Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

$\star$  This policy in a nutshell:  $\star$

$\star$  The evil that men do lives after them. Be wary of putting it into Wikipedia before then.  $\star$

Archives

Proposal: No Wiki BLP at all if the living person objects. A veto option. No exceptions.

As it is, Wikipedia's policy is partly driven by a morally questionable principle, which is that people who go into politics (even to run for city council or dog-catcher), or who decide to be actors (rather than, say, painters), somehow "agree" thereby to give up major rights to privacy. And therefore don't (and shouldn't) get any. This policy, which has evolved over many years of court cases, has basically come about because the average person has some gossipy interest in personal details in the lives of "celebrities" and has decided that, what the heck, they'll never be on the short end of this anyway, so what does it matter if somebody else gets hurt? Especially if the "somebody else" has money or fame, which are things the average person is jealous about, anyway. Thus the genesis of taboid journalism, and the legal system that supports it.

I don't particularly see any reason why Wikipedia's standards need to be this low, simply because it's legal. I see no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't take the high ground and simply have a policy to prohibit Wikipedia biographies on any living person who objects to a Wiki bio, from the President of the United States, on down. No exceptions. Shocking? No, not really.

I see little reason why Wikipedia as a whole would be greatly harmed by such a policy. Many people, particularly people who crave public attention, would certainly NOT veto a biography (and if they didn't, all the present WP:BLP would continue to apply). So for them, nothing would change. And with such a policy, how many biographies of living people that we really MUST have, would be lost (or more exactly, not available until the person's death)? I think not many. The price is low and the gain is high.

What's the gain? The gain is that Wikipedia treats all people as you would want yourself and your family to be treated. I happen to edit here under my real name, but I'm in a minority. I've made a habit to ask people who support the present WP:BLP policy, who do NOT edit under their given names, WHY they don't. The results are vastly entertaining. Usually they reveal people who simply think loss of privacy should be a concern for other people, even though they themselves regard if very highly. I had one person tell me seriously that they did edit under their own name until they became an administrator and started to get threats, following which they decided that personal information wouldn't be a good thing to have collected on the net. But failed to then take the next logical step and add 2 plus 2.

Hey, folks. Give this some thought. Consider raising the standards of this whole place, and give living Wiki bio targets a veto. And even if they choose NOT to exercise it, continue to abide by the very strict guidelines already in place.SBHarris 04:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A) We're only (or should be only) compiling information already published about the bio subjects. B) The task of verifying the identity of someone asking to have a bio could be difficult. C) The OTRS system, though not publicized, allows anyone but especially the subjects to complain about an article resulting in very careful scrutiny of its contents by a senior editor. D) I don't see any reason why we shouldn't have an article about George W. Bush, even if he objects. Newspapers don't ask the permission before they run stories. E) Dogcatchers shouldn't be considered notable. If we're invading the privacy of non-notable people then that can be handled by simpling raising the notability threshold and enforcing the verifiability standards. F) I appreciate your concern about the privacy of individuals. It is an unfortunate fact that some in some professions (actor, politician, athlete, etc) there is an inverse proportion between amount of privacy and success. Encyclopedia editors are in a very different profession (or hobby), one that until recently attracted little fame. We should all be sensitive to who and what we write about. -Will Beback 05:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm proposing a bio veto, but would not object to one after the fact (ie, you don't have to seek permission in STARTING a bio (provided you have a reference to one that already exists somewhere -- I like that proposed idea a lot, see above), BUT you'd have to delete it, if the subject turns up on Wiki to object. Now, comes the question of how do you verify true identity? Answer: there are several obvious ways, but first let me point out that none of them will likely be used very often. If a person A turns up claiming to be the subject of the bio X, you can default remove it, presuming they ARE. What harm? The only problem you ever have is when person B turns up, saying "Hey, what happened to that nice bio I had? I'm the REAL person X". In which case somebody has to submit a notarized request somewhere. That can be done by FAX and takes 1 hour (I know many package delivery and fax centers with licensed notaries on staff--, but all major banks have one). Only if TWO people do that (fax in notarized requests for opposite actions-- HUGELY unlikely), do you have to resort to original copies. And in that case somebody is breaking the law, and it's a case to refer to the local cops. Which should be fun, because people who do identify theft things like that are a menace, and probably crazy or ciminal or both. If you don't have time for that, I hereby volunteer to handle any case that get that far, and I will make sure that the proper authorities do the proper thing. So you don't have to be bothering about the time it will take. I think the time demands will be very small.

Yes, this would mean George W. Bush could request his own Wiki be deleted. So what? Do you seriously think he would? And what harm if he did? Do you think Wikipedia would implode from the information vacuum if it wasn't the repository of a George W. Bush bio? Lack of one would probably save Wikipedian editors more TIME than this entirely policy enforcement would.

The OTRS machanism allows the subject to complain, but also allows them to be ignored. And I know of at least one case (a cop who shot a serial mass-murderer on a berserk rampage 40 years ago) where the request was denied. This guy merely didn't like the idea that there was a separate bio on him. He didn't object to his name being used in the article on the guy he killed. Lots of relevant bio material could continue to exist on Wikipedia, and this policy would not prevent that. Mentioned as been bio material on band members which is revevant to the band. Or bio material on an actor which is relevant to a particular work (Actor Gert Froebe's history of belonging to the Nazi party prevented the film Goldfinger from being shown in Israel until an Jewish family thanked him for sheltering them during WW II. Etc. But that info apears two places in reference to the Bond book and film, so loss of the Froebe bio (assuming he were living) would be no great loss.

Newspapers do things we shouldn't. Journalists can be SOB's. Dog catchers can be notorious enough to rate an attack article in the local papers from their opponent in the dogcatcher election, mentioning details from their dirty divorce, and there you are. Yes, encyclopedia editors can be a ticklish buisness trying to decide if somebody is "notable" enough to have their birthplace and age published on the Web. But I don't think any of this is really any of their BUSINESS. So I suggest we fix it with policy, so they can get back to what they're supposed to be doing.

Finally, Bill B. Back, why are you not editing here under your own name? Privacy concerns? When the shoe's on the other foot, how conservative people become!SBHarris 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Although it's correct that we should only be publishing material already published, we're making it available in a very accessible format. We had an unfortunate situation recently where a marginally notable figure had a 15-year criminal conviction dragged up by an editor who went back and found the original newspaper stories about it. The subject said that it was ruining his life to have it displayed around the Internet, because his current friends didn't know about it. But because it passed WP:V and he was just about notable enough for an article, the information stayed up, until the Foundation blanked it when he complained.

It would be good to have a policy in place that would mean the Foundation didn't have to keep stepping in and doing our job for us. But tighter enforcement of V wouldn't have helped in this case. Raising the notability standard might have, but how in practise do we do that, and is there the will to do it (given the "Wikipedia isn't paper" attitude)? It would be nice to have some sort of "kindness principle," but I'm not sure there's a will for that either. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a proposal(No first biographies), a few sections above here, that would do exactly what you are suggesting - raise the standard for a article on a person to require that someone other than us has decided the person is notable enough to write about as the central focus of a piece of writing. I encourage you to comment on it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, in large part, establishes the notability of persons based on the availability of reliable sources that refer to them. In most cases that is a good rule of thumb. However court cases are very reliable, by and large. That may tend to give criminal and civil cases, and those involved in them, excessive prominence. However, even if reliable sources are available about them, the hundredds of thousands of crimnals in the world do not merit articles. Perhaps the problem lies with the admissability criminal convictions? This is a tricky issue, no doubt. -Will Beback 08:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No. As long as we're following basic verifiability issues, we're a-okay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, badlydrawn? Where's your last name? Posting here anonymously? But surely your birth name or whatever apears on your driver license, is merely verifiable information? What's your problem with having it here? I ask you to consider this carefully.SBHarris 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've had my full, real name with plenty of identifying info at my userpage for over 6 months now. In fact, I've been in enough newspaper articles in the last few years that I might actually meet the standard policies and guidelines we have here. I don't want or need an article, but I also know that when I put myself out there and allow myself to be involved in newsworthy issues, I don't get to choose how that information is used. If you made an article about me, I shouldn't be able to "veto" it, quite simply, assuming that the article is verifiable. It's not what other people want. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you reverted my deletion of the request, after I noted the above. Still, now that you've commented further, may I suggest that the reason why there's no article about you is not because it's "not what other people want" but merely because nobody has gotten around to it, yet? Sooner or later, as "media" expands, we're all going to have Wiki bios unless we live as hermits in cabins in the Ozarks. And no, I'm not about to research you and post a bio on you against your will, to make a point. Not only is that probably against wiki policy (deliberate nastiness to make a point about how some bad behavior is actually just as nasty as the claimant says it is), but it would also violate my deeply held believe that this is really one of the peaks of incivility--- far worse than calling somebody a dirty name or comparing them to some noxious item. Most of us value our privacy a great deal. The reason you see Entertainment Tonight on TV is that most of us do not value the privacy of our neighbors nearly as much as our own. Office gossip abounds with info most of the gossipers would die of shame of have talked about, involving THEM. This may be the single greatest hypocrisy of modern society. You see the tip of the iceberg of the question here on WP:BLP. In any case, don't kid yourself. Your bio will be "up" one day. I have two acquantences who are both bio'd, and it happened entirely without malace. Person A bio'd the other as an act of semi-complement, putting only lauditory stuff in about his science accomplishment. But forgot to tell person B, who was really pissed, and tried to get it removed, and even more pissed when he got voted down. His response to was to write a scientific bio, full of compliments, about person A. Now they're both unhappy, but have had to resort to nothing more than "when rape is inevitable, at least do what you can to minimize how unpleasant it is." Not a good place to be.SBHarris 19:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought it got removed improperly/accidentally, my bad. Regardless, what I want is irrelevant. If there's enough verifiable material for me to have an article, I can't complain that people are able to use it. This policy bends over backwards to balance privacy with public knowledge, and to say that an article about me would automatically violate my privacy is wrong. I can't really stress it enough - as long as we're not publishing information that isn't public knowledge, we're a-okay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Two points I can't overemphasize myself. One is that "public knowledge" is not a yes,no binary thing. Stuff in your high school yearbook which I can find by going to your highschool and asking the library for a copy (or one of your classmates that year, if they still have one), is "public knowledge". As are the official accident reports if you ran over somebody accidentally years ago, like Laura Bush did. And so on. But when we collect a hundred such items and synthesize them into an easily read article anybody can access at the hit of a key, at home, it's MUCH MORE public than it was. It's also MORE THAN THE SUM OF ITS PARTS. So loss of privacy is not only not a binary thing, but it's an emergent property (or system property) of a collection of dug up facts. Have we not gotten to the point that non-binary logic and system properties are part of general consciousness? Not all things are black-and-white. The sum is very often far more than the sum of its parts--- sometimes shockingly so.SBHarris 19:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm simply trying to understand your side of this here at this point, even though it's unlikely we're going to agree. You're talking about a loss of privacy that doesn't exist. If I ran someone over, was in the newspaper because of a USENET flamewar, said I enjoyed polish loaf on my blog, and was photographed demonstrating against unfair labor practices at the Oompa Loompa factory, that's all public information. Combining it together doesn't make it "more" public, it just compiles it in one place. If it's verifiable, what's the deal? In the age of the internet, especially, there's no such thing as "more public." You either are or are not. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? So if you ARE or you're NOT, when which are YOU? Got to be one or the other, no? Could you please post your home address here and on your user page? It either IS or ISN'T public knowledge. No excluded middle. Love you Aristotelians. SBHarris 21:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Badlydrawnfeff. We need to follow WP:V and rely on the outside world of primary and secondary sources to write things first before we introduce them. As to us publishing things in an easy-to-find place, I think it is easy to forget that we found the info. If we found it, it is likely someone else would have found it as well. There will always be special cases, but for the most part our policies like WP:V are sufficient. Johntex\^talk 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Weren't you one of the people whom I asked why they post anonymously? If not, would you like to comment?SBHarris 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'm happy to comment. If a verifiable media source writes about me and someone wants to make an article about me, that is fine with me. Perhaps they have already done so and my biography is already here? I think that you are trying to draw some sort of parallel between a non-notable editor writing under a pseudonym and a notable person being the subject on an encyclopedia article. They are not the same thing. If someone is notable, they can have an article here, whether they want one or not. If they are not notable, then they can't have an article here, whether they want one or not. It is really quite plain and simple. Johntex\^talk 18:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those who think that we should use more restricitve notability standards for living people than for dead people. This is not a trolling/liability/vanadlism concern. The nature of wikipedia makes it suffer from a systemic bias toward excessive inclusion of recent events and currently living people. This is similar to the concerns discussed under at Wikipedia:Recentism, but more general - that is about specific content within an article, my concern is whether we should have an article at all. It is also a lot harder to have an encyclopedic perspective on currently living people.

I've been thinking about this ever since the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Beesley (3rd nomination), where several people indicated a desire to have tighter standards for living people than we currently do. I like, but have some boundary testing concerns on, the no first biography proposal above. If nobody else has taken the time to write biographical content about someone, it is a good sign that we don't need a biography of them either, because they just aren't that important. I haven't come up with a workable alternative yet. (Only using material first published or republished (not merely still available) 5+ years after the event(s) in question is unworkable in practice, but would address my concern.)

I wouldn't go so far as to say that a living person has a veto right. I'm not sure if we should give them extra weight in AFD discussions. We currently don't. If their argument is that they do not have historic importance, that should be evaluated seriously. If their argument is that they don't want an article for vandalism/trolling concerns, I don't think it should get much extra weight. This policy, in current form, already adequately addresses negative content within an article. GRBerry 15:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me see if I can phrase this to my liking. If there is "biographical content" but no "complete biography", we can take that "biographical content" and nip and tuck it with various other sources which also give *other* "biographical content" on the person to create a full biography. See for example, my recent page on Gus McLeod. I have by no means done an exhaustive search, but I was reading an old Smithsonian and thought he had an interesting article. Of course it did not mention that he was on The Amazing Race because that happened *after* the article. The article was on his other adventures. So I added some more details on a few more recent things. Since that article gave some "biographical content", they found him notable enough, and that should allow us to have an article on him, with updates from other sources. Do you agree with this ? Wjhonson 16:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

While many problems with this proposal have already been brought to light, I will share some more:

• Many subjects of biographical write to Wikipedia asking that the articles be taken down. We get many such requests each day and in general don't comply with them (though there are exceptions when the article is irredemably bad).
• We also get many requests to either rewrite a biographical article to a subject's liking, or else take it down. While again there are cases where an article is so bad that we agree, in general we don't act on these requests. In partcular, many cases involve controversial public figures who don't want NPOV biographies of them to be available. Leaving Wikipedia with a choice between a Bowdlerized biography and none at all would neither serve the public interest nor the goals of the project.
• The best biographies have involved significant expenditures of effort by Wikipedians and it would be most unfair for the labors of the editors involved to come to naught merely because the subject preferred obscurity.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're another anonymous user making arguments against protecting privacy of individuals. Would you like to comment on why you yourself post anonymously?

The goals of wikipedia are far larger than maintaining biographies of living public figures, which they object to the existance of (sorry about that preposition). If we lose those, it's no great loss. What we gain is the unlamented LOSS of many bios we have, of people who wouldn't be nearly as close to being "public figures" if they didn't have a bio on Wikipedia! "Public figure" is not a binary thing, as I've pointed out. I'm floored by the suggestion that our primary concern should be the "unfairness" of loss of the work editors did to make a bio the target is unhappy with, and not the "unfairness" of the fact that the person has had a bio constructed invading their privacy, which they never asked for and do not want! There's enough "unfairness" to go around here. A primary question is "Whose business is all this?" The world used to have a well-developed sense of that whose proper business things were. Nobody knew Rock Hudson was gay, except all of Hollywood. But the public didn't. I think our sense of "fairness" and kindness to public figures died right after the Kennedy administration. Now, if I look at TV, I can hardly change the channel fast enough to keep from finding out that some famous actor's older sister is really his mother, and his mother is really his grandmother. This, I didn't want to know. And I can't fathom the bloodimindedness of whoever made this into public knowledge. What has happened to us as a society. But it's bleeding over into wikipedia, and I hate itSBHarris 20:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why these are problems. If the subject wants it taken down, why not just take it down (and permanently)? If the subject wants it re-written, then why not let it be re-written? (A second re-write request could be considered a permanent take-down.) The business about work ultimately amounting to nothing is something every single editor labours under: where is the guarentee that any of my pictures will be decorating their respective articles tomorrow? I can't know for sure about these un-named editors you mention, but I've spent literally hours in the field obtaining some of these images ... and many times returning with nothing of value to this project. It's the way of the wiki; I've read and understand the little ditty near the bottom of every single submit page here that reads: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." mdf 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Two years ago, a group of german Wikipedians was invited to meet the editors of the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie. It was an interesting visit and we discovered that the production of a professional encyclopedia was not so different from Wikipedia in many aspects and that we had a lot in common to talk about. We talked about our controversial discussions about inclusion of biographies. The answer the Brockhaus people gave us was very simple: "First, the person must be dead." Of course they weakened this rule a bit, to include the Pope, George Bush and Michael Jackson but in general they only include people after their death. If I look at how much damage a wikipedia article can do to a minor notable person, it might not be the worst course of action. --Elian ^Talk 17:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There is one, huge, monstrously huge, difference. We already have 1.3 million (yes million) pages on wikipedia. That German encyclopaedia, if they even approach a ten-thousand pages, I'd say "Wow what a huge encyclopaedia!" So we are already one hundred TIMES larger than any other encyclopaedia. We've left the "they have to be dead" far far behind. Wjhonson 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Because Wikipedia contains already more articles than the 30 volume brockhaus it should be allowed to slander people and ruin their life? --Elian ^Talk 02:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The post I was replying to (direct above mine) stated that the person must be dead. I was responding to that issue alone. The Brockhaus people have a limited resource, we do not. What that has to do with slander I have no idea. Perhaps you do. Wjhonson 06:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So this would mean that if we got word that Osama Bin Laden didn't want a biography we'd have to take it down? Giving people a veto over their own biographies would be a big mistake and would seriously undermine Wikipedia's credibility as all we'd be left with as far as living person biographies is laudatory crap. What do we do when notable or semi-notable figures start saying "I'll only allow you to have a biography of me if you don't mention..."? Our only considerations should be notability, verifiability NPOV and legality. Full stop. Joshua Tree 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Haven't looked, but is your real name on your userpage? If not, why not?

