Wikipedia talk:Crime labels

Recommended reading

User:GreenC/The Instinct to Punish. A bigger picture view of the powerful and vitally important human instinct that drives the use of crime labels. -- GreenC 07:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

An interesting discussion. I've just now been contemplating "long-standing" criminal activity vs. single incident. It is in the nature of people to slap a label on someone after a single incident - in the good old days, perhaps that was justified; someone who commits a crime is likely to do it again. I was reminded of the well scene from the movie Lawrence of Arabia (Well scene): "Good army compass. How if I take it?" ; "Then you would be a thief!" I've added a new paragraph under "appropriate to use", but I've struggled with short-term/single incident cases vs. long-standing behavior. The issue was prominent with our favorite Elizabeth Holmes - I saw the incident as a single incident, really (but won't get into it). As always, revise as needed. (Lawrence: "Then you would be a thief!"; Wikipedia: "Then you will have stolen my compass!") Bdushaw (talk) 11:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Focus

I have started reading this, and I'm finding that it's unfocused – all over the map, self-contradictory, rather like throwing spaghetti on the wall to see whether it sticks.

Consider the opening paragraph (I've numbered the sentences):

1. A Biography of a Living Person (BLP) often begins by applying a label to the person, a single word or brief phrase used to describe the essence, nature, or occupation of the person.
2. To label someone is to state that that label is the person's permanent identity.
3. The choice of such label should be made thoughtfully, with due references to support for common use of the label in reliable sources (RS) and the staid nature of biographies in encyclopedias.
4. In the case of living persons convicted of, or notable for, crimes, in particular, labels should be employed with caution.

In the first sentence, a label can be an unobjectionable statement of the person's occupation: "Paul Politician is the mayor of Paultown." But wait: the second sentence says that it's "the person's permanent identity". That can't be right. Firstly, the office of mayor is not permanent, and secondly, we have no idea if it's part of his Self-concept or his Identity (social science). You can have an occupation without identifying with it, or without having anyone else identify you with it. (See also all those people whose social identity is "Oh, you're so-and-so's spouse" or "Oh, you're so-and-so's kid" when they'd prefer to be seen as a person or a member of a profession in their own right.)

The third and fourth sentences say that we need to be careful – fine; nobody's going to argue for careless editing – but the last half of the third sentence makes the unexpected, opinionated assertion that encyclopedias are supposed to be "staid". Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is famous precisely because it was not "marked by settled sedateness and often prim self-restraint". I don't think that sedateness and prim self-restraint are exactly how I'd describe Wikipedia:BrilliantProse, and brilliant prose is one of our avowed goals.

Then there's the problem with defining a label. The opening starts with an expansive definition: we label people, because MOS:LEADSENTENCE tells us to do that. Alice Expert is an expert, Bob Business is a businessman, Carol Chanteuse is a singer, Paul Politician is a politician. But then the essay says it's bad to label people, and gives two sample definitions that center on the label being unfair, which indicates that none of those labels are actually Labels™ for the purposes of this essay. And the definitions are then followed by a sentence that implies labeling is always bad even when the label is 100% fair, so those labels really are Labels™ for the purposes of this essay. Which leaves me thinking: Could you please make up your mind about what a label is before you tell me when/whether/how it should be used?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Best practices wouldn't be to open the lede with "Paul Politician is the mayor of Paultown". Best practices would be "Paul Politician is an American politician." And then we might go on with "As of 2023, he was the mayor of Paultown." Valereee (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you believe that the best practice is to label people with the word politician, even though that's sometimes seen as a disparaging term, and you think we shouldn't label people in general? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO politician is an occupation, like PGA player or high school teacher. If the person's primary reason for notability isn't politician, then we'd certainly include the other things they're notable for, like "Al Franken is an American comedian and politician." The decision of what to label BLPs in the lede is nuanced, which is what we're trying to get at here. Please make or suggest any edits you think are helpful; this essay is new and a group effort, and that's always going to get us into tangential and scattered focus in the early stages. Any input is great, although if you completely disagree with the whole idea, a countering essay would probably be a better place to work. Valereee (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to separate "naming the person's occupation" from "unfair labeling", and to focus this page on the (potentially) inappropriate labels. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Suggest language. Valereee (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(outdent)

−

A Biography of a Living Person (BLP) often begins by applying a label to the person, a single word or brief phrase used to describe the essence, nature, or occupation of the person. To label someone is to state that that label is the person's permanent identity.

