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.

I've opened a discussion at WP:BLPN#Years of birth to discuss whether we should remove years of birth from bios when the subject requests. We remove dates of birth, per WP:BLPPRIVACY, but should we also remove the year if asked (assuming it isn't widely available)? I've had quite a few requests for this over the years, all from women, so I'm wondering whether we should add something to the policy. Any input there would be very welcome. I would bring it back here as a proposal before adding anything to BLP. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

We've two active Rfcs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government concerning infoboxes of politicians. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm pretty new here (and am already repeating myself! ...a Tea House host suggested that I start this discussion here). I've been surprised by the many references to the ethnicity and/or religion of living persons on Wikipedia. I was especially surprised to see that there's even a categories called "Canadian Jew" and "American Jew". Isn't religion a personal matter? Maybe it's my Canadian showing, mon amis, but, where I live, no one is even allowed to ask... like when someone applies to a school. or for a job or loan, or anything, really... but, then it might just be published on Wikipedia anyway. I can imagine the impact might be even greater on those living and working outside of NA. It seems more odd attached to the living than the dead, too, but that's just my opinion. Sorry! Since its quite pervasive on WP, I suppose that I'd just like to get a little perspective on why religion and race are included on pages and even as categories. What does everyone else think about this? -RFT42 (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not supposed to say it, but it's boosterism from fans who take every opportunity to mention their favored tribe. It's a side effect of anyone can edit. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Categorizations by race, religion or sexual orientation are definitely overextended, and could create real-life problems. Can we trim them as a matter of site policy? I'm not sure that proposal would fly, but it's worth trying. According to Rule 34, it must have been tried already, in many possible ways.^[FBDB] — JFG ^talk 00:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Do we unite to propose more conscientious guidelines for this? Anyone have experience approaching the rules? I'm new here, more experienced Wikipedians, please guide us to higher standards.-RFT42 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll toss in my two cents. On one hand it is normal and appropriate for biographies to mention religion the religion of the subject. On the other hand all these categories for nationality+religion and religion+occupation are seriously lame. A proposal to eliminate all of those categories would be a pretty sweeping change. If anyone is motivated, it would require an RFC posted to Village Pump Proposals. It should also be listed on Centralized discussion. Alsee (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

RFT42, regarding ethnicity, we did have a big discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#RfC on categorizing biracial people. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Within the linked discussion, I think a lot of consensus emerged, and seems to teeter on resolution, but without action, as yet, and a bright-line test seems like it would be a wise enterprise, perhaps to become a RFC. Thanks to Alsee and Flyer22 Reborn for these very interesting links. -RFT42 (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The phrasing of this is becoming problematic, as its leading to people wanting to rush to include accusations against public figures within days of those accusations being made or reported in RSes, when we really should be waiting for determining if these accusations actually have direct effects on the person accused or otherwise proven true. (This is not just keeping in mind BLP, but also WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:RECENTISM.)

Some case examples:

• The situation today is around Neil deGrasse Tyson, where three women have reported past sexual misconduct from Tyson against them. Tyson has stated that he had had contact with two of the three, but his version of the events are far less serious than the women described it (that is, they weren't meant to be sexual and he apologized to one shortly thereafter). While Fox and Nat. Geo. are evaluating these claism , we have no idea of their validity or importance. They may go unfounded, and no action against Tyson is taken, in which case there's no point in even including them.
• A past example is Nolan Bushnell - earlier this year he was set to receive a video game industry award, but then a number of people spoke out about his past behavior while he ran Atari, so the award committee pulled the award, though afterwards, several of his female co-workers at the time came forward to dispute the claims. However, since the accusations affected his career (did not get this award), documenting the situation makes sense.
• A more extreme example would be the claims that came up during Bret Kavanaugh's SCOTUS hearing. That was part of the public record, by several legislative members, so that absolutely needs to be documented as part of his nomination process.

PUBLICFIGURE or BLP in generally really needs to be more strongly worded to avoid the rush to include accusations against public figures that have not been proven out or have not had any enduring impact. The way it is worded suggests that they should be added as soon as RSes report on them, but we need a lot more care in this and universally across all BLP. --Masem (t) 02:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is covered by WP:NOTGOSSIP. wumbolo ^^^ 12:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not really. None of these situations are gossip or rumor mongering. The accusations were well-published in RSes. The problem is that people want to rush to add these before understanding the big picture, and that's a violation of the intent of NOT#NEWS as well as the concern at BLP. --Masem (t) 15:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • As sometimes even "reliable sources" can make wrong accusations (Atlanta Olympic bomber etc.) there is no perfect solution. As ever, I find "celebrity gossip" to be a real problem in Wikipedia, and feel that any remotely controversial allegations of crimes must be very strongly supported. . Collect (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I think wording that gets along the lines of enduring coverage, impact on the person, etc. needs to be added. Or the language " If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented," needs to be changed, because people are using that to say that the absence of mention is against policy. We need editors to get their heads out of acting like WP is a newspaper and think about the long-term big picture. Some accusations will have immediate effect and it makes sense to document them in light of that. Some will not (as the case with Tyson is proving out, more than a week out and nothing has changed about his career). We've got a media market that is very "vindictive", ready to cover these types of allegations in a heartbeat, but that's not necessary information that ends up in an encyclopedic summary about a person, and that's the logical thought process that this current policy is missing, and instead encourages editors to replicate the court of public opinion before anything can be proven out. --Masem (t) 15:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• I completely agree... however, I am a firm believer in not trying to write “rules” that will be ignored. Sadly, many our fellow editors like adding stuff like this to articles. We can write all the “rules” we want - telling them not to do so - but it won’t stop them doing so anyway. So... a more practical solution for those of us who dislike stuff like this is to have patience. Let the “it’s in the news so we need to cover it” editors add all the insignificant stuff they want to add... wait until the coverage dies down and attention has moved on to some other scandal... and then go back improve the article by reviewing and removeing the additions that turn out to be insignificant. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• See User:Collect/BLP for my study of this problem. The "allegations" should never be presented as "fact" in the first place, and an encyclopedia should be far more circumspect than any newspaper. Removal four years too late is not a rational answer, either. The truth is that any allegation should be directly ascribed to the person making the allegation, and denials of the allegation should be given substantially equal weight to the allegation in the first place. As a bare minimum. Collect (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• The wording in WP:PUBLICFIGURE is longstanding and has served us reasonably well thus far. It seeks to balance the need for circumspection with the need for accurate and comprehensive coverage, and does a reasonable job at that. In particular, it serves as a bulwark against people who would seek to suppress potentially unflattering but well-sourced and relevant information, which, in my anecdotal experience, seems to be an increasing trend (present company excluded, of course). The policy, as written, provides clear and reasonable guidance on how to handle all three of the cases mentioned by Masem (Tyson, Bushnell, and Kavanaugh). If editors are rushing into print with poorly sourced allegations, then that is a problem, but not one that can be solved by amending this particular wording. I strongly oppose any effort to amend this longstanding and deeply ingrained fundamental policy, absent a more compelling rationale and a strong, well-argued, and diverse consensus. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
• The policy offers protection for borderline-notable figures, but to have to wait for issues to be "proven" or have "enduring coverage" when writing about public figures would place Wikipedia at odds with the reliable sources. WP:PUBLICFIGURE provides sufficient safeguards, particularly when combined with the avoidance of tabloid journalism:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.

