we're requiring that all articles be boring and lacking in details. But I don't think that's what we mean. I think what we're really trying to address are unnecessary details of sexual affairs. However that still requires a better sense of what's "unnecessary".   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with all WP:NOT type statements is they are back to front. WP is an encyclopedia, if titillating details of someone's life are encyclopedic, they go in, otherwise not. End of. Rich Farmbrough, 09:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC).

• I'd say we should reword "titillating claims" to be more clear, and on further thought I think we should not be a vehicle for the spread of such claims - indeed, we may record them (if notable, reliably sourced, appropriate for inclusion in the article, afforded due weight, etc.) but we shouldn't try to spread them, except insofar as our role as an encyclopedia. –xeno^talk 19:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
• Note the Bali Ultimate just made a similar (but apparently unconnected) change, which I've reverted per the consensus here. Still, this indicates dissatisfaction with the current wording, suggesting there may be a call for additional discussion on this particular wording. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
• Apparently this is an old discussion. It aint supposed to be a "vehicle for titillating material" at all. Not as a primary function. Not as a secondary function. Not as a tertiary function. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, with the relevant facts on notable topics and individuals included. That relevant material might sometimes be titillating, but that will be beside the point; its inclusion will be because it's important in some way (a sex scandal involving a famous politician, for instance, in; rumors about gerbils up some actors butt, out.) Very poorly worded as is.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with a "we don't seek out titilating material" bit, as well as with a "we don't start rumors" clause. But what I don't want to see is any excuse for wikipedia to exercise editorial control over reliably sourced information under the auspices of BLP. Editorial control belongs at the article level, among interested parties, primarily within the realm of NPOV. If we say "we are not a vehicle for the spread of titilating claims" it immediately begs at least two questions: what is titilating, and what can or should we do to avoid being a vehicle for its spread? Jclemens (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    • How about this wording? "Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the spread of titillating material; sometimes, information that is prurient or scandalous (i.e. titillating) will be included, but the threshold for inclusion will be its relative importance to the life of the individual in question, the extent to which it is dealt with by reliable sources, and its usefullness in contextualizing the life of the subject for a general audience?" Bali ultimate (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Maximum age of living persons

WP:BLP#Deceased

Recently, I added (and others tweaked) a clause stating that anyone less than 123 years old is presumed living unless a reliable source mentions their death. This is based on the statement at Category:Living people. Because of a objection on my talk page, I'm asking for discussion on what the number should be, or if there should be a presumption, etc. My personal opinion would be to reduce the age to 110 years. Exceptions would be handled easily, given that List of living supercentenarians lists anyone who is believed to be >110 years.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that 110 would be a more logical age to use; the exceptions wuold be few and far between. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. Do search the talk archives and read the previous discussion to see why there was a prior consensus at 123 years. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I found this in the archives. It was nearly a year ago and there wasn't really much discussion. Have there been other discussions regarding possible lowering the current 123 number? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The 123 number was intended to be conservative. As a practical matter, I suspect people notable enough for a Wikipedia article, who were born between 110 and 123 years ago and whose respiration status is unknown are rare. I thought of Amelia Earhart, b. 1897, but she was declared legally dead in 1939. Even if real examples exists, all that happens is that the article would be held to a higher standard, hardly a big harm. We shouldn't alter established policy to address minor inconvenience in speculative and unlikely situations.--agr (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand why a conservative number is required, I was simply curious as to why 123 was chosen specifically. Cheers, Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 19:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's more than the age of the oldest living person on record. See the note at Category:Births of the last 123 years--agr (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I opened this question because I added this to the policy on 29 May 2010 after very little discussion. So to say that it is "established policy" is not exactly correct. It seems like it is established consensus, but I want to get a little more feedback on a change like this.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 20:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

110 seems fine to me for a presumption in the face of a lack of sources. Anyone older than that should have easy sources for their status as living or dead. Gigs (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Language to this effect was in the policy from February 2009 until it was removed in March 2010. (I'm not sure why it was removed, especially with a misleading edit summary of "rv self", but a lot of changes were being made at that time and the removal was apparently overlooked by anyone who might have objected.) The specific cutoff to use has been discussed several times, and has always come down in favor of a relatively conservative date based on the age of the oldest person known to be alive. See here, here, and here. --RL0919 (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole purpose of this clause is for handling people where there aren't sources stating that they're dead. The question is, at what point do we assume someone is no longer alive? And, silly though it sounds, I support keeping it as it is now - based on the maximum recorded human lifespan. It's really not a serious issue, but I can't imagine any possible negative consequences from being conservative and assuming that someone who would be 122 years old is still alive when they're not. If it really concerns people, we could always create a category called Category:Presumed living people or something like that for those between the ages of 110 and 122. Robofish (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we already have the delightfully vague Category:Possibly living people, so we can always use that instead. Robofish (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on the positive response here, and the other linked discussions, I'm going to say that while there may be some support for lowering the age, most, even those who are in favor of lowering the age, are OK with keeping it at 123 to be on the safe side?  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 15:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support having this language in the policy to cover ambiguous life spans. However I believe that 123 years is overly conservative. If we look at List of the verified oldest people, we see that the top 16 entries are all notable enough to have WP entries. Of the 26 people who lived past their 115th birthday, only one does not have an article. That leads me to believe that anyone living past 115 is extremely likely to be known for their lifespan, and so this issue is moot for them. OTOH, 110 is probably too low, since hundreds of people have lived that long. So I would propose 115 as a conservative figure which takes care of the issue of making sure the BLPs are properly respected.   Will Beback  talk  22:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with a move to 115. I think that setting it at 123 leaves us with loads of people who we are classifying as living even though we know they are dead. There are lots of notable people who retire into obscurity after the era when they gained fame, tagging them as living when we are almost certain they are not is simply wrong, I'd be happy with Category:Possibly living people though. ϢereSpielChequers 19:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd support 115 as well. Also, note that the Possibly living people category is covered by BLP.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 01:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I, too, would support lowering it to 115. When I read the policy, I was puzzled by the use of 123 and wondered if the Wikimedia lawyers (not to be confused with wikilawyers) might have insisted on such a high figure. Richwales (talk) 03:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

115 sounds like a reasonable idea; the point about lots of coverage for virtually all 115-or-older individuals is convincing. Although I understand that it isn't, 123 sounds as if it were chosen rather randomly. Nyttend (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that there is no one alive that is over 115 years old according to oldest people, I've made the change to 115 years old.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 00:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Bob Etheridge

Worth keeping an eye on the Bob Etheridge article. He is receiving attention because of a video of him in a physical altercation on a DC street. A previous version of the article claimed (unreferenced) that the congressman was a Freemason and held a high position but lacked any references in this section. That section has been removed and replaced with personal information that is referenced. The article was recently protected which will help but info from the article is already showing up on political blogs and even will get you a hit in the Washington Post. Worth keeping an eye on this article for a while to make sure WP:BLP is respected here.--RadioFan (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I'm surprised that this wasn't announced here, but round 3 has begun.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 08:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Restraining orders

Subjects who have restraining orders may need to make special requests, which should be handled through the OTRS system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asbruckman (talk • contribs) 19:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Listing Spouse and Children when public?

For the article Jerry Cain, who is the President of Judson University, the name of his wife and children are included in the WP article. The main reference for the article is the "Meet the President" page at Judson University (http://www.judsonu.edu/content.aspx?id=4062), which gives this information. Given that these names are deliberately published, do they need to be removed under the rules of WP:BLP or is it just a good idea given that, IMO, the information doesn't really contribute anything beyond if it said "Dr. Cain is married with two sons".

The relevant part of the guideline is WP:BLPNAME. It used to be more detailed, but it was felt that the current wording provided editors with sufficient guidance on the matter. My personal view (which is, of course, not policy) is that the names may be stated if they have already been published in one or more reliable third-party sources and there is no negative connotation in the article (for example, we should perhaps err on the side of caution when naming the unknown relatives of convicted criminals). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess the University website is third-party and there is certainly *no* negative connotation. So it could be left, I guess. But I certainly wouldn't revert it if someone deleted that info. :) Naraht (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. By the way, do you think the current guideline provides sufficient guidance in cases like this? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably, the sentence "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." indicates that there are non-legal considerations (does it make it a better article) in the guideline as well. If I'd seen that, I probably would have just deleted them at the time. I'll go ahead and do that when I have a chance.Naraht (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Sholom Rubashkin

Should our article use the term "fraudster" when sources do not? The sources presently in the article make reference to charges and conviction of "fraud." Talk page discussion on this topic is found here. Bus stop (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Using this approach, wikipedia would turn into a collection of quotes from sources. The article here says his lawyers "argued that Rubashkin is not a flight risk" -- but that's not exactly what the source says. Wikipedia editors use sources to write text, conveying the information they provide. There's nothing wrong, then, with using a source that says he was convicted of fraud to support "is a convicted fraudster". Would we worry about someone convicted of murder being "a convicted murderer"? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A conviction for fraud is, in my view, more than sufficient justification for saying the convict is a fraudster. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."

WP:BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources."

Sources are not found calling him a "fraudster." You need to bring sources to support the terminology you wish to use. The New York Times and the Washington Post, for instance, certainly make reference to the charges of "fraud," but they don't label him a "fraudster." Bus stop (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the distinction you are trying to make is too fine. According to the Merriam–Webster Online Dictionary, a fraudster is "a person who engages in fraud". It would be another matter if a person is accused of fraud and trial is pending, but if there are reliable third-party sources confirming that the subject of an article was convicted of fraud, it is entirely appropriate to use the epithet fraudster to describe him. In line with the example given above by Nomoskedasticity, if sources confirm that a person has committed a crime, the person can accurately be described as a criminal even if the sources themselves do not actually use that word. I see nothing in WP:RS ad WP:BLP that supports your contention. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You say, "I think the distinction you are trying to make is too fine." But I am not trying to make that distinction. Sources are making that distinction. I think the relevant question is why should we be departing from sources? Is there some reason why "fraudster" is preferable to what is found in sources? No source is using the terminology "fraudster" in relation to the subject of the article. Are we supposed to be putting our own creative spin on material that way? Or are we supposed to be adhering to what sources say? Bus stop (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Very long ToC

This page has many short sections, which makes the table of contents very long (it doesn't even fit in my screen). In particular, many subsections are only one paragraph long. So, I'd propose to replace some of the subsectioning with the semicolon–colon markup, like this:

Tone

BLPs should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself. BLPs should not have trivia sections.

Criticism and praise

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content.

Attack pages

Further information: Wikipedia:Attack pages and Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion § G10

Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to; see below. Non-administrators should tag them {{db-attack}}.

What do you think? ― A._di_M.^{3nd Dramaout} (formerly Army1987) 18:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

While I agree it does kind of look weird having such a long ToC, this is not an article; many people who come to this page are looking for a very specific issue and the ToC being broken up the way it is in multiple narrow subjects is helpful in finding the piece of info you need. Plus it makes linking to a specific issue easier for when in a discussion you need to show the relevant portion of policy. I know I would be annoyed if someone said "it violates WP:BLP" and then I have to read the entire policy to find the one paragraph that deals with why in that particular instance.Camelbinky (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Applicable Laws

applicable laws in the United States

Why aren't laws (and respect for people) in other countries applicable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.149.175.98 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a special, particular obligation to abide by US law because the servers are located in the US. As for whether WP ought to respect privacy / libel laws of other countries when they are more restrictive than US law, that's certainly a reasonable question — though in some cases (e.g., countries where criticism of the political leadership is forbidden) this is clearly not going to happen. Richwales (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Arb Com case with BLP-related proposal

Editors involved with this page may find this Arb Com discussion interesting. I would be interested in your views. That is what the "Comment from others" section is for. Thanks. David.Kane (talk) 12:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we have enough information to write a biography?

Jimbo made a comment about BLP1E today that I thought was insightful and worth discussing:

"I have recently begun to think about BLP1E in a fresh light, and think that the way we currently frame it may be missing a core point and therefore leading to some problems. BLP1E is one aspect of a wider problem. The real question is not "Is this person known for only one event" - although that's almost always a valid indicator pointing to the real question "Do we have enough information about this person to write a legitimate biography?"[12] (my bolding)

Should we incorporate this principle into WP:BLP? I've argued along the lines of this principle before. The implication is that rather than just totting up their total column inches and number of things they are known for, we assess whether the available coverage is sufficient to write a reasonable and balanced biography about them. This might be able to be worked into the WP:NPF section. Fences&Windows 19:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• For a lot of people who currently fall within the "inherent notability" system, the answer is an emphatic "no, we don't have enough information for a legitimate biography." The issue that I imagine you'll encounter when trying to insert such language is the implication that biographies that will only ever be a single sentence (footballers, politicians, et al.) should be deleted. Personally, I'd like to see such language adopted and a lot of biographies merged or deleted, but I don't think that will happen anytime soon. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• You have to also get past the extremely liberal interpretation of the GNG too. See Tim Marriott for a non-biographical biography that apparently cannot just be redirected for being nothing more than a non-notable perma-stub because it is seen as meeting ENT (doesn't imho) and/or the GNG, but has no hope in hell of ever being a proper biography as would be defined here. MickMacNee (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That looks like a perfectly reasonable stub to me. Could you identify why you think wikipedia would be better without it? Hobit (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• we would want to be very carefull... i think its good to tight up BLP1E because too many tabloid types of articles slip in... but a lot of truly noteworthy people like musicians or actors or elected officials... it's not like those articles are full fledged biographies... i'd hate to see those deleted under BLP1E... i'm not sure where to draw the line... we should be stricter tan we are now to protect the privacy of average people but not so strict that we delete truley public figures that are a work in progress... in short i support this effort but we need to talk about it it... Arskwad (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We do have to be wary of declaring that someone is non-notable due to a lack of coverage if our searching for sources hasn't been sufficient, especially if they have been in the public eye like Marriott (and especially if their main fame was not recent and coverage may not have made it online). I could find some more coverage of him, but nothing to make notability a slam dunk.[13][14]

The principle here reflects WP:BASIC's statement that "trivial coverage may not be enough to establish notability", but it makes explicit the reasoning of why trivial coverage may not be enough. It ties WP:NPOV into our consideration of whether to have a biography (i.e. can write a neutral bio about someone if they've never been the subject of substantial independent coverage?), it clarifies why many people have a problem with the tick box approach of many of the subject notability guidelines for people, and it highlights what the problem is with biographies of people only known for one event. It's not a bright line, it's just another consideration to add into the mix, and one that some of us have already implicitly been using. I do believe that somewhat fragmentary coverage can be enough to pull together a neutral biography if we find enough independent coverage from varied sources that covers different aspects of someone's life and work, so this doesn't just convert WP:GNG into policy. Fences&Windows 17:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

p.s. The Tim Marriott AfD should've been relisted: the debate was sparse and only one person actually argued to keep the article. No consensus was the only really fair closure with no further comments. Those at DRV fence-sat too firmly, early closure of inconclusive AfDs is not a good idea. Fences&Windows 17:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be opposed to such a change. Honestly I see the gaming of the notability rules too much already, and this opens the door much further. We've already walked too far the path in deleting biographies which A) do no harm and B) help people learn who someone is (you know, are useful to actual users of Wikipedia). The emphasis should be on dealing with harmful bios, not short ones. Hobit (talk) 17:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• What is "a legitimate biography"? It is something obvious that cannot be described in clear wikilegalese. There's no bright line. And what's the point of deleting notable biographies simply because the reguired "legitimization" has been lost in history, or because people protect their privacy and don't brag about themselves in glossy mags? Scores of perfectly unnotable government clerks have their audited bios published because the law says they must. The bio of Socrates is one big Socratic problem ... it just doesn't exist. So what? Should Socrates make way for some town councilor or a school cheerleader? East of Borschov 05:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Hard cases make bad law. We shouldn't base our policies and guidelines on biographies over what happens to Socrates' "biography". Just like Pseudo-Geber, this is a special case and shouldn't have any bearing on how we write about actual verifiable people. Fences&Windows 12:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • "How we write" is not an issue here - it's all about "how they delete", isn't it? East of Borschov 13:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

re off-wiki communication

In the "Non-article space" section, it says "...consider using off-wiki communication instead..." (in preference to talk pages). However, note for instance the recent David Weigel case, described here. This sort of thing has happened many many times: the person was posting to what he thought was an email list of trusted friends, but somebody on the list wasn't so friendly.

