![]() | 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. |
With reference to
considering
do people agree that a minor porn star (borderline WP-notable), who performed for a brief period of their life (brief, say < 5 years), especially if under a pseudonym, and if during the period of their public performances there was no mention of their non-porn-associated lives, past or future, family, etc, that after, say ~5 years, if they have disappeared from porn and any other public life, that they should then be considered a non-public person. This would mean that while articles may cover the person by their stage name, sleuthy discovery of sources for their real name and previous & future life should not justify inclusion of this material.
As someone notes, this would be counter to Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary, but this is a question of conservative BLP policy, not notability. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This part sounds very reasonable:
"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies."
if it is truly evenhanded with respect to POV. But is it? It seems to me that in practice a "BLP objection" is understood to mean an objection on the grounds that the material is overly negative with respect to the the biography subject, not overly positive. I think it would actually serve the purposes of the project, having as it does the principle of neutrality as a "pillar", to explicitly say that what's said here in this quote applies regardless of the POV taken.
The way that could be done is by adding "whether positive or negative" after "material about living persons" and by having the quoted section here followed by another statement that at the end of the day, neutrality has to be maintained, and for that I would suggest "All else equal a better sourced article is preferred over a less well sourced article even if the better sourced article puts the subject in a more negative light than the less well sourced article." This sentence could also just go wherever a reference to the ongoing importance of neutrality is made.
By way of example of why I think this is necessary, I was recently in a dispute with another editor who wanted material X out and material Y in even though by his own acknowledgement material X was better sourced. The ready explanation for this discrimination in favour of the more poorly sourced material was that this sort of discrimination is what BLP implies. My reaction, of course, was that one can't take this view without overriding WP:NPOV. There has to be a line after which BLP has been pushed too far and I think a good place to draw that line (if not even earlier) is when material is being excluded which if included would raise the average sourcing quality of the article.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 03:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
"Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"and
"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". I think that instances of editors not following the stated policy are better handled through Dispute resolution than adding more words to the policy. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid [...] the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Therefore, I think that questions of where to draw the line beyond which the policy has been "pushed too far" need a larger forum than this talk page, for instance the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard and/or the Village pump. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
"Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research". Once again, dealing with breaches of neutrality in articles is really a matter of following the normal dispute resolution processes. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 00:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
According to Further reading, External links, and See also, '"See also" links should not be used to imply any contentious categorization or claim about a living person'. Might this be more succinctly expressed as implying guilt by association? Also, might categorization be replaced with the simple label? More explanation of "See also" links would be helpful too. I would suggest adding a link to the Manual of Style, as in the following:
"See also" links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply guilt by association, or to imply any contentious label or claim regarding a living person.
— Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
"...to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim..."would be sufficiently generic.
List of people who disappeared mysteriously - I see a lot of folk being added to this list, sometimes without reference and sometimes with fetails that would seem to paint the disappeared person in a poor light. Does the article have to conform to BLP? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 23:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I've proposed to create another (focusing on just not being relevant rather than just unsourced) User warning template regarding this here Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#WP:NOT_and_WP:BLP but got no response. Would appreciate any feedback. ({{ ping}} me if replying here) Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 03:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I would like to write a biography of a living person who is an artist and has been attaining recognition locally, regionally and internationally especially this past year. Can you assist me or offer some guidelines on mhy writing this article. VincyVoice ( talk) 04:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Please come to IRC. By the looks of your question, I think it would be best to have you log on to IRC. IRC stands for " Internet Relay Chat", which allows for real-time text-based communication with other users. This way, in addition to the help I can provide, I can get others on Wikipedia's Live Help to help you, as well. You don't have to download anything to talk to us, just click here! See you there! |
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche (commonly called Jiacuo or Gyatso Rinpoche), a Tulku of the Zhaga Temple, was born in Garzê Prefecture, Sichuan Province, in 1980. He entered the Larung Gar Buddhist Academy at the age of 13, where he was ordained by Khenpo Jigme Phuntsok, under whom he carried out the listening, contemplation and cultivation of the esoteric teachings until his master’s passing. He then continued his studies under Lama Akhyuk Rinpoche at the Yarchen Gar Monastery in Baiyu County, where he received the Dzogchen teaching and was fully ordained in his lineage. For over a decade, Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche has travelled across Tibet, seeking the Dharma at various temples and monasteries. In 2005, he began studies at Minzu University in Beijing, followed by studies in religious education theory at the religious education department of Peking University. He has dedicated his life to the transmission of Buddhist teachings and the revival of ethnic culture, engaging in charity work to promote education and development in poor rural regions. Gyatso Rinpoche is the founder of the Compassionate Love Fund (Ci’ai Jijin), and promoter of the “Cloud Prayer Hall” and “Buddhism at Home.” He is one of the most influential religious leaders of his generation, and is particularly adept at the use of new digital media for the transmission of Buddhist teachings. The media have called him a “missionary in a spiritual desert” and a “new leader for the era.” Yingxu ( talk) 18:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this means (particularly "that do not override each other"), or what the point of it is, so I'm thinking of removing it (from BLPCRIME):
If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, [1] include all the explanatory information.
SarahSV (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a debate at
Talk:2017 Chicago torture incident#Names of suspects and a related RFC at
Talk:2017 Chicago torture incident#RfC on WP:BLPCRIME regarding what constitutes a public figure in relation to a crime.
WP:BLPCRIME says For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.
It then links to
WP:WELLKNOWN as an exception WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN.
Both of these policies link to the wikipedia article Public figure, suggesting that the description there is what we use to define a public figure. I personally think this is problematic as there is much stricter control over policies (i.e. they take a significant effort to change) whereas anyone can edit the linked Wikipedia article. The article itself is poor (it has two orange tags at the top and is only a stub) and cannot be considered a reliable source on what a public figure is.
I think that the link to public figure should be removed and a better description of what makes someone well known is added. AIRcorn (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
From the public figure article:
A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established...
is being used to suggest that previously unknown individuals that commit are accused of committing high-profile crimes can become
WP:Wellknown.
AIRcorn
(talk)
20:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposing to add a sentence to "People accused of crime" to read.
