Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 23

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi there,

I recently created an article concerning

No... –xeno^talk 19:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks anyway.

(ec) That's correct--we don't cite emails unless they've been published by an appropriate source: either an RS or an SPS who is an expert on the topic. If Mr. Schreiber wants to put his email, or the important elements of it, into a web page he publishes, we can include it as something that he states or claims. Obviously, controversial things aren't going to fly like that, and claims about third parties are disallowed, but if it's just trivial biographical info (e.g., which high school he attended), then there's no general reason why we shouldn't be able to rely on SPS for that, as long as it's not disputed. Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that update Jclemens- I was just about to ask about that (published email as a source, that is).The Original Historygeek (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see

WP:SELFPUB. –xeno^talk

19:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

If I can use the email as a source, how do I go around referencing it? Do I post a copy of the email on the talk page or somewhere else? ISD (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be somewhere anyone else can see it to verify that it says what you say it said. A personal, official web page of the BLP subject would probably be the simplest way to do that. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. ISD (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You can also ask Mr. Schreiber to email

WP:OTRS. DO NOT post the email to the talk page, since doing so will assert that the email is released under a free license (which, since you didn't write the email, you can't do). Protonk (talk

) 19:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Which leads us to the next question: Can we use OTRS as a source? --Conti|✉ 19:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but an OTRS editor can make changes to the article based on the letter with a little more force than a regular editor. Also an OTRS editor can confirm (as much as it is possible) that the subject would want their email placed on the talk page, allowing us to do so. It's not perfect, but it beats doing nothing. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Currently at

I suggest findig better names.   Will Beback  talk  04:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For the longest time, WP:Citation needed has said something like the following:

Exercise caution when relying upon unsourced claims; delete those that violate Wikipedia's policy on sources for biographies of living persons.

But the page is for newbies; it's supposed to paraphrase the contents of the things being linked to. So I would like your feedback on the following possible revisions to the last line of the existing policy (you may need to look at the page to get the context). thanks.

If you cannot find a source for the claim, exercise caution when relying upon it. It if appears in a biography of a living person, delete it immediately.

Or:

Delete controversial, poorly sourced claims in biographies of living persons.

Or:

If you cannot find a source for the claim, and it appears in a biography of a living person, delete it immediately.

• I prefer "Delete controversial, poorly sourced claims in biographies of living persons". Not that the actual text of policy matters that much, but some people have interpreted BLP as license to delete any unsourced claim, no matter how innocuous or elementary. Our instructions should at least nudge people away from actions like that. Protonk (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK, I've implemented something that's close to that.
  WP:Hornbook
  21:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I see that there's a thread going on about WP:GRAPEVINE. Just FYI, I felt that WP:GRAPEVINE was the section of this page most relevant to WP:Citation needed, so that's where the BIO-related link points to now.
• I think that is shorter than IAR. It's a perfect example of what a policy page should be (Though it is marked as a help page, not a policy page.). Protonk (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This policy is best stated as "when in doubt, leave it out." --TS 20:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the article on David Berkowitz uses a mugshot in the lead. Is there any policy-based reason that forbids us from using mugshots in a BLP? After all, he committed those crimes over thirty years ago, and he might have turned over a new leaf since then. Can't we just let bygones be bygones? Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If the arrest is relevant to the article I don't see why a mug shot would have contradiction with BLP. They are extremely verifiable and do no make any factual statement about the person other than that he was arrested(which I assume is also verifiable).

Chillum

13:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

They arguably show people at their worst: poorly lit, often tired and crumpled after having spent time in a cell, holding a card with their name on it. It goes against the entire spirit of BLP to use the worst possible photograph of someone that we can find. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, if the arrest is of significant relevance to the article then the picture should be to. BLP is not about making people look good, it is about protecting them from false negative information(unless things went and changed).

Chillum

14:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's another wrinkle. Some editors have reservations about using booking photos for crimes alleged years ago. But what if somebody is still wanted by law enforcement? Sounds like a reason to use a booking photo indefinitely. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's get back to basics. BLP says contentious material must be sourced. Mugshots are far from neutral. They are taken under duress after a person has been detained by the state and the state has an interest in an image that appears to justify its use of force. To most people, a mugshot carries the message that the person is a criminal. If the person has been acquitted of the crime or the charges were dropped, that message can't be sourced. If charges are pending we still don't have a reliable source for that message and we should be especially careful to be neutral in our bio. Wikipedia can survive without photo until the case is concluded. I suppose there might be an exception for a notable individual whose arrest has been sought for an extended time and where there is much evidence in reliable news sources for culpability, but such cases are rare and if the subject is that notable, there are likely other photos that can be used.--agr (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Mugshots may be contentious, but they are definitely sourced. If there is any implied and unsourced message that the person is a criminal, that's the fault of readers doing their own original research. We can't be expected to provide sources for things that our readers make up on their own. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

Original research is a term we apply to editors, not readers. We are responsible for what our articles imply as well as what the say explicitly. "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. ... The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment."--agr (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Mugshots are almost never used as the main picture in a BLP unless the subject has fled, so is missing and a more recent pic is almost inmpossible to find. or, subject is incarcerated and was not notable until the crime and is going to spend the rest of their life in jail, or, there are a couple of mafia bosses that people are frightened to take photo as they are reputed to be and cited to be, still involved in a high level of criminality. (

[Here] is the link to have a look at the situations were a

Off2riorob (talk

) 19:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

Those are non-free mugshots, so they wouldn't include those taken by federal authorities, or Massachusetts or other states that specify that goverment records are public domain, which would usually be on Commons anyway. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Slim Virgin's comment: "I don't think a mugshot is ever appropriate in a BLP". However, I would add a tiny, tiny exception - a mugshot like Frank Sinatra's (yes, I know he is dead, but it is a rare situation) could be used on a page devoted to explaining it as it is an image that is famous on its own. As part of the biography or on a page devoted to a criminal activity - no. But on a page about the actual mugshot without any Undue violation or POV violation, then sure. This exception should be extremely rare, as there are only a few very notable mugshots. But for the most part, no mugshots. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Part of Slim Virgin's reasoning though is that mug shots portray the subject at their worst and, therefore, present an unfair or biased image. What if that weren't the case- such as mug shots taken at Federal prisons. These are taken after lenghty trials and periods of time- not immediately after a crime or arrest. I'm currently working on a bio of a person whose notability is due to his many crimes. The only known photos of him are various mugshots and pictures taken at his many trials (and will be the only public ones since he died in prison- where he continued his criminal activities). His federal mugshot, however, does not protray a scruffy, bedraggled person but someone prepared to take a picture- yet it's still a mugshot.The Original Historygeek (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If a person was convicted of crimes, and that is his notability and dies in prison and there are no free pictures of him then that is totally ok to use the mugshot, it is not a Biography of a living person anyway, is it! (

Off2riorob (talk

) 01:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

(ec) I know I am arriving late at this conversation (you folks need to post ads or offer cookies or something), but I pretty much disagree with the interpretation here. Mugshots are unpleasant and show the person at a low point, but it is is not a violation of BLP to use that mugshot. We are not here to judge or evaluate the correctness of that arrest. It isn;t our job to evaluate the correctness or spirit of what the State intends by taking a picture of those who it arrests, any more than we can peer into the hearts and minds of the accused. We report on reliably cited facts. If a person was indeed arrested, and their image is of value in the article (ie, not there as decoration or for shock value), then we should use that image. It is neutral to do so. We present the cited facts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my statement that mugshots should only be used if they are a notable -mugshot- and only in discussing the mugshot. That includes not being a page devoted to "bashing a criminal" or making someone look bad. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but understand that this sort of discussion is being taken out of context and applied at articles like

Arrest of Henry Louis Gates. Squidfrychef was and is an active participant in that discussion. By drawing solely upon Berkowitz whilst simultaneously engaging in a discussion that specifically addresses this issue seems disingenuousness. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

03:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Gates article is an excellent example of why mugshots are a problem. Berkowitz is currently in prison and his mugshots appear to be the only free images available to us. Gates has not been convicted of any crime (charges against him were quickly dropped) and we have good free images of him that are neutral, not to mention an actual picture of the arrest itself. Yet some editors on the Gates arrest page are insisting that not using the mugshot as the lead photo in the info box would violate NPOV. One more example is

Gordon Campbell (Canadian politician). There a DUI mugshot is included in the body of the article, where the mugshot's impact is discussed, noting "The image has proved to be a lasting personal embarrassment..." Mugshots have a powerful negative connotation. We can and must make judgements about the impact such images have on living people.--agr (talk

) 03:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrest of Henry Louis Gates is not a BLP. It's an event article. Using a mugshot in Gates' biography would be inappropriate, as he's not been convicted nor is his arrest the source of his notability. Using a mugshot in an article on the arrest and its aftermath is absolutely appropriate. Jclemens (talk

) 18:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Our BLP policy applies to all material about living persons, not just biographical articles.--agr (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but that's the point--there's nothing BLP-violating about the picture. The only argument that can be used against it, that it provides an undue, unflattering picture that would be unbalanced in a biography article, does not apply to an article about the arrest. The photo is the story. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Bringing up the Berkowitz bio wasn't meant to be disingenuous. I've seen a few comments to the effect that mugshots should never be used under any circumstance on WP, so I wanted to get a discussion going about when it is appropriate. For instance, I think it's appropriate for the Berkowitz article to have that as the lead photo. On the Spector article, I think the photo can be used besides a paragraph about the arrest, but not for the lead. And on the Gates article, it's not used there but in an article about the controversial arrest, which is where it belongs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Mugshots may carry unintended connotations, but we cannot afford to eliminate them, because they're also excellent quality documentation. They are taken from two orthogonal angles, they include a height chart, they allow you to recognise the person. If there is a risk of misinterpretation, the caption should be written to dispel it. A simple alternative may be image editing of the mugshot to create an image that looks less like a mugshot (for example, extracting just one of the images, cropping out any sign they may hold up, and modifying the background. Dcoetzee 03:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Two comments: Agr - I thinkyou are missing a key facet here. The article where the mugshot appears is not the main one for Gates but rather a subpage specifically referring to the arrest and aftermath, Quite a bit different than your provided example, where the arrest photo was added to the main article. I utterly disagree with your assertion that mugshots are NPOV; we haven't doctored them to add horns or whatnot. We did not arrest the good doctor, and it should be noted that there is substantial (and balanced) unflattering descriptions of both of the players here.

Dcoetzee - if you are enough of a photoshop wizard to make a mugshot not look like a mugshot, you might have a future in Hollywood special effects, or UFO hoaxing clubs. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Arrest of Henry Lewis Gates article is something of a special case and the mugshot if placed in a proper context may be appropriate. As one editor there points out the mug shot illustrates the demeaning nature of an arrest. It's unacceptable, however to make it the lead photo. I would also add that when we are dealing with an article where no other free image is available, then Dcoetzee suggestion could be very useful.

On the broader question of whether mug shots are inherently POV, the U.S. legal system agrees that they are. In Barnes v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 365 F.2d 509, 510--11 (1966): the United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit held 'The double-shot picture, with front and profile shots alongside each other, is so familiar, from 'wanted' posters in the post office, motion pictures and television, that the inference that the person involved has a criminal record, or has at least been in trouble with the police, is natural, perhaps automatic.' The Handbook of Massachusetts Evidence says "Because of the risk of prejudice to the defendant inherent in the admission of photographs of the 'mug shot' variety, judges and prosecutors are required to 'use reasonable means to avoid calling the jury's attention to the source of such photographs used to identify the defendant.'" (p.617) Elsewhere it cites a ruling in Com. v. Martin "admission of a defendant's mug shot is 'laden for characterizing the defendant as a careerist in crime'"--agr (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what some case from 1966 has to do with the price of tea in China, but if those were about instructions to a jury, there are all kinds of things that get excluded from presentation to a jury. Newspapers and other reliable sources are forbidden for jurors to look at. To crank up our sourcing standards to only what would be admissible in court would involve tossing out most of the Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of admissibility. Mugshots are admissible as evidence. The point is that the U.S. legal system has long recognized that mugshots convey a strong negative impression and must be used only when no other evidence is available and then with the greatest of card to minimize their prejudicial impact. I think this is a sourced basis for answering the heading question: 'yes they are demeaning. Can you cite any sources that say they aren't?--agr (talk) 15:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of a featured biography where a booking photo is used in a way that is certainly not demeaning, Rosa Parks. With full attention to undue weight, it is only used adjacent to the description of her arrest. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this as a counterpoint.Mattnad (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there a some or a few BLP's where that is the pattern as in Rosa Parks, I think that kind of usage is ok, as it is a part of a persons bio and the crime is not the thing she is actually notable for but it is a notable happening in her life to warrant a section and the mugshot fits there in that section and it is balanced with the other pictures and is not (imo) demeaning in that type of situation. (

Off2riorob (talk

) 19:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

It is a rare case , the

Off2riorob (talk

) 20:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Here [[1]] is a link to the public domain mugshots from commons for people to have a look at how public domain/free to use mugshots/booking photos are used.

Quickly looking. the hugh grant mugshot [[2]] doesn't make it onto the

Off2riorob (talk

) 23:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC))

Or maybe nobody bothered adding it to his BLP. See Larry Craig for an example of someone whose booking photo is not only is it in his biographical article, but there is a separate article about the scandal. But in the end, I see a lack of consistency and slippery when wet rules about when it's OK to show a mugshot and when it's not. And frankly, Rosa Parks did a whole lot more in her lifetime than get arrested so the same concerns about the Arrest of Gates (for instance) could readily be applied to her article - especially since there is no comparable article about the "The Arrest of Rosa Parks."Mattnad (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well-put, Mattnad. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I won't argue that the use of mugshots is always acceptable, but I hope nobody is arguing that they are never acceptable. Case in point

I think there is a big difference between a situation where a mugshot is the only free image available and a situation where many usable free images exist. In the former case, we should crop the photo to only show a face-on image, with no profile view, sign board, height markers or other mugshot giveaways. The caption should not indicate it is a mug shot. The

Bernard Madoff and Kenneth Lay articles are good examples (though I'd question the necessity of the Madoff caption). In situations where other neutral free images are available, the classic front and side view mugshot should not be used in BLPs except for convicted criminals whose primary notability is as a criminal or in situations where the mugshot itself is notable and is discussed in the article. The mere fact that a person was once arrested is not enough in and of itself to justify including a mugshot in a BLP.--agr (talk

) 15:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this completely. In cases where the mug shot is the only freely available image, if it's to be used in the article, it needs to not look like a mug shot.

Lara

16:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

[Update] I fixed the image, but this is what was displayed.

Lara

20:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree, well done. JN466 23:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Mugshots of people, where charges were dropped

This needs dealt with specifically, and separately. It is in re the Gates incident, and there needs to be some clarification here. Mug shots in such cases are extremely problematic, as the do present serious "false light" issues, and -- in this particular case -- favor one subject of the article (Crowley) over the other (Gates) in doing so. We need to deal with specificity as to what should be done in the case of incidents in which the charges that precipitated the arrest where the mugshot was taken are completely dropped.

My thoughts are that in this case as the charges have been dropped the mugshot should not be used at all. In the uk, mugshots are not released like this as it would be a privacy issue and I imagine that if the charges were dropped and the police had put the photo of that into the public domain that a citizen would have a case for defamation of character. (

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

I believe you mean 'defamation'. I agree with earlier comments that it does prejudice the viewer (especially if they don't read the entire article), however this was a very public event, and (correct me if I'm wrong, but) this image was already displayed on the news and thus become part of the historical record.

For BLPs themselves, I agree booking photos should be left out unless the individuals' notability is directly related to their arrest or criminal activities. –xeno^talk 16:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that in cases of BLPs, if the charges have been dropped, the image should be pulled. However, for the cases of event articles, such as the article on Gate's arrest, it should be included in the section that discusses the arrest itself. There's no false light issue when it's the arrest being discussed.

If a living person has been wrongfully arrested, we should not use the booking photo at all. It adds insult to injury. This includes articles that specifically discuss the wrongful arrest. JN466 16:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree with Jayen, in cases like that were the party has had the charges dropped, the subject of the article should be given the same protection as if it was a Biography of a living person(even though the page is about the arrest). (

Off2riorob (talk

) 17:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC))

My primary concern regards the situation where the mugshot is one of the best available photos for the subject, in which case it's much more important to include some depiction of the person than to worry about possible implications. People are not idiots, they can read the surrounding text and the caption, and image editing can reduce the "mugshot feeling." To demonstrate this, I've created an image of Bill Gates in 1977 derived in about 2 minutes from a mugshot taken by the Albuquerque police. Dcoetzee 22:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the image that I presented for purposes of discussion was deleted by Dreadstar, I will instead link to it. I'm disconcerted by the inexplicable assumption by Dreadstar that this image presented a risk so great to Mr. Gates that it was necessary to disrupt this discussion to "protect" him. This is an ample demonstration of how discussion of this issue has descended from reasonable concern into reckless paranoia. Dcoetzee 00:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. The idea of editing booking pictures so they no longer look like booking pictures came up in the preceding section as well; it is a good way to still have a picture when nothing else is available.

The question in this section was whether we should use a mugshot, clearly displayed and labeled as a mugshot, in an article dealing with someone who was wrongfully arrested, or where the charges were dropped (the other Gates, in

Henry Louis Gates arrest incident

, was the topical example).

How about including a section in

WP:BLP

saying that (1) mugshots should generally not be displayed for living people who were wrongfully arrested, or where the charges were dropped (2) where booking pictures are used to source a Commons image, because nothing else is available, they should usually be cropped and edited (the way Dcoetzee just did) so they are no longer recognisable as mugshots. I think this would get the articles right, with the appropriate amount of respect towards the BLP subject.

Perhaps we should allow mugshots for people currently serving time in jail? --JN466 01:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm struggling to understand why you're now characterizing our readers as image viewers.

Lara

23:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that mocking my phrasing is probably not a great choice. And are you really asserting that people who read the article are not "image viewers", and that these images don't shape understanding? I raised several points. I'd appreciate having those points addressed, in lieu of having my phrasing mocked.

UnitAnode

00:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If other people faced with a 5000-word article are like me, they often arrive at the page, look at the pictures, read a couple of paragraphs, and surf on to the next page. I am afraid that is just a reality. JN466 01:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Mocking? Perhaps be less sensitive. I don't believe our readers will take a look at a mug shot and think "Oh, clearly he was arrested for good reason, whatever it was that I'm too lazy to read about in the article about the arrest."

Lara

01:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Doing no harm

I've got no use for the argument that it's wrong to include a booking photo (mug shot) in an article about the arrest, regardless of whether the charges were dropped. If an arrest merits a story, the article will clearly explain the disposition of the arrestee. Showing a mugshot sans context might cause harm, sure, but arguing that the mugshot resulting from an arrest should not be present in an article about that arrest defies logic. If innocent, the subject of the mugshot was already harmed by the arrest, and a Wikipedia article on his or her subsequent exoneration can do nothing but help repair that harm. Suppressing sourced and relevant photos in a misguided attempt to protect the person from a harm that has already occurred will, if anything, actually hinder the coverage that would help spread the word that she or he was incorrectly or wrongly arrested. The "do no harm" principle thus supports inclusion, not exclusion. Jclemens (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Well-stated.

Lara

01:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this - and I think the same should apply to an article section about the arrest, or the relevance of civil disobedience in their life, or any number of other related topics. For example, I think it'd be fine to have a mugshot in the article on

Martin Luther King regarding his arrest during the Albany movement. I will happily agree that mugshots (unless edited) should not be used solely to depict the person in question. Dcoetzee

02:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, Martin Luther King is not a living person. Imagine Wikipedia had an article about you, and you were arrested one day even though you haven't broken the law, due to mistaken identity or whatever. The event is likely to be very upsetting to you. You'd probably feel humiliated by having your mugshot taken, given that you haven't done anything. Now, to have that mugshot stare back at you, as a public domain picture that anyone can freely edit and reuse, from every google search for your name, for the rest of your life, just seems harsh. Some things that shouldn't have been in the first place should just be allowed to go away.

