Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 40

Stephen Crabb

The discussion at Talk:Stephen Crabb may be of interest, an editor is claiming that a letter written to a local newspaper and a petition on 38degrees are reliable secondary sources. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither source meets Wikipedia requirements. Alas. Collect (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Ethnicity in infoboxes

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Ethnicity in Infoboxes for ongoing RfC to remove |ethnicity= from infoboxes. (Not sure why this page wasn't notified earlier, since it dispute about it most often is at BLPs).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Religion in biographical infoboxes

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Religion in biographical infoboxes for new RfC to remove |religion= from {{Infobox person}} (except where consensus determines it is directly relevant to why the subject is notable).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Labelling of official police undercover agents as "spies"

Is the labelling of such people as "spies" proper? Should allegations (say, anonymous accusations of arson etc.) about them not resulting in any prosecution and without any outside evidence be placed in BLPs? Is a British police undercover agent properly labelled a "British Spy"? Mark Kennedy (police officer) and Bob Lambert (undercover police officer) are two examples I ran across, but I suspect, alas, this is another "tip of the iceberg" where people can use what I find is likely to be a non-neutral term ("spy") about living persons. Comments? Collect (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"Spies" can have a negative connotation if that is not a self-titled profession (eg I've heard some ex-CIA classify their former work as "spy" even if that wasn't their official title. But if that's not explicitly given, I'd stick to "undercover officer" or more precise language. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It depends of course on how these individuals are characterized in reliable sources. The answer is obvious for Lambert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually - no. And I find this point of view to be disturbing utterly. Virtually every single undercover officer is a "spy" under the connotation you appear to use, secretly obtaining information about groups and individuals. And I note you added the felony allegations without even noting that nothing came of them - just to add spice to a BLP. And the bit saying he used a seven year old boy - with the obvious sexual inferences accruing to it.

Lambert's undercover activities also involved using the identity of a boy who had died at the age of seven

Did you really think that belonged in this BLP FGS? Collect (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course: it's part of the basis of his notability -- this is a significant element of what reliable sources have discussed in connection with him. There's nothing sexual about it -- he didn't "use a seven year old boy", he used the identity of a boy who died at the age of seven. What's disturbing is that you see something sexual there. You're also incorrect in seeing something criminal about being a spy: a person employed as a spy (say, in MI6) is doing something entirely legal, something his or her government is paying to have done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

So you do not think promoting undocumented allegations of arson and other felonies is important enough to invoke WP:BLP for. And what, then, is the actual utility to readers of the seven year old boy at all? And I rather suspect undercover police officers actually do get paid - if that is a criterion of any value at all. That you assert that MI6 has never violated the law is a tad amusing, however. Collect (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

"When four sit down to talk revolution, three are fools and the fourth is a police spy." — Russian proverb.

Actually, the proverb in russian uses the derogatory term shpik , i.e., "snitch", derived from Polish szpieg - "spy". Staszek Lem (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding a non-notable transgendered individual

One of the core developers (an otherwise non-notable individual without their own WP page) of the video game No Man's Sky came out as transgendered via their own twitter account over this last weekend, so it makes complete sense to use their new name for their credit. However, their original name is used throughout reliable sources (given that the game's been in development for a few years), and thus if one is researching the game, is a readily-applicable search term. Note that their coming out otherwise has nothing to do with the game itself, and outside of listing the name in the credits, there's nothing else at the current time we say about this person; this only affects the infobox currently. I thought it would be appropriate that we include at least a footnote to their original name just to help those searching for additional information, but this has been tagged as potentially deadnaming. I'm looking to see if would be a case of deadnaming or if its reasonable to include the original name for research aid? --MASEM (t) 21:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Quandary - the person is asserted to not be notable per Wikipedia article standards, so additional information about them is not going to help readers. Just as if a non-notable author worked on a book and their new name is on the book, it is questionable to use "additional information not provided by the book" to give another name or information about gender etc. If and only if the person achieves sufficient notability that the gender issue can be reasonably addressed in context should it then be addressed. IMO, and trying to weigh the facts in a muddy case. Do you know the name as it appears on the issued game yet? Per recent discussions, that is the one we would use in articles.Collect (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Game won't be released until late-June, so no credits on the tin yet. For what it's worth the contact page for the game lists the old name and twitter handle, but as the name change has just been announced recently it's not surprising the website hasn't been updated. My preference would be just to list the developers current name without explanation for now. If secondary sources pick up on it and expanded then we can link to them. — Strongjam (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

If the sources, particularly the independent sources, are all using the "old" name, that is what we should use, exclusively, in this sort of case. When and if the game is released, follow the credits at release and don't change unless the game is re-released with different credits. We should only use both name if the sources do so, as this person isn't (from your account) significant enough to this article for any detailed discussion where the issue could be clarified. DES ^(talk) 01:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

So in a hypothetical case, that the new name is in the credits, and after the game's release there are third-party interviews with this person, using their name, to talk about the game (eg not granting notability to the person), and that there already exist pre-release third-party interviews with this person using their old name, do we exclusively use the new name? --MASEM (t) 14:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The Wikipedia decision was reached on this just last year - yes. Unless the person is specifically notable, and such notability is related to the name change, we do not make an issue of the change. As we also state that "sexuality" as a category is now based on "self-ascription", we do not add sexuality as a standard item of information about living persons unless it is a notable part of why they have an article. See Caitlyn Jenner for such an example. Collect (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Denis Wirtz

Denis Wirtz needs a real brush up. A chapter "Leadership" is not appropriate. Two cite two inaugurations speeches which are always loaded with a lot of "Lobhudelei", so there is a lot to cut away. --Stone (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"Jewish" as "Nationality"?

FWIW, after all the discussions about "Jewish" being and "ethnicity" and a "religion", one may find with any simple search now the use of "Jewish" as "nationality" for persons whose citizenship is not and never has been "Jewish" and where prior discussions have specifically disallowed calling the person as being "Jewish" as not being clearly done by self-identification. Is this proper? Collect (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't see how it is. "Jewish" is not a nationality of any type, as there's no specific country that refers to. --MASEM (t) 14:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Being Jewish means at least several things to many different people, but it's not a nationality at all. Guy1890 (talk) 04:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Which is how I thought - can someone go and remove the uses? (Some of the people might have a connection to American politics in some way (however arcane), and I am absolutely forbidden to touch them (sigh). Collect (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Interestingly, "Jewish" is indeed a nationality in Israel. From Liav Orgad (2015) The cultural defense of nations: a liberal theory of majority rights. (New York: Oxford University Press), p. 128:

  'In 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court had to decide a “hot” topic—whether an Israeli nationality exists. The petitioners asked to change their status in the population registry database to a new status of “Israeli nationality.” Because the registry is mainly statistical, the petition was seemingly procedural. And yet, it was a hot potato. The main categories of the Central Bureau of Statistics include “Jews,” “Arabs” (Muslims, Christians, Druzes), and “others” (non-Arab Muslims/Christians and people who have no religious affiliation). The recognition of a new nationality would mean a new sub-nationality of “Israelis,” Jews and non-Jews. The Supreme Court of Israel rejected the petition, ruling that no “Israeli nationality” in the sense of peoplehood shared by all citizens, Jews, and non-Jews, has been created thus far.'

There are of course Israeli citizens, but that citizenship comprises multiple nationalities, one of which is Jewish. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

An interesting view - but not one with any basis on Wikipedia for how we treat "nationality" in infoboxes. And one should note the requirements per WP:BLP regarding use of "Jewish" as "religion" (or, indeed, any "religion" not self-claimed by living persons) being used as a descriptor of a person, in infoboxes, or in categories. I suggest you go to the appropriate policy and guideline pages if you actually wish to alter them, rather than giving such asides here. Collect (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to alter anything. You started a section asking about "Jewish as nationality", where it's clear you think the idea is impossible. I've produced an impeccably reliable source (published by Oxford University Press) showing that it's not so entirely impossible. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you elided the reason for my post - which clearly dealt with "nationality" as a parallel with "religion" and "ethnicity" on Wikipedia. Your construct that Israel does not consider Arabs to have "Israeli nationality" even if they have "Israeli citizenship" is an interesting, I suppose, trip around the famed "mulberry bush", but not actually related to my posts. It is true that some nation could describe "atheist" as a "nationality" but that would not be related to Wikipedia's decisions about the topic. With warmest regards. Collect (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You connected Jewish nationality with citizenship (a very sensible connection). I think my point stands: it wouldn't be unthinkable to indicate "Jewish" as the nationality of an Israeli citizen (as long as that person is in fact Jewish, of course). Anyway, you've missed the point about Arabs and "Israeli nationality": Orgad's point is that Israeli nationality doesn't exist -- not for Arabs, & not for Jews. Instead, the nationalities in question are Arab and Jewish, respectively. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The pronouncements of a government do not control Wikipedia. We look to reliable scholarly sources. The government position is only evidence of what the government says, nothing more. Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I very much agree. That's why I cited a reliable scholarly source when first making my point. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see why there's any need to delve into controversial politics for an issue as simple as this one is. People from Israel are Israelis. Being Jewish isn't a nationality. Guy1890 (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Using reliable RSes for material not otherwise related to a contentious BLP statement made by that RS

A normally reliable source contains information (facts, opinions, etc.) that would be appropriate to include in WP, and this information itself does not at all factor into a BLP concern. However, the same source also contains contentious information about a specific living person that would easily be a BLP violation were it to be included on en.wiki; there is no desire to use or even allude to this contentious information on WP, it just is unfortunately attached to the source that contains the desired useful information. Is there any issue with using that reliable source for the non-contentious, non-BLP aspects, knowing full well about the potential BLP aspect it also contains? --MASEM (t) 16:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Masem, that kind of question is better asked at the WP:BLPN. This page is for discussion of the policy itself. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Masem, By my reading of the BLP policy, there is no impediment to using the source in the manner you describe. Information in sources or links is not a BLP violation. It may, however, be preferable to favour alternative sources which do not contain the contentious information; assuming that they are available. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 23:32, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed change re bringing questions about new content on a Talk page

In this dif, Sarah made the following change as shown by redaction:

When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot. For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating: "This link [assuming it is a reliable source] contains serious allegations about the subject; should we summarize this someplace it in the article?" The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.

That change was reverted here with a call for discussion.