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through judicial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, [footnote omitted] include all the explanatory information.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.Unless the names are particularly important to understanding the case at hand, or unless they're notable enough in their own right to be able to link to an article about them (in which case this policy doesn't apply) editors should consider not adding names until a conviction is secured. Wikipedia is not the news and there's no deadline, so there's no compelling reason the names of people who are presumably innocent cannot wait to be added until guilt is established. The purpose of BLP is not only to avoid legal prosecution, but to introduce editorial ethics and guidelines for editorial discretion so that not every claim about a person is included and that sensitivity and judgement can be exercised to protect the reputation and privacy rights of people. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not in favor of this either, basically per Wugapodes, it will be interpreted as 'name, names' regardless of circumstance, and one of the points of BLP is 'think long and hard' Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
However, in a handful of cases, persons formally identified by police as suspects in extraordinarily notable and widely publicized crimes crime are identified and discussed on Wikipedia even though they were not public figures previously. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through judicial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, [1] include all the explanatory information.
relatively unknown peopledescription and then just use a footnote (ideally with some examples of people that can be included and those that can't) to further expand on what relatively unknown means. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
According to the close it is a blog. See "After having read this RFC and the applied policy in question, the current wording of BLPSPS is worded such that this blog post is not a violation of policy as those answering no to the question argue". [5] Where does WP:BLPSPS state a blog post is not a violation of BLP? I am curious. QuackGuru ( talk) 13:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Self published sources that meet WP:SPS may however be used in a BLP to critique the subjects work or viewsor something similar. May open a can of worms, but this is not the first time I have seen this interpretation appear. AIRcorn (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see #Using the subject as a self-published source).So as for a change, I think that maybe this difference of interpretation needs clarifying here. If BLPSPS prohibits any SPS being used in a BLP article then we should say that straight up. If it allows some SPS's to be used as long as they don't get personal then we should probably say that. At the moment it could be read either way, which might be fine if we want to leave it open to a case-by-case discussion. When I have noticed this being an issue it is almost always in cases where WP:Parity applies, so maybe an exception along that line is all that is needed. AIRcorn (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Katherine Johnson#WP:SURNAME (permalink here). The issue is whether or not we should use Johnson's maiden name for some parts of the article and her surname for other parts of the article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a deletion discussion about Infobox person/Wikidata that could affect BLPs, in case anyone here is interested. SarahSV (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
In the past week, a reference to Stephen Wolfram's recently-granted US citizenship was removed from his entry via a good-faith edit. I have reverted it and used a Wolfram Alpha link to document his citizenship awaiting better documentation. Wolfram is, in fact, a dual national.
This edit raises an important BLP issue under current political circumstances. I propose that, as an emergency temporary measure, that BLP policy discourage edits that remove references to the subject's US citizenship or legal immigration status, as such edits might cause the subjects of these entries difficulties with international travel.
What is the right place to make a formal proposal for such a policy change? -- Pleasantville ( talk) 14:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
After reading through the above section on who is or isn't WP:WELLKNOWN, the only article I can find where this is being applied is 2017 Chicago torture incident. So clearly something needs to be done to apply Wikipedia policy in a consistent manner. What do we do with articles such as 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, Shooting of Benjamin Marconi, 2016 New York and New Jersey bombings, 2016 Russell Square stabbing, and Franklin Regional High School stabbing? In most of these, if not all, the suspect is less well known than the suspects and the torture case. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like the sentence "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." changed to "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome accident or crime." 128.62.60.136 ( talk) 17:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Please discuss this change first, in a new topic and get a consensus to see if "accident" should be added. Once a consensus is reached, someone can either modify or you can add an edit request.
Sir Joseph
(talk)
17:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)There is currently a discussion on Talk:Donald Trump concerning the size of the article and the possibility of splitting it up. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Notice: RfC at WP:VPR#RfC: First sentence of BLP articles. J 947 18:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2607:FCC8:BE51:A700:B584:F11C:54B1:8A66 ( talk) 07:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I would like a general opinion on whether it is appropriate for an article to include commentary about, or evaluation of, a public figure’s mental health – provided the commentary is done by professionals in the field and reported in Reliable Sources. The case in point is this discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#Health section. MelanieN alt ( talk) 18:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
There really is never going to be a valid source for this information, unless it's on a person like Carrie Fischer, who was an advocate for a topic like this. This whole topic reeks of political agenda and is pretty clearly a violation of not only the above mention WP:BLP, but it is also FRINGEY and WP:UNDUE. {MordeKyle} ☢ 02:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
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.
My original, redacted, post is about whether the standard diagnostic criteria used in the United States apply to Donald Trump's unusual behavior and speculations by mental health professionals about it. They do not, in the opinion of the psychiatrist who chaired the development of those criteria. Whether there are other criteria which might be applied, for example, by the intelligence services of other states remains an open question. As does our ability to access and publish such information. Certainly, one reason for BLP policy, avoiding ruinous litigation, is relevant. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: See [9] from Cornell Law School. (Federal Rules of Evidence › ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY) "The first is the firsthand observation of the witness, with opinions based thereon traditionally allowed. A treating physician affords an example. Rheingold, The Basis of Medical Testimony, 15 Vand.L.Rev. 473, 489 (1962). Whether he must first relate his observations is treated in Rule 705."
[10] (Medical Testimony and the Expert Witness Joseph D. Piorkowski, Jr., DO, JD, MPH, FCPM, FCLM ) "When an expert is called upon to give an opinion as to past events which he did not witness, all facts related to the event which are essential to the formation of his opinion should be submitted to the expert in the form of a hypothetical question. No other facts related to the event should be taken into consideration by the expert as a foundation for his opinion. The facts submitted to the expert in the hypothetical question propounded on direct examination must be supported by competent substantial evidence in the record at the time the question is asked or by reasonable inferences from such evidence." Which rather restricts claims of medical diagnoses based entirely on hearsay rather than direct personal observation. "Experts" who testify without a strong evidentiary basis tend not be ever hired again.
