Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Adding "about living people"

I recently made an edit that was reverted.[1] The edit was of the last sentence of the lead, which is currently

"The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

I think it is incorrect because it goes beyond the scope of this policy and refers to "any edit on Wikipedia". For example, it incorrectly includes editors' talk page comments that are not related to living people. I suggest correcting this by adding "about living people" which would result in,

"The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia about living people rests with the person who adds or restores material."

(Please also see [2] for a recent discussion with the editor that reverted my addition.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

As I've already stated, in my opinion the proposed change is misleading in that it implied that the burden of evidence doesn't apply in non-BLP contexts to articles. Which it does, per WP:BURDEN. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that at all. The resulting sentence with the proposed addition is about policy for edits about living people and no more, as it should. I don't think the editor and I can settle our differences so I'll wait for other editors to comment. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need to change the longstanding text. That suggestion is flawed because it makes it sound like I could say that the Eiffel Tower is on the moon, but it would be okay because it's not about living people. It looks like a solution in search of a problem, too; I don't think someone's going to cite the text of WP:BLP for any edit that doesn't involve BLPs in some way. Keep the lead clean.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be okay with "The burden of evidence for any edit to an article on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material", but I agree with the others that the suggested text implies that BURDEN doesn't apply to non-BLPs, which it does. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As a compromise suggestion, what about:

• The burden of evidence for any edit to an article on Wikipedia (especially edits in articles about living people) rests with the person who adds or restores material.

This would highlight that BURDEN is extra-important in the context of BLPs... without implying that we can ignore BURDEN in non-BLPs. Blueboar (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

That would work for me as well. DonIago (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the points made by Andy and Elaqueate. No change is necessary. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly "about or affecting" as we have not drawn a bright line at the moment of death about anyone in the past ... a contentious claim abut a dead person may, in fact, harm a living person improperly. If George Gnarph has a daughter Melly, and we have in his BDP - "George Gnarph left all his Nazi stolen artworks to his daughter" we would still be making a contentious claim affecting his daughter, implying she received stolen property, which should have the sourcing requirements of a claim about a living person. 14:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Collect (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm with other editors here who oppose these lede changes, per WP:CREEP and WP:BEANS. There's no need to further qualify burden of evidence here; the burden is the same regardless of topic or namespace. Regarding Collect's edit directly above mine that's missing a signature, if George Gnarph's daughter is alive then the edit is covered by the policy already: it is information about a living person, regardless of whether she's the subject of the article or not, so it does have the same sourcing requirements. I have just restored the version of the lede from just prior to this discussion starting, and it says everything that it needs to say already. Ivanvector (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• • The reason is from bitter experience with an old edit on Prescott Bush which alleged that the family fortune was derived from Nazi slave labour - where it was pointed out to me that such a claim was not actually barred by WP:BLP in its literal interpretation, even though such a claim obviously "affects" living persons. Do you think "affected" is really a major expansion of the clear intent of the policy? (sorry about missing a tilde though) Collect (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply wrongdoing by pointing out that you missed your sig, just wanted to make sure I was referring to the right comment. In the Bush example I think what was pointed out to you is not exactly correct. I don't like the use of "affecting"; the allegation is about the Bush family, of which there are living members who could be harmed by the allegation if it is not reliably sourced. It affects them, naturally, but I think "affecting" is very broad, and yes I do think it's a major expansion of the policy. You could say (I probably wouldn't) that saying the Bush family fortune was derived from Nazi slave labour affects anyone who supported their political aspirations. That's a huge longshot, but it's important to keep this policy concise. Besides, we have lots of policies that would prohibit that particular edit whether it was about living persons or not, if there were no source provided. Ivanvector (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. I have the impression that some of the editors here think that WP:BURDEN applies to any edit on Wikipedia, including any edit on Talk pages. So I ask, does WP:BURDEN apply to any edit on Talk pages? --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

That isn't and never has been my understanding. Articles, sure. Not Talk pages. I'm not even sure how BURDEN would be applied there, since it's my understanding that citations are rarely if ever invoked on Talk pages. DonIago (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No, WP:BURDEN is limited to mainspace, however WP:BLP applies everywhere, including talk pages. Ivanvector (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Then is the following sentence true or false?

"The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 04:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, technically false, as BURDEN doesn't apply to "any edit on Wikipedia". But then, I've been maintaining that since my first comment in this thread. DonIago (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Are the following two sentences true or false?

""The burden of evidence for any edit of an article rests with the person who adds or restores material. For edits about living people, this applies not just to articles but to anywhere on Wikipedia."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Shall we replace the current false statement in policy with the above statement? In other words, I propose that we change the last sentence of the lead from

"The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material."

to

"The burden of evidence for any edit of an article rests with the person who adds or restores material. For edits about living people, this applies not just to articles but to anywhere on Wikipedia."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Bob, I reverted your change. It is not false that there is no burden of evidence outside of article space. WP:BURDEN is part of a policy which applies specifically to articles, but editors are not relieved of burden of evidence by virtue of making edits outside of mainspace. An editor cannot make a BLP-violating edit anywhere on Wikipedia and expect it to remain just because it's on a talk page or in their userspace, for example. We tend not to use inline citations as backup outside of article space, but it's still up to whoever adds new material to back it up, however that looks outside of mainspace. If I go onto some living person's article talk page and make a disparaging comment about that person, I am in violation of BLP, and it's up to me to back up my comment by referring to a valid source, not up to other editors to refer to a source to refute my claim. It is also not true that this only applies to BLPs. I see your edit as unnecessary instruction creep which we need to avoid. Ivanvector (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you made a succinct and accurate statement in a previous comment of yours. I had asked, "...does WP:BURDEN apply to any edit on Talk pages?" You responded with, "No, WP:BURDEN is limited to mainspace, however WP:BLP applies everywhere, including talk pages."[3] I agree with this statement of yours and essentially made the same statement in my edit, "The burden of evidence for any edit of an article rests with the person who adds or restores material. For edits about living people, this applies not just to articles but to anywhere on Wikipedia." --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

The policy (which is actually WP:V) applies specifically to mainspace, that's correct. However I feel that your edit implies that everywhere else on Wikipedia is a free-for-all as far as adding potentially libelous content without requiring proof, which I'm sure you'll agree is not true. I think that the existing sentence is quite accurate, and not against the spirit of either policy. Adding unnecessary specifics opens the door to misinterpretation, and WP:BLP should be available for broad application. If there's an ambiguous technicality to be resolved here (where burden of evidence applies) I think that it's with the wording of WP:V, not the wording here. Ivanvector (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Re your remark "The policy (which is actually WP:V) applies specifically to mainspace, that's correct." — Then isn't the present statement in BLP incorrect? "The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material." My edit corrects this misstatement of WP:BURDEN by mentioning the burden of evidence for any edit in mainspace, and for edits about living people anywhere in Wikipedia.

Re your remark "I feel that your edit implies that everywhere else on Wikipedia is a free-for-all as far as adding potentially libelous content without requiring proof" — Could you explain where in my edit you think that false idea is expressed? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Dates of Birth/Death missing in biographies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently a discussion was had at the AFC wiki project talk page about adding the following categories to newly promoted biographies from AFC space if it was appropriate.

• Category:Date of birth missing
• Category:Date of birth missing (living people)
• Category:Date of death missing
• Category:Date of birth unknown
• Category:Place of birth missing
• Category:Place of death missing

There was a sidebar discussion about what to do about the numerous BLPs that are already in main space that may have these parameters not fully asserted. Therefore I would like to evalute the consensus on the following question

Is there consensus to have a bot task to scan all biographies in main space on a semi-frequent basis and based off an implementation, to add the appropriate maintenance categories to the page?

This RFC is not the implementation or requirements gathering for the task, it is only to ask the question "Should we do this task?". This is the first RFC in a proposed chain of RFCs to establish consensus for such a task and then to design the requirements for the task (should the first part pass)

Yes

1. As Proposer Hasteur (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. I support the idea of a bot performing this menial task of adding pages to this category with expectation of future RfCs to determine the method and level of inclusion. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 17:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

No

1. No, we have too many maintenance cats already, having a bot filling those mentioned above, which are of truly minimal importance (much less important than e.g. year-of-birth and year-of-death cats, and I don't think we even have bots for those), is overkill. I have my doubts whether we should even have the 6 above cats (well, the "unknown" cat is good to indicate that no further search is necessary), and I seriously doubt that a bot or script can add these cats with enough certainty, considering the restrictions some of these cats have (e.g. Category:Date of birth missing (living people)) about when not to add them. Whether someone is born on 3 March or 7 April is, apart from astrologists, of no real importance (if known and unproblematic, it may of course be added to articles); the year of birth and death though are truly important to indicate the period when someone lived (an impressionist painter who died in 1843 rings some alarm bells; but whether he died in June or July doesn't really matter, and whether he died in Brussels or Cologne isn't really essential either). Fram (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Some of these details may have been left out on purpose, date of birth in particular. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
3. I appreciate the sentiment behind this, but the reality is that, as SlimVirgin says, we routinely keep those details out of articles as a matter of courtesy, privacy, etc. Categorizing them would cause people to be even more insistent on inserting the information when we want to keep it out - especially in biographies of less notable subjects. We have enough issues with excited editors using unreliable or primary sources to insert birth dates as it is. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
4. I can appreciate the desire to improve biographies (of both living and dead persons) but I agree that there may be reasons to omit this information in particular articles. I also agree that this could cause people to be more insistent to fill this information without proper sourcing in violation of BLP. -- Atama頭 18:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
5. I'm surprised how many notable people on Wikipedia do not have a birth date listed and sometimes there is no birth year, much less a place of birth. Not all individuals who are notable enough for a profile want to disclose this information. I think the majority of BLPs do not have this complete set of specific facts (many don't have an infobox) and I think any notification system that puts tags on such a large proportion of articles is bad idea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
6. I'm a no. Where a famous person's date is missing from the web, a Wikipedia date, no matter how wrong, get's propagated across the web very quickly. I don't think we should be encouraging casual inclusion of birth dates as I find they are one of the most egregiously replicated memes of poorly cited info from Wikipedia. I've spend many a-hours looking for a good citation for someone's birth date only to find every reference on the web traced back to someone making a guess on Wikipedia. Making a centralized maintenance cat for streamlining insertion of birth dates will only encourage sloppiness by editors not invested in a given biography. Other info on Wikipedia isn't as rife for internet propagation as birth dates are IMO. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
7. I appreciate and applaud the sentiment behind this, but biographies are one area where I think it's acceptable for us not to have a completely filled database, particularly for the reasons enunciated by SlimVirgin and Dkriegls above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC).

Discussion

Given that a date, if present, may be in one or more of:

• infobox
• category
• persondata template
• prose
  • parenthesis after name in lede

and may not use clear language ("drowned after falling from a ferry in Liverpool on..." rather than "died on..."), what logic would be used to determine that none was present? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing That's more the implementation discussion. For not let's just assume that there will be a very narowly defined check set (persondata template, infobox). My envisioned solution is that as the bot progressively gets the easy ones out of the way we can add further checks to the system to hunt for more esoteric defects. i.e. Clean the ones where we've scaned the persondata template, Clean the ones where we've scanned the infobox, Clean the ones we scanned for category. I really don't think a bot should be looking in the prose to add these defect categories, so my personal view is to not add that check. Hasteur (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It would be fine for a bot to remove' one or more of the categories under discussion, if it finds an applicable date in a template, It would not be OK for it to add them, just because the date is not in a template, when it may still be in prose. And my answer to this RfC is dependent on the answer to this issue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that if the date isn't in either of the more easily parsible portions but is in the prose, the bot should flag down a human to rectify the templates with the content in the prose. The amount of false positives the bot could have by parsing the prose is so staggeringly high that I'm really hesitant to try and determine from the prose. In my envisioned process the bot would potentially hit the page a maximum of N times. Once if the Infobox was missing the parameters, Once if the person data template was missing the values, and once for any further tests we wanted to implement. Once the bot had scanned the page for each type, the bot would exclude from it's processing any page that it had already scanned for that type. Hasteur (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fram: You say we have "too many maintenance categories". I therefore repeat my challenge to you, in the AfC discussion: nominate these for deletion, and let the community prove you right. Or wrong. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The community can not prove my opinion to be right or wrong. It can be a minority opinion or a majority opinion, but that's something different of course. So no, I won't take up your challenge as it isn't worth the effort for me right now. Fram (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Your assertion that "we have too many maintenance cats already" was not couched as an opinion. Thank you for clarifying. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it was. "We have too many maintenance cats already", like "your baby is cute", is by its nature an implicit statement of opinion, just as "This RfC is in Category:Wikipedia requests for comment" and "he was born on Christmas day" are by their nature implicit factual claims. The reader understands from the context that how cute a baby is or how many maintenance cats are too many are statements of opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• How would the bot determine whether the date of birth is known but missing, or is not known at all (or there's no reliable source)? Ivanvector (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • That's more an implementation question, but pleas refer above to Pigsonthewing's question to see my initial thoughts. Hasteur (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@FreeRangeFrog: If there are pre-emptive exemptions we can load those into the bot's log so that it passes over the biography without ever considering it for review at any level. Like I said, I'm trying to keep this initial RFC very conceptual so that we can define how/what the requirements are in subsequent RFCs with probably a final RFC authorizing the bot's activities prior to the WP:BRFA submission. The idea is to make sure that the community is conceptually ok with this before I or another bot developer invests a great amount of time developing the structure. Hasteur (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I guess what I don't understand is why this is needed. As I said above, I understand wanting articles to be as complete as possible. But what is it about biographies in particular that invites the urgency of filling this information out? Aren't BLPs an area of the encyclopedia where we want to be extra cautious about rushing to fill in the blanks? I looked at the original discussion at WT:AFC and I don't see any indication of why this should be urgent either. -- Atama頭 19:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Urgent isn't the right term. It's a problem that does need to be fixed eventually, but at the same time if one of the ways for new users to have their articles created to mainspace started shooting for a higher standard in filling the info in (or flagging editors for getting the info), we'd have a better claim for accuracy and knocking out one of the legs that teachers like to use when students use wikipedia "How do you know the information is accurate?" Conversely it allows editors who love these types of research puzzles to look for the information. Hasteur (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm all for using this process to help flesh out biographies that are coming out of AFC. What I'm not enthusiastic about is tagging all of our existing BLPs with requests to add information that (A) may or may not be appropriate (or even possible) and (B) should be added cautiously. I assume that articles coming out of AFC are being vetted before they go into article space, so there's less of a risk, but adding all of these tags to existing BLPs is an implication that these articles must have this information added, which isn't true both because some articles shouldn't have this information, and because none of our BLPs absolutely need this information. And as for the complaint that our biographies aren't accurate, adding more information (which may or may not be verifiable) only makes matters worse. Adding that information makes our articles more informative, and more complete, but not more accurate, not unless you assume that an article lacking a subject's birthdate is implying that the person was never born. -- Atama頭 21:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me what benefit our readers get from these birthdates that justifies an intrusion into the privacy of the subject? (Sarcasm:) hey, let's add entries for mother's maiden name, social security number, and home address! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The benefit is that the readers have accurate information. I would assume that any editor who is working the defect category would make an evaluation of the public availability of the information versus the privacy concern. Think of it like the retention mechanics that companies use, where when you call to cancel something they try to make you an offer to stay with whatever it is you have. By giving the second look we're encouraging editors to find the information which means that readers have accurate information and our spot at the top of Google's standings is that much more justified. Hasteur (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Children?

Hi, this edit by Dan arndt added the names of Boden's children to the article, but I was under the impression we didn't mention people under 18 unless their names are important. Can we add them if they are passingly mentioned in an online article? Thanks, Matty.007 20:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

The names are reliably sourced and present in an article which seems to have lived for 12 years without Boden objecting (he posed at the time for a picture with his three daughters), so I can't see anything here that is either contentious or violates a living person's privacy, so I'd have to say it's not forbidden. According to WP:BLPNAME, as editors we should consider whether it adds value to an article to include the names of the subject's relatives, if the relatives are not notable on their own. I don't really feel strongly about that point one way or the other (between saying "three daughters" versus giving their names). Also, since this is a question about a specific article you should have posted it at WP:BLPN, where you would likely get a more thorough discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I spoke to Huon, as I thought that if it was not beneficial to the article there was no need to include children's names if they are minors. BLPN is more issues, as opposed to queries as far as I can tell. I don't want to sound as if I am accusing someone, just asking a question with regards to BLP policy. Thanks, Matty.007 11:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The policy currently says: "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." I don't see how the names of children, who are living persons in their own right, satisfy this requirement. Huon (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton requested move blp question

A hotly disputed move request is coursing along at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, which is sought to be moved to Hillary Clinton, a version of her name used in plenty of reliable sources and by Clinton herself throughout her 2008 presidential campaign. But the contention has been raised on the page that moving the page to remove the "Rodham" would in fact violate BLP. Is such a proposition at all intelligible under BLP? That a person would somehow be violated in their personage by the use of a title which not only is widely used in indubitably reliable source publications, but used indiscriminately by the per on themself? Perhaps a definitive determination as to this point would elucidate future disputations. DeistCosmos (talk) 03:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This question should be posed at WP:BLPN. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Consider it accomplished, brother. DeistCosmos (talk) 04:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

General Question

Is it permissible to include in an article an unsubstantiated, but notable, allegation against a notable figure? In other words, could I write in a Wikipedia article that George W Bush was alleged to have paid a minor to have an abortion or Barack Obama had homosexual relationship and sold drugs? Lulaq (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

So long as it has received wide coverage in reliable sources, is worded neutrally, etc. And then, I suppose subject to consensus - we're not a tabloid, so often things like that get left off articles altogether. It would depend what the allegation is, who is making it and about whom. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I gather the question is not so much a general one but has to do with Bush's alleged cocaine use. So now history repeats itself, this time as farce (first the paternal protector gets the arrest record scrubbed…). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that situation is analogous to going into President Obama's article and saying he was allegedly born in Kenya. IMO, both violate WP:BLP, but I don't feel an article on birther conspiracy theories or on the book writing about the conspiracy theory of Bush using cocaine violates WP:BLP. Lulaq (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

"...sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question"

Editors are using this clause to effectively claim that WP:RS are totally irrelevant. Apparently there is only one source that counts, the article subject, so why bother looking for any other sources or any other objective evidence/verification? The BLP policy should explain why article subjects get a veto in this particular area such that both WP:RS and WP:NPOV should be overridden (example, we see on the Guardian's website an unequivocal "Jodie Foster is a lesbian," this before a further speech by the subject in January 2013 that further highlighted the point, and before a same sex marriage this month that RS say "clarifies matters" even more). If only once source matters then why not go the distance and say that more explicitly? After all, if a self-outing or whatever you want to call it has to be 100% explicit, Wikipedia should presumably be 100% explicit as well.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That Guardian article is a gossip blog. And what, exactly, about the information it claimed was common knowledge before Foster came out would have precluded her identifying as bisexual, rather than lesbian? We can certainly report reliable sources on people's relationships, but sexual orientation is a matter of personal experience, so naturally the subject's own report is paramount. What, exactly, is difficult about this? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Lying is also a matter of personal experience. Does this mean my own report about whether I am lying or not is paramount? What, exactly, is difficult about following what RELIABLE SOURCES say? Fact is, we categorize people, places, and things on Wikipedia all the time without reference to whether the categorization is consistent with the categorized's "personal experience". As for Foster being bi, there's no evidence for that, and that issue doesn't even arise if the category is LGBT. As for calling the Guardian piece a "gossip blog", why challenge the source here when the BLP policy here says sources like that are irrelevant anyway? I take your attack on the reliability of that source a concession of its relevance.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no RS for a persons sexual identity apart from themselves. What other sources can contribute is facts about their relations and activiies inso far as they are publicly known. But any sexual identity label that third parties attach to them is invalid until the person in question publicly identifies with it. They are simply not RS for tat information. We may choose to write Media X has speculated that Perso Y is gay. But that does obviously not translate into u being able to tag them with that ctegory or otherwise describe peson y as gay.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There can't be any other source for an individual's sexual orientation than the individual concerned. Wikipedia doesn't engage in mind-reading. Frankly though, far too many contributors seem unhealthily obsessed with tagging individuals according to sexuality, ethnicity and whatever other easy stereotypes come to hand - reducing the individual to little more than a meaningless blob of 'data'. We should be able to do better than this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If we have verification that someone had sex with someone of the same sex 100 times and there's no evidence that someone ever even had an interest in someone of the opposite sex that person is objectively gay or lesbian. It's ironic you complain about "mind reading" when in fact it is editors who take your view who demand that objective, verified, publicly available evidence be rejected in favour of subjective, unverified claims. If tomorrow I claim to be a woman I'm a woman, despite the fact I look like a man, act like a man, and in every possible interaction with third parties manifest as a man? You're making a mockery out of WP:V, quite frankly, and illustrating how the view of the LGBT lobby that aims to liberate everyone to make their own reality dominates Wikipedia politics from top to bottom. See Wittgenstein's "beetle in the box" argument for more on how absurd the very idea of subjective language is. How can one even argue with someone who begins with "There can't be any other source"?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be tactful if you left the question of gender identity out of this discussion, which is evidently an attempt to overturn the consensus at Talk:Jodie Foster. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

What you in fact have there is a consensus to include a LGBT category and editors using the BLP policy to say that BLP trumps both consensus and NPOV. Overriding WP:NPOV is not "tactful" when NPOV is a Wikipedia "pillar."--Brian Dell (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