I was brought up to believe that you should assume that sending something in an email is tantamount to posting it on the web. I also think that emails can be considered especially damning just because they are supposedly secret. As for IRC, we know that people have posted logs and probably will in the future.

I don't know if the recommendation to use off-wiki communication should be changed, but maybe its something to consider. Herostratus (talk) 18:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be eliminated. The problem it is trying to avoid is having libelous claims on the project. The concern is that if I claim something potentially untrue about someone anywhere on Wikipedia, whether the article space or the template space or anywhere else, Wikipedia could be sued for libel. The problem with the advice is it ignores the fact that I too could be sued. By advising people to use off-wiki methods of communication, the Project is creating the impression that I wouldn't be doing anything wrong if I say it off-wiki. Perhaps the people who drafted the existing language didn't realize it, but emailing your libelous statement to one person, or even stating it orally to one person, is "publication" for the purposes of defamation law. As a simple matter of right and wrong, it seems to me we should avoid creating the impression that saying it off-wiki makes it safe. -Rrius (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like off-wiki communication being recommended either, for the reasons given. If you're concerned that what you want to include might breach BLP guidelines, just don't post it or communicate it. Only if in good faith you believe that the information is acceptable should you discuss it. Fences&Windows 16:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, another consideration. In on-wiki communication, the writer is likely to be somewhat circumspect, and if they say something really bad, that will probably be quickly deleted and perhaps oversighted and the person punished (all of which probably gives us some protection). An e-mail thread could go on and on with really nasty scurrilous language and not be caught until it blows up in our face. Herostratus (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it, but I am not trying to pre-empt this discussion. It seemed that the benefits of removing it outweighed the possible benefits of waiting for other views; it can always be restored. -Rrius (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

When to cite?

Sorry if this answer appears elsewhere, a check (though not thorough) of the archives didn't give me anything...

Looking at the article for MMR vaccine controversy there is the following statement in the second paragraph:

"The Lancet paper was later retracted, and Wakefield was found guilty of serious professional misconduct in May 2010."

The second clause was unreferenced, so I went ahead and commented it out as a BLP violation until it was cited. The edit was reverted under the claim that this information is cited later in the article.

Is this acceptable, or should every potentially disparaging comment be independently referenced? Or, barring that, should at least the first mention of it be referenced?

TIA 69.207.151.63 (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is "WP:LEADCITE". In general, it is not necessary to provide citations to statements in the lead if these are provided in the main text. However, "Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. Contentious material about living persons must be cited every time, regardless of the level of generality." — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much, this will hopefully stop an edit war before it begins. 69.207.151.63 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Milowent/Unreferenced BLP Rescue

Y'all are invited to join my project to reference all unreferenced BLPs for April 2008 (picking a random month). There are 450 to go! See User:Milowent/Unreferenced BLP Rescue. With barn-raising type efforts, I think we can actually improve participation in an effort to rid ourselves of this backlog. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Children of biographical subjects

A recurring issue is whether the non-notable children (especially minor children) of article subjects should be mentioned by name. Some argue that parts of the policy apply, other that they don't. Either way, should we develop a specific policy as to when it is or not okay to use the names of children? As I see it, if we do, the living person relevant for the policy should be the child, not the notable person. That is to say, the policy should (again, assuming one is written) apply to living children of deceased article subjects, but not to deceased children of living article subjects. For example, there is no reason not to name David Cameron's son Ivan, whose death at a young age is itself a noteworthy event. -Rrius (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that there should be a distinction based upon the alive/deceased status (or for that matter the notable/non-notable status) of the child or subject. As an encyclopedia it is our duty to be encyclopedic unless of course there is a reason to pro-actively exclude information that could/would be harmful to a minor In which case of course names or other identifying information should be excluded.

For the purposes of this discussion - we are talking about the type of person (say a politician or an entertainer) who is notable enough to qualify to be the subject of an article on Wikipedia and is in the public eye willingly - that person is openly married and openly has children - the name of the spouse and the names of the children appear in reputable bona fide published sources (eg articles/profiles in national newspapers not just some person's blog)- especially in circumstances where the article subject discusses his/her children by name - eg "Peter has come campaigning on the doorstep with me" or "Lydia is doing her AS-levels. She's interested in the theatre". Then is those circumstances, there appears to be no reason to exclude the mention of the child's name as though even mentioning the name itself is some gross invasion of a child's privacy or it is somehow dangerous to simply mention a name that is openly in the public arena and been in print.

All sorts of notable politicians have articles in which the names of their children (both minor and adult-age) are mentioned en passant. Not because the child is notable or dead. But because the name of the child is simply a matter of fact about the article subject's life. There should be a source citing the name of course (no personal research). By way of example is there a gross contravention of BLP policy simply because the articles for public figures such as Tony Blair, David Cameron, Al Gore, Nick Clegg, Charles Kennedy, David Cameron, George Osbourne, mention the names of the children of those persons in a relevant section (eg "Family" or "Personal life") ? I don't think so. If there is - then we would have to go through every article about every public figure on Wikipedia and delete every single name of every single child unless the child has done something notable or is dead.

Apart from discussion of this point as an issue going forward - does anyone know if there has been a ruling that says that even mentioning the name of a child (in the circumstances described above) is some gross violation of BLP? And if there has been - why haven't the names of every child of a public figure been stricken from Wikipedia? Davidpatrick (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I am reasonably sure we have had this discussion before, and fairly recently, probably within the last couple of months. I believe the upshot of the discussion is that we include them, but are sensitive to reasons and requests to remove them.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear on your point - i.e. sensitive to requests directly to Wikipedia by the parents in question to have the names of their children removed? Not sensitive to requests by individual Wikipedia editors who have no connection to the children in question - but who simply have their own interpretation of BLP? Davidpatrick (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If the names of children are widely reported then we can include them. If we would have to rely on obscure sources or primary sources for this information, keep it out. We should be sensitive to all suggestions that we are intruding on the privacy of children, not just to requests received via OTRS. I'd also say that exact birthdates of children should probably be removed (though not the year), as this is a privacy intrusion for a non-public figure, just as we would remove an address. Fences&Windows 14:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems eminently fair and sensible. In terms of privacy - there should never ever be any information on Wikipedia that identifies the location of a child (eg current school, home address, office location etc). I trust we can all agree on that. Following your well-expressed point - if the children's names are mentioned just in some obscure blog or inserted by an editor who happens to have personal knowledge of the name of a child of the subject - that would be patently wrong. But if the names have been published in national media and there are direct quotes from the subject of the Wikipedia article in biographical profiles in mainstream national media (in which the subject has happily collaborated with the media outlet) and discussed his/her children referring to them by name in specific quotes - eg "my son Peter likes football" "my daughter Lydia likes pop music" - then that is clearly a different situation. Similarly if an entertainer has included photos and/or the name of his/her child in the biographical section of a mass-distributed concert programme or a politician has included photos and/or the name of his/her child in the biographical section of mass-distributed election campaign literature - then that person has clearly not made any attempt to exclude the existence and name of his/her child/children from public knowledge. And in those cases, simply mentioning the name of a child en passant (in the family section of an article) is clearly not a privacy intrusion. Davidpatrick (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision of WP:BLPNAME?

The relevant part of the guideline is WP:BLPNAME and the previous discussion on the matter is at "Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 25#BLPNAME conflicting with WP objective". Essentially, at one stage BLPNAME was more detailed than it is now, but the changes were reverted. The regularity with which this issue arises suggests to me that the current guideline is not clear enough, but I shall leave it to someone else to suggest that the proposal be revised to be more detailed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A clear guideline is exactly what I'm advocating. If the work on achieving consensus has already been done, that's great, but we would benefit from having a clear expression of it in the policy rather than in the talk archives. I don't think that BLPNAME, as written, is helpful. It begins, "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event." Children do not fall within the scope of that, so it's not clear why anyone would continue on to the last sentence of the paragraph to find something about whether to list their names. What's more, the brief statement of policy itself is basically meaningless. It says, "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." What does that mean? In the context of the paragraph and subsections preceding it, that seems to say that children's names and spouses' names shouldn't be listed unless there is a good reason to do so. But, that is out of step with what has been said above. What's more, that interpretation is subject to debate as "the presumption of privacy" is not defined, explained, or even discussed in the preceding subsections. I personally don't see how else you would interpret it, but clearly there is another way, so it needs to be tightened up. -Rrius (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at the archived discussion and see if you would like to make a concrete proposal for revision of WP:BLPNAME (preferably in a separate section). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Concrete proposals

I've looked through the archived section linked above and one linked from there, and have not found there to be a consensus beyond the current language being preferable to one or two more involved versions. There has been some discussion of the particular issue of children, but no resolution has been reached. To aid in the discussion, I have drafted some alternatives (feel free to make edits to them that do not affect the overall meaning):

• Restrictive The names of the article subject's living minor children should generally not be included unless notable enough for articles of their own or the verified content does more than merely list them as children of the subject. For example, a substantial discussion of Angelina Jolie's adoption of her children would be acceptable.
• Less restrictive The names of the article subject's living minor children should generally not be included unless the names are widely available from reliable sources (this should be more than one or two press reports). Names may also be used if the subject uses the names in speeches, promotional materials, or political campaign literature (see WP:SELFPUB). By contrast, where an article subject (or other parent or guardian) has requested a child's name be removed from the article, the request should generally be respected.
• Permissive The names of the article subject's living minor children should generally be included so long as they are verified by reliable sources. Where inclusion of a child's name poses a particular risk of impinging on the privacy of the child or otherwise harming the child (as where the article subject is notable mostly for negative reasons), editors should decide on a case-by-case basis whether the risk of harm outweighs the value of including the name.

-Rrius (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• I favour the "permissive" proposal, but would suggest that we also respect direct requests from the subjects of articles (or parents or legal guardians) for children's names to be removed if satisfactory reasons are given (e.g., evidence of a stalker). Also, I think we should define the meaning of minor children or replace it with children under the age of 18 years, as the age of majority varies from country to country. (Note that in the previous discussion, an editor objected to linking BLPNAME with the concept of notability, which your "Restrictive" proposal refers to.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• As I understood the notability objection, it was that the language proposed there imposed a notability requirement on content, when "notability", as used on Wikipedia, only applies to articles. I am specifically invoking the article standard because if a minor child has an article of his or her own, or is notable enough to have one, there is no justification for not using the name. The "more than mere listing" is the part that attempts a content-based standard to allow inclusion. -Rrius (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

• The only other response I have to your points is that using 18 seems to impose a US-centric rule on the rest of the world, so that's why I used "minor". I do accept that is vague, and I leave it to others to decide how to handle it and the direct-request issue. -Rrius (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

These are good points raised about the difference in age of majority. I think that the issue of "minority age children" should only be pertinent in the event of bona fide claims made directly to Wikipedia by a parent/guardian (or his/her/their verified legal rep) of such a child. And I'm in favor of us acceding to legitimate such requests. But how to deal with the difference in age of majority in different nations? How about this? It should be the age of majority in which the child legally resides. So if the age of majority in the nation where the child resides (and from where the parent/guardian whould make representations to Wikipedia) is 18 - then that is what applies. If the age of majority in the country where the child resides is say 16 or 21 - then that would apply. In other words make it pertinent to the laws and culture that affect that child. Davidpatrick (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be easier to fix the age under which we consider a person to be a minor rather than have the difficulty of editors trying to establish (1) in which country a particular child is residing, and (2) what the legal age of majority in that country is. (For instance, to give a hypothetical example, should the name of the 16-year-old daughter of the President of Sudan, who is accused of genocide, be stated in the article about him?) There is no harm in Wikipedia policy being slightly stricter than the actual laws of various countries. (Note that in some Muslim countries a person reaches majority at puberty, so the policy would actually be more liberal.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support the Permissive proposal. No reason to remove information if already publicly reported in sources. --Cyclopia^talk 22:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support the Permissive proposal. Obviously editors would be responsive to any bona fide claim by a parent/legal guardian or his/her/their verified legal rep that there is an issue of demonstrable harm that might occur to a child if his/her name was mentioned. Davidpatrick (talk) 00:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the Permissive proposal. As drafted, this would violate Wikipedia's "Presumption in favor of privacy" for the individuals concerned. If this proposal were to be adopted, you would have to re-write WP:DOB ("people increasingly regard their full names ... as private"); WP:NPF ("in many countries... there is [legal] protection for people who are not public figures."); as well as WP:BLPNAME ("Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members..."). And, in any case the wording of the permissive proposal should be changed to "may generally" rather than "should generally" in the first sentence. Hallucegenia (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• - I am also totally opposed to the random naming of not notable children. Off2riorob (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• What? Is this a vote already, is this a RFC or what.Please allow some time for discussion. We don't just add anything we can find in a citation, children that have done nothing of note are deserved of a degree of privacy. The mere fact that their name is found in tabloid celebrity magazines and so on does not mean that adding it to wikipedia is a valuable informative addition, , perhaps on a celeb-o-wiki the name of a new born is informative because that is what the people buying your magazine are wanting and paying for, we are operating in a different environment. The writer of a few books has a decent private life (away from the public) has two young children a boy and a girl called harry and sally. The addition of the names is of no encyclopedic value at all.Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps the editor who participated in the former discussion on this matter and who objected to the linkage between WP:BLPNAME and the notability concept should be invited to express his views on the matter. If I recall correctly, he was of the view that it was not a good idea to introduce the concept of notability into BLP, because that standard exists to determine whether an article should be created about a person, not whether a person should be named in an article about someone else. I actually disagreed with him on the basis that notability was a well-understood standard, and would save us having to think of yet another standard for determining when children or other persons associated with the subject of a biographical article should be named. I think Rrius has summarized the position well in this proposals: is it Wikipedia's job to actively promote the privacy of associated persons (even though they have already been named in reliable third-party sources), or simply to ensure that their names have been verified? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Well that was primarily me, but I think at least someone else agreed. Notability does not restrict article content; it was never designed with that in mind. I think some of our guidance somewhere even says "if something isn't notable enough for its own article, it might instead be mentioned in another, more general, article". Gigs (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Here, again, the mention of notability is not meant to restrict article content, rather, it is used with "has an article" to mean "has or could have an article". -Rrius (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• oppose permissive version; I agree with Hallucegenia that it actually contradicts various other aspects of BLP policy. I would generally support something similar to less restrictive proposal, though with modifications.