From Notre Dame Law School [11], (Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis, and the Credibility of Witnesses David B. Saxe) "It has been suggested that clinical examination of witnesses is the most reliable basis for psychiatric opinion introduced into the courtroom."0 The clinical examination by a psychiatrist involves a study of the subject as a "psychobiological whole"; physical and mental examination, aided by psychoanalytical technique and psychological testing devices, is necessary to evaluate an individual's total personality. The disclosure of mental abnormalities can be accomplished through the use of a proper psychiatric interview, noninquisitorial in nature, that will provide some insight into the behavior of the witness. Requiring a witness to submit to lengthy examination, while clinically desirable, is not the ideal manner of uncoveriig intrapsychic processes. We do not live in an ideal world, and less than perfect means of providing answers must be utilized. A more abbreviated psychiatric examination, reinforced by other biographical data, would enable a psychiatrist to present a meaningful, although not complete, diagnosis of the prospective witness. This procedure would allow a court or jury to make a more realistic evaluation of the testimonial credibility of a witness." Noting that a clinical diagnosis requires a "physical and mental examination" which is not likely to be found in newspapers. "In another study, psychiatric residents anticipated fifty-five percent of the official subtype diagnoses correctly.' 4 The study appeared to show "that the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis diminishes as the frequency of the incidence decreases."" " Which means that diagnoses, under ideal circumstances, amount to tossing a coin (55% correct to 45% incorrect in the example given). More on request. Collect ( talk) 22:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Be careful what Wikipedia says about anybody. We only have Reliable Sources and if ALL of these are publishing what they have been told and if what they are told (or how they choose to interpret and publish what they are told) is nonsense, then nonsense is all we have to report... waiting to create, delete, amend or otherwise change Wikipedia's text never hurts anyone — Iadmc ♫ talk 22:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC) — Iadmc ♫ talk 22:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to RfC about diminutives. Once and for all, I think we need a ruling, if there isn't one now. I see on articles left and right such as Tim Tebow, Ron Simmons, or Bill Buckner that include (or have included) diminutives. Tebow's reading Timothy Richard "Tim" Tebow, Simmons' reading Ronald "Ron" Simmons, and Buckner's (pending RfC) William Joseph Buckner. I think diminutives shouldn't be included. The first time I got involved with diminutives was an article named Dave (something or other). His name read David "Dave" *last name*. I think it's rather clear diminutives of this sort are neither not needed nor constructive, if anything they are redundant. So, I would like to ask your opinions here. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 20:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion pertaining to WP:BLP1E at WP:Village pump (policy)#Clarifications about WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E and terror attacks. Thanks, ansh 666 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I have come across a number of instances where information is presented (usually in a negative light) about actions attributed to a corporation or business entity on the page of a person related to the entity, but either not directly connected to the action at issue. For example:
Are these principles, and these examples, useful for inclusion on this page? bd2412 T 16:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This section contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
Til next year |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
![]()
|
I seem to recall from a few years back that editors were generally discouraged from publishing the names/birthdates of non-notable minors in articles. For example {{
Infobox person}} seems to non-committaly prefer the use of a number in |children=
as the instructions weakly request "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless notable." Is there a community concern that we try to protect the names and birthdates of non-notable minors, or has that been widely opposed? Either way, I think I'd like to get some clarification in the BLP guidelines, please. Actors and other celebrities often release this information via press releases and Twitter posts, so I could see strong arguments for "well, if they don't care about privacy, why should we"... Thanks.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
14:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Number of children (e.g., three or 3), or list of names if notable". I am among the many who interpret that as written—a notable child should be listed with a blue link; others are only counted. If someone added a red link I would be inclined to revert with WP:WTAF as edit summary. Certainly there would need to be secondary source asserting notability—the opinion of an editor is not relevant. This issue has been raised at WP:BLPN in the past. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I know current policy says that: "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies." Why is this the case? Most of the BLP seems to be to avoid potential libel issues (which makes sense), but libel issues are just as big a problem in dealing with companies and other legal persons. - Obsidi ( talk) 20:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Good day everyone, am new here and wanted to know about how to create a Wikipedia profile for my self. Thank you. Ibrozee85 ( talk) 09:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The images of deceased persons, including recently deceased (subject to WP:BDP), are currently discussed at " Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#Criteria needed for using images of deceased persons?" I invite you to comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Update: I started the discussion about uploading acceptable non-free images of deceased persons at WT:NFC. I invite you to comment. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Please see this ongoing talk discussion and this BLPN discussion about citing two significant relationships in a BLP. More input appreciated. Lapadite ( talk) 02:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The deletion of File:Jill Saward BBC interview 2013.png is challenged at WP:deletion review, where I invite you to improve consensus. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I hope no one minds, but I
added the word "biographical" to More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article
neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.
The footnote clarifies quite adequately what a COI is (i.e., not "You are a Star Wars fan."), as does the COI policy, and the sentence's placement on this page made it clear that it was talking about BLPs, but when accompanied by "More generally," it ran the risk of people saying things like You like Star Wars, you shouldn't be editing our Star Wars articles.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
06:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Currently, WP:SELFPUB doesn't contain any mention of whether a particular quote is WP:DUE, aside from the very weak prohibition that the article can't be based primarily on such sources; I feel this introduces potential problems where people could, for example, quote-mine someone's twitter feed, facebook page, or other social media account (which often have a huge volume of material) for a controversial quote that has received little attention, and then use Wikipedia to publicize it - that obviously violates the spirit of BLP. I think it needs an additional clause mentioning that if the material is likely to be damaging to the reputation of the article's subject, then it must pass WP:DUE. I'm not exactly sure of the wording of the new clause, but the key point is that if we're going to pull a potentially damaging quote out of a much larger volume of material, we should have to have other sources to demonstrate that the quote has attracted that sort of attention. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to "break the story" on it, so to speak. (Obviously, WP:DUE is already a policy and people could already object on those grounds - but this would put the weight of BLP behind it and make it clear that at least some assertion of due weight is strictly required to use the WP:SELFPUB exception for anything that could potentially hurt the reputation of the subject.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The only reasons I could find in the archives of this talk page for limiting this policy to apply to living persons only is that in legal terms, apparently, the dead cannot be libeled. However, in moral terms, many theorists argue that the dead have an important interest in privacy and their reputation, and can be harmed, see for instance: https://philpapers.org/rec/SCAPAT , https://philpapers.org/rec/MASCTD .
Should this article not take into account such moral considerations in addition to just legal considerations? Perhaps living and dead people should not be fully equivocated here, since it is more pressing that contentious material on a living person be 'removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'. However, other considerations apply to dead people just as to living people ('Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy'). This is currently not reflected in the policy. Highflyer Hank ( talk) 14:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:BDP links to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead. That section of this policy says "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources."
While it says that WP:BLP does not apply the section fails to mention what policy or policies do apply. In hopes of discovering a policy about biographies I tried
Other than WP:BLP are there any policies that are specific to biographies? -- Marc Kupper| talk 18:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Is writing for a dead person "Person title" (pronunciation), (birthdate - deathdate) commonly referred to as "nickname" is a dead..." correct or wrong? Does this violate? 64.237.232.204 ( talk) 14:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding WP:REDLINK, there is an RfC about red links for persons. Editors are invited to comment here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Please check what is taking place around the article "Nader El-Bizri" since this was proposed for deletion, but the reasons put forward touch upon statements that harm the reputation of the living person it covers. The ranking and merits of the work of a living person should be judged by their peers and not simply by random wikipedia users, especially if the deletion has not been requested by someone specializing in academia but by someone who has been covering businessmen and billionaires. Please check this serious matter since it lowers the integrity of wikipedia and causes actual harm to living people, especially if they are in the public domain and well known in their field ( 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8170:FF93:C1C4:942C ( talk) 12:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC))
From WP:BLPSPS: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." How exactly can it be determined whether the hosting news organization has "full editorial control"? Does The Washington Post have full editorial control over The Monkey Cage blog or Wonkblog? What about Paul Krugman's or Frank Bruni's blog at the NYTimes? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/blogs/directory.html Which of these NYTimes blogs count as 'full editorial control'? The fact that a reputable RS hosts a blog indicates that the organization vouches for the general accuracy and quality of the material there and would be legally liable if the blog libels a BLP. I suggest changing the sentence to "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals or notable experts." 73.61.19.240 ( talk) 02:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I think someone should delete the text that says "page issues" in Lele Pons biography due to that the page already got enough references and citations, thank you. Sebasdiazorozco ( talk) 22:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:BLPN#Robert Conroy Goldston. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
05:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
People are pushing to keep this at " 2017 Charlottesville attack" which is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME guidelines which instructs us to avoid saying a crime happened unless the accused is convicted of it.