Osama: as if Osama would object to his wiki entry, anway. I don't think wkipedia should be in the position of deciding who's notorious enough to rate a bio. Osama's at the end of the scale, but most people are not. And if by a uniform policy we miss out on bios of living people like Osma, so what? A man that famous is the subject of many web bios and books, so no loss. Anybody only notable enough to have a web bio on wikipedia BUT NOWHERE ELSE (save Wiki mirror sites like Answers.com), is probably having his or her privacy being abused by wikipedia in the FIRST place.SBHarris 20:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• I support this proposal; I've had the same thought myself. And a note to you eventualists out there: everyone dies eventually; we'll have the article someday. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• This is instruction creep and really needless. Right now we have WP:BLP which makes it abindantly clear that normal policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V (from WP:RS) must be applied particularly rigorously. If there are no reliable secondary sources, or if those available are all highly partisan, the biography should be deleted. What the individual concerned thinks is really immaterial unless they can provide evidence that the material "out there" is partisan and NPOV cannot be followed. There are a few people for whom the sum total of verifiable information amounts to maybe a couple of police reports or one story in the paper; I think these people should not have entries. Without a reasonable corpus of secondary material we cannot follow WP:BLP, an existing guideline. No new instructions are required. Just zis Guy you know? 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, zis Guy states things well above. We should not restrict editors to writing only articles that will please their subjects. What other information source does that? How would this raise standards and allow for the presentation of the neutral viewpoint? -MrFizyx 19:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, because if adopted it would greatly shrink knowledge available on Wikipedia and possibly restrict articles on public figures who need close scrutiny (politicans, for example) to only their positive points. It might be fair to allow a "veto" if the article is a "first biography" (as defined by someone else above). In other words, allowing all articles about people who are absolutely public figures, while in any case where the "public figure" status is arguable allowing a veto then. But in no case should a politician or O.J. Simpson or anyone like that be allowed to expect his biography to be deleted at his request.PhilO837 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Another anonymous editor who supports loss-of-privacy. Mind commenting on your choice to edit without using even your real name, connecting your public comments with your public name?

As for the matter of WP:V and WP:NOR your bio article on my life can never be neutral, or truly informed. Nor mine on yours. It's an insoluble problem. Once I've died, my viewpoint can't be accessed, so you're free to do the best you can. Meanwhile, I remain the ultimate expert on me, which you cannot trump. The idea that WP:V attempts to trump the expertise problem in BLP by ignoring it, is a symptom of wikipedia's general problem of not paying any attention to real experts in a small field (like their own lives!) who don't publish. Which truly is a problem. Because there is such a thing as objective truth, even if official wikipedia policy is that there isn't, but only public opinion. Nowhere else but WP:BLP does this stark disagreement stand out so clearlySBHarris 20:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps your can point to the edit where I supported the loss of privacy, in this forum I've generally promoted there being more respect for such things. Yes, I am anonymous, at least for now. There is a lot of detail in the wiki edit history. It is possible to get a sense of one's schedule and so forth. Maintaining some level of anonymity is prudent and I choose to do so. I don't understand your need to repeatedly attack editors for reasonable behavior.

While I suppose that individuals may have better access to the "objective truth" about themselves, they often have good reason not to propagate such infromation. There are many places where the 'pedia needs to be more sensitive to living people, but should we remove the article on say Tonya Harding because she doesn't like the way that she is being represented? No. Should we wait until she's dead? No, she is only 35, and her story is one that has had great impact. Again what reasonable information source restricts itself to only information that its subjects will find pleasant? -MrFizyx 21:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should remove Tanya Harding's article if she doesn't like it. That would mean people would have to read about her someplace else other than Wikipedia, and so what? You may feel that it's a good thing to maintain your own privacy, and that you deserve to have it maintained, simply because you didn't hire somebody to break somebody else's kneecaps. But that's a slippery slope, and we've all done something we're not proud of. Having a Wikibio really IS a binary thing (you either have one or you don't), and I don't think Wikipedia is in a position to be able to clearly draw a line on who is or who isn't "notorious" or "notable" or "famous" or "public" enough to rate one, even if they don't want one. So let us just not go there at all. We can leave Tanya to the tabloids and other websites, and be none the poorer for it. Really. And we gain immeasurably in respect before the world, and immeasurbly in safety for ourselves and our families. The John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy incident hurt Wikipedia badly (how badly can be seen by the fact that the page is locked), and I think worse is to come.SBHarris 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know I haven't hired somebody to break some kneecaps? There are those who characterize the Seigenthaler situation differently, but I'm not sure that I agreee with them either. That page is locked to sockpuppets of banned users, I think we could go edit it if you want to. -MrFizyx 22:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do you intend for it to work in practice? When some guy claiming to be Fidel Castro calls up Jimbo and asks for his article to be taken down, how exactly do you propose that we verify that the caller is, in fact, the subject of the article? Kirill Lokshin 22:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As explained, if Fidel logs in and asks that his bio be removed, we remove it, with a tag stating that Castro has requested it be removed. If we get a second user claiming to be the real Castro who wants it put back, we ask for two faxed notarized notes to a phone number in Florida, and Wikipedia honors the one from Cuba. Time expended, 5 minutes. For very famous people, like heads of state, you might have to START with the request for the notarized notes (or mail from the embassy or State Department Rep or Ambassador, or something). But 99+ % of the 100,000 people wikiBioed, the problem of verifying identity will have stopped long before this. And I can think of other way to do it if you don't like notaries: you can have your bio removed at a cost of 25 cents, fee to be paid by personal check only. Or by credit card, exactly as you'd make a 25 cent donation to the WikiFoundation. Come on. These problems have largely been solved out there. I'm not asking anybody to re-invent the wheel.SBHarris 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just asking for massive abuse from anyone with some free time and a desire to make us look like utter idiots. I guarantee that, were we to do this, we would suddenly find that every head of state, CEO, and major celebrity had not only discovered how to edit Wikipedia, but had, with identically formatted notes, requested that their article be deleted. The real individuals, however, would neither know nor care about this, and would therefore not take the time to ask that these bios be replaced. The outcome: a dramatic—and unneeded—loss of coverage for 20th century personalities. Kirill Lokshin 00:23, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep it short. The electronic world has learned how to work out identity and money transactions, or otherwise there'd be no online banking, stockbrokerages, Ebay, B2B transactions, etc, etc, etc. Your claim is essentially equivalent to saying that the world as we know it, cannot (or does not) work, because identity cannot be verified except by fingerprint. I reject it. I don't even know where my online brokerage is located, and we've been happy with each other for years. It DOES work. SBHarris 03:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you any idea how much working out said identity and money transactions costs? (And it goes up by orders of magnitude as soon as you want to deal with countries where information is not electronically available to the outside world.) Wikimedia simply can't afford to do this sort of thing. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And you know this, how? The Wikimedia Foundation already takes credit card donations and no doubt also bank wire transfers. If they have a minimum, they don't say it. Bank card use companies usually charge as a % rather than as transaction cost, or otherwise it would inhibit small sales. What does the system COST? Ultimatly, how should I know? All I know is that if you use it, you don't have to pay the startup costs. International banking and wire-transfers verification stuff were assembled to fight international terrorism funding, drug-money laundering, and stuff I don't even want to think about. However, it's there available for you to be used for a pitance. As a Gold Club member of my bank, wire-transfers overseas are actually free to me, like my checks. And they identify me pretty well, as my account (like all US accounts) is linked with my social security number as well as multiple layers of password protection. Anyway, don't be telling me the system doesn't work, or is too expensive, or can be used by somebody pretending to be me. It does work. It also works internationally, though I don't know the details (how good are the bank ID systems in Ethiopia or Iraq? Search me). Many other countries also have passports and our equivalent of notaries, who work for fees that are typically small by U.S. standards. If you've traveled and banked in the civilized world, you've used this system, and you didn't have to be rich. And you probably weren't a victim of identity theft unless you did something really dumb. Can Wikipedia afford it? They might have to charge their expense, but it shouldn't be more than a typical overseas bank transaction. Most people really argry about their wiki bios would be more than pleased to pay a notary or the fee for a minimal wire transfer to fix the problem for good (or until they pay the same to undo it). Will this fix the problem for every country in the world. No. But why wait until the policy is implementable everyplace, where it's immediately implimentable most places where international business is done?SBHarris 04:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm, all of that stuff is free for you because your bank is swallowing the price as a cost of doing business with you. It most certainly would not be free for some random non-profit (which is all Wikimedia is) to start conducting such checks. This would be particularly true of trying to verify notarized documents (something which is generally only done in the course of legal proceedings of some form).

Sorry, but you are mistaken. The purpose of a notary is to verify the identity of the person signing the document, and witness the signing (as well as testify that the person knew in general what they were doing). Lawyers do not get involved except in the document creation (which for Wikipedia would be only once), and after that, if somebody thinks some notarized signature, complete with notary stamp and notary license number, is fraudulent. But how often do you expect that to happen? Realistically.SBHarris 07:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

(Not to mention the public relations nightmare it would be. "Get rid of your Wikipedia biography for the low price of $9.99!") Kirill Lokshin 05:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a legitimate problem. The PR alternatives are worse.SBHarris 07:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP only recently became a policy. I think we should first wait and see if this policy helps in practice. I wouldn't mind stricter notability criteria though, although those are not that easy to define, and probably even harder to find a consensus about. But just the fact that someone doesn't want a wikipedia article is not enough reason to remove it. And yes, Garion96 is not my real name, and the reasons for that are obvious for me, which I am not going to explain. Garion96 (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an absolutely awful idea. JzG has explained matters well, but if you want I can give an explicit list of people who would almost certainly not have bios here if they could make this objection and whom we would all agree are notable enough to have bios. JoshuaZ 22:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the discussion. Somehow I missed your birthname on your USER page. Did you forget to add it, or do you like your own privacy? Start your own bio! We'll be sure only to put in well-sourced things about you; hope you don't have skeletons. Your list is welcome, but is likely to be met by me with a yawn. So what if I can't look up O.J. Simpson on Wikipedia, if that also means I never have to worry about looking up, and keeping perpetual track of, the page on anyone in my family, or myself? No contest there, for me. O.J. can keep his privacy, Johnny Depp his, and so on. SBHarris 23:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

"So what if I can't look up O.J. Simpson on Wikipedia..." - Then we have failed in our mission to make the sum of the world's knowledge available to readers. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I just point out that contrary to Sbharris's attempts to cast it as such, there is absolutely no double standard involved in editors wishing to remain anonymous while maintaining that allowing article subjects to veto the existence of articles is a bad idea. There have been a number of cases of individuals being harassed at their home or workplace by editors who for various reasons disagreed with their practices on Wikipedia, and that's in addition to the huge number of other ways publishing personal information of the internet can be a bad thing. In the case of articles, however, the information is already available in public sources; if it isn't then it would be disqualified for inclusion as original research. In any case, the provision of information should always trump other considerations (with the exception of law and the goals of providing a wholly free encyclopaedia). There is simply no condoning removing an article on such a prominent and important figure as Fidel Castro simply because they request it. I would suggest in general that Sbharris concentrate on the issues rather than concentrating on the personal anonymity preferences of those opposing vetos; doing so is bordering on an ad hominem argument. --Daduzi ^talk 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that this talk page has become quite long since it was archieved just over a month ago (37+kB). Brevity is a virtue. If feel Sbharrris's repeated prodding of other users regarding their anonymity suggests that he might take a look at a certian other wikipedia guideline. -MrFizyx 23:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, now. I know there's been the suggestion that editing Wikipedia is one of the most dangerous and nutcase-attracting things a person can do, akin to being President of the United States, and so therefore of course editors might be more careful of their privacy than any Hollywood star (about which we write any verifiable thing we like). However, let me point out that there are many other ways to make nutcase enemies in the world, or even get into business or personal situations in which you don't want your life details immediately available to anybody with cellphone access to Google. And many of the 100,000 people you've never heard of who are bio'd here, are going to run afoul of some situation in which they really don't want their bios available at a keystroke, in 60 seconds. That may include even you, one day. And even if you never touched Wikipedia as an editor, so that's a nonstarter of an argument.

This request of mine is Socratic. It's not intended as ad hominem-- it's intended to make people think. So far, I've only gotten back the arguments which essentially translate to: "Well, I'm anonymous here because *I* am special. For reasons I won't tell you, or due to my high-danger editorical job. But who the *&%$ cares about Tonya Harding or Fidel Castro? Fidel already has security, and if Tanya doesn't, well, too bad." Or perhaps I've missed the gist.

As for what's PUBLIC INFORMATION and what's not, I've never gotten a satisfactory answer to that. Is your home address public? It probably is if you own the property. Those Hollywood Tours of the Homes of the Stars are probably not run with the Stars' consent. Somebody knows where they all live, anyway. Boats go by Bill Gates' house on the lake everyday-- that's the price he pays for his fame. Do you care, or do you hate the man for his money and his Windows? But does that mean YOU want your home address on Wikipedia? Or would you like it be harder to find, even if it's ultimately findable by somebody with some money and time? There are levels to information access ease. I'm heavily arguing against this idea that all information is PUBLIC (like George W. Bush's birthdate), and easy to find, or PUBLIC and hard to find (like your property ownership records). But should you become famous, or infamous, or run for public office, or even find yourself in the news a lot as a commentator, somebody will put in the work to find the hard to find. And it will go on Wikipedia, if you allow it.

I'm finding my case hard to argue, except in the way I'm arguing it. People seem genuinely not to care about other people's privacy, but they always have reason why their own privacy is something COMPLETELY different. How do we show this, except with real life examples? I'm arguing about privacy with anonymous people, and you're claiming I'm bordering on ad hominem. Well it must be a pretty wide border, because I don't even know your names. From my end, I'm arguing with a bunch of electrons on a screen. "Hominem" refers to people. :))) SBHarris 00:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're taking a reasonable example (the privacy of random Joe off the street) and trying to drag it to an absurd conclusion (the privacy of the POTUS). The first is a valid issue, and one which this policy is meant to address. The second is not a valid issue, since genuine public figures (and, gray areas aside, I think we can all agree that there are some people who are undisputably "public figures") are going to want their articles removed not because of issues of privacy—they don't, as a general rule, have expectations of such—but because they don't like the contents. Obviously, this will provoke a negative reaction here, as it's nothing more than on-request sanitization of our coverage. Kirill Lokshin 03:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Dubya's address even has it's own redirect--how unfair? -MrFizyx 04:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So far, I've only gotten back the arguments which essentially translate to: "Well, I'm anonymous here because *I* am special. For reasons I won't tell you, or due to my high-danger editorical job. But who the *&%$ cares about Tonya Harding or Fidel Castro? Fidel already has security, and if Tanya doesn't, well, too bad." Or perhaps I've missed the gist. I feel you've missed the gist. I can't think of a single response you've been offered that would fit that description, would you care to provide an example? I've seen people suggest that there's a distinction between article space and user space, perhaps your difficulty in understanding this distinction is what is leading you to this interpretation?

And many of the 100,000 people you've never heard of who are bio'd here, are going to run afoul of some situation in which they really don't want their bios available at a keystroke, in 60 seconds. That may include even you, one day. First of all, I don't think you get that the existence on articles of people I haven't heard of is a good thing (provided they meet notability criteria and aren't just somebody's great aunt Doris who's a wizard with knitting needles). What exactly is so terrible about providing encyclopaedic information? Or should it only be information people already know? Secondly, if I were to become sufficiently notable to have an article then you can be assured I would not seek to have it deleted. Again, your perception of double standard only exists because you seem to have difficulty comprehending the distintion between article editors and article subjects.

But does that mean YOU want your home address on Wikipedia? Why would my address be on Wikipedia? I'm a non entity, and even if I weren't what could possibly be notable or informative about my address? Would you care to give an example of an article (George Bush and Tony Blair aside) where the subject's address is included in the text of the article?

Haven't look at all articles, but I think since everybody knows where Tony Blair and Bush live, we should start with people who most people don't know the location of. Where's Martha Stewart, for instance? I dunno. Wiki says Bedford, NY. Golly. Wasn't that easy on Google using her name and "address". But if you enter Bedford and her name into Google you get [1] which has the street, housing division, into on names of nextdoor neighbors, and all info from the NY Times, so it's WP:V and subject to sticking in her article, if somebody wants to. Perhaps you could suggest some more names. The whole point is, if it's NOT in wiki but IS in Google (after hard search) it CAN be in Wiki. Which makes it an easy search. See the point?SBHarris 07:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't your efforts perhaps be better spent asking the New York Times to remove Martha Stweart's address, rather than advocating the removal of articles on individuals such as Martha Stewart (a noteworthy person by any criteria) on the basis that said articles could, possibly, be used to find information already prominently published elsewhere? In any case, given that your original question was "does that mean YOU want your home address on Wikipedia?" I'm still waiting for these examples of articles which publish the home address of their subjects. --Daduzi ^talk 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

This request of mine is Socratic. It's not intended as ad hominem-- it's intended to make people think. Fine, you've made people think, you've gotten answers, can you now stop making the same point at every single contributor who disagrees with you? If you object to the term ad hominem perhaps another piece of Latin would better apply to your arguments: ad nauseam.

LOL. That remark actually WAS ad hominem. Congrats on the irony of the month award. SBHarris 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

An ad hominem would be me attacking you rather than your arguments. This I have not done. --Daduzi ^talk 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The anonymous status of an individual in discussion about a policy about specifically identifying individuals and facts of their lives seems highly relevant to me. No different (logically) from a prosecutor soliciting from the person on the stand he was (say) previously convicted of perjury: context counts, and it's good to reflect on the potential biases of those speaking. For example: who is some anonymous guy, from the safety behind their ISP, to say specific things about someone who is not anonymous? The target can't "return fire" -- and doubly so, since the subject of the biography is specifically forbidden from doing so anyways. Is this really fair? Not only is it fair to the subject of the article, but is it really fair to the project as a whole? Consider that later on in this talk page, the leader of this project is talking about the possibility of editors being personally named in libel suits. How would this happen if virtually all of them are anonymous? Is it realistic to expect Wikipedia to suck down the entire liability created by random, unknown, goofballs who speak any falsehoods it publishes? Will it try its best and pierce their veil of anonymity when the shit hits the fan? It is high time to consider not just the immediate, tactical, goals of this project -- the "sum of human knowledge by any means necessary" (or however it is said now) -- but more strategic matters that amount to its survivability to (predictable!) external threat. What do you think the policy changes will be when the "9/11" of lawsuits is filed against WP and a clique of "John Doe"'s? I think it is far better to anticipate them now, work to prevent the threat by implementing them, then to simply wait for failure to occur. By engineering for success, survival is more certain and the responses to failures become simpler, faster. If this means a few people remain undocumented at WP, who cares? If this means (say) the only people allowed to edit such articles are non-anonymous, we should read this as a statement of the seriousness of the responsibility being undertaken, not cry about "wholesale censorship". mdf 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, this discussion is about deleting articles at the subject's behest, not the limiting the ability of anonymous editors to contribute. There's plenty of vaired proposals about that issue floating around (Wikipedia:The overuse of anonymity at Wikipedia and a proposal was the first I could find), none of them getting very far, but if you do feel passionately about the issue your comments might be better suited to those proposals. Secondly, if Wikipedia editors were to be cited in a legal case there are manifold ways that their identity can be readily established (very few people are truly anonymous on the internet) and even if they could not that would not mean the legal burden would instantly shift to the Wikimedia foundation; legal precedent is quite clear on that issue. Finally, and most importantly, there are many policies both in place and being developed which act as a means to combat libelous statements made against individuals, and permitting the wholescale deletion of articles on the subject's say-so would be neither a necessary nor a sufficient tool to prevent libel. Less drastic measures (such as strict inforcement of the WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS policies) are far more effective tools to prevent the spread of libelous falsehoods, and would no doubt be considerably more effective than depending on the subject noticing the libel. In any case, the subject can easily remove the statements as things stand, and if that is insufficient and legal recourse is taken on the basis of the prior existence of the statements then allowing subjects to delete articles would be equally ineffective. --Daduzi ^talk 13:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm finding my case hard to argue, Perhaps you should reflect on that fact.