But gender identity has nothing to do with the case at hand, so why mention it? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I quite frankly do not know what you are talking about. The case at hand as far as I am concerned has to do with this BLP policy calling for a rejection of WP:V.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) The Guardian source is relevant, in as much as it's about Jodie Foster. It's not reliable, in that it's just a blog, of which the Guardian hosts scores, reporting the personal opinions of the bloggers, rather than the editorial judgement of the newspaper. Lying, by the way, is not a matter of personal experience. A lie is an untruth told with the intent to deceive - in other words, there's an objective element to it whereby the statement made is can be falsified, and an intentional element whereby the purpose is to mislead. Sexual orientation is a purely subjective experience - there is no more reliable source for it than the person whose experience it is. We class it with religion in BLP terms for exactly that reason. It's not like being, say, Scottish, where there's an objective characteristic of 'being from Scotland' which is testable. If I say I'm into guys, then I'm into guys. What possible evidence could a third-party source provide to gainsay that? AlexTiefling (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If what you you say is contradicted by what you've done since the day you were born I'd say your claim as been "gainsay"ed. There was a time when Wikipedia demanded verification instead of handing articles over to article subjects or their designated public relations agents for their signoff. If there's no objective element at all then it is an entirely private phenomenon and it would be nonsensical to have language for sexual orientation. See Wittgenstein's beetle. The resistance here is to being constrained by society/reality and that offends the liberal politics that predominate around here.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

But how can you know who I've been attracted to - as opposed to who I've been sexually or romantically involved with - unless I tell you? What objective test can you apply? I couldn't give a damn whether 'liberal politics' predominate around here; I'm suggesting that you're asking for something that doesn't exist. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And just to address the question of Wittgenstein's Beetle: If I say that I am attracted to men, in a general sense, then there are potential real world consequences - I might have sex with a man, start a relationship with a man, enter a marriage or civil partnership with a man. None of those are things I would choose to do, in this day and age, if I were not attracted to men. So it's not a strictly private language; there's clear social agreement as to what we mean by attraction on the basis of gender. But until I do something about that attraction - and in the case of WP subjects, get mentioned in a RS as doing so - there's no objective test. So we can open the boxes and compare beetles; it's just that not everyone does. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"mentioned in a RS" indeed. We apply the same test Wikipedia applies elsewhere, in other words. We follow what reliable sources say and don't claim on an entirely a priori / ideological basis that all sources are unreliable except the article subject. This BLP policy says it matters not a whit what all those RS say if an article subject does not explicitly endorse them.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not even slightly what I said. Please answer the question: On the subject of my professed attraction to (rather than interaction with) men, what source would you consider more reliable than one which reported my own experience? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There needs to be a similar BLP policy for people who are no longer living and can't defend themselves. Sexual orientation and religion are highly personal matters where the person self identifies. Once the person dies, anyone can assign all kinds of labels to a person and then it becomes RS, even though it's total BS and history revisionism. I can provide examples if anyone is interested. My point is, biographies should be treated the same, living or dead. USchick (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Brian, you have a point in that people can lie about their sexual orientation, and do it all the time - ex: gay people who want to remain in the closet oftentimes for good reasons. One can find oodles of sources that claim that Tom Cruise or John Travolta or many others are secretly gay, and who knows, maybe they are right, but what we care about for categorization purposes is public identification with a label, not private behavior. If someone's parents were from Scotland that is objectively and independently verifiable, but if someone is gay, how can you be sure? You can't - there isn't a gay test. The only way is for them to tell you. The rest is just supposition. There is a whole group of people called men who have sex with men, because such men don't identify as gay, even though they have relations with men - and if you call them gay you won't be able to reach out to them. There are vast spectrums of human behavior and identity that don't call into 'gay' 'straight' or 'bi' and it is presumptuous of us to assume otherwise and tag people based on behavior and 3rd party sources.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

"tag[ging] people based on behavior and 3rd party sources" as opposed to simply repeating their unverified claims about themselves is doing our job as an encyclopaedia. Tom Cruise or John Travolta should not be categorized as gay because that assertion is weak on verification. This BLP policy says verification is irrelevant: all the contrary evidence in the world should be rejected if the article subject rejects it and a total absence of any supporting evidence should also be ignored if the article subject asserts it. It's a very basic rejection of WP:V and WP:NPOV. I note that the poster calling attention to the arbitrary exception for living persons makes a good point. If a corporation should appear on Wikipedia the pitchforks would be out and the cries of conflict of interest would rise to the heavens. Have a LGBT person appear on Wikipedia, however, and woe betide the editor who does not not write the article EXACTLY as the article subject wishes the article to read re his or her sexual orientation.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr Dell, rather than continuing voice vague allegations, would you please answer the questions I have already asked you? (1) What source, other than one which reports the subject's own statement, would you regard as reliable with regard to a person's attraction, rather than sexual/romantic activity? (2) Why did you bring issues of gender identity into the discussion above?

(For what it's worth, I regard the situation regarding non-living people and LGBT identity to be deeply problematic; we often rush to ascribe modern sexual categories to individuals to whom they would have been entirely alien.) AlexTiefling (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"What source"? See WP:RS. I shouldn't have to repeat that policy word for word here. The issue is whether we follow WP:RS or not. That's it. As for what issues I'm bringing into the discussion, the issue is this BLP calls for a selective rejection of WP:V (and WP:NPOV). Follow WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV and I have no objection, whether you want to bring "gender identity" into it or not.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

yeah, it's a bit problematic, that once dead, we go by 'consensus' of scholars that person X was gay, even if they didn't ever identify with that label in their lifetime - and as you point out in some cases such labels didn't even exist or had totally different meanings. No easy answers there. But for Brian, I feel like you're pounding the RS drum but you're not listening. Someone can be gay even if they've only had sex with women, so behavior is only loosely tied to sexual orientation esp depending on the milieu one finds oneself in. If a RS finds celebrity X nude in bed with another man and 'outs' him, but the celebrity in question says 'no, I'm NOT gay' who are we to trust? Maybe he was in bed with a man, but maybe he also doesn't consider himself gay. Such is the nature of identity, and it would be wrong for us to tag him as gay if he vociferously denies it - or, even, declines to comment.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh I hear you. I am listening to you contend that it's possible to look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, and not be a duck. And I happen to agree. But it's like agreeing with you that it is possible for a million and one angels to dance on the head of a pin. It's a meaningless point to all of us who are not said duck. If as far as any interaction anyone might have with that entity is concerned the entity is a duck, then it's objectively a duck. If the duck says it's a horse, well, that should surely be noted, but that doesn't mean you can call the subject a horse using Wikipedia's voice and simultaneously say you are respecting WP:V.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

ok Sherlock, riddle me this - is it possible for a woman to have sex with a other woman, have a romantic relationship with another woman, and be physically and spiritually attracted to that other woman while simultaneously NOT identifying as a lesbian or bisexual?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot that's logically possible. But I fail to see the point of discussing what's logically possible or impossible when what Wikipedia reports is what has empirical evidence for it as opposed to the status of logical necessity. See my angels on a pin observation. I should add that if the subject says 'no, I'm NOT gay' I can see some value in warning editors against defying that. But this BLP policy currently goes beyond giving the article subject a veto to requiring subject sign-off. Sooner or later the editing community will have to stand up and say, "enough with the BLP already. There's a thing called NPOV that still matters."--Brian Dell (talk) 02:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the main point that is being missed here is that "gay" and "lesbian" are markers of personal identity, not just synonyms for someone who has had homosexual relationships. This is rather more than a theoretical possibility, please see men who have sex with men, which is a term widely used by medical and social scientists.--Pharos (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't assert that they are synonyms. I would assert, however, that Wikipedia's verification policy applies just as it does to the rest of our content. We do not set aside certain content areas and suspend our sourcing and neutrality policies saying that article subjects are the final, sole and unchallengeable arbiters of what Wikipedia says about them. Not if we are an encyclopaedia as opposed to an advocacy vehicle, at any rate.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The key here is whether reliable scholarship considers "gay" and lesbian" markers of personal identity, or as straightforward expressions of an individual's sexual preference. We should be looking at the larger phenomenon and how it's studied, rather than just picking off bits and pieces of media stories. Mostly, we will have cases of people who have homosexual relationships but don't consider themselves "gay" or "lesbian"; you could certainly argue some of these people are engaged in self-denial or even self-hatred, but that is is their business. In Foster's case, it appears she just philosophically disagrees with the political implications of a separate gay identity, and does not assume such an identity in any part of her life. In a few cases, it is possible that someone will readily self-identify as gay or lesbian in private, but not in public; and that is a bit more of a conflict, but it will then inherently be very difficult to WP:V.--Pharos (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

"[it] apears she . . ." Do you have a cite for that? As for the rest, according to the article's sources she publically proclaimed she "came out" many years ago, and is long past the stage, where she "proudly" tells everyone she meets (now including public audiences) . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Do I have a source for that? Of course not, this is my point! She has adopted a policy of deliberate ambiguity because she apparently enjoys watching Wikipedians squirm a little, and good on her.--Pharos (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no ambiguity from her -- the ambiguity is apparently something made up by people who "of course" have no sources. In other words, it is apparently making some here go I did not hear that, Jodie Foster! Say it louder! To which she is responding, in effect, Don't be absurd, nor idiotic. I've come out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

This is one of the ways that BLP has been extended over the last few years that is troublesome, where the concept of "self-identification" is being held as superior to the content of sources. It's not. If someone "self-identified" as Canadian while sources demonstrated that he held a US passport, was born of American parents, and had never set foot on Canadian soil, I don't think many would support listing him as "Canadian" in his Wikipedia article. At most, his protest might some discussion in the article. Here, we generally are on equally troublesome territory, where policy states that reliable sources can be ignored in the absence of an explicit confirmation from the subject. I can see a need to proceed cautiously and a need to ensure that the sourcing is extremely reliable, but the idea of requiring explicit confirmation is unreasonable. People don't get to control their own article, here or in any place that attempts to provide neutral and factual data.—Kww(talk) 04:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many aspects of identity, and self-identification is only relevant for some of them. The way that sexual orientation is understand in modern sociology, it is I think one of those aspects where self-identification is highly relevant. Religion is another one of these; if an individual claims that they are a "Christian" or a "Muslim" or an "Atheist", there should be a very high burden on outside sources that try to contradict that.--Pharos (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't argue with the need to set a high burden, but a prohibition goes too far.—Kww(talk) 05:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of whether we should be mixing in competing claims about what "modern sociology" says in order to suspend normal verification requirements (should unreconstructed types like myself who are not up on what's hot in Queer Studies be excluded from any debate for that very reason?), the policy indeed does not say there is a high burden, it presumes that it is impossible (or simply forbidden) to contradict what an article subject claims, and then goes further to say that even in the absence of ANY contradiction by the subject one STILL cannot cite reliable sources on the point, the subject must actually ENDORSE what those sources are saying. Let's not straw man this by suggesting the current wording is less extreme than it is.--Brian Dell (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's leave aside the LGBT hot buttons for a minute. How would you handle someone's religion? Let's assume that we have an apparently reliable source (say, an article in a political magazine) that says that Alice Expert is a Roman Catholic. The source didn't interview Alice, but states as a fact that Alice has been seen more than once at a particular Catholic church and appears to based their conclusion (that she's a member) on this. What would you do in these cases?

1. Alice directly says (perhaps on her personal website) that she's not a Catholic.
2. Alice directly says that she's not a member of any church.
3. Alice directly says that she's a Methodist.
4. You can't find any independent source that appears to have asked Alice about her religion.
5. The only other source mentioning Alice's religion quotes her reply as, "My religion is kindness".
6. You can't find any other source at all, not even Alice's blog, that mentions religion (perhaps because Alice and the people who interview her are all apatheists and so find the whole subject too unimportant to write about.)

What would you do with these situations? Do you go with the (possibly wrong) "reliable source"? Do you omit it as WP:UNDUE? Do you "teach the controversy", that the magazine says she's Catholic and she doesn't? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

The whole "we must rely on sources rather than self-identification" thing is problematic, especially given how ingrained some sources are to using previous names for trans people even after they've had surgery and been on Dancing with the Stars (that includes the Welsh Wikipedia, btw). And to WhatAmIDoing, we actually do have an example of that: George Galloway, a confirmed Catholic, has been dogged with rumours that he converted to Islam for about a decade. Additionally, I'm wary of relying on public statements to the press as the only source of reliability. Take for example, Sarah Brown: she's openly gay, trans, and polyamorous, but was that any less true before she was featured in a Guardian story? Sceptre ^(talk) 16:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of WP:UNDUE on most identification issues. Very few people are famous because they are Irish, Norwegian, left-handed, gay, straight, or whatever. I'd be much happier if we simply omitted all of these groupings unless the sources demonstrate that the information is relevant to the reason we have an article on them. That would solve the Jodie Foster case quite neatly, for example: we have an article on her because she's an actress, not because of anything to do with her sexuality or ethnicity.—Kww(talk) 16:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Brian, I'm trying to keep this out of the realm of queer studies and so on. But you still haven't answered my question. Orientation is a matter of attraction, not activity. So what source, other than one in which the person in question is quoted as describing their attraction, would you regard as reliable with regard to it? This isn't about trendy theories - it's about verifiability. You clearly believe orientation exists, or you wouldn't be doing what you're doing now. So please give an example, rather than a bunch of Wikipedia policy shortcuts, to show what you think is a reliable source in this case. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• Part of the issue appears to be what is meant by "publically self-identify." Where some "self" makes "public" their identification (eg. by publically marrying), then the publically self-identify prong should be met, as a USA Today source noted in the case that brought this here a Same-sex marriage, also refered to as a 'gay marraige' "clarifies the matter." Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Chirlane McCray is in a "straight marriage", as it so happens to the current mayor of New York City; does this mean we have to put her in a "straight" category?--Pharos (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there such a wp:category? We obviously cannot, if it is not present. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I would accept a category "People with a LGBT history" for people who previously, but may no longer, identified as LGBT, in the same way we have Category:Former Roman Catholics. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There's Category:People self-identified as ex-gay. Jim Michael (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Read the ex-gay topic, which redirects to Ex-gay movement; it is not simply about no longer identifying as gay or by some other LGBT category; it is usually about "people and organizations that encourage people to refrain from entering or pursuing same-sex relationships, to eliminate homosexual desires, to develop heterosexual desires, or to enter into a heterosexual relationship." It is usually associated with sexual orientation change efforts. And that is the main reason I reverted you on this mater at the Jessie J article. Not to mention that, as far as we know, she does not identify as "ex-gay." Flyer22 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Campaign contributions

What is the standard for including information on campaign contributions based on publicly available information in BLPs? Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest for a start that any inclusion should be predicated on such contributions being discussed in detail in mainstream third-party sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Policy encouraging whitewashing?

It seems to me that, despite reliability, facts can be whitewashed in order to meet this policy. There are rumors on high-profile people, yet they are considered contentious to these people. Corruption and scandals, for example. Do encyclopedias encourage whitewashing? --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedias discourage rumor-of-the-day type content. If these rumors are persistent and sourced, they will make it in. See Frank_Sinatra#Alleged_organized-crime_links for example. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and the policy does explicitly address your concern, in WP:WELLKNOWN: 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. (Note that this applies only to public figures; for low-profile private citizens, the policy states we should err on the side of "do no harm"). MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Note for administrators" section may discourage necessary sanctions

The good news is that "Administrator instructions" now links to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions which explicitly links to BLP-related info in the ”Current areas of conflict" section. The bad news is that "Special enforcement on biographies of living persons" links to the original Arbitration whose special enforcement has been struck, followed with a note ''Superseeded by motion 12 to 0, 21:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC) which leads to an abstruse page on housekeeping. So any Admin looking for an excuse not to enforce discretionary sanctions might find one there. Any idea of how to improve that section of this policy page?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:50, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI. Other related changes are going on in this area, both in relevant policy and in article and user talk page notifications. So I'm going to keep on top of them and then see if a proposal is necessary. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Human dignity

Since the Foundation urges us to take account of the human dignity of our subjects,[4] would it be a good idea to incorporate that in our policy? Presently, we just mention the Foundation's wish at the end of the page - as a kind of afterthought, with no comment either way on whether we should heed them,[5] and I think it should be a clear part of this important policy document. Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The balance in the policy between recording accurate information supported by WP:RS but subject to WP:UNDUE etc is about right at the moment. Your proposal could unnecesarily disturb that balance in potentially unpredictable ways. If it ain't broke...DeCausa (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

A good change, though, would codify and actually write down actual practice, which does in fact take into account human dignity. It's a mistake when policy doesn't reflect actual practice because it leads to silly arguments (in this case, most often from people who would like to violate BLP I'm afraid).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Adding such an ambiguous and obviously squishy requirement to the actual policy mechanics strikes me as a bad idea (on the basis that you can't legislate clue). Might be worth noting higher on the page though as a matter to consider - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that noting it as a "matter to consider" would not be controversial and would reflect actual practice. That we don't say that it's a matter to consider unfortunately leads to people arguing that it can be completely disregarded, etc. So I agree with you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

re "Adding such an ambiguous and obviously squishy requirement to the actual policy mechanics strikes me as a bad idea" - I don't always find myself on the same side of an argument as David Gerard, but regarding this comment I couldn't agree more. Policy needs to have clear and easy to follow guidelines. Putting in vague language like that proposed, just leads to WP:WIKIDRAMA. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the above, nonsense addition. While it makes sense in a resolution, as a wording, in a policy it would just mean everything and nothing. If anything, we have too vague-worded, "we-have-to-be-nice-whatever-it-means" policies. --cyclopia^speak! 14:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps some hypothetical examples pointing out where current policy would likely go wrong in this respect would be helpful. Wikipedia does have the WP:IAR safety valve, but typically BLP related issues tend to be controversial so you can't easily invoke IAR in these situations. Count Iblis (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see this proposed addition as "squishy" or meaningless. It's a statement of a guiding principle underlying the policy. Guiding principles are always "vague" and general statements. The policy goes on to describe specific ways in which we respect biographical subjects' human decency (for example, by providing protections for low-profile private citizens, and by requiring high-quality reliable sources). I think the addition would be useful and appropriate. There's a segment of the community which consistently rejects any appeal to human decency, and it would be helpful if this policy clearly spelled out what the Foundation has made clear—that it's an important consideration. The only counter-argument is alluded to by David Gerard: if you have to command someone to display human decency by force of policy, the battle is already lost. MastCell ^Talk 16:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

  Motherhood-and-apple-pie directives in the actual policy mechanism are generally used by the querulous as a handy stick to beat others with. I doubt the arbcom is actually this much in need of work - David Gerard (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. What's not being said here is what is this intended to fix. What are the community decisions which, for instance, would have been different if this had already been in place? If the answer is "none" then why is it needed. If there are examlles, then they should be identified and considered. DeCausa (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Querulous wikilawyers will abuse this policy no matter what it says. (For example, people who are generally taken seriously on this site have argued that it's a BLP violation to mention the (correct) pronunciation of the Koch brothers' last name or to describe a retired physicist as "retired", among other lunacy). Our policies shouldn't be written with querulous wikilawyers in mind, or else they become unusable by the rest of us. MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Good summation why this shouldn't be done. DeCausa (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Mention it perhaps, but don't make it a "binding" law. I would like to, but it has the potential for loophole abuse and lawyering. KonveyorBelt 18:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I do concur with the idea. The sort of thing someone should consider.

So ... does anyone have a suggested edit to the page? - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

We could simply add "and dignity" to the sentence in the final paragraph of the lead: "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy and dignity." Then link to the Foundation resolution in a footnote. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That strikes me as a good spot - David Gerard (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I like SlimVirgin's suggestion. Perhaps "human dignity"? Shall we link it to Human dignity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Good. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A most appropriate suggestion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a good edit to me, as well. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think this entire "What Would the Subject Desire?" orientation is a huge mistake and this suggestion the latest new iteration. BLP started as a requirement that information about a living biographical subject needed to be documented as factual. It has evolved into some sort of touchy-feely ultraconservative "We Must Only Say Nice Things in The Appropriate Manner or Eliminate the Information Altogether." This leads to whitewashing, particularly in the case of the biographies of politicians and celebrities. Carrite (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you would be willing to explicitly state that human dignity has nothing whatsoever to do with the preferences of the subject, I could probably support this. The problem is that you seem to have "human dignity" confused with "making people feel good about themselves", "presenting people the way they want to be presented", and "following the precepts of their religions", which are completely different topics that run counter to presenting factual and neutral descriptions of people. I know you have brought this up in respect to the "Hilary Clinton" vs. "Hilary Rodham Clinton" discussions and with respect to the discussions of Muhammad imagery, two places where it had no particular relevance.—Kww(talk) 05:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Carrite, and Kww, the Foundation simply asks us to take human dignity into account. Which I think is reasonable. It doesn't ask us and no one is arguing we ought to do so to the detriment of the encyclopedia, as you both seem to imply. It's one of many factors that presently guide most editors here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• Sometimes, depending on context and sourcing, it does and sometimes not. There can be little fear that anyone will be applying BLP to the long dead. As for whitewashing BLP's that is also an extreme slippery slope claim. The policy does not apply to the dead -- and bad, good and neutral things will still be well written about living people and will go in their biography. Having supported such things going into biography even over objections of the living subject that will continue to be the case -- just because the subject thinks something is not itself a sufficient reason -- that does not mean it must not be considered (dead people will, of course, not be thinking anything). While we do not censor, that means we do not censor living people either. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, Anthonyhcole, I would argue that your entire position on Muhammad was based on your notion of what constitutes respect for the human dignity for Muslims. I think it's essential that our policies encode that you are wrong. Alanscottwalker, while Muhammad may be dead, his followers are not. David Gerard would have had us behave differently than all reliable sources about Manning in order to respect Manning's human dignity. I think it's also essential that our polices encode that he was wrong to do so. This proposal seems an effort to substitute an editor's personal feelings about someone else's personal feelings for the content of sources. That would be to the detriment of the encyclopedia.—Kww(talk) 15:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• (My position on Muhammad images was against gratuitously, i.e., for no good reason, including images in the article that add nothing to the readers' understanding of the man while alienating a large proportion of the very people who should be reading that article. The only commonality between that and concern for BLP subjects' feelings is a recognition that people have feelings and that, where we can avoid it without diminishing the encyclopedia, we should not trample on them - in the case of BLP subjects, as an end in itself if we are to be a human rather than a psychopathic institution, and in the case of our readers, if for nothing else, so as to make our articles available to as wide an audience as possible. Can we focus on how we treat our BLP subjects, please? You can begin a discussion about how we treat our readers any time you like, but elsewhere would be a good place for that.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• I concur with Kww. What constitutes "human dignity" is subjective, and while we can make note that it should be considered, lets also make sure that whatever addition (if any) we make here does not create another attack vector for tendentious editors to exploit. Resolute 15:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• "while Muhammad may be dead, his followers are not" So? Neither are the followers of Napoleon, Christ, Abraham Lincoln, or Ghandi, that means nothing to BLP policy. As for appeals to editors, WP:Consensus and WP:BURO already enshrine appeals to editor's good sense. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see the problem with slipping in a bit of "human dignity" language. It's just another way of saying "undue emphasis" in many cases. Once I found an article about an old-time comedian in which the bulk of the article rehashed some recent legal troubles. It was a clear case of undue emphasis, but human dignity applied too. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The problem with "human dignity" is that it is a very subjective and contentious term, that has been used quite a bit lately on-wiki as a scheme to push political viewpoints. Some people will claim that showing a photo of a topless FEMEN demonstrator violates her dignity. I would say that seeing her as merely a naked woman and denying her the right to be seen as she presented herself violates her dignity. On any issue you can imagine, any case you could name here where you'd say that "dignity" demands we do something, I bet I could make a counter-argument. "Take into account" does not mean "write directly into policy". Dignity is one of those things like the Torah where we're going to want a little interpretation before it gets to the level of policy. Wnt (talk) 15:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The way I understand it, WMF policies automatically apply to the projects, especially projects that are too small to have their own policies; but projects can make their own policies as well. So en.WP can endorse the statement, or maybe even clarify it, but not repudiate it.

