Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 29 June 2007

This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Misplaced Pages contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

• ]

Misplaced Pages's Biographies of living persons policy states, An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm." There are a number of conflicting interpretations of this policy, and in marginal cases it is often problematic to determine how this rule should be applied to information on living (and, in some cases, recently deceased) persons.

Public and nonpublic information

Information about a notable living individual can be divided broadly into two categories: public and nonpublic information. Generally speaking, nonpublic information consists of private details about an individual that have not been published in the mainstream media and are not widely known. In most cases, Misplaced Pages articles should not include such information; Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid, and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. As Misplaced Pages has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and Misplaced Pages articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity.

In some cases, there is some question as to whether a particular piece of information is public or nonpublic, e.g. where it has been published in reliable sources, but it is doubtful whether it belongs in an article. In such cases, the potential harm to the subject should be taken into account; the "Jenna Bush" test can be applied in these instances.

The "Jenna Bush" test

• WP:JENNA

Jenna Bush, daughter of US President George W. Bush, was on one occasion arrested for underage drinking. As Ms. Bush is a private individual who is notable only because of her relationship to a head of state, it would normally be inappropriate to include information of this nature about her (whereas it would be entirely appropriate, for instance, if the information concerned a serving politician). However, nonetheless, the Jenna Bush article does contain such information. As such, the Jenna Bush test can be applied to other parallel situations. The factors to take into account are:

1. Is the information already widely known? If so, and if it has appeared in numerous mainstream news sources, then it is probably suitable to be included in the article. If the information has only appeared in a few tabloid sources, local newspapers, or websites of dubious quality, then it is not appropriate to include it; Misplaced Pages is not a rumour mill, and is not in the business of publicising such information.
2. Is the information definitive and factual? Misplaced Pages is not in the business of speculation, or publishing dubious allegations, unless such allegations are notable in themselves. In particular, possibly false allegations that would harm an individual's life significantly should be avoided.
3. Is the information essential to the subject's notability? Although Ms. Bush is notable as the daughter of a serving head of state, much of the media coverage surrounding her as an individual focuses on the underage drinking incident. As such, the information can be seen as essential to the article.

If all of these apply, then it is reasonable for the information to be included. If none of them apply, then it should be removed, or included only in general terms.

Inclusion of names and biographical details

In some cases, a person is notable primarily for a single event in their life. This may be the case with the subjects of Internet phenomena or unusual medical conditions, the children of notable individuals, or the victims of notable crimes. In many of these cases, the person in question is a child, or was a child at the time of the notable event. In such cases, some sensitivity needs to be shown in deciding whether or not to include their names, and/or any other biographical details about them which are not relevant to the case.

It is not possible to develop a definite rule for such cases. In general, if such an individual - the victim of a crime, for instance - has received substantial independent coverage in the media, and their name is well-known, then it is appropriate to include an article on them. Examples of this are Damilola Taylor and Madeleine McCann. Likewise, if the victim of an Internet phenomenon has received detailed and significant coverage in the news media, it may be appropriate to include their name; an example of this is the Bus uncle.

In contrast, there are cases where it is unnecessary to include a full biography of a person, or even their name. For instance, a child born with an unusual medical condition, who has received some coverage in the news media, may be mentioned in the article on their medical condition; in such cases, it may be appropriate to mention their name in the article, but it is unlikely that they merit a full biography.

In cases where names are removed from an article to protect the privacy of a semi-notable individual, this should be discussed on the article's talk page. There is a presumption in favour of privacy, and as such, in most cases, the names should not be restored unless there is a definite consensus to do so. The only exception to this is in obviously frivolous cases, such as the redaction of names from a featured article.

Ethics and consensus

In applying the principle of "do no harm", it is often tempting for an editor to take controversial actions under the principle of ignore all rules. In some cases, it is appropriate to take immediate action without prior discussion, such as where there is a flagrant breach of privacy. However, such actions should be discussed afterwards, and reversed if there is a clear consensus to do so.

For instance, in a case such as the redaction of names from an article, the first step may be to remove the names from an article. However, this should then be discussed on the talk page. During the discussion, the names should be left out; revert-warring is not helpful in these circumstances, as the temporary absence of the names is unlikely to significantly damage Misplaced Pages's credibility. The names should be restored if there is a clear consensus to do so; a straw poll may be helpful in gauging consensus.

Administrators

Unlike regular users, administrators must be especially careful to discuss their actions in a case about which they feel strongly. In cases regarding a potentially controversial biography of a living individual, administrators may delete an article in order to prevent a potential invasion of privacy. However, they should immediately discuss this and seek consensus with other editors.

The "two-admin rule"

In cases where an administrative action taken under the biographies of living persons policy is likely to be controversial, it is appropriate for the administrator in question to discuss it with at least one uninvolved administrator, to gauge a range of opinions. During this period, it is appropriate for controversial material to remain deleted, as other administrators can access deleted material during the discussion.

This may seem unfair to non-administrators, but the presumption in favour of privacy means that sensitivity should be observed in these cases, and controversial material should not be undeleted immediately.

Suggested procedure

The following are suggestions for the possible courses of action you can follow if you see a suspected violation of the biographies of living persons policy in an article. These are not binding, but they are useful guidelines in almost all cases.

For removal of sourced content

If you see material in a biography that is sourced and accurate, but may fail the "Jenna Bush test" (see above), then you can follow these steps. This might apply to content such as the names of crime victims, for instance, or the details of those associated with an Internet phenomenon.

1. Be bold and remove the content. Use a non-aggressive edit summary, such as (temporary removal per WP:BLP, will discuss on talk page).
2. Discuss it on the talk page, apply the "Jenna Bush test", and try to determine consensus. A straw poll may be helpful at this stage, as may a third opinion.
3. Only restore the content if there is a clear and unequivocal consensus to do so.

If you see a removal of such content, and you disagree with the removal, do not edit-war to restore the information. Instead, participate in the discussion on the talk page.

For removal of unsourced or dubious content

Unsourced or dubious content, especially if potentially libellous, should simply be removed on sight from biographies of living persons. This includes content that comes from unreliable sources, such as blogs or attack sites. See the policy on reliable sources for details of this issue.

For deletion of an article

Administrators should, as noted above, exercise special care in using their administrative tools without prior consensus. However, if you are an administrator, and you see an article on a living individual where most or all of the content fails the "Jenna Bush test" (see above), then you can follow these steps.

1. First, try removing the offending content from the article, and see what is left.
2. If the remaining content contains no evidence of notability, then temporarily delete the article. Use a non-aggressive edit summary, such as (deleting temporarily per WP:BLP, will discuss).
3. Discuss the deletion with at least one other administrator. Alternatively, discuss it at the administrators' noticeboard. Keep the article deleted while the discussion is taking place; administrators can access the deleted material, so it does no harm to leave it deleted.
4. If there is consensus among administrators that the deletion was unjustified, restore the article.

If you are an administrator and you disagree with a deletion of this nature, do not wheel-war to restore the article. Discuss it on the administrators' noticeboard.

See also

• Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons

• Misplaced Pages essays