--Daduzi ^talk 05:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of reasons why an argument may be hard; I'd have a hard time framing it for six year-olds, to pick a random example. Which one would you like to imply? SBHarris 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess one conclusion would be that your current approach, focusing on the desire of some editors to remain anonymous, simply isn't persuasive. Perhaps you should offer a more convincing justification for your advocation of large scale censorship. --Daduzi ^talk 20:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• I generally support the SBHarris proposal, with one reservation. The reservation is there should be an exception if a person is clearly notable beyond any reasonable argument to the contrary. Examples of clearly notable beyond any reasonable argument to the contrary: O.J. Simpson, Osama bin laden, and current and past Presidents of the U.S. In reading this discussion some things pop out that strain belief. Some people apparently take the idea seriously that Wikipedia has a "mission" to collect the sum total of human knowledge on a single website. Hello. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Nothing more. Any grandiose "mission" beyond that isn't attainable nor should it be. Some people also seem to have a skewed idea of what NPOV means, and seem to be operating under the belief that articles must contain a great deal of negative or derogatory information about a person or have a "criticism of *" section, otherwise it isn't "NPOV". Last I checked the N stood for neutral, not negative. There is also the argument that editors who have spent much effort on articles will see their efforts come to naught if articles are deleted. Well, tough. There are thousands of examples every day of editors who spend hours of effort writing only to see their edits instantly rv'd. That's how a wiki works. I don't see why BLPs should be an exception. The approach to sources which favors material on the Web as opposed to, say, books in the library, is a questionable one. This is an example of systemic bias that is rampant on Wikipedia because of its location on the internet. Related to all of the above is another form of systemic bias: marginal and non-notable people tend to get Wikipedia articles about themselves solely on the basis of them holding fringy views, while non-controversial but notable people are less likely to have articles. Sadly, Wikipedia editors tend to self-select from people with axes to grind, who see fit to start articles on people because they don't like something or other about that person. Wikipedia articles wind up being repositories of negative information and criticism of living persons, and create controversies about people where no controversy existed before. I take issue with that whole line of reasoning. Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or is the Wikipedia "mission" to be an all-encompassing repository of gossip and controversy about people, some of whom would rather be left to get on with their lives? And are there some people who have invested so much time in Wikipedia that it has become a "mission" that they take far too seriously, as opposed to a fun and occasional hobby? KleenupKrew 02:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

"The reservation is there should be an exception if a person is clearly notable beyond any reasonable argument to the contrary." How do we come to an agreement about that? Don't we already delete non-notable biographies per a set of criteria that the community has agreed to apply. Are you suggesting a second tier of notability? The examples you have given offer no illumination as to where the line would be drawn. I can see some truth in your description of the selection bias, I'm just not certain that the inclusion of an additional bias for balance would resove this. Also, I disagree with the characterization of All wikipedia authors as having axes to grind, I think you are talking about a very vocal and active (and thus still problematic) minority. -MrFizyx 07:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't have to come to an agreement: external reality can tell us via the proposed "no first biography" rule (see above). These two proposals can be modified slightly and combined into a policy that reduces to:

 if(external_biography_exists) {
     wikipedia_article can exist, subject has no veto
 } else {
     wikipedia_article can exist, subject has veto until an external biography exists
 }

While there are other ways, I look at the above and seriously wonder what the possible problems are going to be. Virtually everyone who qualifies for a biography will land in the first block -- because of the extant biography -- and everyone else has an option to say "no", until some external authority decides they become notable enough. mdf 13:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To some degree the current policy already has this covered. Information (from criminal records, high school yearbook interests, whatever...) is not to go into a bio unless it has been published reliably elswhere. A "no first biography rule" would indeed require criteria. What defines an existing bio, AND how do we debate whether or not an article is in violation of that criteria IF a deletion was requested AND if that request could be varified as originating from the mildly obscure person who is the subject of said biography. This is not so simple as you might like it to be. I think we need to be more patient and see how this new criteria works as it stands. -MrFizyx 14:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am generally opposed to this suggestion. Anyone who's biography contains an error has recourse. If their biography is accurate then they don't need to veto it out of existence. If people want to read the article, then that is some proof of notability. If no one does want to read the article, then the subject has not been harmed by its being avaialble. Johntex\^talk 22:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• I am also generally opposed. I don't see the need to formally give people a means of getting rid of their biographies when our current means of fixing problems seems to work. I also see having to wait for a biography as a big hinderance to writing about people who suddenly become famous, or to people with lots of verifiable information about them who just haven't had a biography written about them yet. JYolkowski // talk 23:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Clause allowing knee-jerk deletions

Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule.

Yes I realize that we want to err on the side of subjects of the articles, but on Ann Coulter for instance, material is being deleted for reasons like "Bad source: Requires registration" without discussion... do we really want to allow knee-jerk reactions to legitimate edits? Can't we just add a clause here saying if you spend 5 minutes on Google and still can't find a source for the disputed negative passage, then you can remove it without discussion? --kizzle 22:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I think the current rule is perfectly sensible. If you want to insert negative information about a living person, particulary information that would be libel if it is false, then you run the risk, personally, of being named in a libel suit, and quite properly so. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of ALL KINDS, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. I take no position on the general suitability of sources which require registration (or a trip to the library). I think that's a matter which depends on several different factors and the overall context. --Jimbo Wales 10:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jimbo for your input. I know you have other things to do, so I'll try to be brief and limit this as my final comment on the matter. Incorporating protection against libel is absolutely vital to Wikipedia, but I wonder if the wording as it stands, especially the "without discussion" part is a bit too strong on the matter. Yes it is meant to strongly discourage unsourced negative material, but why the "without discussion" clause? The editor in mind, who is a fan of the subject of the article, began using a "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Unsourced. Delete immediately" boilerplate, even removing a properly cited passage from Salon.com because it was registration only and he thought it made the subject look bad. But can't we afford the same protections to the subjects by either requiring discussion as we do to non-BLP pages to stem such knee-jerk reactions? I can't see any protections for the subjects being given up by at the very least requiring a simple note placed upon the talk page, or anything else to stem someone from blanket removal of content they don't like, especially for such a lame reason as the source is registration only (though still satisfying reputable, notable, and verifiable). That's all I promise :) --kizzle 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new version:

Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion after spending at least 5 minutes on a search engine trying to locate a source for the disputed passage; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule.

--kizzle 22:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I gather your problem came up due to this edit. Does registration required qualify as "unsourced or poorly sourced"? There may be some problem with interpretaion here. I don't think knee-jerk removals are always a bad thing. Doesn't the information get put back into the article once proper sources are given? If unsourced claims are particularly negative I would rather they be removed than {{fact}} tags were added. Doesn't this lead to a better article in the end? -MrFizyx 23:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not too much of a problem, I just don't see the harm in adding my section above. Lou is a fine editor, but he sees the Coulter article as a "hit piece" on Coulter... therefore any section he doesn't like without an explicit source or even a "registration only" source he just removes. One edit is fine, but I see this turning into a pattern, as his edit summaries now simply have a template "WP:Biographies of living persons. Unsourced. Deleting immediately". Inserting this removes the potential for knee-jerk deletions on articles, and I don't see the addition causing any harm whatsoever. --kizzle 23:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

A potential problem is that one can generate unsourced claims at a rate much faster than 1 per 5 min. -MrFizyx 23:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No. All unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about a living person must be removed. If you have a problem with a particular editor applying the policy wrong then you need to deal with them. This section of BLP was suggested by Jimbo and has wide support. I do not think you are not going to have any success watering it down. FloNight ^talk 23:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Flo, do you think this section does include registration required sources as acceptable for these purposes? JoshuaZ 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If the source is a book that you have to get from a cross library loan, that fact does not make it a "bad" source. The New York Times is a vaild source whether you buy a paper version or register for the online version. WAS 4.250 01:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with WAS 4.250. If you have a reason to truly doubt the source then you should remove it. But this section of the policy is not meant to benefit established users that engage in editing wars by adding another reason to remove material. FloNight ^talk 02:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we somehow reflect what you just said into policy? --kizzle 22:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Your previous suggestion does not reflect what you just said. May I recommend that you introduce a new suggested replacement of text given your new understanding? WAS 4.250 23:25, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I for one would object to any wording which would suggest that web searches are an acceptable approach for determining the accuracy of a statement, as in spending at least 5 minutes on a search engine trying to locate a source. If you search the Web you are very likely to find all kinds of unreliable gossip and just plain inaccurate information from blogs and the like, with the end result that a lot of defamatory statements on living persons might wind up staying in articles when they should be removed. If Wikipedia is to be a reliable resource, there needs to be a lot more emphasis on using traditionally published material (books, and non-ephemeral periodicals) as sources. A Web search doesn't cut it. KleenupKrew 02:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And on the flip side, a web search, esp. on google books, can turn up a lot of well-researched, reliable sources, that would otherwise be overlooked by only being able to visit Podunkville library. Too much reliance would be placed on those editors able to use Harvard Library or the New York Research library to the exclusion of those using google books, or photoimaged copies of DNB or Complete Peerage. This proposal goes way too far to the other extreme. Wjhonson 03:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay, but Google Books isn't a web search, it's a Google Books search. Searching on www.google.com does not turn up the same content as on books.google.com and vice-versa. They're two different things. The problem I see with relying on web searches to justify inclusion of derogatory statements is there are a lot of left-wing and right-wing advocacy sites which can be - and are (unjustifiably, in my view) - being used as sources for criticism about living persons. There are also plenty of reliable sources to be found on the web. I don't think anyone is seriously contesting using the New York Times as a source. But there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I would go so far as to suggest that even if a critical statement can be sourced, it should still be removed if the only available sources are from political advocacy websites of either the left or right. KleenupKrew 03:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the policy is crystal clear, and is a good one. Finding a proper source is the responsibility of the person posting the material, not of the person deleting it in accordance with the policy. Lou Sander 13:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

But a registration-only source is no less reliable than a printed source (arguably moreso, given the facility with which the web can be updated when information changes). Let's not increase our systemic bias toward the new and shiny any further than is strictly necessary. -- nae'blis 17:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with KleenupKrew. The spirit of this policy is exactly about that specific issue. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should require strong, reliable sources for articles about living persons. The Ann Coulter article has lots of very negative things about her, many of them justified by referencing an opinion column somewhere. Some are flaky opinion columns, some are opinion columns in legitimate newspapers, but they are all just expressions of opinion. (Note that the Wikipedia entry for columnist points out that columns explicitly contain an opinion or point of view.) Using such things, IMHO, should be a very infrequent event where living persons are concerned.

I'm also in favor of NOT allowing membership sites to be used as references for controversial information about living persons. Some users disable cookies, so can't get the sites. Some users don't want to give their identifying information to a membership site. Membership sites often impose unwanted advertising on their readers. And, most importantly, IMHO, all those things discourage users from looking at the reference, which may be something entirely different than is claimed by he/she who cites it. Lou Sander 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but using that as a reason to delete entire passages without discussion that rely upon a registration-only source is violating the spirit of this section. --kizzle 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone is missing the point here. As nae'blis says, the onus is very firmly on the person including content to back that content with high quality sources. If they don't, it should, as Jimbo says, be deleted immediately, without prejudice to its being brought back with proper citations or (better) after reaosnable discussionon Talk to determine the best way of presenting that information. Why should we reverse the burden of proof by requiring additional work of people who are protecting the project's best interests? It makes no sense. If it's not stated neutrally and with solid references, it should not stay a moment longer. Jimbo's comments on this are unequivocal. This is not the place to debate the reliability of individual sources, that would be WP:RS. Just zis Guy you know? 19:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Should passages sourced with membership sites such as the NY Times be allowed to be deleted without discussion? --kizzle 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Any wording that shift the burden on the person removing unsourced or poorly sourced material must be avoided. There really is no wiggle room here... if if should take only "five minutes" to come up with a source, let the person who wants the material added to take that five minutes. - brenneman ^{L} 08:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This comment begs the question as to whether a citation to the New York Times is "poorly sourced". It's available online to anyone who joins Times Select or who pays to read that particular archived article. It's available for free on microfilm at many libraries across the United States and, I would guess, some foreign ones. The Times certainly isn't infallible, as it demonstrated in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, but a citation to a Times article is much more substantial than a lot of the stuff that's available online for free and without registration. In addition, there are still these things out there called "books". They're reputed to have some information that isn't available online. JamesMLane t c 23:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sweet, I hate this passage, here's more knee-jerk fun! We now have deletions of a DailyKos post by Markos that is verifiable, a blog by George Stephanopolous hosted on ABCNEWS.com, a blog hosted on NYDailyNews.com written by an editor, among others, all without discussion. Why people? Say it with me, because this passage sucks. --kizzle 22:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is a blog hosted is not the issue, but the poster to that blog and the editorial control of what is written there may be. How is Chris Cillizza, the writer of that blog post? Is he a journalist? Is the blog monitored for fact checking by The Washington Post's editorial staff? Is it an op-ed? These are the questions that need to be asked to assess the reliability of a source for the purposes of including a cite in a BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that's why I mentioned where they were hosted: ABCNews.com isn't exactly going to let anyone post on their official blog. As for your questions, I think given a normal reading of WP:RS, that the NYDailyNews.com blog, written by an editor at NYDailyNews.com, satisfies WP:RS, at least as much as Drudge does. --kizzle 23:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, if ABC hosts a specific blogger-- not a comment on his blog, but the blogger himself-- they are not going to host anything that would open them to libel charges. That sort of deletion is completely inappropriate.

Any somewhat controversial source should be specifically stated. In other words, anyone using Daily Kos or Bill O'Reilly (to take opposite sides of the political spectrum) should have to say, "According to the liberal blog 'Daily Kos'..." or "According to conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly..." but that is quite different from saying the info cannot be used at all.

And if the source is a blogger employed by ABC/NBC/CBS/a credible newspaper and posting on their site, then not even that should be necessary. Those are not self-published. No organization like that will allow potentially libelous material on their site.PhilO837 02:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Blogs are not bad, and some blogs do follow normal journalistic practices. Calwatch 06:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC subpage for BLPs

After noticing several persons and a few questions about persons who may not fit cleanly into subpages "Politics" or "Media, art and literature", and sometimes get put into the default category of "History and geography", I am considering creating an RfC subpage for biographies of living persons. What do the people here think about that? Is there a better place to direct editors looking for input about BLPs? etc. —Centrx→talk • 19:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Maurreen 00:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Should it be just living persons or biographies in general? —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would go for bios in general. Maurreen 02:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Why clog it with dead people? You'll have enough time to spend dealing with lives ones.SBHarris 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "contemporary" biographies could be grouped together for Rfc whether the person is living or dead. FloNight ^talk 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The original point of the question has nothing to do with whether the people are alive or not. Simplicity would call for one section for biographies. Maurreen 15:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A reason for having a "contemporary" biographies might be that historical figures would more cleanly fit into one of the present subpages. Someone who knows about George Washington is going to be looking in the history section Bach in the arts section, but those more history-oriented editors are not going to care about Britney Spears (or...who? who cares), and vice-versa. —Centrx→talk • 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Any idea when a biography RfC subpage might be created? I think it's a great idea! Dreadlocke 16:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Done: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies, [2]. —Centrx→talk • 20:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Beautiful! Thank you! Dreadlocke ☥ 22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Dead links

Somehow the four links that appear at the end of a BLP box have died. They're still there, but they don't work. IMHO they contain some good material. Lou Sander 13:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To what "box" are you referring? -- Fyslee 14:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. The box about "Biographies of living persons" that appears near the top of, for example, Talk:Ann Coulter (third box down). The links formerly took one to some wisdom from Jimbo Wales. Lou Sander 14:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this box may have several versions. I've seen it in this article without images and with drawings of a man and a woman. Lou Sander 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the the same box. You can find it here {{Blp}}, it's been a bit under construction lately. Garion96 (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've checked it on several articles and it seems to be working. --FloNight ^talk 14:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not working at all for me on Talk:Ann Coulter. Neither the main link nor the references at the end do anything. There is an occasional flicker on the main link, but that's it. The same thing happens with the template, but maybe that's how it's supposed to be. This has been happening all morning. I'd appreciate it if you could steer me to some other talk pages where this box appears, so I can check them out. Maybe it's a local problem. Lou Sander 16:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha! What threw me off was calling it a "box." So many things can qualify. I see it's the Template:Blp you're talking about. Yes, it has been edited recently, but the links have been working find from this end. Maybe your ISP has been having some instability? Just a guess....

If anyone can help this problem with instability, please do so. -- Fyslee 18:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This thing is still acting up on me. "Instability" is definitely the word for it. Clicking links sometimes works, sometimes puts the image or the text of the links (the links themselves, not the stuff they link to) in seemingly random places around the template. I'd still like to look at it in some other articles, if somebody can steer me to them. (I'm ignorant about templates, but my gut tells me there's some sort of coding problem in the this one.) Lou Sander 21:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's stable today, but the links at the end are gone. Maybe they were the problem. Lou Sander 16:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Fact tag

Statements of fact are made on this article page, about which no citation is given. These statements of fact are predujical to achieving a certain point-of-view, and therefore should have a citation. Do we not strive to achieve a higher level of excellence on the guideline and policy pages than what we attempt on the article pages? Or should guidelines and policies be based on uncited "facts" ? Wjhonson 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

First, this is Project space. Second, when Jimbo and Danny say these things arrive daily, it is reasonable to believe them: they are a reliable source for this information. Third, the people on OTRS can back it up. Fourth, the precise frequency of complaints is irrelevant anyway: one lawsuit could close the project down. Just zis Guy you know? 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly is this evidence that Jimbo or Danny said this? Where is the evidence that anyone on OTRS or anywhere else "backs this up" ? Wjhonson 19:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Multiple statements about the place, including WikiEN-l. But you missed point 4: the precise frequency of complaints is irrelevant anyway, one lawsuit could close the project down. Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Project space

Following a recent case where defamatory content was posted in an AfD, it seems to me that we should make it clear in the relevant section that this ruloe applies not only to mainspace and talk, but to related debates in project space. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

I've taken the liberty of adding living=yes parameter to the new {{WPBiography}} tag to simplify things. It will include the language for the {{blp}} tag. See Talk:Lance Armstrong for an example. What do you think? plange 02:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

WikiProject Biography has been completely overhauled and reenergized and we are organizing task forces like the military history project. We invite anyone who works on biographies to cast your vote for different task forces. Task forces would get a parameter to our Project banner (for instance: politicians-task-force=yes) and a note would appear that says the article is a part of that task force (see example on military history article), plus having peer reviews and collaborations, and being able to grade articles by class and importance so that the articles can be part of the WP:1.0 project and much more... Come join us! plange 16:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

poorly sourced?

