Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

BLP alert

How do we get some of the experts here to take a look at an article that a) some have wondered if it's even notable and b) has some potential violations of the BLP policy? The article is Barbara Schwarz and I only found out about it because someone alerted us to this problem over at WP:WPBIO... plange 02:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WHile the article itself is well sourced, I think the notability claim is fairly dubious. We don't have articles for every single Usenet personality, and three articles in the paper does not make an article. She never got heard by the Supreme Court, nor was she ever sanctioned with the vexatious litigant label, from my research. Calwatch 04:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It was NOT really well sourced. The main source was and still is a questionable article by the Salt Lake City Tribune. The reliability of the SLCT article is debateable. Then next most used "well" source is USENET postings by Barbara Schwarz. Reliability has been a focus of the dispute. Yes, notability is in dispute and has been a main focus of discussion. At first the main claim to notability was poorly sourced claim of some kind of world or U.S. record of the most FOIA requests. Then the claim of notability was Barbara's past position as a church leader. I'm arguing that notability is regarding the violent deprogramming of Barbara Schwarz by Cyril Vosper and the involuntary psychiatric treatment/incarceration of Barbara Schwarz as a former church leader. Barbara Schwarz claims to have references (scanned court documents, etc), however she is blocked and therefore no way for her to provide them directly to Wikipedia. Apparently several people are in email contact with her and working on getting these scanned documents uploaded to Wikipedia. Also those docs are in German, so they're going to have to be translated first but I don't think that will be any big obstacle with things such as Google babelfish (a free translation tool). --HResearcher 13:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what you said, I just looked at the article and it has a number of distinct notes. Those are each sources as well. Wjhonson 15:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just got another alert from someone about Fred Phelps which has now moved to FARC plange 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Concern over implications of this policy

Over at the Talk:George W. Bush page, a bit of discussion evolved regarding how this policy seems to imply that any poorly sourced or unsourced negative material about a living person must be deleted on sight, but the same isn't true for poorly sourced or unsourced positive material. This implication leads to contradictions with WP:V and WP:NPOV, so I'm thinking that we should put something into this article clarifying it. Perhaps another paragraph stating something along the lines of, "This policy is not an excuse to delete poorly sourced negative material about a living person while not similarly deleting poorly sourced positive material." ---DrLeebot 12:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference... This policy puts the emphasis on the "immediate removal" of negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, for obvious reasons. "Positive" material does not carry the harm (and the possible negative consequences) that results from a malicious edit. "Positive" material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, can be challenged and deleted as per WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So it's really not a concern for the actual truth on these pages but rather our liability as an organization? I think he has a point, if it is ensuring accuracy on pages of living people, then there should be no double standard between poorly sourced information that is both positive and negative. --kizzle 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no double standards. Unsourced or poorly sourced positive information does not defame a LP. Accuracy in articles can be achieved by applying our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative poorly sourced info: deleted without discussion, exempt from 3rr.

Positive poorly sourced info: per WP:RS deleted with discussion, not exempt from 3rr.

--kizzle 23:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a double standard. It's one policy for poorly sourced defamatory information in a LP bio. It's applied to each LP bio equally as a uniform standard. --Tbeatty 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, so this policy is concerned more about liability than accuracy. --kizzle 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this policy is concerned about publishing inaccurate information. Almost every publishing house has editing standards and they are uniform, just like this one. Untrue negative information causes harm to the person it is written about. Therefore, there is uniform standards applied to living persons about negative information. It isn't about liabilty of the publisher, but damage to the person being profiled. Positive information should also be accurate but because their is no damage, there is no urgency. Think about it this way: If you know your roof leaks and it's raining, you do something immediately (because it's negative). If you know your roof leaks and it's sunny (i.e. positive), you do the most efficient and economical solution to fix the roof. In both casues you fix the roof. --Tbeatty 00:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This is complete crap. Positive, inaccurate information can cause direct, immediate damage -- just not to the person listed. Positive, inaccurate information about, say, Scientology, leads people to get a mistakenly positive impression of it, leading readers into dangerous actions. The same is true of George W. Bush. This could be a very quick effect, much faster than any damage which Wikipedia could possibly do to Bush's reputation.

Assuming you really believe in uniform standards, I'll be deleting loads of stuff from the Bush article.... 24.59.105.229 12:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, positive comments should be given a chance, ie. debated and sufficient attempts made to find a good source before considering a removal. I believe it should be tagged with "needs a citation", and handled accordingly. Positive comments don't have the harmful "payload" attached and therefore can be "given a chance", so to speak, instead of just blindly deleting them on-the-spot. If anyone disagrees, feel free to say so. 70.101.145.181 06:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it OK?

Hi.

A weird question, and possibly not completely related to this particular topic, but nevertheless prompted by it: You say that any sort of "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" "negative" (or ANY "speculative" unsourced articles regardless of topic (!)) articles about living people with no NPOV version must be deleted immediately by an administrator. The question is: what if I wrote such an article, it gets deleted (and protected), then I remake it under a slightly different title to defeat the protection, only this time citing reliable, verifiable sources, and it's from a neutral point of view (instead of just negative-only "bash 'em" comments)? What would you do? 70.101.145.181 08:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection is used much more rarely than deletion, only in cases where the article keeps being recreated as vandalism or with identical content as deleted. But if an appropriately sourced article can be written about the subject, it should be written, and I'd support a petition to move it to the appropriate title. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. 70.101.145.181 20:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist"

Seems that Striver (talk · contribs) is arguing that labeling people as "conspiracy theorists" is pejorative, and such labels (if uncited) violate the WP:LIVING policy. See [1], [2] and the discussion here [3]. Thoughts? Not a dog 11:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP may apply, but I would argue that material that is not sourced from a secondary and reliable sources, and that is not attributed to a significantly held viewpoint, has no place in any articles, BLP or not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the views of the people (see also Kevin Barrett and Steven E. Jones) have gotten plenty of coverage from reliable sources, and in the case of James H. Fetzer, the subject of the article has also even weighed in on his AfD, which is snowballing towards Keep by a landslide. rootology (T) 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

On the narrow point, Striver is certainly correct. "Conspiracy theorist" is without question a pejorative term. Unless the characterization is essentially a universal consensus, it doesn't belong in the lead (and there are enough of the "9/11 conspiracy" folks that no such consensus against them exists... as nutty as I find them personally). The correct way to handle such a thing is to find an actual reputable citation of some other person calling the bio'd figure a "conspiracy theorist", and generally defer that until after the lead. So, e.g.:

Jane Jones is professor of such-and-such, and a prominent advocate of the position that John F. Kennedy was assasinated by extraterrestrials. [...after lead...] According to Sally Simmons, "Jones' book is rampant conspiracy theory" (Simmons, 1989).

It should not be WP editorial position to characterize anyone in such a pejorative term (no matter how accurate), but presenting outside characterization is OK. LotLE×talk 15:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. rootology (T) 15:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Occasionally such "X says Y is a conspiracy theorist" can be problematic. Consider Alex Jones. A large number of people describe him as a conspiracy theorist[4] (not all google hits are unique, vast majority are not reliable sources, many matching pages say "Alex Jones is NOT a conspiracy theorist, etc). If you pick one or two reliable sources from those the article ends up reading "there are two people on this planet who think Jones is a conspiray theorist". That somewhat obscures the real state of affairs... If you pick a few dozen quotes in the hopes that the reader gets the picture the article becomes unwieldy. Add the inevitable battle of counter-quotes saying the person is not a conspiracy theorist. Some conspiracy theorists really are known primarily because of their professional conspiracy theorizing. Weregerbil 11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A working example

Steven E. Jones is a good working example of this. Review the recent editing history--should the conspiracy theorist phrase be in the lead, and is the sourcing appropriate? rootology (T) 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to get involved directly in that particular article, but I find the phrase "9/11 conspiracy theorist" in the lead jarring. It is plenty to say, in the next clause, that he is "co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth". Moreover, the second paragraph of the lead starts with "Jones is also investigating the hypothesis that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by pre-positioned cutter charges"... which looks fine.

Now sure, you and I might agree that that group and that hypothesis amount to "conspiracy theory". But it would be much better to let readers make that judgement themselves rather than force-feed that interpretation. The first use of the phrase is accompanied by a footnote, but I feel that explicit reference to the footnote source after the lead would be a better approach. LotLE×talk 16:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's my take after trying hard to get these articles NPOV'd. It shouldn't be rammed down the readers throat, and that's why I'm looking for clarification. To paraphrase another editor, let the article speak for itself. rootology (T) 16:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theorists" may be slightly pejorative, but it is not libellous. There is no better term to describe those who work with conspiracy theories. -Will Beback 23:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just remove conspiracy theory. No bruised feelings, no POV, no libel risk. I'm sure he doesn't think of himself as a "conspiracy theorist". Justforasecond 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no rule that says we can only describe subjects as they see themselves. If we have reliable sources that call a subject a "conspiracy theorist" then there is no reason not to include that characterization in the article. -Will Beback 01:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that "lobbyist" is also a slightly pejorative term. Shold we only use it for those who self-desribe as lobbyists? -Will Beback 01:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry.... Justforasecond 01:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback is simply mistaken about the above claim, at least in a US context. Lobbyist generally have to legally register as such, and such registration is about as objective as one can get (it either happened or it didn't). Someone who "lobbies" without registering as a lobbyist should not be called a lobbyist in the lead; but it might be fine to later say that they were "described as a lobbyist by So-and-so". In any case, this guideline absolutely does not call on editors to make correct legal judgements about what is libel (here Will Beback is probably wrong too, but I'm not a lawyer, nor especially Stephen Jones' lawyer): it calls on removal of derogatory or negative information (under certain circumstances, i.e. not well cited). LotLE×talk 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The instances which we're discussing involve properly sourced accusations. If someone has been called a "conspiracy theoris" or a "lobbyist" by reliable sources then we should not be prohibited from using those terms just because a person does not self-describe using those labels. -Will Beback 03:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, it's pretty clear that Will Beback has an agenda. This agenda is to clutter up articles on living persons with negative, derogatory material and negative labels such as "conspiracy theorist", "anti-immigrant", "cult leader", "pseudoscientist", "pedophile", etc. His Wikipedia philosophy is that every article on any living person should have a "criticism of *" section in it. It is long overdue that Wikipedia is finally adopting some firm policies against using biographies of living persons for libelous purposes. Will, repeat after me. Biographies of living persons should contain no negative or derogatory content whatsoever. None, nada, zilch, zero, zip. No "criticism of" section, no derogatory labels, no derogatory categories, and no left-wing or right-wing partisan political advocacy websites as critical sources (*including* the SPLC). If you don't like it, find some other place to push your POV. 70.108.123.98 02:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[rm personal attack] Where do you see that Wikipedia biographies should contain "no negative or derogatory content whatsoever"? According to that scheme we couldn't even call a convicted murder a "murderer". -Will Beback 03:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there very many convicted murderers notable enough for an encyclopedia article? If their only claim to fame is being a convicted murderer, unless a particularly infamous one, they probably don't rate an encyclopedia article. If they are well known for some other reason a murder conviction can be included in the article in this way: (example) "In 1997 so-and-so was found guilty in such-and-such court of second degree murder and was sentenced to x years". 70.108.59.156 10:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should work on a simpler question: if a negative item isn't the ONLY thing they're known for--for example, John Wayne Gacy is only known for being a serial killer, really, so that should go in the lead--should anything with a negative tone, connotation, or implication go into the lead section? I say no. John Wayne Gacy "was an American serial killer" is the first sentence--he's known for that alone. For other people, I feel that anything "negative" shouldn't go in the lead. rootology (T) 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias just don't put negative things into the leads of biographies, with the occasional exception of people who are known only for negative things, such as John Wayne Gacy. In fact, encyclopedias don't deal very much at all with negative material about the people they cover. When they do deal with negative things, they do so with extreme care and caution. Lou Sander 02:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative information should go in the lead if it is important. Wiki is not a fan club and should not shield the users from well-known facts. Rjensen 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is not a fan club, it is (or is trying to be) an encyclopedia. You can look to other, better, encyclopedias for what that means. None of them are fan clubs, either. Nor are they "let's find citations for all the negative stuff, and put it in there" clubs. Is Wikipedia one of those? Look around and make up your mind. Lou Sander 04:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias sure do put negative things into the leads of biographies. Look up any dictator, like say Hitler, and "dictator" will be mentioned right there in the lead. Don't kid yourself. No comment on the specific article.

