Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 29

Oscar Wyatt

The main problems with Oscar Wyatt are the seas of unsourced sentences, and also the fact that editors tried to whitewash the fact that he served time in federal prison. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What constitutes a BLP?

When should the prod blp tag be used? Would it apply to, for example, a band page if there are no reliable sources? Or should it only be used on a biography? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

When does it not apply? Take for example Caiaphas. Anything he is alleged to have conspired to do thousands of years ago can simply be taken as gospel (pun intended) with no impact on any person living today, no? Hcobb (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I understand. Why would BLP apply to a person who's been dead for 2000 years? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, BLPPROD should generally only be used on individual BLPs, not on groups of living people like bands. You can A7 or PROD bands, and remove any specific BLP-violating material, but BLPPROD isn't appropriate for articles on groups of people. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

All three elements are necessary - It must be a Biography, the subject must be Living and they must be a Person. I've declined BLPprods on people who are dead or fictional and I would happily decline one on a dog or a racehorse. There are reasons why we are more cautious about information on living people, and those reasons do not apply to Roman Consuls, even if they were once living humans. ϢereSpielChequers 09:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I understand, on those cases, but what about an article about a band, where it makes personal claims about members of the band, and there are no sources? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

This may violate BLP if the personal claims are derogatory. BLP applies not just when the subject of the article is a living person, but when there are living persons identified in other articles. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles on bands are not technically BLPs but they are what I call "high risk" articles. I've been thinking that they should be given some of the same protections as BLPs. (exemption from 3RR for unsourced content etc.) I might propose that on VPP but right now I would have to agree that BLP prods are only for individual BLPs.

Another example of "high risk" articles are companies currently in business. A marginally notable "mom and pop" restaurant can be damaged by unsourced negative information in its article (example, health and/or safety violations) just as a living person can. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced contentious material about living individuals is covered by the existing BLP policy regardless of what type article it is in. Any editor can (and should) immediately remove such material on their own, without any process other than a clear edit summary. The Prod processes are for removing entire articles. That gets a higher priority for articles about a living person than one about a band or store. --agr (talk) 19:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] My point is that BLP should be regarded as applicable whenever living people are identified in articles. An article does not have to focus on a particular living person for BLP to apply. For example, if I insert disparaging information in the article "Jam" about a particular maker of jam, BLP is applicable. (I don't think it would be necessary to nominate the entire "Jam" article for deletion, just the offending portion.) — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two subtly different things here. We have a policy on biographical information about living people which applies to a very large amount of information on wikipedia, and we have an extra deletion mechanism that applies to unsourced new Biographies of Living people. The latter is a new process that started less than 6 months ago and has just come through an RFC that comprehensively reviewed it. As a veteran of four RFCs so far this year I would suggest that broadening the BLP Prod process to articles about bands and other articles that aren't biographies but contain biographical material would be contentious, and I consider would require a fresh RFC. Since we failed on this last occasion to get agreement even to widen the BLP Prod from unsourced new BLPs to poorly sourced ones I really doubt we could get consensus to broaden BLP prods to every article that mentions a living person. ϢereSpielChequers 22:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Steen Slater

A user has objected to this material [[1]] as trimed for reason of BLP (I am n ot sure what this is supposed to mean exaclty) is this material in breach of BLP?Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems overly drastic to me, but I think Rob is basing they're edit on WP:BLP1E where we sometimes write about the event and not the person. They watch this page. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But in this respect its Mr Slaters actions that are the event. The page is effectily (or at least Rob is trying to make it) trying to only present his (mr Slaters) version.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to ask him, then. I thought this was WP:BLPN, he may not comment here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That is whny I was asking, none of this seems to be a BLP violation, so Robs justification is not vlaid.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant ask at BLPN, not here, if you haven't already. That page gets the specific question traffic, whereas this page is for discussing general policy (I think). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP1E--move, revise, or what?

BLP1E has been cited in any number of deletion debates where WP:BIO1E is probably the more appropriate link. To recap, BLP1E, as a BLP page, should be focused on protecting people from undue, possibly harmful publicity, while BIO1E, as a notability guideline, should be focused on keeping non-notable people who don't object to their 15 minutes of fame out of the encyclopedia. The misuse I've seen is people talking about a de facto notability guideline, but using the "BLP" aspect of articles on individual living people as a lever in disagreements. In thinking over this, I think I see a few possible remedies:

1) Hatnote each, summarizing the usage I've outlined, and adjusting the wording of each as necessary to clarify.

2) Move the current text of BLP1E out of BLP and merge most of it into BIO1E, and replace BLP1E with a to-be-developed statement on the protection of people featured in the news against their will and to their detriment.

3) Move both into a unified document on handling biographies of marginally notable people, where both issues can be elaborated side-by side.

Thoughts? Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The third option – merging the two – sounds like the best option to me; it has been cited enough and has enough little intricacies that a fully blown-out policy page would be the best way to explain them all. However, the fact that the page should be policy is crucial, to me at least. BLP1E is one of our most important tools for preventing biographies of living persons to be completely given undue weight, and relegating it to guideline status wouldn't do. NW (Talk) 12:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the amount of history and the importance of the issue, I see no problem with trying to reformulate an integrated approach per option 3 into an outright policy. I would welcome the discussion that should prompt, because when I try and point out "No, that's not what BLP1E means..." to vote-and-run participants, I'm rarely met with any comprehension. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, option 3) sounds reasonable. We do need to have a policy-level (and not just a guideline) page covering the 1E aspect of all biographies, whether the subject is living or not. The language used in BLP1E is pretty stable and, IMO, better than the current language of BIO1E. Just today, to my considerable surprise, I saw an argument presented in an AfD where a user claimed that while BLP1E can be used as rationale for deletion, BIO1E cannot. Nsk92 (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree--that's silly. Now, BIO1E is a notability issue, whereas BLP1E is a BLP issue, so I can see where they might be arguing that BIO1E is a less important issue (which is its own problem...), but asserting BIO1E can't be a cause for deletion is like asserting N cannot be! Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for BLP watchers to comment on AfD

I've nominated List of Indian muslims for deletion (Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian muslims). I'd like to request input comments from those close to BLP policy, as I think the topic has important BLP ramifications. I wasn't sure whether to put this here or at WP:BLPN, so feel free to move if that's a better location. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• I commented, it's a bad idea to do a category though as it has the same BLP concerns. Secret ^account 22:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Others have pointed out that a category at least has a better chance of the BLP-related category being properly cited in the article than inclusion in a list, where it's often (erroneously, IMO) seen as acceptable just to wikilink to the article and assume that things will be referenced there. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Attack pages

There seems to be a division of opinion among the policy editors and also in a current RFA as to whether an unsourced negative Bio would qualify as a G10 if it might actually be correct. EG the unsourced bio of an alleged murderer. My view is that plausible sounding attack pages are worse than implausible ones, and the place to assume good faith is on the talkpage of the author of the article that you've deleted. - I have written some very non-standard explanations after I've deleted as G10 completely unsourced bios of alleged mafiosi. But others may think differently. So does anyone want to make the case for leaving up plausible sounding totally unsourced articles in case it is true that someone "killed many innocent people". ϢereSpielChequers 12:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'd rather be wrong than sued. Delete first and if they want to recreate using sources, god bless.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Deleting attack pages - rewording

The current wording is:

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

I think this doesn't adequately reflect policy. We deal with what pages are, and the likely impact, not second guessing the purpose of the creator (which we should, where possible, assume was good faith). I suggest this wording should be:

Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, and which may disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to [change emphasised]

I made the change ([WP:BRD]]), but was reverted on the grounds that ""appear to" is the critical wording - otherwise legitimate bios of criminals may be classified as "attack pages""". I'd simply point out that the key word is "unsourced". A sourced bio of a criminal should certainly not be speedy deleted , but an unsourced one should be regardless of the creator's intent (it is not, by our definition, "legitimate"). We can't allow unsourced articles claiming that a living person has committed crimes to hang about. (And indeed we don't!) I submit the wording should thus be updated to reflect policy.--Scott Mac 12:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the place to show good faith is on the author's talkpage when you are explaining why you deleted their article and how they can get it restored if they supply a reliable source for the (unspecified) contentious bit. Incidentally NW has already reverted to your wording. ϢereSpielChequers 12:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Scott Mac, that the current wording seems to require an interpretation of editorial intent, something which is pretty difficult to do. I also agree with NW, in that even if the intention is good, unsourced negative information should be deleted; if this results in a whole article being deleted, then good sense requires that we do so. A well written article which asserts believable negative things about a person, but doesn't provide reliable sources for those negative things, could prove extremely damaging to that person if it remains on Wikipedia. I recently remember reading, perhaps in someone's essay, that, while at one point in Wikipedia's history we could argue that we didn't need to be so swift to take drastic action, it really matters now, given that Wikipedia articles now very often appear in the top 5 Google hits for any given search, even for pages created within the last hour. Plus, of course, the legal issues involved with having unsourced negative information (not that I'm a lawyer, or recommending a legal position, but it was my understanding that legal ramifications were part of the rationale behind BLP policy). The new wording helps clarify that, while all information on WP must be sourced, the importance of sourcing negative BLP information is so high that it cannot go through the normal process of adding, getting tagged for needing sources, and waiting around for those sources to come in.Qwyrxian (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Doing a crime isn't a claim to notability unless several reliable sources come up so it comes under A7, I don't think it's falls as an attack page, unless it's claims notability but google turns up nothing. If there is a source, WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E usually applies and it could be deleted by AFD or prod. Secret ^account 14:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No. This has nothing to do with notability. If an article claims a living individual is a criminal, but lacks any credible sourcing, it must be deleted, notable or not. If the person seeing it wishes to find a source and insert it, all good and well, but they are not required to do that. Negative unsourced bios may be speedied, regardless of the intention of the creator, and regardless of the notability asserted.--Scott Mac 14:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles on Tibetan lamas and other venerated religious figures

Unfortunately it seems many articles on Wikipedia about individual Tibetan lamas usually look less like objective summaries of verifiable biographical material than they do mini-hagiographies or promotional material. Usually it turns out the main contributors are either disciples of the lama concerned or have some close involvement with that particular lama’s own religious tradition. While this may provide some “insider knowledge”, it usually heavily biases the content with a particular non-objective POV.

Often much of the material seems drawn directly from the Lama's website or that of a directly affiliated Dharma group. Usually these are full of totally unverifiable claims saying the lama is an incarnation or emantion of some historic holy person, bodhidattva, or Buddhist diety. If one tries to improve these articles to make them more objective they are invitably reverted or modified by devoted followers putting them back more or less the way they were before - often increasingly so.

Hope I don't get confined to some vajra-hell for raising this, but should devoted disciples (or disaffected former disciples) of a Lama be actively be encouraged to preclude themselves from editing articles about their "root guru" or "spiritual lineage" on grounds of conflict of interest? The goals of being a good disciple in the Tibetan tradition and those of Wikipedia often seem to be mutually opposed.

The same of course goes for articles on other "holy" or venerated religious figures of all faiths - but it seems safer to raise the issue with Buddhists.

Chris Fynn (talk) 19:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a brief look at some articles you edited recently, and I think I agree:

• 12th Gyalwang Drukpa: Essentially unsourced or sourced to autobiographical material. Notability unclear, looks like a candidate for merging into Gyalwang Drukpa if no reliable secondary sources can be found. Unacceptable use (even overuse) of the honorific "His Holiness". (Per MOS:HONORIFIC: "Styles and honorifics related to clergy and royalty, including but not limited to His Holiness and Her Majesty, should not be included in the text inline but may be discussed in the article proper.")
• Tsem Tulku: Almost exclusively sourced to subject's website. Dubious notability. Overuse of the honorific "Rinpoche", in one case even without the name.
• New Kadampa Tradition: This huge article is obviously harder to assess. E.g., are the 10 vows in the "Ordination" section a distinctive feature worth pointing out in this way, or is this part of an attempt to give a self-contained reference for insiders with no reference to the related traditions that use the same vows? The huge section "Separation from contemporary Tibetan Buddhism", ending with a small subsection on the most prominent aspect, the Dorje Shugden controversy (most of which was moved to a separate article) doesn't look kosher at all. (But I note that formally COI doesn't apply for religions as a whole, and also probably not for such huge traditions as a whole.) Hans Adler 14:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistencies/ambiguities in categories about various forms of bigotry

Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates, different forms of bigotry are obviously relevant to categories that "suggest that the persons included in the list or template have a poor reputation." The categories below mostly list individuals and groups, as well as more general articles.

Category:Anti-Catholicism - Category:Anti-Islam sentiment - Category:Anti-Judaism- Category:Antisemitism - Category:Homophobia - Category:Racism - Category:Sexism

Some of those individuals are indeed bigots according to WP:RS, while some of them have worked against bigotry or been victims of it. Some of these articles have warnings that listing there does "not imply that the subjects of any articles in the category are" quilty of which ever form of bigotry the category deals with. Most of the categories have no comment at all. I didn't see any of the two templates which suggest that no names should be in these categories at all, located at Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Category_namespace_templates. Both refer one to WP:BLPCAT (this article), which is what I believe needs further clarification on this issue where category inconsistency and ambiguity is such a problem.

While I personally think the honest and accurate thing to do is just have categories of those against whom sufficient numbers of WP:RS have made allegations (if only to find and weed out those with poorly sourced or WP:unde allegations), I doubt that would pass BLP. The other alternative, as recommended after this Categories for discussion-Homophobia discussion would be to make it the policy “no articles for allegedly homophobic people (including fictional people), organizations, or media should exist in this category,” replacing the relevant category for homophobic.

This seems to be a policy issue that needs to be made here and not on a case by case basis at each category after long frustrating discussions. Thoughts? Otherwise I'll have some more. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone who might have seen this discussion here or at Category:Antisemitism has now created Category:People_accused_of_antisemitism which makes discussion more relevant. I'm hot to start Category:People_accused_of_sexism but will wait for community input. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Absolute opposition to categories of this nature. Categories such as Category:People_accused_of_sexism are a very, very, very bad idea. People get accused of being insensitive to some group or other all the time, and it's not something we want to start categorizing by because of BLP concerns, as well as concerns of what standard to use and how "credible" the accusation or allegation has to be. People should also not be included in such categories as Category:Antisemitism just because they have been accused of having made an antisemitic remark. I thought this would be self-evident, but apparently it needs to be stated clearly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It was I who created Category:People accused of antisemitism and I actually thought Category:Anti-Semitic people still existed and wanted to a different category for actual confirmed antisemites than people merely accused of it. Earlier such people were all put into Category:Antisemitism with all the BLP problems that gives. // Liftarn (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To Good Olfactory: but are you opposed to people who are alleged antisemities or sexists or whatever being put in Category:Antisemitism or Category:Sexism? It's the end run around the BLP policy that many have a problem with. Evidently that's why those templates were established. And yet in some articles it has been decided to allow this to happen with a wink and a nod. Does there need to be a firm policy statement in this article NOT to do that? That is my question/proposal. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The answer to your first question is yes. Whether it requires a policy statement, I'm not sure. Before we get to that, one could just try removing the problematic category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

True, though in some cases that's a lot of people who might be reverted - Plus there's the issue of warning notices put up just because people tried to remove BLPs in the past and the notice was the questionable compromise struck. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As has been explained to CarolMooreDC many times before, Category:Antisemitism is a category for articles which discuss or refer to antisemitism, not a category for antisemites. Many of the articles about people in that category are about individuals who have experienced antisemitism or fought antisemitism. It is not, and has never been, Category:Antisemites - most of the articles in that category aren't even about people. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And as has been explained to Jayjg in one form or another several times before: Wikipedia:BLP#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates says Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). And Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people says it is a guideline about "the categorization of people" (ie. people who are put in whatever category), Not about "categories that only list people." If this was not relevant, why would Category:Homophobia declare: This category is for issues relating to homophobia. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic. Obviously editors in this case felt that category was covered by BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And has been explained to CarolMooreDC many times before, Wikipedia:BLP#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates is not relevant here, since the Category:Antisemitism doesn't categorize people, or make any suggestions about people, and what was done at Category:Homophobia is also not relevant here, since it is a different category, used in a different way, and in any event those who added that disclaimer there may well have been incorrect when they added it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to clarify language

• Under Wikipedia:BLP#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates add to the first sentence which reads 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. Add a second sentence which reads If there is any ambiguity about an individual's inclusion in a category that violates Biographies of Living People policy, the individual's name should be removed. What that means can be explained in detail at the guidelines page Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people. Hearing no dissent, I'll stick it in :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The policy needs no "additional" clarification. Please stop trying to modify policy as a back-door way of removing Category:Antisemitism from specific articles in which you do not want to see it. Category:Antisemitism is about articles that discuss antisemitism, nothing more. It's doesn't categorize individuals. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The above comment clearly shows why the amendment is necessary. Wikipedia should not allow the use of categories for smear campaigns. // Liftarn (talk)
      • • Indeed it should not, but that comment is irrelevant to this category and discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that some people want to use wikipedia for that policy.

Jayjg's edit summary (Undid revision 380849744 by Carolmooredc (talk) disagree, this is a fight by one individual about one cat in one article) Is clearly misleading since this sentence (and changes) was up discussion for a sufficient period of time and people would have objected to that language if they had a problem. They definitely objected to explicit categories labeling people as bigots. Yes, I'd love to add a lot of "peoples" names to Category:Sexism with a nice big (wink) disclaimer. But I know it's versus policy, and don't think that policy should be abused elsewhere either. That doesn't discredit my motivation for making these changes across a number of categories.

What is absurd is that those who support this "Disclaimer" policy (which itself is against policy which states "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers") end up smearing people who may be opposed to/worked against Antisemitism or Homophobia because those peoples names are listed with known bigots. And a lot of wikipedia readers skim, and misinterpreted "facts" can stick in the mind for a long time.

I'll give others a chance to opine before I bring it back, per two users who want it back. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please name the "people" who want to "use wikipedia" for "smear campaigns", or retract the claim. Also, please don't pretend that a single individual proposing a change to a critical policy, and, upon getting no response, adding poorly-written, unhelpful instruction creep is any indication of consensus. These kinds of nonsensical claims are wasting everyone's time. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose the proposal. Regardless of the discussion about Latuff and Antisemitism, I can see a lot of harmful potential in this proposal. It could be an excuse for disruptive editors to arbitrarily remove categories on spurious grounds. A lot of categories on BLPs are disputed but given appropriate sourcing, they are included. This proposal seems to ignore both sources and consensus and says that we should simply remove the category if unsure. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of bigotry are far more harmful than many other categories. (Although more examples of harmful categories than just criminality would be helpful in this article to help make these issues clearer.)