In the specific case of Gates, I don't see what the picture adds to the article. While we show it in context, someone else might not. The responsible thing is just to drop it. --JN466 08:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone were interested in showing the picture out of context, they will whether or not we have this photograph in the article about the arrest. The fact that this image evokes such strong feelings is all the evidence I need that I must be in the article as both the official photograph, and a symbol of the injustice of the arrest. If he hadn't been arrested unjustly, we wouldn't be discussing this and the photograph. That's the whole point of the article and the debate! And for those who are worried about Gates' sensitivities, he strikes me as person who does not fear taking this issue head on. This is not a private event that he wanted to go away. He ensured that his perspective was known and he actively met with reporters, academics, government officials and politicians. Mattnad (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

In

Henry Louis Gates arrest incident, the photo of him in handcuffs on his front porch is all the visual evidence we need to show that he was arrested. --JN466

10:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The mugshot is gratuitous, the photo would also be gratuitous, but it's notable in the article as a popularizer of the case. We don't need any visual evidence of people getting arrested in their homes, people dying in car accidents, and so on; the written evidence is sufficient. For very similar reasons, Sgt. James Crowley should absolutely not be presented as scowling in the photos there.    M   11:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree Crowley's scowl makes it look like something out of the National Enquirer. The Crowley picture is a cropped portion of the Beer Summit picture shown further down in the article; it's the only picture of Crowley we currently have. I am not sure that is a good excuse though. I'd originally proposed using the image of the White House "beer summit", featuring Gates, Crowley and Obama, in the infobox. After all, all three were protagonists in the story. --JN466 12:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That argument is not valid. The article describing an exoneration and listing a harmful photo does more harm than one describing an exoneration and not listing one - that is, the exoneration is irrelevant; the issue is the potential harm caused by the photo. Further, wikipedia does little to actually exonerate a person (that is, repeating the exoneration doesn't actually cause any good and is expected ("morally obligatory and not morally praiseworthy")), while repeating the harm seems a sure possibility. The rule here is not specific to mugshots. The rule concerns "needless or gratuitous portrayal of the subject in a compromised state", excepting where the topic is not specifically that state and the photo is important for understanding. This excludes cases where the subject does not see themselves as compromised. So if Gates doesn't care about his mugshot, neither do we. On the other hand, we must not include, say, accident photos, paparazzi trash, revealing photos, gratuitous written descriptions of assault, closed-to-media funeral photos, and I'm sure many more. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid.    M   09:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with M. Police mugshots are taken in the most humiliating of circumstances. You've been taken off the street, or out of your home, possibly in the middle of the night, probably without warning, and paraded in front of a camera by someone who's not taking the photograph in your best interests, often made to hold a piece of card with your name or a number on it. What encyclopedic information can this add, beyond that the person was arrested? The only information these images impart is, "Oh look, this is what X looks like at three in the morning unshaven or without make-up, after they've been crying for several hours." SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's you guys who keep bring up the "harm" by photograph issue, and assuming it applies to Gates with generalized concerns about how some other guy will misinterpret the photo. The photo has been published across the world and is part of a an extremely public arrest. Given this context, how exactly is Gates harmed by this photograph? For BLP, we must provide well-sourced documentation that's relevant to an article about the topic. I'll point out that the official booking photo is a better item than Gates being led out of his home. Not only is it part of the official police record, but the image is free of copyright (unlike the sufficiently humiliating photograph of gates being lead off his porch by police in handcuffs). I'm so unconvinced by these shifting standards.Mattnad (talk) 13:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Good point: If there's a free image (the mugshot) and a non-free image that illustrate the same point, we have to go with the free image per
    WP:NFCC. Jclemens (talk
    ) 14:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It does more harm? How? If we took all the instances of the photo out of all relevant articles, it would still be put up on Commons. Please articulate how future harm can come to Gates, or any other arrestee, by including a booking photo in an article on the arrest. Jclemens (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Two possibilities off the top of my head are: (1) perpetuating the emotional distress experienced by the subject (cf. SlimVirgin's "unshaven or without make-up" post above) (2) future misuse on web pages designed to mock or disparage the subject. As for Commons, it's up for deletion there; and at any rate, if it isn't used in an article here, its visibility is much reduced, so that would be a useful first step. --JN466 22:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Is quite uncompelling. Wikipedia doesn't promote emotional distress, because the photo is already a bazillion places. Having it here or not having it here will have minimal impact on the residual emotional distress, even assuming (for the sake of argument) the hubristic attitude that we matter that much. If

we can't take it off the Internet, why bother with the issue at all? Likewise, 2) is also irrelevant for exactly the same reason. People can get copies of it a million other places, so deleting it from here does nothing whatsoever to mitigate any harm, so since there is no mitigation of any harm, the encyclopedic value wins out, and it stays. Jclemens (talk

) 22:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

People keep talking about arrest articles as though they were common. As far as I can tell, besides the Gates article the only other article that is solely about an arrest is Arrest of Jesus. Perhaps someone could Photoshop a mugshot for that article. Meanwhile, we should be considering the broader use of mugshots. Are they neutral images to be used in BLPs whenever they are available, or are the highly charged images to be used only in special circumstaces?--agr (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

There are many articles on crimes. So, let me clarify that I don't think mug shots should be reserved only for articles on the arrest, but also for articles on the crimes wherein the arrest is discussed. Still, I think the consensus above is not to use mug shots in BLPs unless the person is currently convicted. I could be wrong about that last part, but I'm pretty sure most above are against mug shots in BLPs where the charges have been dropped.

Lara

18:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

For instance, the article on the

O. J. Simpson murder case has magazine covers with his mugshot even though we was found innocent of any crime relating to the murders. While the mugshot are contained by a discussion about yellow journalism (having to do with Time Magazine's manipulating the photo), we include it as part of the article. Mattnad (talk

) 18:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

This is another poor analogy. First, Simpson was not "found innocent", the verdict was "not guilty", which is far different; the charges against Gates were dropped. Second, Simpson was later held liable in a civil court for the deaths, which mitigates against the

UnitAnode

19:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought Off2riorob's comparison was salient. We have a mugshot for Hugh Grant on Commons, who actually did do something punishable, resulting in an arrest that was at least as notable as this one. But we don't use that mugshot in the Hugh Grant article – rightly so. Yet a few editors are still insisting on using the mugshot for Gates, who didn't break any law whatsoever. Can't we be as kind to Gates as we are to Grant? JN466 22:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Kind to gates? What does kindness have to do with anything? We're writing an encyclopedia which includes an article about his arrest. If and only if the harm exceeds the encyclopedic value do we suppress real, free pictures. It's part of the public record, and Wikipedia shold reflect that. Overly slavish adherence to a misguided notion of BLP protection is essentially censorship. Jclemens (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Per SlimVirgin's comments above. JN466 12:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

... with which I've already registered my disagreement. Sorry, but BLP is a limitation on how we build an encyclopedia on notable topics, not a restriction on what topics we cover. I'm just not seeing any convincing arguments for not including such pictures, Gates' or others', in articles about notable arrests. Jclemens (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jclemens.

Lara

19:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP is [...] not a restriction on what topics we cover – nobody has suggested that. We can cover and discuss a wrongful arrest, or an arrest that led to all charges being dropped, in an article without displaying the booking shot in it. No one says it cannot or should not be covered. But we don't need the booking shot to describe what led to the arrest, why the charges were dropped, or why the arrest was considered unlawful. Mugshots implicitly suggest, as one of the policy proposals above stated, that a "person has a poor reputation." Where someone was wrongfully arrested, it is inappropriate for us to create that impression. Note that I am not talking here about people who were convicted; I am talking only about those who were arrested and then cleared of all charges. JN466 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Too many assumptions strung together to come to that conclusion for me to support it, sorry. A notable arrest, in that it has its own article, demands the picture of the arrestee, assuming such is available. Assumptions of potential possible ongoing harm, even if they had merit, do not trump the job of an encyclopedia to report the facts. A straight up

WP:BLP: the picture is sourced, authenticated, and its meaning is explained in the text, thus no policy-based BLP concerns remain. Jclemens (talk

) 23:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Mugshots implicitly suggest, as one of the policy proposals above stated, that a "person has a poor reputation."((cn}} I think most thinking people realize that people get arrested for all sorts of stupid things. I'd agree mugshots tend not to be flattering, even moreso than a drivers license, but you'd have to be some sort of Ed Meese to think they insinuate guilt. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

(outdent) Here is a citation for the prejudicial effect of mugshots: "Mugshots are generally inadmissible in a criminal trial because jury may infer from them that defendant has a criminal history". On Aug. 4, user:ArnoldReinhold posted the following on this page (my emphases):

"On the broader question of whether mug shots are inherently POV, the U.S. legal system agrees that they are. In Barnes v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 365 F.2d 509, 510--11 (1966): the United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit held 'The double-shot picture, with front and profile shots alongside each other, is so familiar, from 'wanted' posters in the post office, motion pictures and television, that the inference that the person involved has a criminal record, or has at least been in trouble with the police, is natural, perhaps automatic.' The Handbook of Massachusetts Evidence says "Because of the risk of prejudice to the defendant inherent in the admission of photographs of the 'mug shot' variety, judges and prosecutors are required to 'use reasonable means to avoid calling the jury's attention to the source of such photographs used to identify the defendant.'" (p.617) Elsewhere it cites a ruling in Com. v. Martin "admission of a defendant's mug shot is 'laden for characterizing the defendant as a careerist in crime'"

Isn't it inappropriate to trigger these subconscious responses in the case of people who haven't done anything? JN466 00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

To answer agr's question above, I think they are highly charged images that should only be used in exceptional circumstances. They should not be used at all in cases of wrongful arrests or arrests where the charges were dropped. As far as living persons are concerned who were rightfully arrested, I propose we think about the merits of using them only for people who are currently serving time in jail. JN466 22:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Jayen, agreed. Hugh Grant has a few friends here and he is ok, no big issues attached to get people worked up. so leave it out, I have read all the edits on the Grant page, they did at one point add the pic and then removed it as demeaning and adding nothing. I have a feeling that the issue here is , black, white, police and politics, underlying personal opinions by wikipedian editors, and not as it should be, the consideration of the continual harm that could be caused to the innocent subject and the reputation of the WP

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's work on getting text to that effect into the policy. JN466 12:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I am unsure of that consensus, Lara, Elsewhere (in the 5 different conversations on this particular topic) it appears that consensus has not been found. Limiting booking photos for use in BLPs where the subject has been convicted doesn't take into account where arrests sparked a larger controversy, such as Rosa Parks or the current matter of Henry Louis Gates. The presumption that booking photos are inherently demeaning and inappropriate for use in any instance is demonstrably false. I am vehemently opposed to working policy text into effect that cheapens our value as an encyclopedia. Indeed, we should do no harm, but the value of an encylopedia trumps whether someone is embarrassed about a mistake that either overshadows their other accomplishments or takes on a life of its own. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where to begin; there are so many inconsistencies in what you say here, Arcayne. We were talking about living persons. Rosa Parks is not a living person. We were talking about people who were wrongfully arrested, or where the charges were dropped. Even though the consensus today is that it was an outrageous injustice, Rosa Parks was actually charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced after her arrest. You talk about a "mistake" overshadowing someone's life. That description fits the Grant case, yet the community seems wisely agreed (even though there are more sources on this arrest than there are on Gates' arrest!) that we don't need an article on the arrest of Hugh Grant airing Grant's mugshot from Commons. Your argument does not fit the case of arrests where the subject is later found not to have done anything, which this discussion is specifically about. According to your logic, the arrest of an innocent person is a mistake made by the innocent person.

The principle Lara and I are advocating is simple:

In cases of

wrongful arrest

, arrests where all charges were dropped after the arrest, or where the person was cleared of all charges, we should not use a mugshot. Mugshots have been found to be inherently prejudicial; in the case of an innocent person, a mugshot presents them in a false light.

In addition, we are wondering whether we should continue to show mugshots, even for people sentenced to jail, after they have been released from prison. Again,

Divine Brown (sex worker), the woman Grant was caught with, is a case in point. JN466

12:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with User:Jayen466 in the strongest of terms. If an article discusses a topic, no limitations should be placed on the inclusion of relevant, informative images regarding that topic. There is simply no arguing that a mugshot taken during an arrest is not relevant to that arrest. The context and explanation discharges it of its negative associations. We're also not responsible for the abuse of these images by others; I'd rather have them get the image from our image description page, where they are duly warned about personality rights, than from a third party. Dcoetzee 00:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dcoetzee, of course limitations should be placed – and are placed – on the inclusion of relevant, informative images. For example, our article on the Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy does not feature the photographs and does not link to them, even though they are undoubtedly informative and relevant to the topic. So any argument is not about whether we limit ourselves, but where we set the limits of decency. JN466 12:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I agree with Jayen in that there are times when we need to censor ourselves for whatever reason. The Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy is a great example of when we surely need not display photos. However, for the purposes of the above discussion regarding mug shots, this is an irrelevant comparison.

Lara

18:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the particular example you cite, I did overstate the case - there are cases where the inclusion of an image should not be included because it presents a direct physical threat to someone, or does damage to their reputation that is disproportionately large compared to the benefit provided to the public. These images can only be treated on a case-by-case basis. Dcoetzee 00:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Whaa? Under what circumstances would we publish such images on Wikipedia? Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I was unclear and I've updated my comment. Dcoetzee 01:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

JCLemens has this exactly right. I would even go further, even if someone was completely and fully exonerated of some charge, if the arrest constitutes something documented in the biography, we would be remiss to not include the mugshot (always with the caveat of editorial discretion, duh) as part of our duty to provide complete information about the matter. A life story is what it is, positive, negative, sometimes boring and sometimes not. Encyclopedic writing and photographic dcumenation, even of embarassing incidents, is not harmful. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The

Off2riorob (talk

) 20:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC))

Which is not what I'm suggesting. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Indeed not. Presenting a complete history with illustration is not what one can label a tabloid. And Schmucky, your sig is borked. No time stamp.

Lara

06:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was an unfriendly remark, Off2rio; you might want to consider striking it.

I've noted elsewhere the idea that if the arrest takes on a life of its own (as it clearly has for the Gates' instance, complete with a sub-article that specifically addresses the arrest and aftermath), removing the booking photo would be censoring, and the wiki is

not censored. In instances like Hugh Grant's dalliance with a prostitute, or Nick Nolte's dalliances with a liquor cabinet, we aren't presented with an incident that overshadows the rest of the subject's life. I think that should be part of the litmus test for inclusion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

19:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the range of opinions, I don't know if we can agree on anything. However the personality rights issue is something people need to be warned about. As in the "Personality rights" warning attached to this mug shot of Paris Hilton. How about:

Images

Images of individuals - photographs, drawings, etc., including embarrassing ones like

mug shots that might be in the public domain - should comply with other biography of living persons policies. Note that even public domain or self-produced photographs may, in some jurisdictions, be restricted by laws pertaining to personality rights

, independent from their copyright status.

Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Personality rights are not relevant in this context, because in the United States they control only "the commercial exploitation of name, likeness, voice or "personality."" I wrote up an alternative text:

Images should be used in a way compliant with privacy laws of the United States; in particular, images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false light. For example, obvious mugshots should only be used in a context relevant to the arrest in which the mugshot was made.

The point of the language "obvious mugshots" is to distinguish it from edited mugshots like the Paris Hilton and Bill Gates examples that no casual observer would construe as a mugshot. Based on the above discussion I think we can all agree that at least these restrictions are reasonable. Dcoetzee 03:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a reasonable start. JN466 11:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I think in such cases as Hilton's mug shot, the image title should also be changed if it includes the words "mug shot" or something similar. Noting the derivative of Bill Gates' is titled "Bill Gates 1977".

Lara

14:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, and there's some policy support for that on Commons (for example see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, which emphasises "Careful choice of title and description"). However the image description page must link the source image. Dcoetzee 00:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we add "... and should not be used in biographies of living persons who are not currently incarcerated.", per Jennavecia above? Proposal:

Images should be used in a way compliant with privacy laws of the United States; in particular, images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false light. For example, obvious police booking photos ("mugshots") –
* should not be used in biographies of living persons who are not currently incarcerated;
* should only be used where the arrest at which the mugshot was made is a prominent part of the article context.

JN466 17:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. I believe that using a mugshot photo of a person who is not currently incarcerated is sometimes entirely appropriate. An example would be (if he were living)

Martin Luther King, who was temporarily imprisoned for his civil disobedience, and whose article discusses this arrest. If such an image were included in his article, the article's context and explanation would discharge it of its negative associations (as would the other, more positive images of him). The concept that lazy readers simply won't read the image caption is unfathomable - proceeding along that line of thinking we'd soon be excluding words that may be read in a prejudicial way. Dcoetzee

00:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for reference, we do have one of MLK's mugshots [3] in Commons; it's not used in the article on him. I agree with you that there might be exceptions where use of the mugshot might make sense, and I am perfectly willing to entertain ways of addressing these, but generally speaking, mugshots are prejudicial, as per RS quotes given above, and thus a potential BLP issue. To concede that in some special cases like MLK the mugshot may be justified is no reason to ignore all the cases in which it is unfairly prejudicial. JN466 00:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, and although I realise the reaction of a reader to an image is difficult to predict, I don't consider this a special case — I think any case in which the arrest was a significant enough event in their life to deserve coverage in their biography, the mugshot can be presented in a way that is respectful by placing it in its proper context. This can include image captions, article discussion, and also more subtle factors like reducing the size of the image relative to the lead image. I think this is an effective balance of respect for the subject and benefit to the readership. Dcoetzee 00:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I think proportion is the key. Images of incidents should be used in proportion to the amount of text given to the incident. In the case of the MLK article, which contains 5 photos of MLK, his arrest is given just six sentences out of several hundred. If the article had 20 photos of MLK there would be a case for a mugshot but it would be "undue weight" to include a mugshot in the article as it stands. Momento (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds pretty reasonable to me (although of course this sense of "undue weight" is entirely different from the usual POV sense at

WP:UNDUE). Dcoetzee

01:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But POV "undue weight" is also relevant to this. Someone who didn't like Hugh Grant might want to add his mugshot to his five images despite the fact that the incident only receives a few sentences out of more than a hundred sentences of text.Momento (talk) 02:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should reserve the use of mugshots for those who's arrest was so notable that it warrants its own article; with some exceptions, I'm sure. I think this should apply to all biographies, as well. Using again the

I like Dcoetzee proposal (and comments):

Images should be used in a way compliant with privacy laws of the United States; in particular, images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false light. For example, obvious mugshots should only be used in a context relevant to the arrest in which the mugshot was made.

Does it need to be added that of course this is all within Wiki policy and consensus of editors?? Any strong objection to putting them in? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me obviously. :-) I think even if we haven't agreed on anything else this is useful as a bare minimum. Dcoetzee 17:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I would object to the latest proposal because it implies that mugshots can be used whenever there is an arrest. I don't think there is a consensus for that at all. Also I think it superfluous to say "Images should be used in a way compliant with privacy laws of the United States." At the very beginning, BLP makes it clear we "must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States." There is not need to single out privacy laws.--agr (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, umm. How about something like this:

Images should be used in a way compliant with privacy laws of the United States; in particular, images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false light. For example, obvious mugshots should only be used in a context relevant to the arrest in which the mugshot was made, and even then the need for inclusion should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Something like that. We're never going to come up with an objective rule for this that everybody agrees on, so subjective article-specific judgement has to enter into the picture somewhere. The point of singling out privacy laws in this instance is of course that they have particular relevance to the use of images. Dcoetzee 03:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem with singling out privacy laws is that, as I understand them as a non-lawyer, in the U.S. they are weak to non existent in their application to us. As our article on the subject points out they require proof of actual malice or some commercial gain. And even the latter probably does not cover simply trying to sell more newspapers. --agr (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as we have mentioned the arrest of Hugh Grant, what about the mugshot in

Divine_Brown_(sex_worker)? JN466

09:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with a part of you reasoning, Lara. While I concur that Short's (the Black Dahlia murder victim) booking photo should not be used in the infobox - a quick Google search indicates at least three different images (1, 2, 3) that could have been used instead, this is an example of a poor article, not a bad policy or guideline.