+

Biographies often begin by giving a single word or brief phrase to describe the person's reason for notability. In some cases, editors consider adding contentious or derogatory labels (e.g., ''convicted criminal'' or ''murderer''). Especially when these labels are unrelated to the person's reason for notability, it may be unfair to use them.

Perhaps something along these lines would capture the main point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks reasonable to me. Valereee (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Crucial policy

About this item:

• Therefore we wait for RS to use the term as a label before we use the term as a label.

I have the following questions:

1. How does one determine whether the source is "using the term as a label" instead of just "using the term"?
2. The NOR policy says "The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words". This essay seems to be claiming that it's against policy to write in our own words, at least whenever our own words turn the source's "Boog E. Man kidnapped many children in the 19th century" into a statement like "Boog E. Man was a 19th-century kidnapper".

I'm not seeing any actual policies (crucial, core, or otherwise) that say we can't use our own words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

We totally can use our own words. But our words need to summarize what RS are saying. If RS aren't calling someone whatever, we aren't really summarizing what they're saying if they aren't calling them that. Is Martha Stewart an American felon? She was convicted of a felony, which is what RS say. Valereee (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

How do you reconcile a requirement in policy to write in our own words with an attempt to prohibit us from writing in our own words (and then claiming that this anti-policy statement is "crucial policy")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I'm following, but for me the crucial policy is BLP. Valereee (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• Policy requires us to write in our own words.
• Turning a sentence from a source such as "He kidnapped children" into "He was a kidnapper" is an example of writing in our own words.
• You don't want us to say that anyone "was a kidnapper", because that would be "labeling" them.

Do you think that these statements are factual? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

If he's primarily notable for kidnapping children, which most people who kidnap children probably are, then IMO, use it. There've been multiple discussions about things like starting Sam Bankman-Fried with "Sam Bankman-Fried is an American entrepreneur and fraudster." It's currently "Samuel Benjamin Bankman-Fried is an American entrepreneur who was convicted of fraud and related crimes in November 2023." I think that's better in multiple ways. Valereee (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I personally think that's better, but I'm still struggling to figure out how an editor could follow your advice here. The distinction you mention here ("primarily notable for") is unrelated to the advice to "wait for RS to use the term as a label". How can editors tell when the source (sources in the plural, ideally) are "using it as a label" instead of "just using it"?

What I'm understanding from this is that it's not sufficient for the sources to "just use" the term; they must "use it as a label". How can editors determine whether they are "just using" a given term or "using it as a label"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

If they use it as a term, aren't they using it as a label? If they use "is a kidnapper", it's a label. What we're objecting to is editors reading in RS ""X was convicted of fraud" and writing in wikivoice "X is a fraudster". If RS are saying "X is a fraudster", good enough for me. Valereee (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

(outdent)

Well, that's not really what it says, because "use the term as a label" does not mean quite the same thing as "use the label". "Use the term as a label" implies that there are non-labeling ways to use that term. If that's all that's intended is that one or more reliable sources say "is a fraudster", then I suggest shortening the sentence, or changing it to something like "Therefore we should wait for RS to use the exact word in question (e.g., fraudster, murderer, thief)."

−

Wikipedia describes what has happened according to RS. It doesn’t draw conclusions not drawn by the sources, even when those conclusions seem obvious. Wikipedia follows the RS. Therefore we wait for RS to use the term as a label before we use the term as a label.

+

Wikipedia describes what has happened according to RS. It doesn’t draw conclusions not drawn by the sources, even when those conclusions seem obvious, e.g., concluding from a source that says "He was convicted of murder" that "He is a murderer". Wikipedia follows the RS. Therefore we wait for RS to use the exact term (e.g., fraudster, murderer, bank robber) before we use that particular term.