As Hallucegenia notes, privacy is the major issue here. The age of the child is not necessarily relevant, nor is whether the child could be placed in danger in one way or another - something, incidentally, that we are not easily in a position to judge or verify. The less restrictive proposal appears to envisage towards Western politician-type situations, where I actually think the situation is fairly self-evident: if the names have been published in multiple reliable sources, and presumably released by the family in the first place, then the issue of privacy is fairly moot, and the names can and should be included. Instead, I am more concerned with articles about less publicity-seeking types, or people who are known for negative reasons, and those whose children's names may be available using diligent searching from (often obscure, maybe even behind paywall) reliable sources, but add almost nothing to the article. For example, assuming an off-line book source, should this article about a murderer include the full names and years of birth of her presumably living children (and victims), even if they are over the age of majority? Should the full names of the young children of a British journalist, apparently sourceable if you have a subscription to this presumably reliable website of UK birth records be included, or do we know quite enough by saying that she has a son and two daughters and maybe how old they are?

In other words, if names are going to be included, they need to be widely and easily available in reliable sources. With less public individuals, or those known for negative reasons, editors need to seriously consider whether the names add significant encyclopedic value to an article. --Slp1 (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fairly clear from the proposal that greater caution is to be exercised when the article may cast a negative connotation on the persons named, and that the names must have been published in secondary sources and not obtained directly from primary sources (otherwise WP:OR would be violated). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things: there is nothing in the less permissive option that talks about being careful about negative connotations, nor does it specify that the sources have to be secondary. Using primary sources isn't necessarily original research, and their use is permitted if used with care.--Slp1 (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It appeared in the "Permissive" proposal. I would say the caution that should be shown when an article has negative connotations apply across the board to all the proposals. I take your point regarding primary and secondary sources, and completely agree with you that editors should not be digging up names from primary sources when they haven't been published in secondary sources. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support the first sentence of the "permissive" option, oppose the second. If it's RS'ed, we should include it if ONE editor wants included. Names aren't good or bad, they just ARE, and if they're already RS'ed, having them in Wikipedia causes no additional harm and removing them from Wikipedia causes no mitigation of any such harm. Jclemens (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Giving trump card status to one editor seems to be totally contrary to the policy of editorial consensus, and particularly inappropriate in this context. Maybe I have misunderstood you? --Slp1 (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support the "less restrictive" proposal. The permissive proposal would be OK with me as well, but in the face of a request for suppression, we should carefully consider relevance and amount of verifiable information. Editors can still use discretion on whether to include or exclude the names of offspring based on the specific cases at hand. BLP policy is a big hammer, when we write it in absolute terms, it removes the discretion and can lead to very stupid arguments over the suppression of names of people who are getting massive media coverage (c.f. Dawn Brancheau). Gigs (talk) 16:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
• Plea from drafter I wrote these rather quickly with an eye toward prompting discussion of policy choices rather than a vote on a final policy. As these were not the subject of extensive deliberation, I am not at all confident that any one of these is a good policy. I therefore implore editors to suggest improvements or further alternatives rather than vote. -Rrius (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly Support the Permissive proposal. With sole caveat that Wikipedia should be responsive to request by parents of named children to remove. A couple of other points. No child name should be included unless it has been published in a real publication (ie bloggers don't count. Must be a credited news outlet preferably with a print issue as well as online version). There is a huge difference between articles about people who willingly are in the public limelight (such as actors, singers, sports stars, politicians etc) and those who are in the limelight by way of happenstance eg a crime victim or whistleblower. The former type of persons have already voluntarily placed themselves in the public limelight as part of their chosen profession. Secondly in that particular genre of person there is a far stronger case for inclusion of names of children if the subject of the article, eg a music star, has talked publicly about their child by name or included photos of themselves with their children in their official bio or in a souvenir brochure. I have a brochure from a Dionne Warwick concert in which she mentions her kids and has pictures of her with them. Obviously thats a proactive choice by Dionne Warwick to let her fans and the general public know that she has kids and she's not withholding info about them from the public sphere. Paul Maccartney talking to a press interviewer about his daughter Stella wanting to be fashion designer (even before she had become one and become notable in her own right) or his son James wanting to be a musician (before he actually did) and mentioning them by name would be other examples of children names being in the public domain by dint of the subject referring to them in print. Ultimately we should not be in the business of choosing to withhold innocuous factual info like the name of a child that is already in the public domain via legitimate news sources (as long as it is not harmful or derogatory to the child) and especially if the article subject has given the name out publicly. One other point, I dont think we should be in the business of deciding if we like certain newspapers more than others in terms of credibility. It is true that some newspapers that we call tabloid can run loose with facts and speculation but so can the serious papers. Both types of papers have been sued for libel and have withdrawn or apologized for errors. If a publication is a long-established major newspaper (as distinct from a gossip magazine) and is both in print and online then that is a source. We cannot allow our politics or prejudices to allow us to choose which ones we think are more valid than others. Especially on noncontroversial information like a name. Bunde (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think the less restrictive proposal is best, a single source publishing the names doesn't seem enough. I'm more worried about birthdates of children, which is more of an intrusion. If we are aiming to make a change that could influence how we edit thousands of articles, should this not become an RfC once the precise issues and alternatives are agreed? Fences&Windows 20:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative wording for proposals

I would like to propose another form of wording as follows:

• Moderately restrictive The names or other details of the article subject's living minor children should generally not be included unless the names are widely available from reliable sources (this should be more than one or two press reports).

It has the benefit of simplicity, and avoids the complication of WP:SELFPUB in the Less restrictive option, which specifically excludes other individuals. Compared to the Permissive option, it doesn't give carte blanche to add names just because a single gossip column in a national paper has published names or other details when all other reliable sources have chosen not to do so. Hallucegenia (talk) 06:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what the "complication" of SELFPUB is. Could you explain? -Rrius (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. WP:SELFPUB says that "Self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves,... so long as it does not involve claims about third parties (such as [other] people..." and here we are talking about using self-published information about other people. Hallucegenia (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As written, my language does not say "Strictly apply SELFPUB". Rather, it permits inclusion if noted in certain sources, then says "see SELFPUB". Any reasonable reading would take that as referring to the types of sources acceptable. No reasonable reading of it would take it as a Catch-22 saying to apply a policy that excludes claims about third parties when to support claims about third parties. -Rrius (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry if you think I'm being unreasonable, but having checked carefully that's still how I interpret the wording of the Less restrictive option. But what I think is not important. What matters is that if I can mis-interpret this wording, then thousands of other editors may do so too - and we can't afford that risk in WP:BLP Regards. Hallucegenia (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. We're taking it personally now. This is not going to be received much better I fear: First of all, your central complaint is unfounded. If the claims we are talking about here are about the article subjects. That X is the child of Y is something about Y. If it weren't, we wouldn't be talking this at all. None of what this discussion is about whether the information on Y's children is relevant to an article on Y. What we are talking about in this policy discussion is whether this particular subset of relevant information should generally be included or excluded for privacy and related reasons. When SELFPUB says that self-published sources cannot be used to back claims about other people, only an absurdly strict reading of it would exclude any claim that involves any other person, organization or entity. A reading strict enough to exclude basing the claim that X is Y's son on Y's blog post stating, "X, my son, was born in 2001," would also exclude "I worked for McDonald's for three years" as support for his having worked for McDonald's.

Even taking your view of that question, your view is still wrongheaded as the policy refers to a class of sources then refers the reader to a policy that discusses that class of sources. It would simply be foolish for anyone trying to figure out whether it is okay to include kids' names who was confronted with the language of the less restrictive option to then read SELFPUB and assume that the less restrictive option is trying to cancel itself out instead of pointing to an explanation of the sorts of sources it discusses. Clearly, you were not someone confronted with the language in that circumstance. Rather, you were trying to improve the language so were reading it critically. I maintain that in doing so you went too far and your perspective seriously twists what any reasonable person seeking to learn about the policy would read.

But even assuming your perception of SELFPUB and what a reasonable person would read were correct, you were still wrong in how you addressed it. The answer to whatever you saw as incorrect was not to drop the language entirely. If you go back and read it again, you'll see that the whole point of the self-published bit is to make it easier to use information where an article subject has put the information out there directly than it would be in cases where the news media or other sources have dug it up. It is entirely reasonable to do that, and you haven't explained why that lower bar should be eliminated. -Rrius (talk) 08:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And here is my suggestion: (Longer but that's of necessity in order to be precise and to provide proper protections)

Responsibly permissive Names and other minor factual, non-controversial details (eg gender, year of birth) of the article subject's living minor children may be included in the article if that information has been published in one or more reliable media sources (reputable news outlets as distinct from gossip magazines or individual blogs) and/or if the subject has provided such information (eg name or age) in direct quotation to a reliable media source (ie directly quoted speech) and/or in official items made available to the public by the subject (such as promotional brochures, official biographies or election campaign materials). In the event that the parent/guardian or an officially appointed legal representative of a minor child makes representation to Wikipedia's official representatives showing that there is reasonable cause to suppress such information, then Wikipedia shall abide by such request. In any event, nothing of a confidential nature shall be published (addresses, contact information etc) on Wikipedia that shall place any minor child (or others) in any peril or risk.

This is fair and responsible. It has basic protections - the information must have come from a reputable news source or from the article subject (in public disclosure). It can only be simple and factual (name, gender, age). ie completely benign information that does not intrude on privacy. And there is an assurance that Wikipedia will abide by any formal legal request that shows cause as to why such benign information should be suppressed. Davidpatrick (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not taking a position on whether we should take a generally more or less restrictive approach to including names, but if we take a more more permissive approach, something like this would be way too wordy to describe that. If we are going to allow it on the basis of "one or more reliable media sources", it would be sufficient to say something like "in accordance with Wikipedia's standards on verification and reliable sources. The bit about direct quotation is superfluous as it is already included in the prior clause. I'm not quite sure why the next clause restricts self-published sources to "official" ones. Why wouldn't blog posts be included? As an aside, the each instance of "and/or" should, as is ordinarily the case, just be "or". In the rare instances where "and/or" does have meaning, it should still be replaced by "or", with "or both" or "or all of them" added at the end of the list. Anyway, the part about parent requests uses an unnecessarily vague and legalistic standard. A simple "Wikipedia will seriously consider any request from a parent or guardian who feel their child's privacy is unduly infringed on to remove the information and will discuss with them the best way to proceed" is more flexible and comprehensible. The last sentence should be replaced with, "For complete dates of birth and other identifying information, see above." -Rrius (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

All very valid points. I've taken most of them on board. I've added blogs written by the subject but I think they have to be verified as written by the subject (ie not just a fan posing online as the subject - hence my reference to "official"). I agree with the link to the BLP policy on personal info. But at the risk of it being one sentence longer - since it concerns children, I think we can spare the extra tad of cyber space to spell out that reassurance of protection. Which I think is crucial to underscore. Also - in our present day culture the word "permissive" has gained a pejorative overtone. I suggest "unrestrictive" as being a less "loaded" descriptive for this version. So revised text would be:

Responsibly unrestrictive Names and other minor, factual, non-controversial details (eg gender, year of birth) of the article subject's living minor children may be included in the article if that information has been published in one or more reliable media sources (in accordance with Wikipedia's standards on verification and reliable sources) or in official items made available to the public by the subject (such as verified personal blogs, promotional brochures, official biographies or election campaign materials). Wikipedia will seriously consider any request to remove the information made by a parent or guardian of the child in question, who feels that his/her child's privacy is being unduly infringed upon and Wikipedia will engage in meaningful dialogue with such representative. In any event, nothing of a confidential nature shall be published (addresses, contact information etc) on Wikipedia that shall place any minor child (or others) in any peril or risk. (See existing Wikipedia policy and safeguards. Davidpatrick (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation of using "official" makes "official" redundant since you already say the source would be one provided by the subject. By so doing, you seem to be referring to a specific type of source from the subject, which you clearly do not intend. Also, the extended discussion of acceptable self-published sources is unnecessary, as it is already included in the class of reliable sources. The only reason it was ever discussed separately in my proposals was because in the "less restrictive" version, self-published sources provided a simpler route to inclusion than the higher "widely available" standard otherwise applicable. I wouldn't get overly touchy about words like "permissive" as they were only intended to help people distinguish between them while discussing them. There would simply be no place for such a label for the actual policy we produce as the label would serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. My rewrite of your proposal is below:

This policy applies to the living children who are not themselves the subjects of articles (or notable enough for an article to be written about them, even if one has not been written), even if the subject of the relevant article is dead. It is generally permitted to include the names, genders, and years of birth for living children of article subjects, provided of course that the the information is in compliance with WP:Verify and WP:Reliable sources, including self-published sources. In addition to the policies on contact information above, the precise dates of birth and schooling information about the child should not be included unless there is a compelling reason to do so.

Parents or guardians who feels the information about their child contained in an article is an invasion of privacy or otherwise risks harm to the child should contact Wikipedia by [insert something about OTRS here].

-Rrius (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

A rewrite of BLPNAME suggested earlier

In case this is of help in the discussion, I am reposting a suggested rewrite that I did of BLPNAME, for which there was no consensus at that time. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

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.

Thanks JackLee for updating me and reposting this. I'm sorry to have left that last conversation hanging a few months ago. Based on that discussion Gigs changed the then BLP Names policy back to its original one (see diff) and then just recently excised the n-word (see diff). As I said back then, I personally don't think we should be wading into privacy debates, and definitely support a permissive approach. However, I think we can get some compromise language that is clearer than the current policy. Possible draft:

Names of living people may be included in articles so long as their inclusion is in accordance with Wikipedia policy, especially that such names are verified by reliable sources and judged relevant to the article. In cases where a living person is tenuously related to the article, related for mostly negative reasons, or a child, the quality and/or quantity of reliable sources must meet a particularly high standard. If there is doubt over inclusion, the issue should be discussed on the article's talk page.