I am of two minds on the use of booking photos. I think that they do not belong as the infobox photo for the main article for the subject, unless they are in fact a convicted criminal, and they are famous only because of that crime. Even then, other free images, if they can be found should be used. On the other hand, I feel that there are instances where a booking photo used within the article - or even within the infobox - is not only useful, but necessary. The previous five sections and subsections of this discussion page that discuss the use of mugshots (and make no mistake - all of them were indirect attempts to seek policy insight into the Henry Louis Gates sub-article) have all addressed how booking photos and other visual media from an arrest - be it a perp walk, booking photos or whatnot - can be useful and indeed instrumental to many articles. Many have pointed of Rosa Parks as one of the better examples of booking photos used effectively, and I think that effectively dismisses the absolutist argument that all booking photos are demeaning and therefore of no use in a BLP.

Another example of where booking photos are effective are in subsidiary articles relating specifically to the arrest of subject of a BLP. It is here that booking photos are warranted int he infobox - because the article is not just about the person, but about the arrest and aftermath. The Arrest of Henry Louis Gates article is a prime example of where such is warranted. A Harvard professor and noted documentarian is arrested in his home after police are called to investigate a possible break-in. Gates is arrested - not for burglary - but for Disorderly Conduct (allegedly yelling at the cop who allegedly refused to identify himself and his badge number). The charge (which is later dismissed by an embarrassed DA's office) sparks a lot of discussion about racial profiling by the police, inspiring an unfortunate comment from the sitting US President. A meeting at the White House seeks to put the matter to rest. Now, the arrest - crystallized by the booking photo and seized upon by the media as an example of the injustice of the such - is important in and of itself. It represents more than Gates' arrest. It represents matters that take on a life of their own. This is why the booking image should not only remain, but be the infobox image for the subsidiary article about the arrest.

For those instances where an arrest or a crime either a) overshadow other instances of that person's biography, or b) addresses matters over and above that person's biography, the booking photo should be used. Additionally, usage of the booking photo must be decided on a case by case basis, not absolutely prohibited. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your opinion of the use of the mugshot in

Divine_Brown_(sex_worker) which JN called to our attention above.--agr (talk

) 13:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne, look. I stopped reading half way though. No less than three times now, in three different threads—and for no apparent reason, as they were all made before I had a chance to respond—you've misrepresented my position. Rosa Parks is neither comparable to Gates' or Short. Her arrest was a significant historical event and significant in her life. Short was arrested for underage drinking and the details of it consumed a single sentence in a long biography. It's not comparable to Gates' because we can only speculate at this point as to the potential historical significance this arrest will have. And, again, my stance is to keep such images out of biographies with exceptions, not out of event articles.

Lara

18:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, my stance on mug shots in BDPs is that they should not be the lead/infoxbox image unless the subject is notable for crimes committed. I would be shocked for anyone to take a stance against that. If, for example, a deceased actor was at some point in their life arrested and it was a notable event, I would probably not be opposed to including the mug shot in the section on the arrest. However, I would be strongly opposed to the mug shot being the infobox image. Wholly inappropriate. Same, surely, applies to BLPs. Never should we use a mug shot in an infobox if the person is not currently incarcerated for the crimes, unless those crimes are their claim to notability and they have chosen to remain in the public eye. That's my opinion.

Lara

18:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has gone on too long to read and keep everything straight. I like Lara's last sentence and will offer a minor weakening: "Never should we use a mug shot in an infobox if the person is not currently incarcerated for the crimes, unless those crimes are a major claim for their notability and they have chosen to remain in the public eye. " Why not leave it there? Smallbones (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A) because being under indictment also reason for notability and b) it may be only photo available. See below. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am quite concerned on the application of

1. If there is a reasonable discussion on material which is seen as contentious by some and as harmless by someone else, I find quite obvious that the contentious material has to be on the talk page, otherwise no discussion can be made and there will be a constant bias towards being paranoically safe, due to immediate censorship of any potentially harmful material. I understand why there are policies like WP:BLP but there is a slippery slope in such a default; we risk a Wikipedia containing basically no mention of any controversy.
2. I don't understand why we should be paranoid about talk pages. An article is a source of information; a talk page is a discussion about that source, and as such cannot be defamatory, harmful or like if it discusses the inclusion or sourcing etc. of potentially defamatory or harmful viewpoints or edits.

In synthesis, speedy deleting stuff on article pages is OK; doing the same on talk pages is more akin to censorship of editorial discussion, which I find pretty worrying. Any comment? Thanks. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages and the like can still cause harm. The policy of removing poorly sourced information or conjectural interpretations applies everywhere for that reason. If information is unimpeachably sourced there isn't a problem. We should accept nothing less. --TS 00:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It depends, if someone is using a talk page as a means of working to improve an article, and as a means of vetting sources and working out a neutral language and the like, then yeah, I can see where stuff that is not allowed in an article MAY be allowable on a talk page, simply as a means of working on an article. However, if a talk page is merely being used as a place to slander/libel a person in order to avoid the scrutiny of an article, thats a

WP:COMMONSENSE. If its a constructive discussion on improving the article, then that's one thing. If its just being used to further BLP violations in another forum, that is another. --Jayron32

01:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments -I absolutely agree with Jayron32 on that. I was not referring to obvious

WP:GAME situations. I was concerned because I see people removing sourced but controversial information from talk pages at sight, and this makes me mad -how are we supposed to discuss on such information if BLP-snipers delete it? Could clarifying this point on the policy page be helpful? --Cyclopia (talk

) 09:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's just not acceptable, and I'll explain. Suppose you genuinely want to discuss whether X or Y is a pedophile. Obviously if they are then it should go into the article. But if they're not, then the damage caused by discussing whether they are or not, anywhere, especially in a public forum like a wiki where all edits are permanently captured, is very great and can never be undone. If they are, then there will be a reliable source. The comclusion: don't even think of introducing potentially damaging information to any part of Wikipedia unless you have an unimpeachable source. The biographies of living persons policy is one case where conventional notions of Wikipedia as a work-in-progress must be set aside. --TS 12:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the kind of reasoning that deeply concernes me. Suppose that there are a couple of third party sources indicating that X has been accused of pedophilia. There is discussion on the reliability of the sources: what is unimpeachable to me can not be to someone else (and viceversa). Until the discussion is closed, there is no way to settle the question without having the sources and an open discussion. As for "damaging", well, how can we shut up discussion on a subject? How can be merely discussing something between parties damaging? Damaging is a statement on an article page that WP readers will use as a source. Having a conversation on a public forum is free speech, at least until one does not directly defamate someone. Citing sources and discussing them cannot count as defamation. That's the kind of paranoia that I strongly disagree with and that should be discussed. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not an open discussion forum and we set our rules as to what is acceptable at some distance from the maximum we might be able to get away with. I believe the number of situations where someone is genuinely unsure as to what constitutes an unimpeachable source is small compared to the number of people gaming our system to get negative material about someone they dislike onto Wikipedia wherever they can. In those rare former cases, a reasonable approach might be to post a query the the BLP notice board without mentioning the name of the person involved, such as "I found an article in the Podunk Examiner saying an individual is a pedophile. Is that a good enough source to include the accusation in that individual's Wikipedia article?" --agr (talk) 15:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We are not an open discussion forum and we set our rules as to what is acceptable at some distance from the maximum we might be able to get away with. - This is OK, but one thing is to be on the safe side, another is to make any discussion on the subject extremly difficult if not impossible.

I believe the number of situations where someone is genuinely unsure as to what constitutes an unimpeachable source is small compared to the number of people gaming our system to get negative material about someone they dislike onto Wikipedia wherever they can. - If someone says on a talk page "X is a pedophile!!!1!one!" I agree for it to be deleted -it is defamation. If someone says on a talk page "Hey, I found link A and B saying that X is a pedophile" (and the links are actually real), regardless of how poor could the sources be, I can't see why this should be considered harmful, since the editor is stating a fact (that the links contain such information). If X feels defamed by the links, the links are the problem, not us.

a reasonable approach might be to post a query...: This is not going to work for at least two reasons. First, what usually happens is not that someone is unsure, but that A edits the article, B removes the controversial info, A then moves the material to the talk page to discuss it. Second, the appropriateness of a source is basically impossible to assess without knowing who or what is the subject: a newspaper can be thought as a reliable source about certain facts but not others.

The problem is that I cannot see how discussing a fact (a source reporting something about X) can actually harm X. It's not like disclosing privacy information or inventing biased information. It's discussing an existing thing. Its enciclopedicity is completely another stuff, but no one can think such a discussion is defamation or what else. What I can see, instead, is a chilling effect on BLP discussion that goes well beyond a reasonable BLP policy. --Cyclopia (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to see a situation where the quality of a source can't be discussed without mentioning the nature of the allegation. If the source is "reliable source about certain facts but not others" it's unlikely to be good enough for BLP purposes. We set a high bar for negative allegations against living people, for ethical as well as legal reasons. And I suspect someone unhappy about a discussion of their alleged pedophilia on their Wikipedia talk page could easily find a lawyer who took a different view of what constitutes defamation than you do. --agr (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to see a situation where the quality of a source can't be discussed without mentioning the nature of the allegation.: Is a newspaper a reliable source on a car accident? Probably yes. Is it a reliable source on a scientific discovery? Absolutely not. Is an hacker's blog post a reliable source on a software security weakness? Most probably yes. Is it a reliable source on the behaviour of his fellows hackers? Most probably not. Relative to the case in point: Is a local newspaper a reliable source on the current POTUS? Probably not. Is it a reliable source on some crime happened in the place the newspaper is printed? Possibly yes.

And I suspect someone unhappy about a discussion of their alleged pedophilia on their Wikipedia talk page could easily find a lawyer who took a different view of what constitutes defamation than you do.: I am sure Scientology could find a lot of lawyers tackling with WP treatment of their religion, if they were willing to. I am sure you can find a lawyer with a different view on defamation for every purpose, if paid enough. The question is: should we allow such chilling effects to affect discussion on third party sources and their content related to the article on a talk page? Because if yes, this simply means that talking of controversial issues on WP is prohibited, which is something that makes building a reliable article on a living person utterly impossible. --Cyclopia (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on some of the examples you're giving, I think you need to review

WP:RS. But even in the relevant question Is a local newspaper a reliable source on the current POTUS? Probably not. Is it a reliable source on some crime happened in the place the newspaper is printed? Possibly yes we don't need to know the specific nature of the allegation, The subject of the bio, or even their position (mayor, congressperson, rock star, etc.) is enough to evaluate the source. We are simply not going get to the level where the Podunk Examiner is a valid source about pedophiles, but only the Podunk Daily news is suitable for wife beating allegations. We don't change policy based on improbable hypothetical situations. And we just passed 3 million english articles without a allowing talk discussions about poorly sourced allegations. It's up to the editor who wants to insert contentious material about a living person to find a reliable source first. Period.--agr (talk

) 23:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on some of the examples you're giving, I think you need to review

WP:RS

-Entirely possible. May I ask you why and where?

we don't need to know the specific nature of the allegation-It depends. The local newspaper talks of something local? It may be a source. The local newspaper doesn't? It may be not. How do I know, how can I make a judgement on that if I cannot even discuss that?

We are simply not going get to the level where the Podunk Examiner is a valid source about pedophiles, but only the Podunk Daily news is suitable for wife beating allegations. - This is a straw man argument: I've never stated such nonsense. It's simply untenable that one should discuss a controversial issue and relevant sources about it without even knowing what kind of issue it is.

And we just passed 3 million english articles without a allowing talk discussions about poorly sourced allegations.: This is utterly meaningless. It's not a matter of quantity but of quality. 3 billion articles where discussion on potentially relevant material is prohibited are, in my humble opinion, 3 billion potentially broken articles.

It's up to the editor who wants to insert contentious material about a living person to find a reliable source first. - The problem is that the notions of "contentious material" and "reliable source" are not universally shared; otherwise there would be little point in having talk pages at all. My point is that, while we of course don't have the freedom to put controversial material on a page, we should have the freedom of discussing it at will, if the discussion is civil and made for the encyclopaedia's sake.

We don't change policy based on improbable hypothetical situations.-Well, you are, actually, since you claim improbable hypothetical lawsuits as a ground to maintain a policy on talk pages (I could be wrong in that talk page related incidents happened; please report an example if so).

I wish to clarify that my points are: 1)Talking about third sources (no matter how unreliable are they) that report a statement is a completely different thing than reporting a statement in the article itself. 2)Talking about these sources is very unlikely to be harmful or libelous (if discussion is properly done) because it's not a matter of pushing the sources'POV but of discussing their place in an article. 3)Talking about these sources and their content properly is needed to properly write complete and reliable BLPs that do not miss information. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

• I generally agree with this complaint. We shouldn't be enforcing BLP as vigorously on talk pages as we do on article pages, for a variety of reasons (talk pages aren't indexed, talk pages serve a necessary function to hash things out, talk pages are for discussion so removal has a chilling effect, etc.). We shouldn't be posting unsubstantiated rumors, but we shouldn't be deleting threads on how do handle article content, even if those threads include statements which could not be made on the article page. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A possible technical compromise?

A compromise could be that of having a "quarantine room" -i.e. a non-googlable talk subpage accessible only to trusted editors -and involved parties, such as people bringing the controversial statements first- to discuss the thing at will, reporting then the outcome of the discussion in the public talk page. My excuses if some similar mechanism already exists that I am unaware of -in that case I would be happy to know. This would get a bit in the face of the openness of the process, but much better that than censoring every attempt at discussing such information. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As you say, this would go against our tradition of openness and it would not be a simple thing to implement. Of course there is nothing stopping a group of editors who feel censored from exchanging e-mail or IM addresses and having a private discussion off Wikipedia. I think that is enough of a safety valve for a problem I have never seen in practice.--agr (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

To me looks technically simple (in fact, it is a matter of automatically adding pages to robots.txt and using the same permissions used, say, to create articles); it is much better than email because it is open to admins etc. of Wikipedia in case of disputes and the discussion can be expected to follow the same standards. As for the "tradition of openness" argument, first, for sure such a method is more open than email; second, censoring all attemps at discussion of controversial material is way more against a "tradition of openness". The problem seems to be that some openness maybe has to be given up if we want to discuss safely such stuff (IMHO we could frankly discuss it on talk pages, but I am trying to find a compromise). Finally, I have seen the problem in practice (otherwise I wouldn't even have thought of bringing the question here). So I think it's something that we should ponder. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer will always be no, no matter how many times you attempt to restate the question. It is never, ever acceptable to put poorly supported negative factual material about a living person on Wikipedia. There is no reason to relax this rule; if a source isn't good enough to ensure inclusion in the article, there's no point in discussing that fact on the talk page. --TS 12:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're missing completely the point. The point is that there are disputes between editors on what does "poorly supported", "negative" and sometimes even "factual" means. That's what talk pages are made for. If we shut down discussion, we do a strong disservice to article building. Stating dogmas as you do now is a disservice too: there is an issue, and it is worth discussing. If you want to discuss, bring arguments, not dogmatic statements. If you don't want, fine, no need to intervene again. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this thread is an excellent illustration of why we must not change our policy. We have lots of editors on Wikipedia who won't let go of an argument -- I'll include myself in that crowd -- and they create endless discussions, splitting hairs finer and finer. That's ok if the argument is about whether magnetic monopoles exist or some disputed point of Wikipedia policy. It's not acceptable if the argument is about whether the (living) Mayor of Podunk is a pedophile. It's too hard to keep defamatory material out of such an inevitably impassioned discussion. So we insist that negative material about a living individual come for a source that is so clearly reliable that there isn't much need for discussion. If conflict about sources can't be cleared up without repeating the allegation on the talk page, then the allegation doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The BLP Noticeboard is available for appeals and, yes, they'll delete the material again if there wasn't an obvious misreading of our policy. --agr (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not acceptable if the argument is about whether the (living) Mayor of Podunk is a pedophile. - That's what I can't get in my head. Probably I am dense, but:

1. Could you explain me why can't I discuss freely about sources stating that? If there are sources stating that I am a pedophile, I can't do anything to stop people discussing them. Nor I should, as long as they discuss them impartially and rationally. One thing is people shouting "Cyclopia is a pedophile, look here!!", another is people saying "hey, the Anti-Cyclopian Review seems to imply that Cyclopia is a pedophile, what should we do? Any other sources about that?". The first statement is clearly defamatory, the second simply states what a third party source reports and asks for honest discusson. Why should I feel defamed by that? The problem is the Anti-Cyclopian Review, not the discussion! Can someone explain that to me very clearly and completely why it is not so?

2. There are not only discussions of sources reliability, but also on what is considered controversial/harmful. Is it defamatory to suggest that someone has been caught praying Jesus? One could think not, and therefore not care too much about that but maybe if we're talking of Richard Dawkins, the situation could be much different. And what about someone being a Scientologist, a perfectly legit religion that is however frowned upon by many? The concept is that we cannot think that all situations will be black-and-white, and we have to discuss about that somewhere.

3. Even assuming the possibility that such a discussion can be harmful or defamatory, what's wrong in suggesting a "quarantine room" for such discussions, so that we can have both possibility of discussing things and avoid harm?

Finally, I'm not here to split hairs. I am simply putting forward what I see as a problem, and not a minor one: being blocked from discussing sourced material is a serious issue, and I would like a bit more convincing arguments than "it's not acceptable" or "the answer will always be no". --Cyclopia (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The Anti-Cyclopian Review is obviously not a reliable source. You're constructing the appearance of a problem where none exists. Use only unimpeachable sources when discussing damaging facts, and you won't encounter any problems. Your point about membership of the Church of Scientology being a potentially controversial fact only underlines how carefully we must treat all factual statements in biographies of living persons. That is exactly why this page, which only restates existing policy with a certain emphasis on urgency, exists. --TS 19:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"The Anti-Cyclopian Review" was just a placeholder name, for $DEITY's sake. Substitute whatever you like for it in all the spectrum of reliability. Maybe it's very reliable, but it's only one: what to do? Are two enough? Three? What if two reliable sources conflict? And even if it is not reliable, where's the harm for me in discussing such stuff as stated above? That's what has to be answered to. About your comment on the membership to the Church of Scientology, I don't understand what you mean, could you please expand? And again, the problem is very real, I met such deletion of thoroughly sourced comments on talk pages several times and I am very concerned on what's happening on Wikipedia here and now. --Cyclopia (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And again: what is "unimpeachable" and "damaging" depends very much on context and stuff, it's not like there is the Great List of Unimpeacheable Sources in the sky and the List of Undeniably Damaging Facts in heavens. That's why discussions arise. If we were always to decide between statements like "X loves bunnies" vs "X is a pedophile" there wouldn't be a point in having discussion pages at all. --Cyclopia (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed endlessly already, and the result is the policy that you now see. I don't think you or I are helping to move the policy onwards by this rehashing of a long-settled debate. I accept that there will always be people who feel that discussing negative things about people without impeachable sources is or should be acceptable. I remain convinced that the place to discuss this is not on the web page of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, there is no deadline. We are not on a mission to be up-to-date, we only aim to get it right. --TS 22:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed endlessly already : Links? I didn't find them.

I remain convinced that the place to discuss this is not on the web page of an encyclopedia : Convince me too. Tell me why. It is extremly frustrating for me to talk with you and agr because almost no arguments are brought to the table, only statements. We won't go anywhere just by restating "it is so/i think so". I brought three (hopefully) very precise questions above, but no answer so far. I also tried to clarify what issues happen and can happen again. Again, no answer to that.

Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, there is no deadline. We are not on a mission to be up-to-date, we only aim to get it right. : I agree, but what's the relevance of that to the discussion? We're talking of getting it right; the point is (for the billionth time) that without allowing discussion on talk pages, getting it right becomes almost impossible at points, because there is never a 100% objective consensus on what "right" means. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You ask for links. Check the archives. This policy has been discussed many times before on this talk page and those pages are archived. I merely pointed that prosaic fact out.

You say "Convince me too. Tell me why."

It doesn't work that way. You can't just show up on the talk page of a well established policy and demand that people actively defend the consensus. If you want to change the consensus, do so. The floor is yours.

You say "without allowing discussion on talk pages, getting it right becomes almost impossible at points, because there is never a 100% objective consensus on what "right" means."