I think the idea behind this change is a good one; this provision shouldn't be wikilawyered to introduce links to unreliable sources. The way it is done is a bit clunky. Adding a sentence at the end like: "Sources introduced in this way must be reliable and queries about unreliable sources may be removed, deleted, or oversighted" might be more ...clear. Discuss? Jytdog (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - While understand & empathize with the intent of the change, I strongly oppose restricting editors from discussing sources for potential inclusions. Per WP:RS, reliability is a property of individual sources, in the context of supporting a particular piece of information (source A verifies information X); reliability is not a category of publishers. Decisions of reliability are made on a per document & per supported information basis, not a priori based on author, publisher et al - those decisions require that the document be identified.
  It is essential to the fair & open functioning of the project that editors be able to freely discuss the quality & reliability of sources when deciding whether or not to include something; and that they do this without censorship (self or otherwise). The change in policy is, additionally, too open to gaming by POV-pushers to suppress documentation of opposing views. Noting the section immediately above, this change would prevent discussion of sources which may be usable in support of some information even though they also contain information which we would not use. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • NOTE: The text reverted was slightly different to that above, and included For example, it might be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating (assuming the link leads to a reliable and appropriate source): "This link contains serious allegations about the subject; should we summarize it in the article?" (emphasis mine). To my reading, this suggests that editors should pass sources through some sort of filter prior to linking them in Talk page discussions - which is a restriction of free & open discussion of sources. As above, a decision on reliability cannot be made without other editors being able to access, and assess, the source, and that requires identifying it; the simplest method of which is by hyperlink. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• It's a good idea, the point of course being that if it's an unreliable source it should not sit there forever, nor should talk pages be spammed with them (on the other hand we don't want to bite anyone's head off because they are not that familiar with good sourcing). My similarly focused edit was here: "However, the link should not sit unaddressed, and may depending on the discussion soon need to be removed (or even oversighted) and reworded (eg. by substituting a neutral description without a link: 'a blog on this date . . .' or 'a tabloid on this date . . .'). [1] No new restriction of discussion is being proposed, so the oppose above me makes little sense. What's being proposed is not leaving BLP violating links sitting around, in the spirit of our no such external links practice. Alanscottwalker (talk)
  • With respect, links on article Talk pages are not BLP violating. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Sure they are when they are poorly sourced "sensationalism" or "spread of titillating claims about people's lives", or unfounded "attacks", etc., etc. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
      • Would it be possible to identify the sections of the WP:BLP policy which support this view? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
        • Those are quotes from the policy.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
          • I am unable to find "attacks" (outside the context of a reference to WP:NPA) or "sensationalism"; though "sensationalist" does appear, with "spread of titillating claims about people's lives" in the preamble - 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; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. - all of which speaks to the inclusion of actual information, largely in mainspace. Respectfully, this sentence is not a prohibition on the use of links to potential sources. Given that WP:BLPTALK, as currently written, supports the inclusion of links for the purpose of evaluating reliability & usability of sources, which sections of the policy support the view that such links can be BLP violating? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:51, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

This policy says you cannot use Wikipedia to spread those things, and that's anywhere on Wikipedia, indeed that is its purpose -- given that, your cramped reading that we can just link to any ridiculous thing, without the ability to redact, or oversight is illogical. The sentence you rely on is to be read in the context of the policy as a whole. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

With respect, I am unable to read the BLP policy, either in whole or in part, and reach a conclusion that a thing explicitly permitted is implicitly prohibited. I do understand, and admire, the intent behind the proposed changes; but consider that they are detrimental to building an encyclopedia. I am, however, intrigued by the "illogical" suggestion, and should like to understand this aspect better.
NOTE: I also make a request that the discussion focus on content, not contributor. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

First, no one is focusing on contributor, "you" is the standard response to "I". As for the rest, the practical meaning is not that any ridiculous thing from the web cannot be oversighted and removed - the sentence you rely on does not prevent that from happening, and in the context of this policy it may well happen, otherwise the policy as a whole is practically destroyed - only that which is reliable may even be useful, just as the policy warns against even discussing the content of the questionable link, itself. The web is huge, just think of all the horrendous links about living people there are. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Editors should reasonably be able to ask whether information from any source should be included in an article, in the appropriate manner at the right place, which is currently described in the text of this policy. This is a general function of a talk page per WP:TALK. It isn't always black and white when it comes to a source, there are grey areas, and disallowing questions of this kind would only alienate editors from wanting to bring something up for discussion. It would especially be a net negative to revert constructive inquiries by new users or IP's, who benefit from learning about what should be included in an article (as opposed to for example edit warring to restore text they attempted to add to the article). Furthermore, Ryk72 makes some good points: This would open the door for "gaming by POV-pushers", and we shouldn't impose restrictions on "free & open discussion of sources". Talk pages are not indexed, so this is not the unreasonable dissemination of un-encyclopedic material that adding such things to an article would be, which is what BLP is meant to control.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose but... I agree with Ryk72 and Godsy above; the change goes against the point of BLPTALK. That said, I would expect new editors and IPs to be the ones likely to suggest the use of very questionable sources (like National Enquirer) for BLP issues, and we don't want to bite their hands for suggesting that. But a editor that is suggesting yet another National Enquirer piece the sixth or seventh time over, having not heeded advice from other editors about the unreliability of that source, that's starting to get into behavioral issues and something better dealt with elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: Talk page is for discussion. Reliability is often not obvious and must be established through discussion. BLP has an inherent tension with discussing, since it allows for unilateral redactions. I would prefer more discussion on the talk page and more circumspect additions on the article page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Opinion on a BLP revdel

People might be interested in this ANI discussion about WP:BLP revdel. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion to the debate on when and how to post birth names

Given that there have been many comments on this issue relating to a variety of cases over the years, I have a proposal that I think strikes a balance between what is encyclopedic information and the wishes of the individual and clears up a lot of those questions. A "middle of the road" method on handling birth names (not putting it in the lead but mentioning it in their biography as appropriate) is being suggested as I'll describe below in my suggested general guidelines.

Include the birth name in the lead (as per Wikipedia's default rule) under the following circumstances:

• The person had notoriety calling for a Wikipedia article while known as some form of their birth name. This generally overrides any other points below, including transgender people known publicly before coming out with their gender issues.
• The name change was entirely due to a change in marital (or other domestic partnership) status.
• The new/current name was chosen primarily for professional (as opposed to personal) reasons (e.g. stage/pen/etc. names), unless the person has tangible privacy and/or discrimination reasons related to their profession for not including their "real" name.
• Names evolved from a nickname they were informally called before making the change, but do not dislike their birth given name per se (e.g. Miley Cyrus or Buzz Aldrin).
• Any other cases where it'd be unlikely that the person would raise objections to their birth name being displayed (and if they do treat it like the cases below where it is assumed they might).

Don't include the birth name in the lead, but can mention it in their biography as appropriate, under the following circumstances:

• The name was changed for personal reasons in which the person likely has a preference for it not to be prominent in the lead, but still falls under the scope of encyclopedic information that can be posted. In this case it would be best to treat it like other information pertaining to their early life; if a section about such is warranted then mention the name they were known as then there, but if the guidelines do not call for such a section then that includes not mentioning their birth name.
• Transgender people who have voluntarily and without duress made their birth name known to the public (under the same guidelines as the above point).

Don't mention the birth name at all under the following circumstances:

• Cases where the person demonstrates a tangible reason under "Do No Harm" for not having their birth name posted (including by default transgender people who have not publicly provided their birth name on their own accord as mentioned above or otherwise indicated that it would be okay to post).

"Personal reason" means any circumstance not related to their profession where they use the changed name in most or all aspects of their life. This includes but is not limited to: Adoption or other changes of parentage, bad association (whether familial or in the outside world) with their birth name (such as the previous talk of "Embarrassing Names"), dislike of the name their parents gave them, gender change (with the heightened rules of such birth names appearing on Wikipedia), marriage/divorce or equivalent (although as I said there is usually no problem with putting one's maiden or equivalent name in the lead or biography in this case), naturalization or other nationality change, and religious conversion. Although not directly related to the scope of this post, I also use the "professional vs. personal" test to determine whether the term "real name" should refer to their birth name regardless of any legal name change (in the "professional" case) or their legal name regardless of how acquired (in the "personal" case) since I've seen this issue being debated as well (distinguishing between names chosen merely for fame vs. those changed for deeper reasons).Okieditor (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Removal of BLP from the recently deceased

I often change the BLP status of people who have just died. I add a note to the talk page as follows:

BLP status change

Due to the death of this person, the BLP status of this article has changed. This does ‘’’not’’’ mean that unsourced material that would contravene the Biography of Living Persons rules can be added to articles. Capitalistroadster (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz and the Zodiac Killer

I've seen a lot of edits involving Ted Cruz being the zodiac killer. I've even tried to add something about how it is a rumor, and not simply "Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer." But out of all the edits, not only did I get a warning (reasonable), but nobody can see my edit? It seems the way I put the rumor caused such type of edit revert. I just don't know why it was hidden. I didn't mean to vandalize for fun, and I only added rumors of him if anything. Obviously, I'm not the only one adding this information. What are the reasons for removal? I just have questions about this. -Coolcam6578 (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Coolcam6578 (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• How could Ted Cruz (born in December 1970 in Canada) be the Zodiac Killer (who's only confirmed kills were in the 1960s-September 1970) in the first place? This is just some silly joke going around the Internet. Guy1890 (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree that a suggestion that a person is a murderer who's final victin died months before he was born should not be entertained even as a rumor.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

ANY mention of Cruz being the Zodiac killer should be reverted on sight. It is not a rumour, but a silly internet joke that we should not even be entertaining here. Resolute 18:20, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder

In this, this and this case, Permstrump removed mention of bipolar disorder, stating "rm bipolar disorder→only passing mention and not self-disclosure WP:EGRS [...] Rm bipolar disoder→passing mention in questionable sources not sufficient for BLP WP:EGRS [...] Rm bipolar disorder, passing mention and speculative, WP:EGRS." I reverted in the Mary Kay Letourneau case, stating, "I'm not sure about this removal. Discuss on the talk page? WP:EGRS is about article categories."

