Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 41

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42Archive 43→Archive 45

Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy for short-career porn stars

With reference to

considering

do people agree that a minor porn star (borderline WP-notable), who performed for a brief period of their life (brief, say < 5 years), especially if under a pseudonym, and if during the period of their public performances there was no mention of their non-porn-associated lives, past or future, family, etc, that after, say ~5 years, if they have disappeared from porn and any other public life, that they should then be considered a non-public person. This would mean that while articles may cover the person by their stage name, sleuthy discovery of sources for their real name and previous & future life should not justify inclusion of this material.

As someone notes, this would be counter to Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary, but this is a question of conservative BLP policy, not notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

  • No, they should not "be considered a non-public person", especially if they used a stage name (which is common in many forms of entertainment) during their career. I'm not sure that I've ever heard of any case of a public figure somehow becoming a "non-public person" after a specific length of time has passed.
We've had some illusion in the past at AfD about supposed individuals wanting to have their Wikipedia BLPs deleted in favor of their "moving on" after appearing in adult films, and I personally am open to deleting those kind of articles if the authenticity of those individuals can be determined by Wikipedia's existing process(es). Guy1890 (talk) 02:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I don't think Wikipedia should make special exceptions to long-standing policies for the express purpose of "keeping pornography out". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. Malik pretty much took the words right out of my mouth; but I also think this section arose because of my comment here. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 21:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • SmokeyJoe, two questions. First, are there any particular words that you'd like to see added? Second, can you give an example of what you mean? If the subject did not use her real name, no one should be digging around in primary sources to find it. That would be a policy violation. SarahSV (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
    • There is, unfortunately, a long and sordid history of the behaviour SmokeyJoe finds objectionable, although most of the time it's REVDEL'd or otherwise suppressed when it's spotted. This behaviour, however, has not been viewed as terribly serious by much of the community, as is reflected in the dreaful comments above. For an example, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AnonEMouse, where an editor who posted private information of a retired porn actress was nevertheless given admin status just a few months later. I first became involved in reviewing porn performer bios after I came across one where somebody had posted current "real name", employer, workplace, and telephone numbers for a long-retired porn actress, and it stayed in the article for over a year, without any RS for the claim that the person named was the actress. (It looked accurate, but was exactly the sort of "sleuthy" behaviour that SJ rightly wants to prohibit). It was, unhappily, restored quite a while back, and, unbelievably, one of the editors commenting above added/"improved" one of the primary source citations involved. This isn't encyclopedic content. This is aiding-and-abetting stalkers. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgette B (2nd nomination) is I think one example. This sort of thing has been going on for many years and I don't keep notes. As Hullaballoo notes above, whenever a case of a not-really-notable old inactive porn starlet comes up, where the best sources (non-independent) don't fully identify the subject, the result is "delete". The usual editors who support comprehensive coverage of all porn stars, as seen here and there, argue vehemently, lose the argument, but continue to argue unfailingly in each subsequent case. I don't know if the Bridgette B properly fits the case of a performer working under a pseudonym/stagename who retain anonymity of their true identity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Bridgette B appears to be an ongoing performer, and well associated with her real name, so this is not a good example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. It seems that once somebody has performed in pornography that they no longer get the benefits of the WP:BLP policy that applies to everybody else. The very people who claim to be defending porn actors are actually treating them as sub-human. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose inappropriate targeting of "porn", especially when the cutoff of what constitutes "porn" can be subjective/arbitrary in some cases. However you could always redraft it as "a question of conservative BLP policy, not notability" for all actors "who performed for a brief period of their life (brief, say < 5 years), especially if under a[n actor's guild name] or other pseudonym". HTH. Alsee (talk) 01:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Can one appeal to BLP to remove non-neutral "positive" material?

This part sounds very reasonable:
"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies."
if it is truly evenhanded with respect to POV. But is it? It seems to me that in practice a "BLP objection" is understood to mean an objection on the grounds that the material is overly negative with respect to the the biography subject, not overly positive. I think it would actually serve the purposes of the project, having as it does the principle of neutrality as a "pillar", to explicitly say that what's said here in this quote applies regardless of the POV taken.

The way that could be done is by adding "whether positive or negative" after "material about living persons" and by having the quoted section here followed by another statement that at the end of the day, neutrality has to be maintained, and for that I would suggest "All else equal a better sourced article is preferred over a less well sourced article even if the better sourced article puts the subject in a more negative light than the less well sourced article." This sentence could also just go wherever a reference to the ongoing importance of neutrality is made.

By way of example of why I think this is necessary, I was recently in a dispute with another editor who wanted material X out and material Y in even though by his own acknowledgement material X was better sourced. The ready explanation for this discrimination in favour of the more poorly sourced material was that this sort of discrimination is what BLP implies. My reaction, of course, was that one can't take this view without overriding WP:NPOV. There has to be a line after which BLP has been pushed too far and I think a good place to draw that line (if not even earlier) is when material is being excluded which if included would raise the average sourcing quality of the article.--Brian Dell (talk) 03:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

This seems redundant; the page summary already states, "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" and "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". I think that instances of editors not following the stated policy are better handled through Dispute resolution than adding more words to the policy. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The bias toward exclusion of material from BLPs is related to the goal of preserving subjects' privacy: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid [...] the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Therefore, I think that questions of where to draw the line beyond which the policy has been "pushed too far" need a larger forum than this talk page, for instance the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard and/or the Village pump. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there truly a "bias", though? It's long been my understanding that BLP can and should be applied and interpreted without any detraction from the obligation to not bias a Wikipedia article, per WP:NPOV. Eroding WP:NPOV should be a clear red line, in my view. Absent clearly drawing such a line, editors can - and in my experience do - reckon that WP:NPOV is of secondary consideration when it comes to biographies. A problem I have with WP:BLPN is that it often ends up being show of hands or beauty contest about a very specific concrete content issue as opposed to a forum for systematic analysis of what policy is and and should be. --Brian Dell (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
By bias, I was only referring to the emphasis in the policy on removing rather than adding content (when contested), not the type of content itself. The policy already stresses the importance of NPOV in biographical articles: "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research". Once again, dealing with breaches of neutrality in articles is really a matter of following the normal dispute resolution processes. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Why does this page exist, then, if any appeal to BLP policy could be reduced to an appeal to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR? I happen to think that BLP is, or ought to be, Indeed reducible to that but many editors disagree. I think the question of whether WP:NPOV is subordinate to WP:BLP ought to be settled at the policy writing level, not the individual case discussion level, for all the reasons why we have established policies in the first place as opposed to just "whatever consensus happens to be regarding the dispute".--Brian Dell (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This page exists because terrible BLPs damage actual living human beings and bring discredit on the project in ways that other poor quality articles do not. The Wikimedia Foundation rarely interferes in content matters except for the most important legal and ethical reasons. In 2009, they passed a resolution on Biographies of living people and we are obligated to comply fully. As for WP:BLPN, it is a place to discuss specific issues concerning specific biographies, and is not a forum for discussing broader philosophical issues about applying policies and guidelines to biographies of living people. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Nothing here implied that "any appeal to BLP policy could be reduced to an appeal to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR". Nor is it accurate to talk about one Wikipedia policy being "subordinate" to another since they are intended to be complementary. However, I would say once again that any major questions about the intent of relationship between different policies belong in a different forum, such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). —Coconutporkpie (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"See also" section

According to Further reading, External links, and See also, '"See also" links should not be used to imply any contentious categorization or claim about a living person'. Might this be more succinctly expressed as implying guilt by association? Also, might categorization be replaced with the simple label? More explanation of "See also" links would be helpful too. I would suggest adding a link to the Manual of Style, as in the following:

"See also" links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply guilt by association, or to imply any contentious label or claim regarding a living person.

—Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest a simpler expansion of the wording: "... to imply any contentious categorization, association, or claim regarding...". I also agree that "See also" links must say "See also" links and sections, for fear of wikilawyering. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
By the way, many other templates may be abused in this way. For example, {{for|other idiots|Idiot}} or a navbox {{racial conflicts}} may by appended. Therefore IMO the policy should to distinguish two things: external pointers (ext links, Further reading, unused references, etc.) and internal pointers. External pointers should not lead to unreliable contentious sources. While internal pointers should not be used is a WP:SYNTH way. And the language must use the generic wording, again, for fear of wikilawyering, to cover all bases. For example, ext links may be embedded, rather than in "External links" sections. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I think the preceding suggestion works; however, I still think that contentious categorization is a bit stiff. Judging by the number of Google search results, it seems more natural to speak of labeling people[1] than categorizing people[2]. Granted, Wikipedia topics, including people, are organized by category. But since things in a given category are naturally associated with one another, and since categories are identified with labels, I think something like "...to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim..." would be sufficiently generic.
Since "See also" sections by definition contain "See also" links, I think the wording I used above covers all the bases, so to speak. Therefore, I propose:
"See also" links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person, and must adhere to Wikipedia's policy of No original research.
—Coconutporkpie (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Since no objections have been raised to the above wording in the last 5 days, I inserted it into the policy here. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Does this article fall under the purview of this WP?