The words "100%" and "objective" are not in the policy. Just concentrate on making sure you have an unimpeachable source. If you can't be bothered to do that, there's always the blogosphere. Wikipedia isn't a place for experiments in journalism. --TS 02:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

1. I checked the archives before starting the thread, didn't find an extensive discussion, came here. My archive-digging can be dysfunctional of course, so if you know there has been extensive discussion, I would be happy to be pointed at.

2. It works that way instead: welcome to the concept of discussion between disagreeing parties. I am challenging the policy providing arguments, if there has already been a discussion on that, link it, otherwise, since you told that you are convinced of that, I'd like to know why. Your constant lack of arguments is frustrating.

3. I am not talking of me bringing sources or not. I am talking of looking people discussing rationally sources in the talk pages, and these discussion get wiped out without warning. It never happened to me, but when I see it happening I have a chill down my spine. My personal feeling is that it is BLP policy gone wrong. See this diff for example. We can agree that it is a questionable rumour etc. not to include in the article, but someone honestly put forward an argument with what he thought a good source, and got answered with something like "You should hang your head in shame" before the whole discussion was wiped out by the same guy. Is this really acceptable? --Cyclopia (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

TS and agr, you guys are effectively proving his point. He's looking for some wiggle room in the policy to discuss subjects without being told "no, blp". You say "bring an unimpeachable source", but what makes an unimpeachable source? Can we discuss sources on the talk page? Can we have a discussion about M.J.'s doctor on the talk page without an "unimpeachable source" dictating that he is the devil? Can we work with sources to determine what the article should look like? Because as written the BLP policy says yes. but the responses here seem to indicate no. Protonk (talk) 03:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course we can use talk pages to discuss sources that might be usable in our articles. So if there is a source X that makes a claim about person Y, and it is not obvious whether this claim should be inserted into the article, then it is perfectly acceptable to discuss source X and the claim that is made on the talk page. Of course the discussion should proceed in a professional manner and stick closely to the topic at hand, which is to determine whether to include the claim in the article. This is exactly the purpose for which talk pages are intended, and there is no other forum in which the necessary discussion could take place. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 03:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty basic stuff. If the New York Times, the Washington Post and CBS News are saying that X is a pedophile, we can put it into the article. If they're not, we shouldn't even be thinking about it. The reason for this is (and I'm sorry for the use of emphasis but some people seem to have forgotten) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --TS 03:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

TS I don't think it is necessary to talk down to people here. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

TS, technically all of Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia: the Wikipedia article namespace is. Talk pages are places where the building of articles of the encyclopedia are discussed. That's why I suggest that they can't have the same identical policy and that discussion should proceed more freely there, to allow room for discussion and consensus to come out. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Cyclopia, for finally bringing a real example to this discussion (the diff in your point 3, above). To summarize, an editor suggested on the talk page of our article about a well-known female movie star that we include a claim that the star is genetically male, based on on a 1996 newspaper story. Another editor tracked the story down as an unsubstantiated "somebody -told-me-their-plastic-surgeon-heard.... " rumor. It was not appropriate for the second editor to attack the posting editor--that is well covered by our policies

Why was it appropriate to remove? What is gained from that? --Cyclopia (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly why this policy is right. The original editor who introduced a ridiculous bit of gossip into Wikipedia should never have done so. --TS 23:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The original editor didn't know that was a ridicolous bit of gossip: it was sourced and from an (apparently) authoritative source. He was perfectly entitled to do so, and he even had the caution of adding the material on the talk page instead than on the article. Instead of politely stating that the source has been debunked, he's been attacked and his posts ruthlessly removed. So much for encyclopedic purposes. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cyclopia, you seem to think that some parts of Wikipedia are there for some other purpose. Insofar as some other purposes may be defaming other people, it is not available--no part of it--for those other purposes. It is all, wholly and without exception, devoted to encyclopedic purposes. Any content not strictly devoted to that purpose can and will be ruthlessly removed. That is why parts of this policy apply specifically and without exception to every single page of Wikipedia, in every namespace. --TS 23:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cyclopia, you seem to think that some parts of Wikipedia are there for some other purpose.: Not at all. Trying to read my mind and launch strawman arguments won't bring anyone anywhere. All of wikipedia is devoted to encyclopedic purposes as you correctly say: but not all of Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.

Any content not strictly devoted to that purpose can and will be ruthlessly removed. - I agree. In fact I am talking of content strictly devoted to that purpose: debating and discussing sources to build encyclopedia articles. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Discussions about how to improve articles or which sources to use or which sources to trust or what can and can't be included in an article are expressly allowed to go on in talk pages. Applying WP:GRAPEVINE while ignoring portions of the same policy just down the page a bit isn't sensible. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I didn't read carefully that paragraph. Now that I re-read it, Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted,. "and" being the magic word here. This basically means that material in talk pages devoted to discussing possible facts and sources (and therefore useful to make article content choices) should not be deleted. I am happy to know that the talk page policy is sensible after all. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised by the wording of the rationale, which currently states:

Everything in the first sentence is true, but it happens to apply to every article on Wikipedia. I mean, if a mechanic relied on an error in the article on carburetors, it could affect lots of people -- more than just one person and her families, colleagues and friends, but potentially all the people who get their carburetors serviced at his shop. And how about an error in nuclear power plant?

So, the second sentence is also correct: biographical must be written with "strict adherence to our content policies." But so must everything.

I thought the purpose of this policy was to explain why articles on living people must be written with stricter adherence to our content policies than other articles. And the reason, I thought, was that they could sue us.

So why don't we say that?

That's not the rationale at all. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields the Wikimedia Foundation from that sort of legal exposure (individual contributors remain liable, of course, but since we're the ones assuming the risk, there's no need for the community as a whole to impose stricter controls what we can do). The basis of BLP is moral and ethical, not legal: unlike instances in which our readers may be harmed by foolishly relying on a Wikipedia article that might not be correct, BLP subjects are innocent victims who have done nothing to assume risk. Steve Smith (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't doubt there's a moral and ethical component. But the nutshell does say, "Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility." so now I don't know who to believe.

WP:Hornbook

05:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if the reason we don't mention legal liability has anything to do with, "we don't want to give people ideas," leave me a note on my talk page and I'll shut up.

WP:Hornbook

05:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like you're right about the 230 thing. [4] This is very interesting, very surprising. So should we revise the nutshell?
• Really, I'm just trying to figure out why the obsession with this policy has reached such a feverish pitch. Are you really trying to tell me that this isn't self-interested at all?
• For example, the damage to our own credibility is another argument we don't mention. At the same panel at Wikimania, this comment was made: "The question remains whether institutions such as Wikipedia can maintain long term credibility in the face of a virtual legal shield against defamation liability."
  WP:Hornbook
  07:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
• Ah, and a quick comment RE your comment, "unlike instances in which our readers may be harmed by foolishly relying on a Wikipedia article that might not be correct, BLP subjects are innocent victims who have done nothing to assume risk." I wasn't talking about harm to our foolish readers, I was talking about harm to the people who live downwind of the nuclear power plant run by those foolish readers :)
  WP:Hornbook
  07:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The key point your missing is that it remains the fact most people are going to be mostly pissed off at the engineer or whoever who relied on information in the nuclear power plant article, and the people in charge of said engineer et al then us, and so they should. On the other hand, if someone reads one of our articles which

WP:RD we have explicit policies against providing medical, veterinarian and legal advice, and one of the reasons is because of the direct harm such advice could cause. It's true other advice like how to fix a car advice could cause harm, and it is an issue that has been raised before but there are other reasons we restrict those specific forms of advice and the potential for harm there is a lot more difficult to quantify anyway. Nil Einne (talk

) 19:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Nil Einne, that sounds right. I realized it was only a matter of time before someone exposed how truly shallow that line of reasoning was.

But I do seriously believe that the current rationale needs to specifically mention the harms to Wikipedia of

WP:Hornbook

23:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

a better way to phrase this

OK, so I'm brand new to this policy and I'm sure that there are eons of discussion about this that I've missed. My real point is that There must be additional reasons that we've left out of the rationale section. If so, we've done ourselves a disservice. The best way to convey widespread respect for

Section 230 and Wikipedia

The Ken S. Myers paper, Wikimmunity: Fitting The Communications Decency Act To Wikipedia, cited above, makes it clear that our protection from defamation suits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is not a slam-dunk and that we must be careful in what we do here. The article is long (46 pages), but I'd strongly recommend that people interested in BLP policy read at least Section VI. Thoughts For Fitting Wikipedia To § 230(C)(1). It starts on p.201. Clock the download button at [5] to get the full paper. --agr (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also add section 230 doesn't shield individual editors and to some extent our polices are there to try to protect editors from doing something stupid and getting themselves in trouble. Also section 230 doesn't shield wikipedia overseas, and it is possible in a number of countries for wikipedia to be sued even if our servers are in the US if we defame someone who lives in that country. The judgement probably couldn't be enforced, but do we really want wikipedia to be tied up in such a thing? Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a designated page, here or on WikiMedia Wiki, outlining all the pitfalls that do (or could) present legal liability -- in English wikipedia, in foreign Wikipedias, for the wikimedia foundation, for individual editors, etc? There should be. And there should be spinoff pages that outline all the issues under Section 230. The effort should probably be spearheaded by the legal counsel of Wikimedia.

WP:Hornbook

19:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

An "engineer" who relies on any content in Wikipedia is no engineer. He deserves everything coming to him. Wikipedia comes with absolutely no warranty. --TS 23:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue of the necessity of saying SOMETHING about images remains and should not be held hostage to the mugshot issue. Why not put this up for now to offer guidance minimal guidance to people, suggested by someone else above. It describes pretty much what is happening now on wikipedia anyway, but helps cover cases where you have an experienced editor is insisting using something that a less experienced editor needs some sort of policy backup on objecting to:

Images should be used in a way compliant with privacy laws of the United States; in particular, images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false light. For example, obvious mugshots should only be used in a context relevant to the arrest in which the mugshot was made, and even then the need for inclusion should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Objections? CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving this section to the end of our thread, rather than having it in the middle of the discussion. I've commented above as to why we should not reference privacy laws of the United States --their applicability is questionable and we already say all laws must be followed. I like the rest of your suggestion. The mugshot issue has mostly played itself out on the

Henry Louis Gates arrest incident‎ article. There was no consensus to remove the mugshot there, but some good work was done to come up with ways to put the photo in context. I would suggest people look at that article and maybe see how we can capture that effort as a model.--agr (talk

) 14:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Did eventually find it but it really should stay up there, especially if finalized. OK, got the point on privacy laws. So it would read:

Images

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false light. For example, obvious mugshots should only be used in a context relevant to the arrest in which the mugshot was made, and even then the need for inclusion should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Go for it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[6], per earlier discussions and resulting proposal at #Checking_for_current_consensus. JN466 00:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Good enough! Though case by case basis is good wording, but it is also a general principle anyway. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This photo has an unsourced quasi-defamatory POV title and description.(And I'm sure we can find much worse examples.) So the Images section should tell people a) to remove it from article, replace with something else where possible and b) where to link to for deletion of the actual image. Which I just found out is

I trimmed a bit the description, which I agree was kinda POV-pushing. About the title, I don't know. Deleting the actual image doesn't look meaningful to me, there's nothing of issue in the image itself (if there is and it escaped my notice, please explain). --Cyclopia (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The image is fine. Thanks for changing description. Given name of image, would be nice to have actual name of rally, but whatever. Having seen anti-Israel as a slur against anyone who doesn't support the most pro-expansionist/pro-war viewpoints, the title remains annoying. But since it's not used anywhere it may just go away. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the issue is instead titles and captions that violate BLP, no? If those are inappropriate, change 'em. Jclemens (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right about that example, though it might not hurt to tell people they can try to change those. (Though I guess that's different on wikipedia from wikcommons so they'd have to figure out details themselves.)

I was thinking of actual photos that might be problematic without have false light legal implications, i.e., goofy (I myself took one of a former govt official I'm so tempted to use myself), embarrassing (I have another with a well known politician joking with a woman he didn't know was a prostitution activist) or maybe a photo showing a little more skin than they meant to, or buying a pack of cigarettes when they do ads against cigarette smoking. The possibilities are endless. (It was questions about photos I myself am uploading to use in BLPs that got me started on this!)

Then there are gore photos. For example, one of a burned baby in Gaza survived on the Gaza war page for a short time; on a less active/contentious page it might have lasted a while - and maybe that's appropriate, I don't know. I have an autopsy photo in the public domain of a dead person with a biography that might be relevant to his article content, as opposed to prurient.

If a less experienced person needed an argument to get rid of something inappropriate that a more experienced person put on, or vice versa, it might be helpful to at least in the BLP images section that the appropriateness of a photo is a subject covered by other policies or consensus or whatever is the case. Thoughts appreciated. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As I argue above, BLP is a big stick. We have a lot of authority to block and revert over blp vios--authority that we can morally claim only because of the impact those violations may have on subjects. As such, we have a responsibility to limit the BLP policy to serious issues which directly reflect the intent: don't libel people, respect human dignity and use reliable sources. This is a general response which obviously doesn't address specific issues you have raised (obviously image context and selection can be worrisome), but I think a strong case can be made for inertia with respect to WP:BLP. Protonk (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that those are specifically BLP violations--especially autopsy photos--but what you describe are, in general, probably of limited to no encyclopedic value. Doesn't really matter to me on what basis we exclude them, but Protonk's correct about BLP being the "big stick", and I'd prefer we keep it for unambiguous cases, and use lesser, adequate justifications to remove most simply "tacky" images. Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So you don't think more is necessary in the text, I guess. I keep thinking about the first year and a half when I was a newbie and fell for a lot of nonsense by more experienced editors claiming they were following policy. So I like things spelled out for newbies; and for myself when I'm in a "cover my butt" mood :-) So adding something like new language in italics to the current sentence is really unnecessary?

Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false light or otherwise clearly in violation of Wikipedia policies.

By the way, I just ran into an File:Rachel-corrie-flag-02.jpg allegedly of (deceased) Rachel Corrie engaging in a controversial action. Put up by an editor whose talk page I watch. His dubious description already has been corrected. Someone or the bot gave him 7 days to prove copyright status; but if this was a living person I'm wondering if he would have had fewer days to do so. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not a living person and it is a factual photo of the subject; why are you talking about that here? If there are copyright problems, report them appropriately. Don't think copyright problems have something to do with BLP policies. --Cyclopia (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly I thought it was a photo mis-represented as being her and had never heard of/saw it before. Past dealings with person who put it up may have made me overly suspicious. Just seems to be my week(s) for running into questionable photos, including my own :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times reported on August 25 that

within weeks, the English-language Wikipedia will begin imposing a layer of editorial review on articles about living people.

The new feature, called “flagged revisions,” will require that an experienced volunteer editor for Wikipedia sign off on any change made by the public before it can go live. Until the change is approved — or in Wikispeak, flagged — it will sit invisibly on Wikipedia’s servers, and visitors will be directed to the earlier version.

Has this planned policy been the subject of discussion? John M Baker (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Good question. I've tried to track down the source of the story and finally found this http://blog.wikimedia.org/2009/08/26/a-quick-update-on-flagged-revisions/ on the Wikimedia site. Note the following correction at the end of the Wikimedia article:

"[UPDATE 8/26] This post originally said that all biographies of living people would be “flagged protected”. This is not correct. The current proposal is for for articles that are currently under normal mechanisms of protection (where new and unregistered users cannot edit) to be eligible for the new protection model, which allows for more open editing. I apologize for the confusion; thanks to Sage Ross for the quick correction.

--agr (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the relevant page is

WP:BLP too. John M Baker (talk

) 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've raised some questions about what standard of review for BLP problems will apply for patrolled revisions at Wikipedia_talk:Patrolled_revisions#Standard_of_review.--agr (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Our section on deceased persons has been developed over some months, see the discussions of January, 2009 (two consecutive sections) and July, 2009. Recently this section was trimmed to:

Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Formerly it read:

Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Prompt removal of questionable material is proper. The burden of evidence for any edit rests firmly on the shoulders of the editor adding or restoring the material. This applies to verifiability of sources, and to all content policies and guidelines.

In particular, the emphasis that Prompt removal of questionable material is proper is needed here in my opinion, because there is often confusion among new editors or those not familiar with Wikipedia policy, who are unsure or unaware that removing unverified material is always proper on Wikipedia. I'm going to revert the recent changes and invite those supporting the removal to discuss this. --TS 12:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the wording before the most recent amendment is fine, and does not require shortening. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 13:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. This policy is about living persons only. If we have a section deceased persons, it should only be to politely tell editors to go elsewhere for guidance, referencing or quoting other policies. If new editors or those not familiar with Wikipedia policy needs a clarification like Prompt removal of questionable material is proper, it should be added to

WP:V, not here. This page must not become a POV fork of WP:V.--agr (talk

) 15:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Before this section was instituted there were, I blieve, repeated questions/discussions here about deceased people and I myself spent 45 minutes chasing around trying to get an answer when ran into problems with a BLP. These guidelines are supposed to make editing easier and fun, not more abstruse and mind wracking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, basically, people would come here and ask whether it was okay to leave some bum edit about a recently dead guy in an article. Of course it isn't.

This policy is here to encourage people to be especially vigilant to keep rubbish out of articles about living people, but it still isn't okay to write rubbish about the dead. Wikipedia is and always was an article governed by content policies, the most important her being verifiability and neutral point of view. Just because we have a policy making a big deal about keeping crap out of articles about living people. doesn't mean it's ever okay to tolerate bad editing anywhere on Wikipedia about dead people, or for that matter about solenoids, moons of Jupiter or states of mind. The text that is proposed to be removed reminds us of that responsibility. And it's necessary. --TS 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The original wording flagged up that the death of a person should not be a "free for all" for all sorts of poorly-sourced nonsense, which I confess I have seen on multiple articles, and resisted. The wording suggests that

WP:BLP should apply to the recently-deceased, because, for example, this has been an issue in both Michael Jackson and Death of Michael Jackson. Rodhullandemu

23:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It isn't. Nothing changes in the BLP policy implementation (V, RS, etc.) except the "nuclear option" for editors who cross the line. I don't see that there's any free for all, just that flagrant offenders get a fair trial before (rather than after) their summary execution. :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The recently dead will have family, friends, relatives, associates, and other interested parties who will be upset (and possibly especially so under the circumstances) should violations against the standards of BLP be made. I think the duty of care toward the living enshrined within BLP policy transfers to the immediate circle of the recently deceased or, to put it in mercenary terms, those interested in the estate of the indiviudal - the estate may still be able to initiate proceedings against those who may impugn or libel the individual. I think I have proposed this before, but there needs to be a provision within BLP that continues adherence to those high standards for a few years following demise - since violations may still effect living persons connected to the subject. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. We're here to write an encyclopedia, with warts and all. Indirect/emotional harm considerations should have no special weight. If they do, let's eviscerate NOT#CENSORED right now. Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What are you on about? I am talking about continuing to apply the standards of BLP immediately after someone's death; as far as I am aware that includes being able to publish negative commentary providing it is referenced from reliable sources. Nothing changes to that, and nor should it. I am promoting the use of vigorous application of BLP in the immediate aftermath of someones death for the benefit of other living people connected with the deceased. If you believe that WP:NOT#CENSORED disallows people to apply WP's general application of verifiability and good sourcing at any point then I am concerned that you are editing biographies or any article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I made the most recent edit to it. The text of the section indicated that some pseudo-BLP applied to the deceased, which is not true. It also contained a bare restatement of WP:V, which is unnecessary. All the policy needs to state is that BLP applies to the living, not the dead. As for LHVU's concerns above, the dead can't be libeled. Protonk (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  "As for LHVU's concerns above, the dead can't be libeled." - not only is that untrue (the dead can certainly be libelled, they just can't sue), but that clearly wasn't LVHU's concern. The issue is that a BLP subject's death should not suddenly mean a free-for-all just because the subject can no longer sue Wikipedia for libel. This is true partly because the libel concern is not the only motivation for having BLP policy - it is also (at least for some people) the effect that unsourced crap in BLPs can have on their families etc. That concern doesn't go away when the subject dies, and indeed in the immediate aftermath (if the person was pretty notable) it can be very much a heightened problem. That fades over time, usually, but not instantly at the moment of death. Rd232 ^talk 12:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think we have to go as far as to say that's "free for all", it's just that BLP and its more restrictive policies need not apply anymore. This means that we should always follow standard guidelines, which already means that "we can always immediately remove unverifiable material from Wikipedia", as TS correctly stated below. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well with respect to LHVU's concern, it was misplaced. Families of the dead might be upset if they see a negative portrayal here, but their concerns don't rise to legal issues. And I'm honestly flummoxed about what the problem is. No part of this says "go nuts on pages of dead people", no person who is going to say damaging or hurtful things about a recently deceased person will check the biography of living persons policy page for permission first and no portion of the current revision grants permission like that in any sense. All pages must meet our content guidelines and policies. All controversial statements must be backed by reliable sources. All articles must present a neutral point of view. We don't need an elaborate recapitulation of that on each page. Protonk (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If you go back to the links I've given, and even further back for as long as the policy has existed, people used to regularly come to this article talk page and ask about the deceased. The answer is that the same policies apply to the deceased as to the living, but without the special provisions. It really is necessary, I have found, to remind people that just because somebody is dead does not make it okay for Wikipedia to carry unverifiable material. Protonk's statement "the dead can't be libeled" exemplifies a problematic attitude. Making statements about the dead that, if they were living, would be libellous, would be a serious problem for Wikipedia's credibility. We can always immediately remove unverifiable material from Wikipedia, and sadly it is necessary to emphasize that fact. --TS 14:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there is a need for guidance, but BLP is about living people, and I think it is important to maintain respect for this often contentious policy by keeping within that brief. Perhaps the best course would be to create a Guideline for articles about recently deceased persons, which we could then reference in BLP. It could contain all the good advice above, in greater detail, and might also cover other issues such as how to handle the often confused initial reports of a death and its circumstances (mainstream press, web sites, tweets, etc). --agr (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is multiplication of pages really needed for a single paragraph located where 90% of people will look for it? These policies are arranged logically to be of aid to editors, not to conform to some other value system or perspective. I know I first started claiming that a deceased person was covered by BLP, so it took a while to convince me that was not entirely true. Let's keep the info where people will look for it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, all. What concerns me here is this: in late 2005, it emerged that an article about a middling civil servant contained a false, unsupported, unverified statement about him. We created this policy in response to make sure that editors would never feel inhibited in removing unverified statements from articles about living people.