Opinions? Should we be removing mention of bipolar disorder in all these cases? I'll alert WP:EGR and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The WP:BLP noticeboard as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm looking at the sources individually for everyone on List of people with bipolar disorder and giving a reason for each one. I'm not removing everyone. Most of the ones I remove had sources that didn't even mention bipolar or they're gossip mags. As far as Mary Kay, what I said on the talkpage was: I took out the mention of bipolar disorder because it was just a passing mention of private health information that is not widely publicized, so it's an issue of weight and erring on privacy on a BLP. EGRS might technically be about categories, but more importantly it's about privacy of BLPs and the things that fall under EGRS, which includes disabilities, should be self-disclosures that are commonly mentioned in mainstream, reliable sources. —PermStrump(talk) 04:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Flyer22 Reborn, Excellent question. Based on a quick view of the removals linked above, I would support the reinstatement of article text that was made in the Mary Kay Letourneau case. Reading WP:EGRS, I would also be inclined to support the reinstatement of article text for the other two removals; WP:EGRS relates only to Categorization, not to article content - the sources, based solely on publisher, would seem to be likely reliable for the inclusion of the material. I do not, under any circumstances, support that inclusion of this type of material in article text be subject to a requirement for "self-disclosure". Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Which other 2 removals? —PermStrump(talk) 04:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, with Mary Kay, WEIGHT is a big issue. This is not something that is being mentioned by many mainstream reliable sources. It's mostly gossip mags with the exception of the one source used in the article, and in that case it's only a passing mention. —PermStrump(talk) 04:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Those linked in the first sentence of Flyer22's original comment, above - Macy Gray & Spalding Gray - I am inclined to regard the Times of London & The New Yorker as being likely reliable. I do, however, support the removal of the Category, where it is not defining, per WP:EGRS. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:18, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Ryk72 Macy Gray & Spalding Gray I removed because the sources didn't say they had bipolar, not because the sources weren't reliable. I mean the reliable sources didn't say it and the remaining sources were questionable. —PermStrump(talk) 04:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder is often associated with creativity, with several celebrated musicians including Sting, Tom Waits and Macy Gray revealing that they’ve been diagnosed with the condition.[2] Spalding had had occasional depressions, he said, for more than twenty years, and some of his physicians thought that he had a bipolar disorder.[3] - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not see a problem with including the material removed in the three edits mentioned above. The whole point of reliable sources is we have confidence in their fact checking and accuracy. That said we must always be exceedingly careful when stating anyone has any medical/psychological diagnosis and should only accept the highest quality sources. The LA Times, The Times, and The NewYorker pass that bar. If such sources exist and the information is DUE then there should be no need for self-identification to note the diagnosis in an article. Great care should be taken to insure DUE/WEIGHT are respected when deciding how to present the material in an article. Jbh^Talk 04:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

"Some physicians thought" is not the same thing as "at least one physician actually diagnosed" a condition. I don't believe that source fully supports the previous claim of Gray having "depression and bipolar tendencies". I'd have no strong objections to a claim that he had "a history of depression, and possibly bipolar disorder", but I would not want to go any further than a tentative statement on the basis of such a source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I believe that would be an excellent way to phrase things. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 04:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

The other source about Macy Gray has an equally speculative mention, which is why it's not good enough to say this is a reliable source and they mentioned Macy Gray as having bipolar when it comes to their private health information. Especially for Macy Gray, WP:WEIGHT is a bigger issue. There are a small number of passing mentions about a speculative diagnosis. I haven't looked into the other Gray dude as much to know how commonly it's mentioned about him. —PermStrump(talk) 04:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This is what The Times says about Macy Gray: An hour with Gray means confession, laughter, sharp intelligence, endearing vulnerability and nerviness. She looks at you, looks away, looks down, occasionally claps, drinks tea, spills tea, is direct then foggy. I read that she was bipolar. "No, I was cured." How? "I think just by pure will." That hardly makes sense. He said, "I read you were diagnosed with bipolar." She said, "no" Then she says, "I was cured." When the mainstream medical literature says it's a lifelong illness. It's not something that's mentioned in the majority of sources about her and it's very dubious. I think it's better to leave it out. —PermStrump(talk) 04:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Some general advice from WP:WikiProject Disability/Style guide:

When writing about a person who has a disability, first consider whether their impairment is actually relevant to their notability. If it is not, it may be best not to mention the disability at all, since mentioning it would give it undue weight.

Notifying WP:DISAB about discussions such as this would be appreciated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I tend to agree with Permstrump's reasoning here about the bipolar - it's a long term episodic illness and I would like to see some more sources discussing it before its addition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

probably best to have more sources--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• As any medical condition of a living person is a BLP issue it requires reliable sources - self-identification would generally be acceptable - I would want either self-ID or significant coverage in reliable publications - not tabloid gossip, not passing mentions etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Self-identification is probably fairly safe, but we should have high-quality sources that indicate a diagnosis comes from a qualified medical professional that is following the DSM (vs armchair speculation from someone that has never even met the person being identified). --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

• In Mary Kay Letourneau, it's not clear to me that the material is even verifiable from the source. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI I mentioned this at WP:PSYCH and WP:DISAB. —PermStrump(talk) 16:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: See sources I listed below regarding the Mary Kay Letourneau case. Pinging Ryk72, Jbhunley, WhatamIdoing, Roger (Dodger67), Casliber (Cas Liber) and Ronz to assess the sources below. I already know that Permstrump is invested in this discussion, so I see no need to ping him in this post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources

To put it all in one place, this is what the sources said for the 3 people we're talking about:

• Mary Kay Letourneau: "And the proof of that, says Letourneau psychiatrist Julia Moore, is that when Mary Kay took the medications prescribed to control manic-depressive illness (also known as bipolar disorder), 'she returned to her senses.'" LA Times article
• Macy Gray: "An hour with Gray means confession, laughter, sharp intelligence, endearing vulnerability and nerviness. She looks at you, looks away, looks down, occasionally claps, drinks tea, spills tea, is direct then foggy. I read that she was bipolar. 'No, I was cured.' How? 'I think just by pure will.' The Times article

"Bipolar disorder is often associated with creativity, with several celebrated musicians including Sting, Tom Waits and Macy Gray revealing that they’ve been diagnosed with the condition." Swinburne University of Technology press release

• Spalding Gray: "He was not wearing a seat belt, and his head crashed against the back of Kathie’s head. Both were knocked unconscious... Over Labor Day weekend of 2001, five weeks after his brain surgery, and still on crutches, Spalding gave two performances to huge audiences in Seattle. He was in excellent form. Then, a week later, there was a sudden, profound change in his mental state, and Spalding fell into a deep, even psychotic, depression... Spalding had had occasional depressions, he said, for more than twenty years, and some of his physicians thought that he had a bipolar disorder... In June of 2003, hoping to clarify the nature of his deterioration, Spalding and Kathie went to U.C.L.A.’s Resnick Hospital for neuropsychiatric testing. He did badly on various tests, which showed 'attentional and executive deficits typical of right frontal lobe damage.' The doctors there told him that he might deteriorate further, because of cerebral scarring where the frontal lobe had borne the impact of the crash and the imploded bone fragments." New Yorker article

The point of the New Yorker article on Spalding Gray was to talk about his brain injury, not bipolar disorder. It's not clear to me if the doctors only considered bipolar after the brain injury or if it was considered before. Depression clearly preceded the brain injury, but the wording is too vague say for sure when the doctors considered bipolar disorder. I'm pretty sure that wasn't until after the brain injury, because it says later that they tried depakote, which didn't work and then they realized it was TBI.

I also want to point out that for all of these people, the first few pages of hits on google and google news don't mention bipolar unless you specifically search for "so-and-so bipolar". They all had pretty vague, passing mentions of bipolar that aren't easily found in other mainstream, reliable sources, so I think for all of them it's UNDUE even if we disagree about whether those sources are reliable for this information. —PermStrump(talk) 20:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

In the Mary Kay Letourneau case, that she had bipolar disorder was used as part of her defense during her trial. That's why the article stated, "During the trial, Letourneau was examined and diagnosed with bipolar disorder." That Letourneau had bipolar disorder has also been the subject of debate. Sure, the Wikipedia text should have done a better job at making the bipolar disorder aspect more relevant, but it is not a WP:Undue weight matter. And, sure, we can argue that biploar disorder didn't contribute to her being sexual with the boy, but what we think on that is irrelevant when it comes to what is relevant for the Wikipedia article. The following are sources commenting on the aspect, starting from passing mention type of stuff to more in-depth material and debate:

1. This biography.com source states, "Although a defense psychiatrist testified that she suffered from bipolar disorder (a form of manic depression), Letourneau was sentenced to seven years in prison."

2. This People magazine source states, "A defense psychiatrist testified that Letourneau suffered from bipolar disorder, a form of manic-depression that often leads to reckless behavior." And, yes, People magazine counts as a reliable source for public figures. In 2013, we had a big RfC on that matter.

3. This 2000 Serial Offenders: Current Thought, Recent Findings source, from CRC Press, page 27, states, "The third type of female sexual abuser who acts alone is called the 'teacher-lover.' This woman views her involvement as a 'love affair' with a boy 11 to 16 years of age. An example of this type of abuser can be seen in the Mary Kay LeTourneau case described below. [...] A psychiatrist diagnosed her with bipolar disorder."

4. This 2008 Secrets Can be Murder: What America's Most Sensational Crimes Tell Us about Ourselves source, by Jane Velez-Mitchell and Nancy Grace, from Simon and Schuster, page 294, states, "Is it coincidence that Mary Kay Letourneau and Debra Lafave both reportedly suffered from bipolar disorder? The illness is known to cause wild mood swings, from being manic or extremely 'up' at one extreme to being depressed or very down at the other extreme. Severe behavioral changes accompany these mood swings. The periods of extreme moods are called episodes. Some mental health professionals say manic episodes cause hypersexual behavior, inappropriate acting out of sexual nature."

5. This 2012 Child Maltreatment: An Introduction source, from Sage Publications, page 106, states, "LeTourneau's defense lawyer had argued that LeTourneau suffered from bipolar disorder and that she was in need of treatment rather than punishment. Letourneau had no criminal record, and she seemed unlikely to reoffend. Not even the boy's mother was pushing for prison time. Standing before Judge Lau, Letourneau begged for mercy: 'I did something that I had no right to do morally or legally,' she said, 'It was wrong, and I am sorry. I give you my word that it will not happen again' (quoted in Fitten, 1997, p. 3). The judge ultimately showed leniency, suspending all but 6 months of the sentence. She did, however, set two conditions: Letourneau would have to undergo treatment as a sex offender, and she could have no contact with Vili (Santana, 1998)."

6. This 2015 (reprint) Criminology: Explaining Crime and Its Context source, from Routledge, page 49, states, "Letourneau was also, however, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, a mental illness based upon a chemical imbalance in the brain that is is strongly associated with bizarre and irrational behaviors. The diagnosing physician identified classic signs of this mental disorder that she displays as mania, hypersexuality, and high risk-taking behavior. Letourneau was prescribed Depakote (divalproex sodium), a milder drug than the lithium that was, at the time, more traditionally used to treat bipolar disorder. And again, she displayed a classic sign of the disease in her later refusal to take the medication and her denial of the disorder. But is it more in order to seek an explanation of her deviance or to consider why the state chose to brand Letourneau a child rapist? Analysis of this event pits positivism (e.g., strain and mental illness) against interactionism (e.g., labeling)."

7. This 2015 Art's Teachings, Teaching's Art: Philosophical, Critical and Educational Musings source, from Springer, page 101, states, "Zizek (2000) takes aim at the biploar disorder defense of teachers accused of statutory rape by claiming that the medicalization of their motivation removes desire from its all-too-human context, thus depriving the individual of her humanity as a way of explaining something which in other contexts needs no explanation. He turns to Mary Kay LeTourneau as an example of someone who, despite her diagnosis of bipolar disorder and subsequent treatment, returned from prison to commit herself in marriage to her victim: an act that is clearly outside the bounds of the manic mood swing suffered by bipolar patients. Yet Zizek's otherwise sound critique of medicalized desire swings too far in the other direction, citing LeTourneau's behavior as an authentic, ethical act of personal volition against the conditioning forces of contemporary society that would have us betray our desires in order to fit a prescribed norm."