List of people who disappeared mysteriously - I see a lot of folk being added to this list, sometimes without reference and sometimes with fetails that would seem to paint the disappeared person in a poor light. Does the article have to conform to BLP? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

It does. All of wikipedia needs to do that. Feel free to dispose of anything unreferenced or otherwise in violation of BLP. Qoute WP:BLP. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
In that case, could a few people who are pretty nifty at BLPs visit the article? We're having issues with deciding who to include and who to exclude.
As the article is titled 'people who disappeared mysteriously,' there have been removals of suspected murderers and criminals serving life sentences vanishing, (like Lord Lucan and a few others). The idea is that someone who is accused or a pretty horrific crime, or is serving a life sentence would be inclined to vanish of their own accord. By contrast, most of the article notes those who disappeared suddenly and unexpectedly (ie. had no apparent reason to vanish). Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Another warning template for BLP

I've proposed to create another (focusing on just not being relevant rather than just unsourced) User warning template regarding this here Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#WP:NOT_and_WP:BLP but got no response. Would appreciate any feedback. ({{ping}} me if replying here) Ugog Nizdast (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

How does X work?

I would like to write a biography of a living person who is an artist and has been attaining recognition locally, regionally and internationally especially this past year. Can you assist me or offer some guidelines on mhy writing this article. VincyVoice (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

This talk page is for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons project page. Scottyoak2 (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche (commonly called Jiacuo or Gyatso Rinpoche), a Tulku of the Zhaga Temple, was born in Garzê Prefecture, Sichuan Province, in 1980. He entered the Larung Gar Buddhist Academy at the age of 13, where he was ordained by Khenpo Jigme Phuntsok, under whom he carried out the listening, contemplation and cultivation of the esoteric teachings until his master’s passing. He then continued his studies under Lama Akhyuk Rinpoche at the Yarchen Gar Monastery in Baiyu County, where he received the Dzogchen teaching and was fully ordained in his lineage. For over a decade, Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche has travelled across Tibet, seeking the Dharma at various temples and monasteries. In 2005, he began studies at Minzu University in Beijing, followed by studies in religious education theory at the religious education department of Peking University. He has dedicated his life to the transmission of Buddhist teachings and the revival of ethnic culture, engaging in charity work to promote education and development in poor rural regions. Gyatso Rinpoche is the founder of the Compassionate Love Fund (Ci’ai Jijin), and promoter of the “Cloud Prayer Hall” and “Buddhism at Home.” He is one of the most influential religious leaders of his generation, and is particularly adept at the use of new digital media for the transmission of Buddhist teachings. The media have called him a “missionary in a spiritual desert” and a “new leader for the era.” Yingxu (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: And? 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 18:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

"Seemingly contradictory" judgments

I'm not sure what this means (particularly "that do not override each other"), or what the point of it is, so I'm thinking of removing it (from BLPCRIME):

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other,[1] include all the explanatory information.

  1. ^ An example of this situation is the O. J. Simpson murder case, where the former footballer O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the crime of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was found liable of their wrongful death in a civil trial two years later.

SarahSV (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • An appeals ruling overturning a criminal conviction in a lower court "overrides" that conviction. But the finding of liability against Simpson in the civil proceeding doesn't "override" the not-guilty finding in the earlier criminal trial, because they operate under different rules of evidence and different standards of proof, and have different purposes. The current text doesn't explain this very well, but it's an important point. It should be improved (I'm not volunteering just now) not removed. EEng 01:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking at the original edit, I think the copy-edit made it less clear ("include all the explanatory information"). I think the original edit might have meant: "Don't call someone an X where there are multiple judgments. Instead, explain the whole thing clearly".
    I still can't really see the point of mentioning it, though. "Be very clear when things are complicated"? SarahSV (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
But this is an especially frequently misunderstood concept in a critical area, which is why it should be called out. For example, it's easy for people to think that "Simpson was found guilty at a later trial." Again, the text is opaque but it should remain as a placeholder until some inspired soul comes along to improve it. EEng 01:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I would do that if I knew what it was trying to say. Check that convictions haven't been overturned, and don't confuse criminal and civil cases? It's the kind of thing that might be in a guideline. For a policy to discuss it, there has to be some principle that needs to be emphasized. I haven't seen editors get confused by civil v criminal. SarahSV (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What makes a person a public figure after the are suspected of committing a crime

There is a debate at Talk:2017 Chicago torture incident#Names of suspects and a related RFC at Talk:2017 Chicago torture incident#RfC on WP:BLPCRIME regarding what constitutes a public figure in relation to a crime. WP:BLPCRIME says For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. It then links to WP:WELLKNOWN as an exception WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN.

Both of these policies link to the wikipedia article Public figure, suggesting that the description there is what we use to define a public figure. I personally think this is problematic as there is much stricter control over policies (i.e. they take a significant effort to change) whereas anyone can edit the linked Wikipedia article. The article itself is poor (it has two orange tags at the top and is only a stub) and cannot be considered a reliable source on what a public figure is.

I think that the link to public figure should be removed and a better description of what makes someone well known is added. AIRcorn (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

From the public figure article:

A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established...

is being used to suggest that previously unknown individuals that commit are accused of committing high-profile crimes can become WP:Wellknown. AIRcorn (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Commit? -- or accused? Which are you talking about? EEng 23:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
accused AIRcorn (talk) 07:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposing addition to WP:BLPCRIME - People accused of crime - section

Proposing to add a sentence to "People accused of crime" to read.

  • Proposal: However, persons formally identified by police as suspects in notable and highly publicized crimes crime can be and usually are identified and discussed on Wikipedia even if they were not public figures previously.
I welcome feedback, suggestions on proper wording.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I oppose any weakening of the current conservative approach. Accused persons shouldn't be named until withholding their name impairs the reader's ability to understand the case. Legal cases take many a strange turn from accusation to conviction. EEng 20:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Omitting names is not, in fact, our our current approach. Our current approach is to name arrested perpetrators in crimes sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. You have repeatedly asserted that we withhold such names, but brought no example where this has been done. It is not, in fact, our "current... approach" at all. quite the opposite.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Cool your jets, cowboy. My only contributions to this discussion have been the two you can see right here above, so I have no idea what you mean by, "You have repeatedly asserted that we withhold such names". Anyway... The current text reads,
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through judicial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, [footnote omitted] include all the explanatory information.
and that certainly suggests a conservative approach. EEng 21:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
my error, I conflated you with another editor. I apologize. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That's OK, I've had the air let out of me lots of times before. EEng 21:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I am trying to bring the text of the page as currently written into like with standard practice on Wikipedia, because guidelines and practice should be in concert.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a policy -- so it's the other way around. I think at this point the thing to do is to wait for others to comment. EEng 21:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
No. WP policies are writtn by humans, and are re-written with some frequency, as per consensus. In this case, the consensus in actual practice has been to include such names.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
EEng, can you give examples of the name of the accused in a notorious crime being kept off a page? Because in every I can remember or have found by checking lists of crimes in 2016, 2015, the accused is named long before conviction, in the cases I have looked at, named when charged with the crime. And I edit crime regularly.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
No I can't, because I don't do much editing of such articles. I just think a conservative approach is best, especially at early stages of a case e.g. mistaken identifications do happen. Again, I think we should wait to hear what others think now. EEng 21:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of the change and support the current wording quoted by EEng. Whether that's what people are doing or not, it's what editors should be doing because it's the more ethical standard. I'm particularly motivated by the spirit of WP:BLP: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Unless the names are particularly important to understanding the case at hand, or unless they're notable enough in their own right to be able to link to an article about them (in which case this policy doesn't apply) editors should consider not adding names until a conviction is secured. Wikipedia is not the news and there's no deadline, so there's no compelling reason the names of people who are presumably innocent cannot wait to be added until guilt is established. The purpose of BLP is not only to avoid legal prosecution, but to introduce editorial ethics and guidelines for editorial discretion so that not every claim about a person is included and that sensitivity and judgement can be exercised to protect the reputation and privacy rights of people. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not in favor of this either, basically per Wugapodes, it will be interpreted as 'name, names' regardless of circumstance, and one of the points of BLP is 'think long and hard' Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

  • I do see the problem being identified by the editors above. However, I also see a problem with having a rule that is so widely disregarded that several editors who regularly edit high-profile crime articles have expressed their surprise upon discovering that it is a rule. It's never good to have rules that are routinely ignored. Therefore, I am proposing new phrasing.

New proposal

However, in a handful of cases, persons formally identified by police as suspects in extraordinarily notable and widely publicized crimes crime are identified and discussed on Wikipedia even though they were not public figures previously.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

E.M.Gregory, can you say where you want that to fit in? BLPCRIME says:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through judicial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other,[1] include all the explanatory information.