Joshdboz (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This wording seems OK to me. Fences&Windows 12:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose the rewording. In most cases it would make it impossible to add verifiable information from reliable sources, which is at odds with the aim of an encyclopedia. In general, the whole concept of hiding information which is already widespread on reliable sources is pointless and ridicolous. I agree that if names are revealed only in obscure sources, we can apply a presumption of privacy, but once the names are on newspaper articles, by appling such a rewording we're just closing the barn door after the horse and, in doing so, we also do a disservice to our readers. --Cyclopia^talk 20:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Cyclopia. Although I'd taken the distinct lack of support for a bunch of collective facepalming at how monumentally bad an idea this is, I suppose calling it out is worthwhile. Jclemens (talk) 03:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not understand the objective of my rewording. I am all for no policy at all in this dept, but a number of people are genuinely concerned about privacy; my writeup merely reaffirms they general BLP principle of paying particularly strong attention to sourcing; it adds no other new barriers, indeed it removes the confusion wrought by the existing wording. Joshdboz (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We have some confusion now on this topic. User Jacklee tried to be helpful to a discussion going on on this page - in the section above this one - by re-posting his suggested rewrite of BLPNAME from some time back - for which as he noted "there was no consensus at that time". Meanwhile the debate about this topic - and some other suggested re-writes - continues in the section above this. With people offering support or opposition to those suggested re-writes too. Result: Two threads on the same topic on the same page. Two lots of re-writes being looked at. Two lots of responses to those. Overall result: confusion.

Proposed solution: Let's at least try and gather the proposals together so that all those concerned can at least be discussing the same things in the same place.

Meanwhile - I am in agreement with points made above by Cyclopia. I am baffled as to how something as benign as simply mentioning the names of children of people in the public eye (such as entertainers or politicians) who have referred to their own kids by name in direct reported speech in profiles in major national newspapers (quotes of the sort "my son Peter likes football" "my daughter Lydia likes pop music") can be regarded as a prospective breach of BLP on the grounds of privacy. The names alone (no identifying details of schools attended, exact birthdate or address etc) if already in the public ether via mainstream national press - especially from the lips of the article subject - just doesn't seem to be content that should be excluded under any interpretation of BLP. Is there any credible interpretation of BLP that justifies the suppression of just basic names in such circumstances? Davidpatrick (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry bout increasing the confusion. As to your question, yes, the way it's written now, it can definitely be interpreted as you described ("The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects..." and "its publication in secondary sources other than news media...should be afforded greater weight"). If we clear up the wording, I think we can remove some of the confusion. Mentioned on BBC? Include. We don't need to wait till it makes the pages of Nature. Mentioned on random, non-connected blog? No. Joshdboz (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

BLPprod

There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people to broaden the sticky prod process to any new BLP without a reliable source, However that proposal is still under discussion at the RFC, so I've brought this policy into line with current rules for sticky prods. ϢereSpielChequers 18:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources as external links

What are editors' views? Are self-published sources acceptable as external links in articles on living persons? I mean here sources not published by the subject(s) themselves, but self-published sources discussing living persons from a critical perspective, or fan pages. --JN466 13:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Those are not what we desrcibe as self-published sources, but plain unreliable sources. The relevant policy is WP:ELNO, points 10 and 11. Large fan fora may sometimes be acceptable (e.g. Leaky Cauldron for JK Rowling), but in general should be avoided: there is no reason to link to the opinion of one or two people, certainly not when it is about living people. Fram (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources aren't allowed in BLPs, including not as external links, unless written or published by the subject, and even then with some caution because of the danger of linking to BLP violations. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, the present wording of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Avoid_self-published_sources is, "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[4] See below for our policy on self-published images." There is no reference to their use as external links. Is this something we should address? --JN466 14:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My memory is that the EL issue used to be much clearer in this policy, but somehow got watered down. I've tweaked the EL section to make it clearer, I hope. It now says (diff):

External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.

Where we say "see above," it links to the "Avoid self-published sources" section, which explains when they're allowed. Does that work? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim, sounds good to me. --JN466 15:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that it wasn't clear. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good work.Momento (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Images of signatures.

While these images may be okay for people as notable as the president of the USA, or the queen of England, surely they shouldn't be on the BLPs of minor politicians? A good criteria would be that if it's featured in a non-primary, verifiable, reliable, published, 3rd party source - it can go into the BLP. I suggest we specifically add this to wp:blp#Misuse of primary sources or wp:blp#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources.

See also Wikipedia:Signatures of living persons and previous discussion.-- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-07t07:37z, -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-07t09:57z

Comment - Some peoples' signatures are used on public legislation, renowned documents, or are of historical note. Most peoples' are not. If the signature has note in its own right then sure. But for most people it's closer to "non public information". The fact X is a member of some legislative body or that Y's signature is available publicly, does not mean we need to have it on their article any more than their home address or phone number (which is usually similarly public). Not convinced that "use in a 3rd party source" should be the sole criterion - will think about this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Just add a single sentence to the policy allowing editors to "generally" remove signatures at the request of the subject. Done. Anything else in the public domain is fair game. Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe just amend: "Wikipedia includes full names, dates of birth, and (where noteworthy | for historical figures) signatures where these have been widely published by reliable sources and..." ? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Requiring opt outs puts us in the same camp as spammers. This will mostly affect people who aren't notable enough for any other encyclopedia, but is for Wikipedia - they shouldn't have to jump thru hoops. See also Commons discussion. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-07t14:11z

"Other encyclopedias don't do X" doesn't work for me as a rationale. I'm not sure an opt-out is required, it's more that most signatures just don't have much value from an encyclopedic viewpoint. Like home address or many other things - verifiable but not needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Notable people who edit Wikipedia: 2 essays

When notable people edit Wikipedia, to add detail or fix errors in articles on themselves or their work, they often do so in unawareness of our rules, and the end result is a lot of upset to them and others. Whenever situations like this aren't resolved amicably, it potentially leads to bad press for the project.

To help mitigate the problem, I've written a pair of essays, one addressed to Wikipedians, and one addressed to notable people coming here to edit Wikipedia articles related to them. They are

• WP:Hazing (WP:HAZING, WP:HAZ)
• WP:Notable person survival kit (WP:SURVIVALKIT, WP:NPSK)

Please link to them in cases where you feel they might be helpful, and feel free to improve them or leave feedback on their talk pages. --JN466 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool essays, thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 14:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Survival kit - nicely styled, but put some subheadings in the "Good things to do" section, it's too much like a "wall of text" right now.

Hazing - not so sure I like it. I've never seen anyone taking a "chance to show them how insignificant they really are compared to us" or "giv[ing] them a hazing just because you can". So these speak to matters that most people will feel don't apply to them. Plus, "hazing" usually implies a ritualized rite of entry which is the wrong term here. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with FT2, "Hazing" doesn't work as a title, I think something similar to Please do not bite the newcomers would be better, the message after all is very similar, "Don't give celebs a hard time just because they are notable", the essay could probably also include some of the points in WP:BITE or at least refer to it. Roger (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. There's a ref to WP:BITE in the "See also" section, and I've added a link to it in the text as well. I've also inserted some subheaders in the survival kit.

Let me think about "haze" a little longer. The definitions Webster's gives for it are 1 a : to harass by exacting unnecessary or disagreeable work 1 b : to harass by banter, ridicule or criticism 2 : to haze by way of initiation.

I still think it may fit; the treatment notable people have received here has sometimes seemed quite heavy-handed to me. The fact that they are notable people creates a temptation to pull them down a notch. --JN466 18:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it? I've not seen that. I know it can be hard to find examples in retrospect, but can you think of any cases where someone finding they had an article was given an unreasonable hard time apparently because they were a celebrity rather than on an exact equal footing to other non-celebrity cases? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:DOLT describes a typical scenario. You might argue that what is described there is insensitivity rather than malice, but to the person at the receiving end of it, they're indistinguishable. :) I'll see if I can come up with something more specific; it'll require a bit of research. --JN466 01:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Another editor just reminded me of this ongoing situation, for example. While I don't know exactly when and how it started, and the subject bears some of the responsibility for the acrimonious nature of the dispute, it is a rather undignified dispute for an encyclopedia to have. --JN466 13:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The page actively suggests Wikipedians may engage in "roughing up" BLP subjects because they are celebrities and cautions they should not do so. The point is this page asserts a claim that I can't find any evidence for. Even in the cases stated (WP:DOLT, insensitivitiy, recent ANI) there is zero evidence of bad faith or negative activity on that basis and to write an essay as if there is... it's a bit as if someone were to go write an essay tomorrow that chastised Wikipedians for accusing politicians of spousal abuse in their biographies "just because they are politicians" and explaining we really shouldn't pick on politicians. I don't think this essay stands. WP:BITE says it all. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The essay argues that we should approach notable people who come here to edit, to add detail or fix errors, with humanity and sensitivity, bearing in mind that their Wikipedia entry is likely to be the top google result for their name, having a real and lasting effect on their lives, while most of us are shielded by a cloak of anonymity. Quoting Wikipedia rules at people in that vulnerable position, rules which we are familiar with and they are not, is a subtle abuse of power. It is not the same as throwing the book at an anonymous newbie who does not have a Wikipedia article. Deletion discussions like [15][16][17] may cause significant emotional distress to our subjects, and harm the project. I stand by what the essay is trying to say; it is only an essay, after all.

However, I'll continue revising it and will think about the points you made. The phrasing "Of course, this is our chance to show them how insignificant they really are compared to us, right?" was actually meant to be tongue-in-cheek; I appreciate it may not come across as such. I've reworded it to "Of course, this is our chance to throw the book at them, right?" I'll think about the title too. If you have suggestions, I am open to that. --JN466 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd add something to your survival kit that says how someone can submit photos of themselves for use in an article about them, specifically that such photos are generally welcome, they must be released with a license we can use and can be low resolution version of publicity photos if they prefer not to release a full resolution version under an open license. --agr (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. --JN466 01:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

MPs' scandals covered up on Wikipedia (UK Telegraph)

(MP refers to Members of Parliament)

“ Now there are suggestions that some have tried to rewrite history by deleting mentions of their career low-points from Wikipedia, the user-edited online encyclopedia.

An investigation has uncovered dozens of cases where MPs' biographical pages on Wikipedia were altered to remove details of past humiliations which had been added by members of the public.

Embarrassments which have been deleted include an MP who employed a male escort, an MP who lost his front bench job in a row over racist language, and a female MP whose ex-husband was arrested and deported.

On every occasion, the change was made either by someone working within the parliamentary estate or by a user who appeared to have links to the MP.

”

Obviously, there are on-going editing disputes in the individual articles talk pages in which I have not participated, but I raise this here because of its prominence globally and because I think in the normal process of editing WP:BLP and WP:COI would be handled routinely, and here it seems to have failed. patsw (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing the articles in question, it is almost impossible to comment on. But if the information is negative, then it needs to be sourced or removed. Ideally people might look to see if it sourced, but if it looks like it is just a negative comment, I could see people removing that type of stuff as a BLP violation. The key is, was there a reliable source for the material.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, it was sourced, most of it coming straight from the expenses documentation. The article implies in some cases, and does slightly more than imply in others, that the edits came from the MPs or their parties. It wouldn't be too hard to just go through and check some of these, but I would be surprised if most hadn't already been fixed. Indeed, the article specifically says editors have been reverted and warned already. -Rrius (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Telegraph article does list all the various articles involved. I think we should have a look at these articles to see which deletions were BLP violations, which of the deleted controversies and embarrassments were so notable that they should be in a politician's BLP, and so on. --JN466 16:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement for an embarrassment to be notable to appear in an article. patsw (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Very true. I was involved with one article in this topic area, Malcolm Rifkind (though it was not mentioned in the Telegraph article). Although MR had a very minor brush with the expenses controversy, an editor - SteamedTreacle (talk · contribs) - was seeking to make a big splash of it in the article [18]. Other editors agree on the talk page that this was grossly undue weight on what was essentially a non-issue.[19] Clearly, expenses were a significant issue for many MPs, but we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that every removal of expenses-related info from MPs' biogs was improper - at least in the case I was involved in, there was a good reason for doing so. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should point the finger at that editor re the Malcolm Rifkind article, which currently has not a word on expenses, when that editor was tangling with 194.60.38.198, an IP address assigned to "parliament.uk", in other words the very thing the Telegraph wanted to apply some transparency to. Both this Bloomberg wire story and this Daily Mail story feature Rifkind's photograph, such was his prominence in their stories, and you people have evidently backed up that editor inside the Parliament to suppress these reliably sourced stories totally such that there is now not the slightest hint of any expenses issue in Wiki's Rifkind article. This when the Scotland Herald suggests this politician's expenses over the years might have created such an issue as to push him to resignation: "... the sitting MP announced he would stand down at the next general election after allegations over his parliamentary expenses claims." On top of this, this case which you hold up to be the model, featured an editor you evidently agreed with saying that the whole discussion "should now be removed from this talk page"! Such is the commitment to transparency, that the issue is not just purged from the article, but it is supposed to be purged from the Talk page as well, apparently so that other editors (like myself) can't re-open the issue unless we come to the article with advance knowledge from other sources that there was ever a dispute. Not that I can really point the finger at the editor, given that concepts like "courtesy blanking", which is arguably just spin on the simpler concept of "cover up", have been thrown around at the highest levels of Wikipedia.Bdell555 (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, re-read the story you're citing. The story is from 2003 - six years before the expenses scandal - and the sitting MP it refers to is not Rifkind but Michael Trend, the then MP for Windsor (UK Parliament constituency), who had his own expenses scandal in 2003. Please take more care with your sources. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll grant that but I will not grant that I am citing "the story" because I am citing three, not one (and one could add another one if one included the Evening Standard's reference to Rifkind's expenses last November, and yet one more if one notes that the Sun thought these expenses worth at least passing mention). I can only marvel at the irony of you calling attention to the Michael Trend article, because all references to expenses in that article have been deleted! Now what was your argument again? That we should downplay concerns that articles about these politicians are being whitewashed? This is not the first time the Telegraph has called attention to the chicanery going on on Wikipedia and that the BLP crowd seems to instinctively defend.Bdell555 (talk) 08:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The deletion of expenses from the Michael Trend article is indeed odd. I can't justify it, given that it was a major issue in the MP's career, with widespread coverage and lasting effects. But please do note that it is the polar opposite of what happened with Rifkind, where it was mentioned in passing by a handful of sources over a couple of days, with no findings of wrongdoing and no persistent consequences. That is where the WP:UNDUE calculus comes in. If an event has a significant and major impact on a person's life or career then it's worth mentioning; if not, then probably not. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd cordially remind you to "take more care with your sources" because whatever your source is for "couple of days", it is contradicted by the fact that the Daily Mail story came out April 1 and the Bloomberg story was May 21. Rifkind's expenses got further mention in the media on Nov 26. If this is a non-issue why does it appear that "malcolmrifkind" wrote paragraphs explaining himself on a Telegraph blogpost? A commentator calling himself Brian Tomkinson addresses "Sir Malclom" and says "this was not a legitimate expense" to which Rifkind replies "You make a fair comment." Where in Wiki policies does it say "significant AND major impact"? If that WERE the policy, it is no more workable than a policy saying editors have near unlimited discretion to delete, as a deletionist could drive a truck through such a vague criterion. It says in Barack Obama that in August 2006 Obama visited his father's birthplace, threw out the first pitch at the 2009 all-star game, is a Bears fan, and that his great-uncle served in the 89th Division. Did any of those things have a "significant and major impact on his life or career? If not then why don't you go over to that article, delete that material and anything similar to it, and then come back here point to the edit diff so we can see if you are truly prepared to universalize this standard of yours, as opposed to just applying it selectively to material you don't fancy.Bdell555 (talk) 06:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Rrius, when you say "straight from the expenses documentation", do you mean a primary source? Because that would be a BLP violation -- we shouldn't access court records etc. directly, unless they have been discussed in secondary sources. (Otherwise we are doing investigative journalism, rather than encyclopedia writing.) --JN466 09:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is unlikely that primary sources were used in any of the cases related to expenses. The expenses primary source data was leaked to the Telegraph, which then analysed and published a series of stories over many weeks. The Telegraph had a near monopoly on the expenses story, so few if any Wikipedia editors would have access to primary source data not published by a secondary source. Road Wizard (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the Telegraph did publish some of the primary source data on its website, if I remember correctly. That may be what Rrius refers to. A redacted version was certainly published by the Parliamentary authorities some time later. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness the media in general does not have a WP:BLP policy, or the electorate would never be properly informed. You would think this story would get some people to question whether Wikipedia should continue to serve the interests of incumbent politicians against unknown challengers by allowing the bios which exist for the more well known incumbents to be tilted with the WP:BLP policy, but given the excuses being provided here for deleting the scandals that Fleet Street found noteworthy, I see this bias is likely to continue.Bdell555 (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The story on Nigel Waterson seems a clear breach of BLP. No context and no charges brought. Not a notable encyclopedic incident. - Kittybrewster ☎ 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Only two sentences in that article are cited to reliable sources and those two are the two you want deleted? Why don't we just turn the articles over to the political staff of these MPs for them to write? According to the Telegraph, in a number of cases that is basically what is happening on Wikipedia already so why not just call it what it is.Bdell555 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