24.59.105.229 12:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

If it is sourced then it can be included, but lets not kid ourselves -- "conspiracy theorist" is a smear. The current phrasing is better -- "He is best known for questioning the standard accounts of the September 11th terrorist attacks" (though I'm not sure about "best known"). Another thang to remember is that there are huge numbers of people, especially muslims outside the U.S., to whom 9-11 "conspiracy theories" are known as "the truth" Justforasecond 04:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're discussing an individual article we should do so on its talk page. "Conspiracy theorist" is not necesarily a smear. Some folks, such as Alex Jones, make their living theorizing about conspiracies, and we quote from them extensively in our articles on various conspiracy theories. If they aren't theorists about conspiracies then we should remove their citations from those articles. We can't have it both ways. -Will Beback 05:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theorist", when used as we use it (for example in the category conspiracy theorists) is not smear; it's just calling a spade a spade. I can't think of a better term to call these people, if those who oppose the term can suggest one, it would make their case more tenable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a theory about 20 guys that got together in secret and planned illegal activities (crashing planes into buildings). Does everyone who believes this theory become a "conspiracy theorist"? Justforasecond 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been settled at Conspiracy theory. If a conspiracy is proven to exist, in a court of law or otherwise, then it is no longer a theory. -Will Beback 19:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Questioning 9/11 is not the same thing as promoting conspiracy theories about it. If someone says "I don't believe the official accounts of 9/11", they are not a conspiracy theorist. However, if someone says "I think the CIA engineered the whole thing", then they are. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pejorative

So, now that it is established that "conspiracy theorist" is pekorative, per Justforasecond, then it should be clear that wikipedia will not endorse the pejorative term per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.".

With that establieshed, we can conclude that we can only say "x says y is a conspiracy theorist". Next question is wether that should be in the lead, ie if having "x says y is a conspiracy theorist", and is unecesary when it can be expresed in a more neutral way, without citing anyone, per "y belives that".

Next, regarding Category:Conspiracy theorists. It is clear that living persons can not be included in it, since it would imply an endorsment from Wikipedia, rather than the reporting of somebody else opinion, per the above quote. And that is a no-no.

And Murderer = Conspiracy Theorist is not a good example, since one can be convicted of murder, and hence becoming an established legal fact, while being a Conspiracy Theorist can never ever be NPOV. Let me loosly quote something: "Pakistanis that believe news reports that Arabs carried out Sept. 11 attacks - True: 4%, Not true: 86%, Dont know: 10%" [5].

Are we done here? Can we have a template that illustates this and unprotect the Alex Jones (radio) article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Striver (talk • contribs)

As for the Arabs, al Jazeera has called Alex Jones a "conspiracy theorist".[6] -Will Beback 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Members of the group don't consider themselves extremists. " [7]. That should be enough.--Striver 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that conspiracy theory or conspiracy theorist is necessarily pejorative. It is entirely appropriate to observe that Alex Jones is, and Milton Willam Cooper was, a conspiracy theorist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

They and 86% of Pakistan beg to differ, and wikipedia does not want to risk a law suit on it. --Striver 17:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what do the opinions (if you believe in polls) of Pakistanis have to do with whether someone is a conspiracy theorist? Not a dog 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"conspiracy theorist" = "idiot theorist". THey do not view themselves as idiots. I do not view myself as an idiot. 86% of Pakistan does not view them as idiots. Hence, it is a controverisal pejorative label. --Striver 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Only you are making that assertion. --Mmx1 05:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to go with Striver on this, based on this information. Tom, if you disagree, you're entitled to that, but concensus on this page seems to disagree with your opinion. rootology (T) 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree also. I think there are people who are conspiracy theorists in the truest sense of the word. Some make a living selling conspiracy theories to their audiences. Some of the people mentioned here qualify quite handsomely. Weregerbil 17:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck!" What Steven E. Jones et al are putting out there perfectly fits the dictionary definition of conspiracy theory, and as such it is appropriate to use the term "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist". And this belongs in the intro (per WP:LEAD), as their belief in conspiracy theories is a key point in the articles. If not for their conspiracy theories, they would not at all be notable. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That is again subjective. MOST people in the middle east to NOT view their views as unlickly, rather they view it as truth. In Iran, it was WIDELY reported as FACTUAL that US Gov is responisble for the Oklahoma Bombing. What is a whacky idea and what is not, is not the same everywere. --Striver 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So they have fallen for the ridiculous myth that there is a state called "Oklahoma," have they? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Saaay whaaat? --Striver 22:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just kidding. There is a state of Oklahoma. Really. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It has not been settled that "conspiracy theorist" is necessarily a pejorative. -Will Beback 19:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Then go to the CIA article and claim that they are "conspiracy theorist" and see how long it will stick --Striver 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the need to put "conspiracy theorist" in article intros where we have more neutral language available. It's clear that there's is a lack of consensus supporting "conspiracy theorist" label. Justforasecond 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the term must be included in the intro. The question is whether we can say,"X is a conspiracy theorist [Y]" , or must say instead that "X has been called a conpsiracy theorist by Y." And attendant with that, whether we can apply the category:Conspiracy theorists to any living person. -Will Beback

And the answer is plain: we must say "X has been called a conspiracy theorist by Y". The "Y" must be specifically and narrowly identified, with no weasel words like "widely regarded as...". Category:Conspiracy theorists shouldn't be used in any case. Anything less is unacceptable. How hard is this for you to understand? 70.108.59.156 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Striver is misitnerpreting this policy. When it says that "The responsibility for justifying controversial claims...rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim" it means that the editors who add the information are the responsible parties should the subjects wish to file a lawsuit, and that they are responsible for finding reliable sources to support the claims. That is the same for every word we write on Wikipedia. It does not mean that Wikipedia refuses to publish properly sourced informaiton, no matter how derogatory. -Will Beback 19:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, You are wrong. It means that wikipedia will not endorse a pejorative label, only report on people doing so. --Striver 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't endorse anything. -Will Beback 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"X is an hasshole [y]" is an endorsment of the statment, giving the reference as a proof, "Y states that X is an asshole" is reporting a fact, without implying endorsment. And you KNOW that. --Striver 21:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Y called X "an asshole" is reasonable, provided that Y is a significant figure or a reputable authority on the subject of what constitutes an asshole. If X and Y are both politicians and the statement was made on Letterman, wouldn't you think it significant? Just zis Guy you know? 00:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Y called X "an asshole" is reasonable, i agree. But not "X is an asshole". That is a totaly no no. That is the difference between endorsment and reporting.--Striver 11:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Y called X "an asshole" is fine when it's one notable critic. Critics including V, W and X consider Y an asshole is fine if it's wiodespread. And at that point the analogy breaks down because there is no objective way of showing that someone is an asshole. Whereas with conspiracy theorists, the fact that they are prominent exponents of a clearly identified conspiracy theory is verifiable from reliable sources. So in the case of Jones, the balance of informed opinion is that he is a conspiracy theorist, something whic is backed by his repeating a conspiracy theory (pretty much in those words) in an interview where he tries to show he is not one. His theory is pretty much the classic conspiracy theory: he rejects the widely-held prosaic explanation, he introduces unproven hypotheses, he accounts for the lack of evidence in support of his theory by postulating conspiracy. This is one of the less contentious ones. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not true, he presents plenty of arguements that are convincing in the eyes of millions of people. This is not the place to iterate them, but arguing that he does not present evidence is simply not true. Further, i still awayt a RS presenting Jones as a Conspiracy theorist. I Have not seen one.

As stated below, the fact that some unknown and unprovable number believe him has no bearing on the fact that the balance of informed opinion is that these are conspiracy theories and those who promote them are conspiracy theorists. Just zis Guy you know? 15:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If the label is properly sourced, then what's the issue? Some people are conspiracy theorists, and it's not libellous to say so. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So if we have a mainstream source for "X is an idiot", do we state that as a fact in the article? I know whos article i will apply that to...--Striver 22:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

From Conspiracy theory:

Aside from controversies over the merits of particular conspiracy claims (see catalog below), and the various differing academic opinions (above), the general category of conspiracy theory is itself a matter of some public contestation.

Are we going to label people with something that the ARTICLE ITSELF says is controversial? How is that NOT a violation of wikipolicies? --Striver 22:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Again: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

"The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.". --Striver 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of issues are controversial on Wikipedia. If editors are willing to accept the responsibility for adding to an article the sourced claim that John Doe is a conspiracy theorist then they are in compliance with BLP. Calling somebody a conspriacy theorist is not usually the same as calling them an idiot, though in some cases both terms may apply. -Will Beback 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly; describing someone as a "conspiracy theorist" is not equivalent to describing someone as an "idiot". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Its close enough. Lets stop pretending. --Striver 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. Let's be accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is your friend. If someone is described as a conspiracy theorist by numerous respected authorities, then we can say so, the same as with charlatans, scammers, spammers and other undesirables. WP:NPOV means we reflect the balance of verifiable informed opinion, we do not have to say that Charles Manson is a misunderstood kid who was kind to his mother. Just zis Guy you know? 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Implication/discredit

From rereading all this, the problem I'm having more and more with this now is the implication that immediately labeling them as a "conspiracy theorist" is the negative connotation of this, and the tone that it "discredits" any credibility the subject might have. For the people that have worked under these articles, you KNOW that before yesterday I never once removed this lable from an article, but after thinking more and more about this information, and this policy, it began to strike as not appropriate to carry this in the lead, as a statement of Fact from us. Saying in a later passage--but not the lead--that "such and such" considers Mr. XYZ a conspiracy theorist would be acceptable, but for us to make the statement is too much. rootology (T) 22:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Some conspiracy theorists revel in it. What do the reliable sources say? Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So, if we have enough RS for Bush being an idiot, do we put it on his article as "Bush is the president of the United States and an idiot [Y]" ? Trust me, i WILL get the RS. When i think about it, i will find much better than idiots... hmm... imagin aaaall the the non-American mainstream media... *yummy*--Striver 23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If the balance of informed opinion is that Bush is dumber than a brick we can certainly say so, provided we can source it properly. If it is just that his opponents satirise him for being stupid, then we should say just that - with citations. The specific case mentioned above is Steven E. Jones. Right from edit 1 of this article, his involvement with WTC conspiracy theories has been in the lead. Rightly so - it is pretty much the only thing for which he is widely known. Just about every reliable authority says that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are fantastical, so to describe them as conspiracy theories is to accurately reflect the balance of informed opinion as verified from reliable sources. If you are a True Believer in 9/11 conspiracies, go and read some other article like David Icke or Kent Hovind - where the balance of informed opinion is that someone is deranged, there is no reason why we should not put the case (politely but firmly) that this is so. Just zis Guy you know? 00:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It shuold be fairly easy to find RS for "Ariel Sharon was the presiden of Israel and a bucher [y] and mass murdere [z]". And he is not even living, so you can not even use this policy to protect him. --Striver 23:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In the case of one subject, Alex Jones (radio), we quickly found three articles in reliable souorces which used the title directly or in the title to refer to Jones. [8][9][10][11] The first link goes to his own website where he has reposted one of the articles without any protest. As for the argument that he is not considered a conspiracy theorist in Middle Eastern cultures, on the sources is Al Jazeera. In the face of this broad array of sources, and the apparent acceptance of the label by the subject, this seems like a clear case of properly sourced material. -Will Beback 23:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jones linking to an article does not imply endorsment, that is obvious if you visit Prisonplanet.com. "politicalhobbyist" is not a Mainstream source, even less a RS. The al-Jazeera article does not prove that the Arabs endorse the view that al-Qaeda did it, no: They STRONGLY reject it reports USA today. You are left with "Los Angeles Times". And it does NOT label Alex Jones a "conspiracy theorist". And even if it did, is wikipedia really going to risk being sued by Jones for defamation? --Striver 23:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, wikipedia RIGHT NOW is using the false "Alex linked to it, that means endorsment" to label him a conspiracy theoris in a PROTECTED version. And what is the source? The Raw Story! Is that RS? Is that the way to VIOLATE this very policy? --Striver 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

btw, here is how Al-Jazeera presents him: "Alex Jones, a syndicated radio talkshow host, told a news conference"--Striver 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not linked, it is copied onto the website. The question here isn't if the Arabs beleive one thing or another, the question is whether it is appropriate to call any living individual a "conspiracy theorist". Even al Jazeera, who may agree with some of his ideas, includes him in that category. -Will Beback 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And that is endorsment? I TOLD YOU, he does that with ALL articles on his site, not that you seem to know it. --Striver 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, he does not belive Iran will attack Israel, it has no motive, but it has still copied this article: [12]. GET IT STRAIGHT: Alex Jones copying material for his site does NOT mean that he endorses the material. --Striver 23:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't shout. Not a dog 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Thanks for telling me. --Striver 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at that particular article, it seems to me from the cited sources and casual investigation that the balance of informed opinion is that he is a conspiracy theorist. He does not seem to dispute this. Where has he disputed this widely-applied label? It's hard to find any discussion of the man which doesn't mention conspiracy theories, so I'm sure he's spoken out. Just zis Guy you know? 00:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I need to go to work, but i fond this on a quick search:

But perhaps it seemed to you that it was unsafe to speak out. Or maybe unpopular. People might call you a conspiracy theorist. They might say you're crazy, or call you names. They might say you hate your country, even if you know that you believe as you do because you love your country. Sinister types might write your name down on a list, or decide to harrass you. [13]

Sheen agreed that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government itself and prefaced his argument by quoting Theodore Roosevelt in stating, "That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." "We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen. [14]

It is clear that the people in the 9/11 Truth Movement reject being called that. And it is a blatant violation of wikipedia'a principles, this very one, to label them what they have rejected. I remeber Jones having rejected the label on audio, but i do not know in what of the thousands of minutes of audio i heard that. Maybe it was in a Charlie Sheen interivew--Striver 08:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a "blatant violation" of anythig to apply a label which reflects the balance of informed opinion, even if they reject it themselves. I am sure that Robert Mugabe does not regard himself as a vicious, corrupt dictator, but the balance of informed opinion is that he is just that. David Icke probably thinks he is a model of sanity (as well as a deity) but the balance of informed opinion is that he is as mad as a badger. And the members of "scholars for 9/11 truth" undoubtedly see themselves as torch-bearers for The Truth^TM, just like every other proponent of every other conspiracy theory, but the balance of informed opinion is solidly against them. The quote you provide does not really contradict the view, either - it is mainly a rejection of being called crazy and unpatriotic - he explicitly uses the phrase conspiracy theory, applying it to the Government - in other words, he expounds a conspiracy theory right there in that interview, which makes him a conspiracy theorist. Just zis Guy you know? 11:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

formal

IMHO there are no Conspiracy theorists or Pseudoscientists, only people advancing (among doing other things in their life) Conspiracy theories or Pseudoscience. Please compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pseudoscientists. If persons are notable (which implies the existence if reliable sources) for advancing Conspiracy theories or Pseudoscience, by all means this have to be included in the biography, but watch your wording. --Pjacobi 07:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Exaxtly, there are "Bogus ideas", but there are no "bogus ideatists", and wikipedia should not lablel someone as such. --Striver 07:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying conspiracy theories are bogus? --Mmx1 06:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To build on what Pjacobi wrote, if someone is notable for something then we should include it in the bio. If we determine that Alex Jones, for example, is notable for being a conspiracy theorist, then we have to include that information in his bio, if he is to have a bio here. Of course it needs to be presented neutrally, and if someone has a better term for those in the field ("conspiracists"?) then we should use it. But we should not avoid using a characterization simply because the subject eschews that label. Nor is there anything in this policy which says we should, assuming reliable sources. -Will Beback 09:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me what "Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim." means.--Striver 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It means that if you delete something, you aren't the one who needs to justify it with a source; the person contesting your deletion is the person responsible to come up with an unbiased reliable source. That is all it means. And this policy is not about not saing negative things. It is about strict application of our verifyability, NPOV and no original research rules mostly - with aknowlwdgement of the right to privacy for non-noteable things in noteable people's lives. WAS 4.250 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is "conspiracy theorist" a profession? Don't think so. You should never write:

• X is a conspiracy theorist.

But, if verfiable:

• X is a notable proponent of the conspiracy theory Y.

Or even, if verifiable:

• X is notable for his authorship of the conspiracy theory Y.

Pjacobi 09:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Or why not just "X is a notable proponent of Y."? Its is utterly west-centric to label Jones as a conspiracy theorist, when it is a fact that the great majority of the people in the midle east agree with him. And again, it is pejorative and subjective, disputed hotly by, say, 83% of the people in this poll. --Striver 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim."

Is it Pejorative? Yes. Is it controversial? Yes. Will Wikpedia endorse it? Strong no, per policy. There is really no debating this, nobody can ever argue that it is non-pejorative or non-controversial.--Striver 09:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The fight over the conspiracy theory nature of Y has to occur at Y. Once Y is classified as conspiracy theory, it becomes a very significant attribute and I consider it relevant enought to this attribute in reference from the X article. --Pjacobi 09:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Im all for including that some people argue Jones views to be conspiracy theories, that is both verified and notable. But it is another thing all together for wikipedia to endorse such a claim as Fact, specialy when the claim is vigorusly rejected by a large number of people. Are you arguing that wikipedia present something that is rejected by over 80% of the people Pakistan and the CNN poll as Fact? Even if so, it is still another thing to claim that somebody is a "conspiracy theorist/pseudo scientist". I still await for a mainstream sourse of Jones being presented as a "conspiracy theoris". Man, isn't the whole point of this policy that we should not label people with pejorative labels? Presenting his views can be easly done withouth giving him a pejorative label, it is enough to say he belives "x", let the reader make their own mind and also present that "x argues Jones views to be conpiracy theories and also lables jones as a Conspiracey theorist [source]". Nothing is gained by stating "Jones IS a CT" that could not be stated in a more profesional and neutral way. --Striver 10:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Remeber that we are talking about how we are going to label a real person. It is not a small mater. --Striver 10:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, i remind of this and this. One of the arguements from there: "I am going to refer to this guideline from Wikipedia:Categories: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." On the pseudoscience article, there are frequent debates about what is and is not pseudoscience and how the term should be defined. No doubt that the title of "pseudoscientist" will also be contested, but the categorization system does not explain why someone was listed in a category. Since far too many inclusions of individuals in this category would be controversial, I think that it is best if the category is deleted per the Wikipedia guideline.". The same is true for Conspiracy theory, it makes clear that the use of the term is very controversial, both in aplication, definition and labeling people with it. --Striver 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

Jones posits a theory for which there is no credible evidence. The theory is that the attacks were a conspiracy. He accounts for the lack of evidence by reference to the supposed conspiracy. A simpler and more prosaic explanation is generally accepted. It is a textbook case of conspiracy theory. In the interview you quote he alleges a conspiracy by the Government. He is a conspiracy theorist. Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That is your position. Millions do not agree. He presents loads of evidence. Wikipedia is not going to take stance. I still have not seen a mainstream RS stating that Jones is a conspiracy theorist. --Striver 14:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here: [15]. Which is used as a reliable source in 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium. Not a dog 16:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Read again: "syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones told a news conference"... He is not presented as a conspiracy theorist, they are to profesional to single down one person and give him a pejorative name. --Striver 19:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bit redundant to call someone a conspiracy theorist at a gathering of conspiracy theorists. --Mmx1 05:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, regarding the quote: It is Charlie Sheen's quote. Further, are you arguing that goverments do not conspire? Are you familiar wiht Operation Ajax? Operation Northwoods? Operation Mockingbird? Operation Gladio? Operation Himmler? Watergate? Do i need to continue? --Striver 14:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that "millions" () agree has no bearing on the fact that the balance of informed opinion is that these are conspiracy theories and the people who promote them are conspiracy theorists. Millions believe that Sathya Sai Baba can manifest holy ash, but the balance of informed opinion is that he is a charlatan. Millions apparently believe that Elvis is alive and was abducted by aliens, come to that. Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan: population: 2004 est. 163,985,373. Take 86% out of that. Then add all other people in the middle east. And the rest of the worl, for example 20% of Germans. And then add all American 911TM activists... They all view it as a conpiracy theory to state that building 7 fell due to fire and that Bin Laden made NORAD stand down.--Striver 19:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

None of that has relevance as to how we should handle the characterization of living subjects with terms that some people consider pejorative, which is the subject at hand. -Will Beback 23:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And I'd be somewhat surprised if 86% of the population of Pakistan genuinely thought that the WTC was destroyed by the US Government with an elaborate smokescreen plot involving airliners to cover it up. The most amazing thing about these conspiracy theories is the fact that of all the poeple who must surely have known about the conspiracy, not one ever leaks The Truth^TM. Remember Watergate? The idea of a 100% leak-free conspiracy is inherently implausible. Just zis Guy you know? 07:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

<- shift left

Illegal immigration is a government plot. The counterculture is a government plot. Vaccines are a government plot. Thumb scanning is a government plot. Environmentalism is a government plot. The National Seatbelt Initiative is a government plot. Feminism is a government plot. Toll roads are a government plot. Antidepressants are a government plot. Etc etc etc etc. Yeah, I'd go with "conspiracy theorist". If one of his theories is taught in one country as reality for political reasons that doesn't change how he makes his living. Weregerbil 08:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Section break

Guys, look, the alternative is having this: "His brother Steve Watson [2] is also a conspiracy theorist.". Is that really where we want to be? What is the point of this policy? --Striver 11:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Portrait of the biographed

Why isn't there a section on a policy for any kind of portrait (photo, or other image or picture such as a drawing) of the biographed person?--AlainV 18:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been difficult to obtain properly released photos of many biographied persons. Certainly it is better to forgo the picture than to use one that is copyvio. But I would be in favor of adding a neutral comment to the effect that "pictures are nice, where possible". However, that might not really be specific to WP:LIVING, but just a general point in "Perfect article" guidelines. An article on a bridge, building, or river is also enhanced by a picture of it, for example; living persons aren't special in this regard. LotLE×talk 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ansell's change to policy--notability?

What was the reason/purpose for this change? rootology (T) 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that some people consider that the longstanding consensus over notability does not mean we can even mention the word notability in policy. In this case it is a fundamental misunderstanding, since the point is about how individual facts relate to the notability of the subject (i.e. are they known for that thing or not). Just zis Guy you know? 15:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Review of consensus process

I notice that this article was originally created on 12/17/2005, promoted to a guideline on 1/27/2006, and promoted to a policy on 7/18/2006. Where can I review the discussions that led to consensus of elevating this proposal to a guideline and then a policy? - O^O 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The archives would be a good place to start. -Will Beback 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Will, I had already read what is in the archives, but thanks for pointing me to them again. Since the talk pages of this article were primarily being read and edited by people interested in this article, I don't understand how they could serve to establish a general consensus for wikipedia as a whole. Wasn't there any discussion outside of the talk pages of this article? - O^O 05:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo wanted it to be a policy. You can research all you want but that's the bottom line. I'm not aware that he had any direct connection to the content of the policy, though. I began it based on the comment of a very angry subject of an article, Slimvirgin created most of the early content, and any number of others have since made it even better (although it could use a bit of a trimming). WAS 4.250 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Any links (in wikipedia or the mail archives) you could point out? Thanks - O^O 05:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The bad news is I can't do any better than to direct you to the archives at [16] and [17]. The good news is that what you find out on the way to finding what you are looking for will be more rewarding than what you are looking for. Going on vague memory, I seem to recall something like a month before it became policy Jimbo asked on the mail why isn't it a policy and what would it take to get there and then there was some discussion about a few tweaks in the content removing stuff that made sense as guideline but not as policy. If you want to see the process in action live just follow the current "paid to edit" mail and Wikipedia_talk:Conflicts_of_interest which forms a sorta-kinda bookend with this policy in that this policy is about us not screwing them over and the conflicts of interest proposal is about them not screwing us over. So to speak. WAS 4.250 08:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To narrow the scope a bit, the discussion on wikien-l began in December 2005. -Will Beback 09:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Listing the subject as a source