Another idea is to allow creation of categories called something like Category: People whose articles discuss (form of bigotry) since that is the rationale given for including everyone from bigots to anti-bigots. This a) separates person from immediate assumption that they themselves are bigots while b) creating a more honest category that doesn't interfere with listings of non-people related articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

But since adding this category is not an accusation of bigotry, your comments are not relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• oppose Category titles are self-explanatory. This idea rests on the assumption that our readers are borderline illiterate. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

But how does it make wikipedia look when you can't categorize a person/group/media outlet under Homophobic but you can under racist or sexist? Homophobic?? Or just inconsistent and amateurish? See Category:Homophobia which reads: This category is for issues relating to homophobia. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the not the Homophobia category, this is the antisemitism category, which discusses articles that discuss or refer to antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually category titles are not self-explanatory. We have victims, perpetrators, scholars and people who may have been labelled by some special interest group all lumped together in a single category. // Liftarn (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No-one is "labeled" by this category; it only links article that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Artur Carlos de Barros Basto, Jan Gotlib Bloch, Itzik Feffer, Abraham Foxman, Richard J. Green, Norman Hapgood, Pieter Willem van der Horst, Uriah P. Levy, Rodrigo López (physician), Solomon Lozovsky, Frederick Mayer (spy), Irène Némirovsky, John M. Oesterreicher, Aaron Sapiro, Joseph Seligman, Henri Torres, and Benjamin Zuskin are all in the category, with no implication that they are antisemitic. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose For that matter Alfred Dreyfus and Émile Zola are in Category:Dreyfus affair which is a subcat of Category:Antisemitism in France; does anyone think either was an antisemite? The categorization schema is clear, and efforts to conflate this category with the defunct Category:Anti-Semitic people or the like indicate a misunderstanding of the category, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Earlier this year we even had a wide discussion about project tags on BLP talk pages. It is simply not true that categories are only navigational aids. Some people claim that because they believe it, but some people claim it because they want to push through a category to label someone – or something; there have been many edit wars and an entire Arbcom case around Category:Pseudoscience. Such wars wouldn't happen if categories were not widely regarded as labels.

Sometimes problems can be solved by renaming a category. E.g. "antisemitism debate" instead of "antisemitism". But almost nobody reads a category description, and if a BLP who is not known as a fighter against X (where X = antisemitism, homosexuality, paedophilia, Catholicism, communism, humanism) is in a category that consists mostly of people who support/practise/adhere to X, then virtually everybody will draw the conclusion that the person is one of them. This is the kind of situation for which we have WP:BLP, and it makes no sense to exclude this special case. Hans Adler 21:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. In most categories following WP:BLPCAT is not a problem, but to clear up those that don't I think it should be made clearer to avoid categories being used for attacks on living persons. // Liftarn (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Jayjg. Clarification unnecessary. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You maybe right about clarification - and in bold and capitals. Just looking around found that people don't even abide by the clear injunction in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates not to categorize people under crime/criminals unless convicted. Category:Crime biography stubs is described as notable (alleged) criminals, notable (alleged) terrorists, among other things. Category:Incest does bother to say Note that some articles in this category are merely "alleged incest". Then there are things like Category:Alleged bodyguards of Osama bin Laden, Category:Alleged witches, Category:Alleged al-Qaeda facilitators, not to mention Category:Conspiracy theorists. (Of course, Category:Neoconservatives got axed a long time ago.) So I don't know if people will get incensed and run to delete these categories or if maybe it's blown out of proportion and I should just have fun with Category:Sexism til the guys figure out what I'm up to and flood in to delete all the links. Or not?? :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• While I support the idea of clarifying, I oppose this particular clarification, because I think it actually makes things worse (in the opposite way). Maybe we can just tighten up the original sentence with some keywords that show a stronger connection than "so". How about this: "Since category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers even when the categories pages themselves do, care must be taken to ensure that only categories which are clearly applicable based upon the article text and reliable sources should be included." Qwyrxian (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The problem is what to do with unreliable sources mentioned in reliable sources. Let's say random person X calls person Y a homophobe and it gets reported in a reliable source. Should the article about person Y be included in Category:Homophobia? Or let's take a real world example. We can easily find a reliable source saying that some people call Barack Obama a nazi. Is it then OK to add the article to Category:Nazism? // Liftarn (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Qwyrxian: I was just creating something to get the conversation going. Good suggestion. Especially if it is followed immediately with something about giving people a poor reputation. And/or if there can be some clarification that the person should be in a category only if it is related to them. In other words, something that would at least provide guidance on whether Helen Thomas becomes in Category:Antisemitism because of her recent comments on Israelis getting out of Palestine and whether Dr. Laura Schlessinger belongs in Category:Racism because of her repeated use of the "N" word on radio, two examples that obviously would be controversial. These are the real life type of cases we have to deal with. Do you want to start a separate proposal section so it doesn't get lost in this one which obviously not too popular?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - 'Ambiguity' can be construed easily, rendering this category useless, or any. --tickle me 01:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, but the antisemitism category should have a rule and disclaimer like the homophobia one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

In other words in should say: This category is for issues relating to Antisemtism. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly Antisemitic. Getting general agreement on that would be good and could be put in WP:Categorization of people as opposed to being mentioned here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not. That's not clarification, that's changing the definition of the category. The category is for all articles that discuss or refer to the topic of antisemitism, regardless of what they are about. The category does not categorize people, it categorizes article topics, and is therefore not relevant to WP:Categorization of people. Please don't continue attempting or proposing back-door methods of achieving your actual purpose. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is already fairly clear in BLP and needs to be made more explicit, as User:Qwyrxian and User talk:Peregrine Fisher and User:Liftarn seem over all to agree;

To repeat: Wikipedia:BLP#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates says Caution should be used with categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). And Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people says it is a guideline about "the categorization of people" (ie. people who are put in whatever category), not about "categories that only list people." If this was not relevant, why would Category:Homophobia declare: This category is for issues relating to homophobia. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic. Obviously editors in this case felt that category was covered by BLP. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trying to find additional back-doors for implementing your rejected proposal. There is no consensus for this; in fact, consensus is strongly against it. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Jayjg et al.. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Per trying to get to a consensus, I recognize that the "ambiguity" sentence is not very good and have dropped it. Other suggestions have since been offered. To avoid confusion, isn't it best to rephrase per those in a separate proposal? Especially if someone else does it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Updating Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people

Which looks like it hasn’t been updated in a while, including to comply with this year’s changes to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_people#Categories.2C_lists_and_navigation_templates. Clarifications also needed. While most is cleanup, there are specific proposals to clarify cases where categories are using “Disclaimers” to try to get around the fact that inclusion of the category implies the person has a poor reputation. (For example see Category:Antisemitism and Category:Homophobia and Category_talk:Anti-Islam_sentiment) CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The disclaimer is used to ensure that people don't imagine that the category makes any such implication, and more often (as in the current situation) so that people don't pretend that it implies anything about people. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I note that Category:Homophobia don't seem to have any persons at all listed. Instead it has the subcategories Category:Victims of anti-LGBT hate crimes and Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws. Category:Sexism also don't have a lot of persons listed. // Liftarn (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This both has original disclaimer (which needs to be removed) AND note on not adding people, media and groups, which is acceptable, I'd think. It reads (minus [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_18#Category:Homophobia link: This category is for issues relating to homophobia. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly homophobic. This needs a nice box and to be put on all bigotry related categories and to be put in Categorization article as template. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The category without a disclaimer obviously does make suggestions about people or why else would it need a disclaimer saying: It does not imply that the subjects of any articles in the category are antisemitic. All I'm looking for is a clearer BLP policy so that we don't have some categories where individuals can't be listed at all and others where they can. Maybe it was a bunch of Homophobes who made it Verboten to list individuals under Category:Homophobia and that wouldn't be right, would it? I don't want to do a lot of work listing various people of various persuasions under Category:Sexism and then have all the males in a male dominated project come along and say "Oh, this category must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly sexist." CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the reasons behind a sentence in the section on #misuse_of_primary_sources

I could use some more explanation of this sentence: "Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material."

I understand why the rule applies to trial transcripts -- they're just testimony and they're not reliable sources. But does the rule apply to court judgments? I mean, suppose we were writing about Kristin Perry, the lead named plaintiff in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (the prop 8 case). And suppose it were somehow relevant to say that "Kristin Perry and Sandra Stier reside together in Alameda County, California and are raising four children." Can I not use the text of the case (where I lifted that quote from) to support that claim? Why is that?

1. Is it because, even when a judge is acting in her role as a "finder of fact", do we still not view her as a "reliable source"? (But then a citation by a newspaper doesn't make it any more reliable.)
2. Or perhaps because judges are notoriously unclear as to when they're stating facts as they believe them to be, versus when they're stating the facts as a party believes them to be (e.g., "let's assume for the moment that all that plaintiff says is true...the defendant is a sadist who killed plaintiff's wife intentionally"), and our policy is designed to reduce the number of erroneous citations to the latter kind of claims. (This would be a wise policy, but then people who do know the difference should feel free to cite to these materials.)
3. Or does this having to do with something other than reliability -- such as, not wanting to embarrass people with matters that were the subject of litigation and which have not previously been published in the press? (This sounds most likely to me.)

It took me ten minutes writing and thinking about this post before I realized that Reason Three is the most likely reason. As a result, I think we're mistaken to categorize this advice as an example of "misuse of primary sources." The problem isn't citing to a primary source -- the problem is that we're citing to a source that contains embarrassing information that might have been intended to remain private, until years later it was posted online and indexed by a search engine. UPDATE: I've been bold and made a change to the policy to reflect this. Let me know what you think. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 10:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It's more about relevance and adequate weight. People go to court specifically to find nits to pick, but unless it's been picked up by another reliable source, then it's unlikely to be significant enough to be included in an article— and could be used to paint someone in a undeservedly poor light. — Coren ^(talk) 03:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There are other factors. Legal findings can be reversed, and later developments may show that the original findings were based on incorrect information. Also, a legal statement may need interpretation (that is, a statement may appear to a non-legal reader as some extreme conclusion, when those who understand the jargon recognize that a much different interpretation is appropriate). Then there is cherry picking: some editor looks over several long documents and picks out those statements which appear to promote some POV. Finally, if a secondary source has not considered the matter worthy of comment, it may be undue. You seem to want a source for a noncontroversial fact, where my concerns may not apply. Johnuniq (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

These are great answers! Now, they are not embodied in the policy, either before or after my efforts. I'm on an enforced wikibreak (which is why I'm editing from an IP address), so I hope someone else will take a shot at clarifying the section on court documents. -Andrew Gradman editing as 160.39.222.244 (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree this section needs a better explanation. How about inserting this (or similar)? In addition, court documents are written in a legal style that can easily be misinterpreted by non-professionals, or information may be selectively lifted from them to support a particular bias, intentionally or otherwise. High quality secondary sources will be less likely to do this, and they will have access to a larger body of material. A balanced view is therefore more likely from them. Rumiton (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm also confused by this, and think allowing court judgments ought to be appropriate. Is it really the case that in the article Roe v. Wade, for example, the text of the judgment is considered out of bounds as a source? I can understand the argument that "if it's important then other sources will have covered it", but consider a different case. I'm involved in the highly problematic Murder of Meredith Kercher article, which isn't really currently following this part of the guidance very well. But there has been so much mis-reporting on the case that reference to the trial judgments in the case seems the only sensible way of distinguishing fact from made up sensationalisation. If these documents were ignored, then the article would end up giving a very strange interpretation of the case, and one that would certainly not be fair to the living people involved. Is this a type of scenario that the guidance has failed to take into account?

ie: in reference to Rumiton's suggestion above, it may be the case that a balanced view is more likely to come from court judgments, where all the evidence has been carefully considered, than from newspaper reports produced to a deadline and with an imperative to titilate or create an angle (this is something that journalists do but judges do not). Journalists rarely have access to "a larger body of material" than courtrooms. --FormerIP (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Titillating newspaper reports should not normally pass the reputable sources smell test for a living biography. Rumiton (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, there has been previous discussion to the effect that, while trial court proceedings are primary sources, appellate court opinions are regarded as secondary sources, one or more steps removed from the original documents.   Will Beback  talk  09:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds quite reasonable to me. Rumiton (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

How about: In addition, trial court proceedings are written in a legal style that can easily be misinterpreted by non-professionals, intentionally or otherwise. They are therefore regarded as primary sources which require high quality secondary sources for their interpretation. Courts of Appeal are considered to be secondary sources, one step removed from the trial court deliberative process. Rumiton (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• (undent) I think part of the problem is that "court documents" is much too wide. I think there would generally be no problem with using a court decision, but most of what gets filed to the docket would never be acceptable (the parties, after all, make all sorts of claims in those which may or may not be based on reality). That goes for any court, appellate arguments are no more bound to reality than the first instance. — Coren ^(talk) 14:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• For various reasons, I have concerns about Andrew's bold changes (though it was fine to make them, of course), and about some of the suggestions above. In my WP editing life I've dealt with a number of BLPs where court documents were being used and abused to push a point of view or to do original research. The most recent one I have been working on is the Troy Davis case where supporters and detractors have been citing court documents to make their case. I think, per the previous wording of policy, court documents are fine to cite as an additional reference to a secondary one, adding some additional detail if necessary where the broader issue was covered in the secondary source

In my view, Coren and Johnuniq's reasonings about why court documents are not desirable are on the money by pointing out the no original research and NPOV concerns exist, as well as privacy concerns obviously. The current version of policy emphasizes the latter but does not give the whole picture, but I am not sure at a practical level why we would need to explain in detail why we have this particular requirement. We don't for other parts of the policy, and people can come here for explanations if need be.

Personally I am also very, very leery about stating that court judgments are acceptable or that appeal court decisions can be considered secondary sources. As Johnuniq points out, all court decisions (including appeal courts) can be ovrerruled as being in error too, until you get to some sort of Supreme Court. And the problem of cherry-picking original research to find bits to support a point of view remains. Do we really want editors to be able to use drunk-driving court judgment from 30 years ago that no secondary source has remarked on before or since? As far as I recall, avoiding this scenario was a major reason for this part of the policy. To comment on some of the examples given here - but without looking at anything beyond this page, so apologies if I've got this wrong - if the only place we can find out who Kristin Perry lives with is a court document, and nobody else as thought it important to mention in the widespread coverage of Proposition 8 etc, then it looks like synthesis to me to report it. Similarly, while I realize that the Murder of Meredith Kercher article has been very problematic, as FormerIP states, but I wonder if part of the reason is because the policy hasn't been followed well, thus allowing people to trawl through the court documents and push whatever perspective they desire. It's frustrating if the secondary sources seem to be inaccurate, but inaccuracy can sometimes be in the eye of the beholder, no? In my view the original court documents could be used as an important part of an editorial discussion about which secondary sources are the most reliable; once this is agreed, the court document could then be cited alongside the secondary sources selected, but with the secondary sources being used to guide the content for undue weight and no original research reasons.

Given based on the various comments above that we still seem to be in discussion about this, per WP:BRD I am going to revert to the older, apparently consensus version. It was fine for Andrew to be bold, but let's get any changes agreed upon here first before making changes. Slp1 (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slp1 and all! To my fresh eyes, it seems the court rules are tangential to the paragraph's original intent, nominally to summarize WP:PRIMARY, which has a very good Policy set of rules that work fine to me if applied to the example of court documents. The rules on self-pub are also very applicable; court docs should be fine for unobjectionable personal details (I'd even say DOB), but not for controverted details. I'd move this graf essentially to WP:PRIMARY, then summarize the PRIMARY policy here better, both in general and with specific reference to court docs (no extra explanations as to why court docs are "less reliable"). Cautious Wikipedians should be able to use court docs with proper care as per the other policies. JJB 19:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me we are not concerned about objective facts, primary sources are already OK for these. The problem seems more to be the potential for a biased editor to lift wording from any court document (I can think of no more precise expression) to support their contentions. It seems important to me that a secondary source expert in law and its jargon should explain the significance of judgements and the discussions that led to them. It may seem restrictive, but if the subject is notable, a source will have reported on the case. If not, perhaps we don't need the article. Rumiton (talk) 11:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't altogether agree. It would be, presumably a "fact" that X was adopted or convicted of driving dangerous when 17 years old. Or that they were actually born in such and such a year. It would also be a "fact" that witness X said Y as part of a court case. No extra interpretation is required. But still, if no secondary source has noted any of these "facts", why should we? We are not a newspaper, or a purveyor of original research. While I agree somewhat with John J. Bulten's confidence that "cautious wikipedians" might be fine simply following other policies, they are not the ones I am worried about; the problems affecting BLP article subjects come from the incautious ones determined to get the Truth out there. --Slp1 (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There will always be incautious editors; the intention of WP Rules and Guidelines is to provide ammunition by which they might be shot down in their incautious progress. DoB's, dates of marriage, number of children etc are "facts." But consider this: a criminal case. Witness W testifies that the Subject is a fine person. Good quote for Wikipedia? But then Witness X gives a long testimony which suggests otherwise, and happens to mention that Witness W is the godfather of the Subject's children. The jury silently realises that W would have to look after the kids if the Subject were convicted and jailed, and his opinion drops slightly in value in their eyes. Then Witness Y takes the stand and testifies that Subject is a pillar of the community now, but may not always have been, and hints at domestic problems between W and X, who are married. The jury readjusts again. Then Witness Z gives a long testimony and introduces circumstantial evidence that there is another person around with the same name as the subject, and this may have created confusion in the minds of the police. The jury is working desperately to try to assimilate all this. Would you not agree that reporting on cases like this (and they get much worse) needs patient study by someone who understands the legal process, and has no personal ax to grind? A reputable source? Rumiton (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree your description and analysis of the dangers of using primary sources such as court testimony, and that we should stick to secondary sources (books, newspapers etc) using the court documents to fill in detail. But the policy goes further, saying that we shouldn't be using them, in BLPs, as sources for personal details such as date of birth, marriage, children etc. If secondary sources have published them, then fine, but this is not the kind of research we want to editors to be doing, particularly when it involves privacy concerns. A case in point is Jim Hawkins. He's a BBC presenter who has vigorously objected to having his month/day of birth included in his article. Other editors very much wanted to include it having found suggestions on Twitter etc about what it might be. One editor even went so far as suggesting that an access of information request should be made to the BBC to force the release of his records there, hoping that they would include the date of birth. It wasn't done, thankfully, but I agree with the policy that would, as you put it, "provide ammunition" to shoot down somebody who decided, instead of trying to force the release of the personnel records, to trot down to the local court house and look up the person's last speeding ticket and obtain the date of birth from there. --Slp1 (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I broadened the section to include other cases than court, and I added words to self-pub to make explicit that firsthand testimony may be included subject to the same harsh standards as other self-pub. Rereading the policy, it seems that it was pretty well-rounded already and only needed minor tweaks, and that nothing else is needed as policy tools to fight off POV. Noncontroversial facts are fine as defined by the self-pub policy in firsthand testimony, and it limitedly applies to firsthand testimony about others, because primary-source testimony by a hospital records custodian can be the best source for a DOB of a public person (or YOB of a private person). Adoption, marriage, kids and convictions might or might not have BLP consequences, but they are already handled by other parts of this policy. He-said she-said is WP:NOT Wikipedia unless noted by secondary sources. JJB 16:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly okay with some of your changes, but not to including court testimony as an example of suitable self-published material. I really don't think that we want to permit use of such primary sources in BLP articles. --Slp1 (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I only mean, if I say something noncontroversial about myself in court, that's an appropriate supplemental source. Yes (thanks), it's actually the court publishing it even though I'm freely testifying it, so there may be another way to angle the concern; but I think your version permits it, so whichever. JJB 18:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

PZ Myers, or blogs by experts.

