Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 44

< Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Jytdog in topic RfC: The intersection of BLPSPS and PSCI restated
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

The intersection of BLPSPS and PSCI

Latest comment: 6 years ago187 comments17 people in discussion
thanks for the input. Will be launching RfC shortly Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

It is about time to resolve this.

We have some tension between these, when a living person holds FRINGE views, especially on scientific matters.

Per WP:PARITY there are certain blogs that we use regularly to address PSCI issues.

This was tested most recently at two RfCs where the intersection of these policies was explicitly explored: here and a similar one here.

I propose that we add to this section of BLP, ~something~ along the following lines.

However, when a living person espouses pseudoscientific or fringe views, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to those views. Content about such views may be sourced to third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person. The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases.

We need to bring the written policy into line with community practice.

This is not an RfC but rather an initial discussion to prepare one, which should be broadcast widely. So please don't !vote at this time. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC) (clarify as this is being miscontrued to mean SPS by the subject which is absolutely not what this is about Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC))

I would support that addition to the policy page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Since I also sometimes clash with other editors (including some with extensive experience) on these topics, I also think that clarification is a good idea. Noting: WP:BLPFRINGE is also closely related and should also be reviewed as necessary. —PaleoNeonate – 19:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
No. We don't sacrifice BLP just because someone espouses fringe views. The simple rule is that we cannot use a self published source as a source of material about a living person. We can, per WP:PARITY, use an SPS (if it is a reliable source) to critique fringe claims, but that doesn't give us permission to ascribe views to someone using SPS, as doing so would involve using it to source claims about a living person, as opposed to critiquing views that they hold.
In the David Wolfe example linked to above, what we did was agree to rewrite the text so that it was compliant with BLPSPS, per Jytdog's proposed wording. We didn't agree to the original wording, which was not compliant with BLPSPS because it used an SPS to ascribe views to a living person. - Bilby (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
In the RfC about Wolfe, we accepted a Forbes' contributor piece as a source - a SPS. That is the issue here. I will be dealing with this last-straw misrepresentation elsewhere this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
The wording you proposed at the RfC was "He (Wolfe) advocates that people with cancer treat it with dietary supplements, and according to Kavin Senapathy he "demonizes life-saving vaccines and cancer treatments"." The SPS (by Senapathy) was used as a source of Senapathy's views, not to ascribe a belief directly to Wolfe. That was fine, and I supported that wording, as it was compliant with BLP because the first half used a non-SPS for the claim that Wolfe advocates the use of dietary supplements. I am ok with that per below. - Bilby (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
diff prior to the RfC at Wolfe: That would be a no again. We can't use the Forbes piece.. I will not respond further here unless it is to rebut yet further misrepresentations. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
That was for different text that was not compliant with BLP, not the RFC text. I explained why here. Let's not revisit that discussion. - Bilby (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
diff prior to the RfC at Wolfe: We can't use the Forbes piece.. I will not respond further to you here unless it is to rebut yet further misrepresentations. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, as I should have said "we cannot use the Forbes piece the way it is being used". Sorry. However, a) I agreed to the text proposed in the RFC, using the Forbes piece, when it was used in a way that was compliant with BLP. And b), I explained why it couldn't be used as you proposed prior to the RFC here. - Bilby (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
No. And please stop cluttering this thread. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
We absolutely should not be allowing an SPS to be used to say someone else's view is fringe. That claim needs to come from demonstration in non-SPS RS, otherwise, you basically open the door for random criticism. The case of a view being fringe must be asserted by RSes. --Masem (t) 19:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Masem this is very specifically about the intersection of PSCI and BLP. It is not about anything random. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
My point is that say X is the BLP who we consider has a fringe view. We cannot use a SPS claim by Y to say X has fringe views. (But this would also extent to any criticism about BLP X, regardless) I do agree on the OP that we can use SPS by X to succinctly describe what X's views are if they are not otherwise covered in the RSes that discuss why X's view is fringe. --Masem (t) 19:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
No, you have it completely backwards and your interpretation would make WP wide open to big swaths of self-sourced content by FRINGE advocates. No way. I am sorry but you are not dealing with PSCI which is policy. Please do review WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE. Please. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with what you have quoted as a requested addition above. I should be clear that I absolutely agree on the cavaet in th\at - that RSes (not SPS) have said that X has fringe views must be present first before we are able to succinctly describe in factual manner their stance, if we cannot otherwise draw that from RSes. --Masem (t) 20:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
You are twisting it and I appreciate that you are doing that here, in this early discussion; I have corrected it above to avoid wasting time this way further. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
As a point of information: Science Based Medicine is not an ordinary self-published source. It has an editorial board and fact-checking. David Gorski has a blog where he writes trenchant criticism of quacks, we typically do not cite that. He also writes at SBM, and we often do cite that. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
To clarify what I mean, I'm ok with saying:
"Person X believes Y. (Non SPS) Y is a discredited view. (SPS)" - this is fine per WP:PARITY.
I'm also ok with:
"Person Z argues that Person X believes Y. (SPS by person Z)" - this is what we've used elsewhere, and is ascribing a belief to the author of the SPS, which is fine.
What we can't do is:
"Person X believes Y (SPS)", as doing so is not compliant with BLP policy.
If the proposed wording is for the first two I'm fine with it. If it is to allow the third, then no. - Bilby (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with the spirit of #1 there and this is consistent with "such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person". —PaleoNeonate – 20:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
That seems fine to me. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I am not in favor of the proposal as it seems vague and too much open to interpretation. Possibly it can be expressed in a clearer form. It is essential to recognize self-published sources cannot be used to establish notability, but, if notability is established otherwise, may provide information for use in an article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC).
WP:Notability? Notability has to do with whether you have an article, not what is in an article. Do you mean WP:UNDUE? This would not change WP:UNDUE (or Notability) at all, if something is undue or someone is unnotable, it will still be undue, and they will still be unnotable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Let me state a concern. I have reread the discussion in question and PSCI, and as long as we are talking specifically "fringe theories and pseudosciences" - things that there is general sourcing that say that the BLP's views fall within that, there's no issues. But too often, editors use the points of PSCI towards fringe views, which are not the same as fringe theories or psuedoscience. (Fringe views fall more under UNDUE, not PSCI). The language as written, applied to a BLP with a seemingly fringe view, would mean that we should include any random SPS that considers the BLP's view as "fringe". That's a problem. As long as that we make it clear this only applies to fringe theories and psuedoscience where there is sufficent RSes to affirm that the science is fringy/PSCI, then the language is otherwise fine. --Masem (t) 23:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Masem thanks for taking the time to work through this. This is not intended to allow "any random SPS" - the proposal above specifically addresses that with The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases. This is oftenScience-Based Medicine (SBM) as Guy mentioned above (and used in the Greger RfC cited in the OP); there are other responsible debunkers out there like Gorski (an editor of SBM). The SPS from Forbes discussed in the Wolfe RfC, this one, is more or less professional and suitable for WP. There are lots of other SPS about Wolfe like this one and say this one that I didn't bring to the table, and no one should. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
All I want to make sure, and this ties in and agrees with points below, is that we are talking a "fringe" view or theory or psci that has clear RSes that establish it as fringe before allowing SPS to counter the details of the fringe view. Without the establishment of the idea being fringe by RSes, that opens far too many doors for misuse. I know this isn't a problem if the issue is strictly limitied to fringe theories or psci, I'm just concerned that it could be taken to mean beyond that. --Masem (t) 16:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
As noted by both Doug Weller and Johnuniq and others in this thread, quite often there are not standard RS that directly address this stuff; mainstream refs are busy discussing mainstream things. Please especially see Doug's remark. Again the language is already widely practiced by very experienced editors; the goal here is to catch up the writing. This needs to be done carefully - hence this preparation. This notion that "there must be clear RSes that establish it as fringe" is distraction and misses the heart of the problem - namely that quite often there are no standard RS that address this stuff. WP:PARITY exists for good reason. I would not have brought this, if there was not an actual problem here. We would not have this as a practice already, if people were not already doing this, ratified by RfCs.Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not think any exception should be made in BLP for fringe views, any statement or action made by a living person should be sourced to BLP compliant sources, regardless of the fringeness of that statement or action. There is really no difference between talking about a person and talking about there work or views (eg. "he is an anti-vaxer" vs "He has published books claiming that vaccines don't work and cause autism") Both of these are similar negative material about a living person, so they should both be sourced to the same kind of high-quality sources. If there is a reason to be carful about sources in BLPs, doesn't that reason still apply when fringe topics are involved? Maybe saying "He says vaccines don't work(citing BLP RS), but vaccines do work(citing SPS)" would not be a BLP issue, but I cant think of a situation when a SPS would be the only source to debunk a bogus claim like this.