Do these changes feel accurate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I've no objection to those. Valereee (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I've made this change and the one above as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's stay constructive

I view @WhatamIdoing as a bad faith editor, as evidenced by this lengthy weeks long exchange already listed in this essay: General discussion of the use of labels on BLP Talk page. The editor was perpetually hostile to the obvious problems of labels, seemingly enjoying the endless rhetorical squabbling, and with a propensity for ad hominem arguments. After 3-4 weeks of discussion the editor concluded with the very quote given in this essay at the end "Why not call them what they are: murderers, bank robbers, and con men?". Indeed that section was designed specifically for those such as WhatamIdoing, that is, those with the alternate perspective, to invite them to write an alternate essay. The overall problem is how to address the obvious misuse of labels in leads and reduce the countless, lengthy arguments about them that have regularly occurred in Wikipedia biographies. If WhatamIdoing has better, different ideas for how to address the issues, then they are welcome to write an alternate essay. Such an essay would be a positive contribution. Otherwise, I see little point in engaging with this editor on this issue. Bdushaw (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• [Comment from uninvolved editor] I believe the title of this discussion and probably its content are very problematic, WP:PA. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bdushaw, do you think that I am deliberately trying to harm Wikipedia? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, WaId, if you disagree with the entire premise of this essay, it's probably just better if you write a countering one. Essays are to help clarify thinking on an approach to an issue. If you completely disagree with this approach, write WP:Call Them What They Are, Even If No RS Are Doing So. Valereee (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't completely disagree with this approach. I actually want this page to be clear enough that it could be useful in discussions. That IMO requires things like "define the term" and "be clear enough that editors could faithfully implement it". So far, neither of those basics has happened.

Bdushaw has said that I'm acting in bad faith. 'Bad faith', in our jargon, means deliberately trying to harm Wikipedia. I don't think that asking questions about confusing parts of this essay is deliberately trying to harm Wikipedia, and I suspect that he doesn't actually believe that I'm trying to hurt Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing we've given you lots to read and consider. You're not responding on the same level. Your simply doing what I describe in my essay User:GreenC/The Instinct to Punish: punishing others for being a bad person. You do this by choosing charged language. What does that mean, "charged"? It is pre-loaded, leading the reader in a certain direction, to form a negative opinion. You justify because it's "true", but don't recognize the language is charged, which is also true. You pick one truth, and ignore the other. So we have a problem with your choice of language. It doesn't need to be charged, there is language that carries the same information (they did criminal things), without being charged (they are a bad criminal).

Another thing my essay observes, one of the characteristics of punishers is they fail to recognize what they are doing, and frequently go too far, hurting themselves. We have seen punishers blocked for being disruptive. Admins have lost their adminship. People have been banned from Wikipedia. In the Amanda Knox case, some of those punishers ended up in jail IRL for taking their campaign too far. So, when people tell you to back off and let it go, you should listen. It won't end well. This is not a threat, I have no intention of attacking you, it's what happens though, we have seen it all before. The punishment instinct is very strong, once it grabs hold of you it is hard to stop, it can happen to even the smartest people. -- GreenC 19:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that the idea of "the other truth" is necessarily a useful one for articles. If someone is notable solely for crimes, the article should probably lead with that, and not with some "other truth", e.g., that they were devoted to family or had a job unrelated to the reason for their notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

You mean like a serial killer, someone notable only for crime? I guess so. I'd need to see an example of the language and context. The debates I have seen so far have been around individuals who were notable prior to the crime, white collar fraud, CEOs and such. Either way, the second truth, certain words are charged, there are ways to convey the same information without charged words. -- GreenC 19:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Here are some: Jack the Ripper, Al Capone, Billy the Kid, Jesse James, Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and Charles Manson. While presumably all of them did many non-criminal things during their lives, I don't think that any of them would have been notable if they had not committed the crimes that made the notorious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, yeah, and that's one of the reasons we refer to them in the lede by the crime label: that is the primary thing they're known for, as evidenced by how RS refer to them after their deaths. It's one of the most important things to know about them, per historians. I literally have seen people arguing for George Floyd to be identified in the lede sentence as a criminal and a porn actor. I've seen singers whose lede sentence calls them a criminal because they got arrested for and possession. Valereee (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I don't think this essay agrees with us. It says, e.g., "If reliable sources are reporting that a living person was convicted of a crime, it is preferable for Wikipedia to state just those facts, rather than employing a label." That suggests that we should not write that Ted Bundy actually "was" a serial killer; we should instead write that he merely "was convicted of murdering multiple women". According to this essay, if we write that he "was" a serial killer, we would be saying that his "essence" and "permanent identity" was being a serial killer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The essay appears to be concerned with potentially contentious labels. Serial killer is probably a non-contentious label, it doesn't have a pejorative angle, nor is it "charged", nor sometimes used in an opinionated slanderous way. It's most often (only?) used as a neutral description. Language is messy, not all crime label are treated equally. GreenC 01:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, then maybe it should be clarified so that it actually says that.