List articles according to religion or sexuality

We've come across an interesting conundrum at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#People_sometimes_described_as_Scientologists_who_deny_they_are_Scientologists. In the specific case being discussed at the noticeboard, it's about a list of people according to religious affiliation. WP:BLPCAT says self-identification should be the primary criterion in categorisation according to religious affiliation or sexual preference (without commenting on list articles), and WP:NPOV says we should reflect reliable sources. That creates a problem where living people have been described in reliable sources as belonging to a particular category, while they themselves say they do not belong to that category. As I see it, we have two options:

• We could argue that WP:BLPCAT should be extended to list articles, so people should only be included if they self-identify as Scientologist, gay, Christian, Jewish, bisexual etc.
• We could argue that per WP:NPOV, we should simply follow reliable sources; so if a reliable source describes someone as a Scientologist, or gay, etc., that satisfies the inclusion criterion for the corresponding list article, and balance can be restored by representing the individual's self-identification along with the characterisation in reliable sources (described as "X" in RS1, says he is not "X" in RS2).

Any BLP specialists who want to chip in at the noticeboard discussions would be welcome, but is this something we should also address in the policy? --JN466 04:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If we follow self-identification, we should also honor self-disassociation. I don't think that "reliable" sources should trump what a subject directly states in matters of religion or sexuality. As we all know, even the most reliable sources are sometimes wrong. Yworo (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. If a heterosexual person says, "I had a homosexual experience when I was at school, but I am not bisexual", then they shouldn't be listed in List of bisexual people, for example. For that matter, if all they say is, "I had a homosexual experience when I was at school", they shouldn't, on the strength of that statement alone, be listed in List of bisexual people, either. Similarly, if someone says, "I did a Scientology course once, but I never became a member", they arguably should not be listed in List of Scientologists. But it's a tricky question, as I pointed out over at BLPN, and I'd welcome further input. --JN466 16:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Coming from BLPN I agree we should follow BLPCAT here when it comes to lists. However mentioning any relevant widely discussed and well sourced disputes may be okay in the article Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think we should handle religious affiliation and sexual preference the same here? For example, if there have been allegations that a person is gay, or bisexual, and the person has denied it, should that person be listed in articles like List of bisexual people and List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and the controversy discussed there in detail? --JN466 00:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, that's the nub of the issue. If there are several sources categorizing in terms of sexuality/religion/political affiliation/race/etc, but the person has denied it (again, from a good source), does WP represent both sides of the debate, giving weight to the various opinions? In my experience, usually no: if this or that celebrity is reported reliably as stating "I am not gay," for example, their article doesn't include a section preserving a debate about it. Why should affiliation with a cult/religion/group (whatever, I don't have a view) be treated differently?KD Tries Again (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

but a list does not appear on that persons page, and the self identification clause comes with a very very specific qualifier that it is only used in categories because "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers". Lists however do carry disclaimers and modifiers...and in the case of list of scientologists quite a lot of information about what the sources say. Catagories in WP:BLP refers to actual categories, not categorizations like scientologist, Jaden's above statement is awkwardly worded in this case.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Check out the very first sentence of [[20]] WP:BLP. The policy covers information about living persons added to "any Wikipedia page," as it obviously must. To take an easy example, speculation about the sexuality of living persons can't evade the policy by being moved from the persons' individual pages and added to a "list."KD Tries Again (talk) 05:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

(outdent) I know that the BLP policy extends to any page, what I am saying is that WP:BLPCAT is a policy specifically for categories because when a person is placed in a category that title appears on their page without further elaboration. this is the reason why categories use self decoration as the standard rather than WP:V which is the standard for WP:BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 11:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

A fair point, but it then seems that List articles, which indeed aren't covered by WP:BLPCAT do need policy consideration. You will argue that List articles can include disclaimers and modifiers, so there is no problem. I don't agree: for one thing, WP:BLPCAT says that Category names do not include disclaimers and modifiers; neither, necessarily, do List names. [List of Scientologists] - no disclaimer or modifier there. If there are modifiers in the article? Well, if we're going to say that someone who has specifically denied being gay/a Mormon/whatever, can nevertheless be listed by Wikipedia as such if a source can be found, that seems to be a big change in the approach to BLPs, and one which should only be made by community consensus.KD Tries Again (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

well categories are strictly a name with no additional information which appears on the person's page, which is why they need greater consideration. Lists, when done right (and I know that there are many lists out there that need some major readjustments in this area) have an area of explanation in the lead as well as within the list (as we see in the scientology list). more explanation occurs after the name when it comes to the sources and what they contain. so a reader would have to be really reallllllly dense to just observe a name on the list and ignore the rest of the information. more importantly their name on that list would only come up for people interested in the list itself, it doesn't appear anywhere else that they are on that list (so the audience actually has to read the article to get to the name) so there is a lot more needed to get to the persons name than just reading the title of the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The rest of the information in the cases under discussion is the individual denying on the record that he or she belongs in that list or in that category. You won't, I think, find the statement that X is described as gay in X's main article once X has categorically denied it, no matter whether the allegation can be sourced here and there. Should the statement then appear in a list featuring X, protected by some sort of disclaimer? Would WP host a list of celebrities "described as gay"? There's a muddy area here, and it's not just about scientology.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I guess it depends on how notable the controversy is. Let's assume the New York Times asserts its belief that governor X is gay, or bisexual—because he is alleged to have had sex with rent boys (see Telegraph article linked in the previous talk page section), or was seen exiting a gay porn cinema or whatever—and there is a controversy about it, because governor X has always been an outspoken opponent of gay rights. X subsequently makes a statement in which he denies being homosexual, and says that he is considering suing the New York Times for libel. All the major papers report the case. In this case, because the controversy is notable, it will likely end up being mentioned in governor X's biography here. On the other hand, we probably should not list governor X in our "List of gay/bisexual politicians" unless and until he himself describes himself as gay, or bisexual, just as we should not apply the gay or bisexual category. --JN466 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that. Take Kevin Spacey. His bio page records media speculation about his sexuality, and his own response. But he doesn't then get included on the [List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people], albeit with a disclaimer. I think it would be consistent with Coffeepusher's position to include him, but I think that's a change of policy (in spirit, if not in letter, as there isn't explicit policy re List articles) and requires community consensus.KD Tries Again (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

We are in full agreement then. Should we draft something to address eligibility criteria for list articles based on religious affiliation and sexual preference? --JN466 09:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest amending the language in WP:BLPCAT for this purpose. A very rough draft:

"The case for inclusion in a List article must be made clear by the main article text and its reliable sources. Lists grouping individuals by religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with inclusion in Lists that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, List of Criminals [I made that up] and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."

KD Tries Again (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

You all are talking about putting this in the list guidelines right? Gigs (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of incorporating a reference to list articles in WP:BLPCAT. The current wording is:

---

Categories (current wording)

See also: Wikipedia:Categorization of people

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal.

---

Here is another proposal for how we could amend it:

---

Categories (proposed wording)

See also: Wikipedia:Categorization of people and Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. These principles apply equally to the creation of lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, as well as lists and navigation templates which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation.

---

What are editors' views? --JN466 23:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks good.KD Tries Again (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

• Simpler wording, try something like this:

Contentious and sensitive categories - Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so contentious categories or categories not directly relevant to the subject should not be applied unless verifiable from very reliable sources, appropriate for BLPs (if applicable), and does not give undue weight. At a minimum the matter must always be sufficiently relevant to merit adding the category and broadly agreed by reliable sources. It is usually not enough that it is true, it must also be relevant or significant in the context of the subject's biography or article.

For very personal matters such as religion, ethnicity, and sexuality the subject should have self-identified, or the matter widely agreed by reliable sources and significant in their biography. For implied criminality, the matter must be significant to their biography and the crime actually convicted and not (yet) overturned. For other matters that tend to be seen negatively (affairs, scandals), the matter must be significant to the biography and well attested in reliable sources. (See false light)

These principles apply equally to lists and navigation templates based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included have a poor reputation.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the grammar in some of the above sentences. :) That wording would also change current categorisation practice, by removing the requirement for self-identification. There have been many sources, for example, stating that Kevin Spacey is gay; even a government source: [21]. (They apologised a year later, and removed him from the list.)

As we seem to be agreed that lists and navigation templates should be governed by the same principles as categories, I propose that we add the final sentence stating so, which in your version is more or less the same as in mine. We can then look at whether BLPCAT requires other changes, but there seems to be agreement that categories, lists and navigation templates are different versions of the same thing, and that the same BLP considerations apply. --JN466 16:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sentence added, subheader adapted: [22]. --JN466 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this is what I was thinking, just adding another sentence that says "and the same goes for lists". Looks good to me. Gigs (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Self-identification is a bright line which it would be a pity to lose. The discussion here really came out of examples where individuals specifically denied a categorization but editors suggested giving equal weight to sources affirming it. I think consistency between categories and lists reflects the spirit of BLP policy.173.2.230.224 (talk) 23:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I disagree with this because the category offers a reason for why it differs from WP:V and WP:BLP, while adding the list to it is placed in there with no real justification. the category modifies verifiability and BLP because there is no way of identifying why they are identified as such in third party sources, but BLP prefers verifiability and WP:RS over primary sources. if the sources can be identified (which they can't in categories, but can in lists) then we should stick to WP:BLP.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am just slow, but I quite sincerely don't understand your point. Categorization does require justification in the main article and its sources, so I don't see where it departs from WP:V.KD Tries Again (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

I explained it poorly. WP:BLP uses verifiability as the touchstone for all inclusions. anything printed about a living person must be backed up by secondary sources. an additional requirement is added for categories dealing with religious and sexual orientation being self disclosure not because they deal with religious or sexual orientation, but because "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers." Lists do carry disclaimers and modifiers, and are able to bring quite a bit of information to the table which categories do not. additionally if someone's name is on a list it does not appear on their main page, rather it only appears on the list. I am all for verifiability and the requirement that reliable secondary sources be used, but this addition does not provide any justification for why it is employing a different standard than the one used for WP:BLP, it just states as a matter of fact that this policy also applies to lists and templates when the justification for the stricter requirements for categories does not apply to lists and templates.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

justification refers to "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers" that should clear up the confusion.Coffeepusher (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I do understand, but I think there may be some confusion - and note, we're not talking about list articles in general. The problem lies not with including someone in a sexual/religious-identifying list when the evidence reaches the high standards expressed by WP:BLP, but rather with including someone when the evidence is such that a disclaimer or modifier is needed (e.g. when the individual has to be sub-categorized as a "disputed" such-and-such). I think we'd be on the same page as WP:BLP entirely if we all agreed that X should be in such a list only when a disclaimer isn't needed. The disclaimer itself should be a red flag that WP:BLP standards of verifiability aren't being met.KD Tries Again (talk) 03:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

(outdent) ok,while I am not completely satisfied that does make sense...and I am willing to be the minority opinion since that appears to be the consensus through many many pages...and it is a middle of the road approach.Coffeepusher (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This policy article needs to specify when to go to other noticeboards?

I have found over the years that sometimes when the issue is very specifically WP:OR or WP:RS or even WP:NPOV that one gets a more timely and definitive opinion from those noticeboards than from the WP:BLPN one recommended by this article. Or one gets no real opinion here so one has to go to another board, like Admin Assistance. Does the article need to clarify when it might be better to go to another notice board or that it is (is not) forum shopping to go to another one if the answer is ambiguous. Issue just was raised yet another time so thought I'd finally bring it here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's probably best to avoid giving the impression that forum shopping would be appropriate. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The main question is when is it best to go to another forum first? Sometimes it's very obvious, as in a WP:RS issue or even a WP:OR issue. (Though even then it can be ambiguous, depending on level of negativity of the information rendered.) Sometimes not as obvious, as in a WP:NPOV issue. Admitting that sometimes another noticeboard is best place to go first is good. Only if there is no response or one that is non-responsive or obviously prejudicial does one have to consider another forum. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding the Biography of Living persons statement on article talk pages

I would like to recommend a change to the way we identify articles as biographies of living persons. Currently we have a parameter in the Wikiproject biography banner and in the wikiprojectshell template (and possibly others) to identify an article as being about a living person. I would like to recommend that this logic be placed in the Talk page header vice these 2 templates, for several reasons.