As a "notable" individual myself, I often find myself meeting other notable individuals in various venues -- in a green room while we're waiting for an interview, in a a "speaker's lounge" at a convention, bumping into other authors at a major booksigning event, etc. When I chat with them, the subject of Wikipedia often comes up, since it's one of my favorite hobbies. Sometimes the people that I talk to complain about an inaccuracy in their bio, in which case I of course volunteer to fix/remove it (especially if it's unsourced negative info). I also routinely volunteer to expand simple biographical details to improve the article, such as high school attended, parents' occupations, place of birth, etc. In those cases, should I list the subject in the "Sources" section, such as, "Some information provided by subject, and transcribed by <name>"? Or, in those cases where the subject is himself or herself web-savvy enough to change their own bio (and yes, I make sure to tell them about WP:AUTO), should they list themselves in the "Sources" section? Has there been any discussion about the best way to handle these cases? --Elonka 17:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you talk to the subject, the information isn't verifiable by the rest of us. That's not a valid source for Wikipedia. I know we make some exceptions for non-controversial self-edits, but adding another person into the chain is a very bad idea. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

When the subject has a web site of their own, I have at times encouraged them to write the fact they want to add to their biography to a public page there. That makes it verifiable. (For an example, see Talk:Humphry_Knipe.) On the other hand, removing incorrect and uncited information is much easier. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What about where in WP:AUTO it states that subjects are encouraged to correct mistaken information about themselves? Wouldn't it be better for them to change something, and have their name added to the "Sources" section, rather than telling them to just change it and not identify themselves? --Elonka 23:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The key is verifyability. Unverified claims can be deleted by anyone. Verified (adequately sourced) NPOV claims should not be deleted without a very good reason. The subject may lie to remove data they don't want there. We don't take their word on something unless their word is more believable than the source used in the article. Actresses often fudge their birthdate. If an actress awears she is younger than the New York Times says she is, we should not take her word for it. Good judgement is important. Other people can be brought in to weigh their judgements. Extreme content can be removed while decisions are pondered. WAS 4.250 01:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The WP:AUTO guideline states that biography subjects "should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on." My recommendation is, if they do that, we should also ask them to add themselves to the "Sources" section of an article, or perhaps figure out some way of marking the information as "self-supplied." --Elonka 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Verbal and personal email communications are absolutely unacceptable as a source. The person themselves is unacceptable, unless their statements have been previously published in some fashion. Anything less violates verifiability. Wjhonson 18:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also a living person may not state who their parents were, who they are married to, who they know, who they work for, or anything else about any other person except themselves. All other people are "third parties". Wjhonson 19:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. If an unbiased trustworthy source says a noteable person identied their relatives as so and so the main question is how relevent it is. WAS 4.250 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I said the person themselves can not be the source for that information. I said nothing about a third-party source. Only about a first-party source i.e. the subject of the article. Wjhonson 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we agree or disagree. Wikipedia allows the use of what the subject of an article says about other people so long as it otherwise meets verifyablity, NPOV and no original research. If you disagree, please read primary source and secondary source, as these are the revelant terms, not first-person, second-person or third-party or the like. WAS 4.250 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I will quote the current page "In some cases the subject may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography.

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if: ... It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; "

Now since any mention of any other person, spouse, parents, children, employers, friends, etc are "claims about third parties", then by this rule, they may not be included on the subject's page, through using material or communications provided by the subject themselves.

Personally I think this wording is far too restrictive, but that is what it currently states. Wjhonson 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What that intended to cover is now better covered by the added "* It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies." so I removed it. The point is that you don't get a free ride to bad mouth someone else just because it is an article about you. John smith has no especial competance to claim "Billy joe is a pedaophile" on the John Smith article, but John Smith is presumed to be an expert about John Smith - but he might lie so the stuff about not contentious and not self serving is needed. WAS 4.250 21:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

fanmail as a source?

What if the source cited for some fairly private information is an email sent to the subjects fans? This is not entirely hypothetical [18], though in this case I suspect another source could be found. -MrFizyx 17:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Not verifyable. Verifyable means others can verify it as a source. A book in 100 libraries is verifyable, as the libraies verify authenticity and the book is available to numerous people. E-mail is easy to fake. The reason for wikipedia prefering secondary sources is that the secondary source (New York Times for example) does the authenticity verifying for us. WAS 4.250 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The above section cited by Wjhonson would seem to imply that my example is OK, since the source is a "Newsletter" which must be equivalent to a press release sent via. e-mail. Eh? -MrFizyx 21:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

BLP does not trump the Verifiability policy, and anything in it that seems to needs to be written to be more clear. WAS 4.250 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I concur, just playing devil's advocate. -MrFizyx 21:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Libelous vs. libellous

I find it curious the new caveat about living persons refers to "libellous" statements. The standard spelling of "libelous" has one 'l' not two. Curious how someone who seeks to impose a common standard uses the uncommon spelling. While it's not incorrect to spell it "libellous," that's by far the minority spelling, per OED and numerous other standard dictionaries. --207.69.139.10 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Brits like two l's, Merkins like just one. I suppose an argument could be made that since WP servers are hosted in Florida, and that's the mostly likely jurisdiction, American spelling might govern. LotLE×talk 08:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't OED done by Brits? Lou Sander 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they were infiltrated. Anyway, feel free to fix the spelling. LotLE×talk 17:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The correct spelling is one "L", since the accent is on the first syllable, not the final one. I tried fixing it[19], but Kingboyk (talk · contribs) reverted me[20]. I've started another thread on it at Template_talk:Blp#Libelous / Libellous, so hopefully we can prove consensus for "libelous". --Elonka 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Improvement in wording of BLP

I have raised this here before, but there continue to be daily misinterpretations of WP:BLP throughout the articles related to Hugo Chávez. I am hoping that regulars here will review this situation, and make comments, or discuss whether the wording on BLP can be improved to help avoid this abusive misinterpretation of BLP. Sandy 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Malicious Editing

I'd like to see something stronger against including negative material just because it's well-sourced. The Malicious editing section now says in part:

If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The "published sources" part is working well, but the "demonstration of relevance" part isn't.

The article on Ann Coulter, for example, is full of well-sourced negative comments, interview snippets, etc. that aren't individually relevant to her notability, though she IS notable for her outspokenness. Sometimes these individually non-notable items become so numerous that special sections are created for specific categories. Usually they are appended to factual encyclopedic material, as if to show what a bad person she is. (See "Radio" HERE.)

It seems to me that mentioning such a person's outspoken nature, and possibly providing an example or two in connection with that mention, should be enough for any encyclopedia. As it is, some (IMHO malicious) editors gleefully include negative after negative after negative, all of them with sources. (The unsourced ones are quickly weeded out, thank Jimbo.) I'm not sure that including such stuff contributes to encyclopedic excellence. Lou Sander 13:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight covers what needs to be covered. Some people make their money from their noteriety and covering that noteriety is due weight. WAS 4.250 14:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Some people make their money from telling jokes, but we don't print their daily jokes. We especially don't use the tasteless ones to reflect negatively on the teller. My concern is about maliciously mentioning an overabundance of negative things, even when they can be sourced. "Malicious" is a matter of judgment, of course. Do you feel that the "Radio" example above is suitable material for an encyclopedia? Lou Sander 15:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit tasteless IMO, and advocacy journalism tone should be avoided in all articles, and in particular on BLPs. OTOH, much of Coulter's notoriety is based on her abrasive style... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Coulter's style IS abrasive, but IMHO WE needn't and shouldn't be abrasive in covering her. (This applies to others, too. I'm advocating a policy of DISCOURAGING things that aren't clearly relevant to the BLP person's notability.) It's fine to say he/she's abrasive. It's fine to give a few illustrative examples. It's NOT fine (IMHO, and I hope also in a policy), to populate her article with example after example of her abrasiveness, ESPECIALLY when readers might think we are doing it to show she's a bad person.

We can cover animal cruelty without endless horrible examples of animal cruelty. We can cover land mines without reporting every new horrible injury that comes from one. We SHOULD be able to cover mouthy, and/or controversial, and/or easily disliked living people without glorifying in examples of their negative aspects. I use Ann Coulter only as a current example, IMHO, of widespread malicious editing. Other than maliciousness, I don't see any reason for including the non-interview in the RADIO section. The incident has no bearing on Coulter's notability.

Any reader can look through the Coulter article and find other apparently malicious edits. (Again, this is just an example of how things can get out of hand if the only standard for negative material is that it must be sourced). My point is that Wikipedia needs to be clearer and more emphatic about its policies on malicious editing. Lou Sander 23:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A substantial part of her notability _is_ her maliciousness. It really is what she's famous for. I think more

than a few examples are warranted, though preferably the most 'newsworthy' or widely reported examples should be kept. 24.59.105.229 12:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material

WP:BLP states "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule." So, in removing such material from talk pages, the result is a hole in the discussion and can lead to misunderstandings due to lack of context. Is there a tag we can use to replace such comments that are removed to indicate to other editors/readers that something has been removed in accordance with WP:BLP? --HResearcher 02:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You could simply remove the offending text, and add a wikilink to the diff, so that it can be easily accessible. I will attempt to create such a template. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi thanks for the quick response and your efforts to create the template! Much appreciated! --HResearcher 03:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Delete the offending text
2. Get the URL of diff from the History
3. Add this in replacement of offending text: {{blprefactor|url=url of diff}}

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research

This policy currently states "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked."(as of 21:15, 5 June 2006) My suggestion is that this point be amended to include original research on talk pages. The result would be something like this: "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material and original research about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked." (emphasis added to indicate proposed amendment.) --HResearcher 11:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Although it sounds like instruction creep (and is already banned anyway per WP:OR) the specific inclusion of OR, and by extension novel syntheses, in this rule does have some merit, since novel syntheses are indeed a frequent source of neutrality disputes in respect of living individuals. So I cautiously support this. Just zis Guy you know? 15:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious. Is is OR to say stuff like "Foo unprofessionally said (well-sourced quote not including the word unprofessional)," or "Foo notoriously said (well-sourced quote not mentioning notorious)", etc. I see a lot of that, and I don't know what to call the editorializing about "unprofessional" and "notorious." Lou Sander 13:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Using adjectives is an example of POV to me. It could be considered OR as well. I believe it would be best to take those out or avoid them unless it is a direct (and cited, of course) quote. MrMurph101 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MrMurph101, since "unprofessionally" and "notoriously" are uncited they can just be removed and such removals are exempt from 3RR! :D --HResearcher 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If he said something, and that statement became notorious (e.g. series of tubes) then we can use the word notorious. The word unprofessional should be used with much more caution; for example: "he said foo and this was described by named authority as unprofessional", where the named authority is accepted as an expert on whether or not this woudl constitute unprofessional. If a doctor made a claim and the AMA denounced the claim as unprofessional, for example. Guy 11:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not intended as instruction creep, but only to make the policy more clear about original research. --HResearcher 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so JzG cautiously supports this. Anyone else have comments about this proposal? --HResearcher 03:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I support it. And I'm wondering who said that series of tubes has become notorious? Lou Sander 13:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Indirect sourcing of negative info?