This "dignity" resolution is merely meant to be a statement about core values, like neutral point of view. The statement in its entirety, as amended, is:

Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information and/or media, especially in articles or images of ephemeral or marginal interest;

I can't find the discussion about the specifics that triggered the resolution, but I seem to remember some discussion some time ago about adding negative or gratuitous information to an article about someone who was only marginally notable, or maybe notable only for being the victim of some heinous crime. How much graphic information is really needed in that case? Another situation that has come up is a person who uploaded images of themselves as a minor, and who later had misgivings and wanted the images deleted. These are reasonable applications of "dignity".

I don't think anyone wants "dignity" to be read as an excuse for concealing potentially embarrassing information about well-known public figures that legitimately belongs in the public eye. But there is no excuse for specifically and cold-bloodedly excluding compassion from policy discussions. —Neotarf (talk) 08:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the point is that they should be policy discussions, not individual case discussions. The time to argue whether a concern for dignity should allow minors to delete an image is when coming up with a policy on courtesy deletions. We shouldn't have people arguing ad hoc about what dignity really is in every MfD. Wnt (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf: the Board resolution was written before my time on the Board, but my understanding is that it was not based on an individual or specific case(s), but rather on the whole BLP debate which had been going on for many years, and was triggered in the public eye outside Wikipedia by John Seigenthaler's article about his biography. In other words, this is an ongoing knotty problem, and the resolution attempted to set out some principles for the projects :) -- phoebe / (talk to me) 23:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I see. The principles of neutrality and verifiability are meant to address problems of promotionalism, vandalism, and malicious false statements. The "human dignity and respect for personal privacy" language seems more targeted towards "people who are only marginally well-known" whose articles might have "small errors or be poorly written or poorly sourced". I would imagine this is related to the U.S. laws on who is a "public figure", which would in turn determine the legal definition of whether something written about them was defamatory or an invasion of privacy. "Dignity" is not meant to apply to public figures. —Neotarf (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not? If you were a public figure, would you not wish to be treated in a way that respects your basic human dignity? Or would you say, "I'm a public figure, so it's good that people are de-humanizing me and treating me like an object!"

Perhaps the problem is a misunderstanding. Respecting human dignity does not mean omitting important and verifiable information merely because it's embarrassing. An article about Bill Clinton can respect his human dignity and still say that he was impeached and accused of a variety of crimes and other bad behaviors. ISBN 9789048196616 is a scholarly work about what happen when we don't grant people human dignity. Please have a look at what it covers and then tell me whether you think that degradation, dehumanization, instrumentalization, ritual humiliation, etc., is what a well-written, NPOV-compliant encyclopedia would accept for any subject, or whether you can now see why I believe that all subjects, even public figures, should be granted human dignity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but this is largely a distinction based on legal realities. In the U.S. at least, the law against libel and slander is quite strict, except in the case of public figures; freedom of press says you can print pretty much anything, as long as there is no malice involved, that is, you don't know for a fact that something you have printed is not true. So the original intent of the language must have been to protect the "little people" who do not have press agents and public relations departments or who cannot afford to pay someone to edit their Wikipedia article. "Dignity" language meant to protect people who were only marginally notable would probably end up protecting more well-known individuals as well. There is an old military saying about what flows downhill; apparently compassion flows uphill. —Neotarf (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe that compassion should be given to all humans, not just those "uphill". I see no value in objectifying or dehumanizing anyone. Objectification and dehumanization are violations of human dignity, whether done maliciously or negligently. They are also seriously unencyclopedic. Accurately reporting relevant, well-sourced facts, in compliance with WP:TONE and WP:DUE weight, are not violations of human dignity.

The distinction between respecting human dignity and violating it has nothing at all to do with American libel laws; this philosophical concept predates the USA's existence by at least a century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Could you please help me understand what types of scenarios would be covered under a human dignity clause that are not already covered under the language about tone and balance? GabrielF (talk) 06:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this all traces back at least to huge debates over santorum (neologism) several years ago. There is a certain crew of editors that collaborate off-site to try to embarrass and curtail Wikipedia's coverage of explicit topics; additionally, the role of Rick Santorum in the 2012 presidential election was substantial. (The group of editors has some links with Pennsylvania, where he was a former senator). Anyway, the gist of the anti arguments then would be that featuring this campaign, meant to mock and belittle the candidate, was demeaning to his dignity and should be struck out, while those of us who were pro tend to follow the idea of "As Above, So Below", i.e. that if RSes cover something it has a place in Wikipedia. A replay of the debate, by many of the same people, happened a year or two later over a painting Pricasso made of Jimbo Wales, with some people saying that even the still image of his little sketch ought to be deleted because of the, ahem, unusual way he painted it. The resolution seemed like an attempt at a compromise position in the ongoing debate. Anyway, my feeling is we shouldn't be taking stuff out because it's not nice, however you put it, and if some things are taken out anyway, we should be sure to narrow that list at every step, as surely as those interested will be trying to expand it. Wnt (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

What? The Board Resolution is from 2009 and is already stated in this policy, so, it does not go back to those things. The reason this was recently brought here was statements by article subject's about their name, and some people claiming we can't consider what the subject's say about their own name, when we use their name in our articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You're referring to the debate regarding the use of the name Chelsea vs. Bradley Manning? GabrielF (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

More recently this [6] Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually the debate over "santorum" dates back to 2006. Wnt (talk) 04:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

GabrielF, to respond to your question above: I don't think that this really does cover new situations. However, it might be clearer to some editors that the situations that the community currently considers to be covered, really are covered. I'm not sure that will make sense, so let me give you an analogy: at MEDRS, you'll find pretty much one of every "keyword" when talking about certain kinds of sources. That way we won't have POV pushers read it, and say "Well, it doesn't mention the exact name I prefer for this area, so obviously none of it applies!" We have (due to having more than a hundred thousand unique editors a month) a lot of inexperienced people who will reasonably disagree about whether the "tone" or "balance" is appropriate, but who would respond correctly (meaning the way that most experienced editors would respond, and the way that the Board resolution intends) if they're told that they need to consider "human dignity" and "privacy". So if you say to some of these people, "This violates the BLP policy, because the tone and balance are wrong", they'll disagree with you, but if you say, "This violates the BLP policy, because it doesn't show respect for privacy and human dignity", they'll understand what you meant. I see it as another way of explaining the basic point to the subset of editors who don't already grok it.

I don't think that this change (in how we explain it, not really in what we want) will tell you what to do with the Manning naming dispute. It might, however, help some people see that pages ridiculing, shaming, or accusing people are Officially Not Okay, even when they don't understand what we mean by "tone". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are people who approach these issues with the expectation of making binary decisions: if x=0, then delete, if x=1 then check for reliable source. But what causes embarrassment for a foundation is when it is very obvious to the public that a particular course of action is not right or reasonable. There needs to be some sort of acknowledgment that ethics is expected to play a role here, that decisions can be made based on what is the decent or right thing to do. —Neotarf (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Convenience break

I see no consensus for my proposed change here. Thank you for your feedback, everyone. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin's proposal enjoyed good support from both sides of the debate. Any objection to implementing that? Andreas JN466 19:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you think so? Perhaps I'm too close. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. But what if a person has done serious damage to their own dignity? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

If it's genuinely noteworthy, they'll just have to live with it in their BLP. No one's proposing we whitewash anything. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a pretty conservative change. A brief scan shows roughly:

• Those in favour of adding those words, or something about dignity: David Gerard, WhatamIdoing, Alanscottwalker, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, phoebe, Anthonyhcole, Coretheapple, Jimbo Wales, MastCell, KonveyorBelt (I think), Neotarf, Andreas, myself.
• Those against: DeCausa, NickCT (possibly), Carrite, Kww (somewhat opposed), Wnt, Resolute (somewhat opposed).
• Comments only: GabrielF, Count Iblis.

I think we can go ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

OK. Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Certainly that proposal had the vote count, but I am not certain there was consensus to actually give the suggestion that human dignity be considered the weight of policy as is done with that phrasing. But... we'll see how it goes (and how long before certain editors abuse it to further their agendas). Resolute 00:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Count me in the oppose camp of this edit. Just noticed this managed to creep into policy, after I've been offline a few days. I feel that, while the intent may be good, this is going to be abused to justify whitewashing biographies and to skip NPOV. We are already dangerously in this territory, we don't need to go further.--cyclopia^speak! 13:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that view. Anthony has very sensibly said that this isn't his intention, but it's obvious enough that it will be the outcome in a non-trivial number of instances. The principle is fine (I like apple pie as much as the next person), but I think the proposal will cause trouble. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should try it out for a while. If it turns out that we have problems (more than we already have), we could always remove it in a few months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

For changes like this with potentially wide-ranging implications the bar should be set higher than "Let's try it out and see what happens". I oppose the change on the grounds mentioned by among others Kww and cyclopia. It's so easy for editors to misuse a claim of 'dignity' to further their cause in an editing argument, as can already be seen in the discussion on the naming of Hillary Clinton. Also it seems to me that the proposed (and briefly applied) wording that BLP's "must be written ... with regard for the subject's ... dignity" is stronger and more directive than earlier mentions of it as a "matter to consider". If a wording can be found that addresses the widely expressed concern of misuse of the term the opposition to adding it could perhaps be overcome. --Wolbo (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If this policy was settled in at the time of the Chelsea Manning move discussion, I think the article would have moved to "Chelsea" with little or no argument - at least on policy grounds. And we wouldn't be sinking precious time into moving Hilary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton, and Sarah Jane Brown to Sarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Your answer does nothing to address my concern of possible misuse of the term 'dignity'. On the contrary, by choosing to apply it to these particular situations, and by stating that 'dignity' is an argument not only to decide these RMs but apparently to prevent them altogether, you only highlight and strengthen my concern.--Wolbo (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what is more insulting. That you expect us to believe that, or that you expect us to believe you believe that. Certainly in the Sarah Brown case, while you and I both believe the original dab was sexist (i.e.: an affront to Mrs. Brown's dignity), some disagree with that view, and therefore would argue that such a title is not an affront to her dignity. Hell, I agree with Wolbo that you've done much to reinforce their argument in this case, as it does appear you are misusing the word dignity in your own argument. Resolute 17:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I do believe it will never be used to whitewash. On the other question, naming and dignity, see my response to Obi below. I will be arguing (have done, in fact, all along) that misnaming can insult our subject. I agree that editors will differ on whether a particular name is insulting and whether a particular instance is a gratuitous affront, or justified by a significant benefit to the reader. I trust the community to decide those questions case by case. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but were you not one of the editors in the Muhammad images dispute attempting to use "dignity" as an argument for whitewashing out the images? Resolute 17:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious about Anthony's response to this point, so let's ping @Anthonyhcole: just to make sure it's not overlooked. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I responded to Kww on this above, I think. If that doesn't answer your question, I'll be happy to elaborate. (Nomo, Resolute and Kww were three of the most active supporters of including Muhammad images, even images that added no relevant didactic value to the article.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It could never be used to whitewash an article - you're dealing with Wikipedians. It will be used to prevent editors from adding hurtful, embarrassing or humiliating photos or comments of little or no relevant didactic value to biographies. You don't have a problem with that, do you? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any problem at all with the notion that we should prevent editors from adding "hurtful, embarrassing or humiliating photos or comments of little or no relevant didactic value to biographies". I do however expect that the addition would be used by people wishing to exclude material that does have relevant didactic value to biographies. As things stand, we see editors misusing WP:DONOHARM in this way, despite the obvious… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, editors will try to whitewash with it. The only way to know how the community will respond to that, is to try it. I'm confident the community will handle it well. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with the above, with the added point that deciding what is of "didactic value" is often an inherently subjective and POV exercise. What I might find worthless could be essential information to someone else. That is where POV dragons lie. Currently our policies already skew the balance against anything negative on living subjects. There are good reasons for that, but as Nomoskedasticity notices, we often tilt the balance too much already. If we further dilute our NPOV principles by giving free-for-all vague cards like "dignity", then anyone can claim that a negative information would violate that wording of WP:BLP, with good reason; accompanied by the often-repeated canard of "BLP trumps everything!!1!", we would basically paving the way to have vanity pages instead of bios. BLP already asks us to be careful with sources and conservative with privacy -that is already enough. More than enough.--cyclopia^speak! 14:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I trust the Wikipedia community to be able to effectively make those judgments. I don't think it's right to keep respect for human dignity out of this policy just because you don't trust the community's judgment on that. We should try it, as WhatamIdoing says. The vast majority of the community wants comprehensive and reliable articles, and we won't tolerate any policy change that, in practice, compromises that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I trust the Wikipedia community to be able to effectively make those judgments. - Members of the WP community already get many of those judgements wrong, routinely, removing stuff which is well sourced and policy compliant because it looks negative. Entire articles on notable subjects have been deleted on these grounds, more or less thinly veiled. The problem with "dignity" is that it is utterly vague and basically everything negative about a subject will be construed as violating it. Because actually it is. We do not need more ground to POV pushers.

and we won't tolerate any policy change that, in practice, compromises that. Then why are you advocating a policy change that does exactly that? --cyclopia^speak! 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We won't know what the community does with it until we try it. Of course they get things wrong. Sometimes. But all we have is our best judgment as a community to guide us. I trust us to know gratuitous insult when we see it. You don't. I can't persuade you, but we could try it and see. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

We won't know what the community does with it until we try it. Sorry, this is a terrible argument. First, bad ideas do not all need to be tested, we can guess they will have bad consequences already. What will happen if I put my head in a microwave? Technically I don't know until I try it, but we can safely guess it is not a good idea. Second, we already have evidence that the community tends to err too much on the side of caution with respect to BLPs - see Talk:Johnny_Weir/Archive_3 for example of BLP interpretations going already insane, in 2010. We don't need giving such people more rope. Third, gratuitous insults are already well kept at bay by current policy -your added wording does nothing about that that current BLP already doesn't. --cyclopia^speak! 16:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Lots above: Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest ought not be too difficult to grasp, and is reasonable to place in this policy. Wording such as

Material which is of ephemeral value or which violates privacy rights should be avoided in any article

(or thereabouts) might make sense. Collect (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure I get it. We surely already cannot violate privacy laws, so this seems pointless to me (but hey, if it needs reinforcing, okay). About "ephemeral value", this is something that cannot be evaluated in a neutral fashion (except perhaps in very obvious cases), and it is too vague to be useful. --cyclopia^speak! 16:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't get any of this. We're well-stocked with specific protections already eg sections on Tone, Balance, Presumption in favor of privacy in this policy plus WP:UNDUE etc. Spending time on coming up with wording for an amorphous ill-defined concept that only risks being abused, to fix something which doesn't need to be fixed doesn't seem worthwhile to me. Also, there may be a majority (!vote) in favour of adding something but there certainly is no consensus in favour of adding it so I'm not sure why it was suggested an addition should go ahead (now reverted I see). (Btw, I think I'm counting 9 opposed and 13 for at the moment.) And, I don't think something should be added "to see how it works" (as suggested above) because it will then shift the burden to having a consensus to remove it rather than the current need for a consensus to add it. DeCausa (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that it's "vague" or "ill-defined". It might be "unfamiliar to some editors", but they could go read the encyclopedia article we have on it, or even some of the good sources listed there, and that should help them figure out what the term means.

Like others, I trust the community to be able to handle this. It's not actually that difficult. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It's puzzling that you linked to that article given that it summarises multiple and potentially conflicting interpretations. I thought this was useful: "The abiding difficulty with the natural law approach is that its assumptions, intellectual procedures, and modalities of justification can be employed equally by the proponents of human dignity and the proponents of human indignity in support of diametrically opposed empirical specifications of rights . . . ." DeCausa (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The line you quote is a complaint about the limitations of natural law, not the limitations of dignity, but let's go with that:

Sure, even entirely good-faith people can disagree over the application, but that's always been true. Is it pointlessly disrespectful to say that a BLP married and divorced multiple times, when that has nothing to do with notability? If divorce is shameful in your culture, then you'll oppose that. If it's not shameful, then you probably won't. Is it appropriate to refer to a physician as "Smith" rather than using the more respectful "Dr Smith"? How about "Obama" vs "President Obama"? Jimmy Carter's proper title is "Governor Carter" (not "President Carter", despite what you read in the paper, or "Mr Carter", which is what many properly brought-up children may assume): shall we use that, or is it insulting to get it right, when we could use an inflated title? To give a first name rather than just initials, in cultures where first names are for family and childhood friends only? To provide the names and ages of any young children? To report medical conditions? Mental health conditions? Addiction? Addiction in non-notable family members? (What if that child's or spouse's addiction is relevant, e.g., explaining why the person is an activist?)

This is no different from the situation we have faced—and generally handled well—since this policy was created. You will always have to use judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that KWW has reverted what looked to many like a consensus. The reasons I don't follow. His first point is something about religion and Mohammed--is he saying that religious groups will use "dignity" to try to censor the Wikipedia? I don't see it, this is specifically for BLP's, not for general subjects. His other objection is something about naming and individual autonomy. He seems to be opposing individuals being able to choose or change their names because it is based on "feelings" and he regards feelings as unimportant.