What does "poorly sourced" mean? Can we have some examples?

Justforasecond 15:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, could use some examples. Lou Sander 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• How about rewording it to "unverifiable"? That sounds more sensible. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 15:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• How about "Passages relying upon sources that do not meet WP:RS standards?" --kizzle 15:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Example: "Fred Flintstone, is an animated character from "The Flintstones" (hannabarbara.com). He is known to be a rabid racist (blog entry on isfredaracist.com by anonymous editor). One unreleased edisode has Fred having an orgy with a herd of brontasaurs (secret archives of the Vatican as related on www.conspiracynet.net)"

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary sources. "Fred likes bananas" is just silly and shouldn't be included. "Fred works for Mr Slade" should be part of his biography, but citing almost any episode will do. "Fred was married previously" demands a more exacting source. Wjhonson 16:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What about a reliable source like a major newspaper using unattributed words? I have an article (not an opinion column) where the paper says a particular politician has been described as "underhanded" -- but doesn't say who said so. Justforasecond 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

And what about opinion columns (which, by definition, explicitly include a point of view)? It seems to me that when one uses them as sources for something in an article, one includes their point of view in the article. Lou Sander 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion should maybe moved to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I think we need to establish some criteria to have a "source graduation scale", something a little more elaborate than just realiable/not reliable.--84.223.8.216 13:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to change "poorly sourced" to "sources that fail WP:RS"... anyone object? --kizzle 23:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

sounds good Justforasecond 01:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative information in Deletion discussions

Just checking, does this policy also apply to negative information or personal attacks posted in the AfD (deletion discussion) about a living person's bio? --Elonka 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The policy relates to article and talk namespaces. I would argue that this includes AfDs as well. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would think so too; and the policy does say: "This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia". Dreadlocke 17:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd say just refactor the entire page to history, so it's easily accessible to Wikipedians, but stays away from the Google spiders. But I'm trying to be sensitive to the WP:AUTO guideline, as well as the WP:BLP policy, and I don't have any great desire to stir up a huge controversy. Perhaps someone else could take a look [3] and give me an opinion on whether it would be appropriate to invoke WP:BLP in this case? --Elonka 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and blanked the page. Garion96 (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It was reverted again recently. If you want it blanked, better ask an admin if they agree and let him/her do it for you. Garion96 (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Elonka, you received overwhelming support for keeping the article about you. In my opinion, apparent bad-faith comments reflect badly on the users who said them, not on you. --Zoz (t) 23:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Zoz's statement, but I also see no harm in blanking per your request. Garion96 (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Zoz, but against blanking. There are personal attacks against Elonka-the-editor in that AFD ("abusing Wikipedia", "very tasteless spamming"), but none against Elonka-the-article-subject. In other words, it doesn't say anything bad about ED's personal life or achievements other than as an editor of the Wikipedia. So I don't think BLP applies in this case, or it would apply to every personal attack against an editor. There is harm in blanking, as that 1) makes the article more vulnerable to another attempt at deletion on basically the same grounds, 2) hides our process, which in this case worked, and quite well (I've almost never seen an article kept with that many and that margin of votes before), 3) in general makes us look as if we had something to hide. However, as Zoz writes, this whole episode reflects much more on Danny than on Elonka. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you cannot separate out "Elonka-the-editor" from "Elonka-the-article-subject" since they are both the same person - even WP:BLP itself makes a distinction for article subjects who are editors: "especially when those subjects become Wikipedia editors". While blanking the whole page may not be a good idea, any unsubstantiated and unwarranted accusations, negative comments and other violations of WP:BLP should be removed or retracted in some manner. Dreadlocke 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What is so bad about blanking? Editors can always check the history for the discussion. Casusual readers perhaps can't, but project space is more for editors anyway. Plus, like Elonka said, blanking stops google spiders. Garion96 (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of what's on the page is fine, so there's no real need to blank the whole thing, and just targeting the specific statements that need to be removed makes for a much clearer history for anyone going back to read the results of the RfD. I'd just refactor it to get rid of the problematic statements. Unless the whole thing is bad...but I thought the support for Elonka's article was impressive. Dreadlocke 18:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Patent personal attacks ("User:Example is an evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet") are always removed immediately from discussion pages. In my opinion, everything else should stay. "What is so bad about blanking?" (1) It can become a bad precedent - in the worst case, users could cite this and demand that all negative criticism of them be removed from discussion pages. RfCs and RfArs are filled with negative comments / criticisms, blanking them all would be counterproductive. (2) It may be perceived as a bias in Wikipedia - Daniel Brandt was not allowed to edit out a sentence he didn't like from his bio; IMO long-term editors shouldn't be able to remove negative criticism of them either, even if it's on talk pages and the comment is harsh. (3) Replacing archived discussions with "Courtesy blanking" and having editors to check the page history is against the KISS principle, (4) against transparency, and unprofessional in my opinion, especially when the AfD discussion resulted in "keep" - in favour of the subject. So I think the cons of blanking the page clearly outweigh the pros (no google spiders). --Zoz (t) 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Note the difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll". "Very tastless spamming" is a harsh and probably unwarranted negative criticism but not a personal attack imo. --Zoz (t) 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• I noticed in the past on some articles that I was interested in that were up for deletion some of the voting members made some very disparaging comments about the people some of the articles were about. I thought even then that some went beyond civility by accusing the actors or filmmakers as being the creators of articles etc. Some of these people were insulted and made fun of in other votes for deletion pages. These comments can still be found and are even found on Wikipedia mirrors. I suppose someone who is insulted one day could still have a problem with being trashed on Wikipedia couldn't they? Just wondering what might happen with these older insulting comments during past votes etc. Plank 23:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems one of the subpages I created got blanked, no reason given. If this gets prolific, there'll be smoke... the disappearin' kind. Mdoc7 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

How does WP:LIVING relate to our linking policy

I've been trying to figure this out. I can tell from the policy that statements in an article about a living person which are controversial need to be especially well sourced. But how does this apply to external links? If, for example, an external site makes controversial claims about a living person, there is no official "verification" process I know of for information on an external site. Does that mean the link has to be to a site which is a reliable source in and of itself? Or is there some other rule of thumb? This is also a practical question. I'm involved in a dispute about a link to a site which claims (ambiguously) to be written and maintained by a specific famous person. What's written there is not stunningly controversial, but it does effectively link a large body of written work (the site contains fiction) with a known, published author, and contains a few offhanded "personal" remarks -- I believe the guy says his agent is worthless, for one. Is there a specific way I should interpret WP:LIVING as it applies to information on external sites? -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 22:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

In general the same rules would apply for external links as content. Remember there is also a WP:EL policy that discourages links in favor of written content. the EL to each article needs to be determined on an individual basis, of course. --FloNight ^talk 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The link is in an appropriate place and not replacing real content -- it's in an external links section -- but it would seem the link I've described about is probably not usable in this case, since it fails to be verifiable. I ask in part because I've seen a lot of external links appear to be to fansites and similar; those seems to be generally considered okay even if they have a fair amount of questionable information, but the situation I'm dealing with now seems a bit more "controversial" than that instance. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 23:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

We have WP:EL that advises on what to link and what not to link, but I would argue for extra caution when assessing external links in BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if anyone wants to look at the specific situation, it would be incredibly helpful. The article is Stephen Colbert. I haven't been able to attract very much editor attention on the article's talk page, but the reverting situation is rather out of hand, and I don't exactly know what to do. -- (Lee)Bailey^(talk) 03:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That link looks like a joke site to me. Just use reasonable judgment. This policy is about protecting the innocent...and protecting from lawsuits.[4] Justforasecond 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Editor comments

On the subject of removing unsourced negative comments about the subject of an article, would this strongly worded negative comment about the subject’s mother fall under that policy? [5] Or is that just "opinion"? I asked the editor to source it or remove it, but my request was ignored. [6] (second paragraph). Dreadlocke 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

public actions by public people

I suggest we need to explain that we are not limiting the analysis of public figures. Say:

This policy does not limit editors' analysis of the public actions of public people, such as politicians. If reliable sources indicate that action X has the specific results Y and Z, the article should state that reghardless of whether or not that can be construed as a criticism of the subject. (If other sources, also reliable, deny Y and Z that of course needs to be mentioned as well.) It is much better to explain the controversy than to not mention it. Rjensen 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This policy does not restrict criticism that is based on high-quality references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A compromise on DOB

Perhaps a month of birth as well as a year of birth would demonstrate that the author "knows what they are talking about" w/o revealing an exact date. -- 75.24.109.203 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To preserve NPOV

If negative information must be very carefully sourced (understandably, to prevent libel), positive information should have the same restrictions. Someone will say "but it's just the negative that can lead to libel." True, but to keep NPOV if you limit negatives you must also limit positives likewise. Someone else might say "But it's negative info that can be hurtful to the subject." Again, NPOV is more important.

I understand restricting negative info to force careful sourcing, but then the same must be done with positive info.PhilO837 00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Furthermore, I think that instead of removing the supposed "poorly" sourced negative (or positive) text, we should attribute it to the source, using the formula: "according to X..." --84.223.8.216 13:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC) Similar points are made by user Rjensen above, I think we can merge the discussions.

So this is NPOV?

Up at the top of this page, "Speak ill only of the dead" is a NPOV? (Selah...) Newspapers/magazines don't do that, but on the other hand- Time's done it with Hitler and Hussein. Oh, that's right-- Hussein's still alive. Mdoc7 17:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if "speak ill only of the dead" is a proper way of putting it. So can we now lower the bar for Kenneth Lay since he's dead? Wouldn't his family have something to say about it? Being dead does not necessarily protect from libel. Descendants of famous figures could protest too. I'm sure Martin Luther King Jrs.' descendants would not be too happy if negative poorly sourced or unsourced material was put into his article. That term might need to be rephrased. MrMurph101 20:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your premise is quite wrong. It is a well established legal truism that the dead cannot be libeled. Libel involves actual harm due to false damage to one's own reputation. MLK's family has a financial interest in his "legacy" but if it is protectable by civil suits, it has to be under some other theory than libel.
--Jerzy•t 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer, but I think my point still stands. Libel may not be the right term for those not living but "speak ill only of the dead" is still not the best phrase to use. Even taking legalisms away, it seems to go against wikipedia's guidelines. MrMurph101 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

proposed policy change

seeing as no one seems to be able to define "poorly sourced" (see discussion above), i propose we either

1. ) remove this wording from the policy or
2. ) define this more clearly

any thoughts?

Justforasecond 01:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Poorly sourced means that the sources provided are not reliable enough to warrant their use. In an article about a non-lving person, we may allow sources that are not pristine. That is not the case in biographies of living people, for the reasons explaind in the policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The danger with trying to define it, JFAS, is that people will seek loopholes. Probably the only rule of thumb we should have, with negative material about BLPs, is "if in doubt about the source, remove the negative material." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Subjective labels

How should we address the labeling (most often political) of a particular subject? If a person describes themselves one way but is regarded differently, perhaps even in contradictory fashion, by many others, what is the proper way to address this? Should we even use them? Should we just cite the subject's self-description or include that and add what others say also? I personally think the labels should go entirely unless the subject's notability revolves around these labels. For instance, it is obvious that Ann Coulter is conservative and does not like liberals and that can be easily verified. However, Michael Moore may be liberal and may criticize conservatives but does not use these labels as overtly as Coulter does. Also, Bill O'Reilly describes himself as an independent but is generally regared as conservative by others.

All that said, what I am asking is if there is a clear policy toward this? MrMurph101 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you answered it. In your example, Bill O'Reilly's view of himself is sourcable. "is genrally regarded as conservative" would fit under weasel words. There are sources for these labels. If the New York Times calls Ann Coulter conservative, then the label should reflect the New York Times views and attirbuted to the New York Times. But if it's a vague "most people regard Ann Coulter as conservative" it should be avoided as an example of weasel words. Generally the label should be sourced and attributed to those believing it. Otherwise the label should be avoided. --Tbeatty 08:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe I understand. Just use direct, sourced statements and avoid generalizations (weasel words). MrMurph101 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Info about living people on non-biographical articles

Probably a note should be made in this policy page about information on living people that is written outside the main biographical article. Take for instance list of people with epilepsy and other similar articles/lists. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 09:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I have already suggested a change in the BLP template to reflect this matter. So far no one has commented. Please feel free to cast your "vote" there. -- Fyslee 10:13, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As Fyslee mentions on that other page, this is already covered by the line:

"These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles."

in the opening section. Perhaps you think it worth highlighting some more? Colin Harkness°^Talk 10:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it could use a little extra attention. While biographical articles work as magnets for those who are detractors of the person in question, it should be emphasized that Wikipedia doesn't have a double standard, where libel and other problematic edits are not allowed in a biography, but are allowed when slipped into other articles. There are already such problems regarding Stephen Barrett, where statements outside of Wikipedia, which are contested in court by Barrett, are placed on Wikipedia as another venue to libel him. -- Fyslee 11:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on Reliable Sources

The page says:

"Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject"

I'd like the "newspapers" and "websites" items clarified. The current wording gives the impression (to me) that all newspapers and websites should never be used. Also, why are we repeating text from Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Colin Harkness°^Talk 12:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree -- this policy should be changed to refer to reliable sources where possible. Justforasecond 14:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The keyword here is self-published. Self-published websites, blogs, etc. and not considered reliables sources (as per WP:RS. In this case, these cannot be used on a BLP unless written by the subject, and that with caution. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the English is ambiguous. It is not clear that you should prefix "self-published" before each of these words. Also, I don't think "self-published" is a useful term for a web site. Many web sites are self-published from corporate down to individual. The term is only useful for books. For web sites, the Reliable Sources page uses the word "personal".

I really don't see why this policy needs its own Reliable Sources section if the guidelines on people and sources are already covered in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Colin Harkness°^Talk 15:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. --kizzle 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

A forum-site is set up to discuss a person, and has a section containing scans of old city newspaper articles, many of which contain negative statements about the person. An editor wishes to use the above policy text to exclude any link to the scans of original documents (and any link to the forum site) from a bio article on the person here. Common sense would say the policy text refers to attack-essays, not scans of original documents even if they are from "obscure newspapers" and only available on the web at a partisan forum/blog. Is this correct? (I believe the newspapers are archived at the public library of the city, so they are available with some difficulty off the web, if that matters.) Gimmetrow 04:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How to write a bio

1. Spend several hours writing it, including your references from neutral, verifiable, reliable sources.
2. Mail it into the Wikimedia Foundation office for approval by counsel
3. If approved, post a copy of the article to this talk page, along with proof of approval by counsel.
4. To save time, recommend one of the following options:
   1. That it be deleted because the person is alive, and they might not fancy it.
   2. That it be deleted because the person is dead and they aren't interesting anymore.
   3. That it be deleted because they are dying, and we don't have a date of death yet and anyway see option 1
   4. That is be deleted because they are being born, and we only have the name and date of birth and we can't possibly mention when they were born in case they don't fancy it and anyway see option 1.
   5. That it be deleted because it's about a person and they might not fancy it.
   6. That it be not deleted, but blanked and sysop-protected (on pain of admin death) because they and/or their lawyer doesn't fancy it.
   7. That it be not deleted, but truncated and sysop-protected because they and/or their lawyer doesn't fancy it but obviously we should have an article about them and because hey, why not sysop-protect something when you can — it's a wiki, after all.
5. Be aware that anything you add to the article might somehow in some universe under some linguistic system with a certain punctuation be construed as non-positive about the person and removed an infinitely large number of times.
6. It is generally better if you don't write an article about a person. They might not fancy it.

-Splash - tk 23:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

(stands up and applauds). Considerations for slander and libel are important, but I fear we are way closer to the censorship end of the spectrum. --kizzle 23:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are willing to indemnify the Foundation's liability, then I withdraw all objections I have made on these pages. But I doubt you are. This is why I think that it's more important to squelch a bunch of marginally notable biographies, and offer real dialog to the remaining subjects (if they choose) ... if it reduces the likelihood of this project being sued out of existence. Engineer for success, not failure. mdf 14:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC

Why the sarcasm, Splash? Do you have any suggestions on how to improve upon this policy or its application? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a "no discussion" clause to removing negative information? How does that help in any way indemnify the Foundation's liability? Is it really necessary? By not having it, do we really place ourselves in any more jeopardy? Also, is it really necessary to delete entire pages along with the history and ask the editors to put the page back together with proper sources? This policy is definetely not perfect, nor close to it. --kizzle 10:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(Probably stepping into a wasp's nest) I think it means "Remove without asking on the talk page beforehand". Basically it seems to be a matter of reducing the time between noticing its negativeness and the committing of the edit that removes it down as close to 0 as possible. I can't imagine why you wouldn't want to discuss it with the original add-er or on the talk page (See below this for an idea of mine). 68.39.174.238 15:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See the knee-jerk section above as to why I want people to simply place a note on the discussion page before they remove the info. --kizzle 18:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Interpreting Poorly sourced materials/whats negative

This official policy states: "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. "

In practice this means that what is considered "negative" or what is considered "poorly sourced" will be left to the interpretation of an administrator when he reviews your 3RR violation report and that enforcing this policy in good faith can get you blocked, so there is no exception. --Paul E. Ester 03:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: "people" rather than "persons"

Why don't you change the name to Bios of living people? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you want to use "people" rather than "persons"? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Argentino, but "people" sounds more like normal speech. -- Fyslee 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living people already redirects here. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Persons is more accurate to what this is about. It is not about mass people in general, it is about specific persons, severally. —Centrx→talk • 11:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

severally appropriate :) Mdoc7 22:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion on preventing related misuse

I suggest that some section be added under "Remove ..." about how to discuss a disagreement of whether or not a source is reliable, something like this:

If you disagree about the legitimacy of a source used to back up an assertion, err on the side of caution and leave it out. Find the remover's talk page and ask them about their concerns. If they doesn't work, consider asking other's opinions on the talk page of the articel. If the disagreemnt continues, see WP:DR.

