| Revision as of 22:27, 15 March 2011 editMaunus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,250 edits →No valid consensus← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:16, 26 December 2024 edit undoFactOrOpinion (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,783 edits →Alternative proposal 2: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|WT:BLP|WT:LIVE}} | |||
| {{tmbox|text=This isn't the place to post information about living people. See ] for information on how to start a new article.}} | |||
| {{ |
{{Policy talk}} | ||
| {{tmbox|text=This is not the place to post information about living people. See ] for information on how to start a new article.}} | |||
| {{Warning|To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the ].}} | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell| | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography}} | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Old moves|collapse=yes | |||
| | list = | |||
| * ] → ] | |||
| **'''Not moved''', 19 March 2007. See ]. | |||
| * ] → ] | |||
| **'''Not moved''', 31 March 2010. See ]. | |||
| * ] → ] | |||
| **'''Not moved''', 25 July 2016. See ]. | |||
| }} | |||
| {{BLP issues}} | {{BLP issues}} | ||
| {{shortcut|WT:LIVING|WT:BLP}} | |||
| {{Warning|To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the <br />].}} | |||
| {{talkheader|search=yes}} | |||
| {{WikiProject Policy and Guidelines}}<!-- | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = |
|maxarchivesize = 150K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 58 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 5 | |||
| |algo = old(7d) | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(30d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} |
}} | ||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| -->{{AutoArchivingNotice | |||
| |small=yes | |||
| |age=1 | |||
| |units=week | |||
| |index=./Archive index | |||
| |bot=MiszaBot II}}<!-- | |||
| -->{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive index | |target=Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive index | ||
| |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive <#> | |mask=Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive <#> | ||
| Line 28: | Line 33: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines == | |||
| {{discussion top}} | |||
| Closed. '''No consensus''' to add gender to the BLP guidelines. I'd say there '''is consensus''' (about 2:1 as I read the discussion below) to add ethnicity to the BLP guidelines. ] (]) 17:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{see also|Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 31#Relevancy for ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality (WP:EGRS)}} | |||
| To reduce quibbling about different wording in different guidelines, existing wording should be inserted here to match WP:EGRS. | |||
| Also, change the redundant wording "belief or orientation" to "information" in two places; this will shorten and simplify the sentence structure. | |||
| {{quotation| | |||
| ] names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. Categories regarding {{hilite|ethnicity, gender,}} religious beliefs, and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the {{hilite|information}} in question; and {{hilite|this information is}} relevant to their ] activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. | |||
| <br />...<br /> | |||
| These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and/or {{tl|infobox}} statements that are based on {{hilite|ethnicity, gender,}} religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or suggest that persons have a poor reputation. | |||
| }} | |||
| === Ethnicity, Gender, day 1 === | |||
| *'''Support''' -- as proposer --] (]) 01:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''Note Bene:''' some comments here seem to be related to re-arguing very recent polls on relevance, and notability, and lists, and templates. ''Those have already been decided!'' This is solely about adding '''two words''' from the ] guideline criteria to this policy language to avoid ] disputes. Hopefully, the closer will disregard those irrelevant comments.<br />--] (]) 15:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::The ] guideline applies only to Categories. Your proposal above extends that guideline to Lists. Yet Lists are vastly different that categories because List articles can (and often do, especially in contentious areas) supply context, footnotes, sources, and nuances. You may want to consider re-submitting this proposal but limit it to Ethnicity (not Gender) and limit it to Categories (not Lists). --] (]) 16:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::No, '''].''' In fact, this should reduce conflicts, because Lists and Templates are annotated with "context, footnotes, sources, and nuances." I'm sorry you ].