But there is a legal principle as well. Most people who change their names to not go to court and have it done legally, they just do it. The easiest way to change your name, or not change it, is to just start using the name publicly. It was no accident that it was Manning's lawyer who made the announcement about Manning's name. It was meant to signal a legal name change. If Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge that a name change has occurred, then Wikipedia is not just reporting about a subject; given the "echo chamber" nature of the internet, it engaging in activism, since it is a "source" in itself and is attempting to actively influence other "sources". Sources work fine for nicknames--whether someone is called "Dick" or "Richard", for example, but for ethnic and cultural minorities, not so much. The insistence on using "sources" before a name change can be encyclopedically reported is nothing more than insisting on crowd sourcing over individual autonomy. And I think we know that on Wikipedia that crowd is going to be white and male. —Neotarf (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The insistence on using "sources" before a name change can be encyclopedically reported is nothing more than insisting on crowd sourcing over individual autonomy. And I think we know that on Wikipedia that crowd is going to be white and male. - Yep. We insist absolutely over individual autonomy, and for a crowd of reliable sources, indeed, to document stuff here. If you prefer an encyclopedia to say "Mr. XYZ is a penguin", as it was fact, because the subject says that he feels he is a penguin, then please find another encyclopedia. As for the ethnicity/gender bias, I absolutely acknowledge it, but this has little to do with the sourcing requirements. That said, I am more worried about removal or diluting of negative content than about name changes. --cyclopia^speak! 20:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, whether using the name publicly constitutes a legal name change (or at least the adoption of an alternative name that will be legally recognized) depends very much on the laws you're living under. It (more or less) works in California, but it does not work everywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

So Manning would be in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and Hillary would be New York these days? Hard to follow, when people move so from state to state, but I daresay it's a still a consideration. Perhaps a wikilawyer will appear and provide enlightenment. —Neotarf (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Since Cyclopia seems to have put themselves himself [according to an infobox on his user page] in charge of deciding who can and can't edit Wikipedia, let me ask this: When Prince George of Cambridge was born, his article was immediately moved from Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, as soon as the announcement was made. No ArbCom case, and no jury of three admins needed to decipher some bazillion-page RM. So don't you think that might have been a bit hasty, and that someone should have insisted absolutely on a "crowd of reliable sources over individual autonomy"? Should they have waited an extra month or so and taken the time to compile "a crowd of reliable sources" that (in some cases, but apparently not in others) is needed "to document stuff here", rather than rely on a press announcement? If not, then why the double standard? But I do agree about avoiding removal of negative content, especially for well-known persons. Those who are marginally notable, not so much. —Neotarf (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• oppose If Anthony is going to use this two word change to argue for Hillary Rodham Clinton over Hillary Clinton, consider me opposed to such a change. The word "dignity" is too easy to misuse by people looking to score points on one side of a contentious discussion. Neotarf, let's not reargue the Manning move here - the community !voted en-masse on that one, and the consensus was clear - #1 No consensus for move, #2, consensus for move based on commonname. The community did not agree to move because dignity, it agreed to move because other sources moved. This isn't the case with David Berkowitz who now calls himself "Son of hope", but reliable sources don't, so we don't either.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• I was concerned that some were offering tentative support for this change who may not have considered its full ramifications. I'd far prefer we spoke frankly about the likely effect of adding concern for the dignity of our subjects. I may be wrong about its effect on naming disputes - and would like to hear the thoughts of other supporters, such as Jimmy, David, SlimVirgin, WhatamIdoing, etc.. It needs to be aired, I think. I stand by my assertion that this could never be used for whitewashing - but that's a different argument from the naming issue. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that "human dignity" requires either the presence or absence of Hillary's maiden name in the article title. It does require that she be named in the article as a person in her own right, rather than continually saying things like, "Bill Clinton's wife was the Secretary of State" or "That Woman was the Secretary of State". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• By way of background there: Some editors want to move Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. Clinton said 20 years ago she preferred to be called Hillary Rodham Clinton. Jimmy checked with her people recently and they said it was still the preferred name. We know the subject's preference. When there is no benefit to the reader in doing so, calling her another name is a gratuitous insult. Some editors argue that, because WP:BLP doesn't expressly say we should take into account the dignity of our subjects, our manual of style (WP:T) trumps human dignity, leaving those who prefer not to gratuitously insult our subjects constantly having to invoke WP:IAR. It's very tedious, and dismaying, really, to have to even argue this stuff. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Anthony, it is nothing short of ridiculous to claim that "Hillary Clinton" is a gratuitous insult when her own website is at [7], [8], and she ran for president under that name. The so-called "preference", if it really exists w.r.t. a wikipedia article title, can be safely ignored, since she has demonstrated a preference to use Hillary Clinton herself in other cases. The case for why the shorter name is a benefit to the reader has been argued ad nauseum but it boils down to usage in common sources and lack of recognizeability of HRC, especially outside the US.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Obi, I prefer Anthony, and I have sincere personal, emotional reasons for that preference - though I often get Tony. I don't mind that. In some places - particularly when there's more than one Anthony around - I've happily gone by Tony, as a matter of pragmatism. None of this is a problem to me. But when somebody knows I prefer Anthony and insists on using Tony, I'm being insulted. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Anthony, there's an interesting Guardian article here by Jessica Valenti about women being undermined by names they haven't chosen for themselves. The same principle would apply to men. It can be quite an effective way to belittle someone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SlimVirgin. "What we're called matters; it's a central part of our identity and signals to the world who and what we are – self-determined individuals. So when men try to wrest control of that narrative and diminish it, it stings." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs ·

But Anthony, if your main website was "TonyCole.com" and you ran for MP as "Tony Cole" and your campaign buttons said "Elect Tony", then you telling someone that calling you Tony is an insult or an affront to your dignity would cause them to laugh in your face - for the sheer ridiculousness of it all. (Also, FWIW, comparing how someone would talk to you in person vs. how someone would write and title a wikipedia article is comparing apples to oranges. There are many things we say in wikipedia articles that we would probably not say to the person if we met them face to face. I'm sure none of those who !voted for Cat Stevens would actually call him "Cat" to his face.) If you think Hillary Clinton is insulted when someone calls her Hillary Clinton we would have to believe that she regularly insults herself. A better example is someone who has changed their name and NEVER uses the old one, and tells people again and again to STOP using the old one - then you can talk about insults, but, wikipedia is not in the business of avoiding insults - indeed, we have renamed countries AWAY from their official name, names that these countries have requested publicly again and again that people not use. If reliable sources say something about someone or something that that person may take as an insult, so be it (see debates about Kiev vs Kyev for another example). We also have many (murderer) (rapist) (fraudster) etc. tags in our titles, and I don't see BLP-dignity-warriors are complaining about those, maybe because BLP is applied in the same way animal rights are sometimes applied - mostly to cuddly cute animals - so you rarely see big BLP debates for rapists or murderers or other unsavory types. As to Slim's article, I think you should try hanging around a men's locker room - men are just as vicious with nicknames for other men, so calling it sexist to give a woman a nickname is missing the point in most cases (although there are of course cases where it is done with sexist intent, it's not always obviously so).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

email) 19:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Neotarf "what looked like to many a consensus". Er, no. As I pointed out in my post immediately above yours, there was no consensus. 9 opposed, 13 for. It was wrong to attempt to edit the policy on that basis. DeCausa (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm? This policy already asks us to consider human dignity in its body, so per WP:Lead, it should also be in the lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Since no one previously claimed WP:LEAD as the basis of the edit, I don't know why you said that. In any case, it clearly is beyond how it is used in the body of the article - hence this long meandering thread rather than just calling on WP:LEAD. DeCausa (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

DeCausa, the proposed edit doesn't go beyond what's already in the policy. The policy refers to the Foundation urging "that human dignity and personal privacy be taken into account ..." The lead currently mentions only privacy, so the proposal is to add "and dignity" – BLPs "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy and dignity" – to make the lead consistent with the body. This is not a policy change. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between a Foundation statement and actual wording of a policy in the lead.--cyclopia^speak! 14:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

No. Privacy and dignity, is privacy and dignity. And Decausa, the proposal is an edit to the Lead, which is guided by WP:Lead, so your complaint that no one mentioned WP:Lead is rather ridiculous. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You're wrong, there is a difference between publishing a Foundation statement and the policy itself. They're not the same as Decausa correctly points out. Furthermore WP:Lead does not prescribe that something needs to be part of the lead simply because it is mentioned in the body of an article so your earlier claim that "it should also be in the lead" on that basis is incorrect.--Wolbo (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Per Wolbo and Cyclopia. It's patently absurd to suggest that this whole thread is just about the correct application of WP:LEAD. If it is about that then the only basis for it to go into the lead would be to note that "the Foundation has issued a statement saying..." because that's all the policy says on the subject. But really, it sounds a bit desperate trying to pull that rabbit out of the hat after this thread being up so long. DeCausa (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

And so we don't forget, this was the OP's post: Since the Foundation urges us to take account of the human dignity of our subjects,[1] would it be a good idea to incorporate that in our policy? Presently, we just mention the Foundation's wish at the end of the page - as a kind of afterthought, with no comment either way on whether we should heed them,[2] and I think it should be a clear part of this important policy document. Thoughts? DeCausa (talk) 16:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The foundation statement is in the policy, so the claim that it's not is bizaare, as is the claim that people discussing a lead, somehow don't know they're discussing a WP:lead issue. What's obviously desperate is the sudden horror at the mentioning of wp:lead, which all the rest of us know about. As for the OP, he did not make the tiny proposal to the lead, which got rapid support because it's so minor.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Minor? It's claiming something as policy when the body of the article merely notes the Foundation's statement and as anthonyhcole puts it "with no comment either way on whether we should heed them". Per WP:LEAD, either the lead pitches it the same way or the body of the article has to change. DeCausa (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Indeed. Foundation statement said one thing, but that is by no means an integral, literal part of the policy. Also it is absolutely desperate and bizarre that WP:LEAD, a guideline that applies to articles, is herein used to advocate a change in wording of a policy.--cyclopia^speak! 17:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)\

Foundation statement is not "integral"? That's made up. As for WP:Lead, your claimed technicality is the epitome of desperate. This policy has a lead, we have a style for leads, so "per WP:Lead". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't be absurd. Anthony Cole is no oracle, and we would not have the foundation statement in policy, if it is to be just ignored. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep calm. Did I say he was an oracle? The foundation statement's statement in the article is as it is, no more or less. If it's to go in the lead it should reflect that, no more or less. Why get so heated? DeCausa (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Ps would you like to address the "oracle's" point on wp:lead below? DeCausa (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh? What's heated? I said your argument was absurd -- that's not heated. It just means that the argument that a part of policy can be ignored is absurd, as is the argument that this policy does not have a lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You seemed to be getting irate. I'm glad you're not. I think you've made an error as to what is absurd here. DeCausa (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary break 2

Alan and SlimVirgin. I wish you were right. Saying in the policy, the Foundation urges that human dignity be taken into account, is not the same as saying in the policy, human dignity should be taken into account. That's why we're here. These people, Cyclopia, etc., see that difference and take it as permission to ignore it. And they do. All over this place. That is the problem.

DeCausa, per Cyclopia, WP:LEAD applies to articles. This is a policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

It's Alanscottwalker you should address that to - he raised Wp:lead. DeCausa (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As noted above the claimed technicality is ridiculous, we have a style for leads, here we have a lead, so "per WP:Lead." Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

"Claimed technicality"? Following this "logic", should we begin to apply WP:OR to policies then, for example, and remove all sections of policies which are not backed by reliable sources? Should we delete policies which do not meet WP:GNG? After all, that they are not articles is just a "claimed technicality", so these policies and guidelines on articles should apply to... policies and guidelines as well. If this sounds like crazy talk, it's because it is. Now that everyone in good faith has understood that, can we stop this moronic call to "WP:LEAD" and go back to discuss seriously, please?--cyclopia^speak! 23:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, what you write is crazy talk because your arguments keep stating absurdities, like somehow this policy has no concern for dignity when it expressly does, and somehow leads should not follow the style of leads, because you find it inconvenient to consider dignity or to consider leads. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, as this isn't an article, we can make the change to the lede without having to agree on whether or not it reflects the body. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We can do whatever (IAR, etc.). Nonetheless, Slim Virgin's "conservative" proposal is to add "and dignity", so it's "privacy and dignity" in the lead, which is how it appears in the body. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

absurdities, like somehow this policy has no concern for dignity when it expressly does - This policy explicitly quotes/paraphrases a WMF statement. It is a very different thing from being an integral part of policy with community consensus.

and somehow leads should not follow the style of leads - What is absurd is that you do not understand the difference between what applies to article space and what applies to policies. Should I assume bad faith or WP:COMPETENCE issues? Regardless, since what we talk about is just a paraphrasing of a WMF statement, it wouldn't go in the lead anyway.

because you find it inconvenient to consider dignity or to consider leads. - Indeed I find it absolutely inconvenient to state such an ill-defined concern for "dignity" in the policy, not because it is a bad thing per se, but because it would immediately lead to abuse, given that every conceivable negative statement on a subject is attacking the subjects' dignity, and would therefore violate policy. I also find it inconvenient (or at least bizarre) that guidelines that apply to article space should be called when dealing with policy space. --cyclopia^speak! 11:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

(C/E) First, the WMF statement is in the policy, so it is integral. Second, it is beyond ridiculous, that we are talking about about a lead, and you find it so objectionable to reference our style on lead's practice. You find that dignity, with respect to biographies of living persons is "not a bad thing" and it's a word used in the policy, and then you make the illogical leap that Wikipedian's will find every encyclopedic bit of information as harming dignity. Dignity, like this policy is not just concerned with the presentation of the bad, it is concerned with presentation of the good, the bad, and the neutral. This policy regards encyclopedic expression of biography with respect to living persons, realizing it is possible, indeed needed, that we consider the subject, to write them encyclopedically. It is an encyclopedic value to respect the subject of all our articles. Your position arises solely out of your deep distrust of Wikipedians that they can't understand encyclopedic information and dignity -- not only is such distrust unwarranted, it is inimical to the basis of the project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

the WMF statement is in the policy, so it is integral. - No. It is just a section stating "hey, this is what WMF said once". Its wording, while useful within the policy to convey some spirit, is not a binding part of the policy.

You find that dignity, with respect to biographies of living persons is "not a bad thing" No, I wasn't clear. I was meaning that to take into account dignity, as a concept, is not a bad thing, generally speaking. But we cannot apply it in an encyclopedia's policy, for reasons described below.

then you make the illogical leap that Wikipedian's will find every encyclopedic bit of information as harming dignity. - That's far from illogical. That is actually the only logical conclusion. If we say that we disallow or frown upon something that harms dignity, then automatically every negative information has to be removed. There is no other way. Every conceivable negative information published about a person can be argued, one way or the other, as jeopardizing the subjects' dignity, and it would therefore violate policy. It is basically throwing WP:NPOV in the toilet. That this is what will happen is self-evident: not only by POV pushers of all sorts, but also given that there is people here that already argue that not using a middle name in an article title is a "gratuitous insult". Therefore, either you clarify very strictly and narrowly what we mean by "dignity" in this context, or we are opening the door to BLPs to become ridicolous vanity pages. This doesn't mean distrusting the community, this simply means that in general, if you give people a policy-approved way to push POVs, it will happen, it's only human. Maybe you are right and everything will go smoothly, but then, why do we need the wording? If you trust so much the WP community, you should also trust it doesn't need to be reminded of "dignity", doesn't it?

that we are talking about about a lead, and you find it so objectionable to reference our style on lead's practice. - Our style in articles. Articles are one thing. Wikipedia namespace is another. Apples and oranges. --cyclopia^speak! 13:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you are right and everything will go smoothly, but then, why do we need the wording? If you trust so much the WP community, you should also trust it doesn't need to be reminded of "dignity", doesn't it?: We already have wording. So, reminding people of wording is not a problem. Moreover, NPOV is specifically required by this policy, so your fears about that have no basis. Sometimes people will raise arguments concerning dignity, sometimes they will be accepted sometimes not, just like everything else on the Pedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, NPOV is specifically required by this policy, so your fears about that have no basis. No, this only means we would have self-contradicting policies. Now, if "sometimes they will be accepted sometimes not", why the need of any policy, in general? Policies are meant to be mostly binding, with very occasional exceptions. You can't just brush it off like it's no big deal: indeed, if it is not a big deal, why do you even care about it? You know it is a big deal, and you know that including it in the lead would be very different than just having it in a paraphrase of a WMF statement. --cyclopia^speak! 13:35, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do I care about it? Because it's Wikipedia, where I do some volunteering. NPOV does not contradict BLP or dignity, so you are plainly wrong about that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Except that editors have disputes about BLPs all the time where those with opposing views marshal BLP vs NPOV. A puzzling comment, offered with such force… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What's puzzling about it? These policies cross reference each other and sometimes people have disagreements on the Pedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Why do I care about it? Because it's Wikipedia, where I do some volunteering. So, let me get this straight. You think this wording doesn't change actually anything, yet you are arguing and pushing a lot to insert it, and when asked why, you answer "it's Wikipedia, where I do some volunteering". So, is "volunteering" now meaning "pushing changes that I personally think are useless"? Are you trying to waste everyone's time or what? --cyclopia^speak! 14:34, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you're trying to waste everyone's time with asking absurdly irrelevant questions, then you should just stop. I've stated why I support the lead and dignity, several times throughout this weeks long discussion, so the only advice I can give to you is read. Perhaps, you might benefit from asking yourself why I am in the majority. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) These are not "absurdly irrelevant questions". I have read the above. The point is that first you seem to give many reasons to support your edit, then you discount objections saying more or less "well, people will discuss and agree case by case, actually it is in the text so it doesn't change anything". There is a fundamental contradiction. Either the change has indeed a profound impact (I think it has), and thus objections cannot be dismissed so easily; or it has no impact whatsoever, and then why are we debating it at all? And oh, being together with a (weak) majority (perhaps) means nothing on the weight and meaning of your arguments, sorry. That's an elementary logical fallacy. --cyclopia^speak! 15:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. There are many good reasons for the edit, which I have stated. The opposition appears to be, 'we don't like considering dignity, no matter what the foundation says in this policy,' which is very poor reasoning to oppose the edit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The opposition is "considering dignity in a broad and unclarified fashion kills NPOV, as can be easily shown, and what the WMF is quoted to say in the policy is not really an integral part of the policy". --cyclopia^speak! 15:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

And that's incorrect because this policy endorses NPOV and restates the Foundation that dignity should be considered. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That one part of the policy endorses NPOV does not mean that another would flatly contradict it, de facto. You would get a self-contradicting policy as the result (if not in wording, in the end result). You simply can't honour both parts of it. Which kinda demonstrates the proposed change is not only dangerous, but also nonsense.--cyclopia^speak! 15:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no contradiction; both policies concern themselves with what it means to be a quality encyclopedia. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I explained in detail where the contradiction arises; again: every negative statement can be successfully argued as impacting dignity; but we need negative information if it is well sourced, to guarantee NPOV coverage. You can't have both. --cyclopia^speak! 15:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Untrue. Where it is also encyclopedic biography material, a negative (or positive or neutral) piece of information does not result in Wikipedia harming dignity. The subject may well harm (or benefit) themselves, but the Pedia does not. That's the point, per policy, Wikipedia avoids doing harm, itself, (including presenting the positive or banal stuff that tabloids or blogs favor, turning encyclopedic living subjects into caricatures) which is why we are to be careful and thoughtful about each edit in light of the quality of sources, privacy, dignity, and common sense. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

This is very reasonable, but alas, that is not what this wording would be understood to be about. The Hillary Clinton fiasco and many other cases along the years demonstrate it. The problem is that the new wording would be prone to all sorts of pro-whitewashing interpretations, which would become very difficult to rebuke, and this cannot be allowed. At best, it is a useless nuisance, at worst, it becomes a tool to kill NPOV in all bios. What you say is already well covered and firm in the current wording of BLP, it doesn't need additions.--cyclopia^speak! 21:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Hilary Clinton fiasco" is a disagreement about quality of sources for encyclopedic biography, and yes about disregarding a woman's preferred inclusion of her maiden name. There is no reason why editors should not seriously consider encyclopedic register and dignity in light of one another, when the position against inclusion of her maiden name is other Wikipedia policy supposedly dictates her name for her, but there is no underlying functional benefit to Wikipedia -- the article will be found and she is well known in high quality biography sources (and even lesser sources) by the name she prefers. That name better teaches about the subject, in part only, because the subject prefers it. Wikipedia is not trying to be an Ellis Island bureaucrat stamping a name on someone because "that's how we do it" without reference to reasons behind "that's how we do it" and without reference to encyclopedic purpose, which includes regard for the subject as the person she is. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Your reply shows that your theoretically reasonable addition helps in the support unreasonable conclusions. You see, when you use a vague, jolly word like "dignity", it can manage to include also things like "being called by the name she prefers", for some people. Indeed, everything a BLP subject prefers can enter the umbrella of "dignity". And this is exactly the NPOV issue I was pointing at. Thanks for proving my point.--cyclopia^speak! 13:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It is your position that is promoting entirely unreasonable conclusions, because the name she prefers is also encyclopedic NPOV information. The NPOV of a name is satisfied by the reliable sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Ephemeral or marginal interest

Not so sure about the "especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest" wording. This is about BLP, and it is the people in the articles who will be "of ephemeral or marginal interest", or marginally notable. —Neotarf (talk) 12:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hence my rewording suggestion above:

Material which is of ephemeral value or which violates privacy rights should be avoided in any article.

Avoiding any reliance on the notability of the article itself, but only to the material added. And is shorter and clearer. Collect (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Could we remove the "ephemeral" wording altogether, since it really doesn't mean anything? (Also: Maybe I am wrong, but this looks to me like a separate discussion -better make it a separate thread, perhaps?)--cyclopia^speak! 12:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

"Ephemeral" clearly suggests "material not of long-term value to an encyclopedia article." IMO, Wikipedia too often has exceedingly ephemeral "stuff" added to many articles. And I find the concept that the article per se is "ephemeral" makes very little sense. Collect (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the concept of an "ephemeral" article is of little sense. But the problem is that also the concept of "material not of long-term value" makes little or no sense. Why should any material be not of long-term value? Just like notability is not temporary, also the value of material is not temporary, provided it is sourced and meaningfully about the subject. --cyclopia^speak! 14:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Using my favourite non-existent person for purposes of discussion: "George Gnarph lives at 1234 Wangler Street in Los Angeles" is of ephemeral value even if found in a reliable source, and violates privacy concerns. Though I have found some editors who aver that anything found in print is fair game for Wikipedia, I demur on that position. Collect (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not a good example because, as you state, it is not acceptable because of privacy concerns (unless it is a well known information -after all we do not hide that the President of USA lives in the White House), so it doesn't help clarifying what an information "not of long-term value" would be. --cyclopia^speak! 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Try "The (fakepapername) has reported George Gnarph has been accused by unnamed persons of pedophilia as of Jan 2000." where in Jun 2000 the charges were dismissed with prejudice as being a hoax according to the New York Times. The accusation was of ephemeral value (maintaining it in the article is clearly defamatory of Gnarph) and thus such claims should be (must be) removed as ephemeral value and violative of privacy concerns. IMO. Collect (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If you also report that they have been dismissed as being a hoax, an if all this stuff was on public, well widespread sources (as you seem to imply, if the NYT took care of debunking it) then you have nothing defamatory -you are neutrally reporting something that happened and that is notable. And the accusation is part of the history of the person. As such it is not of "ephemeral value": history, chronology and in general coverage of events that happened at a point in time are not of "ephemeral value", otherwise we should trash a lot of history pages. I also don't see any privacy issue here, since it appears in your fictional example that was all done on the public record. --cyclopia^speak! 15:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not the "article" or the "material" that is fleeting, it is the fame of the person. While some people, such as politicians may be notable for the long term, others, for example victims of crimes, may only be notable for one event. A politician expects to be in the limelight; a private citizen does not, and needs to be treated with more discretion. The politicians' deeds need to be a matter of public record, as they serve the public. A private person may have their life unduly and unhappily influenced by some Wikipedia article, and for no reason that serves the public interest. —Neotarf (talk) 16:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

may only be notable for one event. - This case is already covered by WP:BLP1E, so I don't think we're talking about this, or it would be completely redundant.

A private person may have their life unduly and unhappily influenced by some Wikipedia article, and for no reason that serves the public interest. - In this case we must be very cautious and conservative, but I wouldn't go as far as saying that "for no reason that serves the public interest". Also Wikipedia does not put anyone under the limelight out of nowhere (well, not according to policies and guidelines). We cover stuff which is already public and sourceable. Privacy caution and BLP1E manage most problematic cases of this kind; the rest is decided by sourcing and notability.--cyclopia^speak! 21:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Move to RfC

Just want to note here, that whatever wording is finally proposed, this issue really ought to be RfCed in order to demonstrate a clear and/or reasonable consensus for the change. I very much see this conversation as being fairly meaningless, vague policy fluff. The typical kind of useless thing WP:BLP fanatics love pondering. Rather than trying to create policy creep in order to address something which ain't broken, why don't we just acknowledge that the proposed wording change isn't going to gain consensus (unless it's the type of dodgy quasi-consensus Slim tried to cite above) and move on. NickCT (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree that before any attempt is made to instigate this proposed change we should get many more eyes on the question. I'm in no hurry, though. Let's just see where this conversation goes. You can unwatch if you're not interested. I'll make sure you're notified before an RfC is opened. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

@Anthonyhcole: - Well thanks Anthony. And I don't mean to be disparaging. The give and take, and the discussion you've generated aren't bad things. That said, I can't help but think that there are more substantive issues that these kinds of conversations distract from. NickCT (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

We disagree on the importance of this. As for distraction, I hope now that an imminent change seems off the agenda we can both put this aside for other things for a while. I for one would like some time to ruminate on the whole issue, so may actually effectively unwatch it myself for a bit. I presume nothing precipitous will happen while our backs are turned. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

“Privacy” of birthdates that are published in reliable sources?