Is it your opinion (or, alternatively, the opinion you think this essay is trying to express) that serial killer is non-pejorative, but murderer is pejorative? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Murderer has proven to be contentious. So is murderess. My essay User:GreenC/The Instinct to Punish is based on an essay "Trial By Fury: Internet Savagery and the Amanda Knox Case" by Douglas Preston. In that essay, he says the anti-Knoxers often called her a "murderess" in a pejorative manner. Murderer can definitely be used with a pejorative tone. -- GreenC 02:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Serial killer isn't exactly a term of endearment, and I'm sure it's also been used unfairly and pejoratively (e.g., against soldiers or abortion providers).

The problem with the Knox case isn't that they called the killer a murderess; the problem is that they called an innocent person the killer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes that's right, against soldiers it would be wrong. Context. Knox was convicted of murder, later overturned. -- GreenC 02:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

But many RS label Ted Bundy a serial killer, I think. I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at. Maybe you can suggest an edit to the essay to clarify? (FWIW, as I mentioned in one of the first posts, I moved this essay to WP space while it was still just a few nebulous thoughts because I actively wanted others to come in and help. I don't agree that you're acting in bad faith, but you did seem to come in kind of red hot, and I can see why it might have felt that way.) Valereee (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest some wording, but I don't feel like there's agreement among the key stakeholders on this point. On the one hand, it's true that "many RS label Ted Bundy a serial killer". On the other hand, this essay leans towards saying that Wikipedia shouldn't use "labels" even when RS do. For example, Elizabeth Holmes is called a fraudster in multiple sources, but I believe that this essay is meant to oppose the use of that particular label for that particular person, and in all analogous situations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

A recent Special:Diff/1197677944/1197713510 is a prime example. The edit is laughable: "a fraud who was convicted of fraud". The first fraud is a label and the second is not. Labeling - like stars on a coat or marks on the forehead - is a weapon of punishment. There is no need to label people in most cases.

For Ted Bundy, it says he "was an American serial killer who kidnapped, raped and murdered dozens of young women". This is repetitive information, he is both a serial killer, and someone who murdered dozens of people. How about he "was an American criminal who kidnapped, raped and serially killed dozens of young women". No label needed, other than a criminal. But I think the label serial killer is so firmly attached as the prime reason for notability, and it's not a BLP, it would be hard to change that article. The point is to demonstrate labels are usually not needed, and often introduce problems and lack of clarity. -- GreenC 22:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Save that diff; I suspect you'll want it again some day.

I don't think that "serially killed" is idiomatic, so it's unlikely to have get accepted. Wrt "an American criminal" vs "an American serial killer", they are both labels, and preferring the vaguer one over the more specific one is somewhere between pointless and that "lack of clarity" you'd like to avoid. A non-labeling approach would call him "an American man". I think you're right about it being difficult to change that article, but it's not difficult to clearly explain that some editors think we should change that article and others like it.

I wonder if you'd like to mirror the WP:SPADE title with Wikipedia:Calling a criminal a criminal (or to more directly undercut it with a title like Wikipedia:Calling a person a criminal). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the contribution by WhatamIdoing. Its clear we have our disagreements. I think it is a mistake to allow the editor to rewrite this essay according to their views - as noted in the link above, as well as the recent expansive new comments on this Talk page, the editor disagrees with the essay in any number of fundamental ways. (In the reverted contribution, the essay is concerned with use of labels in the biographies of living people, and people don't go to add derogatory labels, they don't view them as such when the use them, etc.). The editor has been asked three times, now four, to write their own essay, beginning with the very quote by WhatamIdoing at the end of the present essay. As I noted, I see little point with getting into endless rhetorical squabbling with the editor. All that being said, I defer to my more patient editorial colleagues, and if they want to proceed (e.g., revert my reversion), I won't object. In any case, I will step away from the essay. Bdushaw (talk) 17:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