8. This Hypersexuality book (I'm not sure what year), from Lichtenstein Creative Media, starting on page 2, documents an interview with the doctor who diagnosed Letourneau with bipolar disorder. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

With some of the additional sources, it should be fine to identify Letourneau's diagnosis. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm fine with that. —PermStrump(talk) 02:20, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC notice: Individuals in ethnicity-article image collages

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Proposed repeal of WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. It is a proposal to vacate the previous consensus reached in the February 2016 RfC that resulted in the creation of the MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES provision at MOS:IMAGES, and also relates thematically to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 127#RfC: Ethnicity in infoboxes (all of these discussions are ultimately about using infoboxes to identify individuals as members of particular ethnicities, and this relates also to MOS:IDENTITY). WT:BLP seems relevant, since this is about identifying particular notable individuals as members of specific ethnicities, and they're often living ones.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

TED speaker challenge

From 6 June to 6 July we are holding a writing challenge about TED speakers. Everyone can participate by writing about people who have held a TED talk. In January TED made a data donation with metadata about 2000+ TED talks. On the TED.com website there are many many more talks, but only the "top talks" are in the data donation so you need to check the overview list of the TED speakers in the in competition here: User:Jane023/TED speakers. For an overview of all the TED talks that these people have held, see here: User:Jane023/TED talks. Often the talks have multi-lingual subtitles, but you can also access the English transcription directly with a link to quote the talks for use in Wikipedia articles. More information about the challenge, the points, the prizes, and the sign-up is here: TED speakers challenge. -Jane (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox images

Hello all, I just have a quick regarding infobox templates in regards to BLP adherence. I see that, according to image BLP guidelines, booking photographs should not be used as the main infobox image. I feel like using a mugshot in any living person infobox, regardless of their background or history, goes directly against WP:MUG, "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light.. .police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed. I know that in {{Infobox criminal}} there is an option to include an image. This seems to contradict the BLP policy on images. I just want to get some other opinions regarding this issue. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The image field in {{Infobox criminal}} doesn't have to be a mugshut, it can be any image whatsoever. Stickee (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME

Could someone give me a bit of guidance on this policy, and on the way it should interact with other established policies such as WP:V and WP:SYNTH?

I'm involved in editing on a topic where a notable person has been shot and stabbed, and a person who has yet to establish independent notability is widely identified among high quality reliable sources as having been arrested in connection with the incident (the police themselves have stated that a man of a certain age has been arrested and that they are not looking for anyone else; they haven't named him but the vast majority of reliable sources have). There are also high quality reliable sources describing the incident as "murder" or an "assassination".

This seems to raise a few conflicts between policies. Obviously, the circumstances of death of an already notable person, reported by high quality reliable sources, are notable enough for consideration for inclusion in the encyclopedia. But at what point do synthesis of the two elements above, or indeed reliable sources saying all of it straight off the bat, violate BLP policy, in particular BLPCRIME and NPF? What level of care do we need to take in deciding whether to name the individual? If we do name him, does that have knock-on effects in terms of the manner in which we describe the incident, which at this point is very recent and the facts are still emerging? I'm less concerned about sub judice (it is my personal intention to try and abide by it; others will make their own judgements), more about the application of Wikipedia policy and trying to cover the topic in the most detailed, NPOV way we can without riding roughshot over established principles.

I am generalising due to a wish to discuss the concept in general terms. There has been a suggestion that I may have misunderstood the application of this policy, so I was hoping that uninvolved editors could help me understand it? StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Just because something is said in reliable sources does not mean we have to put it in our articles. And in this case BLP, and it's subsection BLPCRIME, would protect the accused from us mentioning them until a conviction is secured. Though if you want larger feedback on this issue you might want to try WP: BLPN --Kyohyi (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I actually chose this page because of the lower traffic – just looking a few views on how BLPCRIME should be interpreted from people who take a keen interest in the policy, before deciding whether or what I should do next. Thanks for the input. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2016

Aksh Badshah (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. nyuszika7h (talk) 07:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Conciseness to avoid confusion

This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.

Given that a BLP is an article, instead of 'BLP and other articles' why don't we just say "living people mentioned in any article?" If there is no separate policy between LP mentions in BLP and LP mentions in other articles we may as well just lump them together and decrease confusion. Singling out BLPs gives the impression they're some kind of unique situation when it appears that they aren't, since the issue is whether a mentioned person is alive or not, not where they are mentioned. Ranze (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

BLPNAME contradicts SPJ Ethics

The current text of BLPNAME gives substantial preference to leaving out names:

When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. / The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons

But compare the Society of Professional Journalists ethics code on this topic: [4]

1. Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability. / The most important professional possession of journalists is credibility. If the news consumers don’t have faith that the stories they are reading or watching are accurate and fair, if they suspect information attributed to an anonymous source has been made up, then the journalists are as useful as a parka at the equator. / To protect their credibility and the credibility of their stories, reporters should use every possible avenue to confirm and attribute information before relying on unnamed sources.

An example should not be necessary to illustrate this essential conflict, but to defuse claims that this is only hypothetical, I should mention the case that made me think of this, the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. There is a lot of smoke being blown in the press about Omar Mateen having been gay, based on various accounts. I would like to name each and every person who has been cited in the press so that editors and readers could keep track of how many there are and what their credibility is considered to be as the investigation continues. But I haven't even made the attempt because I have this subpolicy waiting in the wings to foul it all up. The ironic part is that this subpolicy is actually sabotaging a BLP/BDP goal - carefully qualifying a statement about a recently deceased person to make sure we create no implication further than what is reliably known.

I would like to see Wikipedia be more comfortable simply saying what the news says, without being afraid to have information that they have. I think this would be simpler, make future editing easier, and be more ethical as the SPJ suggests. Wnt (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

In what way does BLPNAME prevent you from linking to the RS articles mentioning various such names? In what way would doing so undermine what you're trying to accomplish? Jclemens (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's something ... but it means that any editor trying to figure out who said this and who said that has to look up every source, if they are still accessible (or ever were). Which runs counter to the idea that "The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability." With a name, they can just type it in by the story line and read every update a web search can find; without one, they can be left spinning their wheels. Wnt (talk) 16:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems like good advice. Now, if it comes to pass that what someone says develops a particular controversy or identifying the name otherwise truly can get a consensus for going in because it is really helpful to the encyclopedic topic, than fine. Journalism is not what we are doing - following a more removed convention, tone, etc., of a tertiary source, thus makes more sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to follow SPJ ethics guidelines - we are not journalists. Citing the source a "common Joe" was quoted in without specifically naming Joe within our article in no way undermines WP:RS or WP:V. Your specific example of tabulating a "list" of claimants would violate WP:OR, though. VQuakr (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I've strongly disagreed at times with the way BLPNAME has been used (especially the Kafkaesque situation of preserving the "privacy" of information that is not by any reasonable definition private since it's been highlighted by multiple high-quality sources), but I see no need for this particular modification. As long as we include a citation back to the original reference, any reader who wants to go back and check out that reference can find it, do so, and find anything they say about where they got their information. We don't need a laundry list of everyone a reference mentioned in passing, that would be excessive and generally irrelevant detail. If a well-known and high-profile person is quoted or cited by a source, that might merit inclusion directly in the article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade and VQuakr: I certainly did not mean to suggest amending policy to require naming every minor player in every article; I would be fully content to strike out a few sentences of what is there now and leave editors to adopt or reject SPJ ethics as they please. I just think that if our policy is demanding an ethics contrary to another well-known ethics, maybe that isn't an ethics we need to be mandating. Also, I didn't mean to suggest I wanted a formal list or table; only that by having each person named as convenient in the text, we could keep better track. Wnt (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't see what any relaxation of our policy would achieve except to make us more journalistic. How is Mary Smith, a former coworker said any more informative than a former coworker said? If anything the slight distancing is beneficial. We are already free to name public figures or official pronouncements and any 'significant' name is going to eventually be included. Pincrete (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Because your SPJ ethics are targeted at journalists. As an encyclopedia, the reasons for those ethical guidelines do not apply to us - we are not out interviewing people. VQuakr (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Technically that's not true, or at least oughtn't be true - if we had someone down by Pulse with a videocamera, that person would be free to walk around, film the area, and talk to people and post the video which likely would end up in the article. But more generally, much of the review we make of events is similar to what is done in many (most?) news articles. Disclosure: SPJ isn't "my" ethics ... I just happen to agree with them on this point. What makes that slightly less than a 100% cynical maneuver is that if my feeling is if there's a type of ethics opposed to our policy, that's a suggestion we don't need it as a matter of principle. Wnt (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

No, sending someone to Pulse with a video camera to do interviews would be original research and such content definitely would not make it into the article. VQuakr (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

You're telling me if we had free-licensed footage someone contributed from the vicinity of the shooting showing what people had to say about it, you wouldn't want that in the article??? Really??? That is just wrong. Wnt (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

We're pretty far off-topic here, but correct - we are not a news agency. If you want to discuss this hypothetical tangent further I suggest moving to WT:NOR, WT:V, or the village pump; feel free to ping me. VQuakr (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Clemens makes a good point. I think whenever reliable sources opt to include a name and we use it as a reference that we should also be able to include this name. It just clears up confusion and allows for easier verification of the information. It's not like the avoidance of mentioning the info actually protects a name from being knowm, if it's available in the source, someone really interested in knowing could look it up. The burden would be on the source that named them in the first place not us. Why should we be burdened with all these judgment calls about who's 'widely known' (vague since we're not told how to measure this) enough to mention their name. Ranze (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB

What is to be done about self-published sources that can be shown to be lies by the subject, but only through primary sources? eg. Wiki page references the age of an author taken from their website, but the registered copyright information from the Library of Congress contradicts it? Jacobssteph (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• NOTE: Please review Jacobssteph (talk · contribs)'s editing history. He is a WP:SPA whose sole mission is to delete and/or disruptively edit on the article Seph Lawless. -- Softlavender (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest in "disruptively" editing that article. All edits I have made, including correcting ones made by the subject himself, have been in accordance with referenced materials. Original question remains. Jacobssteph (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• As WP:SELFPUB states, such sources can only be used if (in part) "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". In other words, don't use self-published sources for anything even remotely uncertain or contentious. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, at least no consensus for a move, at most, a potentially wide-scale change in wording across multiple WP pages and long-standing templates and notices that is possibly more disruptive than helpful. While the wording change to "Living persons" would help understanding policy scope, the term "BLP" has been in existence for a very long time, and the large amount of oppose votes on a move of a Wikipedia policy page prevent this request from proceeding in my opinion. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons → Wikipedia:Living persons – this page discusses policies about how to talk about living people and we are told they apply not just to biography articles but to ANY article, so the inclusion of 'Biography' in the page title is misleading. Ranze (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose for now Weak oppose – While I understand the fundamentals behind this proposal, a lot of the language in the policy itself (such as the advice on writing style and presumption in favor of privacy) is indeed geared towards actual biographies of living persons. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, the term "BLP" is so longstanding and has so ingrained itself into the Wikipedia community culture that I would want convincing evidence that this change is actually needed before signing my support. Anyone who reads the first sentence of the policy – Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page – will understand that this is applicable beyond just biographies and even beyond just the mainspace. Has there been a pattern of examples that editors have been actually misled by the policy's title? Mz7 (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I can personally attest to being misled by it and letting my guard down on non-biography articles like things about court cases or controversies. I can only imagine this is more extreme for people newer than myself. Ranze (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mz7. BLP needs to stay as-is. I presume this was prompted by your block for editing People v. Turner. Changing the name of this policy doesn't change what the policy says. I might agree that this policy has crept from biographical articles into any mention of a living person but changing the name of the policy helps no one. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The revoked block for expired sanctions never justified reminded me what a problem this is, sure. It indeed has crept outside biography into policy not just on any article, but any talk page or userspace, so that is exactly why we should change the name of the policy. I am not proposing we change what the policy says, but that the page name should conform to reflect the policy. I mean hey, if you want to move that we restrict BLP restrictions just to biographies, I'll back you, but I didn't see that as a realistic move. Ranze (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mz7, BLP is just too widely known to change it. It still applies to all content anywhere on Wikipedia about living (and recently deceased) people regardless. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • For those who know what it means, we do not harm. For those who do not, a brief explanation of the change would inform them. It applying to all content is exactly why we shouldn't call it a 'biography' policy. It is obviously a Wikipedia policy. Ranze (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Pile-on Oppose per Mz7. BLP is so deeply ingrained as a term in Wikipedia, that changing the acronym is impractical. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In the long term it is more practical to have a briefer and more accurate page title that reflects its policy instead of confusingly talking about biographies when bringing up policies for things not in biographies. Ranze (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree that the words "BLP" and "Biographies of living persons" are written so many time across Wikipedia, we'd need a bot to rename them all. There is nothing wrong with BLP, so I oppose. — Music1201 ^talk 17:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • We have bots to update double redirects, what's the problem? There is a problem with BLP: the name of the policy does not reflect the content of the policy. The policy specifies guidelines towards any articles (or even talk page's) discussion of living persons, not just biography articles. Someone who doesn't edit biographies would assume this is something they don't need to read and get confused why they're told to study biography policies by people criticizing their efforts on other articles. Ranze (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The proposed title is more concise, and correctly indicates that this policy reaches beyond articles that are "biographies". I see no adjustment problems at all, as there is no reason why we can't retain "BLP" and "Biographies of living persons" as redirects. bd2412 T 18:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Mz7. There isn't any good reason to. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The good reason is that the page name says 'biographies' implying it is only policy about biographies. It is not an appropriate place to discuss policy for non-biographies. WP:LP is the place for that. Given that WP:CP is taken by 'copyright problems' the proposed Wikipedia:Contemporary persons widened split could maybe be WP:CPA for Wikipedia:Contemporary persons in articles or similar. Ranze (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• SNOW Oppose: This is a longstanding and useful and well-recognized Wikipedia acronym, and it isn't going to change now. Softlavender (talk) 18:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Moving to WP:LP would not make prior WP:BLP links any less useful. An abbreviated and more accurate acronym could gain recognition over time too. It should change if the presen ttitle is not accurate.
• Comment: I'm a little confused by all of the opposition. The proposed change would more accurately reflect the contents of the policy; I don't think anyone is disputing that. However, lots of people seem really opposed to changing the name, but the only reasoning I'm seeing is that BLP is too much a part of Wikipedia culture as is, and we shouldn't change that. Is there a stronger argument that I'm missing? Creating a redirect seems like it would solve most logistical problems, and I don't imagine it would be too hard to write a bot to deal with the rest, plus people could still easily refer to the policy as "BLP" with no problem if they were so inclined (as I imagine many would). -- Irn (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you're right that this wouldn't be totally bad with a redirect and all. The main thing is that I'm not seeing this as a big deal: anyone who reads the first sentence of the policy will know that its spirit extends beyond just biographies, and the majority of the policy was written primarily with biographies of living persons in mind. Perhaps I am being too sentimental for Wikipedia's good, though. Mz7 (talk) 22:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support per bd2412. Everyone here, including me, has long had the acronym etched in their brains, but from a newbie's perspective the proposer is right: it's a misnomer, and a potentially confusing one. The only adjustment needed would be a footnote like Until July 2016, this policy was titled "Biographies of living persons" or "BLP", a name Wikipedians often still use to refer to it. FourViolas (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I don't really see any purpose in this. Why even do this so you would have to add a separate redirect or two linking goodness how many, literally, thousands of places the acronym BLP is linked. Millions? AFD, CSD, Prods, Requests for article protection, individual project policies, on and on and on. Or the above suggested footnote, requiring an explanation where no explanation is necessary if we just leave it alone. As far as I can see, renaming this would change a straight link between two points, to going around the bend to get there. Why complicate things? — Maile (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I do not understand your concern with Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons as we have bots to take care of updating double-redirects. You could even keep BLP intact but limited only to biography policy and with policy extending to all articles (LP) as a split off article. Include a note at top of new shorter BLP article saying 'this page was referenced in the past for LP concerns for non-biographies'. Ranze (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose with reasoning: Change can be a good thing but sometimes change, just for the sake of change, with no real gain, does not accomplish anything. Here is a very easy solution that probably should have been done a long time ago.

Separate the last two sentences of the last paragraph out and move them to the top as the first paragraph. This would require no change just reorganizing.

"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.".

Of course the reference is important because it states, 1)- "BLP applies to all living persons mentioned in an article", 2)- "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry.", 3- "The WP:BLP|biographies of living person policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page."

This page in a nut shell: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention..." would be above this new first paragraph. The second paragraph would then begin with "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.".

Problem solved with no policy changes, no name change, and no more discussion needed. Any possible, probable, or potential confusion would be rendered moot, we can be satisfied that the overwhelmingly vast majority of instances where this policy is critical would be concerning "biographies of living persons", BUT also that any mention of any living person anywhere on Wikipedia is also covered, AND-- we wouldn't be having to consider changing something that has been a part of Wikipedia probably since the earliest creation of policy.

Something as important as possible changes like this should not be subjected to a 7 day discussion, with an optional extension. It applies to any editor that has or is likely to create a BLP, or mention anywhere on Wikipedia any material about a living person. This should be advertised everywhere on Wikipedia to have the broad community consensus this policy has been afforded for a long time. Otr500 (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

• • I'm all for having a longer conversation, I worry that something like this will be shut down due to stuck-in-the-muds before it gets proper discussion. A decision shouldn't be rushed to in either matter. At what point did BLP policies get extended beyond biographies? Was consensus reached on that? I'm surprised they didn't change the page name when that happened. Do you know if anyone proposed a rename as soon as policies mentioned on BLP grew beyond the scope of only applying to biographies? Ranze (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose (noting that this is not flying as a proposal at this point) If anything, the policy should be specifically extended to all contemporary biographical information - as, too often, as soon as someone dies, the (FITB) editors pounce upon it, saying it is no longer covered by this policy. In short - why not extend it to "BCP" making clear that recently deceased persons are automatically included - and we can then define "contemporary" to include those deceased in the past (say) 30 years (whose children are thus fairly likely to be alive, for sure). The current "sometimes yesterday, sometimes five years" uncertainty is absurd. Collect (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Are you opposing because you'd prefer WP:Contemporary persons instead? I could get on board for that. Would you agree that we shouldn't name a policy extending outside biographies a 'biographies' policy if others agree that we shouldn't limit our policies to the living but also to the recent? This is mostly a privacy thing right? Since after all we would expect neutrality for all articles even for those dead millenia. Ranze (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It may not be broke, and a name change won't fix anything, but there are issues.

The proposal certainly does not appear to be "flying" but things can change. Since current policy "applies to all living persons , in an entry of "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." (buried in the policy), and found under the Applicability of the policy section, that would actually cover "children" for their entire lives. A surviving spouse can sue on behalf of a deceased spouse, as well as the children, for defamation (libel), because of unsupported derogatory material. At any rate I am sure editors do not want to injure anyone by inappropriate content. Extending the time can not possibly do any harm. Policy, the "Applicability to deceased persons, corporations, or groups of persons" section, "Recently dead or probably dead" subsection covers "people who have recently died", when not reliably sourced, extends to 115 years (plenty), and a confirmed death (reliably sourced) up to two years with extensions, where there are "implications for their living relatives and friends".. I agree with user:Collect that the "uncertainty is absurd". The timeline is not long enough and the current policy of "an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside" is open to broad interpretive Wikilaywering. This should be extended or we can just wait until the next lawsuit and a WMF directive.

Reorganization may not be a concern but the section "Applicability of the policy" is around half way down the long policy list. Why? It would seem that after the lead, where I think my suggestions would be an improvement, a section directing applicability would be a good choice for the first section. This would clarify a lot of concerns, and would also make sense. It just seems to me that "what the policy is" should be first, "who is covered under the policy as well as any exclusions" (Legal persons and groups) would be next, and directives such as "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced", next then we can get into the other juicy parts. This would place more important relevant information at the top of the policy to help prevent editor|"Gossip" from "pouncing" on an article of a recently deceased, by allowing editor|"Defend Wikipedia" to not have to memorize an entire 47,200 + count policy page. I guess we need to explore some "Requests for comments". Otr500 (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I like Collect's logic that BLP should apply to "contemporary" persons, including not just the living and very recently deceased but also those whose family and friends are likely to still be around. And I agree with most of what you're saying, but you're wrong on one significant point: legally, libel protection does not apply to the dead (see this for specifics). We should avoid libeling the dead because libel has no place in an encyclopedia, not because we're legally forced to. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

@ Andrew Lenahan: Thanks: I performed a quick look; It appears there is evidence that contradicts you. I would suggest this be examined before asserting it as fact that one can't defame or slander the dead. To be clear, a dead person can not be hurt by slander or defamation. A decedent’s reputation or interests can be harmed as well as those of his family. In some jurisdictions it does not matter if a decedent cannot know about injurious defamatory comments after death. Knowledge of a legal harm is not required for a legal harm to occur. If someone breaks into a house injury does not begin when there is knowledge, as legal interest is harmed before knowledge, or even if the break-in is not discovered.