I always wondered where WP:DOB came from. “If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year.” I don't get this. If we name a reliable source (and per WP:BLP we always have to) it's not like we're publishing information that otherwise would be private. So why give “the subject” a right to have his/her birthdate removed from Wikipedia when its inclusion in any other source is accepted? As far as I know this is the only point where we give subjects final editorial approval of article content.

Over the years we had a couple of “incidents” regarding WP:DOB. Just to name a few:

• Tammy Duckworth, a politician who wanted her birth date and maiden name removed,
• George Lusztig, a mathematician who filled an OTRS to have his date of birth removed although it is published in the International Who's Who (p. 971), and most recently
• Scott Lash, a sociologist who also wants his DOB removed on the account of "it hurts my employment prospects and chances of obtaining research grants." However, his date of birth can be easily found on his LOC authority file, so why not have it removed there?

Obviously this policy is an issue. To my knowledge, the notion of “privacy of birthdays” was introduced to WP:BLP policies by User:Jusjih on 2006-01-31. It was removed on 2006-08-30 by User:David Gerard on the account of being “ridiculous paranoia,” but eventually came back and stuck. I could not find an actual discussion about this policy's justification, though. I am proposing to have it removed. --bender235 (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED applies here, absolutely. If it is covered in RS, we cover it as well. GiantSnowman 18:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is pretty much the #1 or #2 hit for every person in the world who is notable. If we list info, that info is available at the drop of a hat. That info being in some RS at some point in the past is not the same thing by a long shot. Its security through obscurity sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't real. Since full DOB is one of the common identity secrets (along with SSN) we should default to not including it, particularly for anyone who asks or is semi notable. Given the DoB and state of birth, guessing the SSN of most people is fairly trivial, and those are the keys to the kingdom for identity theft. [9] [10] [11] WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply. This isn't about something offensive, its about safety and privacy. We override WP:RS in many places for these reasons WP:BLPNAME WP:BLPPRIVACYGaijin42 (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

But then again, if there are already reliable sources for a given person's DOB, removing it from Wikipedia does not make the information private again. --bender235 (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It certainly makes it harder to find. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We are not here to make information harder to find. Quite the opposite. WP:NOTCENSORED absolutely applies.--cyclopia^speak! 19:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Given issues related to age discrimination, adding a DOB to a BLP requires us to be very cautious. Of course, if the DOB is well sourced to multiplicity of sources and related to the notability of the person, then sure we can list it, but not if otherwise. Cwobeel (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think to “simply list the year” (as WP:DOB currently suggest) would remedy the age discrimination risk. --bender235 (talk) 18:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand that there may be age discrimination, but again, if it is publicly sourced, there is not any more privacy to protect. If someone lies for good reasons about their age, I may perhaps understand, but to suggest that we should help that is quite ridicolous. --cyclopia^speak! 19:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Cyclopia, your suggestion that WP:NOTCENSORED somehow overrules WP:DOB seems to be based entirely on the fact that you haven't actually read what WP:NOTCENSORED says: "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view)... will also be removed". WP:DOB is part of WP:BLP policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Simply stating the DOB, as supported by RS, is not a problem for BLP. GiantSnowman 20:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:DOB which is part of WP:BLP seems to disagree. supported by RS is not the same as "widely published" which is what the policy requires, and even that is borderline. Per the recent EU law change regarding the right to privacy, I would expect quite a bit of our BLP policies getting enhancement with this being one of the juicier targets. Newyorkbrad any thoughts, since this seems related to the discussion you are planning for the conference? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yup. 'Stating the DOB' is something explicitly covered in WP:BLP - and accordingly, unless and until the policy is amended, we are obliged to follow the policy, regardless of whether we have RS, and regardless of what the part of WP:NOTCENSORED that doesn't mention following WP:BLP policy says. If people wish to propose an amendment to WP:BLP policy do so - but don't kid yourselves that some sort of vague consensus here to ignore the policy would have any weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean the policy that talks about "borderline notable" people, like that is actually a thing here? GiantSnowman 21:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, WP:DOB does disagree. The whole point of this discussion is to have WP:DOB removed. --bender235 (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I would think a change to a major policy like BLP should require a formal RFC possibly advertised at WP:CENT. If you really want to go that route feel free, but based on the small snapshot here, I think the best case scenario for you is a "no consensus" with a resounding "oppose" result most likely, especially in light of the changing EU landscape which may bind us to make even more restrictive policies or face legal repercussions. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I wonder why it took just one person adding this “birth day privacy” paranoia to BLP, yet now its removal supposedly requires the approval of every person who ever edited Wikipedia. Ridiculous. --bender235 (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

BRD, and changes in process and procedure since 2006 (hell, 2006 was before WP:BLPPROD) . Someone was bold, and it stuck. Its now the status quo. Change it, get quickly reverted, and we will be exactly where we are now. If you had gotten some sort of unanimous consent to your proposal, then by all means abbreviate the process, but that clearly is not the case. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I was afraid it was going to end like this. Obsession with “unanimity” has Wikipedia administrative discussions deadlocked. Of course there's no unanimity: at least Tammy Duckworth, George Lusztig, and Scott Lash will veto. I guess Wikipedia's development will forever be hampered by those people in the mid-2000s, who needed not to care about community support for their policy changes, instead just needed to be “bold”. --bender235 (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the legal landscape has changed considerably since 2006 even if you ignore this week's EU change. Laws have been passed in almost every jurisdiction protecting Personally identifiable information. Any policy change that potentially increases legal liability is obviously a grave concern that requires greater oversight - A hypothetical reduction in that liability (by protecting information more) obviously requires less scrutiny. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess it would be interesting to hear from our Wikimedia Legal Team whether there is any concern for Wikipedia in this matter, or whether there is any precedent of an encyclopedia being held liable for privacy violation after gathering information on a subject from other published sources. I mean, you have to assume that the Int. Who's Who people found out about George Lusztig's birthday by simply asking him, or by looking at other publicly available sources like his LOC file. Can they be held liable? And if not, why could Wikipedia? --bender235 (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The OPs post is explicitly referring to the "if the subject complains" clause, which is not dependent on the "borderline notable" issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And "borderline notable" is 'a thing here' because that is the phrase used in the BLP policy thing, which is a thing here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And to the OP's final question, in fact there are a number of areas we give the subject personal control. MOS:IDENTITY (particularly the gender identity bit) & WP:BLPCAT to name a few. Although it is not explicitly spelled out in BLP anywhere (that I am personally aware of), I think there is a strong consensus that the subject's own words cannot be overridden in regards to their religion, or sexual orientation either, regardless of what RS say. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

This is bit different however. One thing is to feel that the subject is the best, if not the only, source available on their own perceived gender or religious orientation. Another is for the subject to influence directly our editorial decisions. The first is a sourcing issue, the second is about what we can and cannot do. --cyclopia^speak! 14:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Bender235: - if you want to remove WP:DOB completely then I suggest you initiate a RFC for wider input. GiantSnowman 07:46, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to wipe it out completely. It's just that our general WP:BLP should apply. If there's no reliable source for the date of birth, remove it. But if there is a RS, we keep it. Plain and simple. If your birthdate is listed at Library of Congress or published in the International Who's Who, then the rabbit is out of the hat anyways, and censoring it on Wikipedia only would be mere privacy theater. --bender235 (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

In general I agree a lot with Bender235. That the DOB bit stuck without a real discussion since 2006 (I am trusting Bender235 here, please correct if wrong) should make it easier to remove it, even if it can be argued it enjoys a "de facto" tacit consensus. I have no problems with a RFC however. --cyclopia^speak! 14:22, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea where "stuck without a real discussion since 2006" comes from, this has been discussed repeatedly [12] - including this [13] discussion in August 2013, which Cyclopia took part in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've seen this one. It was about a minor switch of words, not about WP:DOB in general. Not to mention it happened more than seven years after WP:DOB was introduced by User:Jusjih. The original inclusion was never subject to "consensus finding". --bender235 (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to propose a change of policy, start a RfC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The editor needs to identify, because a warring editor can assume any identity they choose if they believe it will further their arguments. The editor should confirm their identity with OTRS - this is the same as Twitter and other websites. WP:DOB also states that the year should be included - not the entire removal. Also, this is from the Library of Congress - this is not a birth certificate or anything - and I found it trivial to find the information even if Bender235 did not. And remember, policy just reflects general consensus that is not typically codified or passed via a "wiki-legislation" - people are far too quick to jump on that bandwagon when time and time again its merely a guide. Bender235 is correct, on both the source and the DOB wording. Bringing up some past cases, like an actress who wants to publicly and willfully deceive her employers by knowingly submitting incorrect data - a offense met with job termination in many areas - is not the primary concern of WP:BLP. BLP is to protect against defamation, libel and other concerns - directly furthering their employment interests by deliberately concealing basic public information directly connected to a national library and other library catalogs is likely not one of them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the point in including birth dates for most people. I don't think that it's encyclopedic (as in: most professionally written encyclopedias normally omit this). The year matters, because it lets you place a person in history. The actual date (in 99% of cases) is just trivia. Does it matter if the CEO of some company was born on August 13th or September 30th? I don't think so. Does it tell you something important about the CEO? Well, maybe some astrologer would say so, but the rest of us say no. I would say that we should include exact dates if and only if independent and secondary sources make a big deal out of it. So "Hey, I got her birthday off her Twitter feed" doesn't merit inclusion, but anyone who has had a national holiday celebrated on their birthday (obviously) does. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like policy to state that birth dates should be removed immediately or not addedif there are no reliable sources. I find unsourced birth dates common and often notice them when there is an unexplained change. This includes the year of birth - that should need the same sort of sourcing as an exact date. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Britannica, probably the best known traditional encyclopedia in the world, includes full DOBs. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Exact birthdates are encyclopedic information and clearly belong in every article. Encyclopedias that only include years are usually printed ones, where space is scarce. Wikipedia has no such problem. --bender235 (talk) 16:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to AndyTheGrump for uncovering the old discussion on DOB -I wrongly remembered it was only about Duckworth, not policy in general. Now; about the DOB, I can understand WhatamIdoing: full DOB is less relevant than the year. I personally think that it is part of those kind of intrinsically encyclopedic (yes) data that we are expected to include (also, if the year matters, it matters also if you were born on 3 January or 29 December). But I could live with some privacy-based removal of the exact day of birth, even if I find utterly silly to remove what is public, sourced information -I would not agree with it, please note, but I could live with it. Removal of the year is however what spurred this discussion -removal of any birth date information, completely, is what is asked by the subjects above. This is not and cannot be acceptable. This would make WP a joke. --cyclopia^speak! 17:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• As anyone could probably gather from my contribution to the Duckworth RfC. Yes, DOB is encyclopedic info; and yes, there must be high quality biography sources to include it (and no it does not have to be a holiday). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Is all negative material a violation of human dignity?

Cyclopia says this above: "If we say that we disallow or frown upon something that harms dignity, then automatically every negative information has to be removed. There is no other way."

I don't agree with this, but I'd like to hear what other people think. So let me give you a story as an example:

Joe Film is an actor who had the lead in three movies. Before he started acting, he was the national spokesman for the "We Hate Tobacco" kids health from 1997 to 2002.
==Anti-tobacco activism==
Film was the spokesman for "We Hate Tobacco" from 1997 to 2002. For this, he made appearances all around the country and on national television talk shows to speak in favor of anti-tobacco laws and against anyone using tobacco. Film usually told his own story about smoking occasionally in college, but quitting after his uncle died from a heart attack. He appeared in commercials and other advertisements for the cause. Studies by independent researchers found that advertisements featuring him more effective at discouraging teens from taking up tobacco use. He was fired in 2002 by the campaign after he was seen smoking one cigarette at a college reunion.

So we have some "negative information" here: he got fired for cause, from a job that established his notability.

Are we going to remove that? No.

Does that actually violate his human dignity? No.

Here's why: Human dignity#Violations involve humiliation, objectification, degrading someone, and/or dehumanization. These are not minor problems. This is none of those. This is maybe somewhat embarrassing to the subject, but it doesn't rise to the level of humiliation. It doesn't treat him like an object. It doesn't degrade him. It doesn't treat him like a non-person or an animal.

But perhaps other people think that imparting relevant facts, in a dispassionate, encyclopedic manner, actually does violate his human dignity. What do you think? (NB that I'm not asked whether you think someone will claim that it violates his dignity; we have people who will claim anything, including that the Moon is made of green cheese. I'm asking whether you think it actually does.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Is all negative material a violation of human dignity? No. Can "imparting relevant facts, in a dispassionate, encyclopedic manner" violate human dignity? That begs the question - what is 'relevant' in biographical material? Sadly, too many people seem to think that having a source for something is sufficient grounds for inclusion alone. It isn't, in any article, and is even less so in a biography of a living person, where we need to balance concerns over privacy (and dignity) with our wish to include information of genuine encyclopaedic interest. Getting the balance right can be tricky - and we've got it wrong often enough for it to be necessary for policy to remind us of this. Hence the need for 'human dignity' to be mentioned in BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• It depends on which definition of "dignity" we use. What you see in our dignity article is actually quite different from the common meanings of the word, which is first and foremost, according to the dictionary, "the quality or state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed". It is quite clear that almost every conceivable negative information can impact the perceived worth, honour or esteem of a subject -otherwise it would not be negative! Hence, if we mention "dignity" in the policy, we must clarify very well that we mean some different, academic, philosophical concept of dignity, and clarify very well that inclusion of reliably sourced negative information has nothing to do with it. Or we can decide we are better leaving the wording out altogether, since it actually adds nothing to the policy apart from confusion. What AndyTheGrump above fears is already covered well and in detail by our current BLP policy.--cyclopia^speak! 17:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Andy's right. Think of the nature of our ethical responsibility, especially when we write about the low profile or the decontextualized fact. To truly judge placement/weight of a fact or factoid one would want to view high quality biography sources -- for high profile living people, the people that invariably have vetted books written about them, or good magazine profiles, or professional secondary or tertiary biographies already available that is rather easier to do, but for others and for that which we attempt to make the "initial draft of biography" call (include/don't include, based on what historians would view as primary sources: the news/rumor/bias of the day) we still try to act like responsible and ethical tertiary biographers. We, as they say, don't want to become the story (for good or ill). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I kind of agree with this, but again, this is all covered in the current BLP policy. Reweighting of sources/episodes in a bio then has to rely, guided by that, on editors' judgement. Adding the "dignity" wording does not change this a iota -it only adds the problem evidenced above, that of the normal definition of dignity, which makes basically every negative assertion not compliant. We cannot ignore that we are at risk of introducing wording that nullifies NPOV. --cyclopia^speak! 20:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I think from the context it is clear enough what we mean by 'human dignity', and excluding the phrase merely because someone might try to Wikilawyer with it to mean something else doesn't seem a valid argument to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
      • To me it is not clear at all. The obvious, immediate meaning of the word is what I linked above, from dictionary. It wouldn't be wikilawyering, it would be the immediate meaning of the policy. If you mean something different, especially in something as important as WP:BLP, then please let us write it differently, and clearly.--cyclopia^speak! 21:07, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
        • I've not seen any evidence that anyone else has difficulty understanding what it means - but if you wish to propose wording to clarify what is meant, go ahead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
          • It might be obvious to the three of you who are on the same wavelength about the issue, but given what appears to be the preminent definition of the word in the English language, it is not obvious at all in general. Given that WhatamIdoing referred to our dignity page meaning, which is Dignity is a term used in moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions to signify that a being has an innate right to be valued and receive ethical treatment., a better idea could be to substitute the ambiguous "dignity" with "right to ethical treatment"? This would make clear that we talk about fairness and ethical consideration, not about an absolute inability to tackle information that can be at odds with "worth, honor or esteem". But it is still unclear to me what such addition to the policy would actually achieve. Can anyone make a practical example of something that the current policy does not tackle correctly, that would be fixed by the addition? --cyclopia^speak! 21:43, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
            • I've already explained why I think adding 'human dignity' to BLP policy is necessary, and see no need for alternative wording. If you want to propose alternate wording, do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
              • I proposed alternative wording, see above. Your explanation does not explain much, it is a vague statement about "balance". I see no practical, concrete example of the benefits of this policy alteration. Can one be provided?--cyclopia^speak! 22:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
          • If you are concerned about people cherry-picking the wrong dictionary definition, then you could try saying human dignity, which is not susceptible to that misinterpretation, and which should be clearer to some editors anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
            • How is it not susceptible? It is a very ill-defined concept, with lots of different and contrasting definition. It is a mess, even messier than the simple word "dignity", which at least has a main, clear (even if dangerous) interpretation. Can we just use another wording? What about the one I proposed above? --cyclopia^speak! 22:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

BLPGROUP question

The BLP policy says it applies to Talk pages and BLPGROUP says "The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis" and that it is less likely to apply to larger groups.

So here's an edit on Talk where somebody is calling Credit Suisse "fucking capitalist doggies". Should I remove something like that under BLPGROUP? CorporateM (Talk) 11:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed it per WP:NOTAFORUM. It actually appeared to me to be referring to persons individually, and at any rate is inapproriate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Combining WP:AT and WP:BLP

Principle 12.1 of the Manning ArbCom case reads:

The biographies of living persons policy does not expressly address whether, when an individual has changed his or her name (for reasons of gender identity or any other reason), the article should be titled under the name by which the subject currently self-identifies or under the former or repudiated version of the individual's name. It may be desirable for the community to clarify the BLP policy or the article title policy to expressly address this issue, such as by identifying factors relevant to making this decision. In the interim, such issues are subject to resolution through ordinary Wikipedia processes, taking into account all relevant considerations. (Passed 8 to 0, 00:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

Taking the challenge, I put a proposal up for community discussion at WT:NCP#Subject preference proposal: the slim (policy level) version (that's also where I would group the discussion):

---

When the subject of a biography on living people prefers to be named differently from what would usually follow from Wikipedia's article titling policy, his or her biographic article can be renamed accordingly, so long as:

1. There is no ambiguity with regard to the name the subject prefers for his or her public persona
2. The name preferred by the subject is not unduly self-serving
3. The name preferred by the subject is generally recognisable, which usually entails sufficient media coverage
4. The name preferred by the subject results from an event that is deemed irreversible (at least, can't be reverted by the subject without the active participation of others) or, alternatively, is the name the subject received at birth.

---

I have no preference as to which policy page could be affected. WP:V is also a distinct possibility, as the current approach is much indebted to WP:ABOUTSELF --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Sexuality under discussion

I placed a discussion tag Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Sexuality, as the opening sentence of that section ("Categories regarding sexual orientation of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question (see WP:BLPCAT)." is apparently used as an excuse to circumvent WP:BLPCAT.

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Inclusion criteria for Category:LGBT people category --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to extend WP:EGRS to include disability

Please participate in the discussion of a proposal to expand the WP:EGRS guide to include categories involving disability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The link to the RFC goes to the project page rather than the talk page. Should it be a proposal to expand? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

how do we deal with inclusion of people in family articles?

Specifically Koç family. Except for one marriage, the only sources are those about the source of their wealth (I should probably check them as this is worded as an attack on the family). Some of them have articles, so I'll presume they are notable. But the rest? Do we have criteria for such articles? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That "a family is wealthy" does not appear to be the same as "is the family notable as a family" at all. Collect (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I consider:

The wealth of the Koç family, however, originates from money and property which was appropriated through the Armenian Genocide in 1915. The confiscated Armenian but also Greek property led to the emergence of a new wealthy social Turkish class

To relate to complicity in genocide, though one editor says this claim is "impeccably sourced." I demur, but will simply avoid any argument with that editor who thinks genocide complicity does not need really strong reliable sourcing. He also says that material about other family members needs no sourcing whatsoever (sigh). Will someone please straighten this out -- this is getting to make Wikipedia worse than the National Enquirer. Collect (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

A mindless claim of "needs stronger sourcing" for an assertion where four academic sources are already provided is absurd on its face. There is no assertion of complicity by any living person -- given that the Armenian genocide took place almost 100 years ago. So BLP in regard to that specific claim does not come into it. Even if it did, there is no evident reason whatsoever to think that the sources provided do not amply meet WP:RS. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I am glad to see you feel that believing allegations about complicity in genocide need no strong sourcing. That you iterate your favourite ad hom of "mindless" reflects far more on you than anything else. Yes --- assertions that someone benefitted from genocide is - in fact - a contentious claim. Sorry guy -- but the belief that an allegation is sufficient to accuse someone of complicity in a major crime is something which I demur on -- "mindless" as I may be. Cheers. y the way, please stop stalking my edits - it simply looks like you are trying to harass folks. Collect (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is on my watch list (and has been for some time now). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I see -- you simply happen on to articles because I make an edit on articles mentioned here -- but you do not seem, AFAICT, to edit on 50% or more of the articles mentioned here, as that is what you would need to do for me to believe in pure random happenstance of editing on 50% of BLPs I edited recently. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I checked the "sources" which (oddly enough) came nowhere remotely near supporting the claims made for them regarding the Koc family, etc. Collect (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

How do we decide when to include a denied allegation?

Specifically, I see a few issues.