SarahSV ^(talk) 19:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Not really. A lot of this issue comes to NOT#NEWS and that we as an encyclopedia should aim to put much more weight on long-term sourcing about a person rather than what the 24/7 news media is saying now, especially in light of the aftermath of #MeToo, Trump's presidency, or Brexit (to name a few). The media has knee-jerk and vindictive reactions to these things, but per NOT#NEWS, we're supposed to take a more tempered approach and look for what's going to be relevant in the long term. We are not required nor are supposed to mirror RSes but summarize them, and we don't necessarily need to heed what comes under a burst of news coverage if it has no long term impact. (These are factors mirrored in RECENTISM, NEVENT, and GNG for example). Unfortunately, all these relatively recent events creates an environment where editors rush to pick up on what the press is saying on the spot (more primary sourcing) rather than what comes down the road from better secondary souring.

I'm not 100% thrilled with how Blueboar suggests (I'd rather do the wait-and-see approach), but a solution where after enough time has passed and its clear that the allegation went nowhere and thus not affected the person giving us reason to remove the accusation would at least work. (Once the accusation has made an impact, it has to stay). It would at least avoid too much consternation about inclusion when it is a major focal point in the media, while being able to deal with what ends up as a non-controversy once that can be determined. --Masem (t) 23:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted this change, mainly on UNDUE grounds. Obviously if a court reports a verdict it is true, but there is the valid question of due coverage. I've pled guilty to minor traffic offense in court. The fact that there are public records in my jurisdiction indicating that I've driven with a broken speedometer is not something that needs to be in my biography. If a court case is important enough to be mentioned before a conviction, it will also be important enough to be mentioned after one, which means we should still rely on secondary sources before including them. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I would say that if we knew a person was being taken to court or tried for a significant event (well beyond speeding tickets), but at the end of the day no one covered the verdict, then the verdict is a reasonable public record as to conclude the matter, particularly if that is a not guilty/acquittal of whatever crime was accused of. But agree in general we shouldn't highlight that addition. --Masem (t) 21:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I suppose, but we also shouldn't be including simple charges that have been mentioned once in a paper. A paper's police blotter or one article pre-conviction isn't enough to merit inclusion per WP:BLPCRIME if the person is non-public. The media not reporting on a conviction is actually further evidence that it's not really relevant to the biography, and we'd be moving from a tertiary source on reporting about crime in biographies to a secondary source, which is a major concern. If we're talking about a public figure, well, I personally doubt that if a public figure is convicted there will be no press coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Right, the charge should be more than a simple civil crime even if that's reported "widely" (which typically tends to be TMZ-style coverage). I'm thinking of cases of a notable banker who was charged with, say, embezzling funds that got a lot of news coverage, but after a two-year trial, he dropped out of the limelight and no one noticed the courts found him not guilty. We should provide that type of closure from public records, but only if the initial charge was something significant to be included properly in a BLP. A charge only reported through a few tabloids or only by court records should not be included at all. --Masem (t) 22:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for this change. If there's a specific article where someone feels it's necessary, they can make a case for an exception then. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• We do need to make some kind of change to that section, because court transcripts are often the best sources, so long as there are secondary sources to confirm that the hearing is something that ought to be mentioned. That section was added to make sure editors don't pop down to the local courthouse to dig up biographical details from someone's nasty divorce case. But where we have a notable case and verdict, and court transcripts are available, we should be able to use them to some extent. But to what extent? My own rule of thumb is that I use appellate court transcripts, but only when writing about very notable criminal cases. These offer a summary of the trial, and in that sense are secondary sources. But I also use them as primary sources of information about their own decision. I do this because secondary sources often get the details wrong. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think limited use of primary sources here would be fine in line with the standard rules on using them, but with more caution. The real thing that needs to be avoided is something like the borderline notable academic who pled guilty to a domestic violence charge, DUI, etc. having the primary sources dragged up and put in their biography when there is no coverage in secondary sourcing, which is why I reverted. It's less about the reliability of the verdict as much as whether or not we should be covering a case at all. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree. Regarding the question on Iri's page, one example of a decision being added with no secondary sources would be if a guilty verdict were reported by secondary sources and added to a bio, but the successful appeal against that verdict was not reported (let's imagine it's a borderline-notable person and the sources had lost interest). In a case like that, we should add that the appeal was successful, even without a secondary source. Or we should remove the text about the guilty verdict, depending on context. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Perhaps adding a line to BLPCRIME along the lines of (workshoping) The existence of a conviction does not necessarily mean that a crime should be covered in the biography of a subject. Instead editors should determine whether or not it has sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources for Wikipedia to cover it. The simple existence of a verdict is usually not sufficient to warrant inclusion. or something similar. That would make the point clearer in BLPCRIME, and then an appropriate revision to BLPPRIMARY can be made regarding the relationship these sources can have with secondary sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
        • We had something in BLPCRIME (I think) about checking that verdicts had not been overturned, but it seems to have been removed. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:List of terrorist incidents in December 2018#Manchester stabbing (31 Dec 2018) regarding the application of BLPCRIME, if any watchers here are interested in participating in it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone made an undiscussed bold edit to Subjects notable only for one event section suggesting "we usually ignore them": [1]

I made a partial revert to the edit and my revert was immediately reverted without discussion: [2]

I'm having trouble understanding what "ignore them" is supposed to mean. Could this be clarified somehow and should we go back to status quo version until a new consensus has been reached? Politrukki (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should go back to the status quo pending discussion of the initial change. Personally, I would oppose the change as unnecessary and ambiguous. I've restored the version just before the change.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME currently states: For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

I think this is too restrictive. In the case of the Kidnapping of Jayme Closs, for example, all of the relevant reliable sources have reported that not only has Jake Patterson confessed to killing her parents, kidnapping her, and keeping her captive for 88 days, but Jayme's statement supports the confession, and no one in his family is even contesting these basic facts. What isn't clear is whether these acts are even crimes. After all, he may be innocent due to insanity. But there is no question that he committed these acts. It has been argued [3] (discussion) that it is a violation of BLPCRIME to say that he committed these acts because there is no conviction. But there may not be a conviction for years, or maybe even never. But whether there is not will never change the fact that he killed her parents and kidnapped her. That is true and will always be true, whether they are crimes or not.

So, I suggest a change or clarification to the "unless a conviction has been secured" wording. One way to handle it is to add the following sentence:

• However, if there is no question per all relevant reliable sources that a person has committed an act, it is acceptable to state that that person has committed that act, even if that act may eventually be proven to have been a crime.

Comments? Suggestions?

