 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
There is seldom a zero sum. In case of a dispute like this it is simple. If we can't say it neutrally, and accurately, then we shouldn't say it at all. There's no need to err on the side of one side or t'other, simply err on the side of silence.--Docg 15:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine - silence is neutral, but when we leave in one person's accusations against the other while maintaining "silence" that the other person has been cleared, that's not neutral, and that's not good BLP practice. —Random832 16:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah this is a huge difficulty, especially when one is faced with an entry like:
- "In 1981, according to the BBC, Jack was arrested for raping Jill[1], but the charges were later quietly dropped, when prosecutes discovered that Jill had a record of making false allegations.[citation needed]."
- Now, what do you do with that? Especially if the first half of the sentence checks out, and the second is plausible, even probable but unverified.?--Docg 16:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing in the BLP policy prohibits the inclusion of properly sourced facts about a living person, no matter how disparaging. In your example, the first claim can be included because it is a properly sourced statement from the BBC. The second half of the statement should be removed because it is unsourced, and potentially damaging. -- RoninBK T C 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. That's wonking. Placing historical notes of arrests, but giving no conclusion as to whether the person was convicted or exonerated is not NPOV - it is loading the issue. We should check the sources to see what they say, but if no conclusion to an "arrest story" can be found, then the entire story should be removed on a "do no harm" basis. We don't risk leaving a negative false impression that the charge was upheld.--Docg 11:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously you need to rephrase the first claim to "Jack was arrested for allegedly raping Jill[2]" since he was never convicted of anything. I wasn't saying you let it stand as is. The point I was making is that you have to treat the two halves of that sentence as separate claims. No one disagrees that the second claim must be removed. But the fact that you remove the second claim does not mean tha the first is invalidated. -- RoninBK T C 04:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- You could say that the charges were dropped without including the unsourced material about Jill. Matchups 03:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Obviously you need to rephrase the first claim to "Jack was arrested for allegedly raping Jill[2]" since he was never convicted of anything. I wasn't saying you let it stand as is. The point I was making is that you have to treat the two halves of that sentence as separate claims. No one disagrees that the second claim must be removed. But the fact that you remove the second claim does not mean tha the first is invalidated. -- RoninBK T C 04:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. That's wonking. Placing historical notes of arrests, but giving no conclusion as to whether the person was convicted or exonerated is not NPOV - it is loading the issue. We should check the sources to see what they say, but if no conclusion to an "arrest story" can be found, then the entire story should be removed on a "do no harm" basis. We don't risk leaving a negative false impression that the charge was upheld.--Docg 11:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing in the BLP policy prohibits the inclusion of properly sourced facts about a living person, no matter how disparaging. In your example, the first claim can be included because it is a properly sourced statement from the BBC. The second half of the statement should be removed because it is unsourced, and potentially damaging. -- RoninBK T C 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah this is a huge difficulty, especially when one is faced with an entry like:
Real world example
editAs a professional writer and occasional Wikipedia contributor, I had a troubling encounter when I went looking for information regarding Prem Rawat and found only one link, that to his official web site. I turned my attention to his ministry, Divine Light Mission, and found no external links at all.
After a couple of hours of googling, I turned up sufficient research from other sites to complete my assignment. Willing to share my research, I returned to Wikipedia and attempted to add links I'd discovered, both positive and negative. I was immediately slapped down, and slapped down hard. When I attempted to add links a second time, Will Beback threatened me with a block.
The arguments on the Prem Rawat page was that links that could be interpreted as critical (which included ex-cult support sites and de-programming but also included official web sites), violated WP:BLP and WP:EL rules. On the DLM page, the administrator asserted the links applied to Prem Rawat and not the DLM.
My impression was the administrator, like an old-fashioned sheriff, staked out his purty lil town and no one was going to mess with it. Disallowing links was his way of keeping the peace. In fact, he said, quote: "Only by stripping it down to that single link have we been able to achieve peace", and no links at all on the DLM site.
At no point was any material added to the content of the article, and I had (and still have) no opinion about Prem Rawat one way or the other. In my estimation, I believe WP:BLP and WP:EL policies were misinterpreted and misused. Including official web site links is not expressing a PoV and if including critical links is considered non-NPOV, at least they present a balance.
I felt that if I found the articles useless in my research, other readers might as well. Some may judge I was wrong to press the issue. My conclusion is that it wasn't a zero-sum article, but an article that approached zero worth.