1. Currently the logic for the BLP statement is built into at least two different places; the WP Biography banner template and the Wikibannershell template. From a policy standpoint, neither in my opinion, is the right place to put a "Corporate Wikimedia" policy regarding something as contentious as blp (no offense WP BIO). Having this blp statement under bio implies some ownership of the blp statement by that project, which they do not have. Same applies to the WPBannershell. As I understand it, the "blp policy" is/was established and owned by the Wikimedia foundation as a way to deal with problems related to blp violations. The Talk page header is a more WP generic template and in my opinion offers a more WP Corporate ownership of the BLP policy to the general population.
2. The talk page header offers links and guidance on conduct and policy regarding behavior on article talk pages. Something that in my opinion is extremely important to blp articles arguably above all others. Adding the BLP statement to that template seems inline with its purpose.
3. Currently logic must be maintained in at least 2 separate locations, the WP Project banner and the WP wikiproject shell template to display the blp banner. By adding the logic to the talk page header the logic would only need to be maintained in 1 place vice 2 or more. Reducing/simplifying the logic and maintenance for the other 2 or more templates.
4. Current policy states that the Talk header should be given top billing on the articles talk page. Another policy states that the blp statement should be on the top. In order for the blp statement to display on the top, the talk header must be moved down, causing a conflict in our own policy. Adding the logic to the talk page header would eliminate the differing rules we have in place and would force the blp statement to be on the top of the page (assuming the talk header is at the top which in most cases it is).
5. The verbiage in the talk page header is such that it disrupts the flow of the talk page heading when banners are on top of the talk page header. Adding the blp statement to the talk page header will allow a more appropriate flow than currently exists by allowing the talk header template to remain on the top. --Kumioko (talk) 20:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Makes some sense but not all talk pages have talk headers. –xeno^talk 20:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Your right but it should be relatively easy for a bot to plant it if it doesnt already have it in a blp article. --Kumioko (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• According to Jarry1250's Toolserver Tools there are 145,228 transclusions of {{talk header}} but 481,012 transclusions of {{BLP}} (note the numbers gap is even bigger than implied there as the header is used on non-BLP pages too). The only way your proposal will work is if the header becomes mandatory on all BLP articles, which is a major shift from the current position. In answer to point 5, I don't see how incorporating BLP will fix the problem; the point of the BLP template is that it is visibly separate to other banners, so the "flow" will be the same even if the code is combined. Road Wizard (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for doing that count, thats an excellent point and your right it would be a major shift, but we have "shifted" before so at least the precedent has been set. As for the flow comment what I meant was that the flow should look something like BLP banner, talk page, then probably WP Biography banner (I think this should be top billing for banners on blp's but thats somewhat of a minor thing), then other banners or talk page templates as appropriate. Instead of the current way which is BLP banner, WP Bio, then talk page (so the template that would provide the introduction/help to newbys has know been buried in the banners, etc. --Kumioko (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

    One possible way around the problem without changing current practice too much would be to have a new template with calls to both {{talk header}} and {{BLP}}. Transclusions of either template could then be activated or deactivated as needed for each page (e.g. {{new-header|blp=yes|talkheader=yes}}). Road Wizard (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

    • Thats definately a possibility too, but there are several parameters available in talk header and well have to incorporate BLP other as well, so I think it might be easier in the long run to just use talk header rather than create a whole new template. Either way well have to add one to the page. --Kumioko (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
• Seems to me like a solution in search of a problem. The parameter for the BLP notice is in {{WPBiography}} because {{WPBiography}} is intended to be on the vast majority of pages {{BLP}} would be on. The parameter is also in {{WPBS}} because when {{WPBiography}} is inside {{WPBS}} then the BLP notice from {{WPBiography}} would not be visible. There's not any "ownership", it's just convenience. Re your point #3, the "logic" isn't really maintained in two places, as both {{WPBiography}} and {{WPBS}} simply transclude {{BLP}} when instructed to do so. Re your point #4, links to these "policies" would be helpful. Anomie⚔ 00:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Talk page layout is were it says that the Talk header should be on top (after skip to talk) but I can't seem to find the one that mentions that the blp banner needs to be on the top at the moment, I just saw it earlier today though. True about the WPBiography template being on most pages but I would argue that the logic for the BLP banner in the WP biography and WPBS templates is quite complicated. I also think that having the instructions available on the talk header present on the living people bios would be beneficial. But as I mentioned before thats just my opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Note that Wikipedia:Talk page layout is an info page, not a policy or guideline. It also says "This is not a prescriptive list, but rather an observation of how the banners of well-structured talk pages are ordered". Anomie⚔ 01:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Your absolutely right but at the risk of sounding argumentative it further states "While it is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies. Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one." Since most of the information isn't located anywhere else, it shouldn't be inconsistent with much else, the exception being the blp banner. I agree that this would be a significant change and I admit that there would be some effort involved. I just think this would be better in the long term. --Kumioko (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• I agree with Anomie that this looks like a solution in need of a problem. I'd also be very wary of treating {{talkheader}} as a ubiquitous tool to bolt bits onto as needed; yes, it's rather ended up that way, but we needn't further encourage that. Is there a particular problem with the current setup, other than the redundancy when a bannershell is used on BLPs? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Only the 5 reasons I mentioned above especially the implication that WP Biography owns the blp policy. --Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't personally see that attaching a BLP warning to the BIO banner implies ownership; it's simply a prudent way of ensuring that the BLP warning appears on every BLP talk page. And the BIO banner is used on every single BLP, while {{talkheader}} isn't, so there's no saving there because you'd still have to maintain a separate BLP banner for when articles didn't use {{talkheader}}. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Or rather than creating a new one you could just add the talk header template to the article. And then along with the BLP banner statement you would also get the links that are available on the talk header template such as Avoid personal attacks!. --Kumioko (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Are you under the misconception that {{talk header}} actually belongs on most talk pages? It's only recommended for use on those pages where newbies would actually need that information. A good number of the 145390 current uses of that template could probably be removed (especially of the 7927 on non-mainspace talk pages), if anyone cared enough to actually do so. Anomie⚔ 23:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
          • No, no misconceptions, but it seems appropriate to use it for BLP's as well. I'm not quite sure why so many editors seem so vehemently opposed to the use of the talk page template but I think it would be helpful for BLP's as well as the highly contentious articles. --Kumioko (talk) 00:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
            • I'm actually a big fan of {{talkheader}} and would rather it saw more use, but I didn't think we were talking about massively increasing {{talkheader}} deployment here (not least because there are people who can't stand it, and very vocal ones at that). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
              • While I agree that this is a solution in search of a problem and seems to be replacing one set of parameters with another, a much simpler solution would be to use {{BLP}} at the very top of the page above everything. A bot run to replace every |living=yes and |blp=yes with any other method of identifying a Biography of a living person would take quite a while, however.

Another point to consider is how to identify pages that lack identification. The Category:Biography articles without living parameter does that quite well. By making |living= a requirement and collecting the pages that lack the parameter, it is possible to tag the ones that are living. Some editors are making a career of doing so.

I do not mean to convey that I think that this is a really bad idea. I think we have all seen some really bad ideas become part of policies and guidelines. I do think, for all the reasons stated, that this is not a particularly good idea. JimCubb (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.245.209.94, 19 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The instances where the phrase "so long as" appears should be replaced by "as long as". Even though it has become popular in recent "So long as" is very loose grammar, bordering on slang. Compare the wording of "as short as" or "as fast as", etc... and it becomes clear "as long as" should follow this logical pattern.

70.245.209.94 (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done. -- Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. "So long as" is perfectly proper, especially when it introduces a prerequisite rather than a length of time. However, since "as long as" is also acceptable, I'm not going to revert / edit-war over the issue. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 16:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Naming spouses etc

A section was recently added, I don't when, but it was restored by Patsw. [23] I can't quite see the benefit of it, but I can see its potential for misuse. Does anyone mind if I remove it?

In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Even with a court seal of the name, we're not a court. If it's public it is public. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I agree. It's just that it follows a paragraph where we ask editors to consider not naming people frivolously.

Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

Followed by the new sentence about spouses. If I were an editor coming here for advice, I wouldn't know what to make of it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Was there an ulterior motive by who added it? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It was inserted here after discussion at Editor assistance/requests, Village pump (Policy) and here, by User:Patsw. Seems redundant to me, but I know nothing about BLP or privacy issues. Anthony (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I see after reading the above discussions from 2008 that this should stay, simply because there was so much kerfuffle to add it. Significant people also had differing opinions so it is important to keep it for clarification. However, it should be reworded. Suggest "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." The part about being sealed by a court is absolutely not relevant to Wikipedia. In the United States neither the press nor a web site like Wikipedia can be gagged without being party to the suit, and Wikipedia is not subject to the laws of other countries (including our neighbours to the North, Canada, where courts regularly gag the press to not release individual names involved in court cases.

IMHO, close friends and family members are basic genealogical information that interests people; but many, if not most, of our marginally notable biographies don't need to include it.

I'd like to hear from patsw and SlimVirgin. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'd support your wording, Schmucky, though I'd add "if reliably sourced," and I'd probably remove the italics. So it would read: "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Italics were my addition for discussion. I did think about adding "if reliably sourced" but thought it was too much no-brainer. :) I have no problem with that addition at all. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'd also suggest a clause which says something along the lines of "no harm, no foul", that if you list the name of family members and are satisfied that doing so does no harm to them, you include them. After all, is it really necessary for complete understanding of say Obama that he has two daughters?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Basic genealogy is critical information to many readers. For Obama, and any other politician, having a family and trotting them out at every photo opp is part of the electability formula. The reason I also added significant, is that sometimes uncles or cousin are particularly important to a biography. The David Lee Roth article, for instance, notes the importance of his uncle, Manny Roth, for his interesting in the entertainment industry (which would be true even if Manny were not independently notable). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

"Complete" may be excessive, and possibly a ticket to include everything. Anthony (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Editorial discretion. Trust editors to come to smart decisions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I was thinking "...provided such information is relevant to a reader's understanding of the subject" rather than "...subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" because it's 5 words shorter and says the same. But I'm not going to burst into flames over it. Just my opinion. Anthony (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

National/ethnic identity lists

The section of the BLP guidelines on "categories, lists and navigation templates" states the following:

Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. These principles apply equally to lists and navigation templates based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation, or which suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation.

My question is whether BLP applies to lists of people by national or ethnic origin (such as those for the UK, summarised in the template to the right)? Religious beliefs and sexual orientation are mentioned in the guideline but not ethnicity, which can also be subjective, so I wanted some guidance on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Family name as link please

Can we make the family name (last name in American English) a link in the title or first paragraph that goes to a page listing all of our pages using that name please? I'm sure I'm not the first person to follow a search and say, oops, that's not the Medvedev I meant. Hcobb (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And what's with these page titles? Vladimir Vysotsky (Admiral) Huh? What would be so bad about Russian Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky? Hcobb (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

A correction that concerns the text of the actual document WP:BLP

Attributive adjectives such as "high-quality" should be hyphenated in English. Not to do so can easily lead to confusing the reader. (This rule does not apply to predicate adjectives" because in that case, it is not necessary.)
For more examples of this take a look: {high-altitude, high-credibility, high-current, high-density, high-endurance, high-grade, high-inclination, high-maintenance, high-performance, high-poverty, high-power, high-powered, high-resistance, high-retention, high-sensitivity, high-tension, high-turnover, high-velocity, and high-voltage.

For example: "Lt. Jones took his high-performance aircraft on a high-altitude test flight. That was when his squadron found out that his aircraft is a high-maintenance bird. Its high=performance turbojets have a way of accumulating large amounts of graphite on its vital parts."

Likewise: {low-altitude, low-ceilinged, low-credance, low-ductility, low-efficiency, low-grade, low-impact, low-maintenance, low-poverty, low-power, low-rpm, low-resistance, low-sensitivity, low-turnover, low-urgency, low-velocity, low-voltage}. 98.81.23.222 (talk) 20:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

David Johnston dispute

Could we please get some additional input at a dispute at Talk:David Lloyd Johnston#Daughters' jobs, which centres around the retention or removal of detail about the subject's daughters' current specific employment and positions therein. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We've run into a problem regarding references previously used to substantiate details about non notable familiy members that has subsequently been removed in terms of the "Presumption of privacy" clause. One editor is arguing that the ref should be retained because it contains the information that has been removed while I am of the opinion that such a retention can be seen as a (possibly bad faith) attempt to retain the "forbidden" information via a "back door". Please help. Roger (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite correct. I'm stating that the removed reference contains more information than the others and should therefore be retained. Obviously I didn't explain that very well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Roger (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Confessions of a celebrity biographer

A celebrity biographer, Jonathan Margolis, made some interesting comments in the Grauniad on Wednesday about writing about people without their permission, which I thought would make interesting reading. Excerpt:

[P]erhaps everyone – me, my wife, Angelina, Tony Blair, Mick Jagger – should have the right to put their side of things when gossiped about publicly. Because maybe, just maybe, contrary to all the squawks of journalists and unauthorised biographers, a person's own version of events does have validity. And even then, perhaps a person's words shouldn't be taken – to use that expression loved by politicians, but perhaps true after all – "out of context".[24]

Fences&Windows 23:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sharon Johnston date format

Talk:Sharon Johnston lists the issues. 3rd Opinion has been requested. I feel that whatever the 3O offers will not bring the subject to conclusion. Feel free to add to the discussion there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest/notability

• User:Hobbs777, User:Mary anne hobbs edited her own biography Mary Anne Hobbs
• User:Quaranj is probablu 1.8.7 herself

--Obese Civil Servant (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The relevant rule is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, which doesn't prohibit people editing their own biography, just sort of discourages it and recommends care to comply with various policies if done. Often however I find that COIs lead to violations of policy of some kind. Mary Anne Hobbs is notable enough for an article, though I have serious doubts about 1.8.7. Maybe you could list it at WP:Articles for deletion? Christopher Connor (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The OP has been blocked. 1.8.7 is clearly notable, though the press coverage mostly dates to years ago. Probably safe to ignore this. Fences&Windows 15:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I've added some sources to 1.8.7's talk page. Fences&Windows 16:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Organizations

Do these guidelines apply to organizations? Are we allowed to repeat hatchet jobs done on one organization by another, a campaign of admitted lies and over-the-top, blatantly false accusations, a planned ambush of accusations of racism and threats; is that ok because an orgainization is not a person? They are run by living people of course. Living people are maligned and their lives are effected when lies and distortions are printed about them, their actions, and their motivations even if they are not mentioned by name and only referred to by the organization which runs them. Chrisrus (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that some organizations are more controversial than others. If you stick to reliable sources, does that help?Jarhed (talk) 03:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The nearly unanimous consensus at the article is that, in this case, telling the whole story in the reliable sources would violate BLP guidelines. Chrisrus (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC) So the answer to your question is, no, that doesn't help, thanks for trying. So my question remains, do these quidelines apply to the actions of organizations when there are living people behind those organizations? Do these guidelines allow us to say, for example, that Organization A is has been accused when there is proof that accusations are baseless? Please remember, the sources are all reliable. For example, could we say that the ASPCA has been accused by PETA of torturing puppies (I'm just making this up for rhetorical purposes) if sources say that it's true? What if the sources agree and PETA admits that the accusations are totally baseless? Chrisrus (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable reports of unproven criminal charges

David Copperfield (illusionist) was accused of sexual assault in 2007 and the charges were dropped in 2010. In the intervening years, there was a pitched battle fought on this article to keep the lurid charges of the accuser out of the article. Even after the charges were dropped, there has still been a fight to prevent the original accusations from being repeated. Is there a reason that the policy does not provide specific guidance in a case like this?--Jarhed (talk) 09:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the reporting in the article as it stands is neutral and given due weight. The case was widely reported in the media, so a mention of it is reasonable, as it did have an impact of Copperfield's life. We do have guidance on this in policy: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Fences&Windows 16:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You are commenting on the state of the article after the exoneration. My question is about unproven criminal charges. And further, there is still an argument on that article as to whether to include the original charges. After all, those are notable, relevant, and well documented, despite the fact that they were dropped. I would like to know WP policy on this if there is one.Jarhed (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Conviction or exoneration doesn't matter, if the event was meaningful to the individuals life/career, then it MAY be worth mentioning---especially if it was widely covered. BLP doesn't prevent negative reporting nor does it preclude reporting on notable events that prove to be untrue. Coverage of the event is perfectly acceptable. Think of it this way. I've heard something about David Copperfield and allegations of sexual assault. I come to WP to find out the story. Will WP be doing it's job if it didn't at least mention that he was exonorated? Or from this perspective, you are David Copperfield. You've just won a major decision that exonorated you from a nasty allegation of sexual abuse. Wouldn't you want something in your article showing your fans that you were innocent all along?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If I had been exonerated, I would want all mention of the false charges removed from my bio. If I had not had a chance to defend myself against the charges in court and I had the presumption of innocence, I would want all mention of the charges removed from my bio. My point is that there are a bunch of editors that spend a ton of time arguing about this very issue. I would like the BLP policy to provide more explicit guidance if possible.Jarhed (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

THe guidance is that if it is well covered/documented, that the incident can be mentioned. As for the allegations, you would rather that they had never been made in the first place, but once they are made, if you are exonorated, then the article can cover that fact. The allegation may have been proven wrong, but the existence of a court case, which took years actually happened. If the case was a significant event, then it is worth mentioning.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

<== Mentioning notable and reliable coverage of unproven criminal charges covers a lot of ground. Some editors want to repeat every lurid detail that can be found about the incident. Some editors think that doing this is a violation of BLP. This is a serious issue for some editors, and I would like the BLP to specify more specific guidance on this issue if possible. This is not an idle issue. I am aware of it because it comes up on the BLP noticeboard all the time.Jarhed (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, failure to mention it might be negligent on our part, but I don't think you need to go into much detail if the person has been exonorated (or more accurately, found "not guilty.")---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 03:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, if there is no final conviction, mention the fact of the charge, but don't go into the alleged gory details.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The curse of BLPPROD

Zafar Nozim was BLPPRODed on 31 July; he died on 3 August. Spooky coincidence. If nobody had looked for sources and it had been deleted, the rationale would have been invalid even though the tag was correctly placed! Fences&Windows 18:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

While this is certainly interesting, it also sounds like a great place where IAR would have been appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

External links

To prevent editors arguing that links to self-published sites may be inserted in BLPs as long as they are not used in Further reading or External links sections, I would propose the following amendment to the "Further reading and external links" section:

Further reading and external links (current version)

External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.