At the Adnan Oktar-article, we have a discussion on blogs as sources for the article on this living person. One of the blogs used is the Pharyngula-blog, an Expert Blog of the well-known biologist PZ Myers. This blog Pharyngula won the 2005 Koufax Award for Best Expert Blog, and the science journal Nature listed it as the top-ranked blog written by a scientist.

A small search on Wikipedia learnt me that Myers's blog is used as a source in the articles of Cheri Yecke, Jonathan Wells, Richard Dawkins, Caroline Crocker Guillermo Gonzalez, Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Kary Mullis, Michael Egnor, John G. West, Casey Luskin, Randy Olson, Richard Cohen, Carl Baugh, Christine Comer, Antony Flew, Ray Kurzweil, Stephen C. Meyer, Monica Crowley, Rom Houben, Hugh Ross, Jonathan Sarfati and Lonnie Latham.

And those people are all alive. According to the rules, "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."

The problem here is that some authorities in different fields are hosting their own blog nowadays. The articles they produce in the blog-format are, according to the rules, banned from Wikipedia, just because they are blogs. That is quite a problem if better sources are lacking.

Obviously, there are two options: OR we rework the articles of the persons above, OR we should change the rules in favour of blogs by qualified experts. I would chose the second option, but I wonder what the rest of the people here would prefer.Jeff5102 (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Rework the articles. I read PZ Myers' blog, and I consider it to be one of the best on ScienceBlogs for sure, but that's not enough. Blogs are useful for uncontroversial statements of fact (though those facts often can be sourced by something better), but it would be irresponsible of us to use the writings of just one person without editorial oversight to source facts on a living person. Myers is certainly an accomplished scientist, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no editorial oversight to check what he is saying about living persons for accuracy. NW (Talk) 22:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that blogs are not a valid source for facts. Nevertheless, I wonder if the views of notable scientists, spoken out in their own weblog, can be included as "the view of the scientific community." I wonder whatr is wrong about that.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

To give an example: on the "good article" on Richard Dawkins, we see the sentence that Dawkins has been referred to in the media as "Darwin's Rottweiler." One of the given sources is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary R. Albert Mohler, Jr., on AlbertMohler.com. I do believe that this is a correct way of sourcing. However, it could be that a severe ban on "writings of just one person without editorial oversight" would mean that we should remove it.Jeff5102 (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See also the discussion on Talk:Caroline Crocker. As one user says: "It's not clear to me why we would consider scienceblogs, which is run by the business Seed Media Group and specifically selects experts in their fields to blog on science, self-published and somehow less reliable than some blog hosted by Time or something." Jeff5102 (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am the user noted above by Jeff5102. Obviously, blogs from scienceblogs.com are not self-published, which is a key part of the above quoted policy. Any argument that begins with the false premise that these are self-published is invalid and needs to be reworked. Further, it feels like in practice this is people trying to game the system to shield public figures from qualified, critical discussion of their work or statements. II | (t - c) 20:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Is discussion of a person's work "material about a living person."

The policy says: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, court documents, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person." I understand this means self-published sources can't be used to support something like "So-and-so once killed a man." What I'm not clear on is whether policy also rules out something like "The blog Such-and-Such described So-and-so's book as 'rubbish.'" The specific example I'm thinking of is the article on Nina Power, which includes quotations from blogs criticizing a book written by the subject of the page. Is including these blogs a violation of this part of the BLP policy (they might not be reliable sources in any case; but if they violate the BLP policy, it's more clearcut that they should be removed)?VoluntarySlave (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP does not protect someone from criticism, it protects somebody from unsourced/undocumented criticism. If another party/source says something about a person/work, then the criticism may be allowed. In the case above, the question becomes are the blogs reliable sources/authorities on their own right? EG if I were to write "Nina Power's book is wrong" in my blog, that would be an unacceptable source because I am not notable. However, if a recognized authority in the field were to say the same thing, then it MIGHT be acceptable even if it is in a blog. The question becomes, is the source reliable and/or is the author notable enough that his opinions matter. Even then, the question has to be asked would the opinion be undue. For existence, Steven Hawking is a notable scientist, but including his criticisms on the Pope in the article on Benedict XVI would be inappropriate. Steven Hawking's criticism on another scientist, however, might be appropriate.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

One other thing, when citing negative comments about another person, it is generally expected that the material be sourced to the person saying it unless it is general consensus or factual indisputable. If you were writing about a person convicted of a crime, you could say, "John Doe was a murderer" because that could be tied to a specific murder and presumably conviction. But if you wanted to state that an actor's role in a recent movie stunk, you would need to be able to say, "According to John Doe, actor John Q Public's performance in the movie stunk." Since it is an opinion, you have to be able to declare whose opinion it is. Again, who said it and what their credentials are matters. If John Doe is a noted film critic, then the statement might be appropriate in an article on John Q Public. If John Doe is my neighbor then definitely not. If John Doe is a noted medical doctor, then (unless John Q Public was portraying a doctor) it probably wouldn't be worth quoting.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think the answer to this question has been precisely hashed out in the policy yet. I'm generally inclined to say no, this does not really apply to the work, because there's a tendency for people to use BLP to shield controversial statements from coverage in Wikipedia. This is particularly relevant when we're talking about self-published blogs or websites by experts (or sort of self-published blogs such as scienceblogs.com blogs) criticizing dubious scientific theories and such - often these are the best available sources on these theories. And people try to use BLP to shield their favorite politician from an article documenting their mis-statements or scandals. II | (t - c) 07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:SPS is very clear that the notability and qualifications of the author do not matter: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources..
• WP:BLP is furthermore absolutely clear on what to do about contentious material from self-published sources: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources".
• If someone says on his blog, "X's book is rubbish", this is contentious, even if the person saying so is a Professor of Literature. It should not need stating that if the comment is about the book written by living author X, then of course the comment is about X, too, because it criticises X's writing. Critiques of X's writing should be sourced to reliable third-party sources only. --JN466 17:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Carcharoth on editing BLPs as a whole

In a currently ongoing arbitration, the arbitrator Carcharoth has made the following comment on the talk page. I post it in full here (the paragraph breaks were added by me for readability) because I think it might be useful in clarifying this policy:

One observation I wanted to make here is that one of main problems I've observed with the editing of biographies of living people (BLPs), though it applies to other articles as well, is that people too often edit such articles piecemeal. Some new bit of information comes up, or someone thinks some bit of information would be good to put in or take out of a BLP (for whatever reason), and the article bloats in one particular area, and not enough thought is given to the overall state of the article.

Rather than edit parts of the article, or argue over a sentence here or a paragraph there, the aim when editing BLPs (or any articles containing BLP material) should be to (before hitting save) to put the small-scale considerations to one side, and to step back and consider the article as a whole. Whenever you edit a BLP and hit save, it is not the state of the bit of the article that you edited that should be of greatest concern, but the overall state of the article. If there is imbalance, distortion, irrelevance, or incorrect tone, then by saving the article without correcting that, you are contributing to the problem.

Probably the best state of mind in which to edit a BLP is a slightly disinterested state, but still thinking "if I was this person, would I be happy with the overall state of this article?". If, on the other hand, you are editing a BLP and thinking "how can I get this bit of information I just found in a news story to fit in the article", or "how can I get this snippet of information from this book or journal paper to fit in the article", or "how can I get this vital bit of climate change information into this article", and you do so without looking at the rest of the article or even trying to expand the rest of the article, and you then walk away from the article having successfully added the snippet of information you wanted to add, then you probably shouldn't be editing that BLP (by failing to consider overall balance, you may be distorting the article or even pushing a point of view).

In other words, those heavily editing a topic area can lose perspective on BLPs within that topic area, and it helps to ask others (who may have a more objective viewpoint) to assess whether the balance, tone and comprehensiveness of the BLP is as good as it could be.

This concern is one reason why I support the current emphasis on BLPs in the [Climate Change arbitration] proposed decision.

(Carcharoth 24 August 2010)

Thoughts on whether (and if so, how) these sentiments could be blended into the policy, please. --TS 16:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If by this Carcharoth means don't start editing a BLP unless you can turn it into an article you'd be proud of. Then guilty as charged. Wikipedia is a collaborative project - to my mind the test should be "could you justify that edit if the subject was in front of you?" Sometimes I just revert a vandalism, sometimes I add a category, fix a typo or remove an unsourced BLP infringement - I like to think I've made at least a small improvement to a large number of BLPs, and overall I suspect I've done more good than if I'd simply taken a much smaller number of BLPs and brought them up to a decent quality. If however Carcharoth was making a comment at those who edit BLPs to add fringe attacks, trivia and tabloid stuff then I would agree, but suspect we have that covered with wp:undue and (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. ϢereSpielChequers 17:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't what Carcharoth describing simply a case of WP:RECENTISM? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I had similar thoughts on the same page, not having seen Carcharoth's remarks (page: WP:TLDR^100). For example I think we could try and draft policy to at least mitigate more strongly against re-introducing contentious BLP material while it's under discussion, when there is not a clear written prior consensus for inclusion to point to. Oddly, we seem to have a stronger custom against removing NPOV tags when the issue isn't resolved than against re-introducing contentious BLP material while under discussion. We could also apply specific protection against WP:RECENTISM to BLPs - tricky, but maybe worth trying. eg (quite strong!) Negative material about BLPs which relates to recent events or events in progress is discouraged as vulnerable to WP:RECENTISM failing to place these in proper historical perspective. Where such material about a living person is added to that person's article, 1RR applies to reinsertion of such material, whilst 3RR applies to its removal. This imbalance is however intended to ensure discussion where necessary, not to prohibit addition. That may not be workable as is, but it's a nod at what's possible if we want to be a bit more enthusiastic in preventing recentist BLP coatracking. Rd232 ^talk 22:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a nice sentiment, and if we were paid editors this is how we should proceed. But that is not how Wikipedia gets edited by volunteers. An editor is usually drawn to edit an article because something triggered an interest. If I read a source that mentions a worthwhile fact about a person then I might add it to their bio without reviewing the entire article. I may try to keep the added material down to an appropriate length to avoid undue weight, but I'm not necessarily going to spend a lot of time worrying about it. Occasionally, an editor with a broader and deeper interest in the subject may come through after having read all of the sources and do a full re-balancing job. But if this proposed principle had been in place six years ago I don't think the project would have continued to grow as quickly as it has. Further, it does not seem enforceable.

Rd232's suggestions seem more practical, but setting separate limits for additions of "negative" material would invite arguments over what qualifies.   Will Beback  talk  08:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"would invite arguments over what qualifies" - perhaps. But maybe it could be tackled simply: if any editor explicitly declares that they consider it negative, it is considered negative until or unless there is an explicit consensus that it isn't. In the mean time, everything is slowed down, and discussion and if necessary dispute resolution can resolve the content issue. (Eventual phrasing would have to ensure that a clear consensus isn't overridden, if one already exists; this is intended for situations where there isn't one. Raises more definitional issues, but hey, no-one said this would be easy, and this is a big problem we're talking about so let's not give up too quickly just because it isn't easy!) One thing that might help is to have a new exemption to 3RR, rather than a new 1RR limit as I suggested above. This might make enforcement easier, and make it less of a "gotcha" if people exceed 1RR. Everything should stop at 3RR anyway, but if that results in recent negative contentious BLP content without explicit consensus for it, an exemption applying might be a simple solution for what I'm trying to achieve. Especially as once people know about it, they know they can't edit war negative info in and have to talk, so won't try. Rd232 ^talk 12:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a nice sentiment. However, editors can be, and are, blocked for edit-warring even before they exceed 3RR while claiming BLP exemption. And as WP:GRAPEVINE states, what counts as exempt from 3RR under BLP is controversial. So anything that has editors counting reverts is probably not a good idea.

How about adding a sentence about recentism to the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Importance_of_maintenance section, pointing out the importance of paring down flotsam and jetsam that has accumulated from recent media coverage, to the point where it has overwhelmed the BLP, turning it effectively into a WP:Coatrack? --JN466 13:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like putting the cart before the horse. The message should not be that you clear up old messses, so much as you don't leave the artice in a mess for somebody else up. Getting people to think before they add the latest juicy titbit to an article is what we should be doing. --TS 21:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Will post another proposal below. --JN466 10:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Court documents

Regarding this edit[2] I would say that documents filed by the parties are by definition self-published (to the extent they can be said to be published at all). The lawyers, acting as fiduciaries / agents of the parties, file the parties' factual and legal claims without benefit of editorial oversight, investigation, or accountability. They are claims designed to win cases. What we're trying to get away from is content like "Smith's boyfriend said in a lawsuit filed Monday that Smith is a 'habitual drug abuser, morally bankrupt, and utterly beyond all human decency'." A court's own statement aren't exactly self-published but they have some other BLP issues. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I was thinking about the judges' own case summaries. The summaries of facts in these cases are actually highly reliable, much more reliable than the average newspaper, I would say - I'm not clear on what BLP issues these would have. You can add it back but I would appreciate it if you clarified which documents are being disucssed. II | (t - c) 04:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"Court documents" is a broad term that covers a lot of different things. Maybe "legal filings" would be more appropriately narrow. Appellate decisions are more like high quality secondary sources and should be allowed.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A court filing (by a party, as opposed to a judge's decision or order) is evidence that that party asserted a given fact or position as of a given point in time. It is generally insufficient evidence that the fact or position is in fact true, and without more it is insufficient evidence that the underlying dispute is sufficiently notable to be reported on Wikipedia (that would usually require significant coverage in secondary sources).

At least in the U.S., an increasing number of courts (including the entire federal judicial system) now require court filings to be available online. This has positive implications for accessibility and transparency, but also will substantially increase the publicity attainable by legal disputes that are about largely private matters, as well as the propagation of allegations that prove to be false or may even be malicious and defamatory. (Assertions in court papers are generally privileged and can't be the subject of a libel suit, even if they would be defamatory in another context.) We should be attentive to the BLP implications of technological change in this area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

What we're trying to avoid in limiting the use of documents from court cases (whether legal filings or decisions) is Wikipedians adding material about BLPs that isn't mentioned by secondary sources. We don't want editors going to local court houses to dig up details about someone's bad behaviour during a divorce, or that they were prosecuted for stealing a bottle of wine. If the issues are discussed by secondary sources—and that means the news media or someone writing biographical details elsewhere—then we can use the court documents to augment the secondary coverage. But we can't refer to it unless others have. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

A statement of facts in a court decision is a secondary source as to the fact. An appellate decision's statement of facts is a secondary source of both the facts and what the lower court found the facts to be. As to its legal holding, an opinion is a primary source, but without the problems Wikipedia has with primary sources. Getting back to the facts, court findings have their own reliability problems that have to weighed before using them. First, the parties can stipulate that X is true when X is not true or its truth is unknowable. More importantly, courts limit who can tell them what the facts are, meaning that you don't get the sort of investigation you get with news reports and scholarly works. In some cases, those considerations clearly won't matter, but they can matter a great deal. -Rrius (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I see danger here. An appellate court, in reciting the facts, may take the facts in the light most favorable to one party or the other, because the law says that's how you deal with certain appeals. Also, civil filings may deny things which are known to be true, perhaps because the claim was badly stated. I just would not use court documents this way. As a lawyer, I'm saying you really do not know what you are dealing with. If you did, we'd be out of jobs.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Rruis, any such document would count as a primary source for Wikipedia. When we talk about secondary sources, we mean uninvolved commentators bringing the issue to public attention. We need that to make sure Wikipedia doesn't become the first publisher, or the first publisher apart from the courts. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Slim; this is long-standing policy. --JN466 18:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

As the party reverted in the presenting edit, I'd continue pushing mildly for inclusion of "partisan court filings" or the like among "self-publications" (loosely understood) that should not be used without careful balancing; and the balancing appropriate to other selfpub seems just right. A public but obscure court document should not be used negatively in a BLP (nor unduly self-servingly), but the document may still be used (subject to OR and primary-source constraints) for neutral facts conforming to their context, or in non-BLP articles. Omitting this doesn't seem to serve much purpose. JJB 04:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

JJB, the problem with using court documents when they are primary sources is that they can be cherry picked too easily to give a biased representation of facts. When a neutral reliable source reads the court documents and recounts them, they should give a balanced view of the issues at hand. Also, often court filings and finding can be complex and complicated to understand and need a specialist in writing about court cases to explain the meaning of the papers. For example, legal finding about securities fraud can be long and filled with technical jargon and therefore easily misunderstood or misrepresented. A mainstream writer that specializes in writing about financial court cases needs to frame the case to highlight the important points. Otherwise, the content can be too easily misused and most editors would not have the knowledge to understand how to fix the errors. So, I agree that for several reasons, Wikipedia English needs to use secondary sources when discusses content about living people rather than court records (filings and finding). That does not mean that you as an editor can not read the material and use it to assist you in finding information. Sometimes the records will led you to good references material. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP footnote

Jclemens, I see you reverted my removal of this footnote:

It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low profile individuals.

Unless I'm missing something, it just repeats that the BLP policy applies to living people, and that the "notable for just one event" doesn't apply to people notable for more than just one event. Is there a particular reason you want to keep it? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Recentism, balance

Based on the above discussion, #Carcharoth_on_editing_BLPs_as_a_whole, here a proposal, with the sentence to be added marked in bold:

Importance of maintenance

Report BLP incidents at the biographies of living persons noticeboard.

Wikipedia contains hundreds of thousands of articles about living persons. From both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other inappropriate material from these articles. This includes article maintenance to ensure that biographies are not overwhelmed by material added in response to ongoing media controversies: a biography article should always strive to present a balanced overview of the subject's life to date, without becoming unduly focused on recent controversies. However, but these concerns must be balanced against other concerns, such as allowing articles to show a bias in the subject's favor by removing appropriate material simply because the subject objects to it, or allowing articles about non-notable publicity-seekers to be retained. When in doubt about whether material in a BLP is appropriate, the article should be pared back to a policy-compliant version. Sometimes the use of administrative tools such as page protection and deletion is necessary for the enforcement of this policy, and in extreme cases action by Wikimedia Foundation staff is required.