1. If a major source reports on a fringe allegation, does that belong in a biographical article?

2. How do we define, for the purposes of wp:blp here, what is a major source?

3. Would fringe conspiracy theories of very notable people become notable solely because there is more overall coverage?

Lulaq (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Allegations intrinsically require strong reliable sources. Factual sources.

We do not generally refer to "major sources" for anything as such. While we do have articles on such things as "JFK conspiracy theories", that does not mean that, in general, fringe conspiracy theories are notable simply because a notable person is "alleged" to hold them or that the theory is "alleged" to be about a notable person.

And where allegations of criminal acts are involved, I tend to believe they simply do not need to be in encyclopedia articles on the mere basis that an anonymous person made an allegation. Collect (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I think there needs to be better clarification on the policy page, otherwise I see a lot of edit wars. Specifically, anyone can make an allegation of an extramarital or extra relational affair. According to my reading here, this is notable, so long as you note the subject denied the allegation. This just comes off weasely. Lulaq (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I find this example troublesome:

"Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." Lulaq (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea, in line with BLP, to include the affair and its denial: if the allegation was widely reported, many people are likely to know about the it, and if Wikipedia doesn't discuss it then someone who comes to Wikipedia to learn the facts won't have the opportunity of learning that the individual denies it happened. That person is then more likely to believe that an affair actually happened. This isn't in the interests of BLP subjects. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I would prefer a three-fold test:

1. Is the material strongly sourced?
2. Is the potential damage to the subject or others substantial?
3. If 1 is true and 2 is also true - is the material of sufficient importance to readers to still include in the article?

Which would rule out a lot of the "George Gnarph was accused by an anonymous person of gliging with a woman" edits etc. Collect (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we need any more rule-making. We have enough guidance from WP:BLP to deal with this, and if there is a dispute, there is alsways the noticeboard. Cwobeel (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Cwobeel that our current policy is adequate, and proliferation of rules is no substitute for good editorial judgment. We must always consider whether inclusion of such material is undue or not. That involves evaluating many factors such as the fame of the subject, the level of attention to the allegations in indisputably reliable sources, and the length of the biography. There are no cookie cutter answers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Kid's birthdays

Somewhere in this maze of policies, don't we have one that says "don't put exact birthdates for non-notable family members"? I remember it, but I can't find it.—Kww(talk) 12:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:DOB covers it - it says skip Dob for ppl of marginally notability.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Small tweak to the "burden of evidence" in the lede

I made this small tweak [14] to the lead to dispel any misunderstandings may be be out there for what WP:BURDEN means. Some editors were misinterpreting this sentence to stifle the addition of material to BLPs. The burden is to prove that material is verifiable, and the sources are of high quality.

The original sentence stated:

The burden of proof rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

and my tweak reads:

The burden of evidence to demonstrate verifiability rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a substantive change, not just a "tweak", which would require a consensus here AFAICT. Collect (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not substantive, whatsoever, as it uses the exact language in WP:V where it links. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

BTW, the anchor used on the original version before my edit, linked to an anchor that no longer exists. The new anchor is Wikipedia:Verifiability#Responsibility for providing citations or WP:BURDEN. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As Dennis Brown noted yesterday [15], BURDEN has been misinterpreted particularly via the phrase "burden of proof". As the linked policy demonstrates, the burden is one of "verification". The revised wording is therefore not a substantive change but a needed clarification of what is already policy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

In the case of WP:BLP the "burden" is not just of "verifiability"

When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.'

Is not just about WP:V. Cheers and thank you for following up on my edits. Collect (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The "burden of proof" is of course different than compliance with other content policies (which is a given), but that is what burden of proof means. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The actual relevant part of WP:V is, of course, now labelled WP:ONUS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. AFAIK it always linked to WP:BURDEN. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

See for example [16] - Cwobeel (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The status quo is the version that linked to the #"Burden of evidence" anchor at WP:V, which was the first section after the lede. That anchor is now "#Responsibility for providing citations". - Cwobeel (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that the link needed to be updated. However, I removed any wording changes, whether in the link itself or in the text. Those can be discussed if you wish. Unless there's a clear consensus for textual changes, it stays the way it is, and I'll enforce that.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose to change the current sentence:

The burden of proof rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

to

The burden of proof to demonstrate compliance with Wikipedia content policies rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

- Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose (or question it if it is intended to not mean anything) as being a substantial change here as I read it. This policy is on Biographies of Living Persons and the specific onus per WP:BLP must also include compliance with the policy here concerning, inter alia, the requirements for any addition of contentious claims etc. In fact the link likely should be to WP:ONUS as mere verifiability is not necessarily sufficient to override WP:CONSENSUS There is a "burden of verifiability" which applies to all edits but the burden for BLP additions is far stronger (When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.) If the intent here is not to make such a change in tenor, then I question why such a change is necessary. Collect (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The intent is to clarify, not to change anything. Obviously there seems to be quite a misunderstanding out there about this statement. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If the intent is to "clarify" and make no substantive changes in meaning, then I suggest it fails. I find it both longer and less clear in that case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not very helpful. Can you propose a better wording? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Faute de mieux - keep the current wording which has not seemed to be a problem here. IIRC it is not the responsibility of others to provide a host of alternatives to a proposal, is it? Collect (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we add "faute de mieux" somewhere; I'm a sucker for French. I see no reason to change the text.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

But there is a problem and many editors interpret this sentence to stifle edits to BLPs that are compliant with content policies, so we need clarification. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• oppose -- the link takes us to "verifiability", and so I preferred your earlier change that corresponded to what that policy says. I'm uncomfortable with the broader language "compliance with content policies" because of how it might connect with NPOV: I don't think one can demonstrate compliance with NPOV, instead one has to attempt to convince others, some of whom might disagree precisely because of their own POV. Verifiability can be "demonstrated", but I don't think that's the right word to use for NPOV, and I wouldn't want to use the word "burden" in that connection. Again, I suggest sticking with what the linked policy is about (verifiability). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Picture not showing up right?

Willy Aybar §71.52.101.107 (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem. In future, you'd do better to use the Wikipedia:Help desk to report such issues - this isn't the appropriate place, and it may get missed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

BLPCRIME and talk pages

I would like to ask how much this edit is ok or not. Is it ok to mention that the prosecutors filled a criminal charge on corruption counts against a relatively unknown politician? He is quite unknown in Romania. Is it ok to mention that into the talk page? WP:BLPCRIME:

• For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured

In this case he was not accused by his political or personal enemies but he was accused by the prosecutors who already filed criminal charges against him on conflict of interest counts. If the prosecutors would have filed criminal charges against him based on some suspicions and a few clues, that would have been something else. But he was accused based on clear evidence that he hired his brother and sister in his office. I am not sure why the policy talks about relatively unknown people here. I can only imagine that's because the editors might forget about the fact that criminal charges were filed against him and, in 5 years when the court will give the final verdict (that's how much it takes on average in Romania) they won't update the article. But in this case, mentioning the criminal charges on the talk page helps the editors (who accidentally land to this talk page) not to forget about this case, so when they will see what I posted on the talk page, it will prompt them to search for the final verdict on that case. If the editors completely forget about Ghervazen Longher and they don't see the talk page either, they won't update the information, but at least the outdated information is in a talk page and not in the article. —  Ark25  (talk) 08:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Please post this at WP:BLPN (this is the page to discuss changes to the the BLP policy, while the BLPN noticeboard is the place to discuss the application of that policy). I noticed this from my watchlist, but as you know we have recently commented at the same place, namely WT:Talk page guidelines#Adding external links to talk pages. I mentioned there that I had posted at WP:BLPN#Material on talk page of a BLP. Johnuniq (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. And sorry to fill this page with unnecessary junk. Can we just delete this section? I already moved it where you said: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLPCRIME and talk pages. I feel bad to fill the archives of this page with something that should not be here. I am not ironic at all, in case that anyone would think about that. —  Ark25  (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Darn, it's the same page where you posted your message. I'll move my message in the section you started. —  Ark25  (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Are the Golden Raspberry Awards a BLP issue?

User:Coretheapple has removed mention of actors being awarded Golden Raspberry Awards from several pages recently, including Mare Winningham, John Travolta, Adam Sandler, and List of awards and nominations received by Adam Sandler claiming that there is a BLP issue with including them. He and I have been discussing the matter at Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Adam Sandler and so I am bringing the question here to ask others to comment on the specific claim that there is a BLP problem with including mention of Razzies on Wikipedia.

Coretheapple claims that because the Razzies "are intended to mock and degrade the recipient" they are a problem and "Under WP:BLP, such content needs to be reliably sourced. That is, we need some kind of reference to it in a newspaper or magazine article, independent of the award administrators." I have replied that the Razzies official website is sufficient to provide a reliable source that they actually did give the awards in question and the fact that is there a Wikipedia page for Golden Raspberry Awards shows they have been deemed to be notable enough for inclusion, so there is no BLP issue with saying that, for example, Adam Sandler was given a Razzie for Worst Actor and only using the official Razzie site as a source.

Furthermore, when I pointed out that Wikipedia also has separate pages for Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actor, Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress, Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor, Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actress, Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director, Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screenplay, and several other Razzie pages, all with just the Razzie official site as a source for the names they list, Coretheapple indicated that these pages were also problematic for BLP reasons.

So my questions for other editors are: (1) Does it raise a BLP problem to include information on Wikipedia about people who have been given Razzie awards? and (2) Does mentioning Razzie awards on Wikipedia pages require sourcing independent of the Razzie website because of BLP concerns? 99.192.79.171 (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

Well it has been discussed in the past on Wikiproject Films and the consensus is that it requires independent sourcing, but I'd welcome input here. The Sandler list article presents a special problem as he he has gotten a ton of "razzies" and they dominate this list. It kind of shifts the POV of the article to "he's a crappy actor," and I think that's problematic without sourcing apart from the Razzie website. Also it's not really an "award" so I question it being there even with sourcing. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with independent sourcing, because otherwise the noteworthiness of the award in question is unclear. I don't think this applies especially to the Razzies or "anti-awards" in general, but to any award (or, if I'm wrong about that, then it shouldn't apply to the Razzies). Formerip (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with independent sourcing in general, but I would also expect (without having done the legwork to prove it) that there would be reliable, secondary coverage of each year's Raazies. Putting due weight to it, if that's the case, is more an editorial process than a sourcing one. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ditto what I wrote below for you. WP:UNDUE is not the same as BLP. Your comment says nothing about whether or not there is a BLP issue with the Razzies. 99.192.79.171 (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

(edit conflict) You have both ignored the questions I have asked. Coretheapple, the discussions on Wikiproject Films have not been about the question of BLP. The issue of BLP was not raised there by anyone, so I am asing that here. There is no concensus at Wikiproject Films that there is a BLP issue because it has not been discussed there. FormerIP, you might question the notability of the awards, but that is not a BLP matter. So if you want independent sourcing for notability issues (although surely you mean WP:UNDUE, since clear notability is very easy to establish), that is a very different discussion. You have not said anything about there being a BLP problem. 99.192.79.171 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

You're wrong. There would definitely be a BLP issue with mentioning any unnoteworthy events (awards being just one example) in a biography. On the other hand, if an award can be established as noteworthy, there is appropriate sourcing and there is no issue of UNDUE (UNDUE is incorporated into BLP policy), no BLP issue arises just because the subject of the biography might be caused embarrassment. That's not what BLP policy is there for. Formerip (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that there are multiple Wikipedia pages for the Razzies show that the notability of these awards has been established? If not, then how can these pages be allowed to exist? If so, then how can the notability of the awards be a BLP issue? 99.192.79.171 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

What matters is not the notability of the awards, but the noteworthiness of a particular person receiving an award, even if the two things may not be completely unrelated. The noteworthiness of the awards may have changed over time, some individual statues may be more noteworthy than others and the significance of the award may be relative depending on who has received it. It's a talkpage discussion for individual cases, and should be based on sourcing. Sparing the article subject from embarrassment should not be a consideration, though. Formerip (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by saying that "the noteworthiness of a particular person receiving an award" matters. If the person who won a Razzie is highly noteworthy (like Adam Sandler) does that make it more or less of a BLP issue than if the person who won it is less noteworthy? It seems to me that the WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE section of BLP makes it clear that more care should be taken with less noteworthy people, but the Razzies almost exclusively go to public figures like Sandler. So if anything, the issue of relative noteworthiness suggests that Razzie winners not BLP problems because they are all public figures. 99.192.79.171 (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

Agree that independent sourcing is required. If a particular noteworthy person receives a particular noteworthy award, but nobody cares (i.e. no independent sources write about it), then the giving of the award to that particular person is not noteworthy. To answer your questions: (1) no, writing about a subject being awarded a Razzie does not violate BLP as long as it is properly sourced; and (2) yes, an independent source is required, because the Razzies can give an award to literally anybody, so notability of a particular award can only be established by independent coverage. As for Adam Sandler, if he's received more anti-awards than actual awards, it's POV to say otherwise. Ivanvector (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple argues that the extensive Razzies section overbalances the Sandler article, making it seem as if he is a crappy actor, but I think such a section accurately indicates that such opinions are widely held.[17] As far as Razzie references go, I agree that a Razzie sentence or paragraph should be supported by at least one WP:SECONDARY source. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with those wanting to see reliable unrelated source coverage of such an award. I can give out the "You Suck Award" to people I don't like right now, but if nobody else cares (which no one would), "John Doe was given the You Suck Award in 2014" is UNDUE. Did reliable sources actually take note in this particular instance? That's the question that will answer whether it's a BLP problem or a perfectly acceptable note about the person's career. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Independent reliable sources are the key. For example, for Sandler: [18], [19] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I will kind of speak on the IP's behalf. The 'you suck award' no one's ever heard of so that's easy. If it were agreed that the razzies are generally of import, than their website would be fine for who they were given to. Unfortunately, for the IP's claim, there does not appear to be that agreement. So, IP unless you can come up with a bunch of independent sources to get a consensus to agree that virtually all razzies are important enough, then you need to independently source them separately. I also agree that if they are of import, than it slant's pov not to include them. Moreover, this discussion really belongs on the WP:BLPN notice board, where we attempt to record this kind of consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Well that's true, actually, and people searching for this discussion on that noticeboard are not going to find it. I wonder if it can be moved or (when completed) copied over there? At the very least, a pointer to this discussion belongs on that board. Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

• I've just tagged a bunch of razzie pages as needing better sourcing (which they undoubtedly do). On the Sandler issue, I don't see this as being a problem, (a) because this isn't his biography page it's List of awards and nominations received by Adam Sandler and explicitly showing only one aspect of his life and (b) it's a more-or-less in line of both public opinion and professional reviewer's opinions. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Just a couple of final comments for this discussion. First, it does seem that there are a number of people who think that independent sourcing for particular awards is needed, although I still don't understand why. As Betty Logan commented on WT:FILM, "I don't think the Razzies are any more a BLP issue than say a bad review". To expand on that, the Razzies are notable awards (they have several Wikipedia pages and have significant media coverage annually), so if they say that Adam Sandler gave the worst performance of the year that seems to be the same as if a review in the New York Times or USA Today or any other notable source writes in a review that Adam Sandler gave the worst performance of the year. With a review from a notable source we never need a secondary source that references that review to make it eligible for inclusion, so the same should be true for the Razzies. I really don't see why others think there is a difference. Putting in an article a claim that Sandler gave the worst performance without any citation is clearly a BLP problem and putting in such a claim with a cited source that in not a notable one (like some random dude's personal blog) is also clearly a BLP problem, but when the source is notable as the Razzies, NYTimes, and USA Today all are, it seems strange to say two of those need no back-up independent sourcing but one does.

Second, about the location of this discussion, if this really belongs on the WP:BLPN notice board or somewhere else, I have no objection to it being moved or copied or linked to or whatever. I had thought this was the right location, but I defer to those who know more about that. 99.192.93.29 (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

Similarly, I don't understand why you can't see that writing about an organization's activities using the organization as the only source is inherently problematic. The Razzies have a commercial interest in publicizing their own awards. As you said they have significant media coverage, so a notable award should be very easy to source independently, otherwise the notability of that award is suspect. There's a difference between an expert reviewer criticizing an actor's performance, and an organization with an interest in producing bad reviews calling someone the worst performer of the year. There had better be an independent source to back up that superlative. Ivanvector (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Substitute "Oscars" or "Emmys" where you put "Razzies" above and all the same things are true, yet no source independent of those organizations is needed for claims that people won their awards, even the more obscure ones that don't make the televised broadcasts or get any media coverage. The notability of all three awards in general is not in question, which is why none of the the Wikipedia pages for them are having their existence challenged. The primary source in all cases is the most authoritative source for whether or not a person won a particular award. So again, there is no difference. If the difference that matters is that the Razzies say something negative while the others say something positive, then my previous comment about a NYTimes or USA Today review applies. Either way, the sourcing requirement you suggest is neither the same as for other notable awards nor is it the same for other negative opinions expressed by notable sources. In both of those cases no independent sourcing is required. 99.192.93.29 (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC) (=99.192.93.187)

I disagree; independent sourcing should indeed be required for Oscars and Emmys, for precisely the same reason. They may be reliable sources for whether or not a person won a particular award, but they are not reliable sources for the significance of winning the award, be it positive or negative. We have to avoid giving undue weight to what may be a minor footnote in a person's career, so we must be careful not to unduly emphasize an event (the receipt of a particular award, good or bad) which is not independently considered important. The difference is that the Oscars and Emmys are quite widely considered major awards in the industry whereas the Razzies are not (or not so clearly, at least) despite how well-known they may be, thus automatically considering them important is problematic for us. Especially so because their reviews are universally negative. As for other notable sources, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find any which write exclusively negative reviews, thus their POV is more likely to be balanced. Ivanvector (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: in the case of Sandler, it was very much notable given the Jack and Jill sweep. Neutral on the others. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• comment Emmy awards, Tony awards, Grammy awards, and Academy Awards are very prominent awards. I question the need of secondary source for them. I question the same about a Nobel Prize or a Medal of Honor.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME

This policy currently cautions against mentioning that some relatively unknown person is accused of a crime, when he has not yet been convicted. This mirrors the Sub judice practice limiting media coverage of accused criminals in parts of the British Commonwealth, for instance, but it has not previously been and does not seem to be currently the actual practice in Wikipedia. In the case of the kidnappings of three young women in Cincinnatti, in the first day after their rescue the Wikipedia article in 2013 mentioned the name of the owner of the house, Ariel Castro, and said he had been arrested. He ultimately confessed to the kidnappings. By saying he had been arrested after the kidnap victims escaped his house, wasn't the article violating the present language of this policy, since saying he was arrested carries the automatic implication that he is "accused." When such a notable crime occurs in the future, must we wait to name the arrested, indicted, and tried person until there is a "guilty" verdict? In a kidnapping, a murder, a rape, a well publicized assault like the Alexian Lien beating a terrorist attack or the arrest of an accused terrorist like the "underwear bomber" Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, an assasination attempt on a well known public figure, or an alleged espionage or treason case such as that of Edward Snowden or Chelsea Manning, it has been the actual practice to have an article on the alleged crime, and to include facts about the crime from reliable sources, as well as reports from reliable sources that someone had been arrested, or that he had been charged in court, or that he was being tried. In the past, I would remove editor's opinions from such articles, such as an editor calling the accused "the murderer," "the rapist," or whatever, in favor of factually stating that "he was arrested," "he was indicted," "he is being tried for" the crime. Obviously an arrest is not a conviction, as in the instance of Castro's family members who were arrested and later exonerated, But I am concerned Wikipedia will look silly when readers come here for objective and thorough coverage of some highly notable crime, and we somehow bury our heads in the sand and pretend not to know that an arrest has been made or that a trial is taking place, until years later (in some cases) when the trial has been completed. Are we supposed to just say "A person was arrested and indicted??" I suggest that this policy be modified to allow the actual level of coverage which has been typical in Wikipedia crime articles, or at least to clearly state that articles about notable crimes can mention the name of the person arrested or on trial, with reference to reliable news sources, while avoiding hysterical denunciations or "trial by media" which prosecutors are fond of. Edison (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It is presently being claimed at WP:AFD that this policy outlaws having an article about an accused non-notable person (and presumably the mention of his name in an article about the crime) for however many years it takes from discovery of the crime and an arrest, until a conviction, with assurances that once there is a conviction, the article can be undeleted or recreated. Others say this policy just creates a high bar for such naming, but that when there is sufficient news coverage, the privacy is already destroyed and the bell cannot be unrung by coyness here at Wikipedia. Is it permissible to say "Yes, we gave it consideration, and concluded that in this instance subjudice or privacy does not preclude an article naming the person." There seems to be a flaw in the notion of "waitng for conviction" before naming the accused, since some otherwise non-notable acquitted persons and their trials or alleged crimes continue to have articles, such as George Zimmerman and State of Florida v. George Zimmerman. We even have numerous categories of articles about persons who were acquitted for various crimes, and many such persons are nonnotable save for the crime they were never acquitted of, like Zimmerman or Casey Anthony. Edison (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Where is this discussion re WP:AFD taking place? It isn't at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion as far as I can see. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I hesitate to point to a specific AFD for fear of canvassing. But the citing of this policy at an AFD led me here with the question as to whether it is correct to claim that WP:BLPCRIME in general calls for not mentioning the accused until he is convicted. I have no problem with saying that we should not do it in every case of some little-known person committing a crime, but in notable crimes it would make for odd articles when the arrested and indicted person is never mentioned by name. Edison (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