Mainly what I'm concerned about is a PoV/revert/edit warrior looking at the 3RR exemption and deciding to try and defend their warring by claiming that their opponents were "posting unsourced negative material", similar to the way some past pushers have by claiming their opponents were "vandalizing". I'm not seeking a change to the policy itself but the supporting framework to so everyone understands this can't be used to justify repeated reversions without discussion. 68.39.174.238 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Privacy of birthdays

I would like to question the rationale behind the whole "Privacy of birthdays" section. See this publication by The Florida Bar (Wikipedia.org is hosted in Florida):

John A. Bussian and Paul J. Levine: Invasion of Privacy and the Media: The Right "To Be Let Alone" (Updated August 2004)

This makes a very interesting read for a lot of topics discussed on this page. Quote:

While there are few clear rules, there are some guidelines as to which "private facts" normally should not be subjected to public view. The following list contains several trouble areas which give rise to potential liability:

1. sexual relations;

2. family quarrels;

3. humiliating illnesses;

4. intimate, personal letters;

5. details of home life;

6. photographs taken in private places;

7. photographs stolen from a person's home; and

8. contents of income tax returns.

Restatement (Second) of Torts Section 652D, comments (b), (g) (1977).

Likewise, it can be stated generally that matters of public record are not considered private facts and may be published freely:

1. a person's birth date;

2. the fact that a person is married;

3. military record;

4. admission to the practice of any trade or profession;

5. occupational licenses;

6. pleadings filed in a lawsuit;

7. arrest reports;

8. police raids;

9. suicides;

10. divorces;

11. accidents;

12. fires;

13. natural disasters; and

14. homicide victims.

Note that this refers to the first publication of such facts and makes no assumption about the notability of the person in question, whereas on Wikipedia we have WP:BIO and WP:RS as severe additional restraints, of course.

The only motivation for the "Privacy of birthdays" section seems to have been the fear that exact birth dates could be used for identity theft. While by now we have a lot of examples for the kind of damage that the other sections of WP:LIVING are designed to prevent (slander/libel, harassment if home or business addresses are published, etc etc), I am not aware of a single instance where the subject of a Wikipedia article has been the victim of identity theft because of his/her birthday date having been published on Wikipedia.

On the other hand it has been claimed that exact birth dates are of no encyclopedic value. I strongly disagree. Numerous arguments can be made that the exact birth date is relevant for a biographical article (for example, they are the basis of legal age limits which have a profound impact on a person's life). It is a venerable, century old tradition to record the exact birth date in biographies and remember them as anniversaries, see for example Chambers Book of Days. In the western world, birthday anniversaries have long been matters of great public interest and become relevant events themselves - example for today: Fidel Castro turning 80 being the topic of about 4,050 media reports according to Google news. Often they are not only triggering media reports, but also political developments, cultural events (how many Mozart evenings have been held on January 27 this year world wide?), scientific conferences and literary publications, etc. On de:, a biographical article is featured each day in the "selected anniversaries" section on the main page . Encyclopedia Britannica is doing the same, see the "Biography of the Day" on britannica.com (today it is Alfred Hitchcock, because he was born on August 13).

regards, High on a tree 23:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Information such as birthdays is relevant information, as long as it is properly sourced. If a birthday was published on the subject's web site, celebrated by the subject on radio or television, published in a newspaper article or profile about the person, or in court papers for the person (for example, if the subject was a defendant in a criminal trial), then that is relevant. I would object to digging out birthdays from birth and death records, from web sites like ZabaSearch and US Search, and from corporate records that are not publicly available.

On the other hand, Wikipedia should try not to be the first publisher of fact. The Florida Bar only makes a case that one should be careful when discussing items such as family quarrels, sexual liaisons, and tax returns. If a subject releases their tax returns to the public (as part of a political campaign, for instance), that is a relevant primary source. Wikipedia should not report first hand observations of person A having an affair, however, if details of person A's affair is published in a newspaper or magazine with normal journalistic standards, then that certainly should be included. If someone has a "humiliating disease" which is a "open secret" in that community, Wikipedia should wait until that is published somewhere else before exposing that information. Calwatch 00:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Academic biographies

...I have decided to turn this issue into an essay at Wikipedia:Academic and artistic biographies. Please see its talk page for the thread that started here, but that I move over to there. LotLE×talk

BLP alert

How do we get some of the experts here to take a look at an article that a) some have wondered if it's even notable and b) has some potential violations of the BLP policy? The article is Barbara Schwarz and I only found out about it because someone alerted us to this problem over at WP:WPBIO... plange 02:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WHile the article itself is well sourced, I think the notability claim is fairly dubious. We don't have articles for every single Usenet personality, and three articles in the paper does not make an article. She never got heard by the Supreme Court, nor was she ever sanctioned with the vexatious litigant label, from my research. Calwatch 04:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It was NOT really well sourced. The main source was and still is a questionable article by the Salt Lake City Tribune. The reliability of the SLCT article is debateable. Then next most used "well" source is USENET postings by Barbara Schwarz. Reliability has been a focus of the dispute. Yes, notability is in dispute and has been a main focus of discussion. At first the main claim to notability was poorly sourced claim of some kind of world or U.S. record of the most FOIA requests. Then the claim of notability was Barbara's past position as a church leader. I'm arguing that notability is regarding the violent deprogramming of Barbara Schwarz by Cyril Vosper and the involuntary psychiatric treatment/incarceration of Barbara Schwarz as a former church leader. Barbara Schwarz claims to have references (scanned court documents, etc), however she is blocked and therefore no way for her to provide them directly to Wikipedia. Apparently several people are in email contact with her and working on getting these scanned documents uploaded to Wikipedia. Also those docs are in German, so they're going to have to be translated first but I don't think that will be any big obstacle with things such as Google babelfish (a free translation tool). --HResearcher 13:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what you said, I just looked at the article and it has a number of distinct notes. Those are each sources as well. Wjhonson 15:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just got another alert from someone about Fred Phelps which has now moved to FARC plange 22:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Concern over implications of this policy

Over at the Talk:George W. Bush page, a bit of discussion evolved regarding how this policy seems to imply that any poorly sourced or unsourced negative material about a living person must be deleted on sight, but the same isn't true for poorly sourced or unsourced positive material. This implication leads to contradictions with WP:V and WP:NPOV, so I'm thinking that we should put something into this article clarifying it. Perhaps another paragraph stating something along the lines of, "This policy is not an excuse to delete poorly sourced negative material about a living person while not similarly deleting poorly sourced positive material." ---DrLeebot 12:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference... This policy puts the emphasis on the "immediate removal" of negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, for obvious reasons. "Positive" material does not carry the harm (and the possible negative consequences) that results from a malicious edit. "Positive" material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, can be challenged and deleted as per WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

So it's really not a concern for the actual truth on these pages but rather our liability as an organization? I think he has a point, if it is ensuring accuracy on pages of living people, then there should be no double standard between poorly sourced information that is both positive and negative. --kizzle 21:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no double standards. Unsourced or poorly sourced positive information does not defame a LP. Accuracy in articles can be achieved by applying our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative poorly sourced info: deleted without discussion, exempt from 3rr.

Positive poorly sourced info: per WP:RS deleted with discussion, not exempt from 3rr.

--kizzle 23:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a double standard. It's one policy for poorly sourced defamatory information in a LP bio. It's applied to each LP bio equally as a uniform standard. --Tbeatty 23:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, so this policy is concerned more about liability than accuracy. --kizzle 23:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

No, this policy is concerned about publishing inaccurate information. Almost every publishing house has editing standards and they are uniform, just like this one. Untrue negative information causes harm to the person it is written about. Therefore, there is uniform standards applied to living persons about negative information. It isn't about liabilty of the publisher, but damage to the person being profiled. Positive information should also be accurate but because their is no damage, there is no urgency. Think about it this way: If you know your roof leaks and it's raining, you do something immediately (because it's negative). If you know your roof leaks and it's sunny (i.e. positive), you do the most efficient and economical solution to fix the roof. In both casues you fix the roof. --Tbeatty 00:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it OK?

Hi.

A weird question, and possibly not completely related to this particular topic, but nevertheless prompted by it: You say that any sort of "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" "negative" (or ANY "speculative" unsourced articles regardless of topic (!)) articles about living people with no NPOV version must be deleted immediately by an administrator. The question is: what if I wrote such an article, it gets deleted (and protected), then I remake it under a slightly different title to defeat the protection, only this time citing reliable, verifiable sources, and it's from a neutral point of view (instead of just negative-only "bash 'em" comments)? What would you do? 70.101.145.181 08:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Protection is used much more rarely than deletion, only in cases where the article keeps being recreated as vandalism or with identical content as deleted. But if an appropriately sourced article can be written about the subject, it should be written, and I'd support a petition to move it to the appropriate title. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. 70.101.145.181 20:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"Conspiracy theorist"

Seems that Striver (talk · contribs) is arguing that labeling people as "conspiracy theorists" is pejorative, and such labels (if uncited) violate the WP:LIVING policy. See [7], [8] and the discussion here [9]. Thoughts? Not a dog 11:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP may apply, but I would argue that material that is not sourced from a secondary and reliable sources, and that is not attributed to a significantly held viewpoint, has no place in any articles, BLP or not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the views of the people (see also Kevin Barrett and Steven E. Jones) have gotten plenty of coverage from reliable sources, and in the case of James H. Fetzer, the subject of the article has also even weighed in on his AfD, which is snowballing towards Keep by a landslide. rootology (T) 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

On the narrow point, Striver is certainly correct. "Conspiracy theorist" is without question a pejorative term. Unless the characterization is essentially a universal consensus, it doesn't belong in the lead (and there are enough of the "9/11 conspiracy" folks that no such consensus against them exists... as nutty as I find them personally). The correct way to handle such a thing is to find an actual reputable citation of some other person calling the bio'd figure a "conspiracy theorist", and generally defer that until after the lead. So, e.g.:

Jane Jones is professor of such-and-such, and a prominent advocate of the position that John F. Kennedy was assasinated by extraterrestrials. [...after lead...] According to Sally Simmons, "Jones' book is rampant conspiracy theory" (Simmons, 1989).

It should not be WP editorial position to characterize anyone in such a pejorative term (no matter how accurate), but presenting outside characterization is OK. LotLE×talk 15:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. rootology (T) 15:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Occasionally such "X says Y is a conspiracy theorist" can be problematic. Consider Alex Jones. A large number of people describe him as a conspiracy theorist[10] (not all google hits are unique, vast majority are not reliable sources, many matching pages say "Alex Jones is NOT a conspiracy theorist, etc). If you pick one or two reliable sources from those the article ends up reading "there are two people on this planet who think Jones is a conspiray theorist". That somewhat obscures the real state of affairs... If you pick a few dozen quotes in the hopes that the reader gets the picture the article becomes unwieldy. Add the inevitable battle of counter-quotes saying the person is not a conspiracy theorist. Some conspiracy theorists really are known primarily because of their professional conspiracy theorizing. Weregerbil 11:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A working example

Steven E. Jones is a good working example of this. Review the recent editing history--should the conspiracy theorist phrase be in the lead, and is the sourcing appropriate? rootology (T) 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to get involved directly in that particular article, but I find the phrase "9/11 conspiracy theorist" in the lead jarring. It is plenty to say, in the next clause, that he is "co-chair of Scholars for 9/11 Truth". Moreover, the second paragraph of the lead starts with "Jones is also investigating the hypothesis that the World Trade Center Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by pre-positioned cutter charges"... which looks fine.

Now sure, you and I might agree that that group and that hypothesis amount to "conspiracy theory". But it would be much better to let readers make that judgement themselves rather than force-feed that interpretation. The first use of the phrase is accompanied by a footnote, but I feel that explicit reference to the footnote source after the lead would be a better approach. LotLE×talk 16:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's my take after trying hard to get these articles NPOV'd. It shouldn't be rammed down the readers throat, and that's why I'm looking for clarification. To paraphrase another editor, let the article speak for itself. rootology (T) 16:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theorists" may be slightly pejorative, but it is not libellous. There is no better term to describe those who work with conspiracy theories. -Will Beback 23:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just remove conspiracy theory. No bruised feelings, no POV, no libel risk. I'm sure he doesn't think of himself as a "conspiracy theorist". Justforasecond 23:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no rule that says we can only describe subjects as they see themselves. If we have reliable sources that call a subject a "conspiracy theorist" then there is no reason not to include that characterization in the article. -Will Beback 01:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that "lobbyist" is also a slightly pejorative term. Shold we only use it for those who self-desribe as lobbyists? -Will Beback 01:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry.... Justforasecond 01:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback is simply mistaken about the above claim, at least in a US context. Lobbyist generally have to legally register as such, and such registration is about as objective as one can get (it either happened or it didn't). Someone who "lobbies" without registering as a lobbyist should not be called a lobbyist in the lead; but it might be fine to later say that they were "described as a lobbyist by So-and-so". In any case, this guideline absolutely does not call on editors to make correct legal judgements about what is libel (here Will Beback is probably wrong too, but I'm not a lawyer, nor especially Stephen Jones' lawyer): it calls on removal of derogatory or negative information (under certain circumstances, i.e. not well cited). LotLE×talk 02:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The instances which we're discussing involve properly sourced accusations. If someone has been called a "conspiracy theoris" or a "lobbyist" by reliable sources then we should not be prohibited from using those terms just because a person does not self-describe using those labels. -Will Beback 03:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, it's pretty clear that Will Beback has an agenda. This agenda is to clutter up articles on living persons with negative, derogatory material and negative labels such as "conspiracy theorist", "anti-immigrant", "cult leader", "pseudoscientist", "pedophile", etc. His Wikipedia philosophy is that every article on any living person should have a "criticism of *" section in it. It is long overdue that Wikipedia is finally adopting some firm policies against using biographies of living persons for libelous purposes. Will, repeat after me. Biographies of living persons should contain no negative or derogatory content whatsoever. None, nada, zilch, zero, zip. No "criticism of" section, no derogatory labels, no derogatory categories, and no left-wing or right-wing partisan political advocacy websites as critical sources (*including* the SPLC). If you don't like it, find some other place to push your POV. 70.108.123.98 02:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[rm personal attack] Where do you see that Wikipedia biographies should contain "no negative or derogatory content whatsoever"? According to that scheme we couldn't even call a convicted murder a "murderer". -Will Beback 03:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there very many convicted murderers notable enough for an encyclopedia article? If their only claim to fame is being a convicted murderer, unless a particularly infamous one, they probably don't rate an encyclopedia article. If they are well known for some other reason a murder conviction can be included in the article in this way: (example) "In 1997 so-and-so was found guilty in such-and-such court of second degree murder and was sentenced to x years". 70.108.59.156 10:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should work on a simpler question: if a negative item isn't the ONLY thing they're known for--for example, John Wayne Gacy is only known for being a serial killer, really, so that should go in the lead--should anything with a negative tone, connotation, or implication go into the lead section? I say no. John Wayne Gacy "was an American serial killer" is the first sentence--he's known for that alone. For other people, I feel that anything "negative" shouldn't go in the lead. rootology (T) 02:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedias just don't put negative things into the leads of biographies, with the occasional exception of people who are known only for negative things, such as John Wayne Gacy. In fact, encyclopedias don't deal very much at all with negative material about the people they cover. When they do deal with negative things, they do so with extreme care and caution. Lou Sander 02:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Negative information should go in the lead if it is important. Wiki is not a fan club and should not shield the users from well-known facts. Rjensen 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is not a fan club, it is (or is trying to be) an encyclopedia. You can look to other, better, encyclopedias for what that means. None of them are fan clubs, either. Nor are they "let's find citations for all the negative stuff, and put it in there" clubs. Is Wikipedia one of those? Look around and make up your mind. Lou Sander 04:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is sourced then it can be included, but lets not kid ourselves -- "conspiracy theorist" is a smear. The current phrasing is better -- "He is best known for questioning the standard accounts of the September 11th terrorist attacks" (though I'm not sure about "best known"). Another thang to remember is that there are huge numbers of people, especially muslims outside the U.S., to whom 9-11 "conspiracy theories" are known as "the truth" Justforasecond 04:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If we're discussing an individual article we should do so on its talk page. "Conspiracy theorist" is not necesarily a smear. Some folks, such as Alex Jones, make their living theorizing about conspiracies, and we quote from them extensively in our articles on various conspiracy theories. If they aren't theorists about conspiracies then we should remove their citations from those articles. We can't have it both ways. -Will Beback 05:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "conspiracy theorist", when used as we use it (for example in the category conspiracy theorists) is not smear; it's just calling a spade a spade. I can't think of a better term to call these people, if those who oppose the term can suggest one, it would make their case more tenable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a theory about 20 guys that got together in secret and planned illegal activities (crashing planes into buildings). Does everyone who believes this theory become a "conspiracy theorist"? Justforasecond 15:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This issue has been settled at Conspiracy theory. If a conspiracy is proven to exist, in a court of law or otherwise, then it is no longer a theory. -Will Beback 19:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Questioning 9/11 is not the same thing as promoting conspiracy theories about it. If someone says "I don't believe the official accounts of 9/11", they are not a conspiracy theorist. However, if someone says "I think the CIA engineered the whole thing", then they are. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pejorative

So, now that it is established that "conspiracy theorist" is pekorative, per Justforasecond, then it should be clear that wikipedia will not endorse the pejorative term per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: "The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.".

With that establieshed, we can conclude that we can only say "x says y is a conspiracy theorist". Next question is wether that should be in the lead, ie if having "x says y is a conspiracy theorist", and is unecesary when it can be expresed in a more neutral way, without citing anyone, per "y belives that".

Next, regarding Category:Conspiracy theorists. It is clear that living persons can not be included in it, since it would imply an endorsment from Wikipedia, rather than the reporting of somebody else opinion, per the above quote. And that is a no-no.

And Murderer = Conspiracy Theorist is not a good example, since one can be convicted of murder, and hence becoming an established legal fact, while being a Conspiracy Theorist can never ever be NPOV. Let me loosly quote something: "Pakistanis that believe news reports that Arabs carried out Sept. 11 attacks - True: 4%, Not true: 86%, Dont know: 10%" [11].