I believe policy should outrank personal preferences (this is WP:OR city) some have in wanting this to stay at "attack" instead of " crash".
Nobody even included a source calling it the "Charlottesville attack", meanwhile I provided a source calling it Charlottesville car crash but had it reverted.
Something has clearly led to personal interpretations taking precedence over neutrality, verifiability or BLP reservations. I am hoping someone experienced with these things can lend some input. Should I take it to Admin Noticeboard or RFC or other route? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 06:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Use of "Fualaau". A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not to use "Letourneau" for some parts of the article and "Fualaau" for other parts of the article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this article again. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Regarding "illicit". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Modification of the last paragraph in the lead that may interest some editors here. The proposal amounts to changing the guideline to say that Wikipedia should not necessarily have articles about certain BLPs when editors are unable to find any independent sources about those people. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I want to see a couple more templates to insert on user talk pages to communicate these concepts specifically to users. Anyone able to make one? Not sure how to phrase it. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 03:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"[...]I'm still concerned about misuse - we'll see what happens."I'm concerned with your summary. If you believe this template can be misused, I would rather not make it. Shall await your views here on this. Thanks. Lourdes 09:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAMEABUSE contains the text or that are clearly abusive towards any race, religion or social group
. While I of course agree that such usernames should lead to the editors being immediately blocked, I have to imagine the majority of racist troll usernames are not "immediately ... suppressed from logs", and even if they are few would think to cite BLP. A fairly superficial
search of the archives of this talk page appears to indicate that the text in question has not been discussed: it was quoted
here, but in an unrelated context, and the text
already appeared in the policy at the time. It feels like this text unrelated to BLP was lifted, word-for-word, from
WP:BLPABUSE because some of the stuff around it was related to BLP.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
10:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
On January 17 2017 SarahSV (SlimVirgin) changed the policy from "must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation" to "must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source". On June 15 2017 I asked SlimVirgin "Was this discussed? I didn't see it on the talk page in that period." I haven't seen a reply, and still haven't seen that it was discussed. I think it should have been, since "explicitly attributed" is stronger than merely "supported". "Explicit" dictionary definitions are "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent", "Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt", "expressed or shown clearly and openly, without any attempt to hide anything". WP:INTEXT would satisfy the original requirement but a citation alone might not. I believe that if there is no consensus for the change, it should be reverted. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I have added fourth pillar General notability guideline in the Leade. Every Biographies that eventually meets the general notability guideline to merit its own stand-alone article. Any objections to it ? NtiniMkaya ( talk) 13:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
"Biographies of living persons" has been a common preamble to articles about anyone still alive. I came here for info to verify if a group of 75.83.54.115 ( talk) 00:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)people were still alive. The entire group of people are apparently alive and well. Clicked the hyperlink to read the individual I thought died. She's alive! Cool! But hold on! Both articles are about, ostensively people who still very much alive, where is that warning? Did they retire it? Is liable no longer a concern? Where can I read what happened to that ubiquitous warning or why they scrapped it? Reader FAQ? Not there. Search all Help? Dumb me searched a phrase "living persons". Glossary? Nope! Not to brag, but I donate $ to keep it going. I want to have information available. Children learn this is where to start off, then follow through with the citations to really learn the topic. The information about guideline changes is just as vital and necessary to readers. Thank you!
The recent CNN article regarding national origin controversy got me thinking about something that has long bothered me regarding some WP BOLPs. It is rather common for the lead sentences of BOLPs to be very specific about ethnic or national background, e.g.
I would submit that such specificity can be unintentionally racist (or at least can appear so). Perhaps a more explicit policy is warranted? I would submit the following thoughts:
Just my thoughts.
-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 19:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The page currently says, in part, that "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements...." It seems to me that this same restriction ought to apply as well to ordinary text in the body of an article — that is, if a religious affiliation or sexual orientation claim is not acceptable as a category, list, navigation, or infobox item, it should similarly not be acceptable as part of the article text. But right now, the letter of the policy doesn't seem to say this. This is more of an issue than just the general BLP principle that contentious, unsourced material doesn't belong, since the part of the policy in question imposes additional rules — namely, requirements for public self-identification and relevance to the person's public life or notability, and not merely that the material must be accurate and well sourced. Is there any consensus for tweaking this part of the policy text to cover ordinary mention of these topics in an article? Or is there a reason, not obvious to me at the moment, why this special limitation should not apply except in structured material such as categories? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
is there a reason ... why this special limitation should not apply except in structured material ... ?My understanding of the reasoning is that the structured material does not allow for a sufficiently nuanced treatment of these areas; but that article text does. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Since my suggestion above generated little feedback (thank you at least to Richwales), let me perhaps offer a more concrete suggestion.
My thought is to add a sub-section to WP:BLPSTYLE with something like the following content:
-- MC 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The policy uses the phrase "poorly sourced" many times but never directly explains what it means. I think it is generally understood to mean that a source used doesn't conform with Verifiability and No original research (which are summarized and linked to in the Reliable sources section). Items 2 and 3 of the Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced subsection are examples of "poorly sourced."
Would the policy be improved by clarifying what "poorly sourced" means?-- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 23:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and have been heavily involved in a number of articles and discussions in which BLP issues were raised, and am I familiar with other precedents that occurred without me, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. In looking over the subsections in WP:AVOIDVICTIM, I notice that there is one that covers People accused of crime, but none for Victims/survivors of crimes, such as victims of rape. The publication of names of rape victims/survivors has been a controversial issue. I was and continue to be involved in the discussion regarding whether to include the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case and article and talk page. A previous lengthy discussion on that matter that we had years ago came to the consensus that it be left out of both, though every now and then, an editor will come along and add it. Some editors who favor including it say that there is nothing in BLP that precludes it. I think that for AVOIDVICTIM to explicitly addresses the issue of mentioning the names of people accused of crimes but not people who are victims of crimes, specifically sex crimes, makes that section incomplete. Adding it would also allow us to cite a specific portion of BLP when it comes up. I would like to add it, and would offer to write it myself, but don't want to do so if it's going to be immediately deleted. Thoughts? Nightscream ( talk) 15:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
articles should not mention the names of people who have made legal accusations of rape, but who have been indicated to desire their name kept out of the media-- Irn ( talk) 14:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't aware of those resources. Thanks for pointing them out to me; I'll bookmark them now. So should I restart a discussion there? Cut and paste my proposal from atop this thread to there (adding/emphasizing the proposed wording of said proposal, as some have said here)? And which is the right place to do it? VPP or PROPOSAL? Let me know. Nightscream ( talk) 19:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
With reference to
considering
do people agree that a minor porn star (borderline WP-notable), who performed for a brief period of their life (brief, say < 5 years), especially if under a pseudonym, and if during the period of their public performances there was no mention of their non-porn-associated lives, past or future, family, etc, that after, say ~5 years, if they have disappeared from porn and any other public life, that they should then be considered a non-public person. This would mean that while articles may cover the person by their stage name, sleuthy discovery of sources for their real name and previous & future life should not justify inclusion of this material.