  1. ^ An example of this situation is the O. J. Simpson murder case, where the former footballer O. J. Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the crime of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman, but was found liable of their wrongful death in a civil trial two years later.
SarahSV (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand the last sentence and the point of the Simpson example.
As for the proposal, it's covered by some words in public figure: "A person can become an 'involuntary public figure' as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes ..." We could add a footnote to that effect here, or some words to WP:WELLKNOWN. SarahSV (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Some of the problems lie with recent edits. [3][4] They introduced the American legal concept of a public figure, which means the policy now looks as though it's at odds with what happens on WP. SarahSV (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
    The issue I have is that public figure is a a poorly developed wikipedia article, so it is likely that someone in perfectly good faith and with no real interest or knowledge in BLP could make major changes to it and in doing so unintentionally change the meaning of a pretty important policy. As I said above I do not think it is wise to link to it as editors are taking it as being part of this policy. I would prefer to go back to the relatively unknown people description and then just use a footnote (ideally with some examples of people that can be included and those that can't) to further expand on what relatively unknown means. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    I agree. I'm going to restore what was there before those edits, because that was a significant change that has left the policy at odds with what actually happens on Wikipedia. Of course we do name people accused of prominent crimes if the police name them, because at that moment they're no longer "relatively unknown". But are they "public figures"? I have no idea. SarahSV (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
    Pinging @Jehochman: who made the change a year ago. AIRcorn (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Somebody does not become a "public figure" by being named by the police. No, a public figure is somebody who intentionally puts themselves in the public spotlight, like a politician or an executive of a major corporation, an entertainer, or a professional sports figure. Jehochman Talk 13:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Jehochman, that's completely untrue. What do they teach you at Yale? Victims and accused in notorious cases, mothers of quintuplets, and all kinds of other people can become public figures involuntarily. (I'm not saying that WP does, or should, contour its guidelines/policies to that wide definition, just that that's the reality of the legal situation in the US.) EEng 17:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
That was how I first read the use of public figure, but the linked article supports Engs added definition. I am even more convinced now that this needs changing back as it is causing confusion rather than clarity. AIRcorn (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Blog

According to the close it is a blog. See "After having read this RFC and the applied policy in question, the current wording of BLPSPS is worded such that this blog post is not a violation of policy as those answering no to the question argue".[5] Where does WP:BLPSPS state a blog post is not a violation of BLP? I am curious. QuackGuru (talk) 13:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

  • You two do realize no one here has any idea what you're talking about, right? If one of you is proposing a change to this guideline, then do so; otherwise, this isn't helping anything. EEng 21:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It relates to a recently closed RFC. Consensus was found that it was appropriate to use a self published source in a BLP as it was being used to question the persons conclusions, not material about them. The general argument from those opposed seems to be that BLPSPS prevents the use of a blog in any BLP. Both sides generally quoted similar parts of the policy, namely Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see #Using the subject as a self-published source). So as for a change, I think that maybe this difference of interpretation needs clarifying here. If BLPSPS prohibits any SPS being used in a BLP article then we should say that straight up. If it allows some SPS's to be used as long as they don't get personal then we should probably say that. At the moment it could be read either way, which might be fine if we want to leave it open to a case-by-case discussion. When I have noticed this being an issue it is almost always in cases where WP:Parity applies, so maybe an exception along that line is all that is needed. AIRcorn (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Well summarized. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Surname use at Katherine Johnson article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Katherine Johnson#WP:SURNAME (permalink here). The issue is whether or not we should use Johnson's maiden name for some parts of the article and her surname for other parts of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox person/Wikidata

There's a deletion discussion about Infobox person/Wikidata that could affect BLPs, in case anyone here is interested. SarahSV (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Citizenship, Immigration stutus, & BLP poicies

In the past week, a reference to Stephen Wolfram's recently-granted US citizenship was removed from his entry via a good-faith edit. I have reverted it and used a Wolfram Alpha link to document his citizenship awaiting better documentation. Wolfram is, in fact, a dual national.

This edit raises an important BLP issue under current political circumstances. I propose that, as an emergency temporary measure, that BLP policy discourage edits that remove references to the subject's US citizenship or legal immigration status, as such edits might cause the subjects of these entries difficulties with international travel.

What is the right place to make a formal proposal for such a policy change? --Pleasantville (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I wish I could laugh at the idea that Wikipedia articles might be used as evidence at the border. EEng 14:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

What do we do with articles that are using WP:WELLKNOWN

After reading through the above section on who is or isn't WP:WELLKNOWN, the only article I can find where this is being applied is 2017 Chicago torture incident. So clearly something needs to be done to apply Wikipedia policy in a consistent manner. What do we do with articles such as 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, Shooting of Benjamin Marconi, 2016 New York and New Jersey bombings, 2016 Russell Square stabbing, and Franklin Regional High School stabbing? In most of these, if not all, the suspect is less well known than the suspects and the torture case.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Another to add to the list... Quebec City mosque shooting. Again, still looking for a solution to this issue.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2017

I would like the sentence "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." changed to "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome accident or crime." 128.62.60.136 (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please discuss this change first, in a new topic and get a consensus to see if "accident" should be added. Once a consensus is reached, someone can either modify or you can add an edit request. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Donald Trump

There is currently a discussion on Talk:Donald Trump concerning the size of the article and the possibility of splitting it up. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I tamped down my topic headline to eliminate the appearance of a formal RFC but the discussion is still live at (Not an) emergency: Dividing the "Donald Trump" article. I still feel the proposal has merit, otherwise we might have to live with POV-forks for the next four years. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: RfC

Notice: RfC at WP:VPR#RfC: First sentence of BLP articles. J947 18:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017 Mark A. Lawson

2607:FCC8:BE51:A700:B584:F11C:54B1:8A66 (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Not done: This is not the right page to request edits on biographies of living persons. The page you requested does not exist. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 08:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Mental health of a subject

I would like a general opinion on whether it is appropriate for an article to include commentary about, or evaluation of, a public figure’s mental health – provided the commentary is done by professionals in the field and reported in Reliable Sources. The case in point is this discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#Health section. MelanieN alt (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Clearly - it was rev deld - we can't even look at Freds additions User:Fred Bauder - (cur | prev) 06:14, 15 February 2017‎ Fred Bauder (talk | contribs)‎ . . (324,311 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (edit summary removed)- (cur | prev) 06:12, 15 February 2017‎ Fred Bauder (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (324,305 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (edit summary removed) - (cur | prev) 06:11, 15 February 2017‎ Fred Bauder (talk | contribs)‎ . . (324,301 bytes) (+1,353)‎ . . (edit summary removed) - so it's clearly wikipedia policy and guideline violating addition. This type of desired attacking content in a living persons biography is partisan editing in total violation of multiple core wikipedia policy. Has he had official health concerns that have been treated by doctors, no - opinionated chit chat about his mental heath whether reported in "reliable sources" should not be repeated here by experienced contributors in a living persons biography, we are requested to report conservatively and with caution. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Concur with Govindaharihari. Mental health stigma exists and this sounds like making the subject guilty by association. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The only valid source regarding any person's mental health is a qualified medical professional who has examined that person, and in those cases such a diagnosis falls under the category of privileged information. Any other "opinion" is invalid under the law in any event. Collect (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If someone has spoken about their own diagnosis or treatment, perhaps, but it does seem quite impossible that we could even begin to mention it, otherwise. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Wrong place to discuss this, and the responses are full of errors. Take into account that this falls under WP:PUBLICFIGURE and that Wikipedia editors are not in the position to classify comments in multiple high quality reliable source as "valid" or not (ping Collect). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
This is not the wrong place to discuss this, as this is a matter of BLP and the request was made for opinions in this matter. That being said, Alanscottwalker and Collect hit the nail on the head with their responses. Not to mention, in this specific case, it is simply WP:UNDUE.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that they ignore scientific fields such as psychopathography and the very clear fact that psychiatric diagnosis is not invalid just because is wasn't performed face-to-face. The Goldwater rule is a esoteric American rule and has nothing to do with the validity of diagnosis. The diagnostic criteria spell this out very clearly, and this is made abundantly clear by sources on the subject. E.g.: [6] [7] [8] etc. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
If you can find any professional medical group anywhere which supports the position that a person can be diagnosed with a medical disease or defect by a person who does not examine them, please tell us. I believe telepathic diagnosis of disease is not currently accepted. Collect (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Sure; easy. This group. hth --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Ping Collect — actually, the DSM-criteria are written to allow "remote diagnosis", and many of the criteria detailed in DSM require no direct involvement by the psychiatrist at all. There are of course caveats, but the reason the comments are contentious is not because they are invalid per se, but that the Goldwater rule binds members of the APA (but not members of international psychiatric associations) to not comment out of ethical concerns. Wikipedia does not need to abide by the Goldwater rule (and should not per WP:GLOBAL), and there is no need for "telepathy" to be able to correctly categorize behavior that can be seen and judged remotely. Psychiatrists don't mind-read, neither remotely nor when the patient is in the office so the comparison to telepathy comes off as somewhat absurd... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 04:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
No, while WELLKNOWN can support inclusion of facts of a living persons life, it does not support inclusion of controversial opinions about their private information, which mental health diagnosis or treatment falls under. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Exactly.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 23:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Which is of course why no-one is suggesting that the article read "X has narcissistic personality disorder", but rather that "a number of psychiatrists wrote a joint letter questioning the mental health of X. This was heavily disputed and gave rise to a debate about Y." Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 04:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
First of all, the letter also includes social workers, who do not diagnose, and such a letter runs afowl of WP:REDFLAG and WP:UGC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
If anyone is counting votes, my recommendation is that topic bans or blocks should be applied to those who continue to push the view that the article should include speculation about mental health—it's nonsense and disruptive, particularly in a topic under discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure that is necessary, as this really does violate WP:BLP, specifically:

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

There really is never going to be a valid source for this information, unless it's on a person like Carrie Fischer, who was an advocate for a topic like this. This whole topic reeks of political agenda and is pretty clearly a violation of not only the above mention WP:BLP, but it is also FRINGEY and WP:UNDUE.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that doesn't apply when 50+ credible and reliable sources discuss the topic. This isn't about whether it should be in the article or even whether there is any BLP issue — because calling all of the sources that discuss this "unreliable" is frankly ridiculous and none of those arguments hold even a smidgen of weight when the NY-Times, Washington Post, Salon, The Atlantic, The Hill etc. have all commented on the issue. See:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

You can't just call any source of information that is contentious — unreliable. All of the sources I listed above have a long history of reliability. This does not mean that this per definition must belong in the article, but a BLP-issue it is not and any attempt to misconstrue it as one isn't going to work in the long run. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 02:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Where did I say the sources were unreliable? Also, it is a BLP issue, as the subject in question is a living person, and this is in relation to a biography on that living person. This is still, again, WP:UNDUE so this whole conversation in specifics to Donald Trump is really irrelevant.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree that there may be many reasons to omit this, and that it very well may be WP:UNDUE. But the fact that the stance is politically loaded isn't a relevant reason for omission — if all Democrats went out and said that Donald Trump was mentally ill then it would be a non-issue to include it because it was so widely voiced. This is just so central to WP:NPOV: that we always present all significant sides of the issue. The point is not that this information actually belongs in the article, but that you can't misuse BLP to omit sourced information. There are plenty of reasons why it doesn't belong. But BLP is only a reason to be more careful, but as long as there are sources WP:SHOUTINGBLP isn't good for the discussion — because BLP specifically outlines that with sources abound BLP is not an issue. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 02:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
But this is the issue with this. If you had the subjects doctor saying that this was the case, then that is a good source for inclusion. But, due to HIPPA laws in the US, for this specific case, you are not going to have that source. Otherwise, these are just opinions given by reporters, which really detracts from the sources validity as a source for this subject. It wouldn't be hard to find multiple blogs or articles from sources that say these sorts of things about all sorts of people, it doesn't make them true, or verifiable. Not everything published by reliable sources, is a valid source for inclusion. Also, a politically motivation is a relevant reason for omission, when it comes down to being WP:FRINGE or not.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
HIPPA isn't relevant, that has to do with physician-patient confidentiality. Where your argument fails is that it assumes that indirect diagnosis is invalid or that it isn't possible to examine someone without conducting a face-to-face exam. This is in fact false and the DSM definitions make that abundantly clear. This misconception is based on the Goldwater rule, which is an ethical rule of the American Psychiatric Association and not legally enforceable, nor does it have anything to do with the validity of diagnosis. Most of the psychiatrists in the world are not members of the APA and thus not bound by the rule (or similar rules, as it is rather unique), and an entire field of psychopathography exists outside the very narrow anglosphere debate. Anyway, this isn't about "multiple blogs" — the mentions are in major sources, some of which are very highly regarded. However this is beside the issue of BLP, and more about a content-dispute so I suggest you discuss that on the page at hand to avoid repetition. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 04:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The topic as raised is, indeed, a valid issue under WP:BLP and was properly raised here as a generally valid point for all such biographies. I would note that this is not just an APA ethical rule, but that courts in general do not allow testimony from medical professionals based on "distant examination" but require direct contact with the person being diagnosed. As far as I can tell, by the way, this is true in most nations, including member states of the EU. Collect (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I will admit that your comment peaked my interest, but I can't seem to verify it. In all the forensic psychiatry books I've looked at there is no mention that "distant examination" is invalid as testimony. Rather the psychiatrist is instructed to take into account the full breadth of evidence in the trial to make an assessment — and this of course includes material that he/she does not directly pick up during examination.
Rather the question is why an expert opinion would be necessary if there was no way to examine the patient. A large part of the reason why testimony is given at all is in order to establish whether an individual is fit to stand trial. If there are factors that inhibit even a cursory examination of the individual there seems to be little reason why an expert statement would be at all necessary. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC) 

My original, redacted, post is about whether the standard diagnostic criteria used in the United States apply to Donald Trump's unusual behavior and speculations by mental health professionals about it. They do not, in the opinion of the psychiatrist who chaired the development of those criteria. Whether there are other criteria which might be applied, for example, by the intelligence services of other states remains an open question. As does our ability to access and publish such information. Certainly, one reason for BLP policy, avoiding ruinous litigation, is relevant. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with Collect here that a "distant" mental health examination is not at all appropriate to include, even as BLP-meeting opinion, in Donald Trump#Health. But one should recognize that there absolutely is a political tie to why these doctors are trying to make these evaluations (as a pretense to declaring the President unfit,and that all comes to recognize it is part of the criticism of Trump as president. If we had a article or section about "Critical of the Trump presidency", then a statement that "Some elected officials are seeking to have Trump's mental health evaluated in serving his role as President. Several psychiatrists have made "distant examinations" of the President's recent actions and state there are signs of mental health issues..." which does reflect the weight of the BLP, but in a section that it is clear this is not yet a factual evaluation makes sense for the balance purposes. In other words, it seems as reasonable information as long as it is well established it is related to the political issues, and absolutely not an fact that should be on his bio page. --MASEM (t) 14:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I think this is the perfect summary of the issue, and the answer to the issue.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 02:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: See [9] from Cornell Law School. (Federal Rules of Evidence › ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY) "The first is the firsthand observation of the witness, with opinions based thereon traditionally allowed. A treating physician affords an example. Rheingold, The Basis of Medical Testimony, 15 Vand.L.Rev. 473, 489 (1962). Whether he must first relate his observations is treated in Rule 705."

[10] (Medical Testimony and the Expert Witness Joseph D. Piorkowski, Jr., DO, JD, MPH, FCPM, FCLM ) "When an expert is called upon to give an opinion as to past events which he did not witness, all facts related to the event which are essential to the formation of his opinion should be submitted to the expert in the form of a hypothetical question. No other facts related to the event should be taken into consideration by the expert as a foundation for his opinion. The facts submitted to the expert in the hypothetical question propounded on direct examination must be supported by competent substantial evidence in the record at the time the question is asked or by reasonable inferences from such evidence." Which rather restricts claims of medical diagnoses based entirely on hearsay rather than direct personal observation. "Experts" who testify without a strong evidentiary basis tend not be ever hired again.

From Notre Dame Law School [11], (Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis, and the Credibility of Witnesses David B. Saxe) "It has been suggested that clinical examination of witnesses is the most reliable basis for psychiatric opinion introduced into the courtroom."0 The clinical examination by a psychiatrist involves a study of the subject as a "psychobiological whole"; physical and mental examination, aided by psychoanalytical technique and psychological testing devices, is necessary to evaluate an individual's total personality. The disclosure of mental abnormalities can be accomplished through the use of a proper psychiatric interview, noninquisitorial in nature, that will provide some insight into the behavior of the witness. Requiring a witness to submit to lengthy examination, while clinically desirable, is not the ideal manner of uncoveriig intrapsychic processes. We do not live in an ideal world, and less than perfect means of providing answers must be utilized. A more abbreviated psychiatric examination, reinforced by other biographical data, would enable a psychiatrist to present a meaningful, although not complete, diagnosis of the prospective witness. This procedure would allow a court or jury to make a more realistic evaluation of the testimonial credibility of a witness." Noting that a clinical diagnosis requires a "physical and mental examination" which is not likely to be found in newspapers. "In another study, psychiatric residents anticipated fifty-five percent of the official subtype diagnoses correctly.' 4 The study appeared to show "that the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis diminishes as the frequency of the incidence decreases."" " Which means that diagnoses, under ideal circumstances, amount to tossing a coin (55% correct to 45% incorrect in the example given). More on request. Collect (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Be careful what Wikipedia says about anybody. We only have Reliable Sources and if ALL of these are publishing what they have been told and if what they are told (or how they choose to interpret and publish what they are told) is nonsense, then nonsense is all we have to report... waiting to create, delete, amend or otherwise change Wikipedia's text never hurts anyone — Iadmc♫talk  22:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC) — Iadmc♫talk  22:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Diminutives

I'd like to RfC about diminutives. Once and for all, I think we need a ruling, if there isn't one now. I see on articles left and right such as Tim Tebow, Ron Simmons, or Bill Buckner that include (or have included) diminutives. Tebow's reading Timothy Richard "Tim" Tebow, Simmons' reading Ronald "Ron" Simmons, and Buckner's (pending RfC) William Joseph Buckner. I think diminutives shouldn't be included. The first time I got involved with diminutives was an article named Dave (something or other). His name read David "Dave" *last name*. I think it's rather clear diminutives of this sort are neither not needed nor constructive, if anything they are redundant. So, I would like to ask your opinions here. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 20:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I think there was already a discussion about this here. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I remember, but people need to make it known. I'm tired of removing them to get them re-added. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 21:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a discussion pertaining to WP:BLP1E at WP:Village pump (policy)#Clarifications about WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E and terror attacks. Thanks, ansh666 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Separating corporate acts from corporate officers