We should take care in using names -- vide the "Olympic bomber" who won suits in court ... better to be "notnews" than to defame people as a rule. Collect (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Olympic Bomber leads to Eric Rudolph. Do you propose we should delete that redirect? You likely are thinking about Richard Jewell who was falsely accused. Richard Ricci was similarly falsely accused of kidnapping Elizabeth Smart, and his name and exoneration are in the article Elizabeth Smart kidnapping. The article Brandon Mayfield covers a lawyer who was falsely linked by flawed FBI fingerprint analysis to the 2004 Madrid train bombings.The article Steven Hatfill is about an otherwise nonnotable scientists who suffered a "trial by media" and whose apartment the FBI searched, before he was exonerated of any participation in the 2001 anthrax attacks. If someone was falsely accused of a notable crime, and those accusations and then the exoneration received significant coverage in multiple reliable new sources, it seems appropriate to report those facts. It is not "defaming people" to report that there was an horrific crime which was covered by well-regarded news media worldwide, and that someone was arrested and is being tried for that crime. It is not defamation to have an encyclopedic account of the false accusation which was refuted. It seems quite contrary to Wikipedia's actual practice that we should not mention the name of the Bostom Marathon bomber until and unless he is convicted, when he has been arrested for and indicted for a notable crime. Readers expect us to have an article about notable crimes, and that the article should identify anyone arrested for it or widely accused in the media and exonerated, like Jewell, Ricci, Mayfield, and Hatfill. Note also List of exonerated death row inmates. Policies are supposed to reflect "best practices" and thus to reflect reality and actual practice in Wikipedia, i.e the consensus of the community of editors, of which AFD is an important index, and not to just reflect the views of a few editors who gravitate to talk pages of policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

So we presently have this language in BLP which is contrary to actual practice. Which should change? Edison (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

RSN discussion of use of Perverted-Justice.com as source

Please see discussion here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Perverted-Justice.com EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"Assertions" in BLPPRIMARY – proposed modification

WP:BLPPRIMARY is using the word "assertion" poorly in the second sentence. One can assert a fact or one can assert an opinion. One makes an assertion of fact or one makes an assertion of opinion. See: WP:ASSERT. "Assert" "implies stating confidently without need of proof or regard for evidence" (Webster's Collegiate 11th edition). But that synonym usage can't apply because we always require evidence or proof. I propose to change the language to read "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents and records, to support assertions (factual or otherwise) about a living person." (Bold typeface used to designate changes.) Let's keep the door tightly closed on this. If we allow assertions of fact from public documents, we undermine the admonitions to "exercise extreme caution" and to "not use public records that include personal details...." And can it be otherwise? Would we allow such primary source documents to be used to assert opinions? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear as is. I would not touch it. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose "modification" as proposed. I agree with Cwobeel's rationale. Quis separabit? 14:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps my commentary is vague. The policy says do not use these documents to support assertions. Well, can the documents be used for other purposes? If so, what other purposes? E.g., what "non-assertion" uses are permitted? – S. Rich (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Srich: Why is the word "document" mentioned twice consecutively, i.e. "or other public documents and documents"? Quis separabit? 19:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Duh! I'll fix it. – S. Rich (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Srich's proposed proscription of "public records" appears to be potentially disturbingly broad and wide-ranging, and would seem likely to inhibit legitimate news gathering and factual updates by editors on this encyclopaedia, unless I am misunderstanding something. Why would using "public documents", a very broad term btw, which, prima facie, pass RS, "undermine the admonitions to 'exercise extreme caution'"? Quis separabit? 19:48, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Please realize that I'm playing the devil's advocate to a degree. I'm searching for clarification on what "assertion" means in the policy. What are "assertion-type" edits? What are impermissible assertions vs. permissible assertions? As I stated, one can assert facts and one can assert opinions. – S. Rich (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it has to do with assertions arising from original research, and giving weight to things where they are undue. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

When we say "assertions", I think that we mean "material" (e.g., sentences, items in infoboxes, captions for images, etc.). The actual goal here is something like this: Joe Film is required to testify in court about something. Some personal information, such as his birthday, home address, or number of children, might be stated in the public trial transcript. Our intended rule: do not cite that transcript to support "assertions" about these things.

I still think that the second sentence needs to be re-written, because what we actually say is this: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses."

The meaning of what we have written is: Do not ever cite any public record that contains the address of any home or any business, even if you are writing about a long-defunct business, and all of the people involved in it are dead, or even if the home address is a widely known official residence (e.g., the White House or Buckingham Palace). What we mean is "Don't use public records to support material in articles about personal details. We don't actually mean "If the public record mentions Buckingham Palace, then you are not allowed to use it for any purpose whatsoever", even though that's what we've written. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

BLP Privacy

Is this actually enforced, I've seen hundreds of edits from lots of different editors adding dates of birth to articles, often times to dubious sites (IMDB for example) and sometimes not even supported by the source (sometimes gives the age). These edits are not just from new users but established edits with 10s of thousands of edits. Am I wrong in removing DOBs where it isn't supported by multiple WP:RS? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

One RS is enough - and you are completely fine to remove any unreferenced/poorly sourced information about BLPs. GiantSnowman 12:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Is IMDB considered an RS for this kind of information? GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Look at WP:RS/N. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Is_IMDb_a_reliable_source. is just one of the discussions. Short answer? No. Collect (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"burden of proof"

I object to this standard. The policy here should refer to the burden of [providing sufficient] evidence as it has been a longstanding Wikipedia principle that the process of justifying something's inclusion should not be given an end-run around by appeals that go direct to the "truth" or "falsity" of the material. If WP:V is going to be linked to, then use the name of link or one of the name link alternatives that the community has approved.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Removed immediately

The lead to the policy says,

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.

This is all very well and good, but are we perhaps overlooking the possibility of providing a source? I'm thinking that it should actually say something like this:

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 either removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, or immediately supplied with an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contentious material.

The way we've written this, you are required to blank the material, even if you're going to restore it and add suitable sources five seconds later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• I generally support the change proposed above, and I find it to be in the spirit of the suggestion that I made early on August 4th that Wikipedia policy should be tweaked given recent events. I'd personally put the "immediately supplied with an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contentious material" first though and maybe add a mention somehow of the fact an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contentious material can sometimes be found by visiting blue-linked items in the original, supposedly contentious material in question in the first place. I think the goal should be to retain reliably-sourced information and not so much blanking content at will. Guy1890 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support, absolutely agree, and it is already common practice and logically follows from the rest of BLP. --cyclopia^speak! 20:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• How does this deal with the lazy editors who would rather blank information than read through the relevant article to find a source? moluɐɯ 20:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It doesn't. Lazy blankers will still have the authority to blank the unsourced, contentious material, and (since we define them as being lazy), they will still do that. Also, POV pushers who are misusing BLP as a weapon to promote their POV will do the same (but, naturally, only if the unsourced BLP material has the 'wrong' POV). This change will not reform people's characters. However, it might encourage our much larger group of non-lazy and non-POV-pushing editors to try adding a source first, and it removes a bit of unintentional logical silliness from one of our most important policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I would make the last sentence "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, or immediately supplied with an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contentious material if one is available". That would make deleting the content when a reliable source is available not an option. Diego (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Diego, it isnt an option to remove a reliably sourced name right now. WE dont need any policy change there because it already si 100% the policy, its only unopsurced or unreliably sourced information that editors are empowered to remove using BLP. If I had been removing reliably sourced info form the porn actors in mainstream films editores would understandably have been agrrived and I would have been bloecked for violating 3RR.And NOBODY is proposing to change this policy of not being able to remove reliably sourced information either. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Switch the phrasing around (sourcing before removal) to give the more desired result first. Also, I don't think "mechanically" that immediate removal on an unsourced claim is necessary, if you are planning on spending 10-15 minutes to do some research to see if you can suport it. But if you look and can't find anything, yeah, that's a problem. (Eg common sense to allow for reasonable time to adjust edits, etc.) --MASEM (t) 21:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hard to do now, since some busybody protected the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose because if you add a reliable source the BLP non-complaince does not apply any more. And getting an inline citation is more like 5 minutes than 5 seconds so if you have to choose between getting an inline citation and removing the offending item the offending item should be removed. But if you have it to hand the BLP issue will also cease to apply the moment you press the button. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  because if you add a reliable source the BLP does not apply any more. What? That makes literally no sense. moluɐɯ 21:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

  whoops, meant to say the BLP non-complaince doesnt apply, didnt mean the policy, a typo, thks for pointing it out. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

mol, sourcing an inline citation is never a 5 second job. Perhaps you should be looking to change WP:BURDEN at the verifiability article with your talk of lazy BLP enforcing editors. Why in your opinion should our BLP policy "deal with" BLP enforcing editors and what message do you think that will send out to the wikiepdioa community and to those living people who we write about? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Why aren't you also lobbying for the removal of categories, which inherently are not directly sourced - just like these other lists you keep griping about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories should not be created on contentious topics. They should be "obvious", non-contentious categorizations so that we don't have to worry about the sourcing problem. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You're arguing for the abolition of category:[anything to do with porn actors] because "porn actor" is automatically contentious??? That's absurd. Just make sure the linked article (from whatever type of list) is properly sourced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Relying on editors to verify rather than on inline citations is exactly what BLP was written to avoid, especialy given anyone can edit. And rather than making 100 editors check that the category wasnt put in by a mischief maker or an overconfident fan (and after those 100 editors had verified this info it still wouldnt be verifiable). Do we want peopel to trust wikipedia isnt just made up on the basis of what its editors say or on the basis of reliable sources. Surely those editos supporiotnmg editor power who say we should trust all editors word and knowledge 100% as our guarantor of a quality encyclopedia that never harms living people should perhaps go and make a fork to an encyclopedia where anything goes as long as some editor says so.♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning and the resulting ArbCom case has shown us that Women is a contentious categorization. moluɐɯ 21:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

No, someone that has clearly been identified as a porn actor is not contentious, I'm just saying that in general, we should not be creating categories that are based on a contentious concept, so that the aspect of the sourcing should not be an issue. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

But an argument that has brought up here multiple times is that porn is inherently contentious. moluɐɯ 22:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Including (implicitly) by Masem. However, the real "contentiousness" here is not about the members of the list, it's a manual-of-style issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I would expect that there is a difference between porn actors - people that willing say they are actors in the porn industry - and actors that just happened to appear in a porn. Calling members of the latter "porn actors" is a contentious aspect. As long as the category "Porn Actors" defines it as actors that identify themselves as such, that's not contentious. --MASEM (t) 23:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Who is claiming that any members of the list are not actual porn actors? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

We have a list "Porn actors who became mainstream actors". I can see the case of an actor that might have done one porn film to put bread on the table, never calling himself such a porn actor, and then became big in mainstream films. In a such, I would never consider that actor to be qualified for this list, however, I can see an editor considering the factual aspect "well he starred in a porn film , therefore he is a porn actor, therefore he belongs on the list". If the actor himself has never really discussed that point and we're going by the credit of one film, that's what makes this list contentious, and why every entry needs sourcing right there. --MASEM (t) 23:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Why does that argument not apply to categories? In a category, you have to check the individual article if you want to see if they belong in the category. Why are you exempting categories from that standard despite the fact they are the same potential problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we're going to run into a BLP issue any time we call someone a porn actor who was never notable for being a porn actor, whether that's in a list, a category, an article, or anywhere else. Sourcing that someone has been in a porn film does not establish that they are a porn actor. That's going to have some serious implications for this list, I don't think a single citation to say that they have been in a particular porn film is enough. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I never brought up that query... but I guess I'll respond. There's a difference between constructive BLP enforcement and arbitrary blanking of an article. Your sentence still doesn't make sense? Oppose because otherwise the article would be BLP compliant? If that's not what you mean, then I don't understand what you're even trying to say. You seem to want to enforce BLP as if Wikipedia's best interests are in mind, but wouldn't Wikipedia's best interests actually be a full article with citations? I never said it would only take 5 seconds, but it shouldn't take any more than a minute to copy paste a source from the article -- yes, that article linked in the list. Even if you disagree that citations existing only on the article is enough, you can't tell me you honestly believe that the list is a bad way to gather sources, especially since they already exist in the subject's article. And even if you believe blanking is appropriate while you take the time to add sources, you made no such attempt to add sources. You instead tagged it for deletion with the reason that it was uncited? Well, why was it uncited? Because you made no effort to add sources that were easily obtainable. Nor did you attempt to contact editors that added the entries or employ help in any other way. I saw no healthy BLP enforcement, just some "delete this because I don't feel like it". moluɐɯ 21:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox, the time needed to add a citation depends on the situation. mw:Citoid was pretty quick when I tried it out on a PubMed URL the other day, and sometimes all that's needed is to re-use an existing one. However, what I meant was that you would start adding a citation five seconds after you followed the absolute, zero-exception requirement to blank the material, not that every single editor would necessarily be finished in only five seconds. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The proposal makes the sentence kind of long, and people want to rearrange it. So how about this:

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 either:

• immediately supplied with an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contentious material (if one is available), or
• immediately removed, without waiting for discussion.

Clear? Readable? Accurate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like a change to the second bullet that advises strongly for whoever blanks the entry to request a source in some way. Whether it be asking the editor who added it to supply their source or making a new section on the article's talk. moluɐɯ 22:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that suggestion, mol. That is nothing me than watering down our BLP policy which till now emphasizes removal as the required option and balances itself very strongly in favour of living people, which WhatamIdoing's proposal is not attempting to water down. And a talk page section is only appropriate after the BLP violation has been removed, anything else is unfair on the living subjects of articles. Approaching the editor who added the piece would also require us to change BURDEN at WP:V and that would not be a good move either. The idea that we should wait for the original editor to respond is not protecting the interests of the living person being mentioned especially when we cannot find any reliable sources and shifts the whole emphasis of BLP away from the living people we write about. I question whether anyone who does not put the needs of the living subjects first should be editing articles about living people. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

How is it watering down the BLP policy? I'm asking for the user who blanks to content to make sure an attempt is made at citing the claim if not by himself. I suggest it because of your actions where you immediately nominated a page for deletion after blanking it for lacking citations. That's an egregious interpretation of the policy because it opposes content simply because it is about a living person. If you can agree that these statements would be fine with a source, surely you agree that the content itself is not the problem? It is better to have content than no content. And I'm beginning to believe you don't agree. This would be perfectly fair to the living person because if it is decided that the person removing content truly can't find a source, it will remain blanked. But if we can cite it, should we not? How will it be readily known that this content needs citation if no one asks? There is no shift of the burden, it is simply asking the removing editor to remind the editor who added the content that the burden is theirs. moluɐɯ 23:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If it helps, I can break it down into steps:

1. User A adds uncited claims that exist on an article to a list
2. User B notices this and cannot verify the claims himself because he can't find the sources within the linked page(s)
3. User B removes the non-BLP-compliant material
4. User B reminds User A that they have the burden of transferring this source over

Nothing I proposed should be controversial. It's just with some of this editing behavior, I believe it would help to remind users to put a little effort into actually fixing the article instead of using policy to justify arbitrary blanking. moluɐɯ 23:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It watersdown the policy by suggesting alternatives to immediate removal. Alternatives to immediate removal are not fair on the living people we write articles about. And placing WP:BURDEN on anyone other than the editor who added the material is not fair on other editors and would perhaps discourage editors from enforcing BLP, because doing so places extra burdens on them that should be being carried by the editors who added the material. I proded th article, prodding is not putting it up for deletion and thta was not my intent. PRODS improve articles in my experience and can be removed by any user, and the reason I placed the PROD is because the article lacked info. It is not better to have content than no content when that content violates our BLP policy. If you added that statement to the policy it would cease to exist and so would the protection we offer the livng people who have articles written about them. And what you are proposal, far from being non controversial, would IMHO destroy all the work of many years in trying to protect the living people we write about and would have huge consequences for the encyclopedia. So hardly uncontroversial. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

My specific proposed amendment does not interfere with whether or not it is deleted immediately. It also doesn't put the burden on anyone else. It suggests that after you remove content, you remind the editor who added it that they need to provide a source. This is, actually, already an idea implied by other policies. Asking a user to provide a verification for their claim is not a new idea. I feel reminding users specifically will help prevent people like you from just performing this arbitrary blankings for the sake of blanking. If you truly have a problem with there being no source, you should be asking for whoever added it to find a source. Please also read all of the section that WP:BURDEN links to: If you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it. The policy does indeed suggest that whoever adds a claim is responsible for citing it, but it does not suggest that the remover should not put forth effort to verify it himself. moluɐɯ 23:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• "prodding is not putting it up for deletion"...yes it is, and that's already been pointed out to you above very clearly here. Stop lying "Squeak". "It is not better to have content than no content when that content violates our BLP policy." Reliable sourced content doesn't violate Wikipedia's BLP policy, period. Guy1890 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

How is disagreeing with you lying? And no, reliably sourced content absolutely does not violate BLP policies, it is the goldmark we use to establish verifiability in articles nor do I ever, as I am sure you know, either delete or propose the deletion of reliably sourced material. The content only violates BLP when there are no reliable sources. Then the material must be removed, prior to discussion. So are we in agreement now? Can we start collaborsting as felow members of the wikiporn project as I asked for back in January, Guy1890? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Repeating obvious falsehoods that you have clearly been notified of is obviously lying. What you've been trying to do recently here (and elsewhere) "Squeak" is "spin" your recent actions, which have justifiably come under scrutiny. As for what you were up to earlier this year, that was obvious as well ("Please dont ask me to verify or source the info myself as I am not willing to do so")...you were out to do what you've done recently...only on a much larger scale. Guy1890 (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep, there I was in January making articles more BLP compliant and getting lots of resistance by people who think their editing privileges are worth more thn the rights of the living subjects they right about. I asked for your help at wikiporn project, being transparent, and you turned me down. What have you got against making our porn articles BLP compliant when it comes to the contentious issue of porn work? I have never hidden or been ashamed of what I am doing demanding BLP non complaiant assertions. I feel that I am working for the living people we write about and to improve our coverage of porn by ensuring that we do not make contentious allegations about pórn stars. Now péople have even been opposing that I work on BLP compliance in an article that is not a list be made BLP compliant as if wikipedia RfCs were of more account than the living people we write about. They are my first priority and they should be the first priority of all editors. From there and with reliable sources we can make porn coverage on wikipedia not 100% perfect but one of the bst areas in wikipedia in terms of BLP and policy compliance. Entirely appropriate for such a contentious area, IMHO, Guy1890. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 04:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, what you were up to earlier this year is obvious "Squeak"...your own words back then speak volumes here now. I also I told you way back then to stop what you were doing (and further thinking of doing) based on your reasons given back then, and you obviously didn't listen one bit, but that's on you now...not anyone else. Guy1890 (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I dont want to see editors doing anything other than removing BLP violating material in the short term. For the sake of the living subjects we write about. Afterwards they can do whatever, add reliable source where available, remove BLP more BLP non compliant material or just go and edit their favourite subjects. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You don't want to see any attempts made to have the claim verified by the editor that made them? That's a problem. moluɐɯ 00:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot to add in the immediate term. Once the offending material has been removed it can be fixed. Must be getting tired with sll thi wikilawyering, sigh! ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The intent of the original sentence is to give editors clear permission to remove unsourced contentious material from BLPs without further ado. It is the sole responsibility of anyone adding contentious material about living people to insure it is properly sourced. That is central to our policy. We want unsourced contentious material gone from BLPs as quickly as possible and that means no extra burdens on the removing editor. In the rare situation where an editor spots such material AND has a suitable source at hand, 99% of the time that editor will act sensibily. Per WP:CREEP "Wikipedia policies and guidelines should not address every possible problem, as that would produce hopelessly long and complex pages." The original proposal is a perfect example of such instruction creep.--agr (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• SupportUser:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - "User B notices this and cannot verify the claims himself because he can't find the sources within the page"...what User B really needs to be doing here is checking any blue-linked text in the original claim to see if there are any reliable sources in another Wikipedia article that can be easily copied over to the original article that was in "question" in the first place. Guy1890 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

  By "within the page", I meant that User B checked the blue link, but, for some reason or another, was truly unable to find a source that backed the claim. Because he couldn't find a source in the blue link, he removed the material he believed was non-compliant. I fully agree that users should put forth a modicum of effort to help verify claims. I think it would be helpful as a catch-all, because I don't believe simple deletion is helpful; asking another user for a source, even if the material was temporarily removed, though is. moluɐɯ 03:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Given your clarification above of what you're proposing, I fully support your version of the above text. Thank you. Guy1890 (talk)

• Comment - a truism, yes, and the policy ought to be clarified so as not to empower the occasional cowboy deletionist. However, this wording is too clunky and long. The point is that removing contentious material about living people on sight has to fit in with a hundred other policies and guidelines and should not be taken to extremes. n all acts on Wikipedia some dose of sanity, perspective, and reasonableness ought to prevail. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Try again

I'm confused by some of the responses above, which seem to be based on a discussion item rather than the actual proposal.

For reference, here's the actual proposal:

Let's change the current wording in the lead:

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.

to this:

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 either:

• immediately supplied with an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contentious material (if one is available), or
• immediately removed, without waiting for discussion.

Differences:

• Right now, if you see unsourced contentious BLP material, you are supposed to blank it immediately. Do not pass go, do not collect $200, do not add a source yourself, do not WP:PRESERVE it.
• The proposal is this: if you see unsourced contentious BLP material, you have the voluntary option to supply an inline citation, if you happen to be able to do so immediately (e.g., without a long search).

Comparison

Current options	Proposed options
Blank it immediately. No further action required.	Blank it immediately. No further action required. Source it immediately. No further action required.

The use case is this:

Imagine that you already know about a reliable source. In fact, imagine that you're reading the news, and you run across a great source, and you wonder what Wikipedia says about it. (We all do that, right?) So you go to the Wikipedia page, and you find an accurate, encyclopedic summary of what you just read... but there's no source listed. Per BLP, you are supposed to blank that material immediately, even though you have a great source for it right in front of you.

What we want in that case is this:

1. Yuck, it's an unsourced BLP violation.
2. Here's a source!

What we don't want in that case is what we've accidentally written on this page:

1. Yuck, it's an unsourced BLP violation.
2. I'll revert it in my role as a person enforcing BLP.
3. Now I'll restore it with a source, in my role as a person meeting the WP:BURDEN!

The discussion above about whether you should notify someone is not part of this proposal (which, BTW, I oppose, because it adds time and complexity to the task of enforcing BLP problems. Feel free to do this if you want to, but let's not require it). This proposal is only intended to "authorize" immediate provision of sources as a voluntary alternative to first blanking and then providing sources.