Discussion

Thoughts? --JN466 14:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a "see also" for WP:PIECE now that one arbitrator in CC specifically singled it out? Collect (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

With the excessive emphasis on secondary sourcing for even non-controversial claims, coupled with some broken and overly loose notability guidelines, we've created a situation where we've encouraged the creation of not biographies, but rather "rap sheets". A notable, but not famous, person will generally not garner much secondary source coverage except on the few high profile events that they are involved in. Citation of primary sources for information necessary to actually write a biography is discouraged by this guideline. Our BLP policy has made it hard to write actual biographies for lower profile individuals, and our loose notability guidelines won't let us delete their articles. Gigs (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically good, but I'd like something that emphasises the role of discussion, because we already have BLP policy being used excessively as a trump card that ends or even precludes debate. So after "...pared back to a policy-compliant version" add , and sufficient time taken to establish through discussion and (if necessary dispute resolution) a consensus on whether and how to introduce the material in question. PS I think there's a "not" missing: "not allowing articles to show a bias". Rd232 ^talk 11:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Controversies

Per Tony's comment above, 21:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC), here a proposal for an additional paragraph, to be added after the "Criticism and praise" section:

Controversies

Further information: WP:COATRACK, WP:PIECE, and WP:RECENTISM

When covering controversies in a BLP, or other articles involving living persons, care must be taken to ensure that this material does not overwhelm the article. While notable controversies should be addressed, a biography article must at all times strive to present a balanced overview of the subject's life to date, as available from reliable sources. Editors adding new material must be mindful of the overall state of the article when saving a new article version, ensuring that they do not leave the article unbalanced, or unduly focused on a recent controversy that has attracted media attention.

Discussion

Thoughts? --JN466 11:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't much like that, either for the content or in terms of having an additional section. My suggestion above for the "importance of maintenance" paragraph covers this ground better, I think. Rd232 ^talk 11:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The key phrase is "as available from reliable sources". If we're going to have a paragraph on combating recentism, it needs to have a sentence or two pointing editors to the need to use all available sources, including harder-to-get offline sources, rather than depending merely on what's easily available (typically free) online. You can't force people, but it's worth encouraging in policy perhaps. Rd232 ^talk 11:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I think Tony's point was that putting it under "maintenance" is closing the barn doors after the horse has bolted. In other words, we assume and tacitly countenance that BLPs will develop this way, and then from time to time we "tidy them up again". He is correct that this is not how it should be. But this is difficult to get right, and I would appreciate input from other editors on how we can translate Carcharoth's sentiments, above, into a viable wording. --JN466 12:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I would prefer:

Material about controversies should not dominate any biography. The article must be viewed as an entirety, with editors at all times seeking to provide a balanced overview of the persons involved. Defamatory material representing clear opinions of critics should be avoided. [3] states the view of the Arbitration Committee regarding use of blogs, specifically stating that blogs are not to be used for disputed information regarding a living person. (Note: This would be changed to show the final vote - right now the proposal is not opposed to represent the final wording).

Or thereabouts. Collect (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I would rather a general reminder that biographical articles should be written as biographies, maybe with a link to an essay or guideline regarding what a good biography should cover. I think that it's telling that I can find no actual guidance on the writing of a good biographical article. Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies) focuses on trivial matters like how to format someone's honorific. There seems to be a gap in our guidance here. Instead of giving people yet another caution about what not to do, we should instead tell them what they should do. Gigs (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a page or section with good examples of various types of biographies from our arsenal of featured articles. Someone interested in creating an article for a sportsperson could be shown, say, the Jim Thorpe article so they have a sense of what a good article on the subject looks like. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the real challenge is writing a biography for someone who doesn't have a whole lot of secondary coverage, yet passes notability. I suspect that the problem at hand happens more often there. I disagree with the current verbiage in this policy that forbids using even straightforward claims from primary sources, such as date of birth. I don't think it's in line with our general sourcing policies. I think we need expanded guidance on what kinds of primary sourcing is appropriate so that we can write actual biographies for people that don't necessarily have much secondary coverage. Gigs (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

A really good page giving guidance on how to counteract recentism in practice (explicitly a How To guide, rather than just general principles and admonitions), in the context of a BLP (particularly lower notability BLPs), would be a really, really useful resource. I'd encourage anyone willing to have a go at this to do so. Rd232 ^talk 17:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources should be used at a minimum, if at all. A notable person should not have to rely on primary sources for a biographical article. If anything, date of birth is a particularly good example of something that should never be primary-sourced, as all sorts of people tend to lie about their own age. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

In an ideal world where not every professional sports player or tenured professor were notable, that might work. The reality of the current situation is that we have plenty of people that pass notability that have no or nearly no secondary source coverage. We wind up with this problem of undue weight on the few events in their life that drew newspaper coverage, rather than an actual biography. Alternately, we rely heavily on self-published material, and basically become a vehicle for their own promotion. This is especially true of professors, who often have their CV published on their school's page, which becomes the entire basis of their article, since we don't require any secondary coverage at all for professors to be notable; professors with a lot of highly cited published work usually pass notability with no other coverage. Gigs (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This is why the word "strive" in the proposal is good, and why the word "ensuring" is bad. Replace "ensuring" with "aiming" or something similar, and I like this proposal. Fences&Windows 19:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. We could say "lest they leave" instead of "ensuring that they do not leave", but perhaps that is a little too old-fashioned. Another way might be, Editors adding new material must be mindful of the overall state of the article when saving a new article version, and should check that they have not left the article unbalanced, or unduly focused on a recent controversy that has attracted media attention. Would that work? --JN466 03:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen people selectively pull quotes from a politician's speeches or books, and use the quotes to imply bad stuff about the speaker. I'ld be great if this proposal can address that. FurrySings (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That is addressed in WP:OR (WP:PSTS/WP:SYN). --JN466 03:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Instead of giving people yet another caution about what not to do, we should instead tell them what they should do. I agree with that sentiment. We have too many "do nots", and not enough "dos". --JN466 03:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Durant

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#African American category regarding the placement of the article about Kevin Durant in Category:African American basketball players. Comments and suggestions on what to do with the article would be appreciated. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed summary addition on Citations in BLPs

User:Berian added the following to the beginning of the "Reliable Sources" section: "BLPs require more cites, they should be inline cites, and they must be of a higher quality, than for most other articles." User:Rrius reverted at the same time I was reverting. I just want to add to Rrius's edit summary to say that I actually don't believe that the summary statement by Berian is correct. Nothing in policy requires "more" sources--it just strictly requires that everything be sourced. Similarly, as much as I like inline citations, I don't see anything in policy that requires them. And, finally, I think all sources on Wikipedia need to have high quality, not just those on BLP articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I intended my edit summary to say, "Rvt. Let's let the policy speak for itself rather than adding a summary that is not quite accurate." I agree with all the points User:Qwyrxian makes. -Rrius (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

trying to delete an image of an alleged prostitute

An image captioned "German Prostitute" and showing an identifiable female is, so far, being kept. We disagree on whether the Foundation has her consent; I say it has to be sent to the Foundation and be explicit, not implied from her maybe being an editor. We also disagree on whether it's sufficient to wait until she herself requests deletion, especially if she's not an editor and doesn't know of the picture. Names mismatch. A second deletion request is now pending for a few more days. Please take a look at Deletion_requests/File:0405.Annabell_002.jpg and scroll to the second request. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

 Note: Image is hosted at Commons. –xeno^talk 13:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to a comment that was deleted: Responding to other people's concerns and understandings required more length. The image page has my request as a huge single paragraph because that's apparently required by the automatic request process but the deletion request page has it divided into paragraphs for easier readability. The other charges are in error. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding a few lines to the BLP section

• The BLP policy shall extend for a reasonable time to the biographies of those individuals who may have died recently. The reasonableness of the duration of time post death till which the BLP policy will apply would depend upon the the editors views; but in general, three months is the general upper time limit after death, post which the BLP policy would cease to be applicable. Such an extension of BLP policy to biographies of recently dead individuals is being made for the same reasons that underline the creation of the policy itself.

I propose to add the above lines to the BLP section. Comments, criticism would be appreciated. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 04:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I like this addition. This is especially helpful for high profile people, since often right after the death there's all sorts of semi-sourced "rumors" that fly about, which could be as damaging to the family as an unsourced rumor prior to death. Even the fact that, for a high profile person, we often get the "retrospective" stories on legitimate programs, which then get read by Wikipedia users who, through the telephone-game process of listening and memory, add some fact they think they heard but wasn't actually in the broadcast. Since BLP policy is really nothing other than a very strict interpretation of WP:V, I don't see why this couldn't be made official policy. It does seem to be a somewhat significant change, though, so one could argue it needs a little more visibility (an RfC, a Village Pump post, etc.)than just being discussed here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd also support this addition, per Qwyx above. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The whole point of BLP is that Wikipedia can get sued under American law for defaming living people. If you folks want a policy about dead people, it should be taken up elsewhere. -Rrius (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose There are already far too many wikipedia editors who want to run the site so as not to hurt other people's feelings, and this is a step in the wrong direction. Dead is dead, and the existing references to recently dead people in the existing policy should be struck, not augmented. Jclemens (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Rrius and Jclemens. Dead people are not the subject of this policy, take it elsewhere. Roger (talk) 08:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose for the opposite reason. The point of BLP is certainly NOT about Wikipedia getting sued. The point is about not having a careless attitude to material that may harm real people - and demanding sources so that we don't have untrue stuff in articles. Wikilawyering about whether a person is dead misses the point. No article should have unreferenced negative material at all. It is totally unacceptable in the biography of a living person and (by degrees) in articles that may affect living people. The recently dead are likely to have relatives that may be hurt or offended by untrue negative material - and so our vigilance must continue here. This doesn't stop at any arbitrary place like three months. The problem with this proposal is that it suggests that it may be OK to have negative unreferenced material in an article after the person has been dead six months. No, it is not. If living relatives may be hurt it is NEVER OK, and if anything we should be more sensitive with the bereaved. (And grief does not stop at three, six, or twelve months!!!!) Sure, on the biography of Henry VIII we can be a little more relaxed, because his descendants are not quite as emotionally attached to his reputation, but on any ordinary person who has been dead a year or ten negative unreferenced material ought to be removed immediately. This proposal is well-meaning but would be disastrous: a charter for people to be indifferent to harm and hurt.--Scott Mac 08:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the policy deals with this quite well already, without any kind of deadline, but just asking people to be careful: "This policy does not apply to edits about the deceased. But material about the deceased may have implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of the recently deceased, so anything questionable should be removed promptly." See here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• oppose per SlimVirgin. Rd232 ^talk 14:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, too. See WP:CREEP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support/not sure. Agree completely with Scott Mac's position but it would be nice if an editor could remove unsourced BS persistently added to an article about someone who recently died without the spectre of 3RR hanging over his head. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is probably superfluous. We don't put crap into BLPs just because somebody has died. Somebody above says "The whole point of BLP is that Wikipedia can get sued under American law for defaming living people." That is a categorically false statement. The whole point is that we don't write harmful crap in Wikipedia. --TS 01:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose in agreement with Jclemens; I'm tempted to support it only because I think ScottMac's position is so misguided. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • My position is clearly current policy, I fail to see how it can be misguided. Do you think it is OK to insert unreferenced negative biographical material into articles, regardless of any harm it may cause?--Scott Mac 13:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the proposal for which this section was started has nothing to do with adding unreferenced material to BLPs, I wasn't making any comments on that issue (and figured it was pretty sensible to ignore yours). Instead, I was commenting on whether it is appropriate to orient BLP policy almost exclusively around the notion that avoidance of harm is the highest value. Really, I think you missed the point of Wifione's proposal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea what you were commenting on, since you didn't comment on substance, you simply made a dismissive remark about my views. I'd have thought my statement was uncontroversial common sense. It doesn't matter what policy page you put it on, or what you call it, it is not on to add unreferenced negative material which may cause harm or distress to any living person. Such material ought to be ruthlessly removed. Keeping it, on the basis that the person has been dead for over three months (or indeed three or thirty years) and thus such and such a policy isn't technically applicable, is always unacceptable. No riders that anyone may seek to add to this page will change that.--Scott Mac 14:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have said nothing at all in favor of adding unreferenced material to BLPs, and Wifione's proposal had nothing to do with that. What are you getting at here? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What am I getting at? I'm simply repeating the view I stated that you for some undisclosed reason called "misguided". Although I wonder that your rider "to BLPs" may indicate what you are about. My point is BLP or not, bad is bad. Don't do it. Don't make artificial distinctions, and then do it.--Scott Mac 14:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that it might make sense for you to start a section here admonishing people not to add unreferenced material to BLPs. I'll voice my support for that idea there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, so I'm not misguided then? Good.--Scott Mac 14:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Only on the notion that avoiding harm is the most important principle of BLP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding having bad stuff on living people is the principle of BLP. We avoid it, because it may be harmful. Why else?--Scott Mac 15:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Depending on what you mean by "bad stuff", your statement is obviously incorrect. I haven't looked, but I'd be very surprised if our article on Ian Huntley didn't contain bad stuff. Some people do bad things. Only if "bad stuff" somehow implicitly means "unreferenced" could what you wrote make sense. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for goodness sake. Don't bother with the straw men - I've said "unreferenced" a dozen times. Now you are being obtuse.--Scott Mac 15:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• • • Scott Mac is exactly correct in his comments and Scott is totally in line with policy. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Scott Mac is incorrect in his explanation, and so by extension are you. Avoiding having unsourced bad stuff on living people is the principle of BLP. One could probably justify "unsourced or undue" as well, although UNDUE is part of NPOV, not BLP. I'm all for succinct summations of policy, but not ones that leave out key elements. Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Whatever you are calling "incorrect" is not what I said. I suggest you read again what I said.--Scott Mac 15:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
          • I was referring only to the (then) immediately prior comment, "Avoiding having bad stuff on living people is the principle of BLP." which is correct, but quite insufficiently thorough. I get that it's shorthand, and wasn't meaning to imply that you hadn't said anything correct at all--just that the brief summary was misleading. Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself: The point of BLP is certainly NOT about Wikipedia getting sued. The point is about not having a careless attitude to material that may harm real people - and demanding sources so that we don't have untrue stuff in articles. Wikilawyering about whether a person is dead misses the point. No article should have unreferenced negative material at all. It is totally unacceptable in the biography of a living person and (by degrees) in articles that may affect living people. The recently dead are likely to have relatives that may be hurt or offended by untrue negative material - and so our vigilance must continue here. This doesn't stop at any arbitrary place like three months. The problem with this proposal is that it suggests that it may be OK to have negative unreferenced material in an article after the person has been dead six months. No, it is not. If living relatives may be hurt it is NEVER OK, and if anything we should be more sensitive with the bereaved. (And grief does not stop at three, six, or twelve months!!!!) Sure, on the biography of Henry VIII we can be a little more relaxed, because his descendants are not quite as emotionally attached to his reputation, but on any ordinary person who has been dead a year or ten negative unreferenced material ought to be removed immediately. This proposal is well-meaning but would be disastrous: a charter for people to be indifferent to harm and hurt. (emph added)--Scott Mac 16:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

JN466's recent edit regarding treating infoboxes like categories

I support JN466's reverted edit that clarifies that infoboxes should be treated like categories. The spirit of that section is that we have to be careful making classifications that are without context and without citation support. Infobox claims like "Religion: Muslim" are almost exactly like categories in that regard. We are binning people without any context or discussion, and such classifications should be pretty solid before we make them. Gigs (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your rationale, it is mine too. (I made the edit yesterday, edit summary: infoboxes are fully analogous: if the category name must not be used per BLPCAT, it is equally improper to add it to the infobox; copyedit.) Nomoskedasticity, who reverted this addition, feels that if policy forbids him from adding a category like Jewish, Scientologist, atheist, or homosexual to a BLP, this does not affect his right to add the same category label to the BLP's infobox. I can't see a good-faith argument in favour of his position. --JN466 17:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• oppose -- the way things are going, "I'm not a crook" is going to end up sufficient reason not to label someone as a criminal. Look, in general it's right to refrain from using labels like this unless someone embraces the identity. But an absolute rule along these lines leads to the wrong outcome sometimes. It ought to be sufficient to require good sources as with the rest of BLP and then editors can work towards the right outcome in the usual way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:BLPCAT carefully. Policy requires self-identification for categories of religious identity and sexual orientation; the WP:BLPCAT standard for criminals is different. --JN466 17:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • "I'm not a crook" isn't a useful comparison. A person's status as a criminal must be sourced from a guilty verdict by a court of law no matter if the subject denies it all the way to the grave. "I am a Presbyterian" must be accepted at face value if it is sourced from the subject, whereas a third party source saying "He is a homosexual/atheist" could be malicious gossip. Roger (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is really quite misguided. As an example: if someone says "I am a Jew" but in reality that person is a messianic Jew, it's really quite wrong to label that person as a Jew. Someone not recognized as Jewish by the vast majority of Jews should not be labeled a Jew. The problem with a rule like this is the way it simplifies a complex issue unnecessarily and unproductively. Opposing this proposal does not mean anything goes -- it simply means that a discussion of sources is a better way to address a complex topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A messianic Jew would still be recognised as Jewish by the vast majority of Jews. suggesting otherwise is a big misunderstanding of how Judaism and Jewish culture works and part of the reason I have set out the "Jewish" section above. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to disagree -- in fact it's entirely normal to do so on this issue (though I think you're plainly wrong). Anyway, your reply inadvertently reinforces my objection to this proposal: the topic as a whole is too complicated to warrant a simple rule. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is, Nomoskedasticity, it is entirely against the spirit of BLPCAT to argue, Yes, I know I mustn't categorise him as an atheist/Scientologist/Jew/homosexual, because he hasn't self-identified with that. That's why I'm sticking it into the infobox instead! BLPCAT is a simple rule. I suspect you don't like it, but it is not up for negotiation. --JN466 20:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

On the question of religion/belief and sexual orientation the subject themself is the sole, absolute and final authority. This is one of the very few absolute rules on WP. It is not open to debate. Roger (talk) 20:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

supportI do support the edit however per gigsStuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I completely support the proposed change. Religion and sexual identification are issues that require self-identification. In the article body of Person Y, it is reasonable to say, if it relevant to a person's notability, that Commentator X has theorized that Person Y may be Religion Z (assuming things like WP:RS, WP:DUE, etc. are met). That's because the article provides full, proper context for the claim. The problem with infoboxes and categories don't allow for this full contextualization. Also, echoing other editors in that this only applies to religious and sexual identities, not to criminal activities, dates of birth, or anything else. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done Edit reinstated per discussion above. --JN466 12:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

BLPCAT and "Jewish"

I wanted someone else to start this debate, so I don't look like I'm forum shopping but despite suggesting it elsewhere no-one has taken up the mantle. Several editors define "Jewish" to be a statement of Religion which by BLPCAT requires a self-identification, notably one editor Yair Rand has even suggested an edit to wiktionary that would set this as our defining definition. By Contrast most other dictionaries OED, Chambers Dictionary, Wordnet, and others start with a definition of Jewish as something similar to "of or relating to Jews or their culture or religion" and define a Jew as "a person of Hebrew descent or religion" looking at it this way would put ethnicity as the primary meaning of Jew or Jewish with Cultural identification or Religious identification coming after.