I have come across a number of instances where information is presented (usually in a negative light) about actions attributed to a corporation or business entity on the page of a person related to the entity, but either not directly connected to the action at issue. For example:

Example 1. Bob is the CEO of Bobcorp, selling Bob's Organic Carrot Juice. One day, a reporter calls Bobcorp and speaks to employee Alice, who makes a claim to the investigator that Bob's Organic Carrot Juice is the cure for cancer. The reporter visits a Bobcorp distribution outlet and notices employee Fred improperly using a customer's credit card information to buy herself a flat screen TV. The reporter publishes an article noting that 1) Bob is the CEO of Bobcorp, and 2) Bobcorp employee Alice made a false claim about a Bobcorp product, and 3) Bobcorp employee Fred stole a credit card number. The article does not assert that Bob was responsible for Alice's claim, or Fred's theft.
Answer 1. It would be a BLP violation to discuss these incidents in the article on Bob, as the inclusion implies a responsibility on Bob's part that is not supported by the source.
Example 2. Bobcorp receives an FDA warning letter, addressed to Bob as CEO, with respect to claims made by the company about Bob's product.
Answer 2. It would be a BLP violation to include this letter in the article on Bob, as the FDA addresses letters to company CEO's per a bureaucratic rule, and not based on a theory of individual liability on the part of the letter recipient. A real world example would be the FDA warning letter issued to Whole Foods Market in the past year, but not mentioned on the pages of Whole Foods Market co-CEOs John Mackey and Walter Robb, despite both of them being named in the address block of the letter.

Are these principles, and these examples, useful for inclusion on this page? bd2412 T 16:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The FDA letter may well bear on Bob's conduct as a CEO, and that would have to be considered for his biography. It's by no means open & shut that it would not appear. Take Martin Shkreli as an extreme case: his alleged immoral deeds would seem to be pertinent. Or Tony Hayward, who will be forever associated with Deepwater Horizon ... and in his case one might consider this an instance of your example A if you take the view that this was a subcontractor screwing up. The best we can say is that your examples are not very helpful in establishing what are the limits of the inclusion of events that have some relationship to the subject, in the subject's article. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I can't imagine a scenario where we would include reference to the FDA letter with the letter itself being the sole source, or with other sources referencing the letter not also referencing the article subject's connection to it. In Shkreli's case, for example, very reliable sources very directly connect him to the FDA's actions with respect to his company. My basic concern here is that articles on individuals connected to companies (even company CEOs) not be used as coatracks for criticism of the company or its products, unless reliable sources connect that criticism to the actual person. bd2412 T 22:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
THat's a jolly good basic concern to have. The other basic concern to have is that we should not whitewash individuals biographies: there are circumstances, to come back to your title question, where it is reasonable to mention corporate acts on the biods of the executives who had responsibility for those actions. And I say again, and for the last time, that your examples do not advance our understanding of which situations merit a mention, and which do not. You ask "Are these principles, and these examples, useful for inclusion on this page?". I answer: no, for the foregoing reasons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Could you provide some examples that you think would illustrate situations where a CEO or comparable corporate officer should not have information about company/employee acts included in their personal bio? bd2412 T 01:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
BD2412, I generally agree with your perspective on what is and is not appropriate in such cases, but I am unsure if new rule-making is needed. Where reliable sources cover the person's involvement in the affair to a noteworthy extent, inclusion to that extent is entirely appropriate. Otherwise, it looks to me like existing policies and guidelines are sufficient to rule out most kinds of coatracking, innuendo, and synthesis of this sort. Can you point to some specific examples of extant articles where existing policy has not been sufficient to resolve this to your satisfaction, or where it has been unduly contentious due to lack of clear policy? Is there some specific, succinct language that you think would lend clarity? ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sure I can find some examples. I've had my mind on articles with excessive "criticism" and "controversy" sections for a while now, and these are just some things that I have noticed from time to time. bd2412 T 22:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

Til next year
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I want tomato sauce! I want tomato sauce!

WP:BLP → WP:BLT

Publishing names/birthdates of non-notable minor children

I seem to recall from a few years back that editors were generally discouraged from publishing the names/birthdates of non-notable minors in articles. For example {{Infobox person}} seems to non-committaly prefer the use of a number in |children= as the instructions weakly request "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless notable." Is there a community concern that we try to protect the names and birthdates of non-notable minors, or has that been widely opposed? Either way, I think I'd like to get some clarification in the BLP guidelines, please. Actors and other celebrities often release this information via press releases and Twitter posts, so I could see strong arguments for "well, if they don't care about privacy, why should we"... Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I have, for years, only listed the number of children, unless any are notable, in which case I use "number; including *insert name*". (The child's name of course being linked.) (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 14:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
I would support removal of the nonsense "please consider..." from the docs, but they do say "Number of children (e.g., three or 3), or list of names if notable". I am among the many who interpret that as written—a notable child should be listed with a blue link; others are only counted. If someone added a red link I would be inclined to revert with WP:WTAF as edit summary. Certainly there would need to be secondary source asserting notability—the opinion of an editor is not relevant. This issue has been raised at WP:BLPN in the past. Johnuniq (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your input, Crash and Johnuniq. I guess what I'm complaining about is both the wishy-washy language as well as the lack of consistency between the infobox instructions and WP:BLP. If the community doesn't want us to add the names of non-notable minors in the infobox in order to protect the children's privacy, there should be a parallel discouragement at WP:BLP. Otherwise, what's the point? Privacy is protected in the infobox, but not in the article body? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The relevant section in WP:BLP is WP:BLPNAME and it is wishy washy—of course an enthusiast adding the full name and birthday of a celebrity's new baby is doing it with what they think is "caution", and they have a host of sources. Unfortunately, tightening language is tricky because it might rule out exceptions and people don't like that. I'm afraid I don't have a suggestion. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
It's difficult because celebrity parents name the children, often with dates of birth, and newspapers pick it up, so the argument is that Wikipedia looks odd omitting details that are easily available. SarahSV (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, it is also the case that the such parents often still follow the social practice of making a public birth announcement, so that would just make it odder, not to include it based on a non-existent "privacy" claim. Besides, 'Fred and Alice had a daughter named Clara' is standard biography stuff. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
We could add as the last sentence of WP:BLPNAME: "Consider omitting the names of non-notable minors, even if the names have been widely published." SarahSV (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Libel Issues for Corporations

I know current policy says that: "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies." Why is this the case? Most of the BLP seems to be to avoid potential libel issues (which makes sense), but libel issues are just as big a problem in dealing with companies and other legal persons. -Obsidi (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:LIBEL is a longstanding policy. Most of the issues covered by BLP policy extend beyond libel. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Creating a Wikipedia profile

Good day everyone, am new here and wanted to know about how to create a Wikipedia profile for my self. Thank you. Ibrozee85 (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ibrozee85: are you notable? If not, then I'm afraid you don't need/get one. GiantSnowman 17:10, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

The images of deceased persons, including recently deceased (subject to WP:BDP), are currently discussed at "Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#Criteria needed for using images of deceased persons?" I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Update: I started the discussion about uploading acceptable non-free images of deceased persons at WT:NFC. I invite you to comment. --George Ho (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Citation overkill proposal at WP:Citation overkill talk page

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Citing significant relationships in BLP personal life sections

Please see this ongoing talk discussion and this BLPN discussion about citing two significant relationships in a BLP. More input appreciated. Lapadite (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

An image of Jill Saward at DRV

The deletion of File:Jill Saward BBC interview 2013.png is challenged at WP:deletion review, where I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Wording of BLPCOI (inappropriately) implied broader applicability to non-biographies

I hope no one minds, but I added the word "biographical" to More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all. The footnote clarifies quite adequately what a COI is (i.e., not "You are a Star Wars fan."), as does the COI policy, and the sentence's placement on this page made it clear that it was talking about BLPs, but when accompanied by "More generally," it ran the risk of people saying things like You like Star Wars, you shouldn't be editing our Star Wars articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB and quote-mines.

Currently, WP:SELFPUB doesn't contain any mention of whether a particular quote is WP:DUE, aside from the very weak prohibition that the article can't be based primarily on such sources; I feel this introduces potential problems where people could, for example, quote-mine someone's twitter feed, facebook page, or other social media account (which often have a huge volume of material) for a controversial quote that has received little attention, and then use Wikipedia to publicize it - that obviously violates the spirit of BLP. I think it needs an additional clause mentioning that if the material is likely to be damaging to the reputation of the article's subject, then it must pass WP:DUE. I'm not exactly sure of the wording of the new clause, but the key point is that if we're going to pull a potentially damaging quote out of a much larger volume of material, we should have to have other sources to demonstrate that the quote has attracted that sort of attention. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to "break the story" on it, so to speak. (Obviously, WP:DUE is already a policy and people could already object on those grounds - but this would put the weight of BLP behind it and make it clear that at least some assertion of due weight is strictly required to use the WP:SELFPUB exception for anything that could potentially hurt the reputation of the subject.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Aquillion: - I'd think this is already covered as WP:DUE is Wikipedia policy. If someone adds non-NPOV material to an article it's safe to remove it citing WP:NPOV or it's WP:DUE section as policy. A person attempting to keep or re-add the non-NPOV material will lose the battle unless they are very persuasive.
Many people have made one or more comments deemed "controversial" by some people. The offended, and those that pretend to be offended, raise a ruckus. If only left or right leaning media gives the original comment or the resulting ruckus coverage the odds are that mention of it will not be allowed in Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. As I was writing that previous sentence I was thinking about Colin Kaepernick and his U.S. national anthem protest. In that case, coverage has been widespread enough that there's a section in Kaepernick's article that appears likely to remain as long as it's neutrally worded. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Why living persons?