I apologize for splitting this, but I recognize that this is a change to important sentence, and if I'm confused by who's supporting what, then other people in the future will be, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with this, but what is the actual difference with the previous proposed wording?--cyclopia^speak! 20:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There are no differences from my original proposal. However, the discussion above included extensive comments about whether people removing BLP violations should additionally have to contact the person who originally added the violations, and eventually I couldn't tell whether "support" or "agree" meant that the person was supporting my proposed change or the other idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• How about "removed or sourced immediately, without waiting for discussion". There is no need to repeat the sourcing requirements in the middle of this phrase because they are the subject of the entire page. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Suggested change might be instead of "that is unsourced or poorly sourced" to "...that is lacks a citation or is poorly sourced, and cannot be improved by adding in a citation to a reliable source...". This eliminates case 2 being even concievable but still pushes for deletion of unsourced material. I also hope that suggests that if you see an unsourced claim that you can spend the 30 seconds to hit up Google to see if there's an obvious source to fix it before deletion. Mind you, I think there is something to be said between finding one unsourced claim, and finding a list that is chuck-full of unsourced claims. The latter is going to take a lot more work to fix and I do not expect a single editor, worried about the BLP issues, to have to fix it before removal. --MASEM (t) 20:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• I'd rather Blank it immediately. No further action required. be Blank it immediately. Request a source on talk page/user talk of editor who added it. If we are going to be citing WP:BURDEN, we should be reminding editors that fail to add citations that the burden is theirs. moluɐɯ 21:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose (once more) The "Try again" proposal is a classic example of WP:CREEP. At the very least, I would like to see some evidence that a significant number of editors are confused by the present wording and feel it compels them to remove a text and then re-add it with a source. As for mol's suggestion, this would be a major change to BLP policy and would require a broad community consensus. The present policy means what is says, "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. (emphasis in original)--agr (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion to to request a source after blanking. It doesn't conflict with the "remove it immediately" facet of the policy. moluɐɯ 22:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The unsourced material does not belong on a talk page either. An editor who is concerned about learning material they added has been removed can put the article in question on their watch list.--agr (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Who said the material would exist on the talk page? Can't this be done just as easily with linking a diff? Unless the material is so offensive or is libelous enough to warrant WP:REVDEL, where is the harm in asking "Can you provide a citation for this diff?" I'm also not suggesting it should be a requirement, only that editors are recommended to show some signs of collaboration by communicating with the other editors. moluɐɯ 23:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

200K+ of commentary on this page suggests that some people are unclear on who is supposed to do what. Why on earth should we promote blanking over sourcing? I have no problem favoring "blank first, ask questions later" when people have a bona fide belief that a recent edit is contentious and inadequately sourced. However, people who encounter 5-10 year old pages where the original editors are long gone from Wikipedia ought to be encouraged to improve, not delete, and those doing mass edits really need to think through how they're going about things. Obscuring the fact that sourcing is even an option doesn't help. Talk pages are a different issue entirely. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I can pretty easily support the above articulated changes to existing policy as most recently described by "WhatamIdoing". Guy1890 (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any wording that suggests the burden of meeting BLP is on the person removing the content rather than the person adding the content. The policy already talks about how to meet its requirements and it is a given that one has the option to improve rather than remove. Also I think the word immediately was chosen intentionally. If it takes 5 minutes to find a reference then it should be removed for those 5 minutes and added only after the reference is included. Chillum 23:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is clearly some burden on any person removing content to act responsibly and in the best interests of the encyclopedia, its editors, the subjects of the biographies, and the world at large. If it takes five minutes to deal with a problem, then it can wait five minutes. The twin boogie monsters of BLP, hurting the feelings of an actual real-life live human being (shudder) and getting sued, respectively take several orders of magnitude more than 5 minutes to notice and even more orders of magnitude to mount a lawsuit. Treating BLP as a fundamentalist absolute trump card over all other policies has gotten ridiculous here, to the point where even suggesting that policy suggests more than one way to deal with something can't be mentioned in the policy statement for fear of not being tough enough on policy. We are in la-la land here. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Policy does not say you can't add citations. It says remove it immediately and do not return it without references. Take it out on sight. Then try to improve it if you want. There is NO burden for the person removing a BLP violation to bring it up to standard, none. That is how it should be. The person seeking to include information has always been the one responsible for having it meet policy and BLP was intentionally written to say that violations must be remove immediately. Nothing is stopping the article from being improved by someone who wants to include the info.

It is silly to think that person A can add contentious material about a living person and then person B should be expected to prove it. Chillum 16:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it the burden of those who want the material? Yes. Does this mean whoever removes it should remove it and then do nothing else? No. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, that means working with other people and constructively identifying their mistakes. Maybe a seasoned editor wouldn't necessarily need a reminder, he may indeed have the page on his watchlist. But what if we have a new editor who was reading the list and happened to know a page that existed wasn't there? Should we revert his edit and nothing else? Your argument is that BLP is very different (I don't disagree), but doesn't that leave ambiguity as for exact process (in a general sense, I don't want to be a WP:CREEP)? Is there really a harm in adding a suggestion that after you remove material, that you remind (or inform) the editor who added it that WP:BLP is an important policy, and that they shouldn't add contentious material without a source? I see this section as only clarifying what is allowed by policy without changing the policy's intent itself. Maybe I'm wrong, and this particular section does indeed intent to change the meaning. Either way, I don't think my idea to fully clarify is that bad. The policy currently says The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material. but would it really hurt to include It may be helpful in some situations to remind an editor whose contributions were reverted that they provide it with a source. Nonetheless, any editor is welcome to provide citations, even for contributions not of their own.? moluɐɯ 17:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The Mol Man: Fixing it instead of removing it is praiseworthy but not expected or required, nor is it a reason for criticism. Right now I could work through the NFCC backlog, that would be praiseworthy and collaborative but if I don't do it then it is not a fault of mine. When I say "burden" I mean the main responsibility for achieving a specified aim or task, like the dictionary says. Just because there is something better that can be done does not mean what was done is wrong. Chillum 06:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that this is probably the biggest issue debated here. I agree with your cited definition, but I also, personally, believe that every editor should at least consider picking up slack, even if they have no obligation to. At this point, I don't think it's worth arguing over. I think it's clear we all agree whom the main burden lies with, but there is a very clear divide between an obligation to remove and a decency (for lack of a better word, not POV pushing) to cite. @Chillum: (from what I can tell) We both agree that: 1) The burden of proof lies with the editor who adds or re-adds material; 2) Contentious material in a BLP should be removed (let's not argue the point of where the citation exists; for what I'm trying to discuss in this paragraph, assume no citation exists anywhere on Wikipedia); 3) An editor who comes across uncited contentious material has the option should he so choose to add a citation himself, but in no way does he hold a strict obligation to do so (ignore whether it is required he blank it first, because it's not particularly relevant to my forthcoming question) Do you have any stern objections to a clarification like what I've proposed? i.e. a sentence or two (like in my previous paragraph) that elaborates the role of WP:BURDEN in regards to WP:BLP (which I think we can also agree is treated differently from WP:V) without actually changing the intent of the policy. I don't necessarily believe that this discussion needs to result in a policy amendment, but at this point, I think it would be a step in the right direction if we can clear things up in a way everyone agrees on. moluɐɯ 14:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we're talking about two different editing scenarios. FIrst, in an active editing scenario where multiple people are working on or watching an article, a new poorly sourced contentious statement can and should be immediately fixed, and it's perfectly acceptable and probably the most common practice for another editor to delete it immediately with an edit summary like "removing unsourced claim about a living person, please see BLP". If the person proposing the addition wishes to pursue it they can add it again with a good source this time, start a discussion on the talk page, message the editor in question directly, conduct further research, whatever. The deleting editor is under no burden at all to try to help add the statement, but is always under other burdens like being civil. The *second* scenario is when an editor is reviewing an existing article that has not had any recent edits, and finds material there that they consider contentious and poorly sourced, perhaps material that has been there a long time and is the subject of an earlier consensus or discussion. Even there, an instant deletion is acceptable, but if other editors wish to engage them they certainly do have a burden to engage. If they are deleting a lot of content and other editors object they have a burden to slow down and work with the editing community. And if they are doing mass edits, they may have a burden to collaborate, preserve existing content, and gain consensus for their actions. No amount of word-slinging on this page is going to convince the community to tolerate outlier behavior that does major damage to articles. These edits are a lot less common but they do result in the majority of BLP-related editing disputes and behavioral problems. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the clarification. To avoid another long paragraph, I'll just say I personally agree with the bulk of what you're saying. It may not be the best idea to modify policy to deal with one outlier, but rather something that can cover a less specific class of behavior (what I am trying to propose be added). moluɐɯ 17:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per ArnoldReinhold's rationale here[20] and also because it's very easy to misuse sources. For example, if our article on Barack Obama had an unsourced statement that said that Obama is a “subhuman mongrel”, an editor can argue that the BLP burden has been met by simply citing this source.[21] Granted this is a bit of an extreme example, but I've seem a lot of crazy sh*t on Wikipedia so we should be cautious and conservative about changing such a fundamental policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I wasn't aware we had a List of subhuman mongrels. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Quest, I don't understand how saying "you have the voluntary option of supplying a reliable source" is encouraging people to misuse sources. A misused source is (by definition) not a reliable source for that statement. That source does not support your hypothetical statement (the source could support a statement that one person said this, not that it is a fact), and therefore it would not meet the requirement I have proposed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose "any wording that suggests the burden of meeting BLP is on the person removing the content rather than the person adding the content." When dealing with BLPs, the burden is on the content creator or the defender of the content to provide the source. Period. Good Samaritans always have the option of providing the source, and no explicit mention of same is required. (And, for the record, I've added plenty of in-line citations to unsourced BLP content, and I will continue to do so.) This revision is an attempt at burden-shifting, and the primary burden should remain exactly where it is: on the content creator or the defender of the content. Period. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  No, it is not. There is a burden on every Wikipedia editor to behave responsibly. No periods, good Samaritans can reject bad edits. Wikipedia's primary purpose is to provide a source of free content to the world, not to avoid offending anybody. BLP is a secondary policy under that, not an exception that swallows the rule. The burden is always on every editor, for any purpose, to make a responsible edit. The proposal is not even an attempt to change policy, it is to summarize an existing policy, that when there is a poorly sourced contentious statement about a live person the two options are to remove the statement or source the content. Adding the source is clearly the preferred approach over deleting the content, so why on earth is anybody trying to suppress that outcome in favor of mindless reflexive deletion of encyclopedic content? This whole debate has gotten past the point of ridiculous. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopaedia. A principal pillar of how we do that is by inserting only material that is verifiable by independent reliable sources. WP:BLP develops that by explaining how to deal with material that is not so verified. Good edits are those that improve the content of the encyclopaedia. Deltahedron (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. "We are an encyclopedia" is one of the pillars and that means having good content and also good sourcing among other things. Civil collaboration, free content, neutrality, and avoiding inflexible rules are the other four. BLP is not one of the pillars, it is a set of exceptional rules for dealing with living people. Overarching all is the mission of Wikimedia, which owns the site: "to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." However you fit all of these pieces together, good faith and good behavior are assumed. If a person can't get along with and help the other ten thousand editors around here, those other ten thousand editors are not going to want to deal with them. Saying that editing responsibly is a burden is a shorthand, it really means that it's an expectation, and if you fall wildly below that expectation your welcome will be short. Aggressively deleting a bunch of other people's thoughtful content based on an interpretation of rules they don't share and telling them that it's their problem, not yours, is one of the ways to wear out your welcome. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. There are many ways of disrupting the process of building an encyclopaedia. Another might be adding unverified content and telling other editors that finding the references to support it is their problem. Hence the discussion here to develop an understanding of what the rules are. Deltahedron (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It could be adding a bunch of new stuff and then expecting others to clean up the mess, or removing or changing a bunch of old stuff and then expecting others to clean up the mess. Either way can be disruptive, particularly if it's a bad content edit. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as pointless. I confess to not having examined all the above, but is anyone seriously suggesting that an editor (a volunteer—we're not compelled to do anything) would be compelled to delete a contentious statement despite thinking that it could be sourced in a couple of minutes? If the editor who notices a dubious statement feels so inclined, of course they are welcome to appropriately source it—no one is going to take them to ANI claiming they should have deleted it first. The BLP policy is not the place to point out to people that they are able to add sources. What is the reason for this proposal? Is it to water down the policy by suggesting that leaving a dubious statement for others is the correct approach if a source is not found? Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  At the risk of being a !vote hound at the moment and to answer your rhetorical question, yes, people are seriously making that suggestion. They aren't literally saying that every editor is compelled under penalty of sanction to mindlessly delete uncontroversial unsourced content, but rather seeking a shield by which their decision to do so is protected by a policy directive. The genesis of the long debate on this thread is an editor or two who apparently don't like pornography deleting many lists of people involved in the trade on a dubious theory that because pornography is scandalous and the list does not have citations next to each list item, the list is unsourced and subject to summary removal and ongoing unlimited edit warring to enforce the same. Other say that the sources at the other end of the click verify each the list item. This is a technical debate and the community could decide one way or another. Or both, or neither. Nobody is intending to water down the policy, but rather to make clear that sourcing good content is the better option, or at least an acceptable option, to getting rid of it. It is strange indeed to see opposition to even mentioning that good content should be sourced rather than deleted. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  Oh! So that's what this is about. I saw the excitement, but ignored it because standing between the average editor and a titillating story is a waste of time in my experience. Sorry, but BLP is too important to be bent in order to cope with a particular dispute (and more so, given the silly nature of the "articles" involved—what next, Did you know Betty Bazoomba does porn and movies?). Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral - My understanding of the proposed rewording is that it will simply make explicit the implicit. If this rewording won't change the spirit of the policy or misrepresent the current wide-spread practice of it, I can't see the harm in making things clearer, even if just in response to the original dispute. moluɐɯ 13:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. As already noted, this looks like instruction creep, and/or an attempt to shift the burden from the person responsible for adding unsourced content in the fist place. It is already self-evident that anyone has the option of finding a valid source instead - however, they are under no obligation whatsoever to do so, and as the WMF has made clear (though it should be obvious anyway) that the first priority when concerning living persons should be 'do no harm'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment' Something that I feel is missing from this discussion is the nature and means by which unsourced entries on such lists are added and discovered. Let's say there's a list that is clearly a contentious sorting, of 100 ppl. If someone comes along and adds one entry to the list (which otherwise has sources for every entry) that the source for that person does happen to be on the blue-linked page for the person but wasn't added by the editor, that's not a reason to remove the single line, but should be fixed which should be easy by sourcing the list. On the other hand, if there's a similar list but 20 or more of the entries lack citations - even if it is the case that for each of those situations the proper source exists on the blue-linked page, that's a reason for another editor worried about the contentious nature to remove.

This is very similar to the situation we have had in the past with NFC (which is comparable to BLP as it is one of WP's few exceptional policies mandated by the Foundation); when editors delete images based on an obvious typo claiming a NFCC#9 problem, that's disruptive, but at the same time, image reviewers cannot be expected to create the rationale for an image missing one. Same with BLP - removing one unsourced fact which can be reasonably easy to correct can be pointy and disruptive, but editors can't be expected to come to a page that is lacking several (dozen+) unsourced statements and fix, and instead removal under BLP is appropriate. Where that line is drawn is as vague as it is for the issue on NFC, and so instead we're looking at the long-term editing behavior to determine if a single editor is a problem. That's why the advice that we can give here is not going to be super exact about what to do; it has to take in the whole situation. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think there is an important difference between NFCC and BLP. Our WP:NFCC policy uses "more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law." So a delay in responding to a technical flaw in justifying a non-free usage to our higher standards does no one harm. By contrast any appearance of defaming material on Wikipedia concerning a living person is potentially harmful and the purpose of this policy and the immediate removal language is to minimize such occurrences.--agr (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories, lists and navigation templates

Currently, WP:BLPCAT states:

"Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding religious beliefs 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."

"Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal."

Does this (or should this) protection extend to political beliefs? Is it acceptable to categorize a person as part of a political movement if the categorization is contentious? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

To help AQFK avoid being coy: this question pertains to Marco Rubio and the Tea Party, currently being discussed at BLPN. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the BLPCAT proviso would seem to be that only the BLP subject themselves would be in a position to know their true and internl beliefs or orientations, so that only self-identifications would be acceptable as reliable for "People believing in Fooism". (We note incidentally that this is inherently problematic in the case of BLP subjects with a reason or motivation to conceal those inward feelings.) So there would seem to be a good case for extending the proviso to cover categories referring to political belief, which again is subject to the same principles about inward knowledge (and external mis-representation). However, membership in a political movement is presumably capable of being verified objectively in independent reliable sources, sufficient for "Members of the Fooist Party". In the instant case, I understand the category is "People associated with Fooism". If association refers to other peoples' perception, then "People perceived as associated with Fooism" is capable of being independently verified. On the other hand, if association means having sympathy or congruence with beliefs, then "People sympathetically disposed towards Fooism even if not full believers" could be held to come under the proviso. I hope this helps. Deltahedron (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Categories of "political belief, association or orientation" are not intrinsically "fact" - thus requiring self-identification for any such categories makes a great deal of sense. The classic example was the unfortunate use of "associated with Communism" in the early 1950s where a person had a marginal association with a "Communist front organization". The common sense approach would have avoided that mess at the time, and should be used on Wikipedia to avoid any use of categories to make contentious claims about any person now. Collect (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• No, we should not extend this policy to political affiliation (beliefs are already in the policy). The validity of political categories should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Reasonable allowances should be made for subjects who publicly disavow association with a particular political movement, at which point the category actually becomes contentious. Otherwise we need to simply follow sources.

One of our foundational principles is that content needs to verifiable according to reliable sources. The need to honor self-identification primarily applies to the intrinsic qualities of a person that only they can determine such as gender identity or religious beliefs. It is a violation of WP:NPOV to ignore what sources say, and try to apply original research to the problem, by semantic dissection or acrobatic BLPVIOREVERTs.

I recently edited a BLP in which an editor edit warred to insert content, claiming that it's omission was a BLP violation. We have other editors who revert any perceived negative material about certain BLP subjects, no matter how relevant and impeccably sourced it is, or how many dozens of sources state the same thing. We even have a few admins who actually encourage this behavior by misquoting policy, and when challenged, demonstrate a profound miscomprehension of the policy. "BLP vio" is frequently declared in blatant violation of our NPOV policy, to keep content out of articles. So no, I don't think we need to create more ways for a zealous minority to harm the integrity of the encyclopedia by routinely blocking legitimate content.- MrX 18:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes As I pointed out above. The fact is that BLPs can cause actual harm to people, and the claim that editors "cry BLP" is a splendid example of assuming bad faith. Protecting living persons is not the work of a "zealous minority" - it is the actual obligation of all Wikipedia editors under Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• Question - First, you are proposing 2 different things. You are equating "political beliefs" with being a part of a "political movement" (and presumably vice-versa?). I'm a registered Democrat (what some would consider a political movement in addition to a party), but I sure as hell don't subscribe to every belief of that movement. So which are you proposing? Second, because we are discussing politics isn't there going to be someone who finds the category contentious, objectionable, or misleading at the very least? Criminality and sexual orientation are examples given, another I can think of is a connection to the Adult industry, in other words, working in porn in some respect (i.e. performer, stripper, sex worker, et. al.) We can't get people to state definitively why it is or is not contentious aside from a naive (and/or prudish) few that claim its contentious simply because it involves sex, but a lot of Editors are seemingly offended by mentions of it. So please clarify your query. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As I read the discussion above -- if you tell folks you are a registered Gnarphist, then you have self-identified as a Gnarphist, and a reliable source stating that self-identification would allow Wikipedia to so categorize you.

If you supported the (putative) "Citizens against the Rosenberg Executions" (positing that this fictitious group was Communist led or affiliated in some manner) then it would not be correct to label you as "affiliated or associated with the Communist Party" as it does not include any self-identification. Nor would speaking to a group of members of that putative group then make you "affiliated or associated with the Communist Party."

Does this clarify the issue a bit? Generally speaking, people do state what their occupation is meaning that issue is not present, nor is it even considered in the proposed wording, which sticks to areas where self-identification is the most reliable source we can have as to a person's thoughts, positions and beliefs. Collect (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I thinks its the interpolation by Editors of these kinds of things that we have to be cautious of. Self identification seems fairly straightforward, but I can see how for example "speaking to a group of members of that putative group then make you 'affiliated or associated with...'" could be used abusively. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO we should ask teh developers as amatter of urgency to allow cats to be ref'd so that a page such as Category:American female pornographic film actors would include a ref for every person on this list, which is likely a massive BLP violation effecting real people and WMF, who would get sued if someone who wasnt a porn actor was included. If we cant do this we should certainly stop categorizing living people other than that they are living people. The BLP should be tightened up so absues like the page I just linked to cannot occur. At thje end of the day ti si the judgement of editors who decides who gets on the cat pages and not the reliable sources, and that is completely unacceptable as these are living people. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

IMO Yes - Collects explanation is excellent. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• No -- we should go primarily with what high-quality reliable sources say about the political positions particularly of public figures e.g. politicians. The proposed extension of BLPCAT creates too much scope for partisan editors to engage in spin. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• No on the same grounds as Nomoskedasticity above. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Collect has asked me to revisit my opinion, but I've said the same thing about organisations in the past. People (and organisations which are of course just groups of people) don't always tell the truth about their beliefs. White supremacist groups for instance, and white supremacists, often now disguise their beliefs in the verbiage of white nationalism. People and organisations want to present themselves in ways that others will find acceptable. This goes for political views as well as anything else. What we need to do is attribute descriptions - to the person and to the reliable sources describing the person. No one's ever heard of politicians professing their determination to help a group, eg the poor, while at the same time doing anything but? Assume politicians are presenting their views truthfully and completely? Color me cynical. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)