--В²C ☎ 22:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I would agree that if it is clear the person has confessed to the crime, and no one is showing serious concern on that (eg if people are concerned that a mentally-handicapped person is asserting to have done the crime) I feel that there's little reason to hide the name, even if at the end of the day they end up as proven innocent. --Masem (t) 22:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I suppose I can reword to make it specific to situations where the suspect has confessed, but I thought the broader "there is no question per all relevant reliable sources" covered that case, and any other blatantly obvious ones. --В²C ☎ 23:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

We need to be careful about the language "there is no question..." as that may lead to pre-judgmental decisions made by the press without the confession. --Masem (t) 00:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the press being what I was thinking of in my oppose to this below. I also commented on the talk page, but I think B2C is framing this wrong: no one is arguing not to cover the confession. The question is whether or not to say someone did an action. Given all the work that's been done recently on false confessions, stating authoritatively in the voice of the world's 5th largest website that someone did something before the courts have adjudicated that the confession is indeed legally valid and is enough to produce a conviction/allow for a guilty plea, we don't have any business making determinations of fact. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose if someone has committed a potentially criminal act without a conviction we do not cover it. The proposed wording change would open the door to all manner of loopholes (i.e. "Well, we know they did it even thought charges were never levied, so we're just discussing the factual implications not the criminal implications.")
  In cases like you're describing, it would be fair to note the confession itself, so long as there is substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources, but it would not be acceptable to describe him as a "murderer", as murder is illegal killing and no conviction has occurred. We cannot make that determination, only the courts of the relevant jurisdiction can. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay. Thanks for explaining. —В²C ☎ 07:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • That not the current policy - which stipulates we should "seriously consider" not including - it does not outright ban including - which may be done in some cases (e.g. international fugitives, in many cases, can not be convicted where they fled from aa many juristrictions do not allow trials in absentia - however in some cases the criminal details do get included on the bio).Icewhiz (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Actually it says we must seriously consider.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
        • Indeed. But isn’t merely pointing out that he confessed to the crime “suggest the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime”, even though he hasn’t been convicted? Yet there is no dispute about including that material, presumably because it has been widely reported in RS. Right? Is conviction really the right standard for determining whether to include material that merely suggests someone has been accused? I’ve actually been taken to AN/I for starting this discussion but I think it shows there is room for considerable improvement in the BLPCRIME wording. —В²C ☎ 15:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I have mixed feelings. On one hand, B2C makes a good point on the specific example that led directly to this incident. On the other hand, I've seen a proliferation of dubiously notable articles that seem to boil down to "if a crime was done by a person who wasn't white, especially a non-christian, then the crime is notable and we must name the suspect." These sorts of racist constructions have bothered me enough that I've nearly walked away from Wikipedia again over them a few times, especially as they're so hard to get removed. In this circumstance, one of the few tools we have to restrain the worst excesses of this genre has been a rigorous application of WP:BLPCRIME in conjunction with WP:NOTNEWS. In general I would suggest Wikipedia need not speak to every crime to hit the media cycle. Being salacious or shocking is not the same as having lasting significance or encyclopedic relevance. But if we find ourselves with a situation where a crime is considered of lasting significance, having policy in place to restrict how we speak about the accused protects both the civil liberties of the accused and Wikipedia from the appearance of libel. However I would suggest that the solution to the dilemma here would be to first ask the question whether this is in fact a notable crime. And if it is, then perhaps, in this very specific case, where there is an agreed statement of fact (in the form of a confession that does not appear to have been coerced) as to what happened, but not a formal conviction, WP:IAR may be apropos. In short, I don't believe we should weaken the requirements of WP:BLPCRIME because it serves an important function. But we should avoid being so hidebound that we end up with ridiculous situations where we have a notable crime wherein we can't discuss notable details because the person's admission to having-killed hasn't been demonstrated as being criminal yet. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Thot#Thot. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Is there a general principle that can be applied to the following hypothetical case? (I can't believe this hasn't arisen before, by the way.)

• A well-known person (i.e. they already have a Wikipedia article) is accused by a non-well-known person.
• Of a alleged crime, reported in several reliable secondary sources
• The description of the alleged crime is significant enough to merit criminal and civil actions against the accused.
• The accused denies the accusation.
• The accuser in several reliable secondary sources declares not to seek a criminal or civil case against the accused, while maintaining the accusation. (And such action is possible, i.e. there's no statute of limitations, diplomatic immunity, etc. applicable)
• The accused declares not to a seek a libel/slander action against the accuser.

Is the answer:

• Included because it's part of the public record.
• Excluded because it's impossible for Wikipedia editors to determine the truth or falsity of the accusation and therefore not fair to the accused to include it.
• It depends. Please explain your include/exclude criteria. patsw (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Answering my own question: It's included. See WP:PUBLICFIGURE for the rationale. patsw (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Excluded as the "Accuser" by not seeking any timely legal action is functioning as his/her own witness yet unwilling to testify under oath as to the accusation. That any public figure has to prove actual malice as well as falsity of such "accusations", the fact that they do not sue the accuser proves nothing at all. F'rinstance … person A (who is a total unknown) accuses person B (subject of the BLP) of forcing person A to use heroin at a party, but refuses to actually file police reports under oath. Person B cannot rationally file a defamation case in the US. The "reliable secondary sources" are not stating the accusation is anything more than such, that is, they are not suggesting that it is fact, and the accuser by making no attempt to have a finding of fact be made by competent authorities or competent courts is furnishing no basis for any reliable source to make the accusation into a statement of fact. For examples of the problem look at User:Collect/BLP where an editor appears to make the argument being presented - that a public person by not suing the allegator is admitting the claim to be fact.

It's a real exposé, in the classic sense. If the report were bogus, X would have sued TMZ loooong ago. Excluding it is simply censorship, plain and simple. So he's allowed to have a family and we are not allowed to add that fact to the encyclopedia because he would prefer people not to know about it? Is that your position?

I consider this to be quite directly related to the hypothetical case in the question. Collect (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the language of WP:PUBLICFIGURE is plain and requires the inclusion of the accusation: "simply document what these sources say". Are you (or another editor) advocating a change in its wording? patsw (talk) 12:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Just pointing out what "editor" means -- we choose what goes into articles, and give due weight while following WP:NPOV which is "non-negotiable". Adding charges which the accuser refuses to present to any fact-finder of any sort is an easy case - if the accuser refuses to let anyone actually examine the charges, and the charges are harmful to the subject, we can, and generally do refuse to give a Wikipedia imprimatur to those unexamined charges. Collect (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

It depends My bar for any case like this if it whole state of accusations (without any legal action taken by any party or enforcement agency) is to determine the effect it has on the accused's career or life. Eg take someone like Kevin Spacey where as soon as the first allegations landed, he was kicked off shows, and parts of a movie just about to be released had to be reshot with a new actor. That makes the allegations something to be included. If sources report the allegations but no one acts on them and nothing happens to the person accused at all besides a bit of media attention, we should not include that. And of course, its always best to look though the lens of RECENTISM here - we are not required to immediately include any accusation, and sometimes waiting 3-6-12 months to see how it all filters out will give the right answer to if it should be included or not. --Masem (t) 15:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I will definitely add to what Blueboar added below: the sources are important, particularly for accusations. It's one thing if NYTimes, BBC, etc. are all repeating it, but if its TMZ, entertainment magazines, etc.. I'd then be asking where the original source of information was from and if it has been corroborated. --Masem (t) 17:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• It depends - Totally agree with Masem. A lot also depends on which sources are covering it: Scandal rags / tabloids / click bate gossip sites? probably not something we should bother with... high end news outlets? probably something we should cover as well. Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I think all the it depends answers need to be read as included - as I mentioned in my hypothetical, assume WP:RS is satisfied. patsw (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Nope "It depends" means that a blanket "included" is not the !vote. And the requirement that the accusation is "corroborated" is a mile away from "include." The "Spacey example" is inapt as it was his "removal" which was readily corroborated, not the accusations per se. Collect (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