<br />--] (]) 16:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What was already decided? My prior comment had several sentences in it. --] (]) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::It should be pointed out that "already decided" in relation to WP:EGRS is quite a bit misleading. This text was added into that guideline in July 2009 by... William Allen Simpson. It was added there after being brought up on the talk page by... William Allen Simpson. No one else wrote in in support at the time. When I tried to remove it from the page, citing lack of consensus, I was reverted by... William Allen Simpson. So to keep citing that "policy" as having "been decided" is quite a bit misleading. ] (]) 18:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Certainly, many guidelines were drafted and committed by me over the past half dozen years, as was an earlier version of '''this''' policy section. That does not make them any less valid. Decisions about policy and guidelines are often decided elsewhere than the talk page, while we often use the talk page to store the draft. '''Wraith's deletion''' of a valid 18+ months old guideline (without anything like proper notification) '''was ruled invalid''' after review by a neutral administrator. Wraith's ] is the reason we are here today. Could we stop wasting time talking about process, and concentrate on whether to add '''two words''' here to match WP:EGRS, and 5 other guidelines? You might notice the '''two words''' match '''"E"''' and '''"G"'''!<br />--] (]) 04:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Doesn't matter how many guidelines you drafted. But citing a guideline that you wrote, discussed with yourself, added, and then reverted back, all without the help of a single other editor, is disingenuous. The neutral administrator you're talking about, after discussion with me on my talk page, ended up unsure as to who was right on the matter. I also love the fact that you're complaining about me deleting your guideline without "proper notification". I left a note on the talk page, just like you did. No one objected, so I deleted it - just like when you left a note on the talk page, no one objected, so you added it to the article in the first place. We both followed literally the same process to add and then delete that bit from the guideline. Why you think it has any validity whatsoever is beyond me. ] (]) 05:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I must concur with All Hallow on this point. This proposal seems like a one-man crusade, and is at odds with the wider consensus that has been established throughout WP in literally hundreds of Categories and Lists. It is frightening to contemplate the prospect that a few editors could push-through a policy change that would - overnight - cause the deletions of thousands of entries in Categories and Lists. --] (]) 05:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::'''It ''is'' frightening''' that we could have one editor delete the notability and relevance requirements at ], established after a long and arduous process taking several months, and having been stable for a long, long time (relative to Misplaced Pages history). Oh My Gosh, that's exactly what happened! Of course, that was Wraith.... Please re-read all the guidelines cited above. I've done my best to be clear and concise.<br />--] (]) 00:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::I'm not sure what you two are carrying on about, but it's abundantly clear that there is no consensus among the Misplaced Pages community for the proposed restriction of ethnic categorization. Wiki-lawyering about who made a particular edit to particular guideline page is utterly besides the point. The community is not behind the proposed change. - ] (]) 06:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support - for ethnicity'''. ']' however is a little difficult - taken literally this might be read as not being able to state whether a BLP was about a man, or a woman. I'm sure this wasn't the intent, but I think this needs clarification, or possibly further discussion as a separate rewording. ] (]) 01:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **It would only be a problem with transgender people, and I would support self-identification in that case. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 01:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **Agree with Jayen466. This is '''only''' about creating and including folks in categories. There's no reason to bother, unless it is '''relevant''' to their activities. The recent testing of the South American athlete comes to mind, although I don't remember the name. But we shouldn't exclude or include somebody, just because genetic testing says their self-identification is somehow "incorrect".<br />--] (]) 01:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 01:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - ridiculous. I use ] as an example once again. As the son of Haitian immigrants, he's obviously of Haitian descent. It's absurd to require that this fact be "notable to his public life" in order to be listed under ]. Why would we want to do that? It doesn't make any sense. Nor does requiring that his being "African American" be notable to his music in order to be listed under ]. Obviously, he's an African-American musician. What logical sense does it make not to categorize him as such? ] (]) 02:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:'''That is not the question.''' The only issue before us is whether BLP should be different than all other pages. All categories are required to be both notable and relevant. '''''Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features.'''''<br />--] (]) 06:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *::Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. The ] article does not give any verified sources indicating African descent, and he does not self-identify as African American. In cited sources, he's of French and Haitian descent. Removed! We do not subscribe to the racist ], nor do we add folks to African American categories based merely on appearance as "not white".