I would need to see, 1)- A US Supreme Court case, 2)- An internationally accepted or World Court case that would overshadow examples provided. While it is commonly accepted that the standard common-law rule in the United States is that you cannot defame the dead, and Legal scholar Professor Jonathan Turley (Defaming the Dead, 2006-09-17) seems to have the credentials to assert "...you cannot defame the dead...No matter how malicious, untrue or vile.", I think there is evidence that there may be Civil as well as Criminal Statutes to the contrary. I also think there are probably laws allowing retraction, or "setting the record straight", but in Louisiana there are moral as well as legal obligations to let the dead lie peaceably. Will a Tort case or criminal charges survive a Supreme Court case? Time and money may tell.

In some unlikely event of a case culpability will inevitably rest on certain criteria such as willful or malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth. Truth is a defense (True and fair or truth of the matter), which may be justification to squash most likely lawsuits. Even in a successful presentation of facts for a case there may be a host of mitigating circumstances, but there is always just the ramification of a lawsuit to a publisher. Are all our editors always "neutral" on all issues? "IF" there is even a small chance that a lawsuit might be successful, because an editor was callous, biased, or negligent, and a publication allowed this, I would think there is reasoning to take proactive preventative measures.

Your example article states in #1: "The risks of a judgment being ultimately entered against a writer in the United States for libeling the dead are very close to zero.", and "very close to zero" is not the same as zero. In #2, the "risks of being sued" have about the same chance. #5 states "there can be liability when a defamatory statement about the dead also reflects negatively on the living. "IF" there is even some small chance of a successful lawsuit could there be any possibility of criminal charges or just a Tort suit?

The Wikipedia article Defamation states "there are nine states (Idaho, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Washington) that have criminal statutes regarding defamation of the dead.". There is wording such as "degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke surviving relatives and friends.".

• Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 (2005), "(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the publication was true, except libels tending to blacken the memory of the dead and libels tending to expose the natural defects of the living.".
• Louisiana (A Civil Law jurisdiction): "Whoever commits the crime of defamation shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both.", La. Rev. Stat. § 14:47 (2005) and states: "(2) To expose the memory of one deceased to hatred, contempt, or ridicule; or...", which reads like criminal to me and that the dead can be defamed. Louisiana Civil Law does not differentiate between slander (spoken) or defamation (liable): "Defamation is the malicious publication or expression in any manner". This is not unconstitutional as long as it follows Snyder v. Ware, 314 F. Supp. 335 (W.D. La. 1970), aff’d 397 U.S. 589.
• Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.510: It a “gross misdemeanor” to libel the living through publication of material that would expose them to ridicule, or to “blacken the memory of the dead.”, and there is no "intent" inclusion.
• Oklahoma: Uses the language “blackens the name of the dead,” and Okla. Stat. § 771 (2005) states, “... or any malicious publication as aforesaid, designed to blacken or vilify the memory of one who is dead, and tending to scandalize his surviving relatives or friends.”. The court has found, in Turner v. Crime Detective, 34 F.Supp. 8 (N.D. Okla. 1940), that a common law recovery for libel was not available to a deceased individual nor could the deceased individual’s estate or relatives recover for the libel.

In International Law, as this is an international vehicle, there appears to be some evidence of protection against defamation of the dead.

• Germany: A case involving Defamation of deceased persons, known as the Mephisto Judgement was heard by the German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) and the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) that held the human dignity of a human being does not end with his or her death. There is no compensation provided.

If a publication has encountered some form of defamation lawsuit and lost, settled out of court, or even received negative exposure, there will likely be a fine line drawn concerning possible fault. I would therefore not regard defamation towards the dead as cut-and- dried or only a "moral reasoning". If someone should want to find out the WMF position they might find a like view which would necessitate some changes.

If my assertions are correct, as there does appear to be some evidence, one would think we should consider the ramifications that possible injury to the dead or to living relatives (or friends) could result in a lawsuit or even criminal charges in some jurisdictions, no matter how minuscule the chances of success, and we might consider wording to address "Defamation of the dead" from a legal point of view, which would carry more weight than some possible "moral obligation". This is as far as I have gone so far. Otr500 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• oppose creates unneeded work, and would change a well ingrained acronym, causing inconvenience for no real good reason. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 04:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support - the name, as it currently stands, sounds like it refers only to the content of an article which is primarily about a living person. However, BLP applies to all Wikipedia articles - for example, in an article about an event, BLP applies to any statement made about a participant in such event. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Creates unneeded work, and would change a well known and widely used acronym BLP, causing inconvenience for no reason. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I am not suggesting retiring the WP:BLP redirect. It could provide an explanation of what the policy originally was (for old links). Note that WP:LP (Living Persons) redirects here. It should be the other way around. Ranze (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: If the inclusion of 'Biography' in the page title is misleading, removing it would create chaos. Absolute insanity. This is so established as an acronym and in our daily use and reference to, there is no way to undo. Unneeded work, confusion, frustration and inconvenience: just what we as a project need more of.  !!! Fylbecatulous talk 14:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Why would it create chaos? Would you prefer WP:Living persons in articles to provide context? Establishment as an acronym would not be a problem, I'm not saying delete the old location, it could still explain things. If anything, the constant reference to a 'biographies' policy on non-biography articles promotes ongoing confusion. This really isn't much work at all to do a move or a split. Ranze (talk) 09:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Carrite (talk) 01:37, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Comment by nominator: seems like a lot of people opposing this move are offering unsubstantiated arguments. The title is clearly broke if it only specifies 'biographies' yet instates policies that apply outside of biographies. One alternate than just a move would be a WP:SPLIT: have a 'living persons' article for policies that apply to any content about living people (I also like the suggestion about contemporary persons, although I think perhaps less rigorous, not all contemporary people deceased have kids to worry about) and then keep some content left behind specifically about biography formatting. Ranze (talk) 09:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Its only a biography when it come writing articles about persons. Removing it can create more crazziness. KGirlTrucker81 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 15:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The meaning is clear enough, and there has never been any doubt or difficulty in applying it outside article apace.

But I would very strongly oppose any attempts to extend the period of protection for the dead--we should be doing just the opposite. The original intent was to prevent abuse in the period immediately after the death, when articles about noteworthy people tend to attract all sorts of nonsense. The BLP limitations are necessary, but they are fundamentally at odds with NPOV and represent a necessary but problematic compromise with it. Without NPOV, we're not an encyclopedia. If we really wanted to totally avoid hurting the possibility of hurting peoples feelings, we'd need to apply restrictions on not just biographical material, but material on companies people work for, schools they attend, the books and recording they make, and the towns they live in, even if their names aren't mentioned. BLP protection should be used only when it is actually necessary--and then of course used strictly. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The disruption and confusion that would be caused by the move, outweighs the value of clarifying the name to avoid rare cases where an editor fails to realize that BLP applies outside biographical articles. As for legal issues regarding the application of US law to recently deceased, it is really a question for WMF legal. Still, I seriously doubt a lawsuit would go anywhere, particularly if the article was anywhere near properly cited and NPOV. There are many outdated laws in the US that will be struck down if anyone tries to enforce them, they survive only do to disuse. As for laws of other nations, if you edit from outside the US, it would be prudent to know your local laws, but they should have no impact on policy for the rest of us. Monty₈₄₅ 02:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• The major opposition appears to be over the acronym. Is it really such a stretch that the BLP becomes the LPP (living persons policy)? czar 02:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not bringing up the minimization of the content of the opposes, but: yes, this is such a stretch. Who makes the announcement and where? How many noticeboards and WikiProjects? How many policies? How many pages? How do we get approval for a banner? Just do a generic search in your window for "BLP" and at the moment I get Results 1 - 20 of 101,549, including a disambiguation page. Granted, many are to categories that name "BLP" in the title (just one thing to be changed for all the months and years) Do you have an assigned bot? Name anything that was announced and explained as a major change that was received well, with good understanding and 'easy-peasy', with no backlash? Fylbecatulous talk 11:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Ostensibly a "backlash" would have more of a rationale than recalcitrance... It would be out of order to make preparations in advance of community consensus to move forward, and more to the point, why would any of what you mentioned even need to change? Anyone could still call it BLP as much as they wanted, myself included—it would be disruptive to retroactively replace all instances of "BLP" and no one is even advocating for that. So whom familiar or unfamiliar with the acronym would the rename really confuse? I just find it hard to believe that the primary objection of this acronym-loving community is the rollout of another (simplified) acronym, one that should make more sense to newcomers. (I don't recall any such casualties when the hand-wringing over consolidating the FfDs processes was complete.) I plan on calling BLP the "living persons policy" from now on if only because it's shorter and more precise. I don't think any of my interlocutors will be confused and if they are, they'll quickly figure it out. czar 20:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose If you are going to write about me to create a biography page then you'd have a biography for a living person, in which case I would definitely want a Biography of Living Persons guideline on Wikipedia. A living person on the other hand could be anyone, including me, and since this has been where it is forever I see no reason to move it. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Let's not misconstrue the policy, while "editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page", the majority of the policy specifically concerns how to treat living people in their respective biographies. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Semantics and technicalities -- as mentioned above, this would make things hard for everyone. Beyond this, there seems to be no previous indication that there is a need for this change. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
• Strong support – The policy's name should reflect the policy's contents as closely as possible. Given the acknowledged wide scope of the current BLP policy, having "Biography" in the title is actually detrimental to the understanding; it wastes energy in application and enforcement, as people invariably debate over where exactly this policy should apply. Besides, "Living Persons" is shorter, and WP:CONCISEness is a key part of titling policy. This move would promote WP:CLARITY on these sensitive matters, especially for new editors making their way through the maze of Wikipedia policies. And WP:LP has a nice ring to it, you could write a song on this rhyme… (I'll buy the LP.) The BLP acronym redirect will obviously remain relevant and widely used, I don't see the likelihood of chaos feared by opposers. — JFG ^talk 23:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The policy applies, explicitly, to all coverage of living persons, not just limited to biographies. It covers incidental mentions within articles, category titles, data stored in userspace, and talk pages. While BLP is second nature to encultured Wikipedians, the current title is a little misleading as to scope to newcomers and outsides. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support per SmokeyJoe and others. I've often enforced the existing BLP policy re biographical info in articles that are not biographies. It is an anomaly to have a policy name that refers to biographies for a policy that clearly goes beyond biographies. It would be good to see the page renamed to reflect longstanding policy. Happy to keep the BLP acronym, perhaps WP:Biographical info re Living People would be a more acceptable name? ϢereSpielChequers 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose No evidence the old name created serious problems. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Use of anonymous sources from gossip magazines