When a bio article contains a source, is it also necessary to cite that source in other articles where the subject is mentioned with a wikilink back to the bio, or is it acceptable to rely on the reader to follow the link back to the bio? I am having issues with Jeff Gannon being called a prostitute in various articles. An admin is pushing back, and I am not sure of this particular requirement. (I am also not fully comfortable with the sources in the Jeff Gannon article "proving" that he is a prostitute, but that is another issue). I would appreciate someone with more experience with BLP to take a look at Jeff Gannon, and the articles that link to it. Crockspot 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What I remember is that Jeff Gannon created a website and published his picture on it with invitations to pay him money for gay sex and was paid by the Bush administration to plant friendly questions at white house press briefings. The same anti-gay Bush administration that now says it has a problem with leftists manipulating the press. This is not a minor figure who deserves his privacy, but a paid political operative whose illegalities are important to the discussion of political power in the US. WAS 4.250 23:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What you remember? Evidence? I have asked an AMA advocate to look into my problems with the Gannon article, and while he is still in the initial investigative stage, he has already stated that he can find no solid evidence in all the sources listed of Gannon actually being a prostitute. What you "remember" happens to be unverifiable, and your comments illustrate the heart of this problem. You just violated BLP by posting unsourced negative info about illegalities committed, when there is zero evidence that any illegalities were committed. Should I remove your comments? But it is irrelevant to my question, which is, is it necessary to cite sources for negative info on a living person wherever it appears, or is it sufficient to rely on the reader to follow a wikilink back to another article to find those sources. An additional problem is, if sources in the main article are found not to support the claim, is there a mechanism for fanning out and removing all the negative info that points back to these sources? I guess the remover of the sources should check "what links here", and do the legwork themself. Crockspot 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While I may agree with the specific case, the problem is that there's no bright line for deciding such things. In absense of such, I suggest letting the world wide web and various credit reporting agencies and skip tracing firms and clipping services and tabloids and political dirt-finding services be the repository of such stuff, while we let Wikipedia go back to its main job of becoming the world's best encyclopedia, repository of information on physics and history and culture and geography and whatever, WITHOUT becoming the central Big Brother repository on available "neutral" biographical information per se on everybody living who ever did anything of note, which is to say, just about everybody. We can live without that part of Wikipedia. Time enough for bio when you're dead. And few people care about biographical info which happens to show up in other contexts and stujects, contextually. We can allow bios of living people who want to be bio'd, and pull the plug on the rest NOW and sidestep that entire nightmare. The price is a tiny gap in knowledge, which in any case is merely the penumbra of a gap which is necessary anyway, due to libel law. The payoff for making this part of Wikipedia sacrosanct is a HUGE payoff in public relations--- a really monstrous one, because the bad bio thing and the bad info problem are the two main things most people know about Wikipedia. And yes, changing this would make a moral statement; it would be a clear attempt to take and maintain the high ground. Shocking, eh? But such a statement and policy would do nothing but good for Wikipedia. SBHarris 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nutshell

Essentially, this policy is a clarification of NPOV and verifiability: to be absolutely hardarsed about them. Everything else follows from there. To that end I've cut down the nutshell a bit. Sensitivity is not part of the original intent of the policy, but neutrality and a remarkably high standard of verifiability are, for example. Further ideas on cutting it down are welcomed. There is no point duplicating the guideline in the nutshell - David Gerard 13:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am even less happy. This policy is contrary to NPOV thanks to the double standard between negative statements and postive statements.

24.59.105.229 12:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not just an extension of NOPV and V. It is a policy that relates to a specific case: living people and the sensiivity that applies in these cases, as we are impacting peoples' lives as WP becomes more and more predominant as a source of information. Yes, sensitivity was never part of NPOV, but in this case, we need it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi. This hardassed editor cringes at some of the stuff he sees in WIkipedia biographies. (I also agree with being absolutely hardassed about NPOV and verifiability.) Lou Sander 15:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. It isn't only about NPOV and V. If that were the case, it would be acceptable to include someone's home phone number and the school their children attend, if it were presented in a neutral and verifiable way. I'd say the best nutshell would be "Above all else, do no harm" Guettarda 15:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am becoming more and more old-fashioned in my conviction that NPOV, NOR; and Verifiability can manage virtually any editorial question. So I sympathize with David Gerard. Nevertheless, in this particular matter the way I see it is, if we are going to have a policy at all, it has to focus on those matters particualr to the topic that are not explicitly covered by the core policies. I think there are three, each of which follow from the way a page about a living person is more vulnerable to abuse thatn other pages (or, vulnerable to a different kind of abuse: (1) the legal stakes are higher, in that we can be sued for libel (2) ethical stakes are higher, as we are talking about persons so it is virtually impossible for someone out there not to take it personally - this is why I think the word "sensitivity" and even more discussion of what this means is actually very important, and (3) we want to make sure these do not turn into vanity pages. I think NPOV, NOR and verifiability go far to protecting us against concern (3) and even (1) although given the stakes they need to be reenforced. But they do not address concern (2) and if this policy is to mean anything, it has to be clear on point (2). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. I am currently in a dispute with an admin (see one section above) over the difference between solid sources in general, and sources for negative info about living persons. The liability issues alone call for more stringent criteria. Crockspot 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If avoiding arguments were the primary policy, we'd have sympathetic point of view and article forks already. We don't. - David Gerard 06:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "sensitivity" is an innovation for this guideline that appears to mandate leaning to sympathetic point of view rather than neutral point of view. That is, it's an attempt to subvert NPOV in the wording of the guideline (/policy). This is problematic. We're not here to write hatchet jobs, but the current wording leans to encouraging hagiography.

I do appreciate the need for something to do with treating this stuff sensitively, but we really need a way of talking about it that does not imply subverting NPOV. Notability of detail should cover it IMO - David Gerard 15:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that no one here is advocating for an hagiographic tone on BLPs, but I agree that if this could be interpreted by editors as an opportunity to subvert NPOV, we ought to find some wording that does discourages that understanding and fosters the correct one. Do you have a proposed re-wording of this that may address the concerns raised? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think at least some of the 'sensitivity' part will be resolved if we ensure that we require extra solid verifiable/reliable sources for the case of living persons and negative material. In addition, the best sources for WP are secondary sources, so if we stick to a combination of secondary highly reliable sources we would almost always be OK in the 'do no harm' category. My guess is that insisting on solid secondary sources for negative or personal material would take care of most BLP issues. Crum375 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi and the others. We need to make an effort to present verifiable information from reliable sources in the least harmful way. There are ways that BLP articles can met NPOV, NOR, and V and not be acceptable because they are likely to harm the subject and Wikipedia. Mostly it has to do with the way that Wikipedia articles are developed over time. For example we know that most new articles are incomplete and need more information to improve them. For most topics this is not a big deal. For articles about living people this can be harmful. If the bulk of the information is negative or only encompasses part of a person life, then it can give an skewed view of the person. IMO, experienced Wikipedia editors need to be sensitive to this and see to it that article are quickly made as complete and well rounded as possible and presented in a neutral way on the page because it minimizes harm to the subject and diminishes the possibility of future conflicts and disruption related to the article. FloNight 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that above all, we should be sure that WP itself does not harm the living subject. I think that if all we do is summarize verifiable and reliable secondary sources then the added effect of the publication in WP would be small. Ideally WP itself should have a very low profile - simply collecting and presenting publicly available and reliable information from secondary sources. And certainly the presentation has to remain neutral at all times. Crum375 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi et al; being sensitive doesn't violate any policy, and is critical when writing about living people. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I copied this sensitivity-related material verbatim from the BLP page. It's great stuff, but it's scattered about, so isn't easily comprehended as a whole. Maybe it could be gathered in one place, or summarized, or nutshelled in some other way:

• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

• The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

• Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. (I would substitute "from" for "available solely on" - LS)

• (For non-public figures): editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. ...Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source.

• In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, ...

• If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

• The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.

I strongly agree with the notion of using only impeccable sources, but I wasn't looking for "source" stuff. Lou Sander 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of this page is not to create a tiered system of NPOV. NPOV is uncompromisable. It is absolutely integral to what Wikipedia is. This isn't a redefinition of NPOV. It is a guideline for how NPOV is to be applied in the circumstances where it is most important that it be applied. We can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend our actions on Wikipedia don't have consequences. They do, and the consequences are far greater when applied to a living person than to, for example, Nidorino.

This isn't to say that NPOV should be ignored on articles that aren't about living people. The crucial thing is that we are prioritising, focussing our efforts on the most important articles. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's sort of like "John is always well-groomed appropriately dressed, but when he goes on a job interview, he pays more attention to that stuff." ("John" is us, "groom/dress" is NPOV etc., and "job interview" is biographies of living people.) Lou Sander 18:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are inherent problems in this whole policy which simply are not being addressed. It's not enough to simply hold up secondary sources to take the blame for negative material, for instance. Secondary sources may not be totally reliable, and are hard to check. Even in cases where they are reliable, all such a policy does is leave the judgment in the tradeoff between "the public's right to know" vs. "the individual's right to privacy," up to somebody else (namely the editors and lawyers of the secondary source). Moreover, the "somebody else" is bound to be riding a slippery and ill-defined slope, because secondary sources use a legal standard (which varies from country to country) in which the "notability" of persons is used as some kind of index as to how much publication of harmful private information can be gotten away with.

There is an explicit moral problem in posting information about a person on Wikipedia which they do not want to be posted there (for whatever reason). This is not treating others as you would want to be treated, or as you'd like your family or loved ones to be treated-- in such cases Wikipedia is THEREFORE acting in a way which is explicitly aggressive and aggravating. Give up the golden rule and that's what you get, so you'd better have a overwhelming social reason for it, like survival or security. I fail to see such a principle operating here.

Finally, let me point out that entry of Wikipedia information involves impact. It does involve a loss of privacy because Wikipedia entries are more easily available to search engines that most (almost all) secondary sources. Putting something on Wikipedia DOES make it more public, almost no matter how public it was, before the fact. Even if it was on the Five O'Clock News, the Five O'Clock News is an hour and Wikipedia is (no doubt, in some form or another) forever. At the end of this process, without guidance from the Bio subject, we thus have Wikipedia used as an amplifier for what may have been a questionable moral tradeoff decision (between notability and privacy) to begin with.

All of which is not helped in the least by the fact that the very creation of a Wiki bio on a person increases their "notability" and "public presence" far more than a full page article in their local paper ever can or will. Something these discussions have been reluctant to admit as a "given." Mostly I see Wikipedia treated as though it wasn't Major Media itself, but merely an unimportant mirror or piece of glass, with no effect on that which it is exposing or reflecting. Wrong. Wikipedia gives to anonymous persons the kind of power previously available only to editors of major newspapers.

In a nutshell, this whole process is bound to stink when applied to biography of living persons, without saving input and editorial management from the people who will otherwise be the targets of victims of it. Which, so far, we simply do not have. SBHarris 19:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

On sensitivity

David Gerard said "Sensitivity is not part of the original intent of the policy". That is in fact the exact opposite of the truth. When I created the first edit of the proposal that became the guideline that became the policy, its entire content was to be sentitive on articles about living people with the context of that being a very (and still) angry object of a bio that objected to what he perceived as an invasion of his privacy as a nonnoteable (legally speaking according to Florida privacy laws he said) private person and he did not want to be converted into a public person with fewer legal rights concerning his privacy. The meaning of "sensitivity" is not omit negative information but instead involves enhanced awareness such as the enhanced awareness you have in the more sensitive parts of your body. The use of the word "sensitivity" is a dircet quote from the man asking for a little as he was a living person. WAS 4.250 23:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alerts?

I seem to remember seeing somewhere a page for alerts about possible violations of this policy. Am I imagining this, or does such a page exist, and if so, where?

For what it's worth, my specific concern is the continuous insertion of critical material from poor sources (newspaper editorials and a lobby group, in particular) into the Rashid Khalidi article, along with highly-POV commentary by the person inserting them. Palmiro | Talk 20:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

An alert page would come in handy right about now. I have the same problem with the Jeff Gannon article, and related links to it. If there is such a page already, it should be more easily locatable. Crockspot 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Such a page would also be handy for problems with the Ann Coulter article, which IMHO is edited maliciously every day. Lou Sander 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We could create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/BLP... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That might work. Now, we get some requests brought to this talk page or AN/I. Another page would be better if enough admins monitor it. Office messages might go on the page too. We could give it a try and abandon if not used. FloNight 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I will attempt to set up such noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I will appreciate some help at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. A good explanation on what is OK to report, process, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps is a glaring problem, currently under FARC, if you want a guinea pig article to start with. I'm not interested in nominating, since I feel that would create a conflict with my work at WP:FAR. Sandy 02:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That article needs to be deleted stubified and start from scratch. Multiple violations of WP:BLP, most material from one source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. But. Who does that? How are BLP problems this serious dealt with? I only encountered this article because it's on FARC, and the last time I got involved in an article I was reviewing on FARC, the results were not pleasant. FARC reviewers shouldn't do it, there doesn't seem to be a principle editor, so who cleans it out? Or, should the BLP process be to just nominate it for AfD? (I hope you noticed that, although there are multiple refs, the number of refs is misleading, since they almost all lead to the same book.) So, how will articles like this be dealt with in the new review board? Sandy 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I started by encouraging editors of that article to read this policy and act on it by removing unsourced negative material from the article. I will check in a few days, and if it was not done, I will roll my sleeves and do it myself, not a thing that I look forward to... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the problems will be that admins need to be all on the same page about what is proper sourcing for BLPs. I am in a dispute with an admin over just this issue. I don't believe the sources support the negative claims in a particular article, and an admin disagrees with me, and keeps reinserting the offending statements. An AMA advocate is looking at the issue for me, and is tending to agree that my interpretation is correct. I already thought the BLP rules were clear, but apparently they are not clear enough for this particular admin. Perhaps a tutorial program for the admins that will be watching this board? Crockspot 16:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Privacy of birthdays?!