In short, we should not use SPS to attribute fringe views to someone anymore than we could use SPS for other claims about a person, and I don't know why we would need to use an SPS to debunk the fringe view once a BLP RS has established that the person holds fringe views. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Except editors do not agree with your peculiar claim that talking about scientific ideas and talking about people are the same thing, partly because Wikipedia bases its ethos on the evident fact that talking about ideas and talking about people are not the same thing. In fact, consensus has at least twice shown, you don't have consensus for your view of this policy, and consensus is opposed to your claim about ideas and people:here and here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you misread my comment, I thing BLP should fully apply (no SPS) when attributing fringe views to a person, but SPS could be used to say such a view is false once BLP RS have establisher that the person holds that view. (I agree with User:Bilby in his comment below about "chocolate levitation"). Tornado chaser (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Now I see where this debate has been heading. It appears to have its origin in [1]. I agree with the comment of Tornado chaser above and oppose the proposal. All sources fringe, SPS or not, must be consistent with WP:BLP. Self-published sources should never be used as a source for any material that could be considered contentious.Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC).
What? The case you think it has an origin in [2] is entirely different, that case was including a statement by the the subject himself (and it was included), not someone else. Nothing here changes anything about statements of the subject, which will continue to be addressed using NPOV, Undue, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • The whole point of WP:PSCI is that reliable sources would rather bang their heads on a wall than spend time investigating whether yet another nonsensical claim is nonsense. An encyclopedia should not mislead readers with glowing accounts of how someone believes A, B and C without clarification that A, B and C are pseudoscientific claims with no basis in reason. Per WP:PARITY, it is often necessary to rely on an expert's statement (even if self published) rather than mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
    • User:Johnuniq is absolutely right. Many fringe archaeological claims are never dealt with in academic publications. We're in danger of stripping some of our articles discussing people with fringe beliefs of any evidence that those beliefs are contradicted by members of the relevant professional community. I'm sure that's not what anyone here wants. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
      • This is true, but we need that distinction between discussing the belief that someone holds, and ascribing a belief to them. What we don't want is a situation where a self published source says, for example, "Doug believes that eating chocolate can cause you to levitate". If we don't have a reliable source, we can't claim that Doug holds this belief. But if we establish that Doug does hold that belief, we can use an SPS to point out that believing in chocolate-based levitation is nonsensical. Even with fringe beliefs, it seems too much of a risk to allow an SPS to ascribe those beliefs to people. That's my main concern with this proposed change - we need to ensure that it keeps the distinction between claiming that someone holds a belief and critiquing the belief once we establish that they hold it. - Bilby (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
        • I'm familiar with only one RfC that tested this (this one), and it shouldn't have been closed the way it was. Core content policies can't be overridden by local consensus. The problem, as I recall, was that editors were allowing biomedical claims to be made without MEDRS sources. Then, having allowed them, they countered them with a self-published source. Would it not make more sense to disallow those claims in BLPs, rather than try to fix them with an SPS? SarahSV (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, im a bit confused by what exactly you are proposing. Do you just want to use WP:PARITY to allow the use of SPS to explain why a view is fringe once BLP RS have established the the subject of the article holds a particular view? Or do you want to allow SPS to be the source for the fact that the person holds a given view in the first place? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The two RfCs offered as having tested this idea are here and here. In the latter (David Wolfe (entrepreneur) (permalink), what appears to be a group blog is used to introduce a fringe claim (note 27). Note 24 is also an SPS, as is 28; the latter is used to introduce a fringe claim. SarahSV (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
In these cases we also had primary sources, my concern is if there are no primary sources or BLP RS, but ONLY third party SPS. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
SarahSV, in the Wolfe case, 27 and 24 weren't considered in the RFC. 24 (Gorski) is used ok, in that it is an example of criticism about Wolfe, but doesn't make any claims about him; 27 (Babuschkin) is ok if the source is not considered to be self published (as it claims to have an editor, my assumption was that it was not an SPS). 28 (Senapathy) was the focus of the RFC. I supported that change, because the self published source was being used to support a belief held by Senapathy about Wolfe, not to attribute a belief to Wolfe, and a non-SPS was used to attribute the belief. However, the original wording using Senapathy's self published source to make a claim about Wolfe [3] was a violation of BLPSPS. Such a use was not supported in the RFC. I wish to ensure that any change to BLP will not permit the use of an SPS to attribute fringe beliefs to another living person, as was originally the case at David Wolfe. - Bilby (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Bilby, the policy says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." This is a core content policy. It can't be overridden by local consensus. RfCs that have been closed to the contrary shouldn't have been closed that way.
The point of the principle is that it's a line in the sand, so you don't have to twist yourself in knots working out whether the source is commenting on the person, or about her ideas, or about the ideas of someone commenting on her, etc. The answer to all of the above is: don't use SPS in BLPs unless written or published by the subject, and then only with caution. If that means weird claims can't be countered (assuming they need to be countered because they're not so weird that they're obviously untrue), then don't include them in the first place. Rewriting can solve a lot of these problems. SarahSV (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I am ok with that approach. I've found that the compromise was that we can't say "X believes Y" using an SPS from X, but we can say "X believes Z about Y" using an SPS from X, however I agree with you that the policy is stronger than that, and under policy the compromise has been an error. I'd be happy with just not including content sourced to an SPS in BLPs. - Bilby (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin you continue to ignore the problem that regularly occurs when living people hold fringe positions; we do not ignore PSCI which is also policy and just as essential. We have to -- and already do -- accommodate both. This is living consensus not local. Jytdog (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Bilby, the problem with using SPS in BPLs is that it means someone could write a document criticizing a living person specifically for use in that person's BLP. Now, any journalist could do the same, but to get things published in a newspaper there are layers of oversight you have to go through. If you're an SPS, you can dash something off in your pyjamas at 3 am and make it public immediately, whereupon it can go straight into a BLP. The whole point of our insistence on using professional sources is that they're accountable to someone (copy editors, editors, lawyers, publishers). SarahSV (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin that is a straw man. The proposal says "The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases." and in practice we don't use any such crappy blogs "dashed off at 3 in the morning" in these situations. I see that you don't wish to interact with me, so I will leave it there. Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
In one BLP that I helped to write about a person with odd ideas, I restricted the article to the basic, extremely odd claims (ideas so strange that, if someone is going to believe them, they'll do that no matter what any source says), and I ignored anything that a reader might think was true, including health claims, claims about vaccines, etc. That worked very well. Just leave out anything you might need to counter with an SPS. Can anyone produce an example where (a) the idea was fringe, but not obviously crazy, such that it had to be countered by an SPS; and (b) the fringe idea had to be included for some reason? SarahSV (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
What was that article? I would be interested to see that solution. I will look for examples but this notion of ignoring PSCI is... dicey. I actually had a guy say to me in the grocery store the other day "My fridge broke and the meat turned into flies. That's what happens". (and yeah, I asked him if he really meant that) People have holes in their knowledge all over the place. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin you asked here for an example. I will be happy to bring some examples. In the meantime I await for your identification of the BLP article you worked on. Please identify it. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
SarahSV, that works for me. Keeping things simple and not using self published sources other than those by the subject avoids messy gray areas and risk. - Bilby (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Something I've been meaning to bring up for a while is a confusion that sometimes arises when we talk about "self-published" sources. The problem isn't what the term self-published means, but rather the following distinction:

  • Something self-published by person X, as a potential source for any random thing (WP:SELFPUBLISH), versus
  • Something self-published by person X, as a potential source for a statement about person X (WP:SELFPUB).

Now and then in a discussion different people will be talking about different ones of these two without realizing it. We even have two confusingly named shortcuts (above) for them. Just something to keep in mind. EEng 05:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The debate here seems to be about the policy WP:SELFPUBLISH which advises Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. This seems to fit the case of the Brian Martin BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC).Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC).
Thanks for pointing this out, I belive this debate is about WP:SELFPUBLISH (not SELFEPUB). Tornado chaser (talk)
Yes the discussion here is about resolving the tension in the writing of two policies - BLP and NPOV, specifically WP:BLPSPS (with respect to WP:SELFPUBLISH) and WP:PSCI as implemented via WP:PARITY. Yes. As I noted above, there have been two RfCs now (and I can probably find others) where this tension has already been resolved by the community in practice; the discussion is about bringing the writing of BLPSPS in line with that practice. Written policy expresses consensus, and consensus is a living thing that develops. The writing needs to catch up. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:SELFPUBLISH says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."
WP:PARITY says "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals." This is so we can say chocolate dosen't make you levitate even if there are no research papers on the subject, not so we can say "John says chocolate makes you levitate" without a BLP RS. WP:PARITY also says "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." There is no conflict here, these policies make clear that BLP fully applies when we attribute fringe views to a person, but that we may then use SPS to critique that view, NOT that we can ever use third party SPS to attribute any views to a person.
What is being proposed is not resolving a conflict, rather it is making major changes to WP:BLP based on 2 local RfCs that established ROUGH consensus in favor of what MIGHT have been MARGINAL BLP vios (both cases it was presented as the bloggers opinion when the subjects' views were already established by other sources, and one specified that it was a CLOSE CALL based on INTERPRETATION of BLP, not overriding it)
What is the point of allowing third party SPS to attribute fringe views to someone? If we are just talking about critiquing views that BLP RS establish that the person holds, policy clearly already allows this, and the change is not needed. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
You are not dealing with PSCI nor the reason that PARITY exists (mainstream refs are busy talking about mainstream things) nor with the fact that this is already widely practiced. The only goal here is to craft language expressing this. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I thought I addressed this, PARITY allows us to use SPS to debunk a bogus (psudo)scientific claim of fact, BLP does not deal with scientific fact so there is no conflict here, what BLP currently prohibits is using an SPS as the source for the fact that someone says something, but once we have a source for that PARITY allows us to use SPS to say that the persons statement is fringe/wrong/unsupported by evidence. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
This is about addressing views of living people.Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, It seems to me that your proposal could be interpreted as allowing either A or B, or maybe C but it is not clear which, could you clarify?
A "Person X says chocolate can make you levitate.(BLP RS) But chocolate levitation is nonsense.(SPS)"
B "Person X says chocolate can make you levitate.(SPS)"
C something other than A or B
Tornado chaser (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Go look for sources about Ben Swann and vaccines. (really - go look) You will not find any mainstream sources discussing his views on vaccines. You will find a) him talking about "the CDC whistleblower" and the like (there is no question about that he has done this stuff); b) anti-vax sites cheering on Swann c) david gorski describing and debunking it. So the content is something like "Benn Swann has promoted conspiracy theories that vaccines are harmful; the scientific consensus is that vaccines are not harmful" (sourced to SBM and gorski). This is exactly the sort of thing where this is necessary. There is no question that he actually promotes this view. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
It seems you'r supporting B, and I now understand your reasoning, however, this seems like the place to use a primary source to establish what his views are(you yourself said "You will find a) him talking about "the CDC whistleblower" and the like (there is no question about that he has done this stuff);" and than use SBM to debunk it (option A in my comment above) I still think B unnecessarily weakens BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
The only reason I can see B being needed is if we want to talk about someones views but don't have any primaryWP:SELFPUB sources and also don't have any BLP RS, but ONLY have third party SPS, in this case, wouldn't the fact that the person held such views fail WP:V (and notability)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tornado chaser (talk • contribs) 22:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
WP:Notability is about whether a page should exist. It is irrelevant to this discussion. I have nothing more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The gist of my argument was and is nothing to do with notability. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
There is something to be said about "documenting a controversy" which (at least to me) means giving reasonable equal weight to briefly explaining side A says and what side B says, (or in the case for a fringe theory/psci idea, explaining what side A says and then that the rest of the scientific word has refuted this). The reactions from third parties, or the back and forth between A and B, there, that becomes what UNDUE or FRINGE regulates; if A's side is the fringe theory, we aren't going to include all their backup and proof why that is. (In the case of Swann, it looks like he believes the anti-vac position by claiming there was a conspiracy by the CDC to cover up the effects of vaccines, leading to autism. That's literally all that needs to be said to explain his point, we don't need the volumes how he connects his dots to get there. Now in Swann's case, I see what I think are RSes covering this position, as well as countering that position, so outside of perhaps linking to his SPS news segment as a reference for his position on anti-vac, there's no need to incorporate much more for Swann here. It's basically saying "Here's what B said, in their own words." so the reader can decide how to interpret everything else around it. But this same logic also makes it reasonable to include the SPS counterpoint from B if B is an appropriate expert in the field, if RSes otherwise don't explain enough why A's theory is wrong or disproven. --Masem (t) 19:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Masem I repeat, there are no RS other than Science-Based Medicine that describe Swann's views on vaccines. The sources are exactly as I described them. You will find him talking about it, anti-vax nutjobs discussing what he says, and skeptics debunking, the best of which is Science-based medicine. I mean this. If you think there are RS (other than Science Based Medicine) that describe Swann's vaccine views, please bring them. I have spent several hours looking but may have missed something but I doubt it. If you do not find anything please restate your remarks above. Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm talking more in general here. Swann specifically appears to have sources from RSes to support describing his point, and the counterpoint of his views, so there's no issue there. But there are other potential cases out there where those views aren't discussed in RSes, and where we are looking to SPS to consider how to document the view and counterview. --Masem (t) 00:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Sorry you have lost me. What do you mean by "sources from RSes to support describing his point"? Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
User:Jytdog, you have not addressed the issue I raised here[4], and here[5], we can use primary sources to establish that he holds such views, and than use third party SPS to debunk those views. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I see no conflict between BLP and PSCI or PARITY. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Let me restate the question you are asking. You want me to answer as to why we should not give FRINGE promoters free promotion in WP by linking to their own fringe promotion. The answer to that is rather obvious. We don't. We rely on independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Break