As someone notes, this would be counter to Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary, but this is a question of conservative BLP policy, not notability. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
This part sounds very reasonable:
"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies."
if it is truly evenhanded with respect to POV. But is it? It seems to me that in practice a "BLP objection" is understood to mean an objection on the grounds that the material is overly negative with respect to the the biography subject, not overly positive. I think it would actually serve the purposes of the project, having as it does the principle of neutrality as a "pillar", to explicitly say that what's said here in this quote applies regardless of the POV taken.
The way that could be done is by adding "whether positive or negative" after "material about living persons" and by having the quoted section here followed by another statement that at the end of the day, neutrality has to be maintained, and for that I would suggest "All else equal a better sourced article is preferred over a less well sourced article even if the better sourced article puts the subject in a more negative light than the less well sourced article." This sentence could also just go wherever a reference to the ongoing importance of neutrality is made.
By way of example of why I think this is necessary, I was recently in a dispute with another editor who wanted material X out and material Y in even though by his own acknowledgement material X was better sourced. The ready explanation for this discrimination in favour of the more poorly sourced material was that this sort of discrimination is what BLP implies. My reaction, of course, was that one can't take this view without overriding WP:NPOV. There has to be a line after which BLP has been pushed too far and I think a good place to draw that line (if not even earlier) is when material is being excluded which if included would raise the average sourcing quality of the article.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 03:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
"Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"and
"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". I think that instances of editors not following the stated policy are better handled through Dispute resolution than adding more words to the policy. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid [...] the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". Therefore, I think that questions of where to draw the line beyond which the policy has been "pushed too far" need a larger forum than this talk page, for instance the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard and/or the Village pump. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
"Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research". Once again, dealing with breaches of neutrality in articles is really a matter of following the normal dispute resolution processes. — Coconutporkpie ( talk) 00:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
According to Further reading, External links, and See also, '"See also" links should not be used to imply any contentious categorization or claim about a living person'. Might this be more succinctly expressed as implying guilt by association? Also, might categorization be replaced with the simple label? More explanation of "See also" links would be helpful too. I would suggest adding a link to the Manual of Style, as in the following:
"See also" links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply guilt by association, or to imply any contentious label or claim regarding a living person.
— Coconutporkpie ( talk) 17:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
"...to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim..."would be sufficiently generic.
List of people who disappeared mysteriously - I see a lot of folk being added to this list, sometimes without reference and sometimes with fetails that would seem to paint the disappeared person in a poor light. Does the article have to conform to BLP? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 23:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I've proposed to create another (focusing on just not being relevant rather than just unsourced) User warning template regarding this here Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#WP:NOT_and_WP:BLP but got no response. Would appreciate any feedback. ({{ ping}} me if replying here) Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 03:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I would like to write a biography of a living person who is an artist and has been attaining recognition locally, regionally and internationally especially this past year. Can you assist me or offer some guidelines on mhy writing this article. VincyVoice ( talk) 04:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Please come to IRC. By the looks of your question, I think it would be best to have you log on to IRC. IRC stands for " Internet Relay Chat", which allows for real-time text-based communication with other users. This way, in addition to the help I can provide, I can get others on Wikipedia's Live Help to help you, as well. You don't have to download anything to talk to us, just click here! See you there! |
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche (commonly called Jiacuo or Gyatso Rinpoche), a Tulku of the Zhaga Temple, was born in Garzê Prefecture, Sichuan Province, in 1980. He entered the Larung Gar Buddhist Academy at the age of 13, where he was ordained by Khenpo Jigme Phuntsok, under whom he carried out the listening, contemplation and cultivation of the esoteric teachings until his master’s passing. He then continued his studies under Lama Akhyuk Rinpoche at the Yarchen Gar Monastery in Baiyu County, where he received the Dzogchen teaching and was fully ordained in his lineage. For over a decade, Tsultrim Gyatso Rinpoche has travelled across Tibet, seeking the Dharma at various temples and monasteries. In 2005, he began studies at Minzu University in Beijing, followed by studies in religious education theory at the religious education department of Peking University. He has dedicated his life to the transmission of Buddhist teachings and the revival of ethnic culture, engaging in charity work to promote education and development in poor rural regions. Gyatso Rinpoche is the founder of the Compassionate Love Fund (Ci’ai Jijin), and promoter of the “Cloud Prayer Hall” and “Buddhism at Home.” He is one of the most influential religious leaders of his generation, and is particularly adept at the use of new digital media for the transmission of Buddhist teachings. The media have called him a “missionary in a spiritual desert” and a “new leader for the era.” Yingxu ( talk) 18:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this means (particularly "that do not override each other"), or what the point of it is, so I'm thinking of removing it (from BLPCRIME):
If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, [1] include all the explanatory information.
SarahSV (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a debate at
Talk:2017 Chicago torture incident#Names of suspects and a related RFC at
Talk:2017 Chicago torture incident#RfC on WP:BLPCRIME regarding what constitutes a public figure in relation to a crime.
WP:BLPCRIME says For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.
It then links to
WP:WELLKNOWN as an exception WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN.
Both of these policies link to the wikipedia article Public figure, suggesting that the description there is what we use to define a public figure. I personally think this is problematic as there is much stricter control over policies (i.e. they take a significant effort to change) whereas anyone can edit the linked Wikipedia article. The article itself is poor (it has two orange tags at the top and is only a stub) and cannot be considered a reliable source on what a public figure is.
I think that the link to public figure should be removed and a better description of what makes someone well known is added. AIRcorn (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
From the public figure article:
A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established...
is being used to suggest that previously unknown individuals that commit are accused of committing high-profile crimes can become
WP:Wellknown.
AIRcorn
(talk)
20:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Proposing to add a sentence to "People accused of crime" to read.
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through judicial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, [footnote omitted] include all the explanatory information.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.Unless the names are particularly important to understanding the case at hand, or unless they're notable enough in their own right to be able to link to an article about them (in which case this policy doesn't apply) editors should consider not adding names until a conviction is secured. Wikipedia is not the news and there's no deadline, so there's no compelling reason the names of people who are presumably innocent cannot wait to be added until guilt is established. The purpose of BLP is not only to avoid legal prosecution, but to introduce editorial ethics and guidelines for editorial discretion so that not every claim about a person is included and that sensitivity and judgement can be exercised to protect the reputation and privacy rights of people. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not in favor of this either, basically per Wugapodes, it will be interpreted as 'name, names' regardless of circumstance, and one of the points of BLP is 'think long and hard' Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
However, in a handful of cases, persons formally identified by police as suspects in extraordinarily notable and widely publicized crimes crime are identified and discussed on Wikipedia even though they were not public figures previously. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 16:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through judicial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction. WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, [1] include all the explanatory information.