Are we done here? Can we have a template that illustates this and unprotect the Alex Jones (radio) article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Striver (talk • contribs)

As for the Arabs, al Jazeera has called Alex Jones a "conspiracy theorist".[12] -Will Beback 23:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Members of the group don't consider themselves extremists. " [13]. That should be enough.--Striver 17:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree that conspiracy theory or conspiracy theorist is necessarily pejorative. It is entirely appropriate to observe that Alex Jones is, and Milton Willam Cooper was, a conspiracy theorist. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

They and 86% of Pakistan beg to differ, and wikipedia does not want to risk a law suit on it. --Striver 17:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what do the opinions (if you believe in polls) of Pakistanis have to do with whether someone is a conspiracy theorist? Not a dog 18:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"conspiracy theorist" = "idiot theorist". THey do not view themselves as idiots. I do not view myself as an idiot. 86% of Pakistan does not view them as idiots. Hence, it is a controverisal pejorative label. --Striver 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Only you are making that assertion. --Mmx1 05:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to go with Striver on this, based on this information. Tom, if you disagree, you're entitled to that, but concensus on this page seems to disagree with your opinion. rootology (T) 17:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree also. I think there are people who are conspiracy theorists in the truest sense of the word. Some make a living selling conspiracy theories to their audiences. Some of the people mentioned here qualify quite handsomely. Weregerbil 17:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it's a duck!" What Steven E. Jones et al are putting out there perfectly fits the dictionary definition of conspiracy theory, and as such it is appropriate to use the term "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist". And this belongs in the intro (per WP:LEAD), as their belief in conspiracy theories is a key point in the articles. If not for their conspiracy theories, they would not at all be notable. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That is again subjective. MOST people in the middle east to NOT view their views as unlickly, rather they view it as truth. In Iran, it was WIDELY reported as FACTUAL that US Gov is responisble for the Oklahoma Bombing. What is a whacky idea and what is not, is not the same everywere. --Striver 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So they have fallen for the ridiculous myth that there is a state called "Oklahoma," have they? Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Saaay whaaat? --Striver 22:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Just kidding. There is a state of Oklahoma. Really. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It has not been settled that "conspiracy theorist" is necessarily a pejorative. -Will Beback 19:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Then go to the CIA article and claim that they are "conspiracy theorist" and see how long it will stick --Striver 20:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the need to put "conspiracy theorist" in article intros where we have more neutral language available. It's clear that there's is a lack of consensus supporting "conspiracy theorist" label. Justforasecond 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the term must be included in the intro. The question is whether we can say,"X is a conspiracy theorist [Y]" , or must say instead that "X has been called a conpsiracy theorist by Y." And attendant with that, whether we can apply the category:Conspiracy theorists to any living person. -Will Beback

And the answer is plain: we must say "X has been called a conspiracy theorist by Y". The "Y" must be specifically and narrowly identified, with no weasel words like "widely regarded as...". Category:Conspiracy theorists shouldn't be used in any case. Anything less is unacceptable. How hard is this for you to understand? 70.108.59.156 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, Striver is misitnerpreting this policy. When it says that "The responsibility for justifying controversial claims...rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim" it means that the editors who add the information are the responsible parties should the subjects wish to file a lawsuit, and that they are responsible for finding reliable sources to support the claims. That is the same for every word we write on Wikipedia. It does not mean that Wikipedia refuses to publish properly sourced informaiton, no matter how derogatory. -Will Beback 19:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, You are wrong. It means that wikipedia will not endorse a pejorative label, only report on people doing so. --Striver 20:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't endorse anything. -Will Beback 21:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"X is an hasshole [y]" is an endorsment of the statment, giving the reference as a proof, "Y states that X is an asshole" is reporting a fact, without implying endorsment. And you KNOW that. --Striver 21:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Y called X "an asshole" is reasonable, provided that Y is a significant figure or a reputable authority on the subject of what constitutes an asshole. If X and Y are both politicians and the statement was made on Letterman, wouldn't you think it significant? Just zis Guy you know? 00:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Y called X "an asshole" is reasonable, i agree. But not "X is an asshole". That is a totaly no no. That is the difference between endorsment and reporting.--Striver 11:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Y called X "an asshole" is fine when it's one notable critic. Critics including V, W and X consider Y an asshole is fine if it's wiodespread. And at that point the analogy breaks down because there is no objective way of showing that someone is an asshole. Whereas with conspiracy theorists, the fact that they are prominent exponents of a clearly identified conspiracy theory is verifiable from reliable sources. So in the case of Jones, the balance of informed opinion is that he is a conspiracy theorist, something whic is backed by his repeating a conspiracy theory (pretty much in those words) in an interview where he tries to show he is not one. His theory is pretty much the classic conspiracy theory: he rejects the widely-held prosaic explanation, he introduces unproven hypotheses, he accounts for the lack of evidence in support of his theory by postulating conspiracy. This is one of the less contentious ones. Just zis Guy you know? 11:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That is not true, he presents plenty of arguements that are convincing in the eyes of millions of people. This is not the place to iterate them, but arguing that he does not present evidence is simply not true. Further, i still awayt a RS presenting Jones as a Conspiracy theorist. I Have not seen one.

As stated below, the fact that some unknown and unprovable number believe him has no bearing on the fact that the balance of informed opinion is that these are conspiracy theories and those who promote them are conspiracy theorists. Just zis Guy you know? 15:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If the label is properly sourced, then what's the issue? Some people are conspiracy theorists, and it's not libellous to say so. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So if we have a mainstream source for "X is an idiot", do we state that as a fact in the article? I know whos article i will apply that to...--Striver 22:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

From Conspiracy theory:

Aside from controversies over the merits of particular conspiracy claims (see catalog below), and the various differing academic opinions (above), the general category of conspiracy theory is itself a matter of some public contestation.

Are we going to label people with something that the ARTICLE ITSELF says is controversial? How is that NOT a violation of wikipolicies? --Striver 22:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Again: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

"The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.". --Striver 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of issues are controversial on Wikipedia. If editors are willing to accept the responsibility for adding to an article the sourced claim that John Doe is a conspiracy theorist then they are in compliance with BLP. Calling somebody a conspriacy theorist is not usually the same as calling them an idiot, though in some cases both terms may apply. -Will Beback 22:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly; describing someone as a "conspiracy theorist" is not equivalent to describing someone as an "idiot". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Its close enough. Lets stop pretending. --Striver 22:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. Let's be accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is your friend. If someone is described as a conspiracy theorist by numerous respected authorities, then we can say so, the same as with charlatans, scammers, spammers and other undesirables. WP:NPOV means we reflect the balance of verifiable informed opinion, we do not have to say that Charles Manson is a misunderstood kid who was kind to his mother. Just zis Guy you know? 22:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Implication/discredit

From rereading all this, the problem I'm having more and more with this now is the implication that immediately labeling them as a "conspiracy theorist" is the negative connotation of this, and the tone that it "discredits" any credibility the subject might have. For the people that have worked under these articles, you KNOW that before yesterday I never once removed this lable from an article, but after thinking more and more about this information, and this policy, it began to strike as not appropriate to carry this in the lead, as a statement of Fact from us. Saying in a later passage--but not the lead--that "such and such" considers Mr. XYZ a conspiracy theorist would be acceptable, but for us to make the statement is too much. rootology (T) 22:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Some conspiracy theorists revel in it. What do the reliable sources say? Just zis Guy you know? 22:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So, if we have enough RS for Bush being an idiot, do we put it on his article as "Bush is the president of the United States and an idiot [Y]" ? Trust me, i WILL get the RS. When i think about it, i will find much better than idiots... hmm... imagin aaaall the the non-American mainstream media... *yummy*--Striver 23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If the balance of informed opinion is that Bush is dumber than a brick we can certainly say so, provided we can source it properly. If it is just that his opponents satirise him for being stupid, then we should say just that - with citations. The specific case mentioned above is Steven E. Jones. Right from edit 1 of this article, his involvement with WTC conspiracy theories has been in the lead. Rightly so - it is pretty much the only thing for which he is widely known. Just about every reliable authority says that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are fantastical, so to describe them as conspiracy theories is to accurately reflect the balance of informed opinion as verified from reliable sources. If you are a True Believer in 9/11 conspiracies, go and read some other article like David Icke or Kent Hovind - where the balance of informed opinion is that someone is deranged, there is no reason why we should not put the case (politely but firmly) that this is so. Just zis Guy you know? 00:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It shuold be fairly easy to find RS for "Ariel Sharon was the presiden of Israel and a bucher [y] and mass murdere [z]". And he is not even living, so you can not even use this policy to protect him. --Striver 23:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In the case of one subject, Alex Jones (radio), we quickly found three articles in reliable souorces which used the title directly or in the title to refer to Jones. [14][15][16][17] The first link goes to his own website where he has reposted one of the articles without any protest. As for the argument that he is not considered a conspiracy theorist in Middle Eastern cultures, on the sources is Al Jazeera. In the face of this broad array of sources, and the apparent acceptance of the label by the subject, this seems like a clear case of properly sourced material. -Will Beback 23:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Jones linking to an article does not imply endorsment, that is obvious if you visit Prisonplanet.com. "politicalhobbyist" is not a Mainstream source, even less a RS. The al-Jazeera article does not prove that the Arabs endorse the view that al-Qaeda did it, no: They STRONGLY reject it reports USA today. You are left with "Los Angeles Times". And it does NOT label Alex Jones a "conspiracy theorist". And even if it did, is wikipedia really going to risk being sued by Jones for defamation? --Striver 23:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, wikipedia RIGHT NOW is using the false "Alex linked to it, that means endorsment" to label him a conspiracy theoris in a PROTECTED version. And what is the source? The Raw Story! Is that RS? Is that the way to VIOLATE this very policy? --Striver 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

btw, here is how Al-Jazeera presents him: "Alex Jones, a syndicated radio talkshow host, told a news conference"--Striver 23:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not linked, it is copied onto the website. The question here isn't if the Arabs beleive one thing or another, the question is whether it is appropriate to call any living individual a "conspiracy theorist". Even al Jazeera, who may agree with some of his ideas, includes him in that category. -Will Beback 23:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

And that is endorsment? I TOLD YOU, he does that with ALL articles on his site, not that you seem to know it. --Striver 23:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, he does not belive Iran will attack Israel, it has no motive, but it has still copied this article: [18]. GET IT STRAIGHT: Alex Jones copying material for his site does NOT mean that he endorses the material. --Striver 23:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't shout. Not a dog 23:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Thanks for telling me. --Striver 00:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at that particular article, it seems to me from the cited sources and casual investigation that the balance of informed opinion is that he is a conspiracy theorist. He does not seem to dispute this. Where has he disputed this widely-applied label? It's hard to find any discussion of the man which doesn't mention conspiracy theories, so I'm sure he's spoken out. Just zis Guy you know? 00:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I need to go to work, but i fond this on a quick search:

But perhaps it seemed to you that it was unsafe to speak out. Or maybe unpopular. People might call you a conspiracy theorist. They might say you're crazy, or call you names. They might say you hate your country, even if you know that you believe as you do because you love your country. Sinister types might write your name down on a list, or decide to harrass you. [19]

Sheen agreed that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government itself and prefaced his argument by quoting Theodore Roosevelt in stating, "That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." "We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen. [20]

It is clear that the people in the 9/11 Truth Movement reject being called that. And it is a blatant violation of wikipedia'a principles, this very one, to label them what they have rejected. I remeber Jones having rejected the label on audio, but i do not know in what of the thousands of minutes of audio i heard that. Maybe it was in a Charlie Sheen interivew--Striver 08:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a "blatant violation" of anythig to apply a label which reflects the balance of informed opinion, even if they reject it themselves. I am sure that Robert Mugabe does not regard himself as a vicious, corrupt dictator, but the balance of informed opinion is that he is just that. David Icke probably thinks he is a model of sanity (as well as a deity) but the balance of informed opinion is that he is as mad as a badger. And the members of "scholars for 9/11 truth" undoubtedly see themselves as torch-bearers for The Truth^TM, just like every other proponent of every other conspiracy theory, but the balance of informed opinion is solidly against them. The quote you provide does not really contradict the view, either - it is mainly a rejection of being called crazy and unpatriotic - he explicitly uses the phrase conspiracy theory, applying it to the Government - in other words, he expounds a conspiracy theory right there in that interview, which makes him a conspiracy theorist. Just zis Guy you know? 11:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

formal

IMHO there are no Conspiracy theorists or Pseudoscientists, only people advancing (among doing other things in their life) Conspiracy theories or Pseudoscience. Please compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pseudoscientists. If persons are notable (which implies the existence if reliable sources) for advancing Conspiracy theories or Pseudoscience, by all means this have to be included in the biography, but watch your wording. --Pjacobi 07:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Exaxtly, there are "Bogus ideas", but there are no "bogus ideatists", and wikipedia should not lablel someone as such. --Striver 07:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying conspiracy theories are bogus? --Mmx1 06:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To build on what Pjacobi wrote, if someone is notable for something then we should include it in the bio. If we determine that Alex Jones, for example, is notable for being a conspiracy theorist, then we have to include that information in his bio, if he is to have a bio here. Of course it needs to be presented neutrally, and if someone has a better term for those in the field ("conspiracists"?) then we should use it. But we should not avoid using a characterization simply because the subject eschews that label. Nor is there anything in this policy which says we should, assuming reliable sources. -Will Beback 09:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Explain to me what "Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim." means.--Striver 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It means that if you delete something, you aren't the one who needs to justify it with a source; the person contesting your deletion is the person responsible to come up with an unbiased reliable source. That is all it means. And this policy is not about not saing negative things. It is about strict application of our verifyability, NPOV and no original research rules mostly - with aknowlwdgement of the right to privacy for non-noteable things in noteable people's lives. WAS 4.250 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is "conspiracy theorist" a profession? Don't think so. You should never write:

• X is a conspiracy theorist.

But, if verfiable:

• X is a notable proponent of the conspiracy theory Y.

Or even, if verifiable:

• X is notable for his authorship of the conspiracy theory Y.

Pjacobi 09:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Or why not just "X is a notable proponent of Y."? Its is utterly west-centric to label Jones as a conspiracy theorist, when it is a fact that the great majority of the people in the midle east agree with him. And again, it is pejorative and subjective, disputed hotly by, say, 83% of the people in this poll. --Striver 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim."

Is it Pejorative? Yes. Is it controversial? Yes. Will Wikpedia endorse it? Strong no, per policy. There is really no debating this, nobody can ever argue that it is non-pejorative or non-controversial.--Striver 09:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The fight over the conspiracy theory nature of Y has to occur at Y. Once Y is classified as conspiracy theory, it becomes a very significant attribute and I consider it relevant enought to this attribute in reference from the X article. --Pjacobi 09:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Im all for including that some people argue Jones views to be conspiracy theories, that is both verified and notable. But it is another thing all together for wikipedia to endorse such a claim as Fact, specialy when the claim is vigorusly rejected by a large number of people. Are you arguing that wikipedia present something that is rejected by over 80% of the people Pakistan and the CNN poll as Fact? Even if so, it is still another thing to claim that somebody is a "conspiracy theorist/pseudo scientist". I still await for a mainstream sourse of Jones being presented as a "conspiracy theoris". Man, isn't the whole point of this policy that we should not label people with pejorative labels? Presenting his views can be easly done withouth giving him a pejorative label, it is enough to say he belives "x", let the reader make their own mind and also present that "x argues Jones views to be conpiracy theories and also lables jones as a Conspiracey theorist [source]". Nothing is gained by stating "Jones IS a CT" that could not be stated in a more profesional and neutral way. --Striver 10:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Remeber that we are talking about how we are going to label a real person. It is not a small mater. --Striver 10:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, i remind of this and this. One of the arguements from there: "I am going to refer to this guideline from Wikipedia:Categories: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." On the pseudoscience article, there are frequent debates about what is and is not pseudoscience and how the term should be defined. No doubt that the title of "pseudoscientist" will also be contested, but the categorization system does not explain why someone was listed in a category. Since far too many inclusions of individuals in this category would be controversial, I think that it is best if the category is deleted per the Wikipedia guideline.". The same is true for Conspiracy theory, it makes clear that the use of the term is very controversial, both in aplication, definition and labeling people with it. --Striver 10:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC).

Jones posits a theory for which there is no credible evidence. The theory is that the attacks were a conspiracy. He accounts for the lack of evidence by reference to the supposed conspiracy. A simpler and more prosaic explanation is generally accepted. It is a textbook case of conspiracy theory. In the interview you quote he alleges a conspiracy by the Government. He is a conspiracy theorist. Just zis Guy you know? 11:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

That is your position. Millions do not agree. He presents loads of evidence. Wikipedia is not going to take stance. I still have not seen a mainstream RS stating that Jones is a conspiracy theorist. --Striver 14:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here: [21]. Which is used as a reliable source in 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium. Not a dog 16:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Read again: "syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones told a news conference"... He is not presented as a conspiracy theorist, they are to profesional to single down one person and give him a pejorative name. --Striver 19:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Bit redundant to call someone a conspiracy theorist at a gathering of conspiracy theorists. --Mmx1 05:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, regarding the quote: It is Charlie Sheen's quote. Further, are you arguing that goverments do not conspire? Are you familiar wiht Operation Ajax? Operation Northwoods? Operation Mockingbird? Operation Gladio? Operation Himmler? Watergate? Do i need to continue? --Striver 14:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that "millions" () agree has no bearing on the fact that the balance of informed opinion is that these are conspiracy theories and the people who promote them are conspiracy theorists. Millions believe that Sathya Sai Baba can manifest holy ash, but the balance of informed opinion is that he is a charlatan. Millions apparently believe that Elvis is alive and was abducted by aliens, come to that. Just zis Guy you know? 15:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan: population: 2004 est. 163,985,373. Take 86% out of that. Then add all other people in the middle east. And the rest of the worl, for example 20% of Germans. And then add all American 911TM activists... They all view it as a conpiracy theory to state that building 7 fell due to fire and that Bin Laden made NORAD stand down.--Striver 19:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

None of that has relevance as to how we should handle the characterization of living subjects with terms that some people consider pejorative, which is the subject at hand. -Will Beback 23:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. And I'd be somewhat surprised if 86% of the population of Pakistan genuinely thought that the WTC was destroyed by the US Government with an elaborate smokescreen plot involving airliners to cover it up. The most amazing thing about these conspiracy theories is the fact that of all the poeple who must surely have known about the conspiracy, not one ever leaks The Truth^TM. Remember Watergate? The idea of a 100% leak-free conspiracy is inherently implausible. Just zis Guy you know? 07:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

<- shift left

Illegal immigration is a government plot. The counterculture is a government plot. Vaccines are a government plot. Thumb scanning is a government plot. Environmentalism is a government plot. The National Seatbelt Initiative is a government plot. Feminism is a government plot. Toll roads are a government plot. Antidepressants are a government plot. Etc etc etc etc. Yeah, I'd go with "conspiracy theorist". If one of his theories is taught in one country as reality for political reasons that doesn't change how he makes his living. Weregerbil 08:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Section break

Guys, look, the alternative is having this: "His brother Steve Watson [2] is also a conspiracy theorist.". Is that really where we want to be? What is the point of this policy? --Striver 11:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Portrait of the biographed

Why isn't there a section on a policy for any kind of portrait (photo, or other image or picture such as a drawing) of the biographed person?--AlainV 18:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It has been difficult to obtain properly released photos of many biographied persons. Certainly it is better to forgo the picture than to use one that is copyvio. But I would be in favor of adding a neutral comment to the effect that "pictures are nice, where possible". However, that might not really be specific to WP:LIVING, but just a general point in "Perfect article" guidelines. An article on a bridge, building, or river is also enhanced by a picture of it, for example; living persons aren't special in this regard. LotLE×talk 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ansell's change to policy--notability?