This has been a perennial problem in biographies of TV, film and music stars, and normally most editors will follow WP:BLP and WP:NOTTABLOID. But a couple of editors, one of whom has been to ANI over his history of contentious behavior, are making edits at Amy Poehler based on anonymous, unattributed, shadowy "sources" making unconfirmed claims about who she is or isn't in a relationship with. Their claim that even though her purported breakup with someone has been "widely reported" is specious, since virtually all of that is secondary reporting citing Us Weekly and its anonymous "source." Should an encyclopedia be using unconfirmed, tabloidy, who's-dating-who / who's pregnant-type information based on anonymous claims? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The question is whether the source is reliable. If sources as diverse as the LA Times and People Magazine are satisfied with the information and willing to publish it, they are, to the best of my knowledge, generally considered reliable sources capable of competent fact-checking, subject to editorial control, and generally accurate. It does not matter if they name their source, they would have verified the information to their satisfaction. I don't believe the use of BLP here to remove the information is appropriate, given that multiple reliable sources have published it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

IMO, "anonymous allegations" are not worth the paper they are printed on. And I suggest further that "celebrity gossip", from the Enquirer or The Times, is not of encyclopedic value in the first place. I note once again that newspapers do not engage in "fact checking" any more, and have not done so for more than 25 years. Collect (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I concur that indiscriminate celebrity gossip from whatever sources is not for wikipedia. Even if gosdsip is false, the celebs typically don't fight it, because buzz is buzz is buzz and good for them. Therefore only if actual sources of info are known and recognized as reliable/official/first-hand, the bio info is OK. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

BLPREQUESTRESTORE

I've never seen this policy enforced. So perhaps it should be removed.CFredkin (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC) In fact, in at least one case, an admin has stated that it's not a policy. I think it's misleading to continue to include it in this article.CFredkin (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

From a quick scan, you repeatedly use WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE in your edit summaries, normally when you're removing content you don't like, presumably with a view to ensuring that your edits are not reverted. Here, for instance, you use it to remove the Tiny Hands PAC thing from The Donald's article. That was not a BLP violation. It was well referenced. Your use of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE was an abuse. Here you are, watering down Trump's no foreign muslims should enter the country shtick. Again, not (in my understanding of Trump's rhetoric), a BLP issue: on the contrary, your edit seems to be the problematic thing, and again you abuse WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Other than to be hit in the head by a boomerang, I'm not sure why you have come to this page. Is your WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE abuse not working? That's tough. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Tagishsimon above. You're certainly welcome to disagree with and edit article content, but the content in question is impeccably referenced to highly reliable sources. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed or clarified, and I take no position on that, but it does mean that it's not a BLP violation. What you've done here is to cry BLP in an attempt to use BLP as a bludgeon in a content dispute. BLP is not meant to be used in that fashion. At this point, you'll note that four other editors have disagreed with you that any BLP violation took place, so regardless, consensus clearly is against the idea that BLP is at issue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Consider the scenario where Editor A adds objectionable (pick your policy violation) content to an article and Editor B then reverts it. If Editor A chooses to edit war, Editor B will hit 3rr (or 1rr in the case of some sanctioned articles) before Editor A. At that point, the objectionable edit will remain in the article unless another editor happens to come along and engage. My impression is that WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE was created to prevent this situation from occurring in BLP's.

The policy states:

To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

It doesn't say POV or undue edits are ok as long as they are reliably sourced. It also doesn't say that it's ok to restore the edit if you think it's reliably sourced.

I've never seen an instance where the policy was ignored and the offender was sanctioned. So if it's not enforced, why have the policy?CFredkin (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Countries that keep laws on the books but only selectively enforce them are generally not considered to be free (except maybe by those in power).CFredkin (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

All that might be true (it isn't), but the problem is, having serially abused the policy and ducked any explanation of your own conduct, you come here with little credibility w.r.t. this issue of policy, and your fellow wikipedians are unlikely to engage with your argument, having better things to do. And your last sentence, above, smacks of a sort of insulting desperation - never a good bargaining stance. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

BLPREQUESTRESTORE is unneeded in the scenario you outlined if there is a genuine BLP issue as 3RR has an explicit exemption when there are real BLP issues. (Although as the exemption more or less says, the material has to be bad enough to warrant it.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

So, when is it appropriate to use WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE (especially as distinct from WP:BLPREMOVE which is also defined in this article)?CFredkin (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

As with many things, we use discretion to apply policies. In this case, we look to see if the person removing the content has a reasonable case that the content being removed was in fact a BLP violation. If it is clear that an editor who understands policy, and was acting in good faith, could not reasonably claim the removed material was a BLP Violation, then either the person invoking BLPREQUESTRESTORE doesn't understand policy, and so we should disregard their invocation, or they are not acting in good faith as required by the policy. When it comes to actual BLP Violations, we take BLPREQUESTRESTORE quite serious, Arbcom has desysoped admins over it, and there have been plenty of blocks over the years for violations. BLP Policy has some very powerful tools, but if you go waving them around when they are really not applicable, it is your conduct that is going to come under scrutiny... Monty₈₄₅ 01:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

"I've never seen" is not valid argument. Do you really have all 4,000,000++ articles on your watchlist? We don't change policies on a whim. If you have a specific case to complain about, bring it here. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

diseases and disorders

Should we disallow speculative diagnoses of living persons as having specific diseases or disorders without self-identification of the person as having that disease or disorder for any disorders or diseases at all? See List of people with bipolar disorder.

That particular list does allow "third party speculation" for "deceased persons" which I also find problematic for those who died before the disorder or disease was even listed as a "diagnosis" at all, but likely harder to make a strict rule about.

I suggest, moreover, that diagnoses of living persons as "paranoid schizophrenics" or the like, even when given in the form of "opinion" about a living person, should be barred as making direct or indirect claims of medical fact, unless the diagnosis has been made by a doctor with the appropriate credentials (a dentist can not make psychiatric diagnoses, for example). Opinions? Collect (talk) 13:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

This is well within WP:RS: any statement of fact must come from a reliable source of relevant expertise. Exceptions are possible IMO. For example a speculation of a public person being "paranoid schizophrenics" may be an item of widely publicized controversy. In this case the coverage must be of the controversy, with careful phrasing that the diagnosis was speculative, and other WP:NPOV/W:DUE considerations. And of course, such speculations are to be never allowed for a private person. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I've previously AfDed other list articles similar to List of people with bipolar disorder, which ended up getting deleted (see AFD § List of people with ADHD and AFD § Retrospective diagnosis of autism. I didn't initiate these, but see also [5][6][7]—all deleted at AFD, and this discussion at village pump idea lab initiated by EvergreenFir). So for full disclosure, I've been thinking about this for a few months and feel pretty strongly about being strict on sourcing and that it's better to err on the side of not including names rather than over-including them.

IMO the vast majority of retrospective diagnoses of mental disorders are not supported by multiple high quality reliable sources and/or are contradicted by as many sources as they are supported by. Plenty of sources think it's an innately pseudoscientific hobby/cash cow.[8][9] Historians usually aren't psychiatrists/psychologists and psychiatrists/psychologists usually aren't also historians, even though people in each field make casual claims about diagnoses of historical figures. Scholars basically have no incentive not to indulge in speculation of retrospective diagnoses of historical figures (source), but an encyclopedia does (per WP:SPECULATION). As someone who works in the mental health field, I think it's fun to talk about and read about, but I still don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia in 99.99% of cases, unless it clearly represents the mainstream academic view, e.g., Henry Cavendish[10] (the source was written by Oliver Sacks and published by the Neurological Foundation of New Zealand). Most people aren't as cut and dry. Beethoven has been posthumously diagnosed *by academic sources* with major depression, bipolar, and autism (at a minimum). So what WP list does he belong in? All 3? That's unlikely (technically impossible, since MDD and bipolar are mutually exclusive). —PermStrump(talk) 19:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh and for living people, since we're on that noticeboard... I think there needs to be multiple, public statement by the person clearly stating that they were officially diagnosed and it should be clear that they want to be public about it. For example, I don't think Avril Lavigne saying on a talk show, "I'm, like, so ADD" counts as a clear public statement (a previous issue that seems to have been resolved). I also don't think celebrities in commercials for pharmaceutical companies or even client advocacy groups (which are often fronts for pharmaceutical companies) should be considered public disclosures, because it's not 100% clear when it's just acting, especially if there aren't other sources. —PermStrump(talk) 19:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The lead -- attractiveness as part of notability

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Angelina Jolie#The lead -- attractiveness as part of notability. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick categorisation question

Not sure if this has been addressed somewhere already, but when the name of a living person redirects to a non-biography (e.g. a {{r from member}}, {{r from writer}}, etc.), does Category:Living people go on the redirect? Seems like such redirects need to be watched more closely than normal, e.g. for target change vandalism, addition of libelous categories, etc.

(For what it's worth, WP:PETSCAN says there are 309 redirects which are in both Category:Living people and a subcategory of Category:Redirects from people, though the low number is probably because the majority of our millions of redirects haven't been tagged and so aren't in Category:Redirects from people). Thanks, 210.6.254.106 (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

single entry categories

Is it just I, or has anyone else noted the sudden appearance of new categories which get "populated" with extremely few persons, and where the existence of the category seems possibly pointy? Collect (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"Hometown"

Wikipedia has many notable residents. I think this is a general rule not really stated, but I think this help page would benefit from simply listing that is okay for an biography holder to be "notable" in more than one town. Such as someone who was born in one city and grew up in another. Or if that person has spent several years and contributed to whatever they are famous enough to be in a Wikipedia article for. Just some suggestions,Littledj95 (talk) 01:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as a source, sometimes

Please visit Talk:Justin Knapp and weigh in on the discussion about whether or not his two RfAs should be included in the article, if they need references, and if Wikipedia pages are satisfactory references in this case. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Basic notability rule

I think it would be good to have a clear and direct restatement of the basic policy in favor of neutral articles and against using bios as a means of self-promotion here. My WP:PGBOLD proposal is here, so you can see what I'm envisaging more clearly. I'm definitely open to editing and improvements. My original text said:

If no reliable third-party or independent sources can be found about a living person, then the article must be deleted or merged to a notable subject. In addition, the notability standards are higher in some circumstances, such as by disallowing articles for people about whom relatively little has been written in third-party sources or who are relatively unknown.

The problems I want to solve are:

• My guideline says that his employer's website is enough for sourcing, because HESIMPORTANT.
• The guideline that excludes my bio is "just a guideline" and has "occasional exceptions".
• Sure, 90% of the material in the article comes from the webpage on his employer's website, but he got mentioned in one sentence each for these three newspaper articles.

...etc.

In taking the "stronger" language of "must be deleted or merged" away, I'm hoping to provide clarity: If you can't even get your name in the newspaper, then the article about you must be removed, no matter what other arguments you put forward.

I realize that this could have the effect of removing on a small number poorly sourced, albeit generally uncontentious, articles, in addition to the self-promotional spam (whose tide I hope to slightly stem by providing clarity). For example, there may be a couple of stubs for film actors that meet the (former) "name listed among a cast of thousands in two different movies" criteria, but for which nobody can find a newspaper article that mentions them, not even in their hometown newspapers. But mostly I think the effect will be to discourage newbies (and paid editors) from creating inappropriate bios in the first place, and to simplify the discussion at the clearer AFD cases.