Primary sources be used as sources about themselves WP:TWITTER, there is nothing wrong or "promotional" about saying "Ben Swann has said X (citation:Ben Swann), but X is nonsense(citation:David Gorski)." This is debunking, and in no way promotes any of Ben Swann's ideas. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Twitter as a source. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
If we are talking about including the opposition to a person's view, but no RS actually describes the view, then it is NPOV to at least give a brief concise statement of the person's view using an SPS by that person, with full attribution. That is not an endorsement of the view, and simply needed to help the reader understand the opposition's logic and arguments. We aren't going to allow a massive thesis on that view, just a sentence to establish what the controversy is. Refusal to include what the BLP says about their own views in their BLP article even when we include what others have said about those views is clearly as bad as a problem as outright promotion of the BLP's views. It's a balancing issue. --Masem (t) 04:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
hmmm WP:GEVAL is relevant here. "Balance" is not the value (that is what POV pushers want and constantly complain that WP lacks). NPOV is the value. PSCI and FRINGE are not like mainstream topics.... Jytdog (talk) 04:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The problem I guess is that there's not a good example specifically dealing with a BLP that has a view that falls in science-based fringe theories or pseudoscience where the person's view, if it is a matter for discussion, lacks any RS discussion about the person's views but where there is discussion countering those views. It's hard to demonstrate in hypotheticals. It's also goes back that what is being prescribed for fringes theories and psci is going to leak into instructions that will be read in the context of non-science fringe views.
Basically, it is not a false balance to say in a controversial topic the fundamental points of disagreement: "A believes X, B believes Y" It is a false balance to try to justify either point, much less try to create equal justifications for both points. But in the factual statement of disagreement, if we are missing any RS that gives us "B believes Y", then there is no harm to use a SBS written by B to assert "B believes Y", particularly if B is our BLP in question. But I have no easy case to point to to understand this in context. --Masem (t) 05:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Right, as long as the persons views are immediately debunked by the third party SPS, there is no problem with using a primary source to establish that the person holds the view, the text will still read like this: "X belives Y,[1] but Y is completely false.[2]" Which is not false balance, as it clearly states the wrongness of X's views and does not portray it as an equal controversy. 1=primary source written by X, 2=third party SPS. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: When the subject of a BLP holds a fringe belief, why is there a need to debunk the belief in the BLP? I would think that the place to debunk would be the article on the belief, not the BLP. If the subject of a BLP believes that eating raw eggs will cure cancer, why not simply state: “X believes that eating raw eggs will cure cancer”, and leave it at that? It isn’t as if the article is actually saying that raw eggs actually does cure cancer, it is simply stating what X believes. That does not require debunking. Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
If something is bogus, shouldn't that be made clear to the reader? see WP:PARITY. Also, what if someone holds a belief that is so rare and weird that there is no wikipedia article on such belief? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Because readers with cancer might start eating raw eggs. I agree that that kind of information shouldn't stand. The dispute here is whether to (a) include it and debunk it with an SPS if necessary; or (b) respect BLPSPS and leave it out if no non-SPS reliable source has addressed it. SarahSV (talk) 21:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I would argue if the case if the person just has a standard fringe theory believe (such as being a Flat Earther), where there's only variation (that the earth is flat) then we just link to that page and leave it at that. On the other hand, with a case like Swann here, where they hold a unique viewpoint, and criticism of that unique viewpoint, we need to have that explained in the article. --Masem (t) 21:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Ben Swann is a good example of a case where there's no need to mention the issue the SPS is used for. The article offers plenty of examples of his conspiracy theories, so the reader gets the full flavour. If no non-SPS has addressed the vaccination issue, leave it out. SarahSV (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I think it might be okay to use an SPS to debunk fringe views, but not to say someone holds a particular view. "X says Y(BLP RS) but y is nonsense(SPS)" seems ok(and consistent with current policy without changes), but I am strongly opposed to changing policy to allow the use of third-party SPS as the source for
X says Y". Tornado chaser (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
This version of the article uses Swann as a source of his beliefs about vaccination, and MEDRS sources to debunk. Why was this changed to introduce an SPS to debunk it? This is a good example of what ought not to happen. SarahSV (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree that SPS should not be used when other sources are available, the only time I might be ok with them is if RS establish that a person says something, and it is so silly that no RS bother to debunk it, I do not know any legitimate reason you would replace a MEDRS with an SPS. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
No one replaced a MEDRS source with an SPS. But someone has replaced Swann with an SPS. Swann is allowed as a source; other SPS are not allowed. The solution is (a) restore the version that I linked to above; or (b) remove the vaccination claim. But as it stands, that section violates this policy. And the claim that the SPS is needed to debunk is false; there are MEDRS sources doing it. Granted, they don't mention Swann, so you're having to IAR and engage in a SYN violation, but it has long been accepted that this is okay when needed for WP:PSCI. But note "when needed"; in this case, leaving out the vaccination claim is a valid option because nothing in the article hangs on it. SarahSV (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I tried to fix this, but was reverted, any further discussion of this should take place at Ben Swann. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I just read through this thread and almost everyone is saying the same thing, just in slightly different ways, and then vociferously disagreeing with the different way somebody else said something. I might as well contribute to the row by phrasing it in yet another, slightly different way:
It's perfectly acceptable to use WP:PARITY-qualified sources in a BLP article to discuss the fringe theories espoused by the subject. It's not acceptable to use WP:PARITY-qualified sources to establish that a living (or recently deceased) person has espoused a fringe theory. That would require a WP:BLPRS-qualified source, though a WP:PRIMARY source can also often be used as the explication of such views is rarely self-serving.
Now, feel free to continue furiously agreeing with each other until someone comes along and closes this thread as "no consensus". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:20, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree exactly. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Reformulated proposal

So summarizing the discussion, the rough consensus of the discussion of the discussion above is something like

  • However, if a living person holds a view (as established by reliable sources including self-published sources by the subject) and that view is a well-documented pseudoscientific or fringe view theory, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to that view. Content about such views may be sourced to third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person. The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases.

There are wings on either side of the first version; I am on one of those wings, but this is what I see as the middle that most folks above are saying. Agreed?

There was also this alt:

  • "But see also, Neutral point of view (PSCI), WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY, when discussing relevant ideas of living persons and balancing views. When discussing ideas, these may allow the occasional and limited use of qualified self-published sources by others."

We should pick one or the other and refine to get something we could pose in an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC) (addressed the "well-documented" and "theory" issues from masem below Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC))

Three things:
1) "that view is a pseudoscientific or fringe view", I think you mean "that view is a pseudoscientific or fringe theory" (since you point to FRINGE). If we are talking a non-scientifically-based fringe view (eg like a political position), this proposal should not apply to that
2) In the same phrase above, I would add "well-documented pseudoscientific or fringe theory", that establishes that it should be accepted that the idea is PSCI/FRINGE.
3) I would add in that discussions about the view should be keep in check through WEIGHT/UNDUE and other related factors. --Masem (t) 17:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
(ec) Why do SPS have to be used to counter the view? Please give an example of an article where (a) the fringe view has to be included; and (b) the only way to counter it is with an SPS. SarahSV (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
To get the statement of the BLP's view in the BLP's own words for the most part, if this is not given by the RSes establishing the view as psci/fringe. --Masem (t) 18:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I think we need to be crystal clear that third party SPS can NEVER be used to say a person holds a view, but could be used to debunk a view only once BLP RS establish that the person holds such a view, alough I have not seen any case in which an SPS is needed to debunk a view (SBM is not a blog, so the issue at Ben Swann is not relevant). Tornado chaser (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Also, we need to make clear that this only applied to fringe "scientific" theories, not political positions, etc.Tornado chaser (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
This would depend on if a fringe theory (including conspiracy theories) are also of a political nature (which they often are, although refuted by mainstream sources). Example being controlled demolition 911 conspiracy theories, alien-controlled U.S. government ones, Illuminati, child slave mars colonies, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 08:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
PaleoNeonate Good point, those are not exactly scientific theories, but are still fringe theories, and WP:FRINGE still applies. The distinction I am trying to draw is between theories (claims of fact, whether scientific or historical or any other fringe claims of fact) and opinions (which may be unpopular but are not objectively true or false). Vaccines are a good example, "vaccines don't work" is a fringe theory (it can be determined to be true or false), but "vaccines shouldn't be required" is not a fringe theory nor pseudoscience, just an opinion that could be motivated by belief in a fringe theory, or by libertarian anti-government ideology (which cannot be objectively determined to be true or false). Wikipedia should not be trying to "debunk" beliefs about morality or the proper role of government or other opinions, but should debunk false claims of fact. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
  • My intention is to move toward an actual policy proposal. Please propose specific changes rather than making general points. Please be aware that it must be tight and not too detailed.
If you are on a "wing" that objects to the proposal at all, please don't clutter this drafting effort; you can oppose at the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
You said you would find an example of where this was necessary, so please do. That is, an article where (a) the fringe view has to be included; and (b) the only way to counter it is with an SPS. SarahSV (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Seconded. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) replied above. Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't create a distraction. This proposal would be a major change to a core content policy. Therefore, please offer one example of where this change is needed; not just wanted but needed. Otherwise, it's unclear what you're requesting. Do you want to use an SPS (other than the subject) to support that a BLP holds a certain view? That would be unacceptable, so presumably not. Do you want to use an SPS to debunk a fringe view a BLP holds? If yes, why does it have to be an SPS? And does the fringe view have to be included? These are important questions. SarahSV (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
I think this "However, if a living person holds a view (as established by reliable sources including self-published sources by the subject) and that view is a well-documented pseudoscientific or fringe theory, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to that view. Content about such views may be sourced to third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person. The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases." seems to address the BLP issues, but should be clarified by adding at the end "But third party SPS may never be used to say that a person holds a certain view".
What I do not understand is how "a well-documented pseudoscientific or fringe theory" could possibly lack any non SPS sources to debunk it (this would seem counter to the definition of "well documented"). Tornado chaser (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

From an entirely different angle:

Biographies of living persons as well as articles where WP:BLP applies to the mention of living persons should stress material of biographical value regarding the person. Where the views held by the person are of significant biographical value to that person, the claim that the person holds such views should be stated clearly and concisely with a Wikilink to the topic, but without extensive discussion in the BLP. Such Wikilinked articles will likely present a discussion of the general views about the topic, and are generally sufficient to demonstrate controversies about that topic to the reader If an extended discussion of the topic is proper for some reason in the biography, such as a belief held notably by the one person, then such a discussion may then include the views of others.

This position would then be much more comprehensive than just "fringe theories" but include topics of all types. Debates about theories are generally better placed in the articles about those theories rather than being inserted like condensed soup into multiple biographies, in my opinion. This would also reduce bickering by an order of magnitude, I suspect. Collect (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Collect i appreciate the new angle. It is useful. However this is really focused on articles about living people; quite often this issue comes up in articles about other stuff and as you know BLP applies everywhere. This is less useful in those contexts. I am interested to see how folks react to this.Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Made clear the "of living persons" part - dunno why I elided it at the outset. I figure it makes sense to stop all the use of biographies to make the same points over and over <g>. Collect (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Which still doesn't address the issue of mentions of living people in articles that are not biographical, where BLP still applies... Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Expanded per your suggestion, although I had thought the intent was fairly clear. :) The goal is to have stuff about "pseudo or real" be kept to articles on the belief or theory etc. and not pasted in every article where a name is mentioned. Collect (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey Collect thanks for that tweak. I just came back to re-read all of this. The last sentence of your proposal, leaves the fundamental question unresolved -- namely, what kind of sources can be used for those "views of others"? SPS or not? Jytdog (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The SPS exclusion still applies in all cases. "Others" here then must refer to the views of other persons which meet the Wikipedia sourcing requirements as well. Sources forbidden by Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not get a "bye" by this. OK? Collect (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Collect thanks for replying. I see. So this is not about resolving the tension at all, and ignores what WP:PSCI provides. Thanks again in any case. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The intent is to prevent abuse of policy in order to link living persons to controversial topics in such a manner as is detrimental to WP:BLP. Nor does this suggestion "ignore WP:PSCI" but seeks to assert the primacy of WP:BLP which I trust you agree is a higher level policy. Collect (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Collect, that's too facile. BLP means that we apply all the policies with great care; BLP is never an excuse to violate a policy. PSCI is part of NPOV which means that especially on a BLP page, we do not propagate pseudoscience. The tension comes in with how to do that, given the requirement for strong sourcing in a BLP and given the not uncommon lack of sources typically considered strong that address the specific person's pseudoscience/FRINGE views -- remember we also cannot violate WP:SYN by using some stronger source addressing the topic generally. Hence the proposal, to help navigate between this Scylla and Charybdis in our policies.Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Too facile? Nope. Using a BLP to iterate how horrid their pseudoscience is when there is already a link to that position does not have anything to do with promoting or denying pseudoscience. It is related to giving undue weight to an issue already fully covered on Wikipedia and linked to as well. in a BLP. I demur on your attitude on this issue. NPOV is satisfied by a single simple link to the pseudoscience article involved, and is abridged by giving an iterated précis of such an article in the BLP. If the Wikipedia article clearly goes beyond the relevance to the person's actual views, then we should elide the Wikilink. Collect (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Collect this is what I mean about blowing off PSCI. First, each article needs to stand on its own if it is printed or mirrored somewhere else. In addition, here is what PSCI actually says::

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked. See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help with deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience.