The only reasons I could find in the archives of this talk page for limiting this policy to apply to living persons only is that in legal terms, apparently, the dead cannot be libeled. However, in moral terms, many theorists argue that the dead have an important interest in privacy and their reputation, and can be harmed, see for instance: https://philpapers.org/rec/SCAPAT , https://philpapers.org/rec/MASCTD .

Should this article not take into account such moral considerations in addition to just legal considerations? Perhaps living and dead people should not be fully equivocated here, since it is more pressing that contentious material on a living person be 'removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'. However, other considerations apply to dead people just as to living people ('Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy'). This is currently not reflected in the policy. Highflyer Hank (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

BLP still applies to recently deceased persons too for a rough period of 6 to 24 months, depending. But after that, from an encyclopedic POV, at some point, a dead's right to privacy is outweighed by coverage from academic sources reviewing that person's life and appropriate inclusion in WP. You still need strong sourcing for contentious claims for dead people but it simply becomes more standard editing approachs to handle those (eg, whereas 3RR allows for exceeding 3RR when dealing with repeated additions of contentious claims on a BLP, it would not allow for the same if the person had been dead for a few years, barring exceptional circumstances. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Legal issues aside, the harm that can be done to a living person is much greater than can be done to a no longer living person. Living people can suffer both economic and emotional harm from false or misleading statements. Neither of these can be inflicted on people no longer alive. I for one would strongly object to an attempt to extend this policy further, and am not really happy with the "or recently dead" clause now in effect. I wish that "living" here meant, well "living", with perhaps a 30-day extension to give time for funerals and the like, and to fully confirm a death via reliable sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Policies that are specific to biographies

WP:BDP links to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead. That section of this policy says "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources."

While it says that WP:BLP does not apply the section fails to mention what policy or policies do apply. In hopes of discovering a policy about biographies I tried

  • WP:B redirects to Wikipedia:Bots
  • WP:BP redirects to Wikipedia:Blocking policy
  • WP:Biographies only lists WP:BLP as policy and lists some guidelines but none of those seem like a direct substitute to WP:BLP

Other than WP:BLP are there any policies that are specific to biographies? --Marc Kupper|talk 18:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Not really no, not that I know of. There are WP:MOS formatting conventions specific to biographies in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies, and there is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), but neither of those is strictly policy. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Tense violation or not?

Is writing for a dead person "Person title" (pronunciation), (birthdate - deathdate) commonly referred to as "nickname" is a dead..." correct or wrong? Does this violate? 64.237.232.204 (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't use "is a dead (profession)" but instead use "was a (profession)". We use past tense for any type of entity - person, business, etc. that no longer exists. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding WP:REDLINK, there is an RfC about red links for persons. Editors are invited to comment here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC regarding the WP:Lead guideline -- the first sentence

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

"Nader El-Bizri"

Please check what is taking place around the article "Nader El-Bizri" since this was proposed for deletion, but the reasons put forward touch upon statements that harm the reputation of the living person it covers. The ranking and merits of the work of a living person should be judged by their peers and not simply by random wikipedia users, especially if the deletion has not been requested by someone specializing in academia but by someone who has been covering businessmen and billionaires. Please check this serious matter since it lowers the integrity of wikipedia and causes actual harm to living people, especially if they are in the public domain and well known in their field (2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8170:FF93:C1C4:942C (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC))

As I have read the prod, it does not put forward anything that would "harm" the subjects reputation. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 13:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Editorial control?

From WP:BLPSPS: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." How exactly can it be determined whether the hosting news organization has "full editorial control"? Does The Washington Post have full editorial control over The Monkey Cage blog or Wonkblog? What about Paul Krugman's or Frank Bruni's blog at the NYTimes? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/blogs/directory.html Which of these NYTimes blogs count as 'full editorial control'? The fact that a reputable RS hosts a blog indicates that the organization vouches for the general accuracy and quality of the material there and would be legally liable if the blog libels a BLP. I suggest changing the sentence to "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals or notable experts." 73.61.19.240 (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Compare WP:NEWSBLOG: "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Given the nature of "news", almost all the content of such blogs is about the living or recently deceased so these two policies are in (de facto) contradiction. The spirit of the RS policy is that if a notable news organization 'publishes' a blog then it should be acceptable as a source whether or not it has 'full editorial control'. 73.61.19.240 (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not always so black and white. Look at The Volokh Conspiracy, for example, which is one of The Washington Post's blogs. Eugene Volokh wrote in 2014 that he and his regular contributors "retain full editorial control over what we write". He's a distinguished law professor, so his SPS is generally considered reliable when it comes to legal matters, even though it's outside the editorial control of the publisher. But we wouldn't cite his blog when it comes to claims about living persons, or even non-BLP-related claims like a scientific discovery. It's not always easy to tell whether or not a blog is under editorial control of its publisher, which is part of the reason why noticeboards like WP:RSN and WP:BLPN exist. Woodroar (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
But purpose does that serve? WaPo gives its masthead to a blog like Volokh Conspiracy and publishes it, vouches for it and is legally responsible for it. If someone complained to the Washington Post about inaccurate or libelous material published on The Monkey Cage, the professors in charge of the blog would have to resolve the complaint to the newspaper's satisfaction or be sent packing. "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." I think there is a distinction between day-to-day editorial *control* and long-term editorial oversight, which is vouched for by the fact that the Monkey Cage has been hosted by WaPo for nearly four years. 73.61.19.240 (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
They don't vouch for it, that's exactly the point. If a blog is outside their editorial control, the publisher is saying that they haven't vetted its contents, haven't run it through their normal fact-checking process, and so on. Whether or not the publisher is legally responsible isn't any concern of ours. Woodroar (talk) 05:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The publisher is effectively deputing the people who run the blog as editors, which is a mark of confidence rather than the reverse. I understand the need to be conservative in BLPs, but by drawing the line in the sand “editorially independent blogs that are published by RS media outlets can’t be in BLPs”, regardless of their reputation for accuracy or the reputation of the media outlet that hosts them, WP is depriving itself of lots of valuable data while not measurably increasing source quality. I mean, do the guys at The Monkey Cage have a reputation for libeling people? Are they meticulous about corrections? Would Washington Post step in if they goofed?73.61.19.240 (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
It's not the case that publishers deputize their blog editors. The very first link at The Volokh Conspiracy homepage is an About page titled "Editorial independence" where they state how independent they are. Every article is flagged as "Opinion". Likewise, every article run by Forbes Contributors (at forbes.com/sites) has this disclaimer: "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." These publishers are explicitly distancing themselves from that blog content. Woodroar (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Lele Pons

Good afternoon, I think someone should delete the text that says "page issues" in Lele Pons biography due to that the page already got enough references and citations, thank you. Sebasdiazorozco (talk) 22:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know; every section but one ("Social media growth") still has referencing issues; either inclusing unreferenecd assertions or, in the case of "Nominations and awards", no references whatsoever.
I think it's better to have a single template at the top of the article than one in each of the three sections still needing work. TJRC (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:BLPN#Robert Conroy Goldston

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:BLPN#Robert Conroy Goldston. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

2017 Charlottesville car crash

People are pushing to keep this at "2017 Charlottesville attack" which is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME guidelines which instructs us to avoid saying a crime happened unless the accused is convicted of it.

I believe policy should outrank personal preferences (this is WP:OR city) some have in wanting this to stay at "attack" instead of " crash".

Nobody even included a source calling it the "Charlottesville attack", meanwhile I provided a source calling it Charlottesville car crash but had it reverted.