In terms of BLPCAT this is important particularly where we have categories such Category:Jewish atheists where we want atheism to be the individuals self-identified philosophy and Jewish to be the individual's ethnicity(or culture) identified through a consensus of secondary sources. However, this can also be important in any other Jewish Category or List where significant secondary sourcing identifies the individual as "Jewish" whilst no self-identification is available. I've noticed regularly that some editors will call for the removal of Jewish Categories when they believe "Jewish" to mean "Religion" and rightly so - we don't categorise by religion unless it's important to the person's notability. But the notability of many people may be in their ethnicity particularly if they are notable for a role which sits either for or against ethnic stereotyping. So with these facts, I would consider a wording change either to WP:BLPCAT or WP:EGRS specifically identifying that for "Jewish" categorisation when identified by secondary source consensus we include as as a statement of ethnicity or Culture and when self-identified we include as a statement of Religion. Ideally within a list we should use a note identifying which criteria of inclusion was used and any conflicting identification - i.e. where a consensus of reliable secondary sources identifies an individual as ethnically Jewish but the individual self-identifies as not religiously or culturally Jewish. For a category the ability to note is not available (though it could be boiler-plated) so it may be required to weigh up the reliability and number of sources on either side before deciding to categorise.

some of this was previously discussed at Self-Identification_versus_Verifiable_Fact. but that was designed to be a more general discussion about when an individual's self identification conflicts with reliable sources about them. The consensus from that debate is included within the proposal above.

So should we change the wording to cover the above situation, and if so where should we alter/insert the wording?

Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Are you saying Wikipedia should decide how to identify which people are Jews, and include descriptions of whether or not Wikipedia has made the decision based on their religion, ethnicity, or some other consideration? If so, that's a fairly obvious violation of WP:NOR, and, in my view, not particularly helpful or relevant. If a reliable source (or the subject themselves) describes a person as "Jewish"/"not Jewish" (or similar locution), that's all Wikipedia really needs to know - why would Wikipedia want or need to enter into a complex analysis of exactly what factors went into that designation? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

@Jayjg No, I'm not suggesting WP:OR my point is that a number of editors are pigeon-holing "Jewish" to mean "A follower of Judaism" per BLPCAT as it stands this requires a self-identification and these editors are looking for that. If this meaning becomes widely accepted as it appears to be; it makes some categorisations or listings of Jewish individuals where a self-identification is not present fundamentally flawed (and difficult to justify their existence). You seem to be taking the other position with which I agree that the much wider definition holds for "Jewish" and that definition only requires reliable sources which may or may not include self-identification but may be third party identification. What I'm proposing is that a clarification on the matter of Jewish Categorisation not requiring self-identification but still requiring reliable secondary sourcing should be written somewhere (potentially in BLPCAT) that these editors looking for self-identification may be pointed to. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Stuart.Jamieson, I am not sure what you mean by "consensus from [the] debate" you started at VPP. Let's remember what this is really about: At List of Jewish actors you are fighting for the inclusion of actors who are of partial Jewish descent and explicitly self-identify as not Jewish in one sense or another, but are not known to self-identify as Jewish in any other sense. (The discussion was at Talk:List of Jewish actors#Why this is such a bad article.) Maybe it's just because as a German I am particularly sensitive in such matters, but it appears to me that you have an unhealthy obsession with the topic that is not a good basis for proposing a change to BLP. As you can imagine, it's also generally not a good sign if an editor with less than 300 edits (less than 50 different pages edited) proposes a change to a key policy. Hans Adler 21:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

@Hans AdlerThat potentially appears to be the third time you've made a similar Ad hominem against me, you may be particularly sensitive in such matters but that is not a excuse for continuing to make implications against me. 1) The debate at VPP was not specifically about Talk:List of Jewish actors but editors involved in that debate asked to see what article had spurred my question about general conflict of Self-identification and reliable sourcing so some discussion was made of it. The majority of responses said that is an individual says they are X but reliable sourcing says they are Y you can include in a list of Y with a note to the effect that they personally believe they are X. This was expressed by at least BusStop, PostDLF. 2) at List of Jewish actors i was fighting to say that inclusion of actors who are of partial Jewish descent and explicitly self-identify as not Jewish in one sense or another, but are not known to self-identify as Jewish in any other sense did not make it a bad article (hence the title) - poorly sourced article - yes I agree. I did not attempt a revert but engaged in debate as to the inclusion of that item with no intention of ever reinserting and despite locating better sources which could have justified the inclusion I continued the debate on the existing sources as their use was the reason the article was bad. 3) When I found secondary sources that explicitly conflicted with the self-identification I tried to gain a better insight into how the sources should be treated - hence #1. 4) I raised the idea of a change to BLPCAT in relation to Coffeeshivers and NickCT Pigeon-Holing "Jewish" to mean "a follower of Judaism" and NickCT went on to raise this question in several other locations - if you want to check his contribution history. Specifically I discovered him having a similar debate with Bus Stop about this on Category_talk:Jewish_atheists where I joined in, and I think helped change his mind. - However that category has been nominated for deletion two times and it's often been brought up that the individuals are not self-identifying as "Jewish" only atheist (though they can often be reliable secondary sourced as Jewish) - which is the purpose of this debate. 5) Until a short time ago I made hundreds of edits as an I.P. address - then vandals on the same I.P. block got a lot of the dynamic addresses banned so I had to switch to using a user account. Please do not represent my edit count as experience or lack thereof. 6) This doesn't require a change to BLP but is a note for editors that we should not handle "Jewish" categorisations as purely religious categorisation; whether that should be included as part of BLP or part of EGRS or as a stand alone-policy is part of the question I wanted to raise. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I feel in most cases, it can be "Jewish" or "Jew" whatever. But in cases where the ethnicity or religion is clearly not Jewish, such as Category:Jewish atheists, it needs some disclaimer. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense to the average user. Also, this is probably not the best place to be having this discussion 20:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment As I understand the BLP rules "self identification" is the only acceptable sourcing allowed for identifying anyone with a religion. Jewish (religion) and Hebrew (descent/ethnicity) are separable charateristics just as Italian and Catholic are distinct. Roger (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought "Hebrew" was primarily the language; I don't think a simple Jewish=religion / Hebrew=ethnicity distinction is widely accepted. Ethnicity and culture and religion are all bound up in the term "Jewish", which is why the problem arises. (I don't have a solution, besides the drastic measure of abolishing lists and categories with fundamental definitional problems.) Rd232 ^talk 12:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

@Roger Hebrew means a descendent of Eber (Noah's Grandson) this can include several Arab tribes and civilisations, Israelite is a descendent from Jacob (Ebner's great-great-great-great grandson) the descent of all but two of the tribes is lost so the Isrealite descent may occur through other middle eastern nations but no-one fully knows . Those two tribes who we do know the descent of formed the independent kingdom of Judah and called themselves "Jewish" - so that's our point of reference for Jewish ethnology either descended from Judah or Benjamin (two of Jacob's sons). The problem is as Rd232 states that 'Ethnicity and culture and religion are all bound up in the term "Jewish" ' when a source defines an individual as "Jewish" there may not be context given as to whether they are Jewish because of their religious affiliation, because they have been raised culturally Jewish but have a different religious affiliation, or because they are ethnically Jewish through one or both parents. In some cases sources may conflict if the individual is Ethnically or culturally Jewish but follows another Philosophy (like Christianity). In an article about the individual we can include both sources and explain the conflict but in a category we cannot and with many editors having an individual POV on what is or isn't Jewish, it's useful to have a guideline to ensure neutrality. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please let us not use mythology and fairytales to define ethnicity! Language is by definition the primary defining characteristic of ethnicity - it is for example the only way to distinguish a Swede from a Dane. However nationality and ethnicity do not always coincide perfectly. Ashkenazi Jews are in fact ethically Russians, Lithuanians, Hungarians, etc. They are almost indistinguishable from the populations within which they were/are "embedded". Their only distinguising features were/are a few vestigial genetic markers from their middle-eastern ancestors and religion. Ethnicity per se is a minefield and Jewish ethnicity is the part where the bombs are sown the thickest - tread very carefully.

No we do not use Mythology and Fairytales to define ethnicity, but we do have to be clear what time period we are talking about many Arabs claim descent from Ishamel and Esau (Particularly within Islam) these individuals can be included within the scope of "Hebrew" but not within the scope of "Jew" which is much later as is "Arab". Your point of Language is a good one because at the time this group of people started identifying themselves as Jewish they stopped using the Hebrew language and used Aramaic instead; this is a notable split today where Zionist Jews seek to return to Hebrew and Internationalist (particularly Ashkenazi) Jews continue to use the Aramaic descended Yiddish - yet both still identify with the same shared heritage (a far more defining characteristic of ethnicity). In my own case similarly I come from an ethnicity split over 3 languages (two similar one distinct) - No matter which of these languages an individual speaks they still consider themselves to have the same shared heritage. However that heritage extends back only 1,000 years and in some cases less; if I were to identify my heritage to a point before 1066, my ethnicity would be French (et je ne parle pas français). As it is, I'm not writing a document on Jewish ethnicity I'm editing Wikipedia and the important factor is what sources say about individuals. If a reliable source identifies an individual as "Jewish" then is that grounds enough to categorise the individual as Jewish or do we also need a Self-Identification from the person themselves? In your initial comment you seem to state that believe that "Jewish" is not an ethnicity but a Religion and ethnicity should be regarded as "Hebrew" despite many reliable sources identifying the ethnicity of individuals as Jewish. This would make self-identification a requirement for all entries in "Jewish" categories and lists. I believe this may affect the encyclopaedic value of these categories and lists as individuals who are notable for being Jewish but have not made a self identification will have to be removed. I also believe any attempt to remedy this by having a separate "of descent" or "ethnicity" category risk categorising individuals whose Jewish connection is tenuous categorised inappropriately. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As the same opposing views seem to be appearing here, I'd like to propose a potential wording to see if that would help? the Proposal is to add a sentence to the end of BLPCAT which reads:

• Editors should be aware of categories which could have multiple meanings such as Religion (for which a self-identification is required) or Ethnicity (for which reliable secondary sources are required). An example may be Categories that define an individual as Jewish. A person may be categorised as Jewish if they self-identify as a follower of Judaism or if reliable secondary sourcing identifies the individual as ethnically or culturally Jewish.

Ideally I would prefer to keep a NPOV and remove the specific reference to Jewish - other examples exist that may highlight similar cases such an individual being categorised by a nationality or by an ethnicity when they don't fit the other but off hand being Jewish is one of the few cases where it is directly a self-identification versus a consensus of reliable secondary sources. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So in theory a Pope could be categorised as Jewish? I find this hard to get my head around this. Let's also recall this often-ignored bit of our policy, "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless... the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

St Peter Was both a Pope and Jewish so yes it's possible if unlikely. There are Messianic Jews who follow Catholicism (I believe John Kerry's Grandparents were but the chances of one rising through the Catholic Church are exceptionally rare). There are suggestions that Pope_John_Paul_II was ethnically Jewish but no reliable sources exist that would allow him to be categorised as such and it's this reliable sourcing that is important - they might at a stretch be able to categorise him in a "of Jewish Descent" category as opposed to a "Jewish" category but his family tree is (currently) not clear enough to be sure.

I agree completely with that section of Policy, but personally I feel that the self-identification may in many cases not be clear enough to limit that individual's Jewishness to religion; it would be wound up in the whole ball of wax that could include ethnicity or culture or nationality and that it would be WP:OR to remove them on the basis that it is only a religious belief (unless they explicitly state that it is). If it is a ethnic / cultural Jewishness that sources point to, then it could be related to the person's notability (Politician, Performer, Artist, Historian, etc) and is important to keep. In the case of religion we are limited to Jewish religious figures such as rabbis (possibly popes). For the record here [4] is a List of List articles about people who are identified as Jewish. Few will be notable for their religious beliefs but many may be for their other Jewish characteristics. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest to use "ethnically Jewish" to refer to the ethnicity (using whatever sources we require for ethnicity) and "of Jewish faith" or "follows Judaism" to refer to the religion, using the existing criteria for identifying a religion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

"Of Jewish faith" is irrelevant. Judaism doesn't require the holding of any specific beliefs. Ditto for "follows Judaism." A nonobservant Jew is still Jewish. They need not "follow" any practice to be Jewish. This grows out of the misunderstanding that Judaism, like Christianity, requires "belief" in something: a Christian would not be a Christian, for instance, if that person did not accept Christ as their Savior. There is no counterpart to such a belief-requirement in Judaism. Bus stop (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

@Bus stop I respect your Input greatly, but lets suppose as a hypothetical our religious aspect (purely for sourcing reasons and not in any way related to Jewish Law) is "actively engages in Judaism" so attends Synagogue, Obeys the Sabbath, etc. For us to source this in WP we would require a self-identification from the person. For any other Criteria by which the person can be considered Jewish like Ethnicity (including Jewish Law), Culture, nationality then we use reliable secondary sources which say "This person is Jewish". Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuart.Jamieson—you say, "For us to source this in WP we would require a self-identification from the person." No, we would not require a "self-identification from the person." At WP:BLPCAT I find: "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…" Judaism is not a "religious belief." Judaism does not entail a "religious belief." This is applicable to Christianity; this is not applicable to Judaism. A Jew is a Jew if he or she was born a Jew or if he or she converted to Judaism. There is no "belief" that must be present in order for a person to be a Jew. Nonobservant Jews are extremely commonplace. Perhaps the majority of American Jews are nonobservant. Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have suggested that for some articles because of the lack of a source that said Jewish; the problem is that many sources will just specify person X is Jewish without clarifying why they are Jewish. We also have a substantial number of categories and lists based around an inclusive use of the term Jewish that implementing such a change would take a substantial amount of time, effort and oversight - it could be grounds for forming a project specifically to consider it. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If person X is Jewish without clarification in the source then that is a Jewish person, without cites to support religious practice we have no idea if he is a religious Jewish person and that cat should not be added as we have no report about that. If you are in doubt or unsure from the citation then don't add anything. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes in that direction the solution is obvious. However suppose we have the opposite direction let's say we have a consensus of reliable secondary sources that identify Madonna as Jewish. What they don't say is that she's only regarded as Jewish because she converted to Judaism and for the sake of Argument she doesn't self-identify as Jewish. Common sense dictates not to put her in an ethnic categorisation because her ethnicity is well known, the same applies for culture because again her cultural upbringing is well known. However common sense in this case is WP:Synthesis and the WP:V is that she is Jewish. It's very well saying we limit our sourcing to sources that explicitly say "Is of Jewish Descent" but it's far more common to find sources just calling the individual "Jewish" Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuart.Jamieson—you say, "What they don't say is that she's only regarded as Jewish because she converted to Judaism…" If a person converted to Judaism then they are Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone converts to Judaism they are (currently) required by BLPCAT to self-identify to that fact - it's not good enough to have a secondary source saying "Person X converted to Judaism". I know you have issue with the word "Belief" within BLPCAT but the Spirit of BLPCAT is that actively engaging with a religion in some manner requires a self-identification. The reason is clear if Person Y is not by any definition Jewish but is seen entering a Synagogue then a secondary source may errantly identify the individual as Jewish believing the individual is actively engaging in Judaism - This would be a possible defamation issue for WP if WP were to repeat it as fact; so we need that individual to self-identify that they have converted to Judaism. In some cases other criteria can come into play if they have two reliably sourced Jewish parents for example and are identified by a secondary source as Jewish then we enter the area of debate here where WP should/should not require a self-identification to categorise.

In the example I give above the individual is well known to have converted to Judaism but has not made an explicit self-identification that she is Jewish. This leaves WP open to potential defamation if the secondary sources have their facts wrong. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Everyone knows Madonna converted to Kaballa and the sources say that, we have a big section in her Bio commenting about it and her Kaballa name is in the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

It's called a Hypothetical Situation; with a Mega-star like Madonna it's easy to find reliable sourcing with a more modestly notable individual the Hypothesis may stand true. However Madonna is well enough known that anyone reading this should know who she is and that she converted to Kaballa so she makes for well known example of someone whose Jewishness is only through religion which is what the hypothesis called for. Notably she hasn't (that I can see) been categorised or listed as Jewish anywhere. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The Madonna issue is great for this issue, she is not in a Kaballa cat, do we have one? and even though Kaballa is a part of jewish faith we have not labeled her as anything she has not self declared as. I don't know, does she fit in here Category:Kabbalists Off2riorob (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

One doesn't convert to "Kabbalah" as that is not a religion. Bus stop (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's the next best thing. Off2riorob (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Stuart.Jamieson, can I have a response (and from others) about the bit "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless... the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." There's no 'or' in our policy, that bit is vital. I raised this issue yesterday at Jimbo's page (his response is relevant to all this discussion). Dougweller (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I did reply to you Doug, my answer is above that I agree completely with that section of policy, but if it is a ethnic / cultural Jewishness that sources point to, then it could be related to the person's notability (Politician, Performer, Artist, Historian, etc) and is important to keep. In the case of a religious Jewishness we are usually limited to Jewish religious figures such as rabbis (possibly popes) but a notable activity could be a prominent conversion to Judaism or they could make public expressions of notable value such as promoting or donating to Jewish Organisations or a regular basis. Although I've joined the debate on Jimbo's page I haven't read everyone's comments and my posts have been in defence of negative depictions of my motivations, I will try to respond better when I can.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that the fork over to Jimbo's page has concluded, I'd like to continue here. There were a number of options put forward summarised as:

1. Self-identification required for all contentious categorisation - essentially adding ethnicity and culture in with religion and sexual orientation
2. Wholesale deletion of all ethnic/cultural/Religous/Gender categorisations
3. Rigorous sourcing for any religion/ethnic type of material and Equal treatment for all ethnicities and religions - This was Jimbo's suggestion and may require further discussion in how it affects/shapes WP:BLP
4. require notability for all categorisation not just religious/sexual orientation
5. Lay down a restrictive set of rules defining who WP considers to be Jewish
6. Have multiple categories depending on context for example "religious Jewish rabbis", "cultural Jewish comedians", "historians of Jewish Ethnicity", etc.
7. all categories (no matter how benign) must have a self-identification to include a living individual
8. All Categorisation of individuals is dangerous and should not occur

My personal position remains as above a combination of current sourcing policy and #4 I also agree with Jimbo that sourcing of this nature needs to be rigorous but look for discussion on equality for ethnicity and religion how that equality should be interpreted and implemented. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I vote for wholesale deletion of all ethnic/cultural/religious/gender categories, and you can add race (to the extent that's different from ethnicity) and sexual orientation to that as well, and maybe I can think of a few more. These categories just aren't necessary and they create so many problems and disputes and sourcing issues that they aren't worth whatever minimal value they might provide. If a person's ethnicity/religion/etc. are relevant to their biography, put it in the article. Neutron (talk) 17:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Now that is a good idea. Johnuniq (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Course it is. Just common sense. Hans Adler 22:23, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Non-English sources and BLP (foreign language sources)

I think we need to improve the clarity around the use of non-English sources in a BLP article as a source for a negative comment. There needs to be some clearly defnied overlap between WP:BLP and WP:NONENG especially when it comes to potentially negative information.