First, do you see how it says "by proponents" in the first sentence there? To the extent said proponents are living, we are directly intersecting with BLP. Do you see how it says "An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included."

When you reply again, please do actually engage with the PSCI policy, spirit and letter? Thanks. (This is actually helpful for thinking through the RfC; both passages are going to have to be presented to help people engage with them... so thanks at least for that) Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

TL,DR.? You appear to accuse me of somehow forgetting that PSCI requires massive copying of the same stuff in any article or BLP which has the remotest connection with the evil belief. Sorry, but that is not a sane thing to do. Articles about living persons should primarily deal with the actual biographies of those persons and not be compendia of rebuttal for every belief they have had. is my stance. Lo alecha hanlacha ligmor. Our task is to present biographies with the salient material relevant to the biographies, not to make sure that every tangent is given full coverage in a biography. The Wikilinks in a BLP are sufficient to let readers understand how evil the person's beliefs are. Saying that a person has a Wikilinked belief is not promoting such a belief in Wikipedia's voice whatsoever. I trust this is clear. Collect (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I have never said anything about, or even close to, "copying massive amounts of text". To deal with the thing you are talking about (which has nothing to do with the issue of sourcing) the quoted PSCI policy directly discusses the issues of WEIGHT already, which makes the putative objection all the more strange and invalid. This is in any case no longer an authentic conversation and I will not be responding further. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
If we don't have sufficiently strong sources for something, why not just follow our current policy and exclude the poorly sourced material per WP:UNDUE? Tornado chaser (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
PSCI is current policy. It is pasted just above. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
PSCI does not say we have to mention the persons' belief at all if it would be UNDUE, just that if we mention a pseudoscientific belief we must clearly say it is pseudoscience. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:25, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
If there are no BLPRS that say "X believes Y", then it is undue to put "X believes Y" in a wikipedia article, and PSCI has nothing to do with this. The issue with PSCI appears to be if we do have sources for "X believes Y", how to then debunk Y, as we are discussing under "Break 2". Tornado chaser (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Please give me a ping if an RfC is started. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC).
Jytdog, you said you would provide an example of where an SPS is needed[6], please do. (Science-Based Medicine seems not to be considered an SPS[7][8]) So using it at Ben Swann doesn't require any policy changes. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Read what I actually wrote there. You should avoid taking what people write out of context. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Can you clarify how you think I have misinterpreted you? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Break 2

I just read through this entire discussion and it does seem like the same arguments are being made over and over without progress (this is not an accusation against anyone, I have contributed to it too). As far as coming up with actual wording for an RfC, I think Jytdog's Reformulated proposal is decent but may need a few tweaks, besides the clarification that "third party SPS may never be used to say that a person holds a certain view", and the question of what is a "well documented" fringe theory, I can also see possible confusion regarding the previously mentioned distinction between political and scientific fringe views, particularly when a political view relates to scientific issues, for example views on environmental regulations or vaccine requirements. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2018 (UTC) updated 16:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, how about

However, if it is established by BLP-compliant sources including self-published sources by the subject that a living person supports a theory (as opposed to a political opinion) and that theory is documented to be pseudoscientific or fringe by BLP-compliant sources, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to that theory. Content about such theory may be sourced to expert third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the theory, not the person.

I hope that this will enable debunking and mentioning the reactions of other scientists per PSCI and PARITY while maintaining strong BLP protections. I disagree with Collect in that I support some debunking in the BLP article, but in no way does this mean "massive copying" is needed. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
You are still missing the WP:SYN problem. Writing "X promotes Y in books and lectures (BLP-compliant source) and Y is pseudoscience (sourced to standard RS that doesn't mention X)" is WP:SYN and other objections like COATRACK get raised as well. Where the unusual sources come in, is discussing the mainstream scientific view on particular views of a particular person. Jytdog (talk) 05:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog I see where that could be construed as SYN, but if this is really SYN, then the policy change we need is a very narrow exception to SYN for cases like this, rather than weakening BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 12:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with the frame that this is "weakening" BLP. It is bringing BLP and NPOV into alignment on a very specific issue. If you insist on using the "weakening" frame then why in the world would you think it is better to "weaken" OR, our bulwark against the very natural tendency of people to abuse our openness to express their own ideas here, and a much earlier policy? Here is the earliest version of the OR policy - it is exactly about the FRINGE/PSCI issue, interestingly. And here is the 1st version of BLP; created 2 years later; you can see the essence of BLP is "follow the other P&G rigorously). That is exactly what I am trying to do here. Jytdog (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't think BLP and NPOV conflict, applying BLP and NPOV together does not result in any contradiction, but may require a marginal SYN violation. However, I am not convinced that it is SYN to say "X believes Y,[1] Y is false.[2]" as this does not synthesize anything that the sources do not explicitly state (assuming source 1 says "X believes Y" and source 2 says "Y is false". If we need to change polity it should be easier to craft a narrowly tailored exception to SYN to allow "X believes Y,[1] Y is false.[2]" without allowing a bunch of OR, than it would be to weaken BLPSPS without opening the door for opinionated and poorly fact checked blog posts being used as sources. I say "weaken" because you are proposing less strict sourcing rules, a "weaker" policy, as a solution to the alleged conflict between BLP, NPOV, and SYN. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
You are denying there is a good faith dispute here; there is nothing more to say. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog You appear to have misunderstood me, I don't see a direct conflict between BLP and NPOV, but I assume good faith of every editor here. And I get your point about SYN, I just disagree about the solution. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
This whole discussion is driven by the application of PSCI through PARITY, which creates tension with "No SPS" in BLP. You wrote: I don't think BLP and NPOV conflict. You are denying the freaking reality of the disputes that have occurred over this, in addition to denying the good faith dispute. In addition your understanding of SYN as expressed in that diff is utterly incorrect -- the example you give is classic SYN. Perfect SYN. Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I believe that all editors in a discussion should assume good faith unless there is obvious evidence of bad-faith editing (which I have not seen here). As for the disputes that have occurred over this conflict of policy, the two RfCs mentioned as examples of the conflict between NPOV and BLP involve blog posts that are attributed as the views of the blogger, not stated in wiki's voice, these I would not interpret as BLPSPS violations, since they are using the blog as a source for nothing but the blogger's opinion, but maybe this should be made explicit in the policy. At Ben Swann, the whole SPS issue can be avoided(if SBM is even an SPS in the first place) by using Swann as a source for his own views, and then one of the many MEDRS that say vaccines don't cause autism, this is where the SYN issue comes in. I get the argument that BLP and NPOV conflict, but I think the best solution would be to clarify that SPS can be used as a source for what the blogger said about the subject of the article, as long as none of what the blogger said is stated in wiki's voice, and to adjust WP:SYN. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, content in a BLP sourced from an SPS-not-by-the-subject should be attributed. However, this is at least the second incorrect thing you have written here trying to wave this actual tension in policy away (above you wrote BLP does not deal with scientific fact so there is no conflict here -- here you write that if it is attributed as the views of the blogger it somehow OK - this policy says no SPS-not-by-the-subject and people in this very discussion are reading that plainly and without wiggle and saying that even that is not OK.
There is a tension. Some people want to eliminate it completely in favor of BLP (overriding PARITY and thus PSCI or using WL and ignoring the part of PSCI that says "state the mainstream view prominently"). Some people appear to want to loosen SYN in order to manage the tension. I and others are seeking to clarify that with regard to PSCI/BLP, the community has already loosened that part of BLP; I am recommending that we catch this policy up with practice. There are certain SPS-not-by-the-subject that we regularly use to implement PSCI even in BLP content; yes we attribute it when we do that. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The way I think this is best handled is to say that the statement "According to Alice, Bob ..." is primarily a statement about Alice's views on Bob, rather than a statement about Bob himself, while saying "Bob is ..." and using Alice as a reference, would be primarily a statement about Bob, and therefore something we can't do. Given that the relevant line in BLP states that an SPS cannot be used "... as sources of material about a living person", this hangs on the distinction between using an SPS as a source for material about the subject of the article, and using the SPS as a source for material about the author's views on the subject. If we can clarify that distinction it may be all we need to do. We'd always need to be careful about giving the SPS author's views undue prominence, but I don't see that this would require loosening BLP so much as clarifying how it should be interpreted. - Bilby (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
That's interesting and I appreciate that. Above it appears to me, that you took a difference stance, in which based on your indenting, it seems that you agreed with this statement saying no SPS-not-by-not-subject, period end of story. Have I misread, or are you taking a different stance? (I think changing is fine, that is not a criticism; i am just seeking clarification to avoid misunderstanding). If you are considering that SPS-not-by-not-subject are OK in some way, what language would you propose to clarify the BLPSPS policy? Jytdog (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
The policy is fine - if we word it so as to weaken the policy we create a problem. What is needed isn't a change in policy, but simply to recognise the distinction between using an SPS as a source of material about a subject, and using an SPS as a source of material about the author's opinion on the subject. I don't see that this is forbidden by BLP as it stands, which is why we've used this approach before.
To clarify, I would not support using a third party SPS (for example, Bob) to write "Alice supported Wakefield's discredited vaccine-autism link", but I'm ok with using Bob to express Bob's opinion about Alice - "Bob has claimed that Alice is a supporter of Wakefield's discredited vaccine-autism link" - as the first example is not and should not be accepted under BLP. Noting that with the second a case would still have to be made that Bob's opinion is not being given undue weight. Do you agree with this distinction? - Bilby (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2018 (UTC).
Bilby's statement above is exactly my position on the issue, but stated more clearly than I did. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I will consider including "must be attributed" in the RfC proposal. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Good, the RfC needs to be very clear that third-party SPS can never be used as a source for any BLP Material that is stated in wikipedia's voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:34, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

What about this[9]? (don't worry, I didn't mess with the policy, the diff is from my sandbox) Tornado chaser (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

No. Really no. Doesn't mention PSCI and "must be attributed" is different from "this is only the authors opinion". Jytdog (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with saying "must be attributed to the author and not stated in wikipedia's voice" instead of "this is only the authors opinion", that would actually be better. PSCI isn't specifically mentioned because this suggestion is meant to apply to everything, even if it's not PSCI or fringe, but it still addresses the SPS issue that was coming up in PSCI areas by allowing SPS to be used as sources in BLPs as long is such content is attributed. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Jytdog, are you aware of a case in which it is/was necessary to use third-party SPS as a source for BLP content stated in Wikipedia's voice? Tornado chaser (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

retraction watch

Another related issue here is Retraction Watch which is pretty much The Source for content about retractions. It is a blog. We use this all the time; it is cited 355 times in en-wp.