dubious tag

Hey, WhatamIdoing, just noticed this, with a reason We have no idea what the subjects' personal identities are. We're saying what they did, not how they personally view themselves. But when we say a person is something, we aren't saying what they did. We're saying what they are. Valereee (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, I don't think that it's always that what someone does is their Identity (social science). There are professions that tend to form part of the person's identity (e.g., doctor, nurse, teacher), but many more for whom it's just a job (e.g., grocery store worker, data entry clerk). We also write about people in circumstances that have nothing to do with their identities (e.g., anyone about whom we write that the person "was the victim of...").

For fun, I looked at today's FA, and I find that the BLP is labeled in these ways:

• an American actress and singer
• the only child of her parents
• a vegetarian

We don't know which, if any of these, are her "permanent identity". All of these could change, so they're not "permanent", and perhaps none of them are her identity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, you're talking about McKenna Grace? We say Mckenna Grace (born June 25, 2006) is an American actress and singer. We don't say Mckenna Grace (born June 25, 2006) is an American actress, singer, vegetarian, and only child. But I take your point about that particular way of expressing the point; I've edited, see what you think. Valereee (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, that's a major improvement. Please also look at the phrase "notable identity" in the sentence In addition to the use of a crime label in reliable sources, a secondary requirement is that the article text substantiates that crime label as a notable identity of the subject.

We also say of Grace that She is the only child of her parents (whose own "permanent identity" is apparently their jobs) and that She is a vegetarian. Under the model that when we say a person is something, we aren't saying what they did, we are saying that Grace is these things, even if we don't say this in the first sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:

1. Sure, we could avoid labels altogether and say 'she is her parents' only child' or 'she follows a vegetarian diet and 'who works as an orthopedic surgeon' or whatever, but:
2. Being a vegetarian or an only child or an orthopedic surgeon is not a crime label, which is what this essay is about. It's not even negative. It's quite likely she would describe herself that way. IMO it's not problematic to use those labels for something as noncontroversial as calling someone a vegetarian or an only child. It's not okay to call someone a fraudster or felon unless the best RS are calling them that in their voice.

I feel like you're arguing that some absurd level of consistency is more important than what we're saying in WikiVoice about a living human being. You must see the difference between Wikipedia calling a living person a vegetarian and calling them a criminal. Do you really not see that difference? If you really truly do not see that difference, if you profoundly disagree with this entire essay, you may not be able to contribute productively to it. This essay is providing and explaining the arguments about when it's NOT appropriate to default to calling someone a criminal simply because they've been convicted of a crime. I do not understand why you're objecting to calling someone a medical sales representative when if you asked her 'so, tell me about yourself', many people quite likely start with something like, "Well, I'm a medical sales rep...".

I am having a very hard time not finding your argument about vegetarian/only child/orthopedic surgeon/medical sales rep (vs. felon or fraudster or criminal, for heaven's sake) kind of intentionally obtuse. Seriously, it's feeling like you're making a slippery slope argument here. Valereee (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I have two overarching concerns. One is that there does not seem to be a shared understanding in the community of what it means to "label" someone. In restricting this to "crime labels" only, you've avoided a good deal of that, but it brings the community no closer to resolving the overall question of what is, and isn't, "a label".

The second is that a good deal of the concern (e.g., in this edit) appears to have been based on the belief that describing someone using a copula and a noun is always stating the person's identity, and that the only True™ identity is the person's own self-conception. The idea that your identity is entirely defined by yourself is unknown to all of history and most of the modern world, but mostly I object to this because it's putting too much strain on the grammar. In this model, if we write that "She is a brunette", that's a statement about her True™ identity, but if we instead write "She has brown hair", it's not. This is not a reasonable understanding of how English works. I'm not a psychologist, but if a friend or neighbor were to tell me that they thought that "She is a brunette" is a statement of identity instead of appearance, I'd gently advise them to find a licensed psychologist and get for a neuropsych evaluation, because that's the kind of communication difficulty that is typical of a certain flavor of autism.