I see that this has been mentioned at least twice here before: Once a number of years ago with varying opinions, and again in 2009 - which went unanswered.

I just removed these two comments from a BLP article, both of which were sourced with a foreign language reference which a) I can't read, and b) I am not sure if it is reliable even if I could read it. WP:NONENG mentions that non-English sources can be used, but that English sources are preferred. I think that WP:NONENG should be amended to require English sources for -BLP comments, or that WP:BLP should have a clause that overrides WP:NONENG... or better yet both.

Forgive the long L2 heading, but I am trying to make this topic easier to find if we don't get it resolved this time around.

Thoughts?  7  07:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll revert your change, as it is not policy compliant. English sources are preferred obviously, if they are about the same topic as the non-English sources. Foreign sources are suspect if they don't seem to have any relation to the subject (say, a Polish newspaper relating something negative about David Beckham that isn't reported in the English speaking media). In this case, Aftonbladet is a Swedish newspaper reporting about a footballer playing in Sweden, so it is obvious that they are interested, and it is equally obvious that English language media may well be a lot less interested. Whether this tabloid is a reliable suorce can perhaps be debated, and can be solved by reformulating the sentences ("According to Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, ..."). But to restrict BLP coverage (or negative BLP coverage) to English language media only is a huge step that needs a much broader discussion before it can be implemented. Fram (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok - well needless to say I disagree with your revert... but regardless, I don't want this to be a discussion about that one single article but a starting point to the much broader discussion that I was asking for and that you mentioned in your last sentence.  7  07:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't disallow sources because you can't read them or because you can't see whether they are reliable or not. When in doubt, you can always check with Swedish-speaking editors, or read the articles about the newspapers that were used (in this case, one tabloid and one more serious newspaper). You can use Google translate or another tool to check that the statements source to the article roughly agree with the newspaper articles. You can see that other sources in Swedish, like Eurosport, relate the exact same story: "AIK closes until further notice by the key player Dulé Johnson. Midfielder has been arrested on suspicion of rape and shutdown comes after one of the club's sponsors have called for Johnson kicked. "A hasty decision," said Johnson's lawyer." is the Google translation of the first sentence of this article. If we want to have articles on BLPs in non-English speaking countries, then we have to allow sources from there as well. Extra care is needed, but outright removal is not the way to go. There are more than enough ways to check such things from most major or western languages. When there are really not sufficient means available to check a source, then removal is warranted. But not in a case like this, or in many similar cases (and for all clarity, I don't speak or understand Swedish, so I don't have any advantage over other editors here). Fram (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

:I must say that I am against this proposal. Common sense and due diligence must remain as discussed above but a blanket restriction of non-English sources for BLPs would severely and needlessly restrict coverage of much of the world. J04n(talk page) 09:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC) see below. J04n(talk page) 15:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

We use the best sources, especially in BLP articles. In many cases the best sources are obviously those in languages other than English. There are some obvious problems with topics related in any way to nationalism or other fields in which the local majority POV is very different from the majority POV in the major English-speaking countries or the global POV. But in practice we have no problems dealing with the resulting situations. Hans Adler 10:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hans. I suggest however that where a non-English source is the best available source, that the crucial phrases be translated in an appropriate place (in text or as a footnote). Furthermore, the imposition of a ban could prevent an editor from adding some non-contraversial material from a foreign-language source, for example, the date or place of birth of the person concerned, especially where privacy is not an issue. Martinvl (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I counsel against mandating (or even allowing) translations in footnotes, because that's asking for trouble. The original foreign language text should stand by itself. The English language Wikipedia has a diverse range of people who have the language skills needed to verify the sources. --TS 15:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think in most cases it's best to quote a relevant sentence or two in the original language. That way interested editors who don't read the language well no precisely where to look if the source is accessible to them, and at least have a snippet if they don't, and they have a fighting chance of doing some sanity checks using dictionaries and online translation tools. More importantly, since the circle of editors who can check a source is smaller in the case of non-English sources it's a good idea to make the checking easier for those who do read the language. (That's less of a concern where most editors interested in an article are native speakers of the language of the source and there are no clear demarcation lines between editors who speak the language and those who don't.)

The problem with translating is that it's hard to do a sanity check on a translation when you don't have access to the original, and if the translation is completely off the editor who did it profits from plausible deniability. Hans Adler 16:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this speaks to a larger issue of accessibility of sources. We don't require that any particular editor be able to easily access any particular source. Common examples are scientific journals with expensive subscription fees or books that are rare and expensive, or TV shows that are no longer aired or available on DVD. I view foreign language sourcing the same way. You may not be able to personally access the source, but as long as it's possible for someone to, then I think that we need to AGF on it. Gigs (talk) 19:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Conversely, if a source has been shown to have been (deliberately) mistranslated, all claims in an article based on that source become suspect. And such, alas, has occurred in the past. Collect (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

One solution is to have both the original text and the translation alongside each other in the footnote. Martinvl (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

(←) Something should be added to the policy to caution editors against letting contentious claims about living people remain until an editor fluent in an obscure tongue can be located. We could simply define a list of acceptable foreign languages which are sufficiently common that many editors will speak them. However, machine translation renders this unnecessary: if software of reasonable quality to translate a language is readily available, then any editor can verify references written in it. Peter Karlsen (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The issue is verifiability, not convenience to editors. Forbidding sources that come from certain languages would in a biased systematical way degrade our coverage of entire countries and groups of people - it's also anglocentric. There are plenty of other cases of hard-to-find or hard-to-interpret sources, e.g. source available only to a fee or otherwise behind a password, sources that aren't online and may even be out of print, sources of a technical nature. Incidentally, machine translation is very poor. It's not a good aid to verifiability in many cases. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree. WP:AGF requires us to accept the bona fides of the editor who adds such material in the first place. Unless there is good reason to doubt the honesty of the editor, we must assume that the contributor is capable of and did in fact understand the "obscure language" source he/she cites. Roger (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues here: verifiability, and realistic quality control.

1. Something sourced from a foreign language source is technically verifiable. There's no reason per se that a foreign source is any less reliable than an English one. To say otherwise is bias.
2. However, Wikipedia also needs quality control. What I mean by that is that the fact that something is sourced does not make it neutral, or accurate. The source may be being deliberately or carelessly misused or misinterpreted. We have a duty to BLP subjects of effective quality quality control - that is having a realistic mechanism for untrue or biased information being identified and removed speedily.

   Our quality control method works (where it does work) by another editor coming and 1) removing unreferenced negative stuff, 2) checking referenced negative stuff against the source offered. We fail badly on the second of these as it is. However, a large factor in this QC working is the accessibility of the source to the reviewer. The more inaccessible the source, the less chance of a reviewer being able (or bothered) to review it. This is a problem with subscription material, or (indeed) any off-line material. It is, however, perhaps a larger problem with foreign language sources. Realistically, who is going to check them? Sure, we CAN find a Wikipedian who speaks that language - but people simply are not routinely going to go to make that effort, especially if the negative material is plausible. The more obscure the language, the greater this problem becomes. An article on a Mexican politician using a Spanish language source might get checked (because many US users have some Spanish) - but an article on a Bosnian politician using a Serbo-Croatian source is highly unlikely to be checked.

The "assume good faith" argument doesn't cut it here. Lots of people make good faith contributions - however we have a rule that then need to be sourced or we remove them. Why do we have that rule? It is quite possible that an unsourced negative contribution will be factual and neutral (and indeed verifiable), and a sourced one will be twisted and biased (and unverifiable). We have that rule so that it is easier to CHECK a contribution. Assume Good Faith is not enough. The same is true here, we may need to say "in order for realistic quality control, we need a more accessible source here". The only other option is to take even more significant risks of libelling living people. That is not acceptable - its bad enough with English-language sourced material that isn't checked and isn't true.--Scott Mac 12:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The present wording of BLP is adequate for people to challenge the verifiability of contentious material. We can't allow BLP to become a bulldozer that clears entire languages from our collective understanding of living people. Is there a problem here that we can't address in a case-by-case manner when it occurs? We hardly need a broad new rule to deal with the example at the top of this section, it's removable on sight as it is. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that answers my point about Quality Control. The point is: what is a realistic policy that stands a chance of minimising the possibility of preventing apparently sourced libels being unnoticed? You can't review whether systems work by insisting on a "case by case" basis. Each case CAN be fixed, but taken together it is unrealistic to suppose that even a small number of these foreign language references will ever be checked. The question then is: "given how unlikely it is that anyone will check foreign language sources for accuracy, is it responsible to allow negative BLP material to depend only on a foreign language source?". I'd say, clearly not.--Scott Mac 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is there a problem that needs fixing? Hidden libel is a hypothetical conjecture, hardly worth banning entire languages as sources. People are unlikely to check any source, particularly for an uncontroversial statement. If it's offline, expired, or a pay site, certainly not. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hidden libel is NOT a hypothetical conjecture. Have you done OTRS? I have. Valid complaints are regularly received about sourced material which is not accurate. And we are not talking about "uncontroversial statements" we are talking about what constitutes acceptable sourcing for negative material on BLPs.--Scott Mac 22:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Then it is not hidden libel but clear disparagement, and dealing with it is already covered, it can be removed if challenged as inadequately sourced. Every decent web service has a complaints department. If a problem that has slipped through the cracks goes to OTRS and it's resolved there, that counts as a success. Much gratitude that you've worked on that, but what about this particular category of sources merits a blanket prohibition? Are there any cases of grievous BLP violations that would have been removed but for sourcing in a non-machine-translatable language that ended up being invalid citations? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

After reading today's posts, and re-reading the original proposal, and my post above I am going to change my stance. In my original post, I overlooked that this is in regard to negative comments (shame on me because it is in bold). I am in favor of wording requiring sources accessible on the internet, without fees or passwords, in English for all potentialy negative information on a living person. For uncontraversial BLP's I believe foreign language or print only references can be used to establish notability. J04n(talk page) 15:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to anything like this. A complete rewrite of our verifiability and sourcing policy to require accessible sources is not an appropriate response to "think of the children" style fearmongering about some hypothetical case. The effect of this would be to limit sourcing for negative BLP information to only things printed in English-language, online, sources. Gigs (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate but don't agree with your opinion on this. IMO if negative material concerning a living person a is going to be presented where anyone can see it then anyone should be able to verify that information. This is just for the potentially negative stuff. J04n(talk page) 22:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Doing that would restrict some of our best sources—peer-reviewed journal articles and other academic publications. I agree that in cases of ambiguity or where we aren't positive that the source is being used correctly, it should be removed until more than one person can attest to the accuracy of the statement, but there is no reason for a wholesale ban. NW (Talk) 00:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

We are ONLY talking about negative material on living people. How often is such found in subscription "peer-reviewed journal articles and other academic publications" and nowhere else?--Scott Mac 00:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

How often do people, in bad faith, post fraudulent sources to keep negative information in? If there's serious doubts about a source saying what someone claims it says, nothing today stops you from removing the information temporarily. A line having a source behind it doesn't mean that it's immutable and untouchable. Gigs (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Without the backing of the policy, enforcing the temporary removal of a questionable claim about a living person supported by source that is not freely accessible online could prove quite difficult; indeed, the person removing the information could be blocked for edit warring. If temporary removal pending verification is to be a serious possibility in these circumstances, then the policy needs to allow it as an exception to the edit warring policy, and the rules against blocking of editors and protection of articles by involved administrators - waiting for a consensus regarding the issue to develop could take far too long. I agree that a blanket prohibition on the use of sources that aren't available online without charge is unnecessary - however, we should be careful about their use to characterize living people, especially when they are added by editors with no substantial history of contributions, who would have "nothing to lose" by engaging in anonymous defamation. Based on Scott MacDonald's OTRS experience, actual problems of this nature are common. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Being concerned with practicalities of verification only for negative information about living people is problematic. For instance, a claim that someone is gay isn't considered "negative" as a matter of editorial policy. However, characterizations of sexual orientation are sometimes highly sensitive issues of personal identity, and aren't allowed unless backed by reliable sources. When such labelling is added to a BLP, supported by a newspaper article published thirty years ago and only available on microfilm, by an account with no prior edits, we should be worried. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In that case, would a clause like "in cases where a negative statement attributed to a hard-to-access reliable source is challenged, it may be acceptable to temporarily remove the statement pending verification of the source from another editor" work? I came up with that in about 15 seconds, so it obviously can and should be workshopped, but does that get across your main point? NW (Talk) 04:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Clearly there is a potential problem here, as not all languages are available via machine translation and there are also English sources that are paywalled. If editors come across such problems then I would favour a practical solution along the lines I'm starting to use with meta:Death anomalies table - go to the relevant project or wikiproject or some editor who has access to that data and ask them to check. Usually a BLP here with controversial information in a non-English source will have intrawiki links to an article in that language. Perhaps we need more userboxes/user categories for users who have access through particular paywalls or speak particular languages and are willing to check potential BLP issues. ϢereSpielChequers 09:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I don't think that there is a problem if a serious negative allegation is temporarily removed if an editor can't verify the source, as long as he or she actively looks for confirmation of the accuracy of the source and reinstates the removed parts when such confirmation is available. AGF doesn't override WP:BLP, but sourced information shouldn't be removed without some follow-up. Fram (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem doing that either, under current policy. As the meme goes, "AGF is not a suicide pact". However, if we want to change the policy on sourcing to require accessibility, then we need a much wider consensus. Statements like "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources" will have to be changed in WP:V. It's a major departure from current practice to require accessibility of a source. Gigs (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Well sourced allegations in a spinout of a BLP - Urgent: AfD about this closing soon...

The public figures section explicitly calls for the inclusion of well sourced allegations in the relevant BLP of a public figure. What if that material is so large that it no longer fits in the main article and so is made into a spinout? Would that spinout be a violation of WP:BLP and subject to deletion? Please see...

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_doping_allegations_against_Lance_Armstrong

Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that this AfD was closed as delete, but has been taken to deletion review. Jclemens (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sendurgent, 18 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Engineer Dhanasekaran Basker is the inventor of "I Sig". He is born in India and is residence of Singapore. He is graduated from Madras University.

'I SIg' is a new product, invented to protect the environment and keep the people healthy. 'I Sig' structure consists of 1. pipe or tube, 2. filters, 3. flavor substance, 4. flavor substance wrapper. The details of the components are shown in the Fig 2. 'I Sig' is to Inhale through close mouth by place between the upper lip and lower lip or by nose. The function of the 'I Sig' is while inhale air through the mouth or nose by using 'I Sig', the air get purified by filters that filters the pollution particles (dust, carbon, etc) from air and the flavor substance mixes with this filtered air. People need purified air while inhale and get rid of mouth bad smell. 'I Sig' is the new invention product that provides the purified air to keeps the mouth / nose fresh with flavor smell that way helps to keep the people body & mind good health.

'I Sig' is most useful in air filtration, aroma therapy, dry salt therapy. 'I Sig' also used as personal, lifestyle, self-defence product against second-hand smoke air pollution problem.

Sendurgent (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(I removed the inappropriate link). Also, you're a little confused here. If you're trying to create a new article, you want WP:Articles for Creation. Please note that in order to do so, you're going to need to provide independent, reliable sources (from magazines, journals, etc.) that show that this person is notable. 12:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This issue is moot as the article was Speedy deleted as Spam (G11) . Roger (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Essays linked to this policy - BLP Zealot

I specifically object to linking the essay Wikipedia:BLP Zealot (formerly "BLP Nazi") to this policy. This essay is apparently a humorous reflection on BLP extremes (I'm told it is akin to Soup Nazi), but isn't actually criticising any particular user conduct.

If you accept that, then I ask what particular use this essay is, and how it illuminates this policy? I'd say it is mocking and combative and not particularly helpful. More importantly, the fact is that there are many user essays on BLP. I have authored a few myself - (see User: Doc glasgow/The BLP problem WP:DOLT for two examples - although there are many better ones written by others). Some of these have been extensively commented on - indicating that they've caused community reflection. However, these are not directly linked from the policy page.

What is linked is the category Category:User essays on BLP, and I'd suggest that this particular "essay" should (at best) get the same treatment of being added to that category. I see no reason to give this bit of "humour" special treatment.--Scott Mac 15:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs a lot of improvement, but it does reflect a very real problem. (It doesn't reflect it very well right now, granted). I'm going to do some work at improving it and hopefully providing some actual case studies. I've certainly got one in mind myself. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• The only comparison to Soup Nazi (or Grammar nazi for that matter) is with respect to the use of the word "Nazi" (in its original name, now complete excised for being offensive and misunderstood) to mean "excessively strict regimentation". That is, the essay is about "excessively strict regimentation" with respect to applying BLP. It is critical of a particle kind of behavior - the behavior of applying BLP in situations where it should not be applied. That is its use and how it illuminates this policy. Now, go on, and don't be a BLP zealot. I find that it adds some critically needed balance here. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • How does it do that? Can you be specific about the type of behaviour that is problematic? And how this essay will help?--Scott Mac 16:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • The biggest problem I've run into is the "privacy" bit. Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for saying "we shouldn't stuff tabloid rumors in articles". That's true for any article, for that matter, but it should be enforced especially strictly in a BLP. However, I've run into several discussions now (Star Wars kid and Richardson family murders being a couple of examples) where people basically used bloc-obstruction tactics to muscle out well sourced information, that came not from a tabloid or gossip blog, but from highly reputable sources (in many cases, we're talking The New York Times or The Washington Post caliber, and in at least one case a scholarly paper as well). In all cases, however, these editors kept on playing I didn't hear that, and insisting that this information, published in dozens or hundreds of reputable sources, was "private". The definition of a word is not subject to "consensus", words have meanings. We can't "protect the privacy" of already widely published names, any more than we could "protect the privacy" of the 09 F9 key. When something's published in a public manner by reputable, trustworthy sources, there's no longer any privacy to protect, and that becomes a nonissue. But the discussion over it was bizarre and Kafkaesque, and frankly disturbing. I left the project for over a year after seeing what was going on. BLP was always supposed to act against unsourced or poorly sourced information, or negative information given more weight than it should be, and those of us nervous about its draconian enforcement clauses were assured that its scope would remain within these limits. It has not, and that's problematic. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
      • If you mean thing like naming the "Star Wars Kid", then the result of a long discussion was to exclude it, as outwith the spirit of BLP. I respect the fact you disagree with that, but are you suggesting calling the rest of us "zealots" somehow takes that discussion further?--Scott Mac 17:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
        • No, and in fact I don't like the current title either. I've suggested retitling it to Wikipedia:Overzealous BLP enforcement, but that's just an offhand idea, and I'd be very open to other names as well. I don't think the current title or the current version of the essay expresses the problem in the best way possible, but there is a long-overdue conversation to be had on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
          • The issue of privacy is a conversation we've often had, and no doubt will continue to have.--Scott Mac 18:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Well, we've had a "discussion" on it, but I think I know what bothered me so much about the discussions I cited. I've had consensus go against me more than once. Every time that's happened, I tended to say "Well, I still disagree, but I see where they're coming from, and eh, can't win 'em all." In the cases I'm talking about, I just can't even comprehend how the opposing arguments are rational. You can only protect the privacy of something that is, above all, private right now. Otherwise, you're putting a bulletproof vest on someone who's already been shot dead, or the proverbial "closing the barn door after the horses have already run away". Words have meanings. If we want to try to make a policy that we will not publish public information under certain circumstances, I'd disagree, but at least that would be a rational position. Asserting that things are "private", when they are not, is a twisting of language. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
              • A I say, we've had this conversation before, and we'll no doubt have it again. You view is perfectly rational, it just isn't the one that won out.--Scott Mac 19:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
                • See, that's kind of the problem. It's not the case that "my view didn't win out". That's happened before, and it'll happen again. Reality is reality. Things that are not private are, in reality, not private. To call something "private" that's reported in dozens of reliable sources available to the public is not a "view", or an "opinion", it's an absurdity. It's against what the word "private" means. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Scott, the purpose of the links to these essays is not to encourage their use amidst heated debate, but to help inhibit debates from escalating to that point in the first place. This general effect is recognized at WP:AGF when it cautions against using it to accuse others of bad faith. But that's no reason to not have WP:AGF, or to not link to it. Similarly, the fact that calling someone a zealot in the middle of a debate about BLP might not be conducive to reaching consensus is no reason to not link to this essay.