What gibbering idiocy is this? If we don't have verifiable source of such, it shouldn't go in at all; if we do have a verifiable source of such then so does everyone else. Who thought this particularly inane piece of instruction creep from Hell was in any way sensible? And can they convince me they weren't just trolling, because that's certainly the most charitable assumption? - David Gerard 06:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually wrote that section. You should have seen the previous version if you think mine was bad, I rewrote it out of sheer necessity. But I actually agree with you 100%. Unfortunately there is a large group of people that don't agree with us that if a DOB is verifiable by a reliable source then it should go on a Wikipedia page. There are people that think the exact DOB only belongs in an article if it is relevant to the subject's notability. The archives have some discussions on this that you probably want to look at. VegaDark 09:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what is newsworthy or notable about the date of birth of (say) a child of a politician, even if it is verifiable? Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of facts; it's supposed to contain useful information. Similarly, if the article notes that someone was born in 1955 (say), what difference does it make if he/she was born on March 12th as opposed to September 16th, or whatever?

The other problem is that if the cited source removes the dates (or vanishes - see Link rot - then wikipedia could easily end up being the only place the date can be found, and certainly the only place it can be easily found. No, wikipedia probably can't be sued successfully on this. But it can contribute to problems, and it can be the subject of negative publicity. John Broughton 12:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, if say, I have an exact birthdate from a print source like the Encyclopaedia Brittanica or the Dictionary of National Biography, then it should go in, with a citation, no problem. Wjhonson 13:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The child of the politician doesn't have an article for that. Unless they do, in which case that's a different matter. I've reworded the current version on the page.

WAS 4.250 left me a talk page note giving Jimbo's daughter as an example. But she's not notable enough herself for her own article. If someone is notable enough to rate an article and have their birthdate verifiable with the reason for their notability, there's no sane reason to exclude it or assume it should be excluded by default - David Gerard 13:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, what VALUE is there in adding an exact birthdate? And as for a hardcopy source, that addresses the link rot issue, but it doesn't address the issue of ease of finding a birthday - wikipedia is a lot more likely to be used for identity theft than the Dictionary of National Biography. (And hardcopy sources, while meeting verifiability standards, aren't easy for other editors to check.)

In short, why exactly do we want to do this, and what exactly is the harm of omitting birthmonth and birthday?? John Broughton 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The "identity theft" issue is a red herring. The complete birth dates for all persons born in Kentucky, California, and Texas are online for anyone to view with a subscription to www.ancestry.com for about $75 or thereabouts. Millions of birthdates. In addition the California ones give the mother's maiden name. We live in a world, which is already, for better or worse, past this issue of birthdates. You can no more steal an identity with a birthdate, then you can steal a house with a key. Wjhonson 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Not just identity. Invasion of privacy. Example: you personally don't use your name here, but you've nevertheless left enough clues on the web that it took me 60 seconds to find out that your neighbor across the street is Ms. Castro, and you paid $160,000 for your house, which gives me some idea of how well you were doing in consulting when you moved to the West Coast 8 years ago, and so on and so on. I can have a satellite photo of your back yard, if I like. And it would be snap for you to find out personal things about me (since I DO use my real name). This is all "public" knowledge (and I'm sure you can guess where it is, in your case), but "public" is a fuzzy concept. Which section of the public are we talking about? People with computer skills? People with IQ's above 100? Above 125? What? Wikipedia is the great leveler, where what is publicly obvious to the most talented skiptracer in theory also becomes available instantly to the village idiot or credit agency or stalker. If we don't fix the policy, we're all going to regret it. Here's our chance.

I hear Jimbo's daughter has been a victim of privacy invasion. And Jimbo has been caught repeatedly buffing his own Bio, and merely confesses and says he's sorry. Anything to keep from admiting that he was WRONG and this was a BAD idea to begin with! Sheesh! SBHarris 00:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if you want to write an article aboue me, since you know so much you should do it! And then what I paid for my house (whether the above is correct or not) might be relevant. Otherwise your point is vague. You can find something out about your neighbor and so.... we shouldn't post birthdays of celebrities? And in my particular case, I am a web personality (in small type) and so it's not hard to find out things about me. I spend 10 hours a day on the internet, it's my business. So again what's your point? We're not talking about finding out things about "people" just about people-who-have-wiki-artices. Wjhonson 18:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but such information helps locate people in databases. For example, people with a common name like yours (which I notice you don't use here-- why not?) are much more easily searchable with an exact birthdate. And a birthdate serves as ersatz ID for places where the SSN isn't used, as for example in many pharmacy transactions.

It's just part of a key to things about a person's history which may be "public" but only in the very narrow sense that they may exist in some public form, like an old CV posted on the web, or somebody's opinions on a TALK page, and the personal info from somebody's yearbooks from libraries someplace. Add to this long forgotten newstuff, public records of various types (difficult but not impossible to get if you have money and time), and a fairly thorough biography can be created on anybody, as you well know from being a geneologist. A bio just waiting to bite you from wikipedia the moment you do anything "notable" (whatever that is). And one which can be used for malicious purposes if you have the bad luck to run afoul of a malicious person. All this is not a good thing.

Let me add another problem, which is that the idea that WP:NOR protects somebody from putting all this stuff together. It doesn't. All original article writing represents new synthesis of information, just from the act of choosing sources and which sentence to put ahead of another. If it wasn't original synthesis, it would be plagiarism, so you pick. It's one or the other. I don't want to see it done on Wikipedia for living people who object to it. ONCE AGAIN, let me strongly remind everybody that PUBLIC isn't a binary thing, so that all information is either PUBLIC or NOT PUBLIC. A great deal of information is "public" only by virtue of being hidden in plain sight in some obscure place, awaiting a good deal of time, work, money, sweat, and some intelligence to dig it out and associate it with other information. We don't need Wikipedia, at the end of a 2 second Google Search to be the end result and repository of that process. So I urge you to do what you can to stop it. SBHarris 18:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I could not have put it better myself. Basically the point is that, indeed, if you really want to gather information about somebody, you can often do so (look up records in city halls or courthouses, do "freedom of information" requests, do many Google searches, etc.); it tends to take time and resources, and this is why people seldom do it unless they have real grudges and resources to spare.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is a high traffic site highly ranked in Google. This means that people who otherwise may have to sleuth quite a bit before doing bad things would just have to do a 2-second Google search.

Now, it is a fact that banks and other businesses often consider that if you know someone's date of birth, mother's maiden name, name of children, then you probably are that person. Perhaps this is stupid, but that's how things are.

We should therefore not store information that has little encyclopedic value but high potential for trouble. David.Monniaux 21:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it more bluntly: we are aware that certain groups are probably data mining Wikipedia for personal information. We don't necessarily know why: they may be debt collection agencies, they might be national government security agencies, or police, or - maybe, just possibly - they are Identity Theft groups. Do not have this information in Wikipedia BLPs. - Amgine 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree, and agree with the current poster. Birth dates of kids and wives are irrelevant because the article is supposed to be about the individual in question. Basically, if the birth date is of a person that's notable enough to be mentioned on Morning Edition, in a birthdates section of a newspaper, or in a magazine biography, it's notable. Some people have notable birthdates that are part of their personality... a crooner born on Valentine's Day, for instance. That counts. Hard and fast rules don't work. Calwatch 08:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. In some cases, birth dates are relevant. However, we have a gazillion articles about non-notable people (minor authors, minor journalists, minor radio hosts). David.Monniaux 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kids' birthdays are not relevant, I agree. But if people are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, they are notable to have their birthdates there too. "national government security agencies, or police" you say? As if they wouln't have access to birth certificates. --GunnarRene 04:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm copying and pasting what I said on the tak page for Kari Wahlgren, a voice actress who recently requested that her birthday information be taken down. The month and day were taken down, but that doesn't really address HER problem with her birth year being put up--her age. She's what I think is considered a "non-notable public figure." Yes, to some people she is notable, but she's no Angelina Jolie or Barbara Walters--she's not a household name, nor is her age something she (and many other non-notable actors) want known! In the case of actors and actresses trying to make a name, career, or even living for themselves, having their age revealed can be limiting their careers. Producers and directors may claim to practice blind casting, but lets face it, as soon as they know someones actual age, they start restricting themselves. A lot of actors would prefer their ages not be revealed because of the reprecussions, and I'm sure Kari is just one of those. Sure, people should be able to know the "Encyclopedic facts" but is it REALLY that important? If you're a fan of someone, shouldn't your ultimate goal as his or her fan be their success as an actor or actress--or their ability to put food on the table? If that's not reasonable, I don't know what is. My thought is that in cases like this, if the subject requests their age being removed, it should be for their protection, the protection of their career, that we oblige. It might sate someones curiosity, and yes, to the technologically inclined who know where to find the information or are willing to pay for the information, you can find it, but is it really worth sacrificing potential career roles/moves to make a handful of people happy that they know? Besides, some fansites who may respect the subjects wishes may have their birth day (month and day) posted but not the year, and the combination of that information and the year being available defeats the whole purpose of "year but not month and day" that's listed as policy in Ms. Wahlgren's Talk page.Just a Fan 21:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

First, please remember that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a fan site. We can have no interest in the future success as an actor or actress. We merely document the success he/she has already achieved. (To be more precise, we synopsize the documentation of others about his/her success.)

If the person is not notable, then we generally should not have an article at all. (Your description as a "non-notable public figure" makes me wonder if that should be the case here.) If the person is found to be notable, his/her birthyear is an appropriate fact to include in the biography. Birthyear helps us to understand the context in which they lived and the probable influences on their lives. Month and day are removed because it's not really encyclopedic information that advances the understanding of the subject of the biography.

The fact that the person has chosen to release month and day on a different site such as a fan-site and thereby risks some outsider making a correlation and compromising their own person information is, to be blunt, their problem. The fact that some employers are alleged to practice age-discrimination is also not our problem. We would not remove an image just because it exposed the subject's skin color.

If a semi-public person wishes to have his/her biography removed from the encyclopedia all together, we should oblige. But if we have an article, it should be a complete article. Rossami (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

How, pray, does a subject get their biography removed if they want it so (and permanantly)? If an actor doesnt want their personal lives splashed all over your encyclopedia for anyone with an internet connection to edit? Just a Fan 13:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The subject has several options. The first would be to simply nominate the biography for regular deletion. In the nomination, be sure to lay out the reasons why you think the subject is not notable enough to be included. If you identify yourself as the subject and request deletion of the biography (either as the nominator or as a participant), the community tends to give that weight during the AFD discussion. We're not going to delete articles on truly public figures like GW Bush but it can tip the scales for semi-public figures.

Alternatively, you could also contact Wikipedia by email. That triggers a confidential investigative process that can resolve most complaints. In a worst-case situation, you can contact the foundation's designated agent (see here).