On corroborated, to me, I'd use what was shown for Neil deGrasse Tyson: the original accusations were made by a weak RS, but the WaPost made their own inquires on the charged by those accusing Tyson and confirmed that the accusations being made were what the weak RS reported, "corroborating" that. By no means does that corroborate that the events stated in the accusations actually happened, only that a good RS believed there's something valid to report the accusations. Hence why the sourcing question is extremely important. But even then, as I suggest, just because the accusations were corroborated in this fashion doesn't make it worthy to include - the effect on a person's life or career needs to be significant then. --Masem (t) 14:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• There is an unambiguous right answer to this question, and patsw has already hit upon it. The policy clearly states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." I'm more bemused by the spectacle of established editors giving obviously wrong answers here, which are either ignorant of policy or actively contradict it. You guys don't get to make up your own criteria when policy is crystal-clear. If you're going to be active on the noticeboards, then you need to be aware of what policy actually says, and willing to go along with it. MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What is "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented" defined as? For example, I would argue my "impact on career" is a measure of relevancy- if there's no impact, then its not relevant to mention, particularly in the long-term. "Noteworthy" implies enduring coverage (akin to notability) , so an accusation that has the media's attention for all of a day is not noteworthy even if its well documented. It's not a black and white definition. --Masem (t) 17:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I would suggest the notability would depend too much on what makes it relevant. I tend to lean away from Wikipedia being a platform to report on peoples supposed misdeeds, but in the case of, for instance Harvey Weinstein the accusations against him led to the collapse of his career and the Me Too movement. Likewise, the career trajectory of Louis CK was significantly impacted by the accusations against him and is relevant, same with Asia Argento. On the other hand we can see how this sort of latitude is mis-applied with much of the nonsense that went on at Julia Salazar - which included far too much shitty gossip BS at one point in time. So I wouldn't want to establish a "general standard" without knowing the specific circumstances. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

At first, I didn't think of the this case from 2011, which in its time generated a lot of WP:BLP issues: New York v. Strauss-Kahn for a case where the media from gossip source to our reliable sources were keeping the story in flux and keeping the Wiki editors constantly busy. I remember this because I took a photo of the classic "media circus" which appears in the article. The story ended with a dismissal of all charges. To Simonm223, we already have established a policy, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, to cover accusations. patsw (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Do we have guidance on whether mention of first marriages/divorces is restricted by, say, BLPPRIVACY or NPF? Saw one removed by an IP, want to verify policy before I add back (the edit also made other changes that definitely need correcting, I'll take care of those). In this instance, so far I've found the subject mention the marriage in the secondary source cited, several interviews, and two published essays. But, it's true that it's not in most of the secondary sources on the subject and I'm mindful of the overarching principle that Wikipedia is in the business of recording well-known information, not making it so. (On the other hand, the IP did not remove other details cited to the same secondary source, like who the subject is dating now, which I tend to think would also need to be removed if we're going to be conservative with this? Previously I removed the current relationship when it was added without a source, but since it was in this profile published six months ago, it seemed ok.) Thanks, all, for any input. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that minimal personal information is best unless it is essential for the narrative of the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC).

Thank Xxanthippe, that's well put. The one secondary source does interpret the elements of notability (i.e. notable writing) in terms of this particular personal information but given it's only one source, I think it's probably best to remove until/if ever it's more widely discussed. I don't like the idea that we might end up seeing that in other secondary sources only because the WP promoted the connection. I'll go ahead and revert for now to the version prior to the incorporation of that source. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Do we have specific guidance on BLP's of minors? I feel like they have to be protected even more assiduously than other BLP's. The word "child" is not mentioned at all on this page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

We discourage listing the minor children of famous people by name unless they are individually notable for more than just being the child of a celebrity. Were I in charge, I would bar all articles about minors unless and until they are notable for more than one related topic, as the danger from causing damage is often greater than the actual encyclopedic value. I would word it, more or less as:

Unless a minor person is notable for more than being the child of a celebrity, or the specific focus of a single event or immediately related events, the danger of causing damage to that person or related persons is a significant problem and such mentions of such a minor by name or action is deprecated.

"Deprecated" is a reasonable term in this type of case. Just because a reliable source mentions names does not mean we need to consider those names to be of encyclopedic value. Collect (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

We do have something under WP:BLPNAME related to family members. More explicit advice about minors including a shortcut can't hurt. --Masem (t) 16:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Collect: Please elaborate a bit what you mean by "immediately related events"? If this were implemented I foresee occasional battles between editors saying certain events are related and others saying they are distinct. I'm not asking for Bright Line, though that would be nice, but please say more? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

"Immediately related events" are those which are substantially concurrent with the single event. Thus the wrongly accused bomber, who is not otherwise notable" is accused of "making a bomb", "planting the bomb" and telling people there was a bomb -- is a single event, not three separate events, in my opinion. Collect (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps though thinking "minor" and "bomber" is kinda horrifying, but I suppose it does happen. What of the minor-bomber who threatens, tries, or succeeds in doing more than one bombing all in the same cause? In the minor's mind these might all be "immediately related events" in their fight. Are they separate events for our purposes? I suppose I should mention that I also have an interest in the example below, about Greta Thunberg. She is notable for one thing (climate activism) but she has been doing a number of different actions in pursuit of her goals. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If the events are basically a single event, then it is a single event, in my opinion. And I chose an example which would show how strong my own opinion is on this. Note than the EU would actually ban such articles from the start, where a minor is involved. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-636_en.htm https://www.wired.com/story/europes-new-privacy-law-will-change-the-web-and-more/ Collect (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Climate activist Greta Thunberg, now 16, has a page. There is currently a debate on the associated talk page as what constitutes suitable material and framing in relation to a controversy involving Greta and a Swedish startup. Here is another potential topical example. Lotta Crok, just 9 years old and Amsterdam's junior cycle mayor, might warrent an article in her own right?^[1] That is very young to have a public life. I believe Wikipedia needs policy (at least I could not find any) on editing pages of those under 18 years old. Such minors are treated very differently under law, including protection, agency, consent, culpability, liability, and right to vote. Thoughts? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 08:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the Wikimedia Foundation whether they have already reviewed our BLP policies to verify compliance with legal protections of minors? Such professional analysis can not be done at this level. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI, this was discussed briefly at Vpump in 2018, in case it helps here is the link NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It is worth noting too that children have fundamental protection under European law.^[1] And although that law might not extend to Wikipedia EN, it would however apply to the European-language Wikipedias who operate out of Europe. Let me repeat two of those rights (emphasis added):

• (24.1) Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.

• (24.2) In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration.