Something has clearly led to personal interpretations taking precedence over neutrality, verifiability or BLP reservations. I am hoping someone experienced with these things can lend some input. Should I take it to Admin Noticeboard or RFC or other route? ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Using two difference surnames for a subject throughout the Mary Kay Letourneau article?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Use of "Fualaau". A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not to use "Letourneau" for some parts of the article and "Fualaau" for other parts of the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Using "illicit" to describe Letourneau's interaction with Fualaau at Mary Kay Letourneau article

Yeah, this article again. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Regarding "illicit". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

WP:PROF

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Modification of the last paragraph in the lead that may interest some editors here. The proposal amounts to changing the guideline to say that Wikipedia should not necessarily have articles about certain BLPs when editors are unable to find any independent sources about those people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The claim that WP:Prof allows articles about certain BLPs when editors are unable to find any independent sources about those people is nonsense. Editors can consult the thread referred to. The listing of the debate in this manner violates WP:Canvassing. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC).

more warning templates needed

WP:BLPCRIME

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed a crime, or is accused of having committed one, unless a conviction is secured

WP:BLPCOI

editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

I want to see a couple more templates to insert on user talk pages to communicate these concepts specifically to users. Anyone able to make one? Not sure how to phrase it. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Can make it over this weekend. Lourdes 03:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello Doug Weller, hope you're well. I noticed that you added a message to this section but removed it subsequently. While removing, your edit summary mentions "[...]I'm still concerned about misuse - we'll see what happens." I'm concerned with your summary. If you believe this template can be misused, I would rather not make it. Shall await your views here on this. Thanks. Lourdes 09:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Lourdes I am only speculating here of course, but I think the impetus for this came out of Talk:Unite the Right rally#Murder and Terrorism categories. I worry that it might be used here for instance. We already have NPOV templates which should be sufficient. I can see it being by someone to template an editor who is in favor of calling someone a white supremacist. Or maybe vice versa. That sentence in our BLP policy seems to suggest that racists or anti-racists should perhaps not edit articles about racists, that those who are against paedophilia should perhaps not edit articles about BLPs where it's an issue, etc. I feel strongly that we need to enforce NPOV carefully on BLP articles, but not this way. Ah, that sentence was added by my colleague User:Newyorkbrad, let's get his opinion. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps they meant "personal" views, but I see what you are saying since NPOV means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views" - if sources' views are negative or positive, you have to represent it - and could easily be accused of having the sources' views - so, perhaps change to "strong personal bias, positive or negative, . . . ". Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be at WP:USERNAME, and not here?

WP:BLPNAMEABUSE contains the text or that are clearly abusive towards any race, religion or social group. While I of course agree that such usernames should lead to the editors being immediately blocked, I have to imagine the majority of racist troll usernames are not "immediately ... suppressed from logs", and even if they are few would think to cite BLP. A fairly superficial search of the archives of this talk page appears to indicate that the text in question has not been discussed: it was quoted here, but in an unrelated context, and the text already appeared in the policy at the time. It feels like this text unrelated to BLP was lifted, word-for-word, from WP:BLPABUSE because some of the stuff around it was related to BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a reasonable fair duplication of USERNAME policy in a relevant other policy, in that part of our BLP policy not only extends to content but to editor behavior and selection of user names. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Policy Change

On January 17 2017 SarahSV (SlimVirgin) changed the policy from "must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation" to "must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source". On June 15 2017 I asked SlimVirgin "Was this discussed? I didn't see it on the talk page in that period." I haven't seen a reply, and still haven't seen that it was discussed. I think it should have been, since "explicitly attributed" is stronger than merely "supported". "Explicit" dictionary definitions are "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent", "Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt", "expressed or shown clearly and openly, without any attempt to hide anything". WP:INTEXT would satisfy the original requirement but a citation alone might not. I believe that if there is no consensus for the change, it should be reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a copyedit. "Explicitly attributed" and "inline citation" are duplicate statements in the original. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi Peter, in 2011 Nightscream changed "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" to:
"must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation" (diff).
It's not clear what "explicitly attributed" versus "attributed" means, but it might be interpreted as requiring WP:INTEXT for everything. Also, it is always done with an inline citation, not usually. So during a copy edit in January I changed this to: "must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source" (diff).
If you want to change this back to "attributed to an inline citation", that's fine with me. It was "explicitly" that I was concerned about. SarahSV (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing to the edit by Nightscream. My suggestion is to go back to what was there between 2011 and 2017, not to "attributed to an inline citation". But so far I've interpreted others' responses (by Izno and SlimVirgin) as "leave it as it is now". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Peter, yes, that's what I meant: "attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". This means the same as "supported by an inline citation". SarahSV (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
My thinking is that "attributed to" is a bit confusing, regarding what it means in practice: if you write in an article, "According to the New York Times, she married.[cite]". . . that is 'attributing to', if you just write "She married.[cite]", that's supporting with inline citation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Alan, that's in-text attribution, which is a separate issue. SarahSV (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Seeing no support for reverting the policy change, I withdraw the suggestion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Pillar

I have added fourth pillar General notability guideline in the Leade. Every Biographies that eventually meets the general notability guideline to merit its own stand-alone article. Any objections to it ? NtiniMkaya (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. This change has not been discussed at all. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Readers need to, you know, "read" these guidelines. Information, right? Sorry for stepping out of line :(

"Biographies of living persons" has been a common preamble to articles about anyone still alive. I came here for info to verify if a group of 75.83.54.115 (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)people were still alive. The entire group of people are apparently alive and well. Clicked the hyperlink to read the individual I thought died. She's alive! Cool! But hold on! Both articles are about, ostensively people who still very much alive, where is that warning? Did they retire it? Is liable no longer a concern? Where can I read what happened to that ubiquitous warning or why they scrapped it? Reader FAQ? Not there. Search all Help? Dumb me searched a phrase "living persons". Glossary? Nope! Not to brag, but I donate $ to keep it going. I want to have information available. Children learn this is where to start off, then follow through with the citations to really learn the topic. The information about guideline changes is just as vital and necessary to readers. Thank you!

Ethnicity

The recent CNN article regarding national origin controversy got me thinking about something that has long bothered me regarding some WP BOLPs. It is rather common for the lead sentences of BOLPs to be very specific about ethnic or national background, e.g.

I would submit that such specificity can be unintentionally racist (or at least can appear so). Perhaps a more explicit policy is warranted? I would submit the following thoughts:

  • If the person has a primary nationality where they have lived for most of their life, then there is probably no more than this which needs to be mentioned in the lead about their national or ethnic background. For the most part a "Mexican American" can just be described as "American", an "Indian Briton" can just be described as "British", etc.
  • Ideally a person's ethnicity, as distinct from their nationality, should not be brought up in the lead unless it is uniquely relevant to why they are famous (e.g. if what they are mainly known for is being an activist for their ethnic group).
  • If the person has more than one nationality or some such thing, try to avoid mentioning more than one nationality in the lead unless there is a good reason to do so. If they lived in one country most of their life, it is generally best to save the other nationality as a detail that can be discussed later.
  • In general the main reason to mention nationality in the lead is to localize where the person's life has had an impact. If the person's relevance is better conveyed in other ways, avoid being too focused on their nationality or ethnicity in the lead. E.g.
Nimrata "Nikki" Haley ... is the 29th and current United States Ambassador to the United Nations.
rather than
Nimrata "Nikki" Haley ... is an Indian American politician who is the 29th and current United States Ambassador to the United Nations.

Just my thoughts.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

A very reasonable point for discussion. AFAIK, Milana Vayntrub's notability as an actor / comedian has nothing to do with her having been born in the Uzbek SSR — a region she and her family left when she was three, due to anti-Jewish persecution. "Uzbek American actress" sounds to me like her Uzbek origins are a prominent part of who she is and why she is notable, but that really isn't true at all. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Religious beliefs, sexual orientation

The page currently says, in part, that "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements...." It seems to me that this same restriction ought to apply as well to ordinary text in the body of an article — that is, if a religious affiliation or sexual orientation claim is not acceptable as a category, list, navigation, or infobox item, it should similarly not be acceptable as part of the article text. But right now, the letter of the policy doesn't seem to say this. This is more of an issue than just the general BLP principle that contentious, unsourced material doesn't belong, since the part of the policy in question imposes additional rules — namely, requirements for public self-identification and relevance to the person's public life or notability, and not merely that the material must be accurate and well sourced. Is there any consensus for tweaking this part of the policy text to cover ordinary mention of these topics in an article? Or is there a reason, not obvious to me at the moment, why this special limitation should not apply except in structured material such as categories? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I take the prescription to apply to everything, text as well as the other things. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC).
Do you believe the existing policy page already says this sufficiently clearly? Or do you believe the policy should be clarified to make it crystal clear? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 05:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I've undertaken a small change in terms of what you've mentioned. Lourdes 06:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if it's good to change the policy page without first getting consensus — something which has not been achieved yet. Please don't be offended if someone else reverts your change. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Richwales: is there a reason ... why this special limitation should not apply except in structured material ... ? My understanding of the reasoning is that the structured material does not allow for a sufficiently nuanced treatment of these areas; but that article text does. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure "structured vs. unstructured" is the best way to distinguish the treatment. If the text of an article says "John Smith is a Pastafarian", is that really any more nuanced than stating "Religion: Flying Spaghetti Monster" in an infobox? Undeniably (IMO), any statement of religious affiliation in the text of an article needs to be substantiated by sources. In my view, such a statement probably should be included only if the person in question self-identifies with the religion. I'm ambivalent at the moment as to whether relevance to public life or notability should be required, but if this is to remain a requirement for categories / lists / infoboxes, I'm personally inclined to say it should also apply to ordinary mentions in the article text, because right now, I really don't see a big distinction. Just one person's opinion (mine), please understand. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not certain that this is the best approach. The sticking point is on the "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability" clause. There are any number of persons for whom in-text description of religious beliefs and/or sexual orientation might be appropriate, but categorisation of the same might be not. For example, it is not inappropriate to mention that Donald Trump is Presbyterian; but we wouldn't regard it as being a defining characteristic for categories. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 06:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Agreed with Ryk72. Do not confuse WP:Notability (which is about whether someone/something can have an article here at all, and why) with non-indiscriminate in-article material, which can be much broader. In the "In private life", etc., sections of well-developed bios, we cover a great many things that have nothing to do with the subject's notability but give a rounder picture of the person than the lead, categories, and (if present) infobox do.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree. The section is already wooly, making it so you can't talk about their beliefs in the article because of Notability would be unworkable for sound biographies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Continuing Enthnicity

Since my suggestion above generated little feedback (thank you at least to Richwales), let me perhaps offer a more concrete suggestion.