<br />--] (]) 06:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:::What are you talking about? Who is this "our"? Under your proposal, Jason Derulo couldn't be listed under "American people of Haitian descent" unless this was notable to his music? Does that make any sense? No, it doesn't. And yes, obviously he's African-American, see and . Whether or not he self-identifies as African-American or Haitian-American wouldn't get him listed as an "African-American musician" or an "American of Haitian descent" anyway under your proposal, because some poor editor would apparently have to "demonstrate" that this is notable to his songs? Is this proposal for real? ] (]) 07:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' the addition of "ethnicity". On gender, I doubt t hat restricting categorization by gender is plausible. How would we determine if a singer's gender was important enough to his/her notability to determine whether they go into something like "French female singers" vs. "French singers"? Would that mean that female sports players would automatically keep their "Women's..." categories, because most sports are segregated by gender? Unless we're actually prepared to eliminate all gender based categories, I doubt we could make the distinction usefully. ] (]) 06:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **Qwyrxian, are you saying that ], the son of Haitian immigrants, shouldn't be listed under ] unless his Haitian ancestry was relevant to his music? That's what you're saying by supporting this proposal. Because that's what the wording of it mandates. ] (]) 07:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **:Please stop raising these ]. They disrupt discussion. The only issue before us is whether BLP should be different than all other pages. All categories are required to be both notable and relevant.<br />--] (]) 07:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **::I thought we weren't supposed to canvas, were we, WAS? I refer only to and . And no, it's not a strawman. It's quite a legitimate question. You're free to answer it yourself. Why shouldn't Jason Derulo be listed under "American people of Haitian descent"? ] (]) 08:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: If the fact that he is Haitian is notable, then it may be mentioned in a category. But if only the fact that he is a musician is notable, then it may not. That seems logical to me. There is no requirement that Haitian descent must be related to his musical activities. ] (]) 18:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::According to this proposal, his Haitian ancestry should be "relevant to ] activities or public life". Since Derülo's activities consist pretty much entirely out of his music career, that would mean his Haitian ancestry would have to be related to that to be listed under "American people of Haitian descent". Which doesn't sound like a good idea to me. If I'm a student doing a project on famous Americans of Haitian descent, it would be immensely helpful to me if he was listed in that category. ] (]) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support -for ethnicity''' not for Gender - would be most likely impossible to implement and enforcer in a civil manner.] (]) 08:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:This is required to document the result of many ''']''', such as double and triple intersections ], ], ], ], etc. Is there a reason we should allow such Gender categories for '''''living''''' persons? We already require deletion for dead, undead, or wraiths! Easier to enforce and implement consistently.<br />--] (]) 13:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ] (]) 14:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' in spirit. I would like to see some wording that recognizes that these categories are usually uncontroversial, especially gender, but leads to removal of unsourced categories if there is any controversy over them. ] (]) 14:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:That's an excellent suggestion! (I remember you've made it before.) Let's do that after this certification process is complete. Always best to complete one thing at a time.<br />--] (]) 15:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **The uncontroversial/controversial issue is a totally separate one. This policy mandates the removal of all categories, whether controversial or not. ] (]) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' I see no reason given for the change, unless one is accepting of ''"to reduce quibbling"'' as a reason for the change. I feel the opposite is the case. Simplification is not called for here, necessarily. These attributes are different in fundamental ways from one another. In some instances some of these attributes of personal identity should be included in the article only if accompanied by self-identification; in other instances this is not called for at all. Ditto as concerns notability: in some instances it might be arguable that the relation between an attribute of identity and the person's reason for notability is so tenuous that inclusion is gratuitous and perhaps even contrived. Yet in other instances inclusion of attributes of identity may be warranted even if not related to notability—that is simply because the reader is understood to be interested in all relevant material. The simplification seen here in the interest of ''reducing quibbling'' is