relatively unknown peopledescription and then just use a footnote (ideally with some examples of people that can be included and those that can't) to further expand on what relatively unknown means. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
According to the close it is a blog. See "After having read this RFC and the applied policy in question, the current wording of BLPSPS is worded such that this blog post is not a violation of policy as those answering no to the question argue". [5] Where does WP:BLPSPS state a blog post is not a violation of BLP? I am curious. QuackGuru ( talk) 13:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Self published sources that meet WP:SPS may however be used in a BLP to critique the subjects work or viewsor something similar. May open a can of worms, but this is not the first time I have seen this interpretation appear. AIRcorn (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see #Using the subject as a self-published source).So as for a change, I think that maybe this difference of interpretation needs clarifying here. If BLPSPS prohibits any SPS being used in a BLP article then we should say that straight up. If it allows some SPS's to be used as long as they don't get personal then we should probably say that. At the moment it could be read either way, which might be fine if we want to leave it open to a case-by-case discussion. When I have noticed this being an issue it is almost always in cases where WP:Parity applies, so maybe an exception along that line is all that is needed. AIRcorn (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Katherine Johnson#WP:SURNAME (permalink here). The issue is whether or not we should use Johnson's maiden name for some parts of the article and her surname for other parts of the article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
There's a deletion discussion about Infobox person/Wikidata that could affect BLPs, in case anyone here is interested. SarahSV (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
In the past week, a reference to Stephen Wolfram's recently-granted US citizenship was removed from his entry via a good-faith edit. I have reverted it and used a Wolfram Alpha link to document his citizenship awaiting better documentation. Wolfram is, in fact, a dual national.
This edit raises an important BLP issue under current political circumstances. I propose that, as an emergency temporary measure, that BLP policy discourage edits that remove references to the subject's US citizenship or legal immigration status, as such edits might cause the subjects of these entries difficulties with international travel.
What is the right place to make a formal proposal for such a policy change? -- Pleasantville ( talk) 14:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
After reading through the above section on who is or isn't WP:WELLKNOWN, the only article I can find where this is being applied is 2017 Chicago torture incident. So clearly something needs to be done to apply Wikipedia policy in a consistent manner. What do we do with articles such as 2017 Fort Lauderdale airport shooting, Shooting of Benjamin Marconi, 2016 New York and New Jersey bombings, 2016 Russell Square stabbing, and Franklin Regional High School stabbing? In most of these, if not all, the suspect is less well known than the suspects and the torture case. {MordeKyle} ☢ 20:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like the sentence "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime." changed to "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome accident or crime." 128.62.60.136 ( talk) 17:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Please discuss this change first, in a new topic and get a consensus to see if "accident" should be added. Once a consensus is reached, someone can either modify or you can add an edit request.
Sir Joseph
(talk)
17:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)There is currently a discussion on Talk:Donald Trump concerning the size of the article and the possibility of splitting it up. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 17:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Notice: RfC at WP:VPR#RfC: First sentence of BLP articles. J 947 18:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2607:FCC8:BE51:A700:B584:F11C:54B1:8A66 ( talk) 07:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I would like a general opinion on whether it is appropriate for an article to include commentary about, or evaluation of, a public figure’s mental health – provided the commentary is done by professionals in the field and reported in Reliable Sources. The case in point is this discussion: Talk:Donald Trump#Health section. MelanieN alt ( talk) 18:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
There really is never going to be a valid source for this information, unless it's on a person like Carrie Fischer, who was an advocate for a topic like this. This whole topic reeks of political agenda and is pretty clearly a violation of not only the above mention WP:BLP, but it is also FRINGEY and WP:UNDUE. {MordeKyle} ☢ 02:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.
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.
My original, redacted, post is about whether the standard diagnostic criteria used in the United States apply to Donald Trump's unusual behavior and speculations by mental health professionals about it. They do not, in the opinion of the psychiatrist who chaired the development of those criteria. Whether there are other criteria which might be applied, for example, by the intelligence services of other states remains an open question. As does our ability to access and publish such information. Certainly, one reason for BLP policy, avoiding ruinous litigation, is relevant. User:Fred Bauder Talk 14:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: See [9] from Cornell Law School. (Federal Rules of Evidence › ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY) "The first is the firsthand observation of the witness, with opinions based thereon traditionally allowed. A treating physician affords an example. Rheingold, The Basis of Medical Testimony, 15 Vand.L.Rev. 473, 489 (1962). Whether he must first relate his observations is treated in Rule 705."
[10] (Medical Testimony and the Expert Witness Joseph D. Piorkowski, Jr., DO, JD, MPH, FCPM, FCLM ) "When an expert is called upon to give an opinion as to past events which he did not witness, all facts related to the event which are essential to the formation of his opinion should be submitted to the expert in the form of a hypothetical question. No other facts related to the event should be taken into consideration by the expert as a foundation for his opinion. The facts submitted to the expert in the hypothetical question propounded on direct examination must be supported by competent substantial evidence in the record at the time the question is asked or by reasonable inferences from such evidence." Which rather restricts claims of medical diagnoses based entirely on hearsay rather than direct personal observation. "Experts" who testify without a strong evidentiary basis tend not be ever hired again.