Hope that helps. Rossami (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Question concerning an image

At the head of the new anti-Semitism article is an image ... Nowhere in the article is there text saying who's claiming that the image is anti-Semitic (only linked references to fairly respectable blogs connected to news sources). In this light it is arguable that Wikipedia itself is saying that the image is anti-Semitic (particularly given the image's file name Image:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg). Does Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy apply in this type of case? Thanks. (→Netscott) 11:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely you jest. The image depicts unnamed persons, wearing yarmulkes, with fangs, gloating over a burning planet. If that's not anti-Semitic then the picture of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban is a glamour pose. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing one way or the other actually. What I'd like clarification on is whether or not a case such as this would fall under WP:BLP or not? Obviously there are POVs that say the image is merely an expression of Anti-Zionism and not Anti-Semitism while there are clearly POVs that it is sooner Anti-Semitism masquerading as Anti-Zionism (hence it's usage on the New anti-Semitism article). (→Netscott) 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What this has to do with BLP? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[The artist] is a living person. With histhe image he created at the top of the new anti-Semitism article and with no additional text specifying who is saying that his image is an example of new anti-Semitism Wikipedia is essentially saying so. There are sources saying that his image is anti-Semitic but they are provided in reference links. Shouldn't those (preferably reliable sources) who are saying his work is anti-Semitic be actually specified in the article and not merely linked to? Such a question would seem to fall under this policy no? (→Netscott) 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Netscott was the person who on labelling the image as "Anti-Semitic", against the strong objections of other editors. Now that he's gotten his way, he's insisting it be deleted based on WP:BLP. This is the third grounds on which he's tried to have the image, and arguably the most duplicitous. This disruption must stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgive my asking Jayjg but how does including what the source of the very image's view on it (in the article) constitue my saying that the image was anti-Semitic? Even the image's file name had to be changed. (→Netscott) 00:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The article doesn't say it's anti-Semitic; you're the one who is insisting it must be labelled that way. Now that you've gotten your way, you're trying to have it deleted for that reason. This is the third excuse you've used to try to get it deleted. Please stop this disruption. Oh, and how many places are you going to post this? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The only person linking the artist's name to anti-Semitism is Netscott with this trolling masquerading as innocent questions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I've tried to have this talk concentrate on the noticeboard by attempting to move it where it belongs (as specified in the notice at the top of this page) but I've now been reverted rather illogically by User:SlimVirgin twice. BLP concerns are very valid here with the artist's name now being associated with an image of his work as the lead image on new anti-Semitism as who's referring to it as corresponding to the topic of the article does not figure into the text of the article (merely a couple of reference to newsource blogs). (→Netscott) 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So help me out here. Is it that you don't want the image displayed at all, or you don't want it displayed with the artist's name, or you want it displayed only with the artist's name, or what? Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good question.... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ideally who the artist is, who the organizer of the event the image is associated with (two sources are saying A.N.S.W.E.R.) and who is saying it is an example of new anti-Semitism should be readlily available to the reader. In particular who is saying the image is anti-Semitic should be included so that the article doesn't fall afoul of WP:BLP relative to the artist. (→Netscott) 02:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That info is available in the image's page. As for your question "who is saying the image is anti-semitic", would rather ask, who does not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The image caption does not say it is anti-Semitic, but that it contains anti-Semitic motifs (as well as others). The image caption also does not include the artist's name. The only reason the image page includes the artist's name is that Netscott was trying to have it deleted because it did not say who the copyright holder is, and so I had to add it. This situation has been drummed up by Netscott 100 per cent out of nothing in order to cause a problem. I am more than happy to remove the artist's name from the image page, and then his name will not be linked to the issue at all (but you can be sure that if I do that, Netscott will revert me, fearful of losing his playground). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know as much as I should about this, but isn't the photographer the copyright-holder? Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom, the photographer holds the copyright on the photograph, and has freely licensed it, and the creator of the poster holds the copyright on the poster, for which we claim fair use. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, "no original research" is very clear about that, "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories." Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox about what this image is an example of. (→Netscott) 02:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What do the 6 links in the footnote on the caption say? Gimmetrow 02:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, please read this section of WP:BLP where it says, "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.". Merely providing links to references falls well afoul of abiding by a "writing style" as specified in that section. (→Netscott) 02:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, I thought you said you withdrawing from further trolling about this. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Netscott, you need to clearly state what you propose as a caption if you want it changed, probably on the article talk page where I was unable to find any relevant discussion. I'm not going to chase this discussion around on multiple pages. Gimmetrow 02:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Malicious Editing 2

Maybe the Malicious Editing section should also address edits like this:

"Foo's driver's license says she was born on date A. Her voter records say she was born on date B (good, solid secondary source for these facts). If date A is correct, then Foo may be guilty of giving false information to voting officials, which is a felony in her state. (good, solid reference to state statutes)"

The stuff after the first reference is speculation by the editor. I'm new here, but it seems pretty malicious to me. (The full text original is here, its current version is here). Lou Sander 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO, your editorial judgement is entirely correct here - cut the speculation unless the speculation itself was notable for whatever reason - David Gerard 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit should simply read "b 26 Jul 1945 (State of xxx, Driver Records) or b 14 Nov 1947 (County of xxx, Voter Records)" with no further comment. Wjhonson 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, but the authors of the speculation don't. In good faith, they think they're doing the world a favor (not only in my example, but in all the others). It might be helpful to somehow add this kind of thing to the Malicious Editing section, which covers only sourcing and notability. Maybe it should mention malicious original research as well. (I'm thinking that this speculation is OR, but I'm fuzzy on it). Lou Sander 14:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Most definitively OR, if that conclusion is not available from a reliable source. Not sure if we need a specific wording to cover this issue, though. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi, this analytical-statement-which-serves-to-advance-a-position is original research. We don't need extra wording to cover it, it's covered already. Wjhonson 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe "conclusions" like this are OR. I have seen plenty of conclusions like this in articles, and often meet resistance when removing them. If conclusions are obvious, it should be up to the reader to draw it, not Wikipedia to make it for them. Perhaps a little bit of wording to reinforce that is called for. Crockspot 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The way Lou Sander's tells it I would come to that conclusion too. He makes it sound like original research with no objective other than to pointlessly insult. He leaves out the source and context as stated in the article: "Coulter has refused to address this disparity, pointed out most notably by Al Franken, a rival pundit who brought up the disparity in his book, Lies & The Lying Liars Who Tell Them." Ann's history of being a liar is a credibility issue that is important with a pundit. She writes and sells books that tell us who to chose as the most powerful person on the planet. Whether or not she is a liar is relevant. WAS 4.250 14:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Being criticised by Al Franken seems notable enough to be mentioned. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In the case of conflict, the actual cited, QUOTED text, should be extracted and posted to the article exactly as Franken stated it. Wjhonson 14:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I KNEW I shouldn't have included a link to the full text original. ;-) I'm just trying to see if WP:BLP might want to say something about the TECHNIQUE of negative editorializing on properly-sourced material in BLP articles, which I understand might be somewhat widespread. I'm sorry if the link confused anyone.

Related subject: In the (here we go again) Coulter example, original version, Franken was mentioned in another paragraph, and his words were very sketchily paraphrased. He wasn't quoted, his book wasn't listed as a reference or its article Wikilinked to, and no page number was given. Please help me: Is that the "Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives" that the WP:BLP nutshell is talking about? (Emphasis theirs. I think the answer is "no," but I'm a newbie.) Lou Sander 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I wasn't confused before, but I am now. It looks like you added the link to the full text original just now, in this very same edit in which you apologize for having done it earlier.[21] What are you trying to say? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Referring to my edits of 15:41, 30 August 2006: 1) The "...shouldn't have included..." was a response to the anti-Coulter rant. This isn't about Coulter, but about a malicious technique. To make things clearer, my original post included a link to an actual example of the malicious technique. The fact that the example related to Coulter drew forth a rant unrelated to my point. I was both amused by the rant, and sorry that I had prompted it. 2) As I made the 15:41 edit, I realized that thoughtful editors had already fixed most of the problems in the Coulter example, so my original link now pointed to a cleaned-up version. So I added a second link in my original edit. One link now leads to the version with the problem, and the other leads to the current, cleaned up version. 3) Hope this helps. Lou Sander 04:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Family members

Some biographical entries contain documentation on family members (first names, religious affiliation, etc.), even though these members are not public personalities. I suggest these should be systematically dropped. Family members of public personalities who are not themselves public personalities have a right to privacy; besides, such content is not encyclopedic, and may create real problems to those involved (such as facilitating harassment). Just because, say, your brother is a controversial politician, you should not have to endure the harassment of those who dislike the guy. David.Monniaux 14:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Systematic no. Case-by-case yes. It's going to depend a lot on the sources. If the sources, which name the family members are sufficiently "in the public eye", then the people have already been "outed" as related. Wjhonson 15:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Then they count as "public personalities". I was talking of people who were not public personalities. David.Monniaux 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If, in an obituary of Grace Kelly it says her daughter is Monica Hamburger, then that person is named, although not public in the sense of not yet notable. Address that issue. Wjhonson 15:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that, if that person has not done anything out of the ordinary (such as appearing on TV shows as the daughter of this personality, as some children of deceased actors or singers have done), then we should not breach that person's privacy.

Note that our policy can be summarized as "publish information in proportion to what people have willfully done to get information published". An actor who poses for gossip photographers, by this mere action, puts himself in the limelight. A random person who just happens to have a famous relative is entitled to privacy.

This is, by the way, a criterion that courts use in several jurisdictions. David.Monniaux 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Systematic no. Case-by-case yes. Acting thoughtfully is almost always better. WAS 4.250 15:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For instance: some article about some personality who had a bad divorce mentioned that personality's children by name, and the first name being uncommon, anybody interacting with that person may get details about her family by a simple Google research. I think this definitely infringes on that person's privacy, while this does not bring any actual encyclopedic content. David.Monniaux 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the underlying source? Wjhonson 15:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's say a gossip paper. David.Monniaux 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the names of a person's parents and children are a rather important part of that person's biography. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor real-life example of how this stuff can affect people's lives: My son-in-law Jim Donovan was a member of the minorly famous band Rusted Root. His daughter Tupelo has an unusual first name. The band had a wierdo stalker or two, but there are lots of Donovans around, so it was hard for them to find Jim and his family. Tupelo is another matter, since the name sticks out. No stalker ever caused problems after seeking out "Tupelo," but Jim and all around him had to be constantly on guard about it. (Being a baby at the time, Tupelo didn't have much of a presence in the information world.) It's easy to extrapolate the situation to somebody who's REALLY famous, or whose Tupelo is an attractive teenager. Lou Sander 16:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

We all know that "case by case" sounds good and reasonable in most cases and at a first thought here as well but it is not in this case out of simple reasons:

• The english language Wikipedia is huge. We all have limited time. Please let us use "case by case" on matters that are more important than children of celebrities that also have a right living a normal youth.
• The OTRS has a huge backlog of emails concerning privacy matters (a large number of them valid concerns).

So do not decide on a case by case basis if certain privacy related information of minor important people needs to be deleted but decide on a case by case basis if you add it. In general the "family" section of a famous person whose family is not famous should contain the facts that he/she is married/divorced/whatever and has/hasn't one/two/three/whatever-number doughter/son but not the names and other highly indentifying information. Arnomane 21:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I use the newspaper rule. If it was published in a legitimate newspaper, it counts. Politicians often like to parade their kids and wife in public, and name them in profiles; if that is the case, then they are named. For less-notable artists and musicians, it's a case by case basis. Calwatch 08:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally draw the line between those who openly parade their kids or invite journalists to their wedding, on the one hand, and those who don't. The former don't deserve privacy, the latter do. David.Monniaux 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well there's the problem what is a legitimate newspaper? Let's take the yellow press. They usually make a bussiness out of bringing the most private details to the surface (and they have a quite active legal "defense department" because of this). So I think a better approach would be mentioning the names and other details of non-famous children in case the parents did parade their family as you said (be it in a newspaper or at their campaing web site or whatever that is authorized by them).

Ok now there is the question how to apply it effective in Wikipedia? There's a simple solution: Required reference of such an authorized source in the relevant article (this perfectly fits to our reliability efforts, and is supported by sofware thanks to reference tag). If such a reference is missing these articles should be grouped somehow (try to avoid yet another template, a hand crafted list is just enough ;) so that people can work with them efficiently (finding sources and in cse not removing the information).

However I want to make one thing clear. I don't want to suggest that we remove important personal information of famous persons, just because they or their family feels so. For example Boris Floricic was just famous enough in Germany and that's why de.wikipedia risked its first trial in that case and did win. Arnomane 11:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Privacy (copied from David's talk page)

A while back the privacy of Jimmy Wales' daughter was violated on wikipedia. Be aware of a certain sensitivity some might have on making light of privacy needs of nonnotable people. Deleting addresses, phone numbers, birthdays, social security numbers, auto license information, etc might seem "paranoid" but it is not. WAS 4.250 13:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But she's not notable herself. If someone is notable enough to rate an article and have their birthdate verifiable with the reason for their notability, there's no sane reason to exclude it or assume it should be excluded by default - David Gerard 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone is notable enough to rate an article in Britannica then yes, everything you said is true. The problem is the semi-noteable or just barely noteable who get an article here but in no other encyclopedia (that isn't a mirror of this one). We have cases of porn stars bios with both their real name and their real birth day (source: legal documents) removed for privacy reasons by the highest Wikipedia authorities (who will indef ban you if you try to put them back). I don't think you should have to be a porn star to be deserve privacy for nonnoteable details of your life if you are barely nateable. WAS 4.250 15:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a significant difference. Porn stars, and other like people in the Witness Protection program, change their names in order to protect their families from being scandalized or targeted for recrimination. That is not the case with say an academic, or a sports figure or a politician. If an author's exact birthdate is in a widely available source like "Gale's Authors Online" there is no reason why we should not post that birthdate with a citation. If that person then has a phone directory listing, they are already publishing, to the world, where they live. Not that I'd post it, but they already did. Wjhonson 15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

BLP task force?