also going to be used by editors in their incessant arguments to keep material out of articles and to block categorization as concerns individuals. It is not unheard of for editors to have some very personally motivated reasons for mounting arguments to keep well-sourced and perfectly innocuous material out of articles and categories. I see no reason to enshrine in policy that ''all'' attributes need ''both'' self-identification and a relationship to notability. This gives more tools for censorship to those already inclined to exclude material from biographies that is ''not'' in violation of the spirit of ]. This is an abuse of WP:BLP. It encroaches on normal article-writing, including the categorization that facilitates the research aspects of the project that makes Misplaced Pages useful to readers. ] (]) 16:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:Again, '''that is not the question'''. The only issue before us is whether BLP should be different than all other pages. Do we permit these two methods of categorization for '''''living''''' people, and then delete them as they die? That seems very difficult to enforce and implement consistently. The folks at WP:CFD are overworked enough already.<br />--] (]) 16:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::William Allen Simpson—WP:BLP involves sensitivity. This is a collaborative project—''"quibbling"'' is what this project is about. You are suggesting substituting simplicity for sensitivity. I find the following language:] There is not any one applicable rule as to whether or not any attribute of personal identity should or should not be included in an article or in a category. This is for individual Talk pages of separate articles. We should not be providing language in policy for editors to ''exclude'' material based on reasons unrelated to the special sensitivities that should be accorded the ] This is suggestive of an abuse of WP:BLP as you are not providing a reason for the suggested change. ''Reducing quibbling'' is not a reason. This is a collaborative project, where ''quibbling'' is intrinsic. ] (]) 16:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't entirely understand this - especially the bit about deleting categories when people die - but if we are going to categorize people by gender or ethnicity (and most of the time I'd prefer it if we didn't), I wouldn't have thought self-identification would be the criterion (it should be what reliable sources say, as with most things, plus a dollop of common sense).--] (]) 17:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **I generally agree, but self-identification isn't that bad. The real problem is "related to ] activities or public life, according to reliable published sources". That means we couldn't list the son of Haitian immigrants as an "American person of Haitian descent" unless this was related to his profession? (even if he repeatedly self-identified) That doesn't make any sense. ] (]) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' because the qualifier: "unless the subject has publicly ''self-identified'' with the information in question; and this information is ''relevant'' to their notable activities or public life, according to ''reliable published sources''" is good all around! ] (]) 17:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Big '''but wait a second'''. at ] we were talking about "descent" categories. Is that part of "ethnicity"? ] (]) 18:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I was under the impression it was. If they're not part of that, that should certainly be stated explicitly in any proposal. ] (]) 18:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - Because it is being applied to Lists as well as Categories. Lists (as has been discussed above in this Talk page) should not be lumped in with Categories in BLPCAT because Lists ''do'' permit "disclaimers and limitations" and other contextual information that Categories do no support. I have no objection to applying this proposal to Categories, but sweeping Lists along with the Categories is ill-considered. --] (]) 18:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:Again, '''that is not the question'''. The only issue before us is whether BLP should be different than all other pages. Language about "Lists along with the Categories" was added months ago. That bus has left the garage.<br />--] (]) 19:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::The proposal above adds words both into the Category text ''and'' into the List text. This proposal could just focus on the Category text. By choosing to add words to the List text, the proposer is deliberately continuing the (erroneous) treatment of Lists as the same as Categories. The proposal could easily be split into two parts. The proposer did not choose to do so, and so my Oppose vote remains. --] (]) 19:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Note''' It should probably be pointed that out that William Allen Simpson just keeps on . He has successfully brought and and over here. ] (]) 18:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:Notifying folks that proposed earlier versions of this text is required. | |||
| *:*<code>On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed.</code> | |||