I do fundamentally disagree with the essay's claim that it's a violation of Wikipedia:No original research to Wikipedia:Use our own words by paraphrasing "robbed banks" into "was a bank robber". Someone who shoplifted "is" a shoplifter; the reason not to write that Ryder "is a shoplifter" is because it's UNDUE (e.g., for the lead sentence) and a less informative style. See also Wikipedia:These are not original research#Paraphrasing. You might consider it morally wrong to paraphrase that way, but it's not a violation of the NOR policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If we had a shared understanding of what label meant, we'd have policy. This is an essay, meant to explain a particular argument so that it can be linked to instead of the entire argument being made in a discussion at a talk page.

The concern about the edit you linked to has been dealt with, hasn't it?

I agree with both the reason not to write that Ryder "is a shoplifter" is because it's UNDUE (e.g., for the lead sentence) and a less informative style and the reason not to write that Ryder "is a shoplifter" is because it's UNDUE. Is there anything currently in this essay that contradicts that?

In the case of a BLP, I do disagree with you that we should assume it's okay to use a RS saying 'did X' to say in WikiVoice 'is an Xer' in the case of crimes. IMO we need both 1. RS saying 'is an Xer' and 2. consensus to use Xer, or it represents some level of OR. Happy to add UNDUE, too, though. BLPs need that kind of thoughtful assessment Valereee (talk) 13:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

In exactly what way does paraphrasing a source that says "He robbed banks" into "He was a bank robber" produce a violation of NOR?

Are there circumstances under which someone can rob banks and not be a bank robber? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to answer those hypotheticals without seeing the particulars. Human language is not like computers with rules always true or never true. Context is everything. Is it in the lead section, the first sentence, what else is being said, how does it frame the person, what source is cited, etc.. there are so many variables. It's like building a recipe - a little this, and that, creates a certain picture. And you know, the language we use today will be outdated in the future, nothing is permanent. -- GreenC 18:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Overall, I agree with you, but the NOR question is narrower than that. Consider:

• Source says: "Joe Film starred in this year's critically acclaimed box office hit, Summer Blockbuster Movie. One critic writes, 'If there was any justice in this world, he'd win an Oscar'."
• Wikipedia article says: "Joe Film is an American actor."

Nobody would say that's an OR violation. But compare this:

• Source says: "Chris Criminal was convicted today in federal court for robbing two banks."
• Normal Wikipedia article: "Chris Criminal is an American bank robber."
• This essay: "Whoa, hold on a minute! Just because he robbed banks doesn't mean he is a bank robber. He might be something totally different than what he did. Turning 'robbing two banks' into 'bank robber' is a NOR violation. Try something like "Chris Criminal is an American person who robbed banks."

I can't imagine this argument gaining any traction at WP:NORN. It's not a NOR violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Again with the vegetarian/only child/orthopedic surgeon/medical sales rep slippery slope argument. Yes, we can call Joe Film an actor. Joe Film probably calls himself an actor. RS probably call him an actor, so the fact that RS didn't is completely immaterial. Valereee (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It's an essay. Again, It's simply setting out an argument. It's not setting policy, and it is clearly advising consensus is needed at a given article.

You're again using a slippery slope argument here with bank robber. A person who robs multiple banks is highly likely to be called a bank robber by multiple RS, which means WP can call them that. But even if consensus was to instead say 'robbed three banks in the 1990s with her partner, X' instead, how is that a problem? It communicates better.

And what GreenC said. If you're determined to continue this, let's discuss an article where these kinds of arguments have somehow had a negative outcome on the article. Valereee (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Even if no RS at all use the exact word actor or bank robber, these are still not violations of the NOR policy. Asserting that an acceptable, non-NOR-violating normal practice is a policy violation goes against consensus. Essays that contradict consensus can't be in the Wikipedia project namespace. See the policy WP:GUIDES, which says "Essays...that overtly contradict consensus, belong in the user namespace." WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Wait, you mean these thousands of words and slippery slope arguments you're making are boiling down to you don't think NOR is as good an argument as DUE? JFC. I have no objection to that. Valereee (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think NOR is a valid argument. I think that it's a misrepresentation of policy.

But I also have other concerns, as outlined here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)