Is there such a thing? I would be willing to become involved with such a task force. Such a group, along with an alert/request page, could really clamp down on the problems. As far as I can tell, there is no such group. This issue is too important to WP's legal well-being to not have a group that specifically deals with these problems directly. Crockspot 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography ?? Should a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography be somewhere near the top of this page?? WAS 4.250 15:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• What I am thinking about is a group specifically charged with rooting out unsourced or poorly sourced negative info about living persons. I cannot think of a bigger threat to the project, from both liability and credibility standpoints, than negative info on living persons that is poorly sourced. I think this problem deserves a group that is specifically focused on it alone. Crockspot 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard, we started that yesterday. I will appreciate help is formalizing a process for review, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I started the discussion page there. I'm not an admin, but I would be happy to help in any way that is appropriate. Crockspot 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

As a test case, I'm going to post a BLP conflict that is incapable of being mediated due to wikibreaks and people taking advantage of their right to disappear. I hope it works well. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff, that sounds a bit like disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wouldn't discussing the matter make more sense? (→Netscott) 17:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Been there, done that. I don't think it's a disruption, or making a point - it's trying to get a wide range of discussion since the issue isn't resolved and there's no mediation available. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well whatever it is don't be too surprised if people are erring on the side of caution while citing this policy and undoing whatever you're proposing. (→Netscott) 17:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, my hope is that this noticeboard can help alleviate whatever flaws the actual policy has. It's why we attempted mediation (and it took 6 weeks to get rolling, which is why it was unsuccessful), and why I'm taking it here - a review is certainly in order, and would certainly answer a lot of questions about its application in this example. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new page at Wikipedia:Libel-Protection_Unit. Enjoy, and lets start the ground floor on this. Electrawn 15:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Help

To whom do I turn for help on a page that contains possibly libelous material? Unverified personal accounts being taken as fact, factual events being misconstrued, etc. I've tried to edit the material out, but the page maker keeps putting it back. Thanks.Steviegee 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The process is just being set up now (see section above). Can you link the article here, and I will at least take a looksee. Crockspot 16:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out - Steven Greenberg (rabbi). I presume from your username that you are the subject of the article? The entire section was unsourced, with the exception of one source, from which a conclusion must be drawn to accept the statement in the article. (Which qualifies as Original Research). Therefore, I nuked the entire section. Crockspot 17:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a different Steve, see [22]. — CharlotteWebb 18:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding a link to the noticeboard on {{blp}}?

It'd be good to provide a link to the noticeboard via the BLP template so that editors who are in doubt or having difficulty with other editors can have a place to go. I invite other editors to join the discussion about this idea. Thanks. (→Netscott) 22:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Netscott. My comments were removed "per blp" from a talk page when they were merely part of a debate raging on a page. discussionBakaman _Bakatalk 23:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

How to Count Real Citation Numbers

On bios of scientists, some editors count number of citations toward assessing "Notability". Using citations on (say} Google scholar as a count is subject to gross artefacts.

E.g., unless both papers are actually posted as a journal article on the net (Science only does this back too about 1996), most cross-cites do not get picked up. A better count is derived by using "related articles" on http://pubmed.gov as a proxy or using citation index. E.g. Pubmed cites 96 articles related to a 1974 paper in Science, showing the first molecular electronic device. But, only a handful show up on a "Google Scholar" search.

An illustrative counter-example is the journal Stroke, where, unlike Science, full text articles back to the 1970's have been posted. With such articles, the number of citations showing on-line reasonably corresponds to "related articles" on Pubmed.gov.

E.g., for this this 1970's paper in Stroke, Google Scholar lists 100 citing articles. while Pubmed lists 89 associated articles. Not too far off, considering all the variables.Pproctor 00:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Threshold of reliability

At Talk:List of famous prostitutes and courtesans#Alleged male prostitutes, User:Crockspot and I are having a disagreement about the threshold of reliability required by WP:BLP. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that
1. Regardless of the caliber of a source, there must be multiple independent sources.
2. Those sources must not have any axe to grind.
And perhaps he is claiming something even more restrictive than that, which I'm not quite picking up.

I find the second requirement a bit troubling, because it is hard to say who does and does not have an axe to grind. In this case, the two sources I provided, which were rejected as inadequate, were:

1. An opinion piece, published in The Guardian in the UK, which states as fact that the individual in question was a prostitute. As most of you know, the UK has pretty much the world's toughest libel laws, so that if the individual had any intention of challenging this, then that was the ideal venue to do so
2. A piece (originally from The Nation, but reprinted on CBS's website) that says that the individual "apparently was seeking customers as a gay, military-oriented prostitute."

Since then another editor has found two articles from the Washington Post asserting, respectively, that the individual's "naked pictures have appeared on a number of gay escort sites" and that he "was offering his escort services for $200 an hour, or $1,200 a weekend".

So, if these don't add up to enough, I'm a bit bewildered. Is Crockspot correctly interpreting this rule? If so, I believe we have an enormous amount of material about living people that does not meet this level of citation, probably the bulk of it. - Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings Jmabel, I would recommend you post on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as well. (→Netscott) 00:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Template for User Talk warnings for violations of WP:BLP

I think it would be good to have a template with a message specifically for violations of this policy. I just reverted a large unsourced and highly POV edit, and was looking for a template to place on the offending user's talk page. The closest thing I could find is a general NPOV message, but I think it would be useful to stress the higher degree of importance on strict adherence to the NPOV policy required for BLPs. I would do it myself if I knew anything about making a template. Dansiman 02:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There are three already.

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--FloNight 02:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

These look like powerful medicine. Is a prescription required? (Are they only for admins to use?) Lou Sander 02:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (newbie)

I agree, these look like very stern warnings. I still wonder if a lesser version should also be created, one that doesn't include a threat of blocking. Also, I didn't see these in the list of templates when I was looking. Where (besides on this talk page) can these be found? Futhermore, in case anyone else comes across these I think it would be good to have the code for them listed here, so I will do that.

To put these messages on a user's talk page, use the code {{subst:blp1}}, {{subst:blp2}}, or {{subst:blp3}} Dansiman 03:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I almost never use templates of any kind. Especially with established users. I would not use these (or any template) to warn an established user. Much better to leave a friendly educational message about BLP and ask for cites. FloNight 04:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't use these with established users, but I think they're helpful to have around for newish ones, so long as it's not the sole means of communication. Perhaps the first one could be softened a little by removing that the user might be blocked, but retaining the link to the blocking policy to make clear that it's a serious warning. Lou, anyone may use these, not just admins, but it's important not to use them provocatively. Best to leave them for cases where you're reasonably sure the user is acting in bad faith. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, here is the edit I was referring to, which wa made by an anonymous IP with no prior edit history. What I wound up doing is to view the source for {{subst:Blp1}}, copy everything except for the message about blocking, and added a link to this policy page. Did I do ok? Dansiman 20:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting negative material

I'm not sure if this has been asked here before, so here I go: Unsourced negative material about a living person should be removed on sight. I don't have a problem with that. What I've seen since this became a policy tho was that admins not only removed negative material, but also deleted the correspondent edits, citing this policy. Am I missing a good reason why deleting negative material is better than just removing it? The only thing I can think of are people wanting negative material about them deleted, even from the history, but this was not the case in the situations I've witnessed. I don't really like the direction this is going. We should only delete edits when there is a really good reason to, not just because they contain something negative about someone. So, why is deleting better than removing? --Conti|✉ 00:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Conti, the reasoning is that, if it's possibly defamatory, we don't want it on any previous page versions, so it's deleted entirely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My point is, why do we have to delete this material even before anyone is complaining? Sure, we remove it, we want to have good and neutral articles, but why delete it? I can't find anything on BLP stating that we don't want negative stuff about someone in the page histories. --Conti|✉ 01:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's to stop it from being read by whoever looks through previous versions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I know, but why do we want that? Just out of fear that someone might sue the Wikimedia Foundation over it? --Conti|✉ 13:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

User X, seeing possibly deep pockets at Wikipedia and among Wikipedians, and seeing something viciously libelous/libellous in an old Wikipedia edit, might want to call his attorney, simultaneously making plans for world cruises, luxury automobile purchases, etc. (Not only that, but seeing the bad stuff would motivate him by outraging him). Lou Sander 15:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A much higher and more noble motive than fear of lawsuits seems to be used here:

• "Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia." Jimbo Wales -- Fyslee 20:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

So, we remove stuff from the history when we actually know that people are hurt by words, right? 90% of the people probably won't even find stuff when it's in the edit history. --Conti|✉ 23:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What if User X (above) is one of the 10%, and since you really, really, REALLY piss him off by continuing to print the other non-libelous stuff that makes his blood boil, he's looking, looking, LOOKING for a way to get back at you? Lou Sander 23:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Working Group Creation: Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit

Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP requires a higher wikipedia standard since the Siegenthaler Controversy in December 2005. Articles like these involve WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV It has been 6 months, and wikipedia still has hundreds of potentially libelious articles.

Many editors and even administrators are generally unaware of potential defamation either direct or via WP:NPOV. To help protect wikipedia, I feel a large working group of historians, lawyers, journalists, administrators and everyday editors is needed to rapidly enforce policies.

Concerned editors are invitedto join and particpate in a new working group, tenatively named Wikipedia:Libel-Protection Unit, a group devoted to WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL and WP:NPOV and active enforcement. Some of you are being personally invited via individual talk pages, please do not interpret not receiving one as an intentional exclusion! I look forward to seeing you there. Electrawn 16:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Photos of Political Figures

I've read through the various articles and am still unsure what rules apply to photos of political figures, especially those who don't have government photos of them. I'm more than willing to e-mail them for permission to use a photo or requesting a photo, but want to be sure I'll be doing everything right. --Tim4christ17 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Also note that the planned usage for these images would be for the subject's Wikipedia entry, as well as relevant Wikipedia articles and lists of politicians, campaigns, potential campaigns, and (possibly) political parties. --Tim4christ17 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The main thing is to make sure they explicitly release the image(s) as GFDL or PD. It's not really good enough for a subject to say "I authorize this photo for use on Wikipedia", since that would prohibit syndication of content.

I do wonder about exact verification procedures myself though. I recently obtained a photo of a biography subject who happens to be a Wikipedian. For that, I felt like the least ambiguous thing was to get him to upload the image himself, and just tell me the name. That way, the "self-made GFDL" option can be chosen. If I had simply gotten an email saying "Here it is, it's GFDL", I felt less comfortable about exactly what I should state on the image page when uploading the image.

On the other hand, I worked with a different biography subject to obtain some textual content recently also. In that case, I used (though also modified significantly) the text he provided; to document the origin (which happened to also be available at a URL), I quoted on the article talk page the relevant portion of our email exchange where the bio subject wrote "I authorize use of the text at <URL> under GFDL". That went to copyright review, and was OK'd. But I felt fuzzier on the exact procedure. And I'd feel even less certain about an image about which I had a similar discussion. LotLE×talk 18:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This kind of stuff is discussed better directly at WP:C with good reads at Wikipedia:Fair_use and/or Wikipedia:Example_requests_for_permission. Enjoy Electrawn 18:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A Little Study Guide

I do some work for one of the Washington Post companies. They required me to take a short interactive course on avoiding behavior that could lead to sexual harrassment claims. There was some online study material that included a number of examples, and a quiz before and after to measure how much I knew and had learned. Now that I've taken the course, the Post and I are both a bit better off.

It occurs to me that we might benefit from such a little course about BLP policies. It wouldn't have to be interactive, and if it included a quiz, editors could score it themselves.

Such a thing could be helpful to good faith editors who want to be sure their BLP work is in keeping with policy. Editors who seem not to follow policy could gently be advised to take the course. Nobody would need to know who took the course, did the quiz, or even looked at any of it.

If there's interest in the idea, I'd be happy to come up with a draft. Look HERE for a simple example. Lou Sander 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, Barriers to entry. Perhaps an example filled essay/style guide? Or maybe a Scientific management process specific to BLP. Electrawn 23:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A roadmap, not a barrier. Something between a one-paragraph nutshell and a seven-page policy that has links throughout and 16 "See also's" at the end. Lou Sander 23:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Essay or tutorial then. Like Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy or Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial. I'd like to establish a process/working group as well at WP:LPU, and have invited you personally to particpate. Electrawn 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)