There also should be a carveout from BLPSPS for this. This is not about PSCI, but is related in the orbit of the shadow side of good science. Jytdog (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Once we know that an article is retracted (by reading retraction watch) shouldn't we be able to find a non-SPS to use as the source for the retraction? This way we wouldn't need to change policy but would still be able to say when something has been retracted. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Retraction Watch includes the source of their information, so this would be a solution. That said, Retraction Watch employs Alison McCook as editor along with a staff writer and a researcher, so perhaps it should not be regarded as an SPS. [10] - Bilby (talk) 02:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes perhaps but part of what I am trying to do here is make reasonable carveouts to prevent CWOT arguments with respect to what we already do. Somebody can argue BLPSPS for retraction watch. Jytdog (talk) 02:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Couldn't the time-wasting arguments be prevented by using another source? That should be easy since retraction watch cites their sources. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Taking into account the above...

However, if a living person has engaged in or promotes pseudoscience or fringe theories, or work that undermines is inconsistent with accepted scientific or scholarly methods, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to that theories or work. Content about that person's theories or work may be sourced to high quality expert third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the theory or work, not the person.[a]

Notes

  1. ^ As examples only, commonly used sources for this purpose include Retraction Watch, Science-Based Medicine, and Quackwatch

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC) (redact per EEng Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2018 (UTC))

  • This seems more vague than your "reformulated proposal"[11], which at least said that third party SPS could not be used to attribute views to a person, something that should be made clear in any proposed change. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:46, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm very unhappy with "undermines accepted scientific or scholarly methods" -- it has a kind of "enemy of the people" feeling to it. Say "inconsistent with accepted [whatever]" or maybe "in opposition to..." or something like that. EEng 22:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
  • getting there :) Some people are going to really hate this, and i want to kick the tires plenty. I only thought of Retraction Watch in this context the other day and this proposal should have incorporated it all along. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
My problem here is the "or work". What we can't risk doing is saying something like "Person X had a paper retracted from Nature (see SPS)", or "Person X argues for <discredited theory> (see SPS)". Commenting on someone's actions or their beliefs can be commenting about their work, but it can also be commenting about the person. Thus we end up with a possible conflict. Holding a controversial belief, or having your work retracted, are serious claims that need proper BLP-compliant sources before we can make them, and we can't create an exception for certain types of claims. What we can potentially do is express the opinion of an author about a person, but only as an opinion, and that's not clear in this wording. I'd also add that the three examples don't seem like great choices - Science-Based Medicine has editorial control, Retraction Watch has editorial control and in almost all of these situations can be replaced with more reliable sources, and QuackWatch has an advisory board. - Bilby (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. You are saying a few different things there and I don't see how they all hang together. That is what it is. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Bilby's argument seems clear enough to me. Reliable independent sources are needed to support any claim in a BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC).
That is an accurate high level summary of the proposal as well. These are independent RS for the content specified. Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this would address Bilby's concerns, but it would be possible to specify that if the PARITY/SPS source discusses the person, not only the views, it may not be used, or alternatively, that only commentary about the views, rather than about the person, should be summarized. Generally, for the views themselves, unless they are very fringe and borderline notable (but pass AfD despite FRINGEBLP, where resorting to PARITY may be necessary), we can find better sources than SPS that are about the topic itself, rather than the person. —PaleoNeonate – 14:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Or that any opinion about the person should be clearly attributed as opinion of the SPS's author, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 14:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
User:PaleoNeonate...I think the proposal is clear (almost beats to death) the "only views/work not the person" thing..... About the notion of "RS for the topic", we need sources that discuss the person and the view or work, otherwise the content is legitimately removed per WP:SYN. The reason why we reach for these particularly blog-like refs is that they do discuss the specifics and say "person X advocates for Y". We often need them in order to comply with PSCI. I've been thinking about the "use only with attribution" thing. It is absurd to say "According to Retraction Watch, X paper by A was retracted for Z." Retraction Watch is an RS for this and we can just say "Paper X by A was retracted for Z". Yet is clearly bloglike. SBM and Quackwatch are the same. But... I may include an option "If such a source is used, it must be attributed" as a second question in the RfC.... Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Using Retraction Watch as an example, it has an editor, staff writer and researcher, so I wouldn't regard it as an SPS and would be perfectly ok with using it without any change to BLP. However, if it was regarded as an SPS, we would have to say that we couldn't use it, but we could use the source which Retraction Watch uses (which is almost always the journal from which the paper was retracted). The problem is that we risk harming the BLP subject if we make significant claims about them using an SPS, given that a self published source doesn't have the safeguards we would expect from a publication with editorial control. Saying that a professional researcher has had a paper retracted is major claim, and one that could do significant harm to their career - we would want to ensure that the sources we use for this claim are highly reliable. Similarly, saying that someone propagates conspiracy theories, or argues for a disproven vaccine theory, or even that they push psuedoscientific alternative medicines, are all serious claims, and we would want to make sure that there are safeguards ensuring that these claims are accurate before we add them to a BLP. It is different if we are expressing a claim as an opinion - it is one thing to say that a person is supporting a conspiracy theory, but it is another to say that a person was accused of supporting a conspiracy by (author of an SPS), so long as it is worded in that manner. But we can't risk making potentially damaging claims as facts about a living person using any source that does not meet our BLP standards. - Bilby (talk) 05:02, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
See my remarks above here and here. In any case one of the things it sounds ~kind of~ (but I am not sure) like you might perhaps be saying, in your post above, is that you might perhaps accept this with the "must be attributed" rider. (maybe you don't understand that when I write "must be attributed" I mean "the content must say, 'According to X,' and must not be in Wikipedia's voice.") In any case, you will be able to !vote when the RfC goes. Jytdog (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Back in the RFC on Michael Greger, the closer, Cyberpower, noted that core issue in the debate was with how to manage talking about a person's work but not the person. You've added "work" into the proposal, but it doesn't fix this issue - it is still uncertain where "work" ends and "person" begins. Saying "A paper by X was retracted" is, in a sense, talking about their work, but it is also making a statement about the person. So can you clarify - do you believe that your proposed change would allow a third-party SPS as the source for a statement such as "Nature retracted a paper written by X", or "X has argued for the discredited vaccine-autism link", and if so, do you see these statements as commenting on the subject, the subject's work, or both? - Bilby (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
The addition of "work" had nothing to do with "views" vs "person". It has to do with work as in work (a publication) as well as scientific labor (research methods and research conclusions). I introduced "work" so we could clearly bring in Retraction Watch and the like and to better ground the proposal in the kinds of situations where we need this.
On work vs person, yes the Greger passage is about about work (rhetoric Greger deploys in his videos (works), in which he distorts the science in order to persuade people), not the person.
a) "PersonX is a fraud" (statement about a person) is very different from b) "PersonX's paper, Y, was retracted because it included fraudulent data" (work) and c) "PersonX promoted creation science, a form of pseudoscience" (views). The distinction between a) on the one hand and b) and c) on the other, is clear as day and as I already noted, the proposed language above beats the distinction nearly to death. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
"Person X promoted theory Y, a form of pseudoscience" is a serious claim about a living person that needs to be sourced to a non-SPS for inclusion in wikipedia, we don't want to open the door for poorly vetted claims about living people. As for the sources you propose using, SBM dosen't seem to be considered an SPS[13][14] and you even said it wasn't[15], so allowing the use of SBM is a pretty weak argument for changing policy, as this policy change would allow less reliable sources than SBM (with SBM being already allowed under current policy). With retraction watch we can just cite the source that RW cites, rather than citing RW, so this dosen't seem like a reason to change policy in this way either. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, thanks for clarifying this. This is what I believed that your stance was. Unfortunately, I don't see that it is compatible with BLP. In the case of a retracted paper, it is not just a paper that was retracted, but a person who had their paper removed. It is not just a claim that Creation Science is being promoted, but that the subject is acting to promote the theory. While there may be a difference in degree between saying that someone is a fraud and that someone's research was retracted, both are still claims about the person, and both can do harm. If we get these wrong we can do significant harm to the individual's reputation and career, which is why we've always insisted on high quality sources. I'm also very strongly opposed to the idea that we should remove some of the protections provided by BLP in cases were we disagree with a person's views. To single out one group of people and say that they are to be given lesser protection is not something we should ever do here. - Bilby (talk) 23:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I answered the question that I understood you to ask, about the distinction between discussion of the person, and discussion of their work or theories. As I said before, based on some of what you have written, I believe you would accept this proposal with the rider: "content generated using such sources must be attributed". Jytdog (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
User:Bilby, to be sure there is no misunderstanding, does the language "Content generated using such sources must be attributed." address what you have expressed at various points in this discussion, for example here, with "According to Alice, Bob ...". Please answer clearly yes or no, and if the answer is no, please provide concrete alternative language for this bit. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)\
User:Bilby, will you please reply? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not Bilby, and am not speaking for him, but I have been thinking about this attribution issue, and I would like to see an RFC on whether BLPSPS should be interpreted as allowing the use of third party SPS for BLP content as long as it's attributed, i.e "person X said person Z is..." sourced to person X's blog, or if this should require third party RS that talk about what X said about Z. I am opposed to having different BLP standards for fringe promoters, as accusations of promoting pseudoscience are still serious potentially defamatory assertions that must be well sourced, if there is a reason for strict sourcing standards for negative or controversial claims about people, that reason still applies when the person promotes fringe or PSCI. However, I do think BLPSPS is unclear regarding attributed SPS, and this needs to be cleared up, the policy clarification I am proposing would apply to PSCI and FRINGE, but would not be restricted the those areas. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
@K.e.coffman:Could you clarify weather you agree with Bilby's comment or Jytdog's proposal? Tornado chaser (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
The #Revised proposal at the top of the section. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Are you still thinking about posting an RFC? If so that is fine, no rush. I'm only asking because I am considering an RFC to clarify BLPSPS as I have suggested above, but I don't want to do this if you are still planning an RFC regarding similar issues. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

yes i am. i'm taking this slow; but you are right it has been long enough. will launch it tomorrow. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2018 (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.

RfC: The intersection of BLPSPS and PSCI (old)

Latest comment: 6 years ago56 comments12 people in discussion
withdrawn due to late-breaking feedback. Also dropped 2 since it was getting no attention Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

Should any of the following be added at the end of the WP:BLPSPS subsection?

  • 1) However, if a living person promotes pseudoscience or fringe theories, or has published work that is inconsistent with accepted scientific or scholarly methods, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to that theories or work. Content about that person's theories or work may be sourced to high quality expert third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the theory or work, not the person.[a]
  • 1a) Same as the above, but including at the end: "Content generated using such sources should be attributed if it goes beyond simple facts" [b]
  • 2) But see also, Neutral point of view (PSCI), WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY, when discussing relevant ideas of living persons and balancing views. When discussing ideas, these may allow the occasional and limited use of qualified self-published sources by others.

Notes

  1. ^ As examples only, commonly used sources for this purpose include Retraction Watch, Science-Based Medicine, and Quackwatch
  2. ^ "simple facts" are "X's medical license was revoked by Y on Z date." or "Paper A was retracted by journal B for given reason C"

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Policy/guideline background (old)

The two relevant policies are:

  • PSCI, which says:

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked.

See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help with deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience

    • WP:PARITY (part of the WP:FRINGE guideline that interprets PSCI) says

      "...Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. ...

  • BLPSPS says:

Avoid self-published sources

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[1] See § Images below for our policy on self-published images.

References

  1. ^ From Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite note-3.

--Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Policy background discussions (old)


  • Note. Some argue that Science-Based Medicine and Retraction Watch are under "editorial control" so BLPSPS does not apply; others says that they are "blogs" or "group blogs" and in any case not under editorial control of a "news organization", so BLPSPS does apply. One of the reasons for this RfC is to resolve these longterm disputes. The RfC question takes the stance of those who would exclude these sources in order to optimize the chances for long-term resolution.

--Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Usage (old)

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

BLPSPS/PSCI !votes (old)

  • Strong oppose to all proposals Strong oppose to all proposals 1 and 2, Oppose 1a It needs to be explicitly clear that SPS not by the subject may never be used as sources for the fact that a living person holds controversial/bogus/wrong views, this is to avoid wikipedia damaging anyones reputation without solid evidence. All 3 of the proposals on this RfC allow or could easily be interpreted to allow SPS to be used as a source for the fact that someone holds contentious or wrong views, we must avoid making an exception to our BLP standards that would allow accusations of pseudoscience without the same strict sourcing requirements that we have for other serious negative claims about living people.
Also the RfC question assumes that SBM and retracting watch are SPS, but since this is disputed (SBM in particular seems like it may not be considered an SPS) this RfC creates a false "all or nothing" choice, either allow SBM and RW as well as things that are indisputable SPS, or prohibit SPS but also prohibit SBM and RW. It is not necessary to support SPS being allowed at all to support the use of SBM and RW, since many consider these not to be SPS. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2018 (UTC) modified 21:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Bilby makes many good points in his comment below, regarding the the overlap between content about a person and content about their work, the problems with 1a, and the need to clarify rather than change policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1a and I'm extremely confused about the !vote above because the rationale given does not apply. Nothing in any of the proposals would permit using PARITY quality sources to establish that a BLP has espoused a fringe theory; it would only make it clear that PARITY quality sources may be used in BLP articles when talking about the PBLPs fringe beliefs. I'll also point out that current policy falls the same way, if you look at what is said by WP:PARITY, WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP and consider the intersection with any degree of rationality. It's just never made explicit. This is just making it explicit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:07, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all variants. WP:FRINGE (including its WP:FRIND section) is not a policy, WP:BLP is a policy, and guidelines do not override policies. Claiming a website has editorial control, and/or is a newspaper, is not a substitute for evidence. WP:PSCI is part of establishing NPOV but that is not the issue here -- even if the POV is perfectly neutral that's not relevant to the question whether it is self-published, so there's no "intersection". There have been errors about this in the past (as the Science-Based Medicine RfC shows), so it will be helpful if the closer states: "No, all blogs are self-published sources which are not acceptable for BLPs, the only exception is WP:BLPSELFPUB. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1a or as a backup, 2. First, this is already what we do in practice, and this RfC is just catching up the written policy to what is the living consensus ... except when scuffles break out where we have the same discussion over and over. Second, the core thing here is that the PSCI and BLP policies come into direct conflict when living people embrace pseudoscience or fringe ideas. That individual person's embrace/promotion of such ideas is often only discussed in the kinds of sources mentioned (we cannot use sources about the fringe or pseudoscience idea generally, that don't mention the person, as that is WP:SYN and not OK). 1a is how we resolve this already. So again all we are doing is catching up the writing with practice. Jytdog (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • (1) Self published sources are bad, and should not be used against a BLP. Edit to neutral on this point. I've seen some well handled cases that look difficult to handle otherwise, but I'm still worried this could go badly in other cases.
    (2) Fringe theories and fringe individuals often receive little attention or critique in major or top quality sources. There needs to be flexibility to use lower-end sources (such as a college newspaper) to obtain adequate independent evaluation/reception/critique of the the fringe subject.
    (3) We must never give a reader the impression that fringe views or theories are anything other than fringe. That often means the mainstream view must be presented to supply appropriate context, even if the high-quality mainstream sources do not directly discuss the fringe view. Alsee (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm ok with using an SPS to add the opinion - expressed as an opinion - of the author of the SPS where it is a) deemed to be significant, and b) carefully used. I'm also ok with WP:PARITY allowing the use of an SPS when deemed reliable when we are writing about a theory, not a person, even if that theory is being covered in a BLP. So I don't see that we should have a blanket ban on the use of an SPS in a BLP. However, I don't see that this is what is happening with BLP as it stands. The current wording is:
"Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article"
This doesn't seem to prevent us from using an SPS in a BLP as source of material about a theory (rather than a person), based on the "about a living person" wording. That said, it is possible that this restricts us in using the SPS as a source of the author's opinion about the BLP subject, and if so I'm open to change given some strict restrictions. My problem is that these proposals risk allowing a third party SPS to be used as statements of fact about a living person, which isn't a place where we want to go. As to the proposals:
1) This seems to be saying that claims about a person's work are separate from claims about a person. The problem is that saying "X has published claims supporting anti-vaccination" may be referencing work they do, but it is also making a claim about the subject. We need to be careful to ensure that all claims we make about living people are very reliably sourced. Claims about a person holding beliefs or making claims - even if those claims are believed to be in their work - need to be handled with great caution.
1a) This finishes with "should be attributed if it goes beyond simple facts". The problem is that it is the facts which are in contention. Saying "X claims that water can cure cancer" may arguably be a "simple fact", but we can't risk making these claims based on a third-party SPS. The only thing a third-party SPS is reliable for in a BLP about the subject is the opinion of the author, not claims of fact. So I need to oppose this as well.
2) This seems to run into the same risks as 1), and I'm not sure it is needed if it is about an idea unrelated to a person. WP:PARITY allows us to say "This theory is unfounded" and use an SPS by an expert deemed reliable for that statement. But we still can't say "This person believes in X" based on a third-party SPS, even if X is an idea.
Ultimately, I think we're mostly handling this ok without the risk that comes from modifying BLP. We may need some clarity on whether or not a SPS can be used as a source of the author's opinion about the subject, and that may warrant a change, but otherwise I see the need as being for clarity in application, rather than in changing BLP to suit a very, very small number of incidents. - Bilby (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1a - Knowing Jytdog as an editor who runs a tight ship, I'd like to place the mansplaining of my support in an extended content section just below, out of the way, so as not to make a mess. My comments are there for anyone who wishes to read them. The brief version: I believe that PSCI is where this problem originates, with its vague call to arms for editors to engage in a War on Pseudoscience in BLP articles (I explain why below) but in the end I dont see any policy/guidelines etc which forbid it. (Folly, on the other hand—I see plenty of—also explained below.)  Spintendo  12:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Extended comment

I believe a large part of this issue comes down to the language and reasons given in PSCI. Let's take a look at that language.

  • "Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other." This is saying that when it comes to fringe ideas, the field should not be a level one. Jytdog's response to unleveling this playing field is by adding the counterweight he proposes in this RFC, a weight which requires high-level sources. But surely another way exists to unbalance the field. Would not removing the spurious claims also create a situation whereby "we are not describing these two viewpoints as equal"? PSCI does not state that the only way to ensure an unlevel playing field is by adding opposing material. But that might be too deletionist. So what about PSCI's other directives? Let's take a look:
  • "While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community." This appears to be a large part of the license with which this RFC is here. It is above all, a noble idea, to fight these spurious claims—but it is also an ominous one—and I see the beginnings of a crusade taking shape with that vague directive. Other editors here have expressed that concern as well.
  • That worry is cemented in this final PSCI directive: "Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such." "Any inclusion" it says. This appears to be the blank check which Jytdog wishes to cash. But before he makes it to the bank, Im wondering, what is that last sentence really telling us? I believe it's telling us that we should abandon the main front where these pseudoscience wars were previously fought (in the trenches of the main article's where they are described in detail) and instead take these battles to the local level - fighting them in individual BLP articles. In fact, according to Jytdog, that war has already come to these articles. What is odd about this call to arms is another directive from a policy/guideline quoted in the pre-RFC by Collect about how to deal with these discussions, mentioned in their "different angle":
  • "Biographies of living persons as well as articles where WP:BLP applies to the mention of living persons should stress material of biographical value regarding the person. Where the views held by the person are of significant biographical value to that person, the claim that the person holds such views should be stated clearly and concisely with a Wikilink to the topic, but without extensive discussion in the BLP. Such Wiki-linked articles will likely present a discussion of the general views about the topic, and are generally sufficient to demonstrate controversies about that topic to the reader. This appears to be telling us to disregard PSCI's urge to fight the battles within BLP articles, instead, suggesting we lead the fight back to the main "Wiki-linked" articles. And many would think that until they read the last line: If an extended discussion of the topic is proper for some reason in the biography, such as a belief held notably by the one person, then such a discussion may then include the views of others." Wait a minute, where did that come from? Now it's telling us that there should be a discussion? Isn't that inviting the very same level playing field that PSCI warned us about? This is a major contradiction, and I think it is the crux of Jytdog's RFC. Even though PSCI tells us that these views should not be given the light of day, here it is that we are directed to allow these discussions to grow on BLP pages. This scenario—where one directive creates an environment which another directive flourishes in—is highly inefficient, and sadly, it heralds the dawn of this new War on Pseudoscience, now localized and fought in the new trenches of BLP articles. While I personally don't agree with this tactic, I don't see where it's prohibited; thus I reluctantly support it and wish our crusaders well.  Spintendo  12:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1a as the least bad option in this situation. If we have an article about a living person who has promoted fringe theories but where there aren't any high quality reliable sources discussing that person's promotion of those theories from a critical perspective, then we don't have any good options:
  • We could not include any information highlighting the mainstream perspective on those views. This contradicts WP:PSCI / WP:FRINGE and isn't good practice anyway, because it leaves the reader with the false impression that the fringe theory has mainstream credibility.
  • We could include general information about the fringe theory which doesn't mention the subject of the article. This violates WP:SYN.
  • We could not mention the fringe theories at all, which undermines the quality of the article and may render its existence pointless.
  • We could delete the article about that person, which doesn't have any support in the deletion policy and seems like overkill.
  • We could include the types of sources discussed in option 1 above to give some of the necessary perspective about those theories, while not using them for information about the person. This is still not ideal but I think it's better than the other options. Hut 8.5 19:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all proposals. BLP policy should not be modified for special cases. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC).
  • Reluctant oppose I'm generally opposed to the usage of SPS for virtually anything on en, and while I am very sympathetic to the goals here, protection of identifiable real life people is one of the most important things we do here. I can't bring myself to expand the criteria for using SPS, especially in BLPs. Sorry, but if all we can find to say that someone is a nutjob is the blog of an expert in the field, that isn't enough. We need reporting in secondary sourcing and editorial control and analysis. We should be reporting on the nutcases. We shouldn't be relying on SPS to do so. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

BLPSPS/PSCI discussion (old)