What do you think? Can you find a better way of addressing the minimum notability requirements in this policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Ryk72, perhaps you disagree with me, but I actually meant must, as in "as absolutely mandatory as anything can be, when it isn't directly enforced in software, with basically zero exceptions", not "should I guess get deleted most of the time, because it's usually a good idea, but of course someone might really want to have an article on some living person even though the only sources any editor can find, despite a good and diligent search, is something written by that person/his employer/his mother".

Can you (or anyone else) actually think of a good reason why we should have an article about a BLP when there is (to the best of anyone's knowledge) absolutely zero WP:Independent sources about that person? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Taking the suggestions from a guideline and presenting them in a policy here as an imperative is perhaps a step too BOLD, for mine. There's a level of prescriptiveness in "must" that isn't present in our other P's & G's; including in WP:N. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 18:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

How do you feel about copying this sentence almost word-for-word out of a core content policy, rather than some just "suggestions from a guideline"? (Also, you may wish to read what WP:POLICY says about using the word must.)

I would also be interested in hearing an example or two of when Wikipedia truly should have a separate, stand-alone article about any BLP when we can find absolutely zero sources that weren't written by that person/his employer/his family/his associates. Any example will do; if you've got a good case for writing a Wikipedia article exclusively from sources written by the subject and his (or her) close connections, then I'll certainly change my mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, copying this sentence almost word-for-word out of a core content policy - which policy? Also, put the straw man away - I am not suggesting that a Wikipedia article should be written exclusively from sources written by the subject and his (or her) close connections; I am suggesting that this policy should not say must be deleted. So, yes, I guess I do disagree with the stance outlined above - While I share concerns about puffery & peacockery articles, I don't believe that it is best to coatrack addressing those issues onto this policy, which deals wholly with contentious information about living persons. I don't conceive that mundane puffery & peacockery creates the same degree of apprehension of harm that contentious material does, and I don't concur that they should be addressed with the same imperatives. I believe that inclusion here confuses the purpose of this policy, with the effect of undermining its core message. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC) add Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR both, of course. You might prefer the formulation at WP:NOT, though: "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources".

But let's follow this chain of logic rather than debating verbiage from policies. We seem to fully agree that a Wikipedia article should never be written exclusively from non-independent sources. Now: What if that is the only possible way to write that article, because nobody except the subject and his/her close connections have ever published any significant information about that person? What should happen to that article? Keep, merge, delete, something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This whole addition is pointless. The relevant material is at WP:N and WP:NOT, as you've stated yourself. Stickee (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Calling someone a Marxist

Is self identification as a Marxist required, to use it in an article? Or just reliable sources using the term. I'm guessing it's a BLP related question. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

"Self-identification" noted in a reliable source is likely the best source for labeling a person as having a specific ideology, nationality, ethnicity, religion or gender-related position. Opinions of others regarding such is likely to be contentious. Collect (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it's the best source. Something gender-related, I would imagine it's the only acceptable source. However, for a political belief, is it a requirement? Is the same required for something like "conservative" ? Is the term "Marxist" the problem, if it was replaced with "Socialist" without self identification would there still be the same issues? Oh. and thanks for the reply. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

In that sense, simply don't call them a Marxist. Report that others called them a Marxist.

I've seen no self-identification as a Marxist, although they do like flying red flags. But they might well think of themselves as a Trotskyite or a Maoist and not a Marxist. It's not even that interesting whether they are or not, the point is that they're acting in a supposedly apolitical space and their opponents have chosen to denigrate them for being Marxists (a slightly surprising choice, given the other contexts possible). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: the more "extreme" an ideology or position is perceived by others, the more contentious it is as a claim of fact about a living person. Calling someone a "centrist" is not going to be anywhere near the problem that calling someone a "racist fascist" or "anarcho-capitalist" or "Marxist Communist' is going to be, on its face. (Bert Lahr reference) "If I Were King of the Forest", I would essentially bar such opinions about living persons as often indicating personal dislike rather than objective determination of ideology at all. Collect (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks guys. All of the above comments make a lot of sense. The article is not about the person who was called a Marxist, but about an organization she co-founded, so it's probably not going to detract from the article to omit any reference in the lede to anyone being a Marxist. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC related to BLPSPS

There is an RfC at Talk:Michael Greger#Request for comments on SBM source asking: "Does the blog post by Harriet A. Hall referenced in this article violate WP:BLPSPS?" SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, and that is a highly biased RfC, and it was launched (unilaterally) by someone who has been advocating relentlessly for over six months to remove all negative content from the article -- to the extent where they were just TBANed under DS (dif) A neutral RfC would have asked: "Is SBM a "blog" as intended in BLPSPS, and if so does its use in this article fail BLPSPS?" Extremely non-neutral notification, SlimVirgin. For pete's sake. Jytdog (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Speculation about sexuality in Luther Vandross's article

Hi, there's a section about Luther Vandross's personal life and sexuality that speculates that he was gay and had relationships with men. He never disclosed his sexuality. The information is sourced, but I don't think speculation like this should be used in the article. Could someone please take a look? Melonkelon (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well, he's been dead for over 10 years, so the Biographies of living persons policy doesn't apply. Otherwise, it's not especially surprising information, and it is attributed and sourced. If you really think it's inappropriate, the best thing to do would be to gather consensus for that position on the article talk page. But at present there doesn't seem to be a policy-based reason to remove it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Fudged date of birth

How should date of birth and age be treated in a case where a celebrity has presented himself as being younger than he actually is and his true age is something of an open secret? The majority of sources show the false date of birth although the true date of birth is a matter of public record. Piriczki (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The best quality sources should prevail. In such a case I would say that the quality of the sources are what matter most. We should not be the ones breaking news, rather we should be following whatever the best quality sources say. Perhaps reference can be made to an assertion by a lesser quality source after showing what the preponderance of the best sources say. But emphasis should be given to the date-of-birth as asserted by the most prominent and reliable sources. Bus stop (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Contentious/subjective labels in the lede sentence(s) of a BLP?

While this is extended from a current BLP/N (WP:BLP/N#Jared Taylor), the situation that is occurring there can be seen impacting many other BLP.

The general situation is this: given a BLP who:

• has been called out as a contentious or subjective WP:LABEL by many/numerous third-party RSes (that is, we can readily satisfy the high levels of sourcing to use that label with attribution within the article without violating BLP, and omission of that information would be a WP:UNDUE aspect),
• perhaps is only notable for the views/actions that have led to being given this label
• has not self-identified with that label, perhaps has even contested being called that label

is it appropriate or not to use that label in the first sentence or so of the lede section, under WP:BLPSTYLE? Note that this is not asking to eliminate the subjective label from the lede altogether if the first two points are met, just only from the introductory sentence(s).

I've noted in the BLP/N discussion that when you spot check GA/FA BLP and bios in general (the presumption they have passed BLP muster), nearly all of them avoid any type of subjective claim in the first sentence or so - they all start with a factual statement about the person's nationality, their occupation(s) and any major groups and/or works that they are associated with. Only after that do these GA/FAs start describing anything subjective about that person - whether positive or negative. Based on this spot-check review, the answer to the above seems "no, we should not use the label", but this is the point of contention in the BLP/N discussion. As other target BLP have been brought up in that discussion which would have a similar issue, this needs better resolution than just the one specific BLP/N case. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't see why this discussion should be here when it is already established on the noticeboard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Because there are many articles that would be affected by consensus on this point, and so it may need to be documented in BLP policy if there is concensus one way or another. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Stripping sources, per BLPSOURCES?

When does BLPSOURCES require / recommend / advise / permit the removal of sources, when there is no resultant change to the content? e.g. some content (very far from being challenged) is sourced from two sources, and one is then removed with the summary, "trim tabloid ref per BLPSOURCES".

I do not understand this. If the content is challenged, then the content needs to be removed. If sourcing is there, how is the article improved by removing one of the sources? (the sources here are both far larger than the fairly minor factoid being supported by this citation). How does a change based on stripping references, and not changing content, improve the encyclopedia?

The specific example which spurred this is here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The encyclopedia would benefit from editors' development of an allergic reaction to tabloid sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I do not like the Daily Mail, but I still wouldn't lump it in with the Sun or Star as tabloids. It is no red top. This is a "true crime" story. One could argue that any newspaper reporting more than a court transcript makes itself a tabloid, simply by covering this subject. Yet WP has seen fit to include such within its scope.

A better editor would also improve the article, by adding a non-tabloid source. Yet they chose not to, they chose instead to remove convicted involvement in one of the UK's largest robberies. Now if this article is to cover the subject, that coverage is needed: to remove it would be highly POV. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend waiting until you develop your understanding of our core policy WP:BLPSOURCES before getting into this area, Andy. --John (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

There is also WP: ELBLP "Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP.", and WP: BLPEL "In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy". Even if the content is sourced to acceptable sources, unacceptable sources can be removed on BLP grounds.--Kyohyi (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Four times now, John, you have edit-warred to remove the Daily Mail as a source from this. Patient edit-warring is still edit-warring, but you are now up against bright-line 3RR for this. As you not only claim OWNership of this article, but also claim to be so superior in your knowledge of BLPSOURCES above other editors, then perhaps you would explain where there is a policy-based reason why the Daily Mail (which WP does not even consider to be a tabloid) can never be used as a source in BLPs? Or perhaps you would point out some area where this article is somehow inaccurate? This is true crime - the DM rather specialises in that, they're surely more knowledgeable about it than either of us.

Once again (and a regular occurrence for you) you are pursuing a personal crusade against the Daily Mail in WP articles. This is not about improving articles (removing mention of Foreman's largest ever job is damaging his article), it is not about policy, it about your own ego. Again. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

WP: BLPSPS doesn't just prevent the use of tabloids themselves, it prevents the use of tabloid journalism in general, which can be found outside of tabloids. So the question becomes is this particular source done in a tabloid style or not. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is improved by removing sources which don't meet BLP standards from BLPs. This is particularly true when appropriate reliable sources are already cited. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 11:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Where does BLP say that the Daily Mail is a forbidden source, as John keeps claiming? This isn't policy, it's just his particular hobby horse. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I would consider The Daily Mail, and tabloids in general, completely and fundamentally unacceptable as sources both in BLPs and elsewhere. The only exception I can imagine would be uncontroversial statements about the paper itself (such as "The Daily Mail claims a daily readership of X."). And even then not in a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I consider all sources of "celebrity gossip" to be intrinsically unreliable as such. No source specializing in such appears to have any actual fact checking. Collect (talk) 00:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This is neither a tabloid, nor a celebrity scandal sheet. It is (barely) a UK newspaper.

Where should we source articles on "celebrities" though? I doubt The London Gazette will be covering them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)