From Notre Dame Law School [11], (Psychiatry, Psychoanalysis, and the Credibility of Witnesses David B. Saxe) "It has been suggested that clinical examination of witnesses is the most reliable basis for psychiatric opinion introduced into the courtroom."0 The clinical examination by a psychiatrist involves a study of the subject as a "psychobiological whole"; physical and mental examination, aided by psychoanalytical technique and psychological testing devices, is necessary to evaluate an individual's total personality. The disclosure of mental abnormalities can be accomplished through the use of a proper psychiatric interview, noninquisitorial in nature, that will provide some insight into the behavior of the witness. Requiring a witness to submit to lengthy examination, while clinically desirable, is not the ideal manner of uncoveriig intrapsychic processes. We do not live in an ideal world, and less than perfect means of providing answers must be utilized. A more abbreviated psychiatric examination, reinforced by other biographical data, would enable a psychiatrist to present a meaningful, although not complete, diagnosis of the prospective witness. This procedure would allow a court or jury to make a more realistic evaluation of the testimonial credibility of a witness." Noting that a clinical diagnosis requires a "physical and mental examination" which is not likely to be found in newspapers. "In another study, psychiatric residents anticipated fifty-five percent of the official subtype diagnoses correctly.' 4 The study appeared to show "that the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis diminishes as the frequency of the incidence decreases."" " Which means that diagnoses, under ideal circumstances, amount to tossing a coin (55% correct to 45% incorrect in the example given). More on request. Collect ( talk) 22:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Be careful what Wikipedia says about anybody. We only have Reliable Sources and if ALL of these are publishing what they have been told and if what they are told (or how they choose to interpret and publish what they are told) is nonsense, then nonsense is all we have to report... waiting to create, delete, amend or otherwise change Wikipedia's text never hurts anyone — Iadmc ♫ talk 22:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC) — Iadmc ♫ talk 22:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to RfC about diminutives. Once and for all, I think we need a ruling, if there isn't one now. I see on articles left and right such as Tim Tebow, Ron Simmons, or Bill Buckner that include (or have included) diminutives. Tebow's reading Timothy Richard "Tim" Tebow, Simmons' reading Ronald "Ron" Simmons, and Buckner's (pending RfC) William Joseph Buckner. I think diminutives shouldn't be included. The first time I got involved with diminutives was an article named Dave (something or other). His name read David "Dave" *last name*. I think it's rather clear diminutives of this sort are neither not needed nor constructive, if anything they are redundant. So, I would like to ask your opinions here. (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 20:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion pertaining to WP:BLP1E at WP:Village pump (policy)#Clarifications about WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E and terror attacks. Thanks, ansh 666 22:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
I have come across a number of instances where information is presented (usually in a negative light) about actions attributed to a corporation or business entity on the page of a person related to the entity, but either not directly connected to the action at issue. For example:
Are these principles, and these examples, useful for inclusion on this page? bd2412 T 16:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This section contains material that is kept because it is considered
humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
Til next year |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
![]()
|
I seem to recall from a few years back that editors were generally discouraged from publishing the names/birthdates of non-notable minors in articles. For example {{
Infobox person}} seems to non-committaly prefer the use of a number in |children=
as the instructions weakly request "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless notable." Is there a community concern that we try to protect the names and birthdates of non-notable minors, or has that been widely opposed? Either way, I think I'd like to get some clarification in the BLP guidelines, please. Actors and other celebrities often release this information via press releases and Twitter posts, so I could see strong arguments for "well, if they don't care about privacy, why should we"... Thanks.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
14:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Number of children (e.g., three or 3), or list of names if notable". I am among the many who interpret that as written—a notable child should be listed with a blue link; others are only counted. If someone added a red link I would be inclined to revert with WP:WTAF as edit summary. Certainly there would need to be secondary source asserting notability—the opinion of an editor is not relevant. This issue has been raised at WP:BLPN in the past. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
I know current policy says that: "This policy does not normally apply to material about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must be written in accordance with other content policies." Why is this the case? Most of the BLP seems to be to avoid potential libel issues (which makes sense), but libel issues are just as big a problem in dealing with companies and other legal persons. - Obsidi ( talk) 20:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Good day everyone, am new here and wanted to know about how to create a Wikipedia profile for my self. Thank you. Ibrozee85 ( talk) 09:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
The images of deceased persons, including recently deceased (subject to WP:BDP), are currently discussed at " Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 67#Criteria needed for using images of deceased persons?" I invite you to comment there. -- George Ho ( talk) 16:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Update: I started the discussion about uploading acceptable non-free images of deceased persons at WT:NFC. I invite you to comment. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Please see this ongoing talk discussion and this BLPN discussion about citing two significant relationships in a BLP. More input appreciated. Lapadite ( talk) 02:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The deletion of File:Jill Saward BBC interview 2013.png is challenged at WP:deletion review, where I invite you to improve consensus. -- George Ho ( talk) 10:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I hope no one minds, but I
added the word "biographical" to More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of an article should be especially careful to edit that article
neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.
The footnote clarifies quite adequately what a COI is (i.e., not "You are a Star Wars fan."), as does the COI policy, and the sentence's placement on this page made it clear that it was talking about BLPs, but when accompanied by "More generally," it ran the risk of people saying things like You like Star Wars, you shouldn't be editing our Star Wars articles.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
06:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Currently, WP:SELFPUB doesn't contain any mention of whether a particular quote is WP:DUE, aside from the very weak prohibition that the article can't be based primarily on such sources; I feel this introduces potential problems where people could, for example, quote-mine someone's twitter feed, facebook page, or other social media account (which often have a huge volume of material) for a controversial quote that has received little attention, and then use Wikipedia to publicize it - that obviously violates the spirit of BLP. I think it needs an additional clause mentioning that if the material is likely to be damaging to the reputation of the article's subject, then it must pass WP:DUE. I'm not exactly sure of the wording of the new clause, but the key point is that if we're going to pull a potentially damaging quote out of a much larger volume of material, we should have to have other sources to demonstrate that the quote has attracted that sort of attention. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to "break the story" on it, so to speak. (Obviously, WP:DUE is already a policy and people could already object on those grounds - but this would put the weight of BLP behind it and make it clear that at least some assertion of due weight is strictly required to use the WP:SELFPUB exception for anything that could potentially hurt the reputation of the subject.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
The only reasons I could find in the archives of this talk page for limiting this policy to apply to living persons only is that in legal terms, apparently, the dead cannot be libeled. However, in moral terms, many theorists argue that the dead have an important interest in privacy and their reputation, and can be harmed, see for instance: https://philpapers.org/rec/SCAPAT , https://philpapers.org/rec/MASCTD .
Should this article not take into account such moral considerations in addition to just legal considerations? Perhaps living and dead people should not be fully equivocated here, since it is more pressing that contentious material on a living person be 'removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'. However, other considerations apply to dead people just as to living people ('Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy'). This is currently not reflected in the policy. Highflyer Hank ( talk) 14:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
WP:BDP links to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead. That section of this policy says "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources."
While it says that WP:BLP does not apply the section fails to mention what policy or policies do apply. In hopes of discovering a policy about biographies I tried
Other than WP:BLP are there any policies that are specific to biographies? -- Marc Kupper| talk 18:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Is writing for a dead person "Person title" (pronunciation), (birthdate - deathdate) commonly referred to as "nickname" is a dead..." correct or wrong? Does this violate? 64.237.232.204 ( talk) 14:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Regarding WP:REDLINK, there is an RfC about red links for persons. Editors are invited to comment here. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 16:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 04:47, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Please check what is taking place around the article "Nader El-Bizri" since this was proposed for deletion, but the reasons put forward touch upon statements that harm the reputation of the living person it covers. The ranking and merits of the work of a living person should be judged by their peers and not simply by random wikipedia users, especially if the deletion has not been requested by someone specializing in academia but by someone who has been covering businessmen and billionaires. Please check this serious matter since it lowers the integrity of wikipedia and causes actual harm to living people, especially if they are in the public domain and well known in their field ( 2A02:C7D:36C6:8300:8170:FF93:C1C4:942C ( talk) 12:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC))
From WP:BLPSPS: "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." How exactly can it be determined whether the hosting news organization has "full editorial control"? Does The Washington Post have full editorial control over The Monkey Cage blog or Wonkblog? What about Paul Krugman's or Frank Bruni's blog at the NYTimes? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/blogs/directory.html Which of these NYTimes blogs count as 'full editorial control'? The fact that a reputable RS hosts a blog indicates that the organization vouches for the general accuracy and quality of the material there and would be legally liable if the blog libels a BLP. I suggest changing the sentence to "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals or notable experts." 73.61.19.240 ( talk) 02:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I think someone should delete the text that says "page issues" in Lele Pons biography due to that the page already got enough references and citations, thank you. Sebasdiazorozco ( talk) 22:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
WP:BLPN#Robert Conroy Goldston. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
05:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
People are pushing to keep this at " 2017 Charlottesville attack" which is a clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME guidelines which instructs us to avoid saying a crime happened unless the accused is convicted of it.