These duties are care are not optional and they are unlikely to be trumped, for instance, by the right to freedom of expression and information. BLPMINOR is a real issue that needs traversing with some urgency. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep Collect (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Great, but to continue from article talk, in what way do you think existing BLP policy fails to do those things? In my view, if we do a good job applying existing P&G we can look at these standards and say "mission accomplished". Is there a gaping hole in our P&G that we need to plug in order to be in legal compliance? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

See User:Collect/BLP for the types of positions and rationales some "BLP include everything we can find" editors hold. Collect (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I glanced, it's long. How does it relate here? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It relates to deliberate addition of irrelevant material to any BLP for the deliberate sake of harm to the person. And, yes, some editors seem to have that belief. Collect (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies in advance if my attempt to restate the issue falls flat or inadvertently seems flip or offensive. If I understand correctly, all BLPs run the risk of being targeted by NOTHERE or BATTLEMINDED editors who try to add harmful stuff to their enemies' BLPs. It sounds like some here believe that although existing BLP rules may provide tools to protect minors from these behaviors, the problem - if I read between the lines correctly - is that these tools are slow and cumbersome, and the potential of harm to a minor requires a speedier solution. Into this void comes an easily measurable proposed new rule as expressed by @Collect: above. For minors notable for just one discrete thing, showing it's just one discrete thing makes for a fast speedy delete process, compared to slogging through walls of text discussing sources (many of which may be of poor quality or poorly interpreted) and then debating how existing rules apply. If this is not a fair or complete rendering of the issue, then I apologize and maybe others can improve upon it. How are we doing so far? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe all BLPs should be carefully constructed. I point out further that the EU has extremely strong laws governing the rights of children and that Wikipedians who think that the law does not matter are mistaken. My simple proposal is in line with EU law at this point, and, I suggest, in line with common sense as well. Collect (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I want to help here, and I admire your desire to protect minors. So please don't get mad but you didn't really answer my question. First, Thank you for wanting us to follow the law, but that must include not engaging in the illegal practice_of_law. Unless an editor happens to be an attorney, no editor should be citing statutes and analyzing how they work here and then telling other editors what does and does not comply. That sure seems like legal advice. If you think there's a problem of this sort there is a way forward - direct your statutory citations and analysis to the Wikimedia Foundation. Second, I am trying to understand how you perceive our current rules are inadequate. I think the goal is to create a fast and relatively painless way to kill off BLPs of minors whose notability is questionably associated with just one thing. True or False? You can keep telling me what you want to do but that doesn't really explain why I should not dismiss it as WP:CREEP. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer, correct. I did have a contract with a major ISP which required me to know and enforce copyright law and COPPA etc. regarding online services. And I assure you that being aware of copyright law and laws regarding minors etc. is not "practicing law without a license". So much for using CREEP. Note that my position on copyright was not the same as Jimbo's regarding the famed "monkey selfie" and guess whose opinion was correct according to the legal system. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/federal-appeals-court-rejects-monkey-selfie-suit-n868501 "The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a lower-court ruling in favor of David Slater, the photographer whose camera was used to take the photos." Collect (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a laywer either, but like you for a long time I made my living using special legal knowledge. In my case I am one of three living people I'd consider experts in an arcane area of property law. I used this knowledge to buy out people's positions in civil litigation in disputes about money and property. Since I did all my own legal work, I also had to deal with frequent complaints that I as doing the unauthorized practice of law, so I know something of that also. In short, its one thing for me to use my knowledge to represent myself in court (that's OK). It's something entirely different to tell other people - Wikipedia editors for example - how such laws apply to their own procedures and decision making. I cheer for your obvious good intention to protect minors, and it's obvious your resume gives you clout for raising concerns with the Wikimedia Foundation. This is not that venue, and if you want to actually make progress in establishing consensus here, please harken to WP:Arguments to avoid in discussions#Personal knowledge. Shoot the statutory analysis off to the real attorneys at the Wikimedia Foundation, please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Policies re: children

We have WP:BLP and its sections WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME, and the essay WP:MINORS and its section WP:NONAME. Is there anything else? Collect wrote above We discourage listing the minor children of famous people by name unless they are individually notable for more than just being the child of a celebrity, but there was recently a discussion about that on Fradio71's talk page in which some editors expressed the opposite view. At Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, there used to be links to their kid's birth certificate (used to establish his name as Tom and not Thomas and her name as Katie and not Katherine). In my view, the existing policy isn't clear enough about the issues of children's right to privacy when they are not the subject of an article (e.g., naming the minor children of celebrities), as well as what (if any) "special" procedures should be used for minors who are the subject of an article (BLP minors). I'd support adding clarity. Leviv ich 00:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I would also support adding clarity but only after the problems are articulated. @Levivich if you believe the essays you mention contain vital "anything", well, they're essays. If we're relying on them to plug the gaps in policy in any way, then those aspects of the essays should be merged to the policy page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, I've noticed some essays seem to carry more weight than pillars. But yes, I think (i) WP:NONAME (essay) should be stated in some form in WP:BLPNAME (policy), and (ii) WP:BLP should at least have some language about being "extra careful" in BLPs of minors (and perhaps also more specific guidance than that, but if so, I'm not sure what exactly). Leviv ich 03:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(1) I suggest starting a new section (or maybe a subsub section in this thread) to discuss elevating NONAME to policy. (2) Editors who would care about "extra care" already care and don't need it. Editors who create these sorts of problems excel at wikilawyering and will readily see "extra care" as being 'way too subjective to be actionable. Given this, just adding "extra care" would be WP:CREEP, unless the phrase were used to introduce additional text that provides some actionable guidance. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hence my proposal above

Unless a minor person is notable for more than being the child of a celebrity, or the specific focus of a single event or immediately related events, the danger of causing damage to that person or related persons is a significant problem and such mentions of such a minor by name or action is deprecated.

Which I believe should be used as a basis for policy statements regarding all minors. Collect (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Since any extra threshold to show notability of a minor is going to be subjective, why not just be really subjective and say "No BLPs about minors"? Once they reach the age of 18, then the usual rules apply. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"No BLPs about minors" would result in an incomplete encyclopedia. There are notable minors, like Olympic gold medalists. Also, they're already famous, so we're not really causing any damage by having a BLP, as long as the BLP is properly written and sourced. Leviv ich 02:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

On the proposal language: what is the purpose/intent of the "danger of causing damage to that person or related persons is a significant problem" clause? It seems too vague/general to explain why minors specifically shouldn't be named as opposed to other people. (I'd argue that any "danger" of "damage" to a person is a "significant problem".) What is a "mention of a minor by ... action"? Leviv ich 02:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Tools and templates

To help inform this discussion, I'm curious if the code already has tools for tagging or otherwise identifying and tracking BLPs of minors? Anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

One clunky way I can think of is to look at the intersection of Category:Living people and the ____ births categories for the last 18 years, e.g. living people born in 2010. Leviv ich 02:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• If you use Category:21st-century births and exclude 2000 and 2001 births as negative cats, then you'll get a better list. see 985 people found. The-Pope (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Prelim Proposal How about asking for the development of a BLP template - either a standalone or an optional parameter of an existing one - that can flag a BLP as being that belonging to a minor? With that tracking and monitoring tool in place, we will be in a position to do a much better job monitoring such BLPs and talking about the nature of the problems we wish to address via policy and guidelines. As a matter of functionality, the servers could automatically "graduate" the template to that of an adult just on the basis of birthday/age, somewhat similar to the "Update" parameter of the "As of" template. The idea is too rough for an RFC but if there is intereset here, maybe ya'll could help smooth off the rough edges before we reformulate it as a "real" proposal? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 February 16#File:Robert Goldston01.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Editor Fradio71 has been removing names of children from their celebrity parent's bios, while insisting on leaving their birth month and birth year. Examples include their edits at Lebron James and at Chris Paul. WP:BLPPRIVACY does not preclude children's names from being included when they are widley reported, especially if their parents freely talk about them as well. I can undertand not needing children's full birth dates listed, but I dont understand why they want the birth month as well as the year listed, when the birth year seems to be informative enough (if it is needed at all). What are people's opinions on:

• Automatically removing children's names
• Placing childen's birth month and birth year as opposed to 1) just the birth year or 2) no birth information at all.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I should note that I was following the lead of IJBall, who said it should be inexact, but if I was wrong to do so, I'll gladly revert. I just hope I'm not in trouble for thid--Fradio71 (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No "trouble". This is an open discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It is general practice not to include the names and exact DOB's for the minor offspring of our WP:BLPs, unless the offspring is themselves somehow independently notable. Now, that is subject to editor consensus at the various articles – but at the vast majority of BLPs I watch, the consensus is usually to exclude such info as per WP:MINORS and WP:BLPPRIVACY. As per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP, I personally see no value in including such info here on Wikipedia, regardless of how this info is handled in the press and in the tabloids. On reporting DOB birth year vs. birth month and year, I don't have any particularly strong opinion – my personal take is that either is fine, provided the actual day/date isn't published here (as per WP:BLPPRIVACY). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: What is your opinion on clarifying this on the policy page, e.g., by incorporating the text at WP:NONAME into WP:BLPPRIVACY (or something like that)? Leviv ich 17:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That can be proposed, and I'd support that, but my guess is that there may not be consensus to upgrade WP:MINORS (or portions thereof) to full "policy" status... Right now, WP:MINORS is more a "best-practices" thing that a lot of editors support. But I'm not sure there's support for making it a full "policy". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: How would you define "independently notable"? Would it be the capability to meet WP:GNG, or would it a lower bar of some level of mention in the press? An example would be inclusion of daughter Riley Curry in Stephen Curry.—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say "independently notable" means "notable in their own right" for something beyond just being the child of a celebrity. A couple of examples of this are the daughters of Casper Van Dien and Heather Locklear are actors in their own right (though the latter article does a bad job on this, and makes no mention of it). Now I don't think either is "minor"-aged anymore, but that's the kind of thing I'm taking about... So, no – simply "mention in the press" is far too low a bar for the inclusion of the name of a minor in Wikipedia, IMO, and so in the Stephen Curry example, I would advocate striking the names of the children there, as his children do not appear to be notable in their own right. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Does "notable in their own right" exclude children that are famous for being famous. Angelina Jolie's come to mind. I don't care too much either way. I mostly edit sports bios, and other people add children's names a lot. I'm trying to get a feel for whether there is some support (even if not consensus) for others removing children info in the name of essay WP:MINORS.—Bagumba (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Cases like that, and Suri Cruise, would probably have to be the result of a consensus among the editors at that article – I suspect in the "famous for being famous" cases, the consensus would be in include the names of the children (but not the exact DOB's)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

My earlier suggestion:

Unless a minor person is notable for more than being the child of a celebrity, or the specific focus of a single event or immediately related events, the danger of causing damage to that person or related persons is a significant problem and such mentions of such a minor by name or action is deprecated.

remains. Collect (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I (still) agree with Collect's suggestion. A repost from Fradio's talk page:

The policy WP:BLPNAME says reliably-sourced names of family members may be included if such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. Here's information that I would think is, and is not, relevant to a reader's complete understanding of Lebron James:

Relevant	Not relevant
Name Where he grew up How he learned to play basketball Teams he played for Championships won Awards won	Hat size What kind of car he drives His favorite TV show Foods he doesn't like to eat Name of his 5th-grade teacher Where he took his last vacation

Of this list of things...

1. The fact that he has kids
2. The number of kids
3. The approximate ages of the kids (toddlers, teenagers, etc.)
4. The birth year of the kids
5. The birth month of the kids
6. The birth day of the kids
7. The kids' names

...I'd say #1–3 are relevant, and #4–7 are not, and therefore, kids' names shouldn't be included. Leviv ich 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

My own take is that #1–4 are relevant, #5 is debatable, but #6 and #7 are definitely not relevant in all but extreme cases. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

How is the birth month (#5) relevant? I'm not seeing how a birthdate of May 2018 vs August 2018 is anything but trivia (the exception perhaps being a newborn in the current year). Moreover, having only the day omitted is almost begging for someone to be helpful and add the missing info.—Bagumba (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Birth month is almost always clear from the accompanying reference. So, yes, you could exclude it, but OTOH why bother? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

We would exclude it because Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia, such as the birth months of children who are not themselves notable. Normally we would not even name them. Jonathunder (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The thing about "trivia" is that is ultimately is in the eye of the beholder – what one editor considers "trivial", another will not. That's why I said it's "debatable". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been a long trend, so maybe this page is not the right page to talk about it, but we need to correct this. It basically is what happens when editors are trying to focus on negative elements related to a BLP within the lede. I'm bringing this up over the news related to George Pell which I'm certainly not saying needs to be buried outside the lede, but the first sentence is the last thing, which currently reads George Pell is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church and the church's most senior official to be convicted of a sexual offence. There is no question that somewhere in the lede structure that the offences has to be mentioned, and if restructured, certainly within the first paragraph of the lede (a lede-up to the lede). But to stick it at the end of the first sentence after objectively describing Pell in a neutral manner feels extremely partial and non-objective. Similarly with Bill Cosby where it reads is an American stand-up comedian, actor, musician, and author who was active for over five decades before being convicted of a number of sex offenses in 2018.

That lede sentence is critical to setting the tone for the entire article and it should be written without excessive hyperbole. Nearly every other BLP, that first sentence usually states the person's name (given name or nicknames), nationality, and broad occupation. Unfortunately I've seen the logic that if a person is notable for negative aspects in addition to other things, such as these crimes, these have to be included in that first paragraph. There is no policy that requires the lede sentence to spell out why someone is notable. The lede should within a few sentences get there, but that first sentence needs to stay objective and impartial, otherwise we have a tone problem. Of course in the case of a person who is only really notable for criminal activity (eg Charles Manson), that's something that cannot be hidden and has to be in the lede.

This is generally part of WP editors' trend of following the media to closely when they focus much more on the negative about public figures that I believe causes editors to write like this. We have to cover the negative elements but it not required to be a callout in the lede. But exactly how to get editors to recognize that is difficult. Arguably, BLPSTYLE already warns against some of this, but I feel it needs to stress more than the leading sentence of a lede needs to be most carefully constructed to stay objective. --Masem (t) 14:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In short, WP:NPOV is no longer regarded as being important in too many articles entirely. Precisely. And this is becoming more common as polemics surmounts journalism. Read User:Collect/BLP tp see more displays of such attitudes. Wikipedia is a place to furnish encyclopedic material, neither to demonize "evil people" or sanctify "good people." Collect (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In general I would agree. However, for Pell specifically, one could argue that this is what he's primarily notable for. It's not just media - we have a full length book by Melbourne University Publishing. It definitely deserves significant placement in the lede. Icewhiz (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Our media today loves to erase any accomplishments of any person at the faintest hint of potential criminal or unethical activities. That's just a symptom of the current culture war, and we're not going to solve that at WP, but we can be aware it exists and not use the same attitudes as the press as we are better then they are; our goal is cover topics from the long-term POV rather than the immediacy of gaining viewership. Unless someone is only known for their criminal activities, these always should take a backseat to an objective description of what the person did before hit with criminal charges. --Masem (t) 15:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

While I concur that we should be depending, in general, far less on newsmedia than we do, particularly to establish notability or remark on unfolding situations, I would dispute that it's within Wikipedia's mission to white-wash the behaviour of a bad actor just because they did some other notable thing before whatever bad behaviour they got caught out for eclipsed the rest of their career. We don't need to preserve the legacy of abusive priests. Simonm223 (talk) 15:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I know what you're saying but that's the "righting great wrongs" attitude that does not help neutrally develop BLPs and persists to those BLPs of people that have not been convicted of any crime but are seen as "bad" in the eyes of the press. This is not anything about whitewashing but making sure that before we jump into laying out negative elements or criticism of a person, we should at least start objective. We are not here to tell the reader what to think, which is unfortunately what the press's role tends to be nowadays. --Masem (t) 17:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia's first mistake was commenting on living people at all. Simonm223 (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not a problem with Wikipedia, but how a good proportion of editors have come to see how articles on persons that have negative public perceptions are development, and repeat that across the board. It is very easy to cheer on someone you hate - that's human nature. We need more people aware of this and try best to play down any personal feelings to develop BLP better. --Masem (t) 18:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• There is a really profound misunderstanding of neutrality—and back-asswards framing—at play here. The assumption seems to be that negative material is inherently "non-neutral", while positive material is "neutral" or "objective". Material is either well-sourced and relevant, or it's not. This is Masem (and others) trying to put their thumbs on the scale because they believe that reliable sources have gotten due weight wrong.