My thought is to add a sub-section to WP:BLPSTYLE with something like the following content:

Problematic specificity in the lead
A particularly thorny issue related to balance is drawing too much attention in the lead to relatively minor things, especially in ways that can create bias or in some manner be offensive. One particular example of this is pointing out a person's ethnicity unnecessarily. For example, the article on Nikki Haley could lead off with
Nimrata "Nikki" Haley is an Indian-American politician who is the 29th and current United States Ambassador to the United Nations.
This wording is superficially straight-forward. The problem here is that calling her Indian-American in this context implies that somehow this is part of what makes her notable. The reality is that she lived in the U.S. all of her life and mentioning her ethnic background so prominently in the lead could be interpreted as being slightly racist (akin to saying "Some of my best friends are black"). It is better to say simply
Nimrata "Nikki" Haley is the 29th and current United States Ambassador to the United Nations.
The details of her ethnic background can be discussed in the body as appropriate but do not need to be given such prominence in the lead.
Some general rules of thumb in this regard:
  1. If a detail about a person is not especially relevant to why that person is notable, it is probably best to leave it out of the lead.
  2. Particularly with respect to ethnicity/nationality it is generally best to simply indicate where that person spent most of their life and leave other details about their background (birthplace, ethnicity, citizenship, sexual orientation, etc.) to an appropriate sub-section in the body, unless some of those details are directly relevant to why they are notable.
  3. Whenever their is debate about whether a detail should be included in the lead, notability should be the first consideration and avoiding being unfairly offensive to the person (even subtly) should be a close second.

-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Poorly sourced

The policy uses the phrase "poorly sourced" many times but never directly explains what it means. I think it is generally understood to mean that a source used doesn't conform with Verifiability and No original research (which are summarized and linked to in the Reliable sources section). Items 2 and 3 of the Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced subsection are examples of "poorly sourced."

Would the policy be improved by clarifying what "poorly sourced" means?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Depends on how you want to claryfy it. I can't think of an improvement here. The current policy is left deliberately open to broad interpretation to allow the easy challenging/removal of material which may be potentially contentious, while avoiding the possibility of having the removal reverted back on the grounds that the challenge falls short of meeting some more specific guideline, without having to demonstrate high quality sourcing. The current trend is for material to be contested and then place the onus on the person trying to restore the material. In a nutshell it should be easy to contest potentially contentious material and hard to prove it should be there. This ensures both high quality and legality of content. Edaham (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed new subsection for WP:AVOIDVICTIM

I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and have been heavily involved in a number of articles and discussions in which BLP issues were raised, and am I familiar with other precedents that occurred without me, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. In looking over the subsections in WP:AVOIDVICTIM, I notice that there is one that covers People accused of crime, but none for Victims/survivors of crimes, such as victims of rape. The publication of names of rape victims/survivors has been a controversial issue. I was and continue to be involved in the discussion regarding whether to include the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case and article and talk page. A previous lengthy discussion on that matter that we had years ago came to the consensus that it be left out of both, though every now and then, an editor will come along and add it. Some editors who favor including it say that there is nothing in BLP that precludes it. I think that for AVOIDVICTIM to explicitly addresses the issue of mentioning the names of people accused of crimes but not people who are victims of crimes, specifically sex crimes, makes that section incomplete. Adding it would also allow us to cite a specific portion of BLP when it comes up. I would like to add it, and would offer to write it myself, but don't want to do so if it's going to be immediately deleted. Thoughts? Nightscream (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how you could possibly codify this. There are people who are noted for being a victim, or whose experience as a victim of crime has significantly influenced their work, and there are criminal cases where the identity(ies) of the victim is notable, and any policy would need to have so many loopholes as to be meaningless; a straightforward "victims of crime may not be named and it should not be mentioned that someone was a victim of crime" would mean we wouldn't be able to say who John Hinckley Jr. shot, or why Tori Amos is so closely associated with RAINN. "Something shouldn't be mentioned unless there's a consensus that it's appropriate" would be the only workable policy I can imagine, and that's how every article on Wikipedia is already written. ‑ Iridescent 15:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
We could codify it by stating that articles should not mention the names of people who have made legal accusations of rape, and who have been indicated to desire their name kept out of the media. Current examples Kobe Bryant's accuser. Past examples of accusers who previously preferred anonymity but eventually decided to go public include Patricia Bowman and Tricia Melli. In each of these cases, the victims were not previously known publicly like Ronald Reagan. Nightscream (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Wikipedia should be a review of the available news that you don't have to pay for but is just as good as a commercial summary, and it should be written by a consensus of the users. For this reason, it is conceivable to leave out a victim's name in the article as unimportant, but it is not conceivable to censor all mention or disclosure of a victim's name Wiki-wide, if it be known. Thus, for example, Wikipedians should be free to cite news stories whether or not they include politically inconvenient facts, and Wikipedians should be free to make and refer back to relevant discussions editors have made. This is despite the claims being made at the assault case talk page linked above where people are told that it "violates BLP" to disclose the name anywhere, which are clearly not true if we have a redirect to associate the two. Like it or not, the world has access to this information, if with some difficulty - to be sure, this was a case where most media outlets really didn't print the name, and it wasn't just Wikipedia zealots trying to keep something totally public secret. And like it or not, we need to have access to this information, because we might want to look up whether an accuser in a big money case like this ends up found dead of "natural causes" in a few months, or whether she was trying to go after other celebrities, or whether random trolls are still bullying her online to this day. (To be sure, looking for news about her doesn't pull up much, and nothing well documented or reputable that I know of, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's all bull, but if something big had happened, it might be different) Wnt (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Guideline creep. Wikipedia already does a good job of protecting those who need protecting under current rules. This is just another cudgel for future reversion wars. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is what BLP is all about. Especially when all it would take is something as simple as what Nightscream suggested above: articles should not mention the names of people who have made legal accusations of rape, but who have been indicated to desire their name kept out of the media -- Irn (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
That should have been "and who have been indicated..." I corrected my error above. Nightscream (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support in theory. Having said that I'm having more of an issue at the moment with alleged victims having this entered onto Wikipedia as part of their personal life section and also that of the accused e.g. Kevin Spacey and Anthony Rapp. It's been suggested to me that the Weinstein allegations perhaps be made a sub-section of his alleged victims career, I don't think that would be appropriate either. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware of those resources. Thanks for pointing them out to me; I'll bookmark them now. So should I restart a discussion there? Cut and paste my proposal from atop this thread to there (adding/emphasizing the proposed wording of said proposal, as some have said here)? And which is the right place to do it? VPP or PROPOSAL? Let me know. Nightscream (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's good to hash some of it out here first. It may be a bit U.S.-centric (I don't know) but perhaps you can gather some of the sources that extensively discuss journalism and the reporting a sex abuse victims names (my impression is that it is often not done, but there are exceptions). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Seems important to make this distinction, though, as others point out, one has to be careful how. I do not believe "as long as there is consensus" is a useful metric as that is ephemeral (yes, there should be consensus but there should be consensus that a defined guideline is being followed). I think a more useful guideline is to say that if there name has not already been publicized by the mainstream media (not the tabloids) then WP should presume privacy is desired and avoid mentioning them. I say this because it becomes complicated in many cases to debate exactly what level of privacy a victim has asked for as reports on such things can be spotty and contradictory. In other words, given that WP editors are mostly not professional journalists, trying to find definitive sources to address specifically whether a given victim wants privacy or not can be unrealistic in many cases. Instead I believe taking our cue from the mainstream media should be sufficient most of the time. -- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is something that really needs to be handled on a case by case basis, with the help of a whole lot of common sense. Overly broad and strict policy on the matter would make working on crime articles a nightmare (not to mention pointless, as the "forbidden" names could just be found in the linked-to sources anyway. The scenarios where this truly is problematic are already covered by other policies like BLP, ATTACK, and NOHARM. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this should be handled case by case, not by an overarching mandate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Noting that naming victims of rape and sex offences is illegal in the UK so UK editors should not do so. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The accusers, or the accused? Nightscream (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I quite sure the person being raped is the one being referred to here. While a person falsely accused is certainly victim, I don’t think that would be classified as a sex offence.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
It is illegal to name an alleged victim of rape under UK law (see R v Evans#Naming of complainant on the internet, although some choose to waive their right to anonymity after the verdict / sentencing in order to talk about what happened. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_41&oldid=1149837402"