However the problem that exists relates to every single article on Wikipedia, and not just those about people. living or dead. Wikipedia still contains unverifiable statements, and every single one of those statements harms Wikipedia and must be removed.

It's worth stating that. We must remove unverifiable statements from Wikipedia. If remove just one unverifiable statement from Wikipedia every day, you are doing an excellent job to improve its encyclopedic value.

Somebody argues that it's redundant. But this entire policy was created as a conscious act of redundancy and it isn't a bad idea to remember that. Our policies are overlapping and redundant, and certainly not intended to be parsimonious. Is the verifiability policy currently lacking in a clear statement that you should remove unverifiable crap? Feel free to borrow the wording from this one, and add it there, but please, please, don't remove it from this policy. Unverifiable crap should be removed from the encyclopedia. We cannot state that too often. We should state it as often as necessary. The wording in this policy was created specifically because people came to this article wondering whether it was wrong to remove ridiculous, false, or simply dodgy statements from Wikipedia article just because the subjects were dead. It isn't wrong to do so, and the wording of this policy as it now stands states that, out of necessity. --TS 00:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP itself isn't redundant to V, it is stricter than V. If your argument is that we should repeat WP:V, then we should repeat it here. WP:V states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged" should be cited or removed. I would argue that likely to be challenged or challenged is a stronger statement than merely questionable. The way I read this entry is an attempt to extend BLP to the dead, which is unacceptable without some wide consensus. As for the issue of redundancy, it does generate some negatives to have overlapping, redundant policies. If the intent is to restate V inside a section of BLP, then we have to make sure that BLP gets changed if V gets changed. Add in too many networking policies and the number of changes that need to be tracked becomes absurd. That's leaving aside the nature of BLP as a rather extreme policy with special enforcement provisions. Are we saying that I can revert questionable unsourced additions of content about dead people without comment and without concern for 3rr? Can I block someone without warning for adding "Adam Smith sucks dick" as I would "Greg Mankiw sucks dick"? (I've got no beef w/ Mankiw, just picked a famous economist) Protonk (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That concern can be addressed by adding something about standards are not as strict for the deceased, but etc. The issue is making sure that people with a question can find an answer on this policy page and not waste their and our time trying to find out what the answer is. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The answer is "BLP does not apply, but all other content policies do". The answer isn't "BLP doesn't apply, but here is some pseudo-BLP for biographies". Protonk (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

<backdent> You answered so fast I didn't have time to correct the text. That concern is addressed by current wording "Although this policy specifically applies to the living, material about deceased individuals etc." CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• No it isn't, as I pointed out above. The statement about "questionable claims" is stricter than what is said in WP:V. Also it doesn't explain the redundancy in what is otherwise a relatively terse policy page.
  • Putting anything more specific here than a reference to general policy is instruction creep. It is misleading, it implying there is anything at all specific to material about DLP other than our general rules, and is a relict of a reject attempt to include the recently dead as living. There is no intermediate class. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If the section went on for several paragraphs I might have agreed with you, but at present it is only four sentences. It serves to remind editors that BLP does not apply to deceased persons (a number of the editors have previously raised queries about this here on this talk page), and highlights other applicable policies. To make this clearer, I would suggest adding a link to

WP:V. Otherwise, I do not think that the section needs further trimming. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk

– 04:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we have a section covering articles on desk lamps, indicating how said articles must meet WP:V and other content policies? I agree with the suggested link to WP:V, but I'm more concerned that the section and the wording in the section give rise to some presumption of BDP status--something that doesn't exist with regard to our content policies. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Because it is clear that editors who work on articles about desk lamps are not confused about whether BLP applies to such articles. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two sides to that coin. While editors may be confused as to BLP's applicability to the dead or the recently deceased, there are also editors who edit policy who are of the opinion that some form of BLP should apply to the deceased or the recently deceased. It is that class of editors that concerns me when talking about this section. Protonk (talk) 05:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought that the opening phrase "Although this policy specifically applies to the living" was quite clear about this, but if it is not, I am happy to have it rephrased thus: "This policy does not apply to deceased persons. However, material about deceased individuals must still comply with all other Wikipedia policies and guidelines. ..." — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that, minus the ellipsis, was effectively my revision. Protonk (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As for the wording change between "although..." and "...does not...", I'm ambivalent. Both are equally clear about applicability. Protonk (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

DGG, you say " The statement about "questionable claims" is stricter than what is said in WP:V." Please substantiate this. The current wording of the section says "Prompt removal of questionable material is proper." This has always been true of Wikipedia. If our verifiability policy is in any way readable as not saying that it's not only okay but correct to remove questionable material from Wikipedia, perhaps the wording needs to be strengthened, for that has always been Wikipedia policy. --TS 04:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

He didn't say it. I said it, and I substantiated it above. removal of "questionable claims" is stronger than "all material that is challenged or likely to be challenges must have an inline citation to a reliable source". for a number of reasons. First, questionable is broader than "is challenged or is likely to be challenged". Second, the statement makes no mention of whether or not the claims are sourced. third, the language reverses the expected action for an editor--instead of stating that challenged claims be sourced (an implicit admonishment to source them) we say 'remove questionable material'. those two are not the same thing. There is a strong presumption in BLPs to remove marginal material and expunge articles of unsourced allegations. This is good, but it is not the same operating philosophy that governs (or should govern) the rest of the encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we work on getting the wording of this section closer to what

WP:V says, rather than jettisoning it altogether? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk

– 05:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware it's entirely consistent with the verifiability policy: in particular, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material in question and the overall state of the article," and "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources." This applies as well to dodgy statements about people, living or dead, as it does to fringe theories. --TS 05:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to just say again agreeing with User:Jacklee that you need something to remind people it is NOT BLP but what policies are applicable because this is where people come with questions because they assume the policy DOES apply to the dead. Adding link to WP:V good idea. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In its latest issue, Time (magazine) cites Michael Snow as chairman of the Wikimedia board with We are no longer at the point that it is acceptable to throw things at the wall and see what sticks in relation to an "editorial-revuew process to articles about living people". (Times Magazine; Vol 174, No 9; September 7, 2009; p. 11) --Túrelio (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

In various biographies I've worked on, it's generally been accepted that if a WP:RS makes an accusation against a person and the only reply you have is from the individual themselves, it's acceptable to use a short relevant quote. However, I have just seen a case where someone deleted a short defense saying it was "unduly self-serving" under

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the existing

WP:COI? "Real-life dispute" is a rather broad term, and whatever it means, there can be perfectly valid reasons why an editor may have issues with content at their antagonist's page--including the fact that such content may relate to that editor. The talk page is exactly where they are supposed to go with such concerns, isn't it?--Arxiloxos (talk

) 00:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This could be a significant expansion of the guideline. It would bring this guideline even more in conflict with

WP:OUTING, without doing anything to resolve the issue of how to enforce it. I'm not sure that an unlimited definition of "real-life dispute" is wise either. If I vote agasint a politicisn is that a real-life dispute? I'd assume it wouldn't count. But what if I actively campaign against her, or even form a committee to prevent her election? I do agree that being a party to a legal or employment dispute is narrower and more clearly defined and would probably be a reasonable standard.   Will Beback  talk

  00:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your voting related analogies are flawed in the sense that those relationships are not related to a dispute. A voter is merely expressing a preference amongst competitors, whereas the candidates themselves are merely competitors and not actually in a dispute. I also believe that there is benefit to SV's proposal but I don't know if this is de facto policy already, or not. Perhaps she can provide some examples? --GoRight (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Admins increasingly stop people from editing BLPs if they've been involved in real-life conflict with that person, GoRight. I did it just yesterday, and it's pretty common. It was only then that I realized it was part of the COI guideline, but not part of the BLP policy. That addresses Arxiloxos's point, which is that, yes, it's in COI regarding legal conflicts, but I feel it really needs to be here, as policy.

We could remove the talk page issue if you prefer, though I've seen editors start to use the talk page as a platform for their material when they're thwarted from getting it into the article. BLP violations don't belong on talk either, so my preference would be to address that upfront.

Will, voting against someone would not be a real-life dispute. As it says, "includes, but is not limited to, legal disputes, and disputes arising out of employment issues and personal relationships." I mean a "hands-on" issue, where there is direct and disputatious dealing of some kind between the protagonists. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I indicated that merely voting would not be included. But what if I were the campaign manager for the opposing candidate? That's a significant real-life dispute, though not necessarily a personal one. (And it's not just a hypothetical case.) "Personal relationships" is also unclear. What if I'm writing about the guy who divorced my sister? (That's hypothetical, but inspired by real events.) I agree that these are COI problems, but the more we expand this policy without dealing with the WP:OUTING problem the worse we make the disparity between them. Perhaps we need to make it clearer that editors must self-police, and that failure to do so will be met with sanctions if discovered.   Will Beback  talk  06:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think all the examples you mentioned are real-life disputes. A campaign manager certainly shouldn't edit an opponent's bio. A brother who's annoyed about his sister's divorce shouldn't. One way to look at BLP editing is that we shouldn't edit bios in situations where a mainstream newspaper would not want us to write a story about that person as a reporter. Where a news organization would say, "You're too close to this situation to act as an impartial reporter regarding anything person X does; if you were to do it, you could cause problems for the news organization" — then an editor should not edit a BLP. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Slim. Its a reasonable concept, not entirely duplicated under COI, and anyway articles, guides, and policy pages are supposed to have some degree of overlap, redundancy, and interlinkage. Don't ask me about enforceability though: "Catchability" being its most important component. -Stevertigo 21:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There are some topics where Slim's suggestion would essentially remove all active editors from the article, such as The Man Who Would Be Queen, and I can think of many less conspicuous examples. This may be a good thing, but it needs wider discussion. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This open up some interesting aspects for gaming your own BLP. If you do not like what people have written, then just start a "real-life conflict", write a letter to your newspaper stating that you are being defamed by wikipedia editors. Do this every time someone writes something you do not like - soon if your biography isn't high-profile, it will mainly (or only) be populated by the "right kind" of editors. If going in, this needs to be specific about what a "real-life conflict" is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's main policies is NPOV. Politicians and controvertible people will have supporters and detractors. If you don't allow the detractors to edit, then articles will have series POV problems, as only the supporters would edit, and the uninterested would not edit. Take e.g. a BLP on someone in the climate change debate. Many of that persons detractors may know the subject personally, and may have a real life dispute, even if it is just a scientific dispute, this would still prevent them from editing, and could turn the piece into a hero worship article.

I think it is usually fairly obvious when a detractor should not be editing an article, and I think current WP:BLP policies and reliable citations work well enough not to need this extra policy. Martin451 (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean political detractors. I mean people involved in real-life, hands-on, personal disputes. If your next-door neighbour assaults your wife, for example, and you discover he's well-known enough to have a Wikipedia bio, you should not turn up to edit his article. That kind of thing. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a question for those interested in the BLP policy.

It seems to me that editors have found a way of getting around the

The incident in question concerns immediately the Ian Plimer biography and especially the page for his book Heaven and Earth (book).

Some editors would like to call Plimer a "denialist", a generally very offensive term, implying dishonesty or self-deception/mental instability. Rather than calling him a "denialist" editors can use "see also: denialism" and apparently not require reliable sources for this.

This seems to me a significant loophole in the policy.

Comments would be much appreciated! Alex Harvey (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note the related discussion on

WP:BLPN which should also have been linked. This link is relevant and supported in those cases, and does not seem to break any of our policies. It is clearly a related article. Verbal chat

19:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the BLP/N discussion on "Ian Plimer in Heaven and Earth (book)": [7] --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

There was another incident of this earlier in another BLP, at MIT Professor Richard Lindzen's biography. Someone included a "see also: ExxonMobil", insinuating without sources that Lindzen was in the pay of Big Oil. In that case, the article does make (in my opinion a gratuitous) reference to ExxonMobil. Again, it seems there is no requirement to provide RS with the see also. In the Lindzen case, there was a consensus to remove the see also link, but again, no policy to guide us. Alex Harvey (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This policy says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That covers all parts of an article. We do have a section on Categories, but that is not meant to make other sections like "See also" fair game for innuendo. I would not object to adding to the end of "Categories" something like "Similar considerations apply to "See also" and "External links." --agr (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever anyone thinks about AGW denial, there are ample RSes to link the book Heaven and Earth to AGW denial. It is seen as an AGW Denial Manifesto. It blatantly denies that AGW is happening. It is not merely "skeptical", it calls the whole concept fraudulent. To argue that this is not denial is nonsensical. And to define global warming denial as a phenomenon only of powerful lobbies funding underhand campaigns is also wrong-headed. There are many levels of denial, obviously. Plimer has interests in mining companies that stand to lose a lot of money if carbon trading is instituted in Australia, and he has lobbied hard against it, in the Press and privately with politicians. He is a member of an industry funded group that has the sole purpose of attacking things like the Kyoto protocol. It's all part of the same ball of wax. ► RATEL ◄ 15:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the article defines climate change denial as an industry funded disinformation campaign, distinguishing it from good faith global warming skeptics. So it's not enough to show that a person "denies AGW" (A is for anthropogenic?) to apply the climate change denial label. You need high quality reliable sources, not opinion pieces, that state that the person is acting in bad faith as part of a disinformation campaign. That is a very high hurdle to surmount. --agr (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You have misread the article. Did you not read the qualifier "usually" in the lede? Do you understand that it means "in most cases"? Your deletion of the section was incorrect. ► RATEL ◄ 22:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I support

WP:BLP requirements. The project (& Wikimedia's board] are very sensitive to the possibility of abuse of Wiki-biographies of living people, so I think such an extension would withstand scrutiny. (Note that I am a previously-involved editor in the Plimer case, as are editors Ratel & Alex Harvey). Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk

) 17:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's a see also, with undoubtedly related information. Saying it labels anyone is a red herring. James Randi links to pseudscience - but only an idiot would conclude wikipedia is calling him a pseudoscientist. If you feel context is missing, add context - but do not destroy information. Verbal chat 18:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! There is no way at all that a See also link can be construed to "label" someone as anything. See alsos lead to related information. To argue that a See also link labels someone is a novel concept to wikipedia, and would mean new policy before it can be used to cause changes. So please first show Policy statements in wikipedia that cover this novel interpretation of the See also section. Secondly, there are many reasons justifying the See also link, such as:

• "[Plimer] has boarded the denialist ark" (Leigh Dayton, Science Correspondent for biggest Australian daily newspaper) [8]
• "Professor Ian Plimer, author of the book Heaven and Earth, is the new champion of the climate change deniers" (George Monbiot, correspondent for The Guardian) [9]
• "Spot the recycled denial III – Prof Ian Plimer" (Prof Brook, Director of Climate Science at The Environment Institute, University of Adelaide) [10]
• "Thanks to Plimer .... Australia is likely to become the developed world’s third Denier Nation". (Lawrence Solomon, author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud) [11]

So we have major newspapers, correspondents, expert scientists and writers all linking Plimer to AGW denialism. The link must stay.► RATEL ◄ 07:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from Arnold Reinhold, are there any other uninvolved editors willing to give their views here? Alex Harvey (talk) 06:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a See Also section [12] to the BLP policy. Undoubtedly See Alsos can and do sometimes (I've certainly seen this before) create implications and insinuations not supported in the body text, and that isn't compatible with NPOV. For clarity, the BLP policy now explicitly says that. As for the detail of the Plimer dispute - this is already all over

I'm confused by this. I didn't see any other reference to "See also" wikilinks in

bright line rule can be given, this reduces the chances for later policy disputes & misunderstandings. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk

) 21:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There is already a rule that see also shouldn't repeat a link that is already in the article, irrespective of BLP/NPOV. We should avoid overlap. Verbal chat 21:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, this see also section is simply a clarification that you requested. It hasn't changed anything regarding recent debates you've been involved in. Verbal chat 21:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is totally inconsistent with the longstanding purpose of See also sections. See also sections merely point to related articles that readers may be interested in. They are not labels of the subject in any way. Perhaps people are confusing them with categories? I've tagged the section as disputed, as I really don't see conensus here to modify the policy like this. Mr.Z-man 05:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the proposed addition for now. The default position is to stick to the status quo until and unless a disputed proposal clearly has consensus. That's particularly important for fundamental policies like BLP. If you hapen to think that the core of the policy suggests an extension of the wording, and other people disagree, then it's clearly not a consensus position. Please forgive me if this does have consensus and I missed it, I'm not trying to fight or favor any position here. Anyway, I'm sympathetic to the argument that all corners of an article, from templates to references to images and links, potentially raise BLP concerns. However, it's simplistic to suggest that everything without a citation is a BLP violation. Many components of an article, such as images, do not fall under typical sourcing and verifiability requirements. For example, free pictures of living people are almost never cited to a reliable source - if they were published in a reliable source they would likely not be free images. "See also" links are navigational tools to direct readers to other subjects of interest. They are not supposed to be commentary on the subject of the article. However, they are sometimes used for POV reasons and otherwise to imply things about the subject. It's possible that one could formulate a set of rules to test the difference. However, those rules would not be simple because it's a actually a pretty complex language question. There's also the problem of avoiding

WP:CREEP. A better rule might be to leave it up to article editors to decide whether a link presents a problem. If editors raise a good faith objection that a link violates BLP, then like any BLP objection, that should be taken seriously. I hope that's clear. I don't really have an opinion about whether the proposed addition is a good idea, but we can take the time to discuss this first, right? Adding policy provisions over objections, then tagging them disputed, is not a very clean way. Wikidemon (talk

) 07:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought the addition [13] was merely a clarification of the way BLP concerns apply to See Also sections, which is why I just BOLDly added it, rather than discuss first. Clarification that in BLPs we must be especially careful not to abuse the See Also navigational tools to create unwarranted implications in the average reader's mind does not seem CREEPy. It's all very well to say "they're just navigational tools", but to the average reader, being directed to X from BLP Y creates certain implications. Where those implications are incompatible with BLP, we should be careful not to do that: link within the text in a clear way (where it can be sourced too), or use a category. In sum, we should be clear that See Also is sometimes used to do an end run around BLP concerns, and being clear that that isn't permissible seems a useful thing. There's already an External Links section which does much the same thing - though in the first sentence it refers to an unspecified "higher standard", the second sentence is helpful. Perhaps that could be followed more closely for See Also BLP guidance. Rd232 ^talk 07:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• [Cmt re Rd232 07:15, 11 September 2009 post & "See also sections" policy clarification, now reverted. Policy as posted by Rd232: [14]

I think your addition was on-target and well thought out, and support its restoration. As events here have shown, it's important to have a

bright line rule

if possible. It would likely curtail debates like these.