      I agree the essay can be improved, and so can the title (I don't think zealot is quite right because zealot does not necessarily convey excessively strict regimentation - I agree "overzealous" is better, but this is not the place to discuss the ideal name of that essay), but the purpose it serves even as is is to bring attention to the fact that it is possible to be overzealous with the application of BLP, and that that is not good for Wikipedia. Of course, it can only serve that purpose if people see it and read it, and linking to it here should help disseminate that caution within the community. Unless you think it's not possible to be overzealous with the application of BLP, I don't understand your objection to this link. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

      • As I say, there a dozens of user essays on BLP, many of them are better written and have had more time to develop. There is nothing about this essay to make it a special case. Suggest you put it into Category:User essays on BLP with the rest - that category is already linked from the policy page.--Scott Mac 19:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I just realized that category is for essays in user space. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I just created Category:Community essays on BLP to remedy this situation, and fixed the categorization of the relevant essays accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
          • Why can't we just have one category for both types of essay? Is there a precedent for similar essay cats? Gigs (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
            • Does seem a strange split. Particularly as stuff like Wikipedia:Borderline biographies is technically in community space, but is in fact written by one user (me). There aren't thousands of these that we need to break them down - and the userspace ones are obvious from their titles.--Scott Mac 14:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
              • I agree that there is no need for two categories. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Himself"???

"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."

Shouldn't that read "herself or himself" or something to that effect? I thought this article included women, too; or is there a separate one for us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamingiris (talk • contribs) 13:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

For gender-neutrality I prefer to use the singular they, so it would be "themself" - but this is just my personal preference, I'm not sure if the MOS agrees. Roger (talk) 13:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ack. Themself? Why not "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about subjects, and in some circumstances what subjects have published about themselves."? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Biographies of dead people quirk

Looking around I found an interesting quirk that I thought people would like to know about. There are five states (Colorado, Idaho, Georgia, Louisiana, and Nevada) that have criminal Defamation statues that specifically cover the dead. In the case of Georgia Law 16-11-40 the wording is as follows: "A person commits the offense of criminal defamation when, without a privilege to do so and with intent to defame another, living or dead, he communicates false matter which tends to blacken the memory of one who is dead or which exposes one who is alive to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, and which tends to provoke a breach of the peace."

You have to wonder just how often they actually enforce that blacken the memory clause.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'm guessing it is because of the level of enforcement (or lack thereof) of such laws, but I'd like to hear from someone that has some expertise in the issues.

I don't know the legal jargon, but I bet it's also because it would be difficult to demonstrate harm to anyone. --Ronz (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Those statutes are presumptively unconstitutional in the United States, certainly as they would be applied in most instances. That being said, our policies should never be construed so that the death of an article subject is taken as license to start inserting unsourced negative or speculative material into the article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There's also sharia law in muslim countries. It's just about as relevant. We don't set out to follow every law everywhere; we can't. If Florida were one of those states, then it might matter, otherwise, it's just legal trivia. Gigs (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The last clause saves it from being facially unconstitutional, because the state has an interest if you do something to provoke a breach of the peace. As Wikipedia isn't publishing stuff in order to provoke a riot, I think we are safe from prosecution.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

WP may be safe being based in Florida, but individual editors from these locations could risk prosecution for making a good faith edit. Is there a piece of policy or disclaimer somewhere informing users that they should be aware of their own legal liabilities when editing or uploading material to WP? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added links to all the above statues to the references on the defamation page. Florida's own libel laws are under Chapter 836 and some of what is under that leave you scratching your head (836.04 for instance) and at least one part (836.11) has been ruled unconstitutional (State v. Shank, 795 So.2d 1067 (Fla.Ct.App., 4th Dist. 2001). The five states defame the dead statues may be old laws that the states haven't gotten around to bring into the modern era or of the 'yes it's on the books but next to no one enforces the silly thing' category.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that it can be considered marginal and thus ignored unless secondary sources (or WMF staff) demonstrate it's a true legal concern. JJB 20:49, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not worrying about it. Having looked closely at the statute as it might be applied to WP, there are so many huge holes in it I'm surprised they don't run I-4 through it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Official Court rulings and assertions about living persons?

I'm involved in a discussion about legal cases related to the National Council Against Health Fraud, but I would like some general background about the sourcing issues related to official US court rulings that address living persons. This policy's section on misuse of primary sources is clear about where they are restricted; I'd like to know if there are cases in which court documents would be considered sources for BLP claims, either because the court is considered reliable or the court ruling is not considered Primary, or because a secondary source can corroborate the claim. So, does the general prohibition about using primary legal documents extend to published judicial rulings from US District and US Appellate courts as a source for any claim related to a living person mentioned in the documents, including plaintiffs or expert witneses? I can move this to BLP/N if necessary; I was looking for general background, so I put it here. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The issues around this have been discussed here and at WP:RSN. One useful discussion in the archives is here (although it's not on your specific question). My opinion is that court rulings are not suitable for anything remotely controversial due to how cherry-picked comments could be construed to assert totally inappropriate conclusions. My guess is that a court document would be suitable for things like the date of a court case, and not much else, unless used for extra information supported by an analysis from a secondary source. Johnuniq (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm looking through it. It appears that while BLP claims are always sensitive, that the bigger issue may be notability. Higher court rulings may be reliable, but unless discussed by a reliable secondary source, they don't meet Weight/notability requirements. I think that makes sense. I couldn't understand an Appellate court decision to be presumed unreliable, but I can see it having effectively no notability unless discussed elsewhere. Ocaasi (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of primary sources

1) Do we need to make a distinction between court records (transcripts, motions, etc., possibly lower court findings) and court rulings (particularly higher court decisions) regarding reliability? Neither may be at all notable without secondary sources, but I think the first is substantially less reliable.

2) Should this section distinguish between using court rulings for verification of a fact (which would generally be a misuse of the primary source) vs. reporting on the findings of the ruling itself (in which case, the court document is presumably reliable but not noteworthy unless mentioned elsewhere).

3) Miscellaneously, sentence 2 of the 'misuse of primary sources section' says that primary sources should not be used to 'support' BLP claims, but later in the paragraph it says that if a secondary source exists a primary can be used to 'augment' it. I think it's slightly contradictory as written, because if I read it correctly, the first part intends that primary sources alone shouldn't support BLP claims. Is that correct? Ocaasi (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Editors are generally unable to properly evaluate court cases. Typically, either a misunderstanding of verbiage, or intentional cherry picking (usually including distortion) cases editors to misuse court cases as primary sources. I have not evaluated this instance, but my comment is that unless it's the summary of the case or the ruling/conclusion, a user using a court case to say something is likley either POV pushing via distortion or just way out over their skis. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This is about the ruling/conclusions. Ocaasi (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with Hipocrite. The same thing could be said about scientific research, which is commonly viewed as the most reliable source for many claims. Well published high-profile primary sources are fine. What we don't want people to do is "dig up dirt" using primary sources.

If I go to your local courthouse and pull your real estate records and records of your traffic tickets and divorce and publish all that on Wikipedia, that would be inappropriate. If I cite a primary source for some information on Vince Offer's high profile arrest, then that's something else entirely.

So it's absolutely not about "cherry picking" or "inability to understand" since that can easily happen with any source, primary or not. The spirit of this prohibition is about protecting people from "dug up dirt" that was superficially public information, but was not widely known or covered otherwise. Gigs (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe this instance is about interpretation of what the court said. I believe the court rulings are notable enough, although few reliable secondary sources have been provided, and the courtesy copy pointed to the last time this came up (in Barrett's article, I believe) was that of a person (who shall remain nameless, so as to avoid giving him any credit) who has been involved in a number of lawsuits with Barrett, and should not be considered a reliable source, even if not involved in these lawsuits. We need a third-party summary of the ruling; the court's clerk's summary is likely to be misinterpreted.

However, I disagree with Gigs. Pulling up information on a high-profile arrest is not acceptable, unless we quote a generally-reliable third-party source. Bill Gates' arrest for (well, whatever it was for, before he was famous) is not fair game. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bill Gate's arrest has drawn lots of secondary source coverage now, so citing a primary source in addition to the secondary ones would be fine. Digging up the arrest record and publishing it on Wikipedia after Gates was famous but before the arrest was widely known (or covered) otherwise would not be acceptable. Regarding "interpretation of what the court said", we should avoid making interpretive conclusions about primary sources in general. That isn't a BLP issue, but a general principle of our sourcing policies. Gigs (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Immediate removal

There's a section of this policy titled, "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". I'd like to request that some additional material be added to this section: "It is much better to revert BLP violations immediately instead of waiting. While waiting might reduce the appearance that you are edit-warring, waiting can also get you blocked if you wait just past 24 hours to make a fourth revert; making a fourth revert just outside the 24-hour period may be seen as gaming the 3RR policy rather than a good faith effort to enforce this BLP policy."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The policy already addresses this:

Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person... Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption.

What would your proposed text add which isn't already spelled out there? MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

In view of recent edits to the 3RR policy, I agree with you that this edit is no longer very necessary, so I withdraw the request. Generally speaking, though, I've found that some admins really don't care about consensus at the BLP Noticeboard.[5] Additionally, if an editor believes that he is not in an edit war, because he has not previously reverted some specific material and has not crossed the "bright line" of 3RR (and has not made any edit for several hours) then the editor might think that the time-consuming process of the BLP Noticeboard is unnecessary and at odds with the need to remove material sooner rather than later. But, as I said, the recent edits to the 3RR policy largely solve the problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Jasper Johns

I will appreciate any comments concerning including this into the Jasper Johns article.

Is this discussion appropriate?:

While in New York, Johns met Robert Rauschenberg, with whom he had a relationship, as well as Merce Cunningham and John Cage. Working together they explored the contemporary art scene, and began developing their ideas on art; Johns, Rauschenberg, Cage, and Cunningham were some of the gay artists and musicians of the 1950s who created what was later called post-modernism.

I find that the first reference is dead and renders the statement unsupported. The second reference is art historically inaccurate as is the direct quote that can be read here at google books: [6] I am concerned that these statements are in violation of BLP guidelines, Thanks...Modernist (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N is probably a better place for this kind of thing. Gigs (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Anyway, since it's here, Jonathan Katz seems to be an expert on this and he apparently has a book dedicated to them both in preparation although it's title seems to keep changing. (see his site for other material). I think it's probably pretty easy to get a decent source about Johns' relationship with Rauschenberg and including the first statement up to the comma looks okay to me (once sourced) but the rest seems a bit irrelevant/inaccurate/pedantic. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What Sean said.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...Modernist (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Determination of usage needed for the BLP unsourced template

Based on recent comments on my talk page and some things I have observed I started a policy clarification discussion regarding the use of the BLP unsourced template at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Determination of usage needed for the BLP unsourced template. --Kumioko (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

Virtually every biographical article starts with a sentence that includes the nationality and significance of the subject, e.g., "John Doe is an American athlete..." For people from most countries, this isn't a problem; but for people from the UK, there are some articles that say "X is a British actor," while others say "Y is an English musician" or "Z is a Scottish socialite." Why not standardize that somehow? Is there a guideline for that? I've seen some back and forth. I'm not from the UK so I don't really care, but I did notice this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinr (talk • contribs) 09:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BISE. Then back away slowly, the horse is already dead. Gigs (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Following prolonged discussion on the matter, no consensus was reached for a guideline either way: see the essay "WP:UKNATIONALS". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Determination of usage needed for the BLP unsourced template

There is currently a conversation at the village pump regarding a determination of usage for the BLP unsourced template. Your input and comments would be greatly appreciate. --Kumioko (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Reports in reliable sources about people who are allegedly "outed"

The BLP policy has an explicit policy about using categories for sexual orientation, but shouldn't we also have an explicit article content policy about reports that a "closeted" living person is "outted"?

The current policy on categorization says: "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 their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources."

However, that categorization policy does not apply to article content. Take the Charlie Crist article, for example. It says: "In April 2009, Crist was one of the subjects of the film Outrage, which purports to expose politicians who are privately gay, except for politicians who have adequately supported what the film claims are gay rights." Crist has denied being gay. So, should we have a policy to explicitly keep crud like this out of BLPs?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't read that paragraph as outing Charlie Crist,it rightly states that Crist has been the subject of a notable documentary centred around his sexuality and that he has denied the allegations raised in that documentary. As long as it is presented in a balanced manner presenting both sides there shouldn't be an issue. The reason that categories are singled out is that categories cannot present a balanced view, they simply categorise without any caveats. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

But even if a person says that he's gay without caveats, the BLP policy still bars categorization as such, unless relevant to public life and notable activities. If the NY Times were to publish an article tomorrow listing a bunch of allegedly gay closeted astronauts, but only if they are Republicans instead of Democrats, I don't think it would be encyclopedic to accordingly edit all of their BLPs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason for that is WP:OC not because the fact isn't relevant to the person's life. If the NYT did such an article then yes it should be included within the BLP's articles, particularly if the article was notable or award winning. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No doubt information like this can appropriately go in the outing article, but I find it repugnant that we should then do the bidding of the "outters" by marking up all the BLPs of the "outted". Likewise if some accusatory film lists all the alleged closeted Jews in Congress who the filmmaker thinks are not sufficiently friendly to Israel. By the way, if you were correct about overcategorization (OC), then I doubt this aspect of BLP policy would be limited to orientation and religion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• If discussion of a politician's sexuality makes the news pages of the New York Times, I think it would take extraordinary contortions to argue that it can't be discussed in our biographies (though I have no doubt that such contortions would be attempted). That said, in this particular case, the source appears to be the documentary Outrage, which was produced specifically to "out" politicians who oppose gay rights. As a source for Wikipedia, that's a little too close to the sourcing bar for me to feel comfortable with it.

  Of note, a number of reputable news organizations (NPR, CNN, the Washington Post) have refused to name the politicans allegedly "outed" by the movie. The NPR reviewer, for example, wrote: "I'm proscribed from naming names right now, for example, by longstanding NPR policy on the subject." That reticence on the part of reputable news organizations should make us very wary about including these allegations in our biographical articles. We should be taking our cues from those organizations. MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Some reliable sources, including the New York Times, have reported about the movie "Outrage" and have explicitly said that the movie addresses Crist.[7]. We ought to go with NPR, and modify this BLP policy accordingly.

Getting back to the overcategorization notion, I should also mention that the BLP policy extends beyond categorization: "These principles apply equally to infobox statements, and to lists and navigation templates that are based on religious beliefs and sexual orientation." I have merely suggested that it should (in some form) extend a bit further. Also, no one has asserted here that a "politician's sexuality" can never be discussed in a Wikipedia BLP; either that is a straw man, or a misunderstanding, or a disingenuous remark (N.B. I personally detest Charlie Crist).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside the specific content issue, what concrete change to policy would you propose? MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be helpful to get input before proposing anything specific. Moreover, I was hoping that someone else (who has more experience with the BLP policy than I do) would offer some specific language, but I will if necessary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The "categorization" of someone as gay means just that, categorization. Not description in article text. While all BLPs should be written conservatively, WP:BLPCAT is about categorical assertions that lack all context, such as labels in infoboxes and category names. It does not cover prose, because prose can express subtlety, controversy, denials... in general it provides context, which is why prose has lower standards than categories. Gigs (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to ban any mention of reliable sources discussing a subject's sexuality. Obviously, such discussions need to be handled conservatively. But if there's an elephant in the room we shouldn't create a policy demanding that we ignore it. But a category for "outed" people seems vague and unhelpful.

(A side note, numerous mainstream newspapers mentioned that Crist was featured in "Outrage", including the Los Angeles Times, The Times of London, the Pittsburgh Post - Gazette, The Plain Dealer of Cleveland, the Times - Picayune of New Orleans, The New York Post, the New York Times, and the New York Daily News.)   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, those sources reported the allegation, but did not independently investigate or report about whether the allegation is true. So, the allegation traces back to only a single source, which seems like a significant thing for us to recognize. No one is remotely suggesting that we ban any mention of reliable sources discussing a subject's sexuality. The issue here is whether we should help "outters" by putting their unconfirmed accusations into not only the articles about them, but also into the articles about the people they have selected for "outting".Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: Anythingyouwant has several times asserted that there is "only a single source" for Crist's supposed outing, even though this editor has been shown the following: in January 2005 Crist was publicly asked by Lee Drury De Cesare, a prominent South Florida reporter and columnist, if he was gay as rumors said he was, and he replied "I'm not." In October 2006, his longtime friend Max Linn said on the radio Crist was bisexual, that the two men had discussed his sexuality on two occasions. Also in October 2006, reporter Bob Norman outed Crist with what he felt was conclusive evidence taken from sources he would not name, GOP staffers that named Jason Wetherington as boasting about having sex with Crist. Sworn affidavits were given on video, ones by Dee Dee Hall and Jay Vass who both said that Crist had a long term lover in GOP aide Bruce Carlton Jordan. In 2008, gay bar owner Rick Calderoni said that Crist was gay, that he frequented his Tampa bar and hung out with gay men. All of this was summed up by The Daily Telegraph in July 2008 when they wrote that Crist had been "dogged for years by homosexuality rumours." This demonstrates that, prior to the 2009 political documentary film Outrage there was already a lot of gay rumor being printed in the press.