I believe policy should outrank personal preferences (this is WP:OR city) some have in wanting this to stay at "attack" instead of " crash".
Nobody even included a source calling it the "Charlottesville attack", meanwhile I provided a source calling it Charlottesville car crash but had it reverted.
Something has clearly led to personal interpretations taking precedence over neutrality, verifiability or BLP reservations. I am hoping someone experienced with these things can lend some input. Should I take it to Admin Noticeboard or RFC or other route? ScratchMarshall ( talk) 06:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Use of "Fualaau". A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not to use "Letourneau" for some parts of the article and "Fualaau" for other parts of the article. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 18:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this article again. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#Regarding "illicit". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 14:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Modification of the last paragraph in the lead that may interest some editors here. The proposal amounts to changing the guideline to say that Wikipedia should not necessarily have articles about certain BLPs when editors are unable to find any independent sources about those people. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I want to see a couple more templates to insert on user talk pages to communicate these concepts specifically to users. Anyone able to make one? Not sure how to phrase it. ScratchMarshall ( talk) 03:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
"[...]I'm still concerned about misuse - we'll see what happens."I'm concerned with your summary. If you believe this template can be misused, I would rather not make it. Shall await your views here on this. Thanks. Lourdes 09:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAMEABUSE contains the text or that are clearly abusive towards any race, religion or social group
. While I of course agree that such usernames should lead to the editors being immediately blocked, I have to imagine the majority of racist troll usernames are not "immediately ... suppressed from logs", and even if they are few would think to cite BLP. A fairly superficial
search of the archives of this talk page appears to indicate that the text in question has not been discussed: it was quoted
here, but in an unrelated context, and the text
already appeared in the policy at the time. It feels like this text unrelated to BLP was lifted, word-for-word, from
WP:BLPABUSE because some of the stuff around it was related to BLP.
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや)
10:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
On January 17 2017 SarahSV (SlimVirgin) changed the policy from "must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation" to "must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source". On June 15 2017 I asked SlimVirgin "Was this discussed? I didn't see it on the talk page in that period." I haven't seen a reply, and still haven't seen that it was discussed. I think it should have been, since "explicitly attributed" is stronger than merely "supported". "Explicit" dictionary definitions are "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent", "Stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt", "expressed or shown clearly and openly, without any attempt to hide anything". WP:INTEXT would satisfy the original requirement but a citation alone might not. I believe that if there is no consensus for the change, it should be reverted. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:08, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
I have added fourth pillar General notability guideline in the Leade. Every Biographies that eventually meets the general notability guideline to merit its own stand-alone article. Any objections to it ? NtiniMkaya ( talk) 13:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
"Biographies of living persons" has been a common preamble to articles about anyone still alive. I came here for info to verify if a group of 75.83.54.115 ( talk) 00:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)people were still alive. The entire group of people are apparently alive and well. Clicked the hyperlink to read the individual I thought died. She's alive! Cool! But hold on! Both articles are about, ostensively people who still very much alive, where is that warning? Did they retire it? Is liable no longer a concern? Where can I read what happened to that ubiquitous warning or why they scrapped it? Reader FAQ? Not there. Search all Help? Dumb me searched a phrase "living persons". Glossary? Nope! Not to brag, but I donate $ to keep it going. I want to have information available. Children learn this is where to start off, then follow through with the citations to really learn the topic. The information about guideline changes is just as vital and necessary to readers. Thank you!
The recent CNN article regarding national origin controversy got me thinking about something that has long bothered me regarding some WP BOLPs. It is rather common for the lead sentences of BOLPs to be very specific about ethnic or national background, e.g.
I would submit that such specificity can be unintentionally racist (or at least can appear so). Perhaps a more explicit policy is warranted? I would submit the following thoughts:
Just my thoughts.
-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 19:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The page currently says, in part, that "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.... These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements...." It seems to me that this same restriction ought to apply as well to ordinary text in the body of an article — that is, if a religious affiliation or sexual orientation claim is not acceptable as a category, list, navigation, or infobox item, it should similarly not be acceptable as part of the article text. But right now, the letter of the policy doesn't seem to say this. This is more of an issue than just the general BLP principle that contentious, unsourced material doesn't belong, since the part of the policy in question imposes additional rules — namely, requirements for public self-identification and relevance to the person's public life or notability, and not merely that the material must be accurate and well sourced. Is there any consensus for tweaking this part of the policy text to cover ordinary mention of these topics in an article? Or is there a reason, not obvious to me at the moment, why this special limitation should not apply except in structured material such as categories? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
is there a reason ... why this special limitation should not apply except in structured material ... ?My understanding of the reasoning is that the structured material does not allow for a sufficiently nuanced treatment of these areas; but that article text does. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Since my suggestion above generated little feedback (thank you at least to Richwales), let me perhaps offer a more concrete suggestion.
My thought is to add a sub-section to WP:BLPSTYLE with something like the following content:
-- MC 141.131.2.3 ( talk) 20:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
The policy uses the phrase "poorly sourced" many times but never directly explains what it means. I think it is generally understood to mean that a source used doesn't conform with Verifiability and No original research (which are summarized and linked to in the Reliable sources section). Items 2 and 3 of the Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced subsection are examples of "poorly sourced."
Would the policy be improved by clarifying what "poorly sourced" means?-- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 23:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005, and have been heavily involved in a number of articles and discussions in which BLP issues were raised, and am I familiar with other precedents that occurred without me, such as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. In looking over the subsections in WP:AVOIDVICTIM, I notice that there is one that covers People accused of crime, but none for Victims/survivors of crimes, such as victims of rape. The publication of names of rape victims/survivors has been a controversial issue. I was and continue to be involved in the discussion regarding whether to include the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser in the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case and article and talk page. A previous lengthy discussion on that matter that we had years ago came to the consensus that it be left out of both, though every now and then, an editor will come along and add it. Some editors who favor including it say that there is nothing in BLP that precludes it. I think that for AVOIDVICTIM to explicitly addresses the issue of mentioning the names of people accused of crimes but not people who are victims of crimes, specifically sex crimes, makes that section incomplete. Adding it would also allow us to cite a specific portion of BLP when it comes up. I would like to add it, and would offer to write it myself, but don't want to do so if it's going to be immediately deleted. Thoughts? Nightscream ( talk) 15:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
articles should not mention the names of people who have made legal accusations of rape, but who have been indicated to desire their name kept out of the media-- Irn ( talk) 14:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't aware of those resources. Thanks for pointing them out to me; I'll bookmark them now. So should I restart a discussion there? Cut and paste my proposal from atop this thread to there (adding/emphasizing the proposed wording of said proposal, as some have said here)? And which is the right place to do it? VPP or PROPOSAL? Let me know. Nightscream ( talk) 19:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)