| *:Indeed, I've not had time to complete all my notifications. I'll be working on that over the next few days, little by little.<br />--] (]) 19:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ***"However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate". ] (]) 19:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' - Im not too familiar with the BLPCAT policy history, but hasnt there been substantial discussion about] and how that list (based on ethnicity) was entirely valid (even though the ethnicity was immaterial to inclusion in the list)? I guess I'm asking for some habitue of this Talk page to re-cap the history of that topic. Would adopting this policy cause most (living) persons to be removed from that list article? If so, this policy absolutely should not be adopted. --] (]) 19:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::As some here know, the existence of precisely such lists is extremely controversial. ] (]) 11:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' pending further discussion. Although I think it may be useful to separate categories from lists and gender from ethnicities to gauge community support if there is no clear consensus forming here. ] (]) 19:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''oppose''' Has the problem already brought up of fairly obvious cases where they haven't even bothered saying they fall into the category because it is so obvious. In general is unnecessary rule creep. We can rely on reliable sources just as much as we can rely on self-identification unless there's an obvious cause of controversy. ] (]) 20:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question for -William Allen Simpson''' - WAS: I've read your comments above, and most of your comments are directed at how the BLPCAT policy could guide a decision on whether to delete a given Category (e.g. you cite CFD, etc). Yet most editors, I believe, treat the BLPCAT as primarily guiding whether a given individual can be inlcuded in an existing (valid) Category. That is a huge difference. I think the wording of BLPCAT shows it is aimed more at the latter than the former, so you might want to re-cast your comments. --] (]) 20:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? We've long has this restriction in '''creating''' and '''naming''' categories. Simply following the criteria of ], they should not exist. But they keep getting added to articles, and thus re-created, and WP:CFD has to clean them up (over and over again). The lack of prescriptivism in this policy is only the current ] rationale for adding ethnic or gender categories to articles.<br />--] (]) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm sorry, I cannot understand your logic. You did not respond to the points I raised. Of course WP should, and does have many ethnicity-based Categories. There is no policy prohibiting them, and they are very useful to readers. The proposal you are making above is to change the rule on which living individuals may be included in a given ethnicity-based category. Your proposed rule would cause many key persons to be deleted from many Categories, such as ]. That is not sensible and is not going to happen. --] (]) 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' having BLP match other guidelines and vise versa. ] (]) 20:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Rule creep, foolish consistency. --] (]) 21:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:While "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds", we apparently need the consistency because of the little minds.<br />--] (]) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::*(ec) We do not need the excessive consistency proposed above. Why should a properly sourced list, with appropriate notes and caveats, be subject to the same membership restrictions as a category that cannot include such caveats? This proposal is also a clear case of rule creep. It stretches a rule that deals with unobservable and often highly sensitive personal characteristics (sexual orientation and belief) and tries to force typically observable and much less sensitive characteristics (gender and ethnicity) into the same mold. If you were instead trying to extend the rule to something similar in nature (e.g. transgender or ambiguously sexed people, such as the South African runner ]), I would be much more likely to support it (although I think requiring self-identification in the latter case would probably be too big a stretch as well). --] (]) 16:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I concur with Avenue's comment: ''"Why should a properly sourced list, with appropriate notes and caveats, be subject to the same membership restrictions as a category that cannot include such caveats?"''. This is a very important issue that needs to be addressed. Not only does it justify rejection of the current proposal, but it even justifies revising the current ] policy, because that policy treats Lists and Categories identically. BLPCAT started off as a decent rule for Categories, and an overzealous desire for uniformity caused Lists to get dragged in about a year ago. On two occasions, a proposal was made to distinguish Lists from Categories in BLPCAT, but it failed because of the simple fact that it is virtually impossible to get consensus for change in WP policies (due to the "there will always be 20% oppose, not matter how sensible the proposal" principle). --] (]) 20:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Ethnicity, Gender, day 2 === | |||