  It is one thing to argue that our articles misrepresent the emphases of reliable sources—that is a legitimate, policy-based argument. But that's not the argument being made here. Masem (and others) are arguing that reliable sources are wrong in their emphases, and that we as editors need to apply our own personal filters before presenting well-sourced material to readers. (For whatever reason, in practice this seems to always involve minimizing negative coverage of white supremacists, Gamergaters, convicted pedophiles, alt-right figures, and so on, so it's hardly an effort to tackle systemic biases across the board). That is completely counter to policy. Masem is trying to right what he considers a great wrong, and then moralizing to everyone else as if they were the problem. (There also seems to be some confusion about specifics; Masem complains that we are unfairly vilifying "people that have not been convicted of any crime", but Pell is in fact a convicted child molester). MastCell ^Talk 20:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

  • And sometimes, it can be very clear that someone committed a crime, but aren't convicted, either by getting off on technicalities or reaching a settlement. It doesn't mean they suddenly did not do the crime--Fradio71 (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Positive material is also non-neutral, and actually in most cases I've tried for people known for greatness, that lede sentence in those articles rarely describe that greatness and still stick to an objective description of the person. The next lede sentence may be about their greatness, but that's the same premise above. (The only cases I've seen otherwise is describing Nobel Laureates where the first sentence will mention this.) Its far less rare editors tend to put BLPs on pillars (though it can happen) and that usually doesn't happen in the media either, but it is very easy to write condescendingly about a person with negatives. Too many of our articles are written in an approach of "How many negative things have been written about this person from RSes that we can include" which is absolutely the wrong way to be developing BLP.
  • And a key facet here is that UNDUE is about weighing opinions, but it does not state opinions should outweigh facts (Separately, we have far too many editors that want to treat opinions in RSes as factual content despite that being against NPOV) The lede should avoid as much opinionated content as possible, unless that is the reason a BLP is notable or an essential part of the influence of the person. We value objective facts far more than opinions, much more so in the lede where there is limited space to cover the topic. This is not to whitewash away elements that have significantly impacted a person's career - this isn't about hiding Pell's conviction out of the lede, but just making sure that the lede starts off in an impartial, dispassionate tone to give use the fundamental who-what-where, and avoid a tone that is accusational that will filter through the whole article.
  • (And I didn't say Pell's was a case of "people that have not been convicted of any crime", but instead that the attitudes on developing articles like Pell's then spreads to articles on "people that have not been convicted of any crime" but otherwise seen as wrong or an outside by the mass media- those are people that may or may not be wrongly vilified and we shoudl be even more careful on.) --Masem (t) 21:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: "George Pell is an Australian prelate of the Catholic Church and the church's most senior official to be convicted of a sexual offence" seems to be entirely neutral to me. That's what the subject is notable for. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • That's a RECENTISM view, which prevails too much. Maybe Pell will appeal and be cleared. Maybe he will serve time and then turn around to be a well-known advocate in this area. Maybe he does end up being know primarily as being that high-ranking priest that went to jail. We can't tell, and won't be able to tell for years. We can say he was well known for being a priest, that won't change. But trying to force the recent conviction in the lede sentence is just unnecessary. Somewhere in the lede, obviously yes, but not in what should be the most objectively, neutrally worded sentence in any article. --Masem (t) 20:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Some minor refinement to the Pell lede might help, but all the generalizations and hand-waving seem to support MastCell's concerns. --Ronz (talk) 20:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's compare this to how things in the press which want to rush to judgement work out, like #MeToo accusations, the situation around VA Governor Northam, or the Indigenous Peoples March incident. The press typically report these in manners that then consider all formal contributions of the person should be discounted and only focus on the accusations. Some of these do pan out (like with Weinstein), some don't as the media rushed to judgement (as with the students at the Indigenous Peoples March ) and some we don't know because not enough time has passed. WP should not be rushing to make these judgements per BLP policy. Thats not saying we can't include those accusations, but they should not be given undue weight over years of prior contributions. Give the situation time, and should it become essential, then it can be promoted higher up in the lede. Until then, we need to be careful on how we present material and not get in the same hysteria that the press does. --Masem (t) 21:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

And just to highlight yet another example Jenny McCarthy (which is already being discussed at BLP/N). An encyclopedia is not out there to catalog every negative thing about a person and then decide there's some objective stuff later. We're in a very broken state right now. --Masem (t) 01:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Jeez, I don't think we're broken. I tend to agree with you, User:Masem, but I think cases like Jenny and Cardinal Pell and so on, both sides have reasonable points. I mean for McCarthy and Pell, I really only know them for that (anti-vaxxing, sex crimes); that's just me, but I bet the same for a lot of people, and if so that's what makes them notable, so it's in important part of answering the question "what is this entity?". And they are notable.

However, even so, I agree with you; we need to be super super vigilant re BLP matters, dammit. When there's a reasonable question, as there is here, it basically has to be decided in favor of not hurting the person's feelings or reputation. The spirit of BLP is "We are not here to make people sad" -- and we're not. So let's bend over backwards to make sure of that, people.

But I mean there are worse problems. The biggest BLP problem is with people who aren't very notable. In those cases, we are the primary entry into the person's presence in media, not only for now, but for a very long time in the future. Victoria Sellers for instance... article should not exist (but survived AfD), but since it does, it's just egregious to include stuff about crimes committed by this unnotable person (altho it's not in the lede, anymore). However, I don't know how widespread that problem is -- not very, I hope. Herostratus (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

These policies seem to contradict each other; BLPPRIMARY says Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources and encourages us to Avoid misuse of primary sources, whereas BLPSTYLE flatly said Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Some people have apparently been interpreting the latter to mean that primary sources are strictly banned on WP:BLPs, which obviously is not and has never been policy (and which contradicts WP:BLPPRIMARY.) I made a bold edit to WP:BLPSTYLE to try and rectify the difference, but this probably requires more discussion and refinement. Obviously primary sources must be used with extreme caution on BLPs, and secondary ones are preferred for controversial statements, but I don't think "use only secondary sources on BLPs" is intended or workable. (On reflection it is also possible I went too far in saying that there should be a "strong preference" for secondary sources, which isn't precisely what WP:BLPPRIMARY says, but I've been bold enough already and will wait to see what other people say.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the issue is not really a policy one, its an essay (Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources) (and this is one reason why it may be somewhat confusing). Is there not some simpler way to avoid using celebrity gossip and tittle tattle (which is what I assume the intend mainly is) without creating having an essay that is (in effect) a recipe for subjective dismissal (as happened recently) any source a user thinks is attacking their favoured topic? Without that this would not have been an issue. We need to decide what constitutes (in terms of news media) a primary (as opposed to secondary) source. This (then) is what the policy would be (rather then relying on a rather unhelpful essay).Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Michael Jackson#Request for comments on restructuring the article. A permalink for it is here. Restructuring has been suggested in light of the recent Leaving Neverland documentary. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed some tension around the Christchurch mosque shootings with adding the name of the suspected attacker. Can we form a consensus on whether it is appropriate to add names to such articles. This seems to be a conflict over whether such names should/should not be mentioned due to presumption of evidence, and due to notability WP:WELLKNOWN. It would be good if we could flesh this policy out more on this issue. Thanks!Mozzie (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