Rather than forming a policy which specifically hinders "outters" who would expose closeted gays, I propose keeping our current policy which sets a high bar for notability, with allegations published in The New York Times given as an example at WP:WELLKNOWN. This is suitable and appropriate. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed edit to policy

In the subsection titled, "Avoid gossip and feedback loops" I would write this:

“ Sometimes reliable sources may report an assertion about whether another person is straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered without presenting the assertion as true, in which case the unconfirmed assertion should be treated like gossip. ”

This seems like a reasonable step to protect the privacy of living people.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that an unproven assertion about a public figure, an assertion which appears in major news media is a very notable item. We would be burying our heads in the sand to ignore it. The suggestion goes against the subsection Public figures. I think this would be bad for the encyclopedia. Binksternet (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Except that many news organizations (NPR, CNN, the Washington Post) refuse to name the public figures allegedly "outed".Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

opposed If this was us reporting the person's sexuality then it's already covered by gossip, however we are not reporting it as fact. We report that the claim has been made in a notable way but that the individual has denied the allegation - if the claim goes further leading to a defamation suit then we report on the fact that it was challenged in court and the outcome of that case we continue to maintain a NPOV about the allegation its self.In fact in the UK a comparable case can be seen in Tommy Sheridan the former politican who is under trial for perjury after winning a defamation action against the news of the world newspaper. In that case the questions are about Sexual Conduct rather than orientation, but we still handle them in a neutral way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sheridan sued a newspaper for defamation regarding an assertion that he committed adultery. Sheridan and his wife then faced trial for perjury. I don't see any problem with having Wikipedia describe that. No sexual preference was outted; even if the assertion had been about adultery with males, it's still fine for Wikipedia to say that the subject of the article sued so-and-so for lying about an alleged extramarital relationship.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

So you believe it is acceptable for us to report notable yet controversial and unproven allegations of any other sort as long as it isn't in regard to their sexual orientation? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Outing is a fairly unique phenomenon, and many reliable sources refuse to assist the outters by naming names of the people who are allegedly outted. At an article about the outters, it's fine to report that the allegations have been made, without any need to name names. There may be other very unusual cases where I might think it acceptable for us to not report notable yet controversial and unproven allegations, if some reliable sources recoil at publishing such allegations (e.g. publishing details about undercover US agents abroad, or publishing details about people in the witness protection program, or publishing a list of teenage girls raped by a rapist), but right now the reliable sources are pretty much unanimous about not publishing such info, so it's not really an issue now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback's contribution to this discussion mentioned seven major news outlets that have chosen to name names which means your "pretty much unanimous" group of publishers is not supported by observed results. We do not have to hide names like NPR and The Washington Post if other major outlets published them. Even NPR's hiding of the names has taken a lot of heat, resulting in more news about the names than if they had simply published them, a fine example of the Streisand effect in action:

• "NPR Censors Its Own Review of Outrage, Cites 'Old-Fashioned' and Quite Possibly Dishonest Policy" Village Voice blogs
• " Outrage Review Spiked for Naming Names" indieWire
• "The NPR Outrage Story Continues: Corrections, Reversals, Etc" Village Voice blogs
• "Outrage over NPR’s editing of Crist’s name out of a movie review" Orlando Sentinel blogs
• "NPR, WaPo Refuse to Report That Outrage Is About Crist" Miami NewTimes Blogs
• "NPR spikes 'Outrage' review that named names" Pam's House Blend blog
• "Outrage Over Outrage: NPR Redacts Review of Kirby Dick Doc" Nerve anonymous post
• "NPR’s Hypocrisy: Outrage Review Censored, Gay Idol Speculation OK" Movieline
• "NPR Censors Outrage Review, Sparks Outrage" New York Magazine

Critic Nathan Lee, whose assigned review was anonymized by NPR, said that their policy has been "since revealed to be selectively applied and subject to a double standard". NPR published unproved gay allegations about Queen Latifah but withheld names for allegedly hypocritical closeted politicos. Why would Wikipedia wish to model itself after a flawed policy of NPR? Binksternet (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose any rule that singles out sexual orientation from any other relevant aspect of a biography. Sexual orientation should be no more or less carefully handled than religion or lawsuits or political stance. We already have appropriate rules to handle sensitive personal information. Binksternet (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • A valid oppose, but I must point out that we already do have special rules for religious and sexual orientation categories of living people. Gigs (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a rule about blackmail, because that's pretty much what's going on here. A single source is basically saying: "Hey, all you politicians out there, if you don't vote the way I say, then unconfirmed details about your private sex lives are going to be plastered all over the Internet. Hahaha."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you miss the filmmaker's intent. His point is that the outed politicians were voting more harshly against gay rights, proven with stats, than their non-closeted colleagues who supposedly believed the same way. His point is that this extra harsh voting action goes part and parcel with being closeted, that the pols who are in denial or in hiding always mount a more aggressive anti-gay stance as a defense against being found out. The filmmaker's ultimate point is that the pols are hypocritical. He does not attack any rabidly anti-gay politicians who are known to be 100% heterosexual, does not uncover salacious and potentially damaging details about their hetero dalliances. Only gay politicians were targeted, for their hypocrisy. There is no blackmail here. Binksternet (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"Only gay politicians were targeted, for their hypocrisy. There is no blackmail here". How does targeting people on the basis of their (alleged) sexual orientation not become blackmail? I think you'll find this was a very old blackmailers' strategy, and doing it 'for good reasons' doesn't make it any more ethical, even with 'statistics' to back it up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Blackmail is a private threat to release information publicly, unless a demand from the blackmailer is satisfied. There was nothing private about this film, nor about the political actions of the politicians. The charge of blackmail falls down if there is not a private demand by the blackmailer. Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a notice of this discussion at WT:LGBT. LadyofShalott 02:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant; yes this is a special case of WP:OC it is not a complete case because it's purpose is to discourage the use of categories that may be controversial on the basis that they are not relevant before there is any need to tackle the controversy its self. As for your points about Lists and Infoboxes, Lists were added to the policy in July of this year, and InfoBoxes about a month ago. The same relevancy reasoning applies even though these are not categories, but I don't think in either addition any consideration of the fact that this phrase was a special case of WP:OC was made. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Categorically no to the proposed change. Use a reductio ad absurdum and suppose that Barack Obama had made the allegation. It would undeniably deserve inclusion, regardless of whether it was reported as being "true", or merely an allegation. If you accept that, then try to set a suitable limit for what level of allegation "deserves" inclusion. Trebor (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose : Our BLP policy already states that notable allegations reported by multiple RS are significant material, not mere gossip. Trebor's above reductio ad absurdum, among other reasonings here, explain why. Please remember this is an encyclopedia, that is something that condenses, structures and reports objectively what RS say, not something that cherry-picks what RS say to make subjects shine. --Cyclopia^talk 12:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

unduliness of self-servingness

We're told:

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if— / 1. it is not unduly self-serving; (my emphasis)

Why the need for "unduly"? And if it is needed, how should it be interpreted?

"BLP" experts are also most welcome here on a BLP's talk page, where this issue arises (I think). -- Hoariness (talkiness) 02:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It is not unduly self-serving for example if X points out their qualifications, specialism, publications or job title (think a professor's page on a university website), and we would be free to add such content to X's biography. However, what is unduly self-serving in our context is if X says on their own webpage that X's theory of Y is intellectually superior to competing theories of Y. Statements about how X's theory and competing theories have been received should be sourced to independent third-party sources. --JN466 23:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Atheist categories

There has been a longstanding dispute over at Talk:Ed Miliband about whether to classify Miliband as an atheist. Miliband has said, "I don't believe in God, no. I have great respect for those people who do, um, and I think in a way it might make life on earth easier if you do, but I'm not someone who believes in God."

He has also been described as an atheist by press sources, which speak of his "declared atheism", or describe him as a "self-proclaimed atheist", based on such statements. Unquestionably, there are those within Wikipedia and outside who equate someone saying "I do not believe in God" with their saying, "I am an atheist".

However, statistics in reliable sources show consistently that only a small percentage of those who say they do not believe in God self-identify as "atheist":

• Statistics in Encyclopædia Britannica use the following definition:

  • "Atheists. Persons professing atheism, skepticism, disbelief, or irreligion, including the militantly antireligious (opposed to all religion). A flurry of recent books have outlined the Western philosophical and scientific basis for atheism. Ironically, the vast majority of atheists today are found in Asia (primarily Chinese communists)."

  • It contrasts this with

  • "Nonreligious (agnostics). Persons professing no religion, nonbelievers, agnostics, freethinkers, uninterested, or dereligionized secularists indifferent to all religion but not militantly so."

  • As can be seen from the figures given in the table, nonreligious/agnostic people outnumber atheists by more than 4:1. Atheism here seems to be understood to imply a definite opposition to religious belief.

• According to figures in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, published by Cambridge University Press, and based on multiple surveys across different countries, only a fraction of those who say they don't believe in God self-identify as atheists. The majority identify as agnostics, or reject a label. This is a consistent finding across many countries, and tallies with the statistics given by Encyclopædia Britannica

What is the correct way to proceed here? Should we understand BLPCAT to mean that an atheist category label, infobox statement etc. is only appropriate if the BLP subject has publicly self-identified as "atheist"?

Or should we assume that a statement of "I don't believe in God", combined with a description as "atheist" in third-party reliable sources, justifies the application of an atheist category? --JN466 00:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I thought that in general we avoided contentious labels of this type if the person didn't self-identify that way. The trouble is, if the person doesn't self-identify as "agnostic" either (a rather ambiguous term), we shouldn't really use that either. So we may be left with no categorisation of their religious belief at all (covering it in the body text alone) - which may be hard to swallow for some, but I find philosophically somewhat satisfying in the case of this categorisation issue... Rd232 ^talk 00:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem at all if there is no categorisation at the bottom of the person's BLP, until and unless there is a clear self-identification. I guess we could create a "People who don't believe in God" category (although I personally would find that extremely silly). --JN466 00:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that the only approach consistent with WP:BLPCAT is that we should wait for explicit and public self-identification as "atheist". If we have reliably sourced data showing that only a small percentage of those who say they "don't believe in God" self-identify as atheist, then it would be improper for us to make the leap from "doesn't believe in God" to "is an atheist", as opposed to an agnostic, a nonreligious person, etc.

Similar scenarios might occur with respect to sexuality, too. A heterosexual man might speak of a homosexual experience they once had; a homosexual person might similarly speak of a heterosexual experience. A source might describe either person as bisexual on that basis, arguing that it stands to reason that someone who has had sexual partners of both sexes must be bisexual. In that case too I believe WP:BLPCAT directs us to reject the third-party label, and refrain from categorising such a person as bisexual, or including a "bisexual" infobox statement in their BLP, until such time as the person publicly self-identifies as "bisexual". --JN466 00:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that sort of logic is well established in relation to sexuality, and it should apply to the "atheist" issue as well. Rd232 ^talk 01:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

However, his statement(s) that he doesn't believe in God have been taken by many other reliable sources to mean that he is an atheist. Some examples:

• "There was no religion at home and Mr Miliband confirmed for the first time that he is an atheist. 'Obviously I'm Jewish, it is part of my identity, but not in a religious sense'." "Ed Miliband reveals agenda for power with Labour... and a personal insight", London Evening Standard, August 31, 2010.
• "Mr Miliband had previously said his religious views were a 'private matter', and his declaration means two of the three leaders of major British political parties are self-proclaimed atheists." "Ed Miliband: I don't believe in God", The Daily Telegraph, 29 Sep 2010.
• The new Labour boss declared his atheism as he admitted his 'embarrassment' at not signing his son's birth certificate. "Red Ed: I don't believe in God", The Sun (United Kingdom), 29 Sep 2010.
• "That presumption seems justified in the light of Ed Miliband's declared atheism." "How real is America's faith?", The Guardian, 16 Oct 2010.
• "Just months after the Australian Labor Party appointed its first openly atheist leader, the Labour Party in Britain has followed suit. The elevation of Ed Miliband - who, despite being rather evasive on the subject of religion, is a genuine atheist - provides an appropriate occasion to reflect on the relationship between atheism and the political Left." "The Left and the Politics of Atheism", Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 28 Sep 2010.

No reliable sources that I am aware of seem to think this is an indication of anything else but atheism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

While I don't think it makes any substantial difference to the point at issue here, every one of those newspapers you quote supports the present UK government. (Miliband is the leader of the opposition.) --JN466 18:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there should be categories for religious affiliation at all -- mainly because it's trying to be very specific about something that in reality is never that specific and certainly changes over a lifetime. Notwithstanding, this problem could just be circumvented by renaming the various 'atheist' categories 'non-religious' (eg. rename Category:British atheists to Category:Non-religious Britons). What does the room think? Donama (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right on both counts. --JN466 17:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between how sexuality is treated and how religious beliefs are treated, especially in terms of personal privacy issues. In particular, reliable sources seem to be much less likely to identify a subject's sexuality than their religious beliefs; so I suggest we do not use treatment of sexuality here as a guideline.

I also think that in the past there was more of a negative connotation associated with the label "atheist" than there is today, though it has not completely disappeared. Also, the use of the term to mean "against religion" seems to have dissipated. As shown in the citations above, use of the label to mean "doesn't believe in God" is now mainstream in reliable sources, and I suggest we're over reacting if we don't reflect that. That is, avoiding categorizing someone as an "atheist" who has publicly declared that he or she does not believe in God is silly, as would be renaming, say, Category:British atheists to Category:Non-religious Britons. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, no we're not overreacting. This is a real concern and causes great argument because it's not sorted. You cannot be sure of what connotations the word "atheist" has in an international context. Even though I agree with your interpretation, one of the reasons why we have this big debate is because lots of other editors don't. Others think it's a special word that means something more specific and strong than mere non-belief. So I think we have to use terminology that can't be misunderstood (much as I personally would still prefer simply 'atheist'). Donama (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If the editorial boards of reliable English sources worldwide, such as the NY Times, London Times and Brittanica, don't think this is a big enough issue to avoid using the label, I don't see why Wikipedia should. If we do it but nobody else does, isn't that overreacting? If that's not overreacting, what is? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• If in doubt, leave it out. --John (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Of course, but when someone declares he does not believe in God, there is no doubt he is an atheist. Syllogisms leave no doubt, by definition. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
    • You can believe what you like, but reliably published statistics simply do not bear you out. --JN466 22:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that many of the sources cited above are from the early 2000s, and usage of the term has changed significantly since then. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed. --JN466 22:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

London Times article from 2007, commenting on Nick Clegg, the leader of UK Liberal Party, saying, like Ed Miliband, that he does not believe in God: “I think the majority of people either believe in God’s existence - certainly research that we have done in the past demonstrates that - or they are agnostic. If he is saying that he is agnostic, obviously that is probably not quite so serious politically as saying you are an atheist.” --JN466 22:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Given that self-identification is a requirement for categorisation by religion, what category are you going to put someone in if, in answer to the question "What are your religious beliefs?", he/she replies "I don't know" or "mind your own business"? At a minimum, you need two more possible categories here: "don't know", and "didn't say". Note that there is a difference between stating someone's religious beliefs are unknown, and saying that he or she doesn't know what they are. I think that this problem may be an illustration of why this topic is so awkward to deal with: It starts off with the assumption that a self-identified system of religious belief (or an active rejection of it) is a necessary attribute of being a person. Though this concept is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian/Islamic cultures, I'd suggest that it is anything but universal: it is instead a social construct. It seems to me that another possible response to "What are your religious beliefs" is the reply "Don't ask loaded questions". None of this solves the problem of how Wikipedia should deal with attempts to categorise by religion, but that may well be because the it cannot sensibly be done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just too thick to grok this elevated discourse but I simply don't understand what the problem is with not categorising a subject at all if they do not unambigiously self-identify. In the vast majority cases the subject's religion or sexuality is entirely irrelevant to the reason why an article about them exists. Only a Nazi would care that, for example, a prize-winning architect is Jewish. It's better to have no category at all than to have a wrong or irrelevant one. Roger (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if I got a bit carried away with the sociology-speak. I think I more or less agree with your general point, though it's worth noting that others may well care about the self-asserted ethnicity of a prize-winning architect: notable those who consider themselves of similar ethnicity: this is one of the issues under active debate at the moment (in several places). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviewers needed

We need comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Gonzalez Jr..

Question: how come reviewers haven't shown up without an invitation? Student7 (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of articles going through AfD. A lack of participation generally means people don't care too strongly either way. It will be relisted at least once if no one comments the first time around. Be patient. Gigs (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bah, relisting things no one cares about is part of the reason we have such a backlog at AfD... Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would hope an unreferenced BLP that remains unreferenced would get at least one relist. Gigs (talk) 02:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? If it were BLPPROD'ed it would have been deleted. I tend to think that an article which has properly been DELSORT'ed and gone for a full week without interest should be closed at the discretion of the patrolling administrator--i.e., delete unsourced BLPs as if they were BLPPRODS: gone, but with no prejudice against sourced recreations. Jclemens (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I suspect that many closers would not yet feel empowered to make that kind of bold close on an AfD without participation though. Gigs (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Need link to various BLP templates

I need one that says something link "this article contains a number of unsourced and/or poorly sourced allegations against individuals." I can't find such a thing at Wikipedia:Template messages. I can't even find: BLPdispute, BLPunsourced, or BLPsources templates there.It seems to me I saw a page of BLP messages at one point but couldn't find any link to Template messages in see also or else where in this article. (Unless it has another name??) Would improve article to have a relevant link in see also. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't template that, you generally remove it unless it can be sourced. Gigs (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup, I think this is covered explicitly in WP:BLP: an unsourced allegation should be booted out on sight. If it is 'poorly sourced' it is more of a judgement call, and if in doubt, look at WP:GRAPEVINE AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Commons just went through something like this regarding how to use 2257 record keeping templates on sexual images of minors. The answer was the same--you don't. Certain stuff is preemptively outside the realm of due process. Ocaasi (talk) 08:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those areas where you have 5 or 6 highly partisan editors willing to engage in all sorts of WP:OR to make their point and policy be damned. They even reverted WP:RS material from their favorite partisan sources because it didn't support their view, so this would end up a revert war. Once we settle the undiscussed name of the article problems, I can report the relevant BLP problems to the noticeboard. (There will be far less of them if the name gets changed to something else.) In the meantime it would be nice to have a tag, including for people in similar situations who have to go to the noticeboard and go through a sometimes long and drawn out process. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I point out that deletion of such things is explicitly defined as an exception to WP:3RR so anyone trying to 'revert war' it in is on to a loser. Delete on sight, and then report it to the BLP noticeboard if it continues to be inserted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess once title settled, I'll clean it up with one big easily read edit which will be immediately reverted. Then can bring that to noticeboard. This article does say Note: although the three-revert rule does not apply to such removals, what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Editors who find themselves in edit wars over potentially defamatory material about living persons should consider raising the matter at the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on the exemption. But I guess if I don't revert back but go to noticeboard it's not technically and edit war :-) Maybe that's what the article needs to make clear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)