  • Isn't this already covered by WP:FRIND which a BLPSPS would fail for a conspiracy theorist? BLPSPS being allowed (in a limited fashion) does not mean it trumps other policy. If you spell this out for BLPSPS, this would have to be spelled out elsewhere as well.Icewhiz (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Nope, this arises from a series of disputes in which some people want to use these sorts of refs and other people cite BLPSPS, on BLP pages. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
      • And if this were sourced to the BLP's published oped on some reliable published outlet (for an oped - for the attributed viewpoint)? I think FRIND already applies (and have argued this on various pages) - but if there is an issue, why not a more generic boilerplate - BLPSPS may only be used in as much as it does not violate other policies? There might be other policies specific BLPSPS runs foul of.Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
FRINGE/PARITY does not change the BLP sourcing requirements, it affects RS and UNDUE but does not allow anything that would otherwise be a BLP vio, wording for the RfC that would have more explicitly prevented FRINGE from being used to make exceptions to BLPSPS was suggested during the pre-RfC discussion, but not included in the final RfC, making it unclear whether this RfC is intended to create exceptions to BLPSPS.
As far as calling the views fringe once other sources have established that the person holds the views, wouldn't there be non SPS sources that are available to debunk it? if any mainstream sources mention the view at all they should say that it is fringe, if only blogs even mention something then isn't it UNDUE to have it in the wikipedia article at all? Despite multiple requests for examples during the discussion, no examples of a case in which wikipedia needs to talk about a fringe view but SPS are the only sources to debunk it were provided. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
FRINGE/PARITY does not change the BLP sourcing requirements Nor should it, nor would this require us to. I'm only getting more confused the more you type on this, because you seem to be responding to a proposal to let us use skeptical SPSes to make statements about living people, and that is NOT what is being proposed. I understand that I'm the only one saying this directly, but I'm still not sure why you are ignoring my very plain, simple and readable statements to the contrary and continuing to argue against a position no-one is taking.
As far as calling the views fringe once other sources have established that the person holds the views, wouldn't there be non SPS sources that are available to debunk it? If no RSes mention a certain view, but WP:PARITY level skeptical sources all label it a fringe view, then it's quite obviously a fringe view, and should be treated as such. I could name a hundred conspiracy theories, crank physics theories and alt-med woo theories that aren't covered in any RSes, but only in skeptical sources. To suggest that if a fringe theory exists, it is necessarily covered by RSes is to completely misunderstand what a fringe theory is. It's believed only by a tiny minority by definition, and as such, tends to be known about only by a slightly larger minority.
if only blogs even mention something then isn't it UNDUE to have it in the wikipedia article at all? First off, you're still making that incorrect assumption. In order for this proposed addition to come into play, the belief in those subjects needs to already be mentioned in RSes. Second; no. If only blogs mention something, then it's not notable. Whether or not it's due is an entirely different question, one that depends heavily on the subject at hand. When we are discussing a BLP where their belief in fringe theories is a notable part of who they are (to the point where said beliefs are mentioned in RSes, see my first paragraph above), then of course a brief description of those beliefs, along with expert rebuttals is due. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I am responding to a proposal that would allow SPS as sources for material about living people, because as I understand this proposal, it allows SPS to be used as sources for the fact that someone promotes a fringe theory, which would be a claim about a living person, would it not? Also, PARITY quality sources do not necessarily mean SPS, and I'm probably ok with using SPS to describe other experts reactions as long as the stuff sourced to SPS is not said in wikipedia's voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
as I understand this proposal, it allows SPS to be used as sources for the fact that someone promotes a fringe theory You are incorrect about that. I can not see any reading of the proposal which supports this. Note the following quote from the proposal:
Content about that person's theories or work may be sourced to high quality expert third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the theory or work, not the person. (bolding added, italics in original). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I just read through the proposals again and I see where your coming from, but I still don't know where we draw the line between a person and their work. So we don't allow SPS to be used as sources for the fact that someone promotes a fringe theory, but what about calling a paper they published fraudulent? or saying that an article they published used misleading tactics? These are examples of describing the work, but accusing the person of dishonesty in the process. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
what about calling a paper they published fraudulent? This really isn't any different to the question "what about calling a paper they published fringe?" and thus it has the same answer: We would need RSes, and this proposal doesn't touch on that. Again, this proposal is about the theories themselves, not about the circumstances surrounding their publication. This is for when we have to explain what their theories are, and then meet WP:PSCI and WP:GEVAL by adding what prominent skeptics think of those theories. So "fraudulent" would be left up to the RSes. Instead, this proposal would prevent others from arguing, for example, that Jim Bob's Theory of the Toenail Universe (TU) in which all matter is composed of God's toenails could use a blog post by PZ Myers describing the chemical makeup of toenails to show how ridiculous a theory it is. But we could not cite that same blog for claims that Jim Bob's Toenail Miracle Cream™ experienced a jump in sales following the publication of the TU, wink wink, nudge nudge. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep - it is the same distinction that we make every day here in WP -- the difference between describing an editor's behavior and attacking him or her personally. It is one thing to say that an edit violates policy or is incompetent, and quite another to call a person incompetent. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
That is a very good point. It is the same exact distinction. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
As an example, would you say that we could use an SPS under these changes to source the claim "... is an anti-vaccine activist and, by way of conspiracy theories, has attempted to deny or discredit the scientific consensus that vaccines do not cause autism"? - Bilby (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Obviously not to the first part (before the "and"), and if one follows 1a, only with attribution for the 2nd part. Your !vote is self-contradicting and contradicts what you have done in practice, e.g your !vote in an RfC here where you proposed and said you would accept content about a living person's views based on an SPS with attribution. I delayed this RfC a month awaiting an answer with respect to 1a-- I pinged you twice (diff Sept 12 and diff on Sept 21) and I interpret your question here and your !vote as bad faith behavior. Jytdog (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. Given that you previously stated that an SPS could be used to support that text, I am glad to see that you have changed your position. - Bilby (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You do not understand my position and I will not be responding to you further, except to correct further misrepresentations. Jytdog (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, you wrote "we have been through this several times, most recently at David Wolfe (entrepreneur). Your view is not consistent with the community's", as the edit summary when you returned the SPS to support that statement. Your next edit, immediately following that one, was to start the discussion for this RFC. [16] Hence my wish for clarity on the issue. I do appreciate your statement that you do not see the outcome of this RFC as supporting such a use of an SPS. - Bilby (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I said nothing about the outcome of this RfC. You have misrepresented me yet again and are once again cluttering an RFC I have started with garbage.
I will say that if I had my druthers we could use these high quality SPS without attribution. I have been trying to compromise with you and others and will accept 1a, which is why I proposed it. I have no desire to interact with you due to your horrible and self contradictory behavior on this issue. Do not ask me further questions. Do not try to state my opinion. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
My apologies - I incorrectly read what you were saying. Then if you see 1a as a compromise, I assume you mean that 1 and 2 could potentially allow for an SPA to be used in this manner. This is not consistent, if I understand it correctly, with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants's reading of the changes - which is why the question came up. I appreciate the 1a compromise, even though I cannot support it with the "simple facts" exception. - Bilby (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Jytdog Criticizing someones work, especially calling it fringe, casts doubt on whether they are a good scientist (i.e their reputation), thus BLP must still fully apply, with no exceptions. I might be ok with attributed SPS so we can include the reactions of experts. User:MPants at work, it looks like this proposal still allows us to state SPS-sourced stuff in wikipedia's voice, and i'm a bit confused how you can talk about the theroy and not the person if Jytdog is saying that the source has to mention the person to not be SYN. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Tornado chaser, and BLP does not change what PSCI requires. As you have throughout this, you continue to try to find ways to evade the direct conflict that arises when both policies are at play. Both are policy. Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog I am not trying to evade anything, please remember to AGF, I am aware that both are policy, I never questioned that. It seems to me that this conflict could be adressed by allowing attributed SPS, but I don't see how it is necessary to use SPS-sourced content stated in wikipedia's voice, nor do I see anything in the RfC proposals that explicitly prevents SPS sourced content from being stated in wikipedia's voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You've started a 2nd respond thread to my comment above. I have indented it further to clarify it is different from the 1st. 1a is there to address the attribution concern. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Jytdog The problem with 1a is that it still allows statements of fact sourced to SPS to be said in wikipedia's voice, as it only requires attribution if the SPS-sourced content "goes beyond simple facts". Tornado chaser (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Yep that is what it says. Jytdog (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Jytdog I cannot support a proposal that allows SPS as sources for facts that implicate a living person's reputation without attribution. What exactly would be considered a simple enought fact not to need attribution under this proposal? Tornado chaser (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
This is exactly the sort of thing that led me to lose faith in your honesty at the MfD: Just above, you mention "statements of fact sourced to SPS to be said in wikipedia's voice", which Jytdog agreed was in this proposal, but then in your response you suddenly change that to "SPS as sources for facts that implicate a living person's reputation without attribution" (em. added). You changed the definition of the very thing you're discussing mid discussion in order to continue to support your position. If your position cannot be argued without dishonest rhetoric, then your position is logically untenable. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
But per WP:UNDUE if no good enough sources discuss something we don't put it in wikipedia, are you saying you would consider something WP:DUE even if only blogs talk about it? As for the other scientists reactions I would consider a proposal that required attribution for SPS sourced material, but not saying anything sourced to an SPS in wiki voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Your argument is circular. If there are decent SPS we use them regularly, giving appropriate WEIGHT per PSCI and the rest of NPOV Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Jytdog: Can you provide a single example of a case where it has ever been necessary to use BLP content cited to SPS stated in wikipedia's voice? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
See the examples provided in the subsections above. As before, I will not be replying to you further in this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused why you think it is any more acceptable to use SPS as a source for saying someone is a pseudoscience proponent than it would be to use SPS as a source for any other serious negative claim about a living person? Tornado chaser (talk) 02:41, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Tornado chaser, the threshold for something or someone to pass Notability for an article is rather low, and doesn't ensure there is adequate independent critique of fringe theories and individuals. In particular someone can pass NACADEMIC with zero independent sources, and someone can be Notable for reason X while filling their article with stuff like their fringe publications on Y. At this very moment, I'm dealing with a BLP of someone Notable for TWO overturned-on-appeal convictions of a terrorist bombing and a bomb-plot, who also published a conspiracy theory "book translated to ten languages" with the loonybin Globalresearch publishers. He also founded a "Centre for Counter Hegemonic Studies" (it appears to be little more than a blog) to publish his fringe ideas because... according to him... he was being censored by a conspiracy of (1)universities (2)academic institutions (3) governments and (4)corporations. And he gets published and cited on a cluster of alt-media conspiracy sites. I do have some usable sources to work with, but it's difficult. Especially when there's active pro-fringe editing to deal with at the article. Alsee (talk) 00:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog, you mentioned SPS being used. In the RFC I did support two categories of sourcing against fringe, but I'm wary that using SPS against a BLP is a well-intentioned Pandora's box. I might reconsider if I'm pinged with a sufficiently persuasive response. I want us to be able to deal with fringe effectively, but SPS is very concerning. Alsee (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
User:Alsee it is what we already do. See the subsections above Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Policy_background_discussions and Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Usage. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The fact that we already do this (possibly in violation of policy) does not mean we should continue. Also, many uses of SPS are attributed, wich may be ok under current policy, and whether attributed SPS are ok under current policy should be clarified before using them as justification for changing this policy. Tornado chaser (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Policy is not a dead, written letter. We have solved the tension on the ground, article by article and RfC and by RfC. All we are doing is catching up the writing with practice -- with living policy --, in this specific field. Jytdog (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Peter Gulutzan you are not dealing with the part of PSCI that says: "An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included." PARITY only comes into the BLP issue when there are no non-BLPSPS refs to do this; that is quite often the case, as mainstream scientists are busy doing mainstream science. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
I think I did. By the way "should" does not mean "requires". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. That's true, but we should do, what we should do. That is how this place works. The conflict between policies arises when we try to do what we should do. We have worked it out on the ground; we just need to catch up the writing to reflect that. Jytdog (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2018 (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.

RfC: The intersection of BLPSPS and PSCI restated

Latest comment: 6 years ago33 comments15 people in discussion
Withdrawn. This has no chance of gaining consensus Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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.

Should any of the following be added at the end of the WP:BLPSPS subsection?

  • 1) However, if a living person promotes pseudoscience or fringe theories, or has published work that is inconsistent with accepted scientific or scholarly methods, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to that theories or work. Content about that person's theories or work may be sourced to high quality expert third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the theory or work, not the person.[a]
  • 1a) Same as 1), but including at the end: "Content generated using such sources should be attributed if it goes beyond simple facts" [b]
  • 1b) Same as 1), but including at the end: "Content generated using such sources should be attributed."