To change policies you would need to discuss it at the Village Pump. I think the reason to not mention accused people is for privacy. TFD (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You reverted my edit. I understand that e.g. Edward Snowden is a very controversial person, but (probably) not contentious at all. However, when we are not talking about people the two words are synonyms. See dictionaries:

controversial: Cambridge Oxford Longman
contentious: Cambridge Oxford Longman

I also made some Google search (option: "verbatim").
The results are shown in the following format:  Searched phrase, All results, Results in books

"controversial issues" 6.39m 1.34m     "contentious issues" 1.55m 180k
"controversial statement" 1m 19k     "contentious statement" 30k 3.6k
"controversial article" 634k 24k     "contentious article" 30k 3.2k
"controversial claims" 332k 15k     "contentious claims" 58k 6.6k    See also here
"controversial material" 290k 24k     "contentious material" 428k 3.3k
"controversial comments" 2.6m 6k     "contentious comments" 22k 1.8k
"controversial opinion" 252k 7.5k     "contentious opinion" 13k 1.6k

As you can see, "controversial" is much more common, which increases readability. If you still believe that the two words are not synonyms, please give me an example of a statement that is contentious but not controversial or controversial but not contentious. Vikom ^talk 21:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Nope, SV was right to revert. We're worried about contentious material - material which may be right or wrong (a disagreement of sourcing), which would include controversial material. For example, BLP should cover the case where some sources claim John Smith was born in Leftsville while some claim Smith was born in Rightsburg. Neither statement is controversial, but without sourcing, either statement is contentious. BLP is a strong policy to make sure even relatively trivial but unclear statements of affirmation about a person are sourced or to be removed. --Masem (t) 21:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • But according to the official recommendations I have every right to restore my version because I have the best possible sources - the highly respected dictionaries. All I need is to cite them, right? What are your sources? Your brain? Intuition? Vikom ^talk 22:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Not the way it works. Any substantive change to policy requires a very strong consensus, usually reached through an RfC or at the Pump. You're an inexperienced user; I'd ratchet down the rhetoric if I were you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I agree that an article like this does deserve a special attention, and I have nothing against a very strong consensus when we are changing our policy; but my edit was not meant to change the policy. All I wanted to do was to replace a word with its synonym, easier to understand by non native English speakers, kids etc. But --Masem is questioning my sources! As for "an inexperienced user" - I have been editing the English Wikipedia for over 10 years, and have about 2000 edits under different IP addresses, which is not very impressive but enough to call myself a Wikipedian. You, as an admin and checkuser, may feel outraged by my audacity to change anything here. But the rule referring to reliable sources applies to every article and every user. So why should I "ratchet down the rhetoric"? Unless I ratchet up tensions between Wikipedians ;-) But back to the topic. According to Google search results the phrase "contentious but not controversial" practically does not exist; same with "controversial but not contentious" Vikom ^talk 02:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
        • WP policies are not meant to be treated as hard rules or laws; it is the spirit of the policy that is important. As I've explained, "contentious" covers a much broader span of potential information than "controversial", and we want editors to use BLP with a huge amount of caution, suggesting the use of "contentious" over "controversial". Heck, using the dictionary entries above, "contentious" includes cases of materials that may be potentially controversial, and we want BLP to cover these possibilities. Hence why the wording is as it is. --Masem (t) 02:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• A couple of points:
  • As Masem has said: 'Contentious', as used in this and related policies, encompasses information that may be questioned on-wiki due to contradictory sources, questionable sourcing, or simply lack of (reliable) sources. Such information need not be 'controversial' in the real-world sense. For example, BLP would prescribe removing a birth-year from a biographical article if we cannot (based on available sources) confirm if the subject was born in 1972 or 1973. This is true even if there is is no off-wiki 'controversy' about the issue.
  • To a certain extent, 'contentious' is an accepted term-of-art on wikipedia and therefore should not be casually replaced even if 'controversial' were an exact synonym ('Notable' is another such term with a specific on-wiki meaning).

Abecedare (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

On WP:BLP/N#Doug_Ericksen (April 9, archived soon) Nearly Headless Nick quoted a historic ArbCom decision: Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It took me a few moments to figure out that this is over ten years old and matches the policy as is, but could be added to the #Arbitration cases section:

old

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, July 2007.

new

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, July 2007.
• WP:ARBBLP#Biographies of living persons, June 2008.

–84.46.53.140 (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think this should be incorporated in the text of the policy as well. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Izno (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

–84.46.53.188 (talk) 08:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• Tabloid journalism is not to be seen as reliable source, says the policy. Should platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Twitch be categorized as tabloid media: "a style of journalism that emphasizes sensational crime stories, gossip columns about celebrities and sports stars, extreme political views and opinions from one perspective, junk food news, and astrology."
• Should the content of professional YouTubers, who're running channels under the responsibility of Multi-Channel-Networks, publishers and other third firms, be seen as advertising, marketing & PR? When yes, that content should not be taken as reliable source for Wikipedia.
• Maybe the more general question is: can sources only be seen as reliable, when they come from 'serious journalism' or 'serious science' etc. and what than can be seen as serious journalism / science etc.? In the old days this maybe was clearer than now. Untill the 2000's in general people (in Europe?) knew the difference between a newspaper and a tabloid. Nowadays it seems that for many older people YouTube and Facebook should be seen as tabloids, for many young people these are normal media. 2001:16B8:1177:5300:29BC:31BE:1BBD:D912 (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not clear what exactly is being meant with 'self-published sources'. A scientist publishing official results of research on a website run by the scientist? A YouTube-video, Facebook-post or Twitter-message (tweet)? This content is being published by YouTube, Facebook, Twitter. That is, the platforms make licensed copies available to the public of the original content uploaded by users to the YT / FB / Tw server. 2001:16B8:1177:5300:29BC:31BE:1BBD:D912 (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Some sort of independent editorial oversight is required. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC).

There's been a flurry of recent editing at Steve Kazor. A few weeks ago, I added the subject's DOB to the article, sourced to a clipping from the Chicago Tribune. The subject of the article, Steve Kazor, and a relative editing as User:Kaliena22, have expressed concerns about privacy and identity theft risk. What do others here think about the inclusion of the DOB in the article? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I would like to propose a uniform date format for BLP articles. Sometimes it's written for example January 13 and other times 13 January. Shouldn't there be a uniform approach when we write birthdates? Grab it! (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

See WP:DATERET. WP is a global work, so the date format chosen is up to editors but ideally reflecting the BLP's nationality, but that's not a requirement. --Masem (t) 16:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)