What was the reason/purpose for this change? rootology (T) 14:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that some people consider that the longstanding consensus over notability does not mean we can even mention the word notability in policy. In this case it is a fundamental misunderstanding, since the point is about how individual facts relate to the notability of the subject (i.e. are they known for that thing or not). Just zis Guy you know? 15:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Review of consensus process

I notice that this article was originally created on 12/17/2005, promoted to a guideline on 1/27/2006, and promoted to a policy on 7/18/2006. Where can I review the discussions that led to consensus of elevating this proposal to a guideline and then a policy? - O^O 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The archives would be a good place to start. -Will Beback 21:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Will, I had already read what is in the archives, but thanks for pointing me to them again. Since the talk pages of this article were primarily being read and edited by people interested in this article, I don't understand how they could serve to establish a general consensus for wikipedia as a whole. Wasn't there any discussion outside of the talk pages of this article? - O^O 05:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo wanted it to be a policy. You can research all you want but that's the bottom line. I'm not aware that he had any direct connection to the content of the policy, though. I began it based on the comment of a very angry subject of an article, Slimvirgin created most of the early content, and any number of others have since made it even better (although it could use a bit of a trimming). WAS 4.250 01:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Any links (in wikipedia or the mail archives) you could point out? Thanks - O^O 05:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The bad news is I can't do any better than to direct you to the archives at [22] and [23]. The good news is that what you find out on the way to finding what you are looking for will be more rewarding than what you are looking for. Going on vague memory, I seem to recall something like a month before it became policy Jimbo asked on the mail why isn't it a policy and what would it take to get there and then there was some discussion about a few tweaks in the content removing stuff that made sense as guideline but not as policy. If you want to see the process in action live just follow the current "paid to edit" mail and Wikipedia_talk:Conflicts_of_interest which forms a sorta-kinda bookend with this policy in that this policy is about us not screwing them over and the conflicts of interest proposal is about them not screwing us over. So to speak. WAS 4.250 08:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To narrow the scope a bit, the discussion on wikien-l began in December 2005. -Will Beback 09:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Listing the subject as a source

As a "notable" individual myself, I often find myself meeting other notable individuals in various venues -- in a green room while we're waiting for an interview, in a a "speaker's lounge" at a convention, bumping into other authors at a major booksigning event, etc. When I chat with them, the subject of Wikipedia often comes up, since it's one of my favorite hobbies. Sometimes the people that I talk to complain about an inaccuracy in their bio, in which case I of course volunteer to fix/remove it (especially if it's unsourced negative info). I also routinely volunteer to expand simple biographical details to improve the article, such as high school attended, parents' occupations, place of birth, etc. In those cases, should I list the subject in the "Sources" section, such as, "Some information provided by subject, and transcribed by <name>"? Or, in those cases where the subject is himself or herself web-savvy enough to change their own bio (and yes, I make sure to tell them about WP:AUTO), should they list themselves in the "Sources" section? Has there been any discussion about the best way to handle these cases? --Elonka 17:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you talk to the subject, the information isn't verifiable by the rest of us. That's not a valid source for Wikipedia. I know we make some exceptions for non-controversial self-edits, but adding another person into the chain is a very bad idea. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

When the subject has a web site of their own, I have at times encouraged them to write the fact they want to add to their biography to a public page there. That makes it verifiable. (For an example, see Talk:Humphry_Knipe.) On the other hand, removing incorrect and uncited information is much easier. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What about where in WP:AUTO it states that subjects are encouraged to correct mistaken information about themselves? Wouldn't it be better for them to change something, and have their name added to the "Sources" section, rather than telling them to just change it and not identify themselves? --Elonka 23:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The key is verifyability. Unverified claims can be deleted by anyone. Verified (adequately sourced) NPOV claims should not be deleted without a very good reason. The subject may lie to remove data they don't want there. We don't take their word on something unless their word is more believable than the source used in the article. Actresses often fudge their birthdate. If an actress awears she is younger than the New York Times says she is, we should not take her word for it. Good judgement is important. Other people can be brought in to weigh their judgements. Extreme content can be removed while decisions are pondered. WAS 4.250 01:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The WP:AUTO guideline states that biography subjects "should feel free to correct mistaken or out-of-date facts about yourself, such as marital status, current employer, place of birth, and so on." My recommendation is, if they do that, we should also ask them to add themselves to the "Sources" section of an article, or perhaps figure out some way of marking the information as "self-supplied." --Elonka 16:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Verbal and personal email communications are absolutely unacceptable as a source. The person themselves is unacceptable, unless their statements have been previously published in some fashion. Anything less violates verifiability. Wjhonson 18:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Also a living person may not state who their parents were, who they are married to, who they know, who they work for, or anything else about any other person except themselves. All other people are "third parties". Wjhonson 19:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. If an unbiased trustworthy source says a noteable person identied their relatives as so and so the main question is how relevent it is. WAS 4.250 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I said the person themselves can not be the source for that information. I said nothing about a third-party source. Only about a first-party source i.e. the subject of the article. Wjhonson 20:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we agree or disagree. Wikipedia allows the use of what the subject of an article says about other people so long as it otherwise meets verifyablity, NPOV and no original research. If you disagree, please read primary source and secondary source, as these are the revelant terms, not first-person, second-person or third-party or the like. WAS 4.250 20:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I will quote the current page "In some cases the subject may become involved in an article. They may edit it themselves or have a representative of theirs edit it. They may contact Wikipedians either through the article's talk page or via email. Or, they may provide information through press releases, a personal website or blog, or an autobiography.

Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if: ... It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject; "

Now since any mention of any other person, spouse, parents, children, employers, friends, etc are "claims about third parties", then by this rule, they may not be included on the subject's page, through using material or communications provided by the subject themselves.

Personally I think this wording is far too restrictive, but that is what it currently states. Wjhonson 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What that intended to cover is now better covered by the added "* It meets verifiability, NPOV, and no original research policies." so I removed it. The point is that you don't get a free ride to bad mouth someone else just because it is an article about you. John smith has no especial competance to claim "Billy joe is a pedaophile" on the John Smith article, but John Smith is presumed to be an expert about John Smith - but he might lie so the stuff about not contentious and not self serving is needed. WAS 4.250 21:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

fanmail as a source?

What if the source cited for some fairly private information is an email sent to the subjects fans? This is not entirely hypothetical [24], though in this case I suspect another source could be found. -MrFizyx 17:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Not verifyable. Verifyable means others can verify it as a source. A book in 100 libraries is verifyable, as the libraies verify authenticity and the book is available to numerous people. E-mail is easy to fake. The reason for wikipedia prefering secondary sources is that the secondary source (New York Times for example) does the authenticity verifying for us. WAS 4.250 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The above section cited by Wjhonson would seem to imply that my example is OK, since the source is a "Newsletter" which must be equivalent to a press release sent via. e-mail. Eh? -MrFizyx 21:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

BLP does not trump the Verifiability policy, and anything in it that seems to needs to be written to be more clear. WAS 4.250 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I concur, just playing devil's advocate. -MrFizyx 21:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Libelous vs. libellous

I find it curious the new caveat about living persons refers to "libellous" statements. The standard spelling of "libelous" has one 'l' not two. Curious how someone who seeks to impose a common standard uses the uncommon spelling. While it's not incorrect to spell it "libellous," that's by far the minority spelling, per OED and numerous other standard dictionaries. --207.69.139.10 05:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Brits like two l's, Merkins like just one. I suppose an argument could be made that since WP servers are hosted in Florida, and that's the mostly likely jurisdiction, American spelling might govern. LotLE×talk 08:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't OED done by Brits? Lou Sander 13:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps they were infiltrated. Anyway, feel free to fix the spelling. LotLE×talk 17:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The correct spelling is one "L", since the accent is on the first syllable, not the final one. I tried fixing it[25], but Kingboyk (talk · contribs) reverted me[26]. I've started another thread on it at Template_talk:Blp#Libelous / Libellous, so hopefully we can prove consensus for "libelous". --Elonka 22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Improvement in wording of BLP

I have raised this here before, but there continue to be daily misinterpretations of WP:BLP throughout the articles related to Hugo Chávez. I am hoping that regulars here will review this situation, and make comments, or discuss whether the wording on BLP can be improved to help avoid this abusive misinterpretation of BLP. Sandy 20:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Malicious Editing

I'd like to see something stronger against including negative material just because it's well-sourced. The Malicious editing section now says in part:

If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

The "published sources" part is working well, but the "demonstration of relevance" part isn't.

The article on Ann Coulter, for example, is full of well-sourced negative comments, interview snippets, etc. that aren't individually relevant to her notability, though she IS notable for her outspokenness. Sometimes these individually non-notable items become so numerous that special sections are created for specific categories. Usually they are appended to factual encyclopedic material, as if to show what a bad person she is. (See "Radio" HERE.)

It seems to me that mentioning such a person's outspoken nature, and possibly providing an example or two in connection with that mention, should be enough for any encyclopedia. As it is, some (IMHO malicious) editors gleefully include negative after negative after negative, all of them with sources. (The unsourced ones are quickly weeded out, thank Jimbo.) I'm not sure that including such stuff contributes to encyclopedic excellence. Lou Sander 13:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight covers what needs to be covered. Some people make their money from their noteriety and covering that noteriety is due weight. WAS 4.250 14:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Some people make their money from telling jokes, but we don't print their daily jokes. We especially don't use the tasteless ones to reflect negatively on the teller. My concern is about maliciously mentioning an overabundance of negative things, even when they can be sourced. "Malicious" is a matter of judgment, of course. Do you feel that the "Radio" example above is suitable material for an encyclopedia? Lou Sander 15:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

A bit tasteless IMO, and advocacy journalism tone should be avoided in all articles, and in particular on BLPs. OTOH, much of Coulter's notoriety is based on her abrasive style... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Coulter's style IS abrasive, but IMHO WE needn't and shouldn't be abrasive in covering her. (This applies to others, too. I'm advocating a policy of DISCOURAGING things that aren't clearly relevant to the BLP person's notability.) It's fine to say he/she's abrasive. It's fine to give a few illustrative examples. It's NOT fine (IMHO, and I hope also in a policy), to populate her article with example after example of her abrasiveness, ESPECIALLY when readers might think we are doing it to show she's a bad person.

We can cover animal cruelty without endless horrible examples of animal cruelty. We can cover land mines without reporting every new horrible injury that comes from one. We SHOULD be able to cover mouthy, and/or controversial, and/or easily disliked living people without glorifying in examples of their negative aspects. I use Ann Coulter only as a current example, IMHO, of widespread malicious editing. Other than maliciousness, I don't see any reason for including the non-interview in the RADIO section. The incident has no bearing on Coulter's notability.

Any reader can look through the Coulter article and find other apparently malicious edits. (Again, this is just an example of how things can get out of hand if the only standard for negative material is that it must be sourced). My point is that Wikipedia needs to be clearer and more emphatic about its policies on malicious editing. Lou Sander 23:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material

WP:BLP states "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule." So, in removing such material from talk pages, the result is a hole in the discussion and can lead to misunderstandings due to lack of context. Is there a tag we can use to replace such comments that are removed to indicate to other editors/readers that something has been removed in accordance with WP:BLP? --HResearcher 02:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You could simply remove the offending text, and add a wikilink to the diff, so that it can be easily accessible. I will attempt to create such a template. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Jossi thanks for the quick response and your efforts to create the template! Much appreciated! --HResearcher 03:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Delete the offending text
2. Get the URL of diff from the History
3. Add this in replacement of offending text: {{blprefactor|url=url of diff}}

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Original research

This policy currently states "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked."(as of 21:15, 5 June 2006) My suggestion is that this point be amended to include original research on talk pages. The result would be something like this: "Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from any page, including those concerning living persons and related talk pages, without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. This principle also applies to biographical material and original research about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia. Administrators may enforce the removal of unsourced material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked." (emphasis added to indicate proposed amendment.) --HResearcher 11:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Although it sounds like instruction creep (and is already banned anyway per WP:OR) the specific inclusion of OR, and by extension novel syntheses, in this rule does have some merit, since novel syntheses are indeed a frequent source of neutrality disputes in respect of living individuals. So I cautiously support this. Just zis Guy you know? 15:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious. Is is OR to say stuff like "Foo unprofessionally said (well-sourced quote not including the word unprofessional)," or "Foo notoriously said (well-sourced quote not mentioning notorious)", etc. I see a lot of that, and I don't know what to call the editorializing about "unprofessional" and "notorious." Lou Sander 13:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Using adjectives is an example of POV to me. It could be considered OR as well. I believe it would be best to take those out or avoid them unless it is a direct (and cited, of course) quote. MrMurph101 01:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MrMurph101, since "unprofessionally" and "notoriously" are uncited they can just be removed and such removals are exempt from 3RR! :D --HResearcher 02:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not intended as instruction creep, but only to make the policy more clear about original research. --HResearcher 03:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so JzG cautiously supports this. Anyone else have comments about this proposal? --HResearcher 03:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Indirect sourcing of negative info?

When a bio article contains a source, is it also necessary to cite that source in other articles where the subject is mentioned with a wikilink back to the bio, or is it acceptable to rely on the reader to follow the link back to the bio? I am having issues with Jeff Gannon being called a prostitute in various articles. An admin is pushing back, and I am not sure of this particular requirement. (I am also not fully comfortable with the sources in the Jeff Gannon article "proving" that he is a prostitute, but that is another issue). I would appreciate someone with more experience with BLP to take a look at Jeff Gannon, and the articles that link to it. Crockspot 12:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What I remember is that Jeff Gannon created a website and published his picture on it with invitations to pay him money for gay sex and was paid by the Bush administration to plant friendly questions at white house press briefings. The same anti-gay Bush administration that now says it has a problem with leftists manipulating the press. This is not a minor figure who deserves his privacy, but a paid political operative whose illegalities are important to the discussion of political power in the US. WAS 4.250 23:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What you remember? Evidence? I have asked an AMA advocate to look into my problems with the Gannon article, and while he is still in the initial investigative stage, he has already stated that he can find no solid evidence in all the sources listed of Gannon actually being a prostitute. What you "remember" happens to be unverifiable, and your comments illustrate the heart of this problem. You just violated BLP by posting unsourced negative info about illegalities committed, when there is zero evidence that any illegalities were committed. Should I remove your comments? But it is irrelevant to my question, which is, is it necessary to cite sources for negative info on a living person wherever it appears, or is it sufficient to rely on the reader to follow a wikilink back to another article to find those sources. An additional problem is, if sources in the main article are found not to support the claim, is there a mechanism for fanning out and removing all the negative info that points back to these sources? I guess the remover of the sources should check "what links here", and do the legwork themself. Crockspot 15:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While I may agree with the specific case, the problem is that there's no bright line for deciding such things. In absense of such, I suggest letting the world wide web and various credit reporting agencies and skip tracing firms and clipping services and tabloids and political dirt-finding services be the repository of such stuff, while we let Wikipedia go back to its main job of becoming the world's best encyclopedia, repository of information on physics and history and culture and geography and whatever, WITHOUT becoming the central Big Brother repository on available "neutral" biographical information per se on everybody living who ever did anything of note, which is to say, just about everybody. We can live without that part of Wikipedia. Time enough for bio when you're dead. And few people care about biographical info which happens to show up in other contexts and stujects, contextually. We can allow bios of living people who want to be bio'd, and pull the plug on the rest NOW and sidestep that entire nightmare. The price is a tiny gap in knowledge, which in any case is merely the penumbra of a gap which is necessary anyway, due to libel law. The payoff for making this part of Wikipedia sacrosanct is a HUGE payoff in public relations--- a really monstrous one, because the bad bio thing and the bad info problem are the two main things most people know about Wikipedia. And yes, changing this would make a moral statement; it would be a clear attempt to take and maintain the high ground. Shocking, eh? But such a statement and policy would do nothing but good for Wikipedia. SBHarris 00:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Nutshell

Essentially, this policy is a clarification of NPOV and verifiability: to be absolutely hardarsed about them. Everything else follows from there. To that end I've cut down the nutshell a bit. Sensitivity is not part of the original intent of the policy, but neutrality and a remarkably high standard of verifiability are, for example. Further ideas on cutting it down are welcomed. There is no point duplicating the guideline in the nutshell - David Gerard 13:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. This is not just an extension of NOPV and V. It is a policy that relates to a specific case: living people and the sensiivity that applies in these cases, as we are impacting peoples' lives as WP becomes more and more predominant as a source of information. Yes, sensitivity was never part of NPOV, but in this case, we need it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi. This hardassed editor cringes at some of the stuff he sees in WIkipedia biographies. (I also agree with being absolutely hardassed about NPOV and verifiability.) Lou Sander 15:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Likewise. It isn't only about NPOV and V. If that were the case, it would be acceptable to include someone's home phone number and the school their children attend, if it were presented in a neutral and verifiable way. I'd say the best nutshell would be "Above all else, do no harm" Guettarda 15:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am becoming more and more old-fashioned in my conviction that NPOV, NOR; and Verifiability can manage virtually any editorial question. So I sympathize with David Gerard. Nevertheless, in this particular matter the way I see it is, if we are going to have a policy at all, it has to focus on those matters particualr to the topic that are not explicitly covered by the core policies. I think there are three, each of which follow from the way a page about a living person is more vulnerable to abuse thatn other pages (or, vulnerable to a different kind of abuse: (1) the legal stakes are higher, in that we can be sued for libel (2) ethical stakes are higher, as we are talking about persons so it is virtually impossible for someone out there not to take it personally - this is why I think the word "sensitivity" and even more discussion of what this means is actually very important, and (3) we want to make sure these do not turn into vanity pages. I think NPOV, NOR and verifiability go far to protecting us against concern (3) and even (1) although given the stakes they need to be reenforced. But they do not address concern (2) and if this policy is to mean anything, it has to be clear on point (2). Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. I am currently in a dispute with an admin (see one section above) over the difference between solid sources in general, and sources for negative info about living persons. The liability issues alone call for more stringent criteria. Crockspot 15:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If avoiding arguments were the primary policy, we'd have sympathetic point of view and article forks already. We don't. - David Gerard 06:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "sensitivity" is an innovation for this guideline that appears to mandate leaning to sympathetic point of view rather than neutral point of view. That is, it's an attempt to subvert NPOV in the wording of the guideline (/policy). This is problematic. We're not here to write hatchet jobs, but the current wording leans to encouraging hagiography.