Notes

  1. ^ As examples only, commonly used sources for this purpose include Retraction Watch, Science-Based Medicine, and Quackwatch
  2. ^ "simple facts" are "X's medical license was revoked by Y on Z date." or "Paper A was retracted by journal B for given reason C"

-- Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Policy/guideline background

The two relevant policies are:

  • PSCI, which says:

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic. Thus, when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints as being equal to each other. While pseudoscience may in some cases be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description of the mainstream views of the scientific community. Any inclusion of pseudoscientific views should not give them undue weight. The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. An explanation of how scientists have reacted to pseudoscientific theories should be prominently included. This helps us to describe differing views fairly. This also applies to other fringe subjects, for instance, forms of historical revisionism that are considered by more reliable sources to either lack evidence or actively ignore evidence, such as claims that Pope John Paul I was murdered, or that the Apollo moon landing was faked.

See Wikipedia's established pseudoscience guidelines to help with deciding whether a topic is appropriately classified as pseudoscience

    • WP:PARITY (part of the WP:FRINGE guideline that interprets PSCI) says

      "...Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. ...

  • BLPSPS says:

Avoid self-published sources

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources.[1] See § Images below for our policy on self-published images.

References

  1. ^ From Wikipedia:Verifiability#cite note-3.

-- Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Policy background discussions


  • Note. Some argue that Science-Based Medicine and Retraction Watch are under "editorial control" so BLPSPS does not apply; others says that they are "blogs" or "group blogs" and in any case not under editorial control of a "news organization", so BLPSPS does apply. One of the reasons for this RfC is to resolve these longterm disputes. The RfC question takes the stance of those who would exclude these sources in order to optimize the chances for long-term resolution.

--Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Usage

-- Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

BLPSPS/PSCI !votes

  • Support 1 or as a backup, 1a or 1b. First, this is already what we do in practice, and this RfC is just catching up the written policy to what is the living consensus ... except when scuffles break out where we have the same discussion over and over. Second, the core thing here is that the PSCI and BLP policies come into direct conflict when living people embrace pseudoscience or fringe ideas. Retraction Watch is considered a blog by some, but it is the go-to source for retractions and is highly regarded. Ditto Quackwatch and Science-Based Medicine in their fields. An individual person's embrace/promotion of such ideas is often only discussed in the kinds of sources mentioned (we cannot use sources about the fringe or pseudoscience idea generally, that don't mention the person, as that is WP:SYN and not OK). Variations of 1 are how we resolve this already. So again all we are doing is catching up the writing with practice in a specific field. Folks who don't work on FRINGE matters may not be aware of this issue, but this being an open project, we have people pushing FRINGE/PSCI ideas in wide swaths of WP, from health and medicine to engineering to archeology to cyptids and so on. Deleting the page is often not viable, and being silent is often not what we should do per PSCI. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1a with 1 as my second choice. This is how the current consensus operates in every single case I've seen, and is functionally identical to to proposals I've supported generally or specifically in prior discussions.
Oppose 1b as it violates WP:ASSERT, an existing policy. I am reading "simple fact" as something uncontroversial and unremarkable, such as the statement that a work was published by a certain publisher or on a certain date. Alternatively, I could see it being a fact stated elsewhere in the article using a non-SPS source, or even a WP:SKYBLUE level fact. In any of those cases, attributing it would present a false impression of uncertainty to the reader. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose to 1 and 1a, Support 1b It needs to be explicitly clear that SPS not by the subject may never be used as sources for the fact that a living person holds controversial/bogus/wrong views, this is to avoid wikipedia damaging anyones' reputation without solid evidence. 1 could be interpreted to allow SPS to be used as a source for the fact that someone's views are contentious or wrong, we must avoid making an exception to our BLP standards that would allow accusations of pseudoscience without the same strict sourcing requirements that we have for other serious negative claims about living people. Criticizing someones work, especially calling it fringe, casts doubt on whether they are a good, honest scientist (i.e their reputation), thus BLP must still fully apply with no exceptions, rendering 1 unacceptable. 1a still allows us to state some SPS-sourced stuff in wikipedia's voice, and the definition of "simple facts" is likely to be a source of disputes given the contentiousness of PCSI-related articles. I'm also a bit confused how you can talk about the theory and not the person since Jytdog has repeatedly said that the source has to mention the person to not be SYN.
1b looks ok, attributed SPS would allow us to include the reactions of experts the the fringe theory, thus solving any conflict between PSCI and BLPSPS, but would avoid stating any BLP-implicating SPS-sourced content in wikipedia's voice. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
My struck comment above highlights the upsides to 1b, but SarahSV and Littleolive oil point out some legitimate downsides to it, so I am not ready to take a side on 1b yet. (note, I say SarahSV made good points, but the stuff about the legal dept, seems like overkill, alought I'm no defamation lawyer) Tornado chaser (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Hmmm. I would prefer a situation where a person's advocacy of bullshit cannot be sourced (for or against) other than from reliable independent sources. I would not cite Gorski's blog, or Novella's, as a source anyway. Quackwatch is RS, as is Science based Medicine, so this is not an issue for those sites. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. WP:BLPSPS is an important safeguard that we should not abandon lightly. It means that no individual can post something about a living person directly to their own website, with none of the usual checks and balances, then add it to Wikipedia as a source. This is an extremely important principle. For BLPs, we need to rely on sources that have some kind of professional editorial process in place. I've asked Jytdog several times for a real example of the problem his proposal is trying to solve, but the question was ignored. It seems to me that if RS don't mention a fringe view, and if it is the type of fringe view that readers might believe, then we should not include it in a bio. Rather than including the fringe view, then feeling forced to use an SPS to counter it, why not just leave it out? Another issue is that this will lead to the promotion of certain self-published websites. If we are even considering abandoning BLPSPS, we should involve the Wikimedia Foundation legal department, because it may have legal consequences. SarahSV (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Support 1a with 1b as my second choice. When we're dealing with Fringe associated BLPs, I think attribution to sources is very important. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all I misread the original policy. No SPS at all please. Simonm223 (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose And my comments on the first RfCs in this series remain the same. I fear we have now reached a point where continued iterations of the same Change ringing do not advance the project. Collect (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all per Sarah. I'd add there is a sense that fringe and pseudoscience are so grievous that we can throw out the standards we would normally use to make sure content is neutral. In fact the opposite should be true. If we have information that might lead us to add POV content whatever it is, then our standards should be upheld with even greater stringency. There are many instances of proposed content that are beyond the pale in terms of fringe and pseudoscience; we deal with that with scrupulous adherence to our policies rather than adjusting policy to suit the need to illustrate our disgust with the potential content-a POV response.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC))
  • Oppose all these attempts to compromise WP:BLP policy, as clearly explained by SarahSV. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC).
  • Oppose per Sarah. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sarah and my comment in the first round. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per my comment in the previous (withdrawn) RfC above. Please let's have a formal close this time. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:59, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sarah. -Obsidi (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose all. There are certainly cases where WP:parity can be reasonably invoked in a context covered incidentally covered by WP:BLPSPS, but those analyses can be made as matter of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on a case-by-case basis on relevant talk pages; trying to append them at the end of the language cautioning against SPS as RS as a general matter only muddies the waters of an already somewhat convoluted piece of policy. The result would be a kind of rule creep that would only be more likely to mystify editors and put them at cross purposes, rather than make consensus easier to arrive at. I believe that most experienced editors are quite capable of weighing the relative importance of these two principles in the context of individual articles (and yes, I do envision that there are examples where parity should take precedence over the general concern over SPS) and deciding on an approach which better guarantees to the WP:Neutrality of the article in the aggregate. The proposed solution here would only tie their hands and entrench certain positions--though I do appreciate the good-faith motive behind it all. Snow let's rap 04:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

BLPSPS/PSCI discussion

  • Jytdog I suggest changing "should be attributed" in 1b to "must be attributed" as some in the previous RfC seemed to think that "should" meant it was optional and I think "must" makes it a bit clearer, but other than that 1b looks decent. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Question What problem is this trying to solve? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
    • User:A Quest For Knowledge PSCI and BLPSPS come into conflict when there are living people who promote pseudoscience. Quite often there are only SPS or group blogs, or edited blogs) such as the ones mentioned, where we find mainstream scientific perspectives on that person's promotion of pseudoscience. There are people (often pushers of pseudoscience but not always) who seek to remove such sourced content on the basis of BLPSPS which says "never" use SPS. When this comes to an RfC we always choose to permit the SPS in these cases. This is just catching up written policy with community practice, to end the time-wasting arguments. You can see an example of this at Talk:David Wolfe (entrepreneur) which was resolved through an RfC that permitted use of a Forbes' contributor blog - an SPS. That was a tremendous waste of time. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It never fails to amaze me the way WP can get so pedantic over codifying a practice into policy, yet every time that practice can be used, WP rallies behind it without reservation. I have literally seen people who are !voting "oppose" above support this in practice. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment. There is no consistent practice and that is a major point here. In using blogs/ self published sources we are talking about a no-oversight situation. This means that declaring an expert and an expert opinion is often a subjective decision. The fact that there are editors here opposing overarching standards for inclusion and suggesting discussion for sources with out oversight indicates caution. We have to remember that not only science/pseudoscience/fringe topics have potential sources referencing blogs and self-publication that we might use and or question. Other topic areas do as well. In adjusting this policy we would potentially open a Pandora's box while setting a precedent. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2018 (UTC))
There is no conflict between BLPSPS and other policies -- no precedent could be set by this. I do understand that you would oppose this proposal. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course, I didn't mention other "policies" above. I am however referring to the fact that fringe content is also a possibility in other topic areas. In bypassing the safe guards the BLPSPS policy gives us in reference to science which I believe is what is being asked for here, we do open the door for bypassing it in other topic areas as well. I find that once the wall has been broached in one area arguments for broaching it in other areas follow. Specific sources which stretch the boundaries of the policy should be discussed on an individual basis. You're right in thinking I am not concerned with the time this takes. In my mind, there is no rush when the quality of the encyclopedia is at stake.
Its not a good idea to question the motives of the people who respond to an RFC as is happening here. This brings into question your own motives. I am explaining why I and others oppose this proposal; please leave it at that. Anything else is misguided assumption. If you have concerns with my editing you know where to go with that. Please feel free(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2018 (UTC))
So you also disagree with "never" and acknowledge that we use SPS as discussed in the proposal. But instead of agreeing to write down what we do all the time when this conflict arises (which is all that policy is), you are opposing. Hm. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
The argument by Littleolive oil above is extraordinarily bad. It starts by grossly misrepresenting the subject of this RfC (as popular as that may be here, it's still a gross misrepresentation), then somewhat clumsily uses a slippery slope argument before concluding with some unprompted and hypocritical berating of another editor. Even so, Jytdog's response is also flawed, though it at least limits itself to implied accusations of bad behavior rather than stating them outright. I strongly suggest neither part continue as this argument is not likely to accomplish anything useful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Jytdog. "All the time" is a subjective judgement and that's my concern. Let me summarize my position."Specific sources which stretch the boundaries of the policy should be discussed on an individual basis" rather than adjust the policy to support the "all the time" position. MPants. I believe and hope all editors commenting here including the editor who set the RfC did so in good faith. Your comment here and Jytodg's response question that. I do not tolerate criticism against editors who are acting in good faith very well and as I have in the past I will always suggest there are better ways to proceed.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC))
WP:STICK ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:35, 17 October 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_44&oldid=1088077978"