I agree that your addition constituted guidance and amplification, not a policy change. Further support was given by editor Verbal, who remarked on this at Talk:Ian Plimer "There has been no change to policy, no backdoor has been closed, BLP and BLPN is the same as ever." [Verbal 21:03, 10 September 2009] --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)(added later, doh)

In my opinion, there are clearly cases where links in the "see also" section employ guilt-by-association to draw an implied connection without supporting evidence. If the linked article is not controversial, then I agree that the standard for what's "related" is relaxed. But if the linked article is controversial, or in the Plimer-denier case, even accusational, then it is inappropriate unless supported by RSs. ATren (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to change this, then

WP:SEEALSO

:

Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question.

I would support some guidance for "see also" links being added to the policy, but saying that we should treat them like categories for the purpose of BLPs is just too inconsistent with both current practice and intention. Mr.Z-man 14:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any conflict with

WP:SEEALSO at all. It makes clear that See also links are an editorial shortcut. It says A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. We hold BLP articles to a higher editorial standard (no "eventualism"). I think the best solution is to require contentious See also links to be worked into the article text, with appropriate citations. Also as to photos. I understand BLP to require contentious photos be sourced as well. For example, a mugshot should be traceable to a reliable news organization or law enforcement agency. If some random person took a photo of a notable living individual in an apparently compromising situation and released it under a free license on Flickr, I don't believe we would be free to use until it had been first published in a reliable secondary source. --agr (talk

) 18:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Really, you can't see any conflict between a guideline saying "Links in the see also section should direct readers towards information related to the subject, even if they are only peripherally related" and a policy saying "See also links must not link to controversial or contentious topics unless they are directly related to the subject of the article as established through several reliable sources." This kind of stuff is just BLP paranoia at its worst, obscuring real BLP problems in favor of imaginary ones that are easier to deal with. Mr.Z-man 18:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And if we insist on there being a conflict (mm, policies contradicting, that's a first...), which should take precedence? BLP policy or layout guideline? Rd232 ^talk 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to go with longstanding practice that has served us for years with no actual problems, rather than changing the rules to prevent some hypothetical issue that, as JoshuaZ mentions, only arises if we assume our readers are idiots completely incapable of understanding context. Mr.Z-man 19:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Question: how would you know if readers were being subtly misled in a few BLPs by badly placed See Also links? I'm just curious how you can be so definitive. I'm also curious how you conclude that people who might get the wrong impression from links being inappropriately placed in See Also sections, creating unwarranted implications as to the link between the subject and the See Also subject, must be idiots. And this isn't a hypothetical issue - I've seen it before. But I guess it's rare, because I don't remember specific examples (but then unless there was a battle over it, I probably wouldn't). Rd232 ^talk 19:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I just don't assume that they're total morons, nothing more. It is plainly obvious by the big words "See also" that the links are not labels of the subject, but articles of a similar topic. In fact, I'm really struggling to see how anyone could not see that. Anyone with a basic grasp of English should be able to understand it. A battle over something does not mean its real problem. I'm sure if I wanted to waste a few hours, I could come up with dozens of examples of Wikipedians arguing over non-problems. Mr.Z-man 21:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to add this in. We add see also statements all the time without having this implication. To use an obvious example, if the Richard Dawkins article did not have anything about his stance on creationism there wouldn't be a problem with putting Creationism in the see also. Thinking that there's a problem with potentially negative material in the see also section only makes sense if you assume not just that our readers are idiots but that they are idiots with zero reading comprehension ability. If we believe that we should all just give up and go play WoW. Since we are working on an encyclopedia we presumably don't believe that. So we can reasonably put in a see also section related terms even if they are potentially negative. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it would be helpful if people commenting didn't tranmogrify the proposal into something it isn't. It isn't about avoiding "negative" links or "controversial" topics, it's about avoiding unwarranted implications. That may not apply very often, but from my experience it applies often enough that it's worth saying, as a clarification of the spirit of BLP. Others may disagree, perhaps arguing the general BLP suffices, but please address the proposal actually made. Rd232 ^talk 19:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm with Mr. Z-man and JoshuaZ. This isn't necessary, it ignores the fact that obviously defamatory or inflammatory see also links will be removed anyway, and it adds length and complexity to a policy which should be short and clear. We don't need to make a new rule every time we run into a new case of misbehavior. The whole point of descriptive not prescriptive is to avoid having to maintain some list of proscribed behaviors in order to get things done. Evidently that is a constant struggle. Protonk (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, people are still fighting about whether to use a particularly controversial "See also" at BLP/N, suggesting that some

WP:seealso re special BLP treatment. Note that, as several editors have mentioned, this proposed change to BLP & Seealso is just guidance and amplification, not a policy change. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk

) 17:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bright line guidance is typically unhelpful. For every 2 cases it provides an easy solution to, it complicates another case, by being too lenient, too strict, or just nonsensical in the context of the situation. Mr.Z-man 22:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. Please cite a case (here at WP, preferably at BLP) where a bright-line rule was unhelpful. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

How many other bright line rules do we have? The only one I can think of is 3RR, which has since been merged into a section of the more general Wikipedia:Edit warring. It is not an accident that most policies are not extremely specific. Mr.Z-man 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would call attention to the proposed closing of the discussion at BLPN about the H+E link that started this: "Just wikilink the article appropriately in the text where the context is clear and be done with it." This seems like a good basis for a clarification to BLP policy. For the most part, BLP simply amplifies existing policies and guidelines with an admonition to get it right now, rather than later. It's long been the view at Wikipedia that it's preferable to put links in articles rather than in a See also section. Requiring this be done for contentious See also links about living persons is no more a bright line rule than insisting other contentious material be sourced.--agr (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Except this is a manufactured controversy (this here, not AGW). Waste of time.Verbal chat 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems real enough to me. It keeps coming up. See [15]. If POV pushing isn't involved, why is there so much insistence about restoring this link in the See also section?--agr (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What. That doesn't seem like a reasonably constructed if/then statement. Can you not imagine any other possibility for insistence other than POV pushing? And even if you can't, you still haven't offered an explanation as to why the addition of a see also link rises to the level of a BLP violation. Even then you have to justify why we should add a rule like this to a policy whose enforcement can be undertaken summarily and without discussion. Protonk (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A See also link rises to the level of a BLP violation when it clearly implies something contentious about a living person, for example, adding the name of a controversial living educator to the See also section of our article on child abuse. All parts of every article are subject to the BLP policy. What's being proposed is a clarification, not a new rule. --agr (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And where those links are clearly not in the proper context and defamatory we should not hesitate to remove them. Where I get off is the attempt to shuffle Climate change denial out of see also links in articles on climate change deniers using BLP. The inclusion/exclusion of those links is fraught with nuance. We simply can't 'clarify' a brute force policy like BLP to exclude them. That seems to be a motivating factor for part of this discussion (and this discussion has already been cited as sufficient consensus to remove those links per BLP) and I want to push back against it. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Our Climate change denial article currently distinguishes between climate skeptics and climate change deniers by saying the former term refers to people acting in good faith while the later "is often used to refer to people acting in bad faith." So linking a living person to Climate change denial carries a strong implication of bad faith. The proposed clarification is not needed to exclude those links--any unsourced suggestion of bad faith about a living person is already a BLP problem. I've suggested various ways to address the issue on Talk:Climate change denial and the discussion is ongoing there. --agr (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

But I don't think that it is necessarily unsourced nor does it rise to the level of defamation. The fact that a discussion like this is possible means that we should be really cautious about adding some proviso like that into a bright line policy. We should be discussing these changes, not reverting them blindly and blocking editors for repeated insertions, which BLP will allow us to do. By all means, police "what links here" for climate change denial, but I don't think that the issue is cut and dry enough to add to this policy. Protonk (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's sourced and challenged or likely to be challenged, it needs a clear inline citation per

WP:SEEALSO. I agree we should not be expanding the scope of BLP. Proper wording could make that clear.--agr (talk

) 21:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the section again. Its a pithy quote by Voltaire being used to decorate that section, but it means nothing from a policy point of view. The actual policy makes it clear that poorly sourced and controversial material from all articles (about living people, dead people, or not about people at all) should be removed and

WP:BURDEN must be followed. Don't put too much weight on that quote. --Jayron32

05:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

How much of Wiki policy should be dismissed as mere "decoration" that "means nothing"? 10%? 20%?Bdell555 (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote should be removed since it causes confusion on the whole Wikipedia and "truth" issue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Quote removed, as it seems to have been contradicted by the statements immediately preceeding it. --Jayron32 21:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote shouldn't be removed. It isn't an endorsement of " "the truth" be suppressed in the name of showing "respect" to favoured subjects". That would be the contrapositive. In this case the truth is actually a subset of statements which would confer respect, and the quote represents the gist of BLP--statements do not get inserted merely because they have a truth value. We are never going to avoid complaints from people about "WP:V, not truth". It is time we accept that and stop mollifying them. Protonk (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with removal. It is precisely not what the BLP policy is about and as is clear by comments above is confusing. Policy pages are for stating policy not for seeing how clever and erudite we can be. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would be restore the quote? It's decoration that confuses some readers. That's just silly. Leave it out. We don't need to decorate our policies.

Lara

12:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a consensus somewhere that says that porn actors and actresses should not be named? I've seen a lot of pages (i.e. Jack Radcliffe) that people delete the name of performers quoting this policy. However I don't see where and how this policy can be applied to that. Since when does wiki not publish something that's verifiable, published in a magazine, because it might embarrass/make the person look bad? The rule where we are careful because the person is real is not the same as not publishing something that's true and verifiable that may or may not hurt the persons character. We wouldn't go around removing Nixon's name from the Watergate controversy because it makes him look bad would we? This whole naming thing seems to me like a special case, like some people are putting adult performers at a different rule than all other people on Wiki. If we can post something saying a celebrity was in a sex tape, how can we not publish the names of adult movie actors? (p.s. This is not a rant, I'm honestly asking if there is a rule somewhere, or if I'm missing something) I had posted his name, with reference to a real printed magazine that has his name, in which he gives an interview about performing in porn, then someone deleted the name and reference to it, and other things about the actor that were sourced because they were worried. This has happened in several actors pages. 24.91.72.168 (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The main rule is that the information must be sourced to at least one reliable third-party reference: see "

original research to find out a porn actor's real name, such as doing a search at a birth or marriage registry. Thus, no special rule applies to porn actors. By way of comparison, if the birth name of an author who generally uses a pen name has been published in a reliable secondary source, there is no reason to leave it out of an article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk

– 03:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought I had seen that before, but thought that maybe I was missing something since people kept removing names and sourcing BLP. My source was a magazine where he gave an interview. The article itself is called "Finding Frank Martini, Jack Radcliffe". Where he gives his full name, where he lives, and what he does as a job. However people (which really means one or two), kept removing it and saying things like "His real name isn't necessary"... I don't like to discriminate. If we're going to have an article that says something bad a celebrity or actor has done before, we can't then say that some other people have special privileges. 24.91.72.168 (talk) 02:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What Jacklee said. I routinely remove edits that add porn stars real names, because 19 times out of 20, there is either no source, or the only source is either a porn gossip board or IMDB. The problem with IMDB is that anybody can add info without references, so essentially its like using another wiki as a reference. (I'm of the opinion that IMDB, IAFD, and the like should be linked to for filmographies, but are not terribly useful as a verifiable source for other info.) The only sources I would consider acceptable is if their name comes up via a solid news source, or alternately, if the performer outs themselves on their own web page or blog. Generally, only porn performers with the highest profile and crossover success (

Ally Mac Tyana come to mind) will have their real names given by reliable sources. Iamcuriousblue (talk

) 23:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. Again, I note that "Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography#Real names of performers" says "the Internet Movie Database ... is not what can be considered reliable. From the reliable source examples page: 'Trivia on sites such as IMDb... should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence.' The problem with the 'biography' page on IMDb is that anyone can add information to it. As a consequence, it is entirely possible for someone to "vandalize" the IMDB page by adding a random name to the biography page, then turn around and use IMDb as a source for adding the name to Wikipedia." — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I proposed an article for deletion (

If they have not been declared legally dead, then we must presume that they are alive. Kevin (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I originally posted the below at Category talk:Living people but got no reply. Can anyone help, or suggest where it can best be posted? Eldumpo (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should people of 90 or less, where there is no information regarding them still being alive, be put in the Living People category. Surely they should be put in the Possibly Living category, unless it is proven (or reasonable) that they are still alive. I don't see BLP concerns as long as Cat:Poss Living is monitored just as Living. Otherwise there can be confusion if someone's article has the Living Cat, they could incorrectly be assumed to definitely be alive? Eldumpo (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

This could make sense for persons who disappeared without notice and whose living status is thus unknown (even if, to err on the side of caution, BLP should apply to these people, too). Otherwise I don't see the point. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that we do not receive automatic notification of death, the most we can say about any person is that they are Possibly Living. But we would look silly putting that category on every bio. We would also look silly adding Living People to an article about someone born in 1890 for whom we have no death date. Setting a switch over at age 90 is arbitrary but it seems reasonable. The BLP policy applies to anyone born less that 123 years ago for whom we do not have a verifiable report of death, regardless of what category they are in. so it seems to me your question is not a BLP policy issue.--agr (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for above responses, don't know if there's anywhere else for this issue.

I think it's a question of reasonableness though. Is it the case that for most BLP's under 90 it will be known that they're alive, and thus there wouldn't be a need to use the Possibly Living category? The bottom line though is that surely the Living People cat should not be being added unless there's very recent knowledge of them being alive or it's otherside reasonable to think they are. Wikipedia doesn't normally tolerate unsourced info but given current policies it seems easy for key information to be wrongly assumed in a number of articles. Eldumpo (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Formally you're right, however I'd personally advice you (with a smile) to apply a bit of

WP:COMMONSENSE. All galaxies should be flagged as "Possibly existing galaxies" because, say, the Andromeda Galaxy could have been wiped out now and we wouldn't know until the next couple of million years. Yet there's no reason to assume it is the case. Now, I admit that the case of people is a bit less extreme, but unless they are positively discussed as disappeared, there's no need to flag them as such. It adds no information, the dates of sources are enough to know how recent is their last sighting as alive and the reader can make up his/her own mind on that. --Cyclopia (talk

) 20:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In many cases, what has been written is essentially an event article, even if under the name of the person -the merge amounts essentially to a move. Moving to a name clarifying that it is an event article makes it clear the subject and alleviates UNDUE concerns. Of course if we deal with living people, we must take into account BLP. The move is essentially a way, in my opinion, to apply BLP1E, avoiding articles about events being presented as biographies. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you, but as it is now, once it's retitled, BLP1E cannot apply. At that point it falls on

Lara

05:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is falsely reporting a death a BLP violation? (the person is still alive as far as I can tell) Someone did so on 2009 in American television and it was removed and I sent them a verifiability warning, I was just wondering if that's a blockable offense or not.TomCat4680 (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a breach of BLP: "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." However, I think you will need to look at the blocking guidelines to determine whether that is considered a blockable offence. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 02:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporting the death of someone still living is simply vandalism, and should be treated that way. Biographies should remain BLPs until a

WP:Reliable source confirms their death, and uncited reports should just be removed. If there are a lot of people putting the information back into the article without cites, then it is worth doing a search on google news, and if there are no reports, then ask for page protection. If there are stories, then add the cite yourself. Martin451 (talk

) 03:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that a task force could be created within this WikiProject, i.e. [[Wikipedia: WikiProject: Biography]. The function of this task force would be to establish pictures of people, where they have been requested, providing that they do not infringe copyright rules - for example, incorporation of pictures discovered on Google Imagesthat really are in the public domain. Is any member of this project group interested? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to organize yourself into a "task force" to do this? Can we simply contribute where we are able like we always do? I'm not sure what benefits we'd get from such an organization. causa sui× 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Currently this policy details via subheading in such a way as to appear to qualify content that can be removed as first having to be "contentious". Defined "contentiousness" requires heated argument or controversy (see definition). In my view this qualification appears to add undue weight to an editors ability/willingness to immediately remove unsourced material, and from that perspective the word does not assist in supporting the requirement detailed in the lead of our biographies of living persons policy which stipulates that material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. I note that this word and thus requirement (probably as a function of copy and paste editing) is including here also.

Proposal That the word "contentious" is removed from the sub-heading detailed here - with the obvious flow on effect of similar removal at other policy and guideline locations across wikipedia.

I invite your comments below.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed before: see "Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 22#Clarification on "contentious"-ness". I believe the consensus then was that the word contentious should remain in the guideline. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Noted Jacklee and thanks for your prompt return. I hope you don't mind me noting that there were only 5 or 6 persons in that discussion and it doesn't appear to have been more than just a relatively brief discussion; and certainly was not unanimous. I'd like to see what a greater field of editors might say. I do have a question to you though being, are your views now the same as then? - which I note from the outset were that "contentiousness = potentially libellous?" If so then IMHO contentious is not the correct qualifier. --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 11:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Back then there were only a few opinions given, and no real consensus was reached, so far as I remember.

It is noted in that section that a definition of "contentiousness" is where a good faith editor disagrees with the content. So it seems that if an editor removes any unsourced content in good faith, then that content has met the definition and can be considered contentious, making the word redundant. I think it should probably be removed. Kevin (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the point I made in the previous debate was that since editors and administrators are entitled to exercise drastic powers where BLPs are concerned (immediate removal of information or even deletion of the article without discussion), there is a need to distinguish between harmless and potentially harmful information. I felt that the use of a "contentiousness" test was a suitable way of distinguishing between these two categories of information. However, I do see Kevin's point that if the test for contentiousness is whether there is a good faith disagreement over whether the information is harmful, then this test is very easily satisfied and probably serves little purpose. I do wonder, though, that there will be more disputes if this guideline authorizes editors to delete all unreferenced information in BLPs or even whole articles without any discussion.

By the way, in my experience having five or six people participating in a discussion on this page is quite a lot. But it is absolutely fine to revisit the issue if it is felt there should be further discussion on it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's almost the end of the month, which forces me to make a decision which version of the page has consensus for purposes of the

WP:CSD in cases where only one person has edited the page; we don't delete new BLP pages just because the page is not sourced or "poorly" sourced (who decides which sources are poor?) Since there's been solid consensus on that point at CSD, I'll have to omit this version of this page for purposes of the Update until consensus changes ... or am I missing the point? - Dank (push to talk

) 16:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think NuclearWarfare's version as diff'd above appears to be in support that the word contentious needs to be removed - he has probably not seen this discussion before being bold and adjusting the policy itself. I support his change.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice VirtualSteve. It was indeed a Bold change; I am not sure if this discussion was even around when I made those edits. I'll be watching this discussion closely, and will chime in throughout. NW (Talk) 22:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the relevant issues that need further discussion are these:

1. Are BLPs so worthy of special protection such that all unreferenced information should be deleted (to the extent of the whole article being deleted, if it is wholly unreferenced) even if the information is not potentially harmful?
2. If not, what test should be used to determine whether information is harmless or potentially harmful? Is the existing test of "contentiousness" (defined as the existence of a good faith dispute) adequate, or does it need reformulation?