Further reading and external links (proposed version)

External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading", "External links" or any other sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail.

This may seem unnecessary, but some editors appear to be under the impression that inserting external links to self-published sources criticising the article subject is not against the letter and spirit of BLP policy, as long as such links are formatted as a <ref></ref> source reference, or as an in-text link. This amendment will address this.

Are there any objections? --JN466 13:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes in the situation that an RS mentions the external link (such as in the case recently discussed with JN a national newspaper mentions a presentation by an academic on their area of expertise which is not specifically about the individual or defamatory in any way) then it seems a shame to bar it just because it occurs within a BLP article. This is not the same as directly using it as the main source for a piece of text or just randomly sticking it in as a general external link. Polargeo (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a slippery slope. Newspapers can and do mention all sorts of self-published criticism of notable individuals, whether by competent or incompetent commentators. This includes hate sites, attack sites, online vendettas and so on. It is incompatible with the letter and spirit of BLP to link to such self-published sites from the biography of the individual who is the target, whether it is mentioned in a secondary source or not. (Note that in the case Polargeo mentions, the individual concerned felt that the self-published material was defamatory, and threatened to sue. For reference, the material concerned was this presentation which an academic put up on his university homepage.)

We should simply stick to the best sources when writing BLPs, and not involve ourselves in propagating self-published criticism. If the existence of the self-published criticism is mentioned in our article, then the correct approach is to cite and link the secondary source commenting on it; readers can follow up from there if they choose to, or google it. --JN466 13:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In a way though the slippery slope has already been slipped down. In this case the primary source (publication by a scientist on his field of expertise through his university website) which the newspaper refers to is far better than the secondary source (the newspaper) and yet the newspaper is held up as a reliable representation of the primary source and is perfectly acceptable as a source within our rules. Therefore it seems to me that including a link to the primary source is not detrimental as long as it is not being used to defame or as a main source for the article text. Polargeo (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-published criticism simply does not belong in a BLP, whether it is written by Nelson Mandela or the Church of Scientology. Would you argue that we should link Monckton's self-published riposte in Abraham's BLP, too? After all, the same Guardian blog mentioned Monckton's riposte as well. Abraham accuses Monckton of mispresenting sources in his self-published critique, and Monckton accuses Abraham of "malice" and "mendacity" in his. No, Polargeo, we have no business getting ourselves involved in these feuds, and especially not when we are likely to be taking sides. Really. --JN466 15:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are objections. Basically the same that have been raised before. BLP covers all biographical material, no matter where it is located. But it doesn't cover non-biographical material. Of course ideally we should never have non-biographical material in biographies, but reality is different, especially when we are talking tiny-minority/fringe advocates, since the views and opinions expressed by these, is unlikely to have a place (because of undue) in regular articles about the topic of the views. In the particular case about Monckton, the material is entirely without personal remarks, its a professional criticism of the material that Monckton presents in his global warming tour. It follows SPS completely, and nothing in the material has BLP problems (ie. it would go 100% uncontested in all articles). The case is not one of BLP, but one of due weight (or not). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is simply a matter of principle: you do not link to self-published criticism of the BLP subject in a BLP, not even criticism written by an expert. There are all manner of private websites out there criticising scholars and politicians. If you are arguing that we should be able to link to such self-published criticism, this is a clear departure from BLP practice per this policy, as well as WP:ELBLP and WP:SPS. The scientist, Abraham, actually put his own case in an article in the Guardian environment blog as well. That is an acceptable source under BLP policy.

If including self-published sources in the Further reading or External links section of BLPs is disallowed by policy, then for you to argue that it is fine to insert them in the article text, or as a reference, is simply an evasion of existing BLP policy. Policy as written is very clear: "In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline." "Never use self-published sources." --JN466 16:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a misrepresentation of the source. The source is not "criticism of the BLP subject". The presentation is clinically clean of any aspertions. speculation on motives, personal comments etc. It is a professional critique of material presented by the subject, where the expert goes out of the way not to state who is right or wrong. And that is not BLP material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> It is self-published and you want to use it in a BLP ... --JN466 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

<sigh yourself>There is no difference between material presented in a biography and material presented in a "regular" article with regards to BLP, it either is or isn't BLP-material (or biographical). [add: with the caveat of course that context matters, anything can become a BLP problem if misused] You are not looking at what the policy is intended to - but instead using it as a hammer. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's right. You're not supposed to use self-published sources as sources for material about a living person, whether in a BLP or elsewhere, and in BLP articles, you are not supposed to use external links to self-published sources. I still don't understand how you conclude from that that it is fine to use self-published sources in BLP articles, which are all about living persons. Arguing that a self-published source inserted in a BLP, all of which is about a presentation given by the BLP subject, and which the BLP subject has described as a "savage personal attack", is somehow "not BLP material", is an astounding bit of logic. --JN466 19:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with this proposed change on two accounts. First, I feel that saying "or any other sections" waters down the original intent of the paragraph (which was to deal specifically with "Further reading" and "External links" sections). Second, I hesitate to put language here which would go beyond what is already said in the WP:ELBLP guideline, which says that "material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links." Now, of course, if the consensus is that WP:ELBLP isn't strong enough on this point, all well and good, but in that case we should be sure of what we're doing and should revise WP:ELBLP to conform to the newly stated policy here. Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 16:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

ELBLP is a guideline only. The original intent of the "Further reading and external links" paragraph is and has always been that external links to self-published sources, especially critical sources, should not be used in BLPs. --JN466 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the wording of WP:ELBLP is fine, actually. But wouldn't you say that the change proposed here is in line with WP:ELBLP? ELBLP states, as you say, "should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links." An external link is not just an entry in a section called "External links". An external link is any link placed in an article that takes the reader to another site when clicked upon. Links placed in the body of an article like this are deprecated, but where they are used, they fall within the purview of WP:EL and WP:ELBLP. --JN466 18:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved in arguments where editors have put the actual web address of an inappropriate website in an article (www.nastysite.com/) and claimed that it isn't a "link" and therefore the exclusion policy doesn't apply.Momento (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The name of a website is not a link. Sometimes websites which we would not use as sources have been noted in other, reliable sources as relevant to a topic. Just because something is unsuitable as a source does not mean that we should ban all mention of the publication.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Might want to clarify that such links as official campaign sites of politicians, and column archives of journalists, do not fall under the self-published sources exclusion and are acceptable in the External links section of articles about that specific person. Giving examples never hurts. Flatterworld (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Two really novel ideas

Idea 1

I was looking at a highly contentious AFD today - 11 year old child, broadly negative reasons for possible notability, and the usual division between "notability and usual inclusion criteria" v. "delete it now to prevent harm and discuss afterwards".

I had a thought. There are BLPs which have considerable potential for harm while we discuss them at AFD, such as BLPs of minors who come to attention as in this case. If the article is ultimately kept then we are broadly okay, but if deleted we may have exposed a person to harm for a week while discussing. This concern puts pressure on participants and encourages out of process action and drama.

Is there any mileage to this idea? It's novel but it might help. May need fine tuning.

AFDs of biographical articles of a negative nature or affecting minors Biographical articles of minors (under 18) or that suggest a negative perception of its subject, may have special treatment at AFD. Any administrator with a concern that the duration of AFD would expose such an article to public view causing a significant risk of harm, may move the article to a subpage of its talk page (a non-indexed space), and blank the entire article from mainspace apart from the AFD template and any disambiguation, category and interwiki links while the discussion is in progress. The AFD template will note the temporary location of the article, which may be referenced and worked on as usual during AFD. Following a final decision (including any deletion review) the article may be moved back to mainspace (if kept) or deleted (otherwise).

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support the idea with several concerns. Userfying and noindexing the page isn't the most effective way to hide it, but we can't simply delete the page and let only admins participate in an AfD. Perhaps we should create a special projectspace subpage instead? Also, having to do histmerges routinely isn't really ideal, nor is having a blank article placeholder for a week. Why not just delete the original, move a noindexed copy for work during the AfD, and then remove back or delete that copy after the AfD is complete? This is more in line with the "delete it now and discuss later" concept, but there would still be one visible copy somewhere during the AfD. In addition, why does it matter if the person is a minor or not? All BLPs should be eligible for "protection" under this method. Obviously, children may be at an elevated position of vulnerability, but we can't just let other articles' discussions contain similar negative content and let that stand. Lastly, I think that, due to the nature of the discussions that would be covered in this, we should blank the AfDs as well. —fetch·comms 00:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Simplifying, the article could just be moved and noindexed (without redirect) to userspace and a standard bare template placeholder page in mainspace to inform of the AFD. Outright exclusion of non-admins seems inappropriate and undesirable; the vast majority of users and potential participants are not admins. It's also not needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the last bit, but what I don't understand is why we should use userspace (and if so, whose page, the admin's?), and why we should leave the placeholder rather than just delete the whole page and have a note in the deletion log, to make the AfD a bit more low-key (although that would hurt consensus, possibly). —fetch·comms 03:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick reply: 1/ Mainspace is locked against NOINDEX so it can't be there; userspace is used for drafts including articles being worked on already and allows NOINDEX. So it's an existing norm people are used to and no real better namespace exists. 2/ Any page in userspace. It'll be linked for AFD participants anyhow so it doesn't matter. Moving admin chooses the spot, probably their userspace temporarily, it's not important. 3/ The #1 way people find out about AFDs is those users who visiting the page and see the template, the placeholder is to avoid affecting the AFD balance. I don't have a problem with the article being visible per se - after all we work on and review articles while at AFD and many userspace drafts have negative or unbalanced content while being worked on. The important thing is moving it out of mainspace keeps it accessible to review and improve but as far as the actual encyclopedia's mainspace and the outside world is concerned, the page has been deleted or replaced by a bare AFD template. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I doubt I support all this, but can't you move the info to the talk page, or a sub page of the talk page, and no index it? Or is that considered main space? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all talk spaces are noindexed (I believe) so a subpage of the article's talk page might be quite sensible. Draft edited to reflect this. Also makes it much simpler, therefore easier to apply to other situations if needed per Fetchcomms's comments. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

←Support using a talk page subpage. One other question—would we be deleting the history of the original page by moving it directly to the talk or do a copy-paste and histmerge later? —fetch·comms 01:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Both work. Page move without a redirect (or overwriting the redirect) would preserve all history and logs; cut-paste would require later edits to be merged in but we do that anyway for all other copy-paste moves and hostmerges (like you say) so this isn't anything difficulty or new. Overall page move is probably easier. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Alternative suggestion: If the 7 day duration of the AfD risks harmful further exposure, then edit the page (and AfD) to remove/abbreviate/disguise key search terms, including the subject's name. Editing the page in this way will obscure the keywords in the search engine caches, and will alleviate the cached exposure problem better than deletion. Moving the search-engine-interesting page to an existing no_index space will cause the search-engines utilising fuzzy logic to increasingly disregard our no_index request tags. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• This page would have been much harder to find if every occurrence of the name had been changed to "Jessi S.". Google would've quickly updated its cache, and lost the keywords. Now, as it stands, google can't find the old page, and so the cache version will linger. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsure of the technical accuracy of this. If Jessie Slaughter's article had been treated as proposed, as far as Google would be concerned the article would be replaced by a page containing a single template, and the actual text would vanish in its entirety. Using substituted terms for everything that might be key - places, people, nature of event isn't reliable enough. For example quite possibly google: gun massacre could have been enough to get you the Virginia tech massacre at the time of its media appearance, without names of the dead, the killer, the state, or the school. And it messes round with review and improvement at AFD - which would not be an issue on a noindex namespace. So not convinced obscurity is useful though it's worth suggesting. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with FT2 here--just not as viable an option as I think is needed for all aspects of a discussion. —fetch·comms 01:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is not "viable", but I do think it inferior to Hobit's suggestion of blanking, and I then take FT2's point. This leads me to think that the idea should be opposed. If the content is so [anything] that it must be removed, then surely a CSD criteria should exist. If a discussion is desired, post-speedy deletion, then the discussion can be conducted with a blanked version available for review. But on the other hand, circumventing normal processes tends to exacerbate, not alleviate, problems. What damage is really done by leaving something live for a week that has not already been done by the article or by the available sources presumably drawn upon by the article? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• If we do this I think the right way to do it is just blank the page and tag it, much like we do with DrV when an article's history is restored. There is no reason to jump through any other hoops that I can see though I'd be interested in hearing what people think. I am mildly opposed because A) I suspect the BLP crew will be arguing to do this with all perceived negative BLPs pretty quickly and B) I think this kind of protective action will greatly bias the discussion. So weak oppose for now. Hobit (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Blanking and tagging works for static content such as concluded discussions or pages held for reference only. It doesn't work well for content such as articles at AFD where ongoing editing is actually encouraged and may take place during the AFD process. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Still don't like having a single person make the call to remove an article from view that might be really important. Imagine, say, one of the president's children were hit in a terrorist attack. If one admin felt that having an article on the child (or the event as BLP issues reach into such things) we'd have no visible article for the duration of the AfD. Sure that one _might_ get snowed fast enough to get it back quickly, but still seems like a bad idea. Honestly I think this should just stay in the realm of IAR. If you are sure the community will agree with you, do the move, start the AfD and go from there. But expect to get slammed into the stone age if you're wrong. Is this such a common problem we need to address it otherwise? Hobit (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think we are all likely to agree that the general idea is good. I think the problem does occur for one or two articles a day, and for BLPs that's enough to have a procedure for it. I think the need for editing makes ordinary blanking usually not the best solution, considering that many such issues are resolved during the AfD by proper editing of the article. Nor am I worried about unbridled admin discretion when the article does, after all, remain viewable. Perhaps instances where this is done should be mentioned on the BLP noticeboard. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Idea 2

Should we add a strong suggestion that users creating BLPs are suggested to check at WP:BLP/N in advance of writing, whether the article subject looks viable in principle? It's easy to sum up the proposed evidence of notability and the key reliable sources in 4-5 lines, to get a couple of quick comments.