I do appreciate the need for something to do with treating this stuff sensitively, but we really need a way of talking about it that does not imply subverting NPOV. Notability of detail should cover it IMO - David Gerard 15:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am sure that no one here is advocating for an hagiographic tone on BLPs, but I agree that if this could be interpreted by editors as an opportunity to subvert NPOV, we ought to find some wording that does discourages that understanding and fosters the correct one. Do you have a proposed re-wording of this that may address the concerns raised? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think at least some of the 'sensitivity' part will be resolved if we ensure that we require extra solid verifiable/reliable sources for the case of living persons and negative material. In addition, the best sources for WP are secondary sources, so if we stick to a combination of secondary highly reliable sources we would almost always be OK in the 'do no harm' category. My guess is that insisting on solid secondary sources for negative or personal material would take care of most BLP issues. Crum375 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi and the others. We need to make an effort to present verifiable information from reliable sources in the least harmful way. There are ways that BLP articles can met NPOV, NOR, and V and not be acceptable because they are likely to harm the subject and Wikipedia. Mostly it has to do with the way that Wikipedia articles are developed over time. For example we know that most new articles are incomplete and need more information to improve them. For most topics this is not a big deal. For articles about living people this can be harmful. If the bulk of the information is negative or only encompasses part of a person life, then it can give an skewed view of the person. IMO, experienced Wikipedia editors need to be sensitive to this and see to it that article are quickly made as complete and well rounded as possible and presented in a neutral way on the page because it minimizes harm to the subject and diminishes the possibility of future conflicts and disruption related to the article. FloNight 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree that above all, we should be sure that WP itself does not harm the living subject. I think that if all we do is summarize verifiable and reliable secondary sources then the added effect of the publication in WP would be small. Ideally WP itself should have a very low profile - simply collecting and presenting publicly available and reliable information from secondary sources. And certainly the presentation has to remain neutral at all times. Crum375 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi et al; being sensitive doesn't violate any policy, and is critical when writing about living people. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I copied this sensitivity-related material verbatim from the BLP page. It's great stuff, but it's scattered about, so isn't easily comprehended as a whole. Maybe it could be gathered in one place, or summarized, or nutshelled in some other way:

• Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

• The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view.

• Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. (I would substitute "from" for "available solely on" - LS)

• (For non-public figures): editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. ...Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has first been mentioned by a verifiable secondary source.

• In borderline cases, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It is not our job to be sensationalist, ...

• If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

• The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material.

I strongly agree with the notion of using only impeccable sources, but I wasn't looking for "source" stuff. Lou Sander 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The point of this page is not to create a tiered system of NPOV. NPOV is uncompromisable. It is absolutely integral to what Wikipedia is. This isn't a redefinition of NPOV. It is a guideline for how NPOV is to be applied in the circumstances where it is most important that it be applied. We can't bury our heads in the sand and pretend our actions on Wikipedia don't have consequences. They do, and the consequences are far greater when applied to a living person than to, for example, Nidorino.

This isn't to say that NPOV should be ignored on articles that aren't about living people. The crucial thing is that we are prioritising, focussing our efforts on the most important articles. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's sort of like "John is always well-groomed appropriately dressed, but when he goes on a job interview, he pays more attention to that stuff." ("John" is us, "groom/dress" is NPOV etc., and "job interview" is biographies of living people.) Lou Sander 18:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There are inherent problems in this whole policy which simply are not being addressed. It's not enough to simply hold up secondary sources to take the blame for negative material, for instance. Secondary sources may not be totally reliable, and are hard to check. Even in cases where they are reliable, all such a policy does is leave the judgment in the tradeoff between "the public's right to know" vs. "the individual's right to privacy," up to somebody else (namely the editors and lawyers of the secondary source). Moreover, the "somebody else" is bound to be riding a slippery and ill-defined slope, because secondary sources use a legal standard (which varies from country to country) in which the "notability" of persons is used as some kind of index as to how much publication of harmful private information can be gotten away with.

There is an explicit moral problem in posting information about a person on Wikipedia which they do not want to be posted there (for whatever reason). This is not treating others as you would want to be treated, or as you'd like your family or loved ones to be treated-- in such cases Wikipedia is THEREFORE acting in a way which is explicitly aggressive and aggravating. Give up the golden rule and that's what you get, so you'd better have a overwhelming social reason for it, like survival or security. I fail to see such a principle operating here.

Finally, let me point out that entry of Wikipedia information involves impact. It does involve a loss of privacy because Wikipedia entries are more easily available to search engines that most (almost all) secondary sources. Putting something on Wikipedia DOES make it more public, almost no matter how public it was, before the fact. Even if it was on the Five O'Clock News, the Five O'Clock News is an hour and Wikipedia is (no doubt, in some form or another) forever. At the end of this process, without guidance from the Bio subject, we thus have Wikipedia used as an amplifier for what may have been a questionable moral tradeoff decision (between notability and privacy) to begin with.

All of which is not helped in the least by the fact that the very creation of a Wiki bio on a person increases their "notability" and "public presence" far more than a full page article in their local paper ever can or will. Something these discussions have been reluctant to admit as a "given." Mostly I see Wikipedia treated as though it wasn't Major Media itself, but merely an unimportant mirror or piece of glass, with no effect on that which it is exposing or reflecting. Wrong. Wikipedia gives to anonymous persons the kind of power previously available only to editors of major newspapers.

In a nutshell, this whole process is bound to stink when applied to biography of living persons, without saving input and editorial management from the people who will otherwise be the targets of victims of it. Which, so far, we simply do not have. SBHarris 19:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

On sensitivity

David Gerard said "Sensitivity is not part of the original intent of the policy". That is in fact the exact opposite of the truth. When I created the first edit of the proposal that became the guideline that became the policy, its entire content was to be sentitive on articles about living people with the context of that being a very (and still) angry object of a bio that objected to what he perceived as an invasion of his privacy as a nonnoteable (legally speaking according to Florida privacy laws he said) private person and he did not want to be converted into a public person with fewer legal rights concerning his privacy. The meaning of "sensitivity" is not omit negative information but instead involves enhanced awareness such as the enhanced awareness you have in the more sensitive parts of your body. The use of the word "sensitivity" is a dircet quote from the man asking for a little as he was a living person. WAS 4.250 23:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Alerts?

I seem to remember seeing somewhere a page for alerts about possible violations of this policy. Am I imagining this, or does such a page exist, and if so, where?

For what it's worth, my specific concern is the continuous insertion of critical material from poor sources (newspaper editorials and a lobby group, in particular) into the Rashid Khalidi article, along with highly-POV commentary by the person inserting them. Palmiro | Talk 20:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

An alert page would come in handy right about now. I have the same problem with the Jeff Gannon article, and related links to it. If there is such a page already, it should be more easily locatable. Crockspot 20:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Such a page would also be handy for problems with the Ann Coulter article, which IMHO is edited maliciously every day. Lou Sander 21:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We could create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/BLP... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That might work. Now, we get some requests brought to this talk page or AN/I. Another page would be better if enough admins monitor it. Office messages might go on the page too. We could give it a try and abandon if not used. FloNight 22:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I will attempt to set up such noticeboard. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I will appreciate some help at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/BLP. A good explanation on what is OK to report, process, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fred Phelps is a glaring problem, currently under FARC, if you want a guinea pig article to start with. I'm not interested in nominating, since I feel that would create a conflict with my work at WP:FAR. Sandy 02:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

That article needs to be deleted stubified and start from scratch. Multiple violations of WP:BLP, most material from one source. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. But. Who does that? How are BLP problems this serious dealt with? I only encountered this article because it's on FARC, and the last time I got involved in an article I was reviewing on FARC, the results were not pleasant. FARC reviewers shouldn't do it, there doesn't seem to be a principle editor, so who cleans it out? Or, should the BLP process be to just nominate it for AfD? (I hope you noticed that, although there are multiple refs, the number of refs is misleading, since they almost all lead to the same book.) So, how will articles like this be dealt with in the new review board? Sandy 03:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I started by encouraging editors of that article to read this policy and act on it by removing unsourced negative material from the article. I will check in a few days, and if it was not done, I will roll my sleeves and do it myself, not a thing that I look forward to... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Privacy of birthdays?!

What gibbering idiocy is this? If we don't have verifiable source of such, it shouldn't go in at all; if we do have a verifiable source of such then so does everyone else. Who thought this particularly inane piece of instruction creep from Hell was in any way sensible? And can they convince me they weren't just trolling, because that's certainly the most charitable assumption? - David Gerard 06:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually wrote that section. You should have seen the previous version if you think mine was bad, I rewrote it out of sheer necessity. But I actually agree with you 100%. Unfortunately there is a large group of people that don't agree with us that if a DOB is verifiable by a reliable source then it should go on a Wikipedia page. There are people that think the exact DOB only belongs in an article if it is relevant to the subject's notability. The archives have some discussions on this that you probably want to look at. VegaDark 09:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what is newsworthy or notable about the date of birth of (say) a child of a politician, even if it is verifiable? Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a collection of facts; it's supposed to contain useful information. Similarly, if the article notes that someone was born in 1955 (say), what difference does it make if he/she was born on March 12th as opposed to September 16th, or whatever?

The other problem is that if the cited source removes the dates (or vanishes - see Link rot - then wikipedia could easily end up being the only place the date can be found, and certainly the only place it can be easily found. No, wikipedia probably can't be sued successfully on this. But it can contribute to problems, and it can be the subject of negative publicity. John Broughton 12:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, if say, I have an exact birthdate from a print source like the Encyclopaedia Brittanica or the Dictionary of National Biography, then it should go in, with a citation, no problem. Wjhonson 13:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The child of the politician doesn't have an article for that. Unless they do, in which case that's a different matter. I've reworded the current version on the page.

WAS 4.250 left me a talk page note giving Jimbo's daughter as an example. But she's not notable enough herself for her own article. If someone is notable enough to rate an article and have their birthdate verifiable with the reason for their notability, there's no sane reason to exclude it or assume it should be excluded by default - David Gerard 13:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, what VALUE is there in adding an exact birthdate? And as for a hardcopy source, that addresses the link rot issue, but it doesn't address the issue of ease of finding a birthday - wikipedia is a lot more likely to be used for identity theft than the Dictionary of National Biography. (And hardcopy sources, while meeting verifiability standards, aren't easy for other editors to check.)

In short, why exactly do we want to do this, and what exactly is the harm of omitting birthmonth and birthday?? John Broughton 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The "identity theft" issue is a red herring. The complete birth dates for all persons born in Kentucky, California, and Texas are online for anyone to view with a subscription to www.ancestry.com for about $75 or thereabouts. Millions of birthdates. In addition the California ones give the mother's maiden name. We live in a world, which is already, for better or worse, past this issue of birthdates. You can no more steal an identity with a birthdate, then you can steal a house with a key. Wjhonson 14:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Question concerning an image

At the head of the new anti-Semitism article is an image by Senay Dennis. Nowhere in the article is there text saying who's claiming that the image is anti-Semitic (only linked references to fairly respectable blogs connected to news sources). In this light it is arguable that Wikipedia itself is saying that the image is anti-Semitic (particularly given the image's file name Image:NewASAnti-Semiticposter.jpg). Does Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy apply in this type of case? Thanks. (→Netscott) 11:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely you jest. The image depicts unnamed persons, wearing yarmulkes, with fangs, gloating over a burning planet. If that's not anti-Semitic then the picture of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban is a glamour pose. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing one way or the other actually. What I'd like clarification on is whether or not a case such as this would fall under WP:BLP or not? Obviously there are POVs that say the image is merely an expression of Anti-Zionism and not Anti-Semitism while there are clearly POVs that it is sooner Anti-Semitism masquerading as Anti-Zionism (hence it's usage on the New anti-Semitism article). (→Netscott) 15:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What this has to do with BLP? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Malicious Editing 2

Maybe the Malicious Editing section should also address edits like this:

"Foo's driver's license says she was born on date A. Her voter records say she was born on date B (good, solid secondary source for these facts). If date A is correct, then Foo may be guilty of giving false information to voting officials, which is a felony in her state. (good, solid reference to state statutes)"

The stuff after the first reference is speculation by the editor. I'm new here, but it seems pretty malicious to me. (The full text original is here, its current version is here). Lou Sander 12:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO, your editorial judgement is entirely correct here - cut the speculation unless the speculation itself was notable for whatever reason - David Gerard 13:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The edit should simply read "b 26 Jul 1945 (State of xxx, Driver Records) or b 14 Nov 1947 (County of xxx, Voter Records)" with no further comment. Wjhonson 14:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, but the authors of the speculation don't. In good faith, they think they're doing the world a favor (not only in my example, but in all the others). It might be helpful to somehow add this kind of thing to the Malicious Editing section, which covers only sourcing and notability. Maybe it should mention malicious original research as well. (I'm thinking that this speculation is OR, but I'm fuzzy on it). Lou Sander 14:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Most definitively OR, if that conclusion is not available from a reliable source. Not sure if we need a specific wording to cover this issue, though. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jossi, this analytical-statement-which-serves-to-advance-a-position is original research. We don't need extra wording to cover it, it's covered already. Wjhonson 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe "conclusions" like this are OR. I have seen plenty of conclusions like this in articles, and often meet resistance when removing them. If conclusions are obvious, it should be up to the reader to draw it, not Wikipedia to make it for them. Perhaps a little bit of wording to reinforce that is called for. Crockspot 14:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The way Lou Sander's tells it I would come to that conclusion too. He makes it sound like original research with no objective other than to pointlessly insult. He leaves out the source and context as stated in the article: "Coulter has refused to address this disparity, pointed out most notably by Al Franken, a rival pundit who brought up the disparity in his book, Lies & The Lying Liars Who Tell Them." Ann's history of being a liar is a credibility issue that is important with a pundit. She writes and sells books that tell us who to chose as the most powerful person on the planet. Whether or not she is a liar is relevant. WAS 4.250 14:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Being criticised by Al Franken seems notable enough to be mentioned. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

In the case of conflict, the actual cited, QUOTED text, should be extracted and posted to the article exactly as Franken stated it. Wjhonson 14:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I KNEW I shouldn't have included a link to the full text original. ;-) I'm just trying to see if WP:BLP might want to say something about the TECHNIQUE of negative editorializing on properly-sourced material in BLP articles, which I understand might be somewhat widespread. I'm sorry if the link confused anyone.

Related subject: In the (here we go again) Coulter example, original version, Franken was mentioned in another paragraph, and his words were very sketchily paraphrased. He wasn't quoted, his book wasn't listed as a reference or its article Wikilinked to, and no page number was given. Please help me: Is that the "Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives" that the WP:BLP nutshell is talking about? (Emphasis theirs. I think the answer is "no," but I'm a newbie.) Lou Sander 15:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought I wasn't confused before, but I am now. It looks like you added the link to the full text original just now, in this very same edit in which you apologize for having done it earlier.[27] What are you trying to say? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Family members

Some biographical entries contain documentation on family members (first names, religious affiliation, etc.), even though these members are not public personalities. I suggest these should be systematically dropped. Family members of public personalities who are not themselves public personalities have a right to privacy; besides, such content is not encyclopedic, and may create real problems to those involved (such as facilitating harassment). Just because, say, your brother is a controversial politician, you should not have to endure the harassment of those who dislike the guy. David.Monniaux 14:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Systematic no. Case-by-case yes. It's going to depend a lot on the sources. If the sources, which name the family members are sufficiently "in the public eye", then the people have already been "outed" as related. Wjhonson 15:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Then they count as "public personalities". I was talking of people who were not public personalities. David.Monniaux 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If, in an obituary of Grace Kelly it says her daughter is Monica Hamburger, then that person is named, although not public in the sense of not yet notable. Address that issue. Wjhonson 15:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that, if that person has not done anything out of the ordinary (such as appearing on TV shows as the daughter of this personality, as some children of deceased actors or singers have done), then we should not breach that person's privacy.

Note that our policy can be summarized as "publish information in proportion to what people have willfully done to get information published". An actor who poses for gossip photographers, by this mere action, puts himself in the limelight. A random person who just happens to have a famous relative is entitled to privacy.

This is, by the way, a criterion that courts use in several jurisdictions. David.Monniaux 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Systematic no. Case-by-case yes. Acting thoughtfully is almost always better. WAS 4.250 15:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

For instance: some article about some personality who had a bad divorce mentioned that personality's children by name, and the first name being uncommon, anybody interacting with that person may get details about her family by a simple Google research. I think this definitely infringes on that person's privacy, while this does not bring any actual encyclopedic content. David.Monniaux 15:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the underlying source? Wjhonson 15:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's say a gossip paper. David.Monniaux 15:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Privacy (copied from David's talk page)

A while back the privacy of Jimmy Wales' daughter was violated on wikipedia. Be aware of a certain sensitivity some might have on making light of privacy needs of nonnotable people. Deleting addresses, phone numbers, birthdays, social security numbers, auto license information, etc might seem "paranoid" but it is not. WAS 4.250 13:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. But she's not notable herself. If someone is notable enough to rate an article and have their birthdate verifiable with the reason for their notability, there's no sane reason to exclude it or assume it should be excluded by default - David Gerard 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone is notable enough to rate an article in Britannica then yes, everything you said is true. The problem is the semi-noteable or just barely noteable who get an article here but in no other encyclopedia (that isn't a mirror of this one). We have cases of porn stars bios with both their real name and their real birth day (source: legal documents) removed for privacy reasons by the highest Wikipedia authorities (who will indef ban you if you try to put them back). I don't think you should have to be a porn star to be deserve privacy for nonnoteable details of your life if you are barely nateable. WAS 4.250 15:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a significant difference. Porn stars, and other like people in the Witness Protection program, change their names in order to protect their families from being scandalized or targeted for recrimination. That is not the case with say an academic, or a sports figure or a politician. If an author's exact birthdate is in a widely available source like "Gale's Authors Online" there is no reason why we should not post that birthdate with a citation. If that person then has a phone directory listing, they are already publishing, to the world, where they live. Not that I'd post it, but they already did. Wjhonson 15:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

BLP task force?

Is there such a thing? I would be willing to become involved with such a task force. Such a group, along with an alert/request page, could really clamp down on the problems. As far as I can tell, there is no such group. This issue is too important to WP's legal well-being to not have a group that specifically deals with these problems directly. Crockspot 15:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography ?? Should a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography be somewhere near the top of this page?? WAS 4.250 15:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• What I am thinking about is a group specifically charged with rooting out unsourced or poorly sourced negative info about living persons. I cannot think of a bigger threat to the project, from both liability and credibility standpoints, than negative info on living persons that is poorly sourced. I think this problem deserves a group that is specifically focused on it alone. Crockspot 16:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)