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that a contentious statement could be a statement that people would question, if they do not already know the subject. e.g. If we have the statement "Gordon Brown has been prime minister since 27 June 2007", and is not referenced, then the statement is contentious, and could be removed (if you don't know who Brown is). However if it is backed up by a citation from the BBC which states "Gordon Brown is the current prime minister of the UK", then this only sources the first half of the sentence, but not the date in the second half. I think that most reasonable people would not regard the date as contentious, unless they had a specific reason to doubt it. Currently BLP seems to state that the date could be kept, but if the word "contentious" was removed, anyone could remove the date. Thus I think contentious should stay.Martin451 (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Contentiousness has to do with disputes. If no one challenges or disputes a non-negative fact, it can be allowed to stay in the biography without a specific cite. Once someone challenges that fact in good faith (e.g., not simply "it needs a source" but "I don't believe it's really true") it's going to need sourcing or be removed per
  WP:BURDEN. Jclemens (talk
  ) 21:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Obviously if an editor keeps removing statements that are reasonably within the bounds of "common knowledge", then those removals could be called disruptive, and not good faith edits. This indicates that a degree of common sense should be used. In your example, even with the word "contentious", I could remove the date, explaining that my Gnews search found nothing, and this would be acceptable as a good faith edit. The problem with the word "contentious" is that we would then have editors arguing that the date is not contentious, even though it has already met that definition. This conflicting situation needs to be resolved. Any change that would result in a good faith editor not being able to remove the date (in good faith) does not seem logical to me. Kevin (talk) 21:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

@JackLee's helpful questions. I actually read three questions. My view and answers are:

1. Yes - BLPs are worthy of special protection and it is important that we do so
2. No - not all unreferenced information should be deleted (but Kevin answers that point with his "common knowledge" comment and with which I agree also)
3. Yes - for BLPs specifically (which to my mind negates the helpful but general problem suggested in relation to CSD's by Dank) "contentious - defined as the existence of a good faith dispute" is not the test that should be used to determine whether information is harmless or potentially harmful - because as an administrator there need not be a good faith dispute for me to remove material on site - for example if a biography states suddenly without reference that a person had died; has divorced; has had triplets; is a confirmed bi-sexual; is now bankrupt; etc etc - that factoid may be true but without reference (or common knowledge) I will and should by policy use my common sense and remove the material with an edit summary that states - remove uncited material. There is nothing necessarily in good faith dispute in these cases (that is nothing absolutely contentious from the perspective of the edit) but there is material added which without appropriate reference may cause harm to the subject of the biography. In effect we need a new qualifier/s (which needs to reflect common sense and not just a good faith dispute). Best wishes.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

All those examples are negative unsourced information. There is no need for contentiousness for those sorts of information to be removed. Unsourced negative information is to be removed, period, without discussion or discretion. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So what is negative unsourced information? Anything that, if untrue, would cause harm to the individual that a "reasonable man" would find inappropriate. Getting a birthdate wrong? Not a big deal. Getting a sexual orientation wrong? No matter which way you mess it up, it would be inappropriate and hurtful to attribute an incorrect sexual orientation to someone. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If a reasonable person would find an uncited statement contentious, then it should be removed, even if you personally know it is true. If you regard yourself as a reasonable person, then you should be able to use your common sense to remove stuff. I regard my definition of contentiousness as what you should be looking for when writing a blp. Anything that may be contentious (even if known to be true) should be cited. If someone then challenges something that is not cited, and was previously uncontentious, it then becomes contentious. Also something may be contentious without being negative. Martin451 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all of my examples are "negative unsourced information - which is why I added the specific group. The problem isn't my own ability to determine what should be removed or remain - rather that our policy says as a bolded heading Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material and that additional word guides all other editors in their actions and on the other side of the coin, in their argument why the material that was just removed was not contentious.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 22:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure they are. Even the triplets one: it could reasonably cause harm to the person if untrue. I'm using a perhaps non-intuitive and expansive definition for negative, in that it would be negative if true, negative if true but portrayed as untrue, negative if untrue but portrayed as true. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you need to further qualify this? How is having triplets, (and this could be one of countless examples) as you say negative if true? --VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 23:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the word contentious should remain, and any sensibly grounded challege should constitute contention; I don't think your worry that others will argue that the material was not contentious is likely to be a common issue. In any specific situation, the argument quickly boils down to finding a source or not. The main thrust of the word's inclusion, I think, is to prevent the aggressive or systematic removal of facts which nobody actually contests. Someone, at least, should have reason to believe the statement might not be true in order for it to be removed. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not-so arbitrary break

• Perhaps only a small change would assist to remove the apparent connection between unsourced and poorly sourced so that we have two separate sections by addition of a semi-colon, as follows (brackets to be removed if adjustment is later agreed by consensus)... Remove unsourced(;) or poorly sourced contentious material?--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose solution still in search of a problem. Jclemens (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for setting up the break Jclemens. I hope you'll pardon me if I disagree with your synopsis; clearly there is a problem - the article page itself bears a change as late as yesterday [16] in line with this discussion.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 23:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Absolutely not. This agenda to require sourcing of every trivial claim is ridiculous and dangerous to the entire idea of a wiki. A good faith objection to a claim should be backed up by something more than just "it wasn't sourced". Gigs (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Some material is just plain uncontentious, like "R.J. Corman owns the R.J. Corman Railroad Group". --NE2 01:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Except when it has been bought out by the XYZ Railway Group. This is why it is important that our overall aim should be to have everything sourced. Kevin (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing would not change that, actually, since sources aren't magically updated. --NE2 01:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly not, but we would have a good faith reason to believe it, rather than just "EditorJoe says he does". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin (talk • contribs) 01:55, 30 September 2009

So, by your own admission, the reader is actually better off if there is not a source in this particular case, since a source gives undue credibility to the out-of-date information. Gigs (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all, I was making the point that seemingly innocuous material should also be sourced. Remember, one of the core principles is

WP:V, which states that we should only include material which has already been published by a reliable source. With (seemingly) innocuous material within BLPs I advocate tagging it with {{fact}}, then after a reasonable amount of time, removing the material. Kevin (talk

) 23:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not what

WP:V says at all. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". It in no way says that all material must be attributed to a reliable source. Gigs (talk

) 02:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That strikes me as a practice likely to be disruptive if employed on a large scale. Lots of people will add tags to uncontroversial statements; fewer are likely to waste time adding references to statements that nobody disputes (after all, this is rather insipid). It dilutes the value of {{

fact}} to attach it to statements nobody has any reason to disagree with; readers will quickly learn, correctly, that the tag does not mean a fact is questionable but that some hardworking Wikipedia drone has noticed another sentence without a footnote next to it. Christopher Parham (talk)

15:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think on balance the way BLP is used, it does not currently apply to them, so I've added this as a deliberate exclusion.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It could be reasonable to give them some degree of protection, but I think this policy is not the right policy to do that, more people read pages on corporations and deliberate errors are more likely to be detected.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The policy applies only to "living persons", which excludes corporations. However, the policy of course applies to living persons who work in corporations. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that corporations in and of themselves are not "living persons". As JackLee points out, people within the corporations still are, and I would say that BLP protection still applies to them within the corporation's article. But the corporation itself does not qualify as a living person. Thanks for pointing it out. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 02:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

For the lead photo of a BLP, is it ever appropriate to touch up a photo, to make it look better (e.g. hide wrinkles, blemishes, etc...). I'm sort of torn. The most honest photo is generally not what a BLP subject wants to see. We often accept touched-up photos released from an official source. So, I wander if it's ok, then, to touchup original photos, purely for cosmetic reasons, to make it more acceptable to a BLP subject? --Rob (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that an article subject always has the option of submitting a photo taken in make up or older photo taken when they were younger, I don't see this as an issue here. You might want to bring it up at Wikimedia Commons.--agr (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The question of using a retouched photo cannot be answered at Commons; that's up to the projects themselves. At Commons we (admin there) are prepared to host both (original and retouched) kinds. --Túrelio (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

On September 30th User:NuclearWarfare added[17]

• ===Do no harm===
• See also: Wikipedia:Avoiding harm

into section "==Other considerations==", only to be removed 3 days later[18] by User:Jacklee, mainly with the rationale "If it is thought that the essay should be in the guideline, then this needs to be discussed first".

As the foundation's April resolution on BLP expressly mentions harm ("As with any endeavor that provides educational and informational material, errors need to be avoided, especially when they have the potential to cause harm.") and as the introductory paragraph of the BLP policy page also mentions harm ("An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".") but provides no further explanation, a separate section with some elaboration on "do no harm" might be well appropriate. --Túrelio (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Túrelio, but Jacklee's removal was understandable. We need to write somethign in the section, not merely link to an essay. I'll try to get something drafted up, but surely any ideas are good. Get some solid wording together that is supported by the intro from the BLP policy as well as the Foundation resolution.

Lara

18:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean that the "do no harm" principle has no role to play in the guideline, but I think it is misleading to insert a reference to an essay in a guideline because it seems to elevate the essay to part of the guideline. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 07:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:External links#RfC_on_official_links that may interest some editors here, since it affects external links in BLP articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There are currently just under fifty-four thousand articles in Category:Unreferenced BLPs. I submit that backlog is far, far too large to address effectively or indeed to keep an eye on. Therefore I suggest the following:

• All articles in the category to be bot-checked for use of {{
  cite}} templates or <ref> tags and <references/> or {{Unreferenced}}. Any articles containing them to be shunted to Category:Possibly unreferenced BLPs
  .
• Editors given one month from the conclusion of the check to add referencing, pruning all unreferenced information (on the principle that we should stay well within the bright line of BLP policy, and not skate on the edges).
• Through the month, check Category:Possibly unreferenced BLPs and add referencing and/or remove from the category as necessary
• At the end of that month, run the bot process again. Any articles left in Category:Unreferenced BLPs to be summarily deleted and re-creation allowed only with referencing to a RS. This may require creation of a new CSD criterion, I'd suggest calling it BLP-UN. Maintain, of course, a list of all deleted BLPs for ease of re-creation when referencing is found. Add, via bot, an editnotice to all deleted articles instructing users to be sure they are using adequate referencing in re-creation.
• Users doing
  WP:NPP
  instructed to request speedy deletion for any new unreferenced BLPs they find. Added: optionally, that are more than one week old.

This will allow us to guarantee that there is at least some referencing in all extant BLP articles, and no new BLP articles will last long without referencing. The problem is massive, much like an overgrown garden; the only way to fix it is to plow everything under. Random weeding isn't working, IMHO. → ROUX ₪ 22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Much as I agree with this, I have a sneaking suspicion that it will never fly. Kevin (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not so sure. If nothing else, it might provide something actually useful for the Article Rescue Squadron to do. → ROUX ₪ 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• I fully support this.
  Lara
  03:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• How is this different from Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/blp (which the community rejected)? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's where my suspicion originated. Kevin (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I either had no idea that existed, or had forgotten. In any case, CSD is something of a red herring here; BLP is mandated by WMF, and there are currently ~54K articles in direct contravention of it. That is the issue which needs to be dealt with here. And frankly, speedying new unreferenced BLPs is also covered by the policy, no need for CSD to be involved as that is a purely internal maintenance system, not something required by WMF. → ROUX ₪ 03:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Huh? "speedying new unreferenced BLPs is also covered by the policy"? Got a cite? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
        • "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." → ROUX ₪ 03:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
          • That's all true. Where I get off is how that applies to pages where no one has asserted that the page is of poor quality or that the material is contentious. Protonk (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah, I was under the impression (given the ordering of your response) that the Wikimedia Foundation had said it was okay to speedily delete unreferenced biographies of living people (which certainly would've been news to me). As Protonk notes, unreferenced biographies don't necessarily contain negative information, they're simply unreferenced. Still, I'm curious what has changed since the discussion about this at
            WT:CSD a few months ago. As I noted then, the category (Category:Unreferenced BLPs) was at about 15,000 items and would soon grow to by about 30,000. The fact that it is now at 54,000-ish is (or should be) a surprise to few.... --MZMcBride (talk
            ) 03:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
            • I return to the analogy of the overgrown garden. There are 54 thousand articles that need to be checked. This is not a reasonable proposition. Plow everything under and re-plant. → ROUX ₪ 04:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
              • No. It is not a reasonable proposition to summarily delete 54000 articles because someone hasn't added references. Protonk (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
                • And your suggestion is...? Emptying the ocean with a teaspoon isn't feasible. → ROUX ₪ 04:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
                  • (edit conflict)My suggestion is threefold. First, the problem doesn't really lie in unreferenced BLPs, it lies in BLPs which have references, appear neutral but are really wholesale character assassinations. Unreferenced BLPs offer a big number an easy target but they aren't necessarily bad. Second, problems like this can't be policied away or swept aside by rough measures. Elbow grease is the solution. Third, I'm not sure that your judgment of feasibility is accurate. It doesn't lend itself to a manageable solution by a small team but it isn't outside the realm of expectations that it would be done eventually. Protonk (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
                    • Here we have the benefit of having some history. The fact that Category:Unreferenced_BLPs_from_October_2006 even exists shows that such an expectation is not realistic. Kevin (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
                      • Does the fact that the Unreferenced articles category exist stand as proof that collaborative editing won't produce encyclopedia articles with references? If you are asking whether or not 'the wiki way' will ever result in 100% compliance right now with BLP, the answer is of course not. Where we go from that knowledge is not determined, though. Protonk (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
                        • Of course not, but what a lovely strawman. You're arguing that 54K articles will magically grow references while more articles are added to the category daily, when articles have existed for three years without referencing. → ROUX ₪ 04:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
                          • It's not a strawman, but I'm happy to abandon it. I'm not arguing that things will happen with magic. I'm arguing that things will happen with concerted effort and time. Take away either and you won't have results. Protonk (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
                            • And three years... not enough time, I suppose? → ROUX ₪ 04:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
                            • (e/c)The discussion in April had roughly the same conclusion. Since then, the number of BLPs identified as unsourced has grown by more than 20,000 and the number of newly created unsourced BLPs per month has grown from ~350 to ~430. "Elbow grease" and "it would be done eventually" are, again, looking like obviously non-workable ideas. Mr.Z-man 04:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
                              • And I suspect the discussion here will have relatively the same conclusion. "Unreferenced" just doesn't fill me with the fear of god. Those articles could be attack pages, hoaxes, self promotions, or totally innocuous articles. They could have inline urls, they could have vague pointers to proper sources. We don't know. I understand the argument which treats them all as potentially problematic, I just don't agree with it. Protonk (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

←Well, it's not reasonable to summarily delete 54000 articles, neither is it reasonable to leave them unsourced forever, nor is it reasonable to pretend that tagging them with {{BLPunsourced}} will make the problem go away. Where does that leave this mythical reasonable editor? Kevin (talk) 04:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You have three options there. Only one of them is compliant with BLP. That is the least unreasonable path to take. → ROUX ₪ 04:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That third sentence doesn't follow from the second. Compliance with policy is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for reasonableness. Protonk (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It does, actually, as the other two options are not compliant with a policy mandated by the Board. → ROUX ₪ 04:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

All you've just said is that one option is (in your mind) compliant and that the other two aren't. Not that compliance is a necessary or sufficent condition for reasonableness. If I shuttered wikipedia today I would be in full compliance with BLP, but it is obviously not a very reasonable route to take. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note the actual words I used: 'least unreasonable.' → ROUX ₪ 04:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted. That's a separate premise which needs to be justified. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's a false dilemma. The solution is to work on them, weeding the innocuous ones from the contentious or defamatory ones. But it is obviously easier to just nuke them all from orbit. Protonk (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it is easier to nuke them from orbit and start over, ensuring they are compliant. The fact that the category has grown so much in 6 months should be a clue as to exactly how many people are willing and/or able to do the work necessary. → ROUX ₪ 04:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is easier. Doesn't mean it's the right answer. Nor does it comply with BLP. It complies with a particularly hard edged interpretation of BLP, but the policy section you quoted above was quite clear about what pages may be deleted. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Dont know why everyone has to bulletpoint their comments, but I am going to be unique and not do so, I'm a maverick (and a rogue)! While I am never in favor of deleting truthful information in normal articles, articles about living people are unique and special and deserve to be farther from the edges of policy and guidelines than normal articles where citation needed templates are good enough and removing uncited information is rarely called for (yes, rarely, with the exceptions of damaging, false, POV, etc; "if it doesnt hurt then leave it alone!" is a good policy). So, while I agree that BLPs are special and need more control over I can bring myself to agree with all the points proposed EXCEPT the last one proposed regarding any new BLP articles that are created and have no citations are to be speedily deleted. I propose changing that to giving them an arbitrary time period to clean up (as our policies state articles are a work of progress and can not be expected to be perfect upon creation) or they get deleted. Or- better yet- the person who is about to speedily delete ANY article get off their ass and do some freakin research themselves and add a couple citations. If you go to an article help it, if you have no intent to help then dont be at that article. Most citation needed templates are on information that could be looked up within five minutes, the problem with the information is not that it is wrong, it is that there are too many editors who think it is easier to delete than it is to verify. Do some research or get out of the way, deletion should be the last resort not the default. Of course the exceptions are libel, untruth, damaging, illegal, POV, copyrighted, etc etc. If the information does no harm, then no foul. You shouldnt delete an entire article unless the subject is non-notable, not based on problems with citation.Camelbinky (talk) 03:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with a delay--say, one week from creation. Beyond that, no comment. → ROUX ₪ 03:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so general question. How many false positives (and/or false negatives) would be enough to make this a 'bad' idea? Absolute or relative terms. Protonk (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Define. Do you mean 'article classed as unreferenced actually posessing references' being a false positive? → ROUX ₪ 05:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No. I mean articles which have references but to fake sites or attack sites or to otherwise unusable sites which go undeleted as false negatives. I mean articles which are not defamatory, contain no contentious claims and are not of poor quality which are deleted as false positives. In other words, a BLP vio we keep is a false negative, an article that would otherwise pass BLP that we delete is a false positive. Protonk (talk) 05:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that many of the 54K articles are guaranteed to be vios, the net result would be fewer vios. It's a reasonable tradeoff. Losing some good unreferenced BLPs is likewise a reasonable tradeoff, as they can all be easily recreated--but if they've been languishing for three years, clearly nobody has any interest in improving them, which almost certainly guarantees they haven't been read very much. So no loss there. → ROUX ₪ 05:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

that doesn't answer my question. 5% false positives? 25% 50%? how many false negatives? Protonk (talk) 05:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)If an article has no sources at all, there is almost no way for someone with no knowledge of the subject to know that its not a poor quality article, without actually doing the work to find the sources. Even if its unequivocally positive, it could still be 100% factually incorrect. I would guess that most of the articles are not actually blatantly defamatory, most would probably range from "apparently neutral" to "questionable." Mr.Z-man 05:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The false negatives already exist. So, as I said, we would be losing a bunch anyway. Net benefit. False positives, again, can be easily recreated. So the shorter version? I don't much care. Plow it under and start over. And bear in mind--you seem to be ignoring this--that the deletions would happen only after a month of concerted effort. → ROUX ₪ 05:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the answer. Protonk (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Roux! I just want to say that if there is any way I can support this project (such as rummaging through the results to help look for sources, notify creating/contributing editors, etc.), please let me know. Also, I just want to clarify: you're proposing we run a bot to check for and categorize unreferenced BLP's and then take a month to go through them all and see if there are any we can weed out of that category, right? What if we have the bot put them in a new category, say, |Category:Possible BLP vio| and then if we find BLPs that are unreferenced and yet clearly not defamatory, we can move them to |Category:Unreferenced BLPs| and move on, let other editors look for sources while we finish with this project. When we get done, then we can come back to them after whatever's left gets deleted. What do you think, good idea? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 08:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel myself with Protonk on this proposal. If it passes, however: is full deletion necessary? Couldn't they be mass-moved to the

WP:INCUBATOR (and maybe kept out of Google)? I understand the BLP concerns, but destroying thousands of articles seems a monstrous waste of potentially reasonable efforts. Moving them out of article space would have the same benefits, without losing information if someone can rescue them. --Cycl^opia - ^talk

09:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think

incubation may be a great idea for the latter group, but attack pages (which is what we are sifting through here looking for) fail criterion 1 for incubation. I would say once the unreferenced BLPs have been segregated, they should be sorted into articles for CSD (by tagging {{db-g10}}) and articles for rescue (incubation). This seems to solve the problem using processes we already have in place. Or have I missed something? I'm really not familiar with incubation. Can someone more familiar tell me how workable this solution would be? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!