Encouraging this would mean that for very little extra work, we filter out many unsuitable BLPs early, educate many would-be newcomer BLP writers, and people are less likely to be discouraged by expending a lot of effort writing an article only to see it deleted. (BLPs are often of non-notable people and end up deleted, more so than most articles, which probably discourages at least some good faith authors)

if you are not very sure, then before you create an article on (or closely connected to) a person - especially a minor, someone seen negatively in the media, or yourself or someone connected to you - please summarize in a few lines the reason for notability and some of the key reliable sources you will use, and ask for a quick opinion on the subject's suitability for a Wikipedia article.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose because this makes more arguments amongst more experienced users (like AfD before the article is created) and many new users will not understand the gravity of BLPs and simply create non-notable articles for people without this extra step. —fetch·comms 00:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Isn't it the job of AFC or the incubator? They already do it, every day. East of Borschov 04:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This isn't about the incubator. It's about making it more the norm to try to find ways to get users unfamiliar with BLP and proposing to write a BLP to quickly get feedback first whether the BLP they are proposing actually looks viable in terms of valid sources and evidence for notability existing - before they spend a few days writing it only to see it deleted.

    It would save editor discouragement but also greatly reduce the number of BLPs that get created only to be inevitably deleted (with possible harm in between from spidering), and educate new users in our way of working, with no negative impact at all on viable BLPs or capable experienced editors. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

    • … which, as East of Borschov said, is something that Wikipedia:Articles for creation does for a wide range of articles, not just biographies, on a daily basis, and which already has all of the mechanisms and standards for sourcing in place. Uncle G (talk) 06:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A well intentioned but unaware Wikipedia reader with a few typo fixes behind them (typical newcomer) or a band or business owner, decides to edit, in order to create a page on their band, or for some news story they liked in the mornings tabloid. Articles for creation and the incubator, and all advice and help, are completely bypassed by that. This is about raising awareness of the value of quick-checking evidence of likely viability before wasting their and our time or causing other issues (BLP) creating a topic, and the pages mentioned are not visible enough to do that. This one is about finding somewhere prominent in the interface so that newish editors will be aware in some way when creating an article, and then trying to ensure more new editors do actually see it and take up the suggestion to ask before (not after) creating the possible COI article. We aren't doing that and it would be beneficial to the user and project if we started to consider it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposal, as it stands now, says "ask for advice if you want to ...". Otherwise... what?

Perhaps articles about minors need a stricter rule, like mandatory incubation and pending-changes watch. But will it detect new articles any better than present-day patrol and deletion procedures? East of Borschov 07:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

This one's just about finding ways to catch more newcomer-authors before their comtemplated articles are created, and getting a friendly and useful message to them that makes them more aware of the benefits of seeking quick pre-writing eyeballs on the evidence and likely notability. It's not about anything compulsary.

If more new editors were encouraged to ask "here's the basis and evidence, do people reckon this subject is notable" before writing, we'll avoid a great many avoidable deletion debates and CSD's, a great many non-notable BLPs that are added only to be removed, we'll educate new editors to our norms, we'll avoid an early source of discouragement to potential content writers,and the content writers will often save time by finding what people think of notability before investing hours in drafting.

Mandatory incubation for new articles is a heavy duty stick, it's an option but not the one here. This one is an educational and "early inform" step. Hope this explains. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

From working at AfC, we: a. Cannot handle a lot more requests without more help and b. Many users don't listen to the "suggestions" and either create the article themselves separately or simply ignore the whole spiel in the article/AfC wizard about notability and whatnot and still submit obviously nonnotable subjects. I'm all for a solution, but it just doesn't seem viable to me, as people almost never listen. Sighs. —fetch·comms 01:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like excellent advice, as long as it isn't a hard rule, and doesn't contribute to saturation of messaging to new users. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's key advice for new users creating their first couple of articles more than anything. Perhaps we could integrate this into the interface (with a small "dismiss" button) for a user or IP creating their first article or two? Not complicated - a simple script would easily do it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose there are far too many BLPs for this to be practical. Checking for a clearly contentious case might have some sense, but usually it's much better to judge after seeing an article. Raising the issue on the noticeboard first will generally just result in two successive debates. There might be some purposes in advising writing such articles in user space first. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Idea 3

(Forked from a comment at Idea 1 by Hobit) - what about simply adding this:

In very exceptional cases for articles appropriately listed at AFD, it has been held that the ultimate end will be deletion and that the exposure during AFD while that conclusion is reached would be unduly harmful. In such cases administrators have in the past deleted out of usual process with an invitation to discuss reinstatement at deletion review, an approach which allows discussion but is less harmful if the article ends up being deleted. Since this process disenfranchises non-administrators, who cannot see nor improve the article once deleted, it should not be used except in serious cases. BLPs of minors and BLPs of uncertain notability with well sourced negative material are the two most common situation. [Optional:] A courtesy copy of the article may be saved as a subpage of the article talk page to allow review without mirroring, or a WP:DRV placeholder left at the article page if the article's absence is likely to be widely noticed, both at administrator judgment.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, same problem as idea 1. Further, you've expanded it to an additional category. I do very much worry that those admins who last mass deleted BLPs out of process and those that supported the same will abuse this. In any case, I've become of the opinion that expanded powers for admins should have a 6 month review window. Otherwise getting rid of bad ideas that a vocal minority supports is nearly impossible. So should this gain support I'd push hard for such a trial period. Hobit (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
• Deleting out of process is such a problematic matter that we shouldn't write this into the rules. Arb Com did enough damage by giving the admins the power to speedy in such cases without review except at Deletion Review--a process that inevitably gets more exposure than an ordinary AfD. Anyone relying on what is essentially IAR should know that they are chancing the consent of the community, as it's only supposed to be done when it's clear almost everyone would agree. Any horrible exception that arises will presumably be dealt with as it should, by OFFICE. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• We already have Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. I'm not sure what this would add. If there are concerns about pages that disparage or threaten their subject then G10 may be used. Seven days for a reasonable and calm discussion on the notability of a subject without the moral weighting that a restriction may impose seems appropriate. While it is appropriate that we conduct ourselves at all times with due respect for others, it may be difficult for us to proceed if restrictions are imposed for the assumed and potential hurts our reasonable everyday actions may have. Delete inappropriate articles and inappropriate comments, yes - and have guidelines regarding civil and respectful behaviour, yes. But we might need a psychologist to give us some data on the potential harm a sober discussion on the notability of an article on a subject may have; my instinct would lead me to think that the deletion of the article may itself cause harm, as the subject may feel rejected. It is difficult to second guess what harm people may experience by us going about our reasonable everyday actions. It may be more appropriate to ensure we carry out our actions in a reasonable and respectful manner, than to impose restrictions on those actions. SilkTork *^YES! 11:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Chiefs of Clan MacLeod

I wonder if someone with some experience of BLPs could take a look at this article. We have a user adding uncited material that relates to living persons (and in addition making uncited remarks of a wider nature). I am now at the threshold of 3RR and don't want to make rash assumptions about what is and isn't acceptable. Thanks, Ben MacDui 18:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Subtly dodging BLP1E

Recently, I've come upon a few articles or proposed articles which skirt close to having problems with WP:BLP1E. As we know, we can't have an article on a person famous for only one event, as this tends to give undue weight to that one event in that person's life. There are exceptions, of course, for people like John Hinckley, Jr., whose one event (trying to assassinate a head of state) is exceptionally well documented and notable. The policy further states, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." All of this makes lots of sense to me. What concerns me is the case where the "event" is strictly focused upon that one person, and where the article further delves into great detail about that person but not necessarily other things. The most striking example I've found recently is Arrest of Bradley Manning (the person currently suspected of leaking the mass of documents to Wikileaks about the Afghan war). To me, if the event is really "that person's arrest," then it seems like the use of a different title is just a way of silencing people who are concerned that the article violates BLP1E. Furthermore, the article goes into fairly extensive detail about Davis' life, conversations surrounding the event he is alleged to be involved in, etc., none of which seem directly related to his life. This issue has been raised on the talk page, but consensus is still out. Now, I don't know if Manning should or should not have an article on him, but I don't think that we can avoid the very serious concern of BLP1E simply by taking on a title like "Arrest of..."

Now, I was just going to let this go, as I may very well be wrong, but I've also been following Steven Slater (the Jetblue employee who got into an altercation with a passenger and hopped off the plane through the emergency exit). In this case, I think the article is clearly a BLP1E, but that, too, isn't my concern. Rather, at the AfD for the article, someone has recently suggested that we can avoid the BLP1E basically by renaming the article (probably to something like "Jetblue incident involving Steven Slater").

So, I'm wondering what others here think. Is BLP1E so easily avoided? Is it really about article titles, or about the content of those articles? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Both seem to me to be a clear case of WP:COATRACK. Roger (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, you can't have it both ways: either an event should be covered per BLP1E, or the article should be focused on its main subject, per COATRACK. So which applies? Can't be both. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO BLP1E is problematic. There are plenty of people who are notable for one event that makes them worthy of their own article. These are the people who played pivital roles in major events. Manning, IMO, is such a person. This incident may be a single event, but I can easily see this case being studied years down the road. There is a possibility of books or at least chapters in books being written about him. IMO, there are also people who are only notable for one event, but still deserve articles even though they didn't do anything beyond that one event. This includes people such as athletes and actors, the people who have tasted the fruits of their dreams only to fail to achieve them again. People where having an article to say, "This person was only a one hit wonder" is actually meaningful. So-and-so won a grammy award, but did they ever win anything else? So-and-so played major league baseball for the Texas Rangers, but did he do anything else? When it is an award/recognition for something that people think might be repeatable, then I think BLP1E becomes an obstacle. With Slater, his life is immaterial to the event in question and the odds of something similar happening are unlikely. He's in the news today, but in a month people won't care or remember his name. Slater will never achieve this level of fame again, it was a fluke. He is the poster child for BLP1E.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

One cannot predict how people will use their one time notoriety. Look at Joe the Plumber. Meanwhile an online encyclopedia looks silly if it doesn't cover such people/events. Over time if it comes to naught and especially if the person complains, the article can be removed. Bradley Manning will remain significant, no matter if he confesses, goes straight to jail, and we never hear from him again. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No, these one time people are text book definitions of NOTNEWS. If they can maintain their importance/significance, they sure keep an article, but right now he is in the news and that's it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Balloonman, the restrictive misapplication of BLP1E prompted me to write WP:WIALPI, since I've seen it misapplied so many times. BLP1E only applies to people who aren't celebrities of any stripe. Jclemens (talk) 14:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And unlikely to remain celebrities... my favorite example, because it is the area where I work mostly, are World Series of Poker bracelet winners. There are a lot of bracelet winners who never win another high dollar event. Technically, they fit under BLP1E, but in my opinion not having an article on them is incorrect. First, they won the most covetted non-monetary prize in poker that "defines" poker elite---thus the competed at the highest level of the sport. Second, If people are looking them up, it is likely they know that the person won at least one bracelet and want to know if they've won something else. In this case, having a link back to the event they won doesn't tell the reader anything. Does it link back because nobody has ever written an article on them or does it link back because it was the only event they've ever won. I firmly believe that when you stumble accross people like this, that it is better to have a stub to say, "he did nothing else in his career" than to hide behind beaucracy and deny an article on BLP1E, because the reader has a reasonable ground to suspect that they might have done something else.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As the person who has recommended renaming and rewriting the article to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052, I don't think it's fair to say I'm trying to "subtly dodge BLP1E". I have made the point that we have a whole class of article devoted to aviation incidents and supported this with a list of precedents and a pre-existing proposed notability guideline. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies that I never followed up, and apologies if you thought I was referring to your move suggestion. I was more concerned with people who suggested (I feel like I remember) moving it to something like "Stephen Slater Incident," or to moving it to the article you mentioned but keeping all of the information about Slater intact. I agree that articles about flight incidents can certainly be notable (I'm not sure about this one, but that's neither here nor there); I also think that the way this particular article was handled was fine (by moving the info to a subsection of the Jetblue Airways article). I guess what really happened was that the Arrest of Bradley Manning article had been bothering me for a while, and then when I saw the suggestions on the Slater article, it tripped me over into trying to look for a wider point of view. I don't view your suggested move as a dodging of BLP1E (so long as the article focused on the event, not on Slater himself, which is I believe what you meant)--sorry for any implication bad faith on your part. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Prod blp tag date not needed anymore

Does the date March 18, 2010 need to be included anymore? Currently you have this as a tag:

"All biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have references; this is to help prevent incorrect material from being added. Currently, this article appears to have no sources. A ten-day period will be given to allow the article to be sourced. If it is not referenced after ten days of this message being tagged, it may then be deleted"

Why not this:

"All biographies of living persons must have references; this is to help prevent incorrect material from being added. Currently, this article appears to have no sources. A ten-day period will be given to allow the article to be sourced. If it is not referenced after ten days of this message being tagged, it may then be deleted"

By this logic, are the articles created before March 18, 2010 that currently have no resources exempt from this rule then? Changing this would also be helpful as it would make:

Not needed - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is the case – only new (after March 18, 2010) BLPs are eligible to be BLP-prodded. NW (Talk) 19:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

To me though that is pointless, why is there a BLP unsourced tag when people auto prod unsourced BLP's? Old unsourced articles made before March 18, 2010 can still be harmful as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

What the date is meant to mean is that articles created before March 18, 2010 are not subject to the "sticky prodding" process. They can still be deleted via other means if they are unsourced. –xeno^talk 19:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay that is out then and I feel okay on that but why is the BLP unsourced tag needed then if new Unsourced BLP's are prodded? It is a tag that can be placed on an article for months verses a PROD that gives 10 days. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For old unsourced BLPs? For users who wish to take a softer approach than prodding? –xeno^talk 20:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Old unsourced BLPs I can see but looking at articles such as this It just seems silly to me and the PROD way basiclly says add a source and be quick about it verses a simple tag that can be placed on an article for more than 10 days. Im just trying to make heads and tails of this thing sorry if it is bothersome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

One is a deletion notice, one is an article maintenance notice. They are slightly redundant, but not mutually exclusive. –xeno^talk 20:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)