) 11:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorting 54K articles is not a feasible proposition, which is why I suggested a bot run to segregate out those that appear to have some referencing--which, yes, will need to be checked. Those found without referencing will be given a month to be given some, and then kablooie the rest. I would strenuously object to moving pages into the incubator; for one I am not convinced of the utility of the project (it just seems to be moving the problem of languishing pages from userspace to projectspace), and for another the entire point of the proposed deletions is to remove probable BLPvios from the project, not simply remove them from Google indexing. → ROUX ₪ 13:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The concept is that BLPvios are a potential problem mostly in article space. Away from article space and non-googleable, they become material to work on, practically accessed only by interested WP editors, and it is unlikely that people will use them as authoritative sources. The utility of the project is exactly in moving languishing pages away from article space: WP, for the public, is the article space, basically, and moving stuff that needs serious improvement away from it helps maintain both objectives of quality and of editability. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the probable BLPvios--and BLP applies to every page on Wikipedia, not just article space. See also Category:Unreferenced BLPs from October 2006 for why this idea of 'they'll get worked on eventually' is completely unsupportable. → ROUX ₪ 13:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But you don't know what's effectively violating and what not, and most probably problematic articles are a small minority. Slashing 54K articles is a solution like cutting a whole arm because a fingertip is infected. I understand concerns, but we have to find a middle ground. The large majority of such articles is probably fully legitimate material. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And these are going to be checked how? Again, see Category:Unreferenced BLPs from October 2006 --three years ago-- for why this eventualism idea simply does not work. → ROUX ₪ 14:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

But it is working. That category contains 86 pages, out of the likely 10000+ BLP articles created during October 2006; the task is 99% done and I'm sure that in due course the category will go the way of Category:Unreferenced BLPs from September 2006. A scan of the category suggests that few to zero of these articles have major BLP issues that would cause problems down the line should they remain. In general, I am wary of any argument here that claims either (A) a problem is too large for case-by-case assessment - given the scale of the project this is highly unlikely to be true - or (B) that an arbitrary or sweeping solution is best for a specific and identifiable problem. The best way to deal with these articles is to continue grinding through them as we are today. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since April of this year, the size of the main category has grown by more than 20,000 articles. We're currently almost 3 years behind and pages are being added faster than they're being removed. We might be making progress on the oldest ones, but in general, we're not even breaking even. Mr.Z-man 16:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure how you determined that there would have been 10,000 articles in the category. Last month, we got about 430 newly created unsourced BLPs, not including ones that have since been deleted. Others in the category are from older articles that are later discovered to be unsourced (the date on the category is the date they were tagged, not the date they were created) None of the more recent categories have much more than 7,000 pages as a result of people finding more of them. I just checked a few random ones from the April 2009 category; several of them were created in 2007. Mr.Z-man 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Roughly, I am taking net article growth of about 50k plus about 1k a day article deletion (or 30k in the month). So 80k total article creation multiplied by the roughly 2/15 of articles that are BLPs is about 10k new BLPs per month in 2007 (this is probably conservative); some % of this was referenced initially and most of the rest have been processed via deletion, adding references, merging, etc. Obviously the creation-time vs. tagging-time issue skews things in terms of assessing unreferenced articles by creation date, but the point is that the size of the problem is managable and we have already chipped away the bulk of it through normal processes. If you know a way to get better statistics, that would be helpful but it is problematic since many of the relevant articles are deleted quickly, before they ever even enter sutiable categories.

To your main point, we need to separate growth from tagging old articles from growth by new unreferenced BLPs being created. If you are correct that only 430 new ones were created last month, that's great (seems extremely low to me - I figure we probably speedy almost that many every day) -- we don't need a new process to handle a long-run level of 430 articles per month. There's obviously a backlog that needs to be worked through but that's not refelctive of us "not breaking even", it's reflective of us fully encompassing the scope of an existing problem. The rate comparison needs to compare the # of new unreferenced BLPS to the # that are resolved via speedy deletion, PROD, AFD, merging, redirection, or addition of references. Only if we are falling behind under those long-run conditions should we consider more aggressive tactics. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not every BLP that's created is unsourced. BLPs created by established users (who tend to create more "lasting" articles) will typically be at least partially sourced. I should have noted that the 430 number doesn't include deleted articles. Its based on the number of articles created in the last 30 days that are currently tagged as unsourced BLPs. But, the number is steadily increasing. I did the same estimate in the April discussion and it was "only" 350. Its certainly possible that a "wait and see" approach will work, but all the evidence we have right now says it won't. Mr.Z-man 22:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well we would expect the number to grow steadily in line with Wikipedia's growth, but I'm not sure the sample size of two is enough to extrapolate a trend in this case. At any rate, ~400 per month is a better statement of the burden at hand than 54k existing. I feel confident that a few hundred articles a month is a number with which current processes are very capable of dealing. However, it's true that we lack good measures of either the actual target size of the population, or the actual rate at which we resolve problem articles, so it's really quite speculative. Based on your comment, 400-450 a month after early-stage deletions may be a good approximation of the first figure, but we have no concrete information about the second. How fast are we removing articles from this category by adding references or via later-stage deletion? Does anyone know? Christopher Parham (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The problem is that we don't have any existing processes for this. With the exception of things like WP:Peer review and the incubator suggested elsewhere (which probably would be overwhelmed by an extra 400 articles per month) we really don't have any "process" for dealing with low-quality articles that doesn't involve requesting deletion. Right now if you want an article to be improved, the process is "fix it yourself" - there aren't even that many places to ask for help. Mr.Z-man 00:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We definitely have processes for it: they are informal and diffuse rather than strictly centralized, but they are also the method by which the overwhelming majority of the encyclopedia has been created. Perhaps a new formal process would be a good idea, but in my experience formal processes for article improvement tend to function poorly (e.g.

WP:COTW). Christopher Parham (talk)

12:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Wilhelm, incubation is a new project that hosts sub-standard new articles that would otherwise be deleted or User-fied. The solution might work, but practically speaking that proposal might swamp the new project in its infancy. - Draeco (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As the editor that created the unsourced BLP cat and manually tagged the first 10,000 or thereabouts, before bots took this over (phew), I can with some certainty claim that a) most of these articles are neutral and acceptable (e.g. thousands of articles on soccer players: even when a hoax, not much harm is generally done); b) a significant minority is potentially very controversial: articles about supposed mass murderers, yakuza members, porn stars, nazi camp guards, ... When I noticed these, I speedy deleted as G10, but there are probably a lot more of those still around.

What I would suggest is not speedy deletion of all of them, but noindexing: make sure they don't turn up in Google searches and so on. This should be fairly easy to achieve, by adding the noindex property to the BLP unsourced tag. The articles are still available, people can source them, history is kept, but as long as they are unsourced, they don't appear in searches (which often includes the first few lines of the text as well). It will not make the backlog go away any faster, but it will minimize potential problems.

Flagged revisions would help as well, certainly for new unsourced BLPs, but that's a different story.

Noindexing problematic articles is certainly an option, but on English Wikipedia requires a software setting to be changed to make it possible. See {{

noindex}}. Rd232 ^talk

14:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to bring them away from article space and within incubator, if really felt as problematic, therefore. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, no. That's just shifting the problem of 54K articles from mainspace to projectspace. → ROUX ₪ 15:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We should be fixing articles, not destroying them automatically. You continue to cite the list of unreferenced articles since 2006, but this doesn't mean at least some of them won't be done in the future. Even the creator of category agrees most of these articles are probably perfectly legitimate.

WP:DEADLINE. Since BLPs are a sensitive issue, moving them outside article space and noindexing them is the best way to acquiet BLP concerns without destroying thousands of individual and mostly positive efforts. Deleting them seems to be a textbook case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. --Cycl^opia - ^talk

15:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

None of them have been done in three years. What gives us any confidence that any will be done in the next three? I'm aware that Wikipedia has no deadline, but BLPs are a special--the only special--case.→ ROUX ₪ 15:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's because of them being (somehow) special that I proposed to move them outside of article space, which already seems exceptional enough. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 15:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the overall idea has merit, but it is more likely to be accepted if it is worked into existing mechanisms where possible. It seems to me the first step should be building the proposed bot that would review BLPs tagged as unreferenced and sort out those that truly lack any ref. I looked at several articles in the Unreferenced BLPs category and found about half now have at least one reference. Others had sources in external links or infoboxes. I prod'ed several that lacked any ref or claim to notability. Tuning the bot to do useful triage would take some effort, I think. Once a reasonable level of quality is achieved, adding a bot that prod'ed completely unreferenced pages at some manageable rate might be a next step. If the resulting proding creates too much work, we can look at more automated deletion mechanisms. Meanwhile, I'd suggest everyone in this discussion review a dozen articles from Category:Unreferenced BLPs from October 2006 to get a sense of what is involved. --agr (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is possible to program a bot to do anything about this, but one thing I noticed in looking over a few dozen articles is that in several cases (probably 10-15% or so), the article said the subject had died, but the "BLP unreferenced" tag was still being used instead of just plain "Unreferenced". That doesn't change the issue of them lacking references, but it does remove some of the pressue that exists for BLPs. --RL0919 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• The present policy, which I think an excellent policy and fully support, "Biographical material about a living individual that is not compliant with this policy should be improved and rectified; if this is not possible, then it should be removed. If the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, then it may be necessary to delete the entire page as an initial step, followed by discussion." does not justify the deletion even manually of unreferenced BLPs, unless the entire page is substantially of poor quality, primarily containing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly source , and even then, leaves it as a matter of judgment: "may". I would strongly oppose any automated deletion process. Unless it is asserted that the BLP is of poor quality, primarily contains contentious material, and cannot be fixed by sourcing after a reasonable try, it does not qualify for deletion via any process for being unsourced--though if sources cannot be found it might well qualify for lack of notability. I think those limitations are good ones, and a necessarily defense against excessive zeal. Removing them will remove the good with the bad, which does not improve Wikipedia. Those conditions require intelligence and judgment. (I leave open the possibility that it may be feasible to design a bot showing more of both than some editors.) And any truly harmful article is already covered by the CSD for attack page--I and all other admins who check speedys routinely delete for that reason, and with particular speed. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the the assessment that unreferenced BLPs don't automatically fail the BLP policy. I also agree with the idea that mass deleting these is not necessarily a net positive for the project. On the other hard, I certainly agree with the assessment that current methods are unlikely to "break even", let alone reduce the backlog, in the near future. Thus, something has to be done - but I don't see any easy answer as to what. However, I would like to point out while adding a reference to a BLP technically "fixes" the problem - it doesn't really do anything to address the underlying reason for the policy to begin with; that is, the possibility of unsourced, potentially damaging information. As pointed out above, an article with one or more references can violate BLP policy just as easily as an article with no references. The real problem is lack of interest in these articles. The lack of references is a result of this problem, not the cause of it.

Moving to specific ideas... Incubating a tiny number of these articles would not be a bad idea, but keep in mind the project is only in its infancy. The initial results have been positive, but even 400 articles would completely overwhelm the current project volunteers.

I think idea of a bot notifying (still active) creators of old unreferenced BLPs mentioned below is a very good suggestion. I have no idea how much of an impact this would have, but it likely have some impact.

On a related note, I have been approached about automatically adding infoboxes to certain classes of articles via information derived from RS databases. Technically, this could "fix" some unreferenced articles. Of course, the only things referenced would be the new info added, which rather proves my point above that it isn't the lack of references per say that is the real problem here. That is, these newly referenced articles wouldn't be anymore accurate than before the infobox was added, but they would no longer be unref'd BLPs. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

" The real problem is lack of interest in these articles. " I think that's right, and that's one excellent reason to have a

notability policy set at a level which ensures some minimum level of interest in most BLPs. Rd232 ^talk

07:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• A strict don't delete any article choosing "radically" easy way from my point. If wikipedia had an archive feature instead delete, where registered users can track history of archived article, fix issues then revive archived pages, while archived pages are not visible to common reader, I would supported it. All these deletion debates and nominations getting out of hand year after year, wasting countless time and hardwork of users who tries to add something [unlike people who put more effort over getting them deleted "to clean" without any effort to improve them.] Kasaalan (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly agree. Actually, deleted articles are visible to admins, AFAIK. It would be nice maybe for registered editors to have a way to view such articles (and as such work on them), say on a case-by-case basis like the rollback feature. Good idea -worth to work on it. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 17:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Except copyright violations or serious wrongdoings, there should be some archive option. Then all the deletion debates would be more easy. It would lessen bureaucracy and weight over admins too. I strictly advise a hide-archive page process, so that deletion side effects will become less, and wikipedia will be more progressive. And whenever a mistake happens, it will be much more easier to correct it. Kasaalan (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a

perennial proposal, which is almost certainly not going to happen. Mr.Z-man

18:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Argh. Too bad it didn't pass, really. I'd have a lot to comment, but that's not the place to do it -and it'd be pointless. Only... arrrgh... --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would say this idea is somewhat different than viewing deleted articles. Kind of a "deletion lite" where articles don't appear when searched for and aren't indexed, but are still viewable by non-admins (i.e. ina special holding area.) I personally have no opinion on the wisdom of the idea, but I do think it is different than "deleted pages should be viewable" --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

How is that substantially different, except that it uses an entirely different system than deletion (and as a result would be more work for the developers)? The proposal is that every deleted article except for copyright violations and seriously problematic articles would be viewable by logged-in users (which is essentially everyone). Mr.Z-man 01:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't say substantially different, but rather somewhat different. :) I kinda assumed it would be only for unreferenced BLPs since that is what the thread is theoretically about, but re-reading that original post I guess the editor is really just saying "don't delete anything" - an idea that definitely won't fly. And yeah, it is unlikely to happen even if similar to what I was saying due to it creating dev work for limited benefit.

On the plus side,

WP:INCUBATE does incorporate some of functionality of this proposal. Namely, bad articles are moved out of mainspace and no-indexed, but not hidden (i.e. deleted) from non-admins. Of course articles can't stay in incubation indefinitely (for good reason), and the project is small, so it can't handle any significant portion of these articles any time soon. --ThaddeusB (talk

) 01:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sub-section inserted around existing content by Pointillist (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a look at a few articles from the

• Ralf Altmeyer created November 2004 by MichaelJanich (talk · contribs)
• Sam Apelbaum created February 2005 by CJCurrie (talk · contribs)
• Ken Allemann created March 2005 by Esteffect (talk · contribs)
• Philip Andrewes created September 2005 by CJCurrie (talk · contribs)
• Mitch Aliotta created September 2005 by Jokestress (talk · contribs)
• David C. Alexander created January 2006 by Ncox (talk · contribs
  )
• Mohammed bin Nawwaf bin Abdul Aziz created March 2006 by LCahill (talk · contribs
  )
• Johnnie Allan created July 2008 by Skb8721 (talk · contribs)

...would it make sense to bot these editors a note asking if they could please help find references? - Pointillist (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes be aware that if SmackBot comes across (in the course of dating tags, possibly not if it's doing another job) an article tagged as unreferenced and in the living people category it will change the tag to BLPunreferenced. Same applies to refimprove and BLPsources. The date will remain. We have something over 300,000 articles categorised as unreferenced, approximately 10%, a similar ratio (13%) seems to apply to BLP, which is good going since people are more anxious to tag those. Rich Farmbrough, 18:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

(ec) I've moved this into a sub-section for clarity. My concern is that—even though some of these unreferenced BLPs date back to 2003/4/5—in many cases the original article creators are still active on Wikipedia and we need to consider whether to warn these editors that their old articles need references. Without naming names, I can see that some of these editors have a long history of creating unreferenced articles and are still doing so. - Pointillist (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think bot messages to contributing editors to ask for references could be a big twofold help, IMHO. For one, it brings their attention to an article they have already expressed some serious interest in, which they may not have looked at in a while, and they may now be more seasoned editors and make higher quality contributions (not in all cases, but in some of these cases where the article has just been sitting there since 2006). The other reason is that notifying thousands of editors of the issue and asking for their contributions shows that this is a serious issue that needs attention, and some of them may choose to help the project. How would we do this, just notify the article creators, or is there a way for the bot to also check for the editor who made the most edits to an article and notify that user too (if they are not the same person)? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 23:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems the only thing which, given a little time, might make a serious impact. The bot should contact the creator, substantial editors, and possibly recent editors (ideally filtering out editors who haven't been active for a very long time - not sure that's possible though). It needs doing carefully however - in particular you don't want to send people dozens of messages - but a single message with a list of articles needing attention which they've created or been involved with would be good. Rd232 ^talk 08:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, and I fully agree with it, but I wonder how we could implement this. It seems like the messages would just stack up on a repeat offender's talk page. Can a bot edit successive notices into its own original message? Do we even have somebody here who knows how to set up a bot that could accomplish the tasks we have outlined here so far? I'd love to learn more about how bots work on WP, but this would certainly be outside of my skills! Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 09:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think a bot can edit successive notices into its own original message. That seems to be what

NowCommons}} messages: ncnotifier.py leaves a shorter message when it finds the marker <!-- ncnotifier --> on a user's talk page (source code). - Pointillist (talk

) 10:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I like it. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 13:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Although that seems to do it as separate edits. That might be a bit annoying for some users, who might constantly get "you have a new message" flashed up. I don't know if some form of caching would be possible, so that multiple messages can get bundled into one post. Rd232 ^talk 16:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If we agree it's a good idea and no-one volunteers here, there's Wikipedia:Bot requests. Rd232 ^talk 16:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Erik9Bot was the main bot responsible for tagging unreferenced articles in general, and BLPs in particular. Since Erik got banned, the bot is obviously no longer running. There was a botreq to replace its functionality that went unanswered - primarily because the task was rather controversial to begin with so no one was jumping at the opportunity to get gripes about it. (I should note that originally The BLP part did come first and was somewhat less controversial.)

Now, this proposal to make the bot notify people about their old article(s) that are unreferenced makes the task both more useful and more interesting to me. Thus, making it easier to persuade me to take it on. That's the good news - the bad news is that I have a poor record of getting things done in a timely manner. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Well if there are no objections forthcoming to this task, we should list it at Wikipedia:Bot requests, and then hopefully someone will take it on reasonably quickly. I actually don't think it's that difficult a task for an experienced botwriter (but I could be wrong). Rd232 ^talk 07:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Added a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests. Rd232 ^talk 14:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings from the coal face

Entirely coincidentally, I've just reviewed all of the articles in the unreferenced BLP categories from November 2006 to March 2007, looking for obviously deletable articles. I can report that the situation is, in reality, much as Fram describes it above. The large majority of unreferenced BLPs are not problematic beyond the simple lacking of sources. There are a few outright advertisements, puff pieces, and otherwise suspect articles here and there (like Benjamin Mkapa whose recent wholesale overwrite was almost certainly the product of a public relations organization) but in the main most unreferenced BLPs are like Debbie Greenwood: reasonably innoccuous and not immediately obvious that they are unverifiable. Indeed, there are a significant minority that are tagged as unreferenced but to which source citations have since been added.

Of the approximately 2,000 articles that I looked at, I nominated just 25 for Proposed Deletion, mainly because the people simply turned out to be wholly undocumented as far as I could tell. (See Peter Penny, for example.) That's 1% of the total that led me to believe that they would be unverifiable and turned out to be unverifiable when I went looking for sources. The nearest that I came to a serious BLP problem was Judith Ralston, which was close to being a coatrack for some exceedingly poor external links and some bad tabloid journalism.

For what it's worth, here are the remaining BLP articles that I still have outstanding, open in WWW browser tabs as I write this, which you might care to review and deal with yourselves:

• Brian Roehrkasse — I sent this through Proposed Deletion, and it was deleted. It has been since re-created, alas, and the problems that I explained in my Proposed Deletion rationale remain.
• Pascall Fox — According to our article, this is a person famous for having orange hair.
• Susan Tom
  — According to our article, this is a woman famous for having children.

One final note: Jorge Lankenau was an unsourced BLP from 2005 that was largely blanked for supposed BLP problems. A little bit of research effort turned up the fact that the original content was verifiable and largely accurate per national newspapers of Mexico. Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)