| *Have to '''oppose''' this for now, as it doesn't seem to have been properly thought through. I share Noleander's concern above: there seems to be confusion between the questions of which categories should exist, and which articles should be placed in a category once it does exist. BLP is dealing with the second question; and on that question I think the criterion should be what information can be reliably sourced, nothing more, otherwise we'll end up with incomplete categories. Though generally speaking I'd be in favour of a move to limit the number of categories of these types that exist in the first place.--] (]) 10:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:Again, '''that is not the question'''. Unfortunately, as you well know, wikipedia editing doesn't actually work that way. In any case, that's not the argument made: that this ''policy'' trumps category creation and naming ''guidelines''. This brings this policy into line with existing guidelines, so there is no perceived conflict or nuance.<br />--] (]) 13:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't see any contradiction between the policy and guidelines (except in that the guidelines aren't worded particularly well), though I may do if you can point one out to me. As I see it, the guidelines (if you mean Overcategorization) are about what categories should(n't) exist; the policy (BLP) is about how we decide (in certain specific cases) whether to put a given article into a given existing category. Once we've decided that, say, the category "LGBT golfers" should exist because we think sexual orientation is a notable characteristic of golfers, then we can populate it without worrying ''for each individual'' whether their orientation is notable for their golf-playing. The issue addressed by BLP is that in the case of living persons we need to be especially wary of the danger of defamation when putting a living person into some category. (OK, I see that's not actually what the policy says; the whole thing needs tidying up, certainly, but I don't see that the solution is to extend to another two classes of categories the same somewhat muddle-headed thinking that's been applied to religion and orientation.)--] (]) 16:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:::'''Ramble.''' Yes, I think what I don't like is that this section of BLP is getting outside of its scope. BLP should be about protecting living people from potentially defamatory or privacy-breaching labels, not about preserving the usability of Misplaced Pages's category system, which is the job of other policies and guidelines that, most importantly, don't cease to apply when the subject dies. I can accept that sexual orientation and (perhaps to some extent) religion are potential BLP issues in that sense, but I don't think that gender or ethnicity normally are. If we want to control overcategorization based on these features, then we want to do it mainly because it overloads and overcomplicates the category system, with respect to both living ''and'' dead people, and so BLP is the wrong place to be doing this.--] (]) 16:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:About this "policies trump guidelines" thing: It's not actually true. See ]. For example, an immediately relevant guideline can 'trump' a vague policy. For another example, we never delete ] (a mere informational page) even if they (currently) violate ] (a major policy). ] (]) 01:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *::'''I agree''', and certainly that was the long-term consensus. Guidelines are simply more detailed than policy, usually with more examples and explanation. Unfortunately, a bit of recent ] brought this into question regarding ]. Simplest to make this policy exactly match the existing ] guidelines.<br />--] (]) 14:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Per proposer's rationale. Categorizing people by ethnicity, gender, etc. is only informational when the category is meaningful to the person's notable activities. On a related note, I'm firmly against the use of Misplaced Pages to promote the various social groups that some Wikipedians belong to. While there are certainly people opposed to this rules change who are so for principled (and not political) reasons, I've seen way too many of the recent BLP identification controversies not to note the fact that these usually stem from pride based identity politics (nationalistic, ethnic, religious, etc.). To those of us who do not belong to a certain group the categorizations become trivial at best, and to those who do belong they become badges of pride, or worse at times to some who do not belong they can be badges of hate, ridicule, scorn, etc. Let's leave the identity politics to the blogosphere and spend our time writing an encyclopedia. Cheers.] (]) 14:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Comment/question: Why should notability be tied to categorization by attribute of identity? I should think that categorizing people by well-sourced attributes of identity is an unalloyed good, or at least unless a reason can be given for why an individual should ''not'' be categorized by an attribute. Is there a reason that categories of identity should be related to the individual's reason for notability? Isn't this a project for bringing information to people? The principles of ] do not seem to me to be applicable to the proposed alteration to policy. WP:BLP emphasizes the ''"sensitivity"'' with which we must approach article-writing concerning living people. I find: ] How would that translate into creating rules in policy that prohibit categorizing people by well-sourced attributes of identity ''<u>unless</u>'' those attributes are related to notability? By what rationale would well-sourced and in many cases 100% innocuous information be blocked from inclusion in the categorization function of the project? I think that the default position should be for the ''inclusion'' of information. The proposed change in policy is to a default position of ''exclusion'' of information. How is that consistent with a project that ostensibly assembles sourced information? Special sensitivities apply to biographies of living people. In fact sensitivities should extend to those no longer living as well, in my opinion. But why should we enshrine in our policy language that the standard fare in information concerning personal attributes of identity should be ''excluded'' unless it can be demonstrated that these attributes have a strong connection to an individual's notability? ] (]) 14:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I'm sure this must be the third time recently I've opposed this. Kudos for not giving up, though. The purpose of the guidance on sexuality and religion is to protect a legitimate right to privacy and act against the genuine problem of categorisation ultimately based on rumour. The same issues don't arise for ethnicity and gender, however (or, the cases where they might are not common enough to justify the application of a blanket rule). There seems to be a rationale here that (per Griswaldo, above) "Categorizing people by ethnicity, gender, etc. is only informational when the category is meaningful to the person's notable activities". That's just not true in the first place. It's just as informational as the year in which someone was born, their nationality, the fact that they are a living person, their alma mater etc etc. There doesn't seem to be any specific logic being put forward as to why ethnicity and gender should be special cases. --] (]) 17:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*Ethnicity isn't 'information' - it is opinion. ] (]) 02:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why is ethnicity ''"opinion"?'' ] are up to the task of supplying us with the ethnicity for a person. If the source isn't "reliable" then an argument can be made that indeed we do not know the person's ethnicity. Another situation is not inconceivable in which two sources contradict one another in this regard. In such a case an editorial decision might be reached on an article Talk page that we do not know with assuredness that we know the individual's ethnicity. But in a case where sources clearly indicate what a person's ethnicity is—is it still opinion? Editors at individual articles need the latitude to make decisions of this sort. They should not be hobbled by overly simplistic policy. ] (]) 02:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Bus Stop, do you not understand that ethnicity is a ]? It is something that can only be 'true' in as much as people believe it to be so. This is all that needs to be said on the matter, and your endless going on about 'reliable sources' is of no consequence whatsoever - it is impossible to 'know' someone's ethnicity in any sense other than as an assertion that you know that someone says that the person is of this or that ethnicity: opinion. Frankly, I find your obsession with 'sources' for the plainly unsourcable tiresome and probably indicative of some deep insecurity about the issue - but this is of no relevance to the discussion. ] (]) 03:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why would ethnicity be ''"plainly unsourcable"?'' Sources all the time tell us about such aspects of a person's identity. Are you saying that under no circumstances can we rely on sources when they tell us what a person's ethnicity is? ] (]) 05:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::For the record, I simply must say that ] is opinion, too. Not everybody agrees on what year it is now. Same thing for geography. Almost every method of categorization and labeling is based on a normalized opinion. Most are universally accepted in the Western world, of course. But still... ] (]) 03:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, ethnicity is a "real" property just as much as all the other things we categorize people by. Is there really a clear physical divide between writers and non-writers, kings and non-kings, towns and non-towns? No, everything is fuzzy (like everything we write in articles is potentially fuzzy), but in determining what's true we defer to what reliable sources say (which is also a fuzzy matter, of course). --] (]) 08:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Except not. Ethnicity is a construct with strong ideological pressumptions. What these are depends exactly on what is meant by ethnicity; in the worst of cases, the usage of "ethnicity" in Misplaced Pages comes across as racial classification or attempts at group conscription that are out of place in an encyclopaedia. ] (]) 11:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Feketekave—you say ''"Ethnicity is a construct with strong ideological presumptions."'' Sources determine ethnicity. We are not presumed to have expertise in these areas. ] tell us what a person's ethnicity might be, if applicable. And if reliable sources are found to be in contradiction with one another then we may have an unresolvable problem. But standard procedure should be to see what sources say and then to follow their lead. You say, ''"in the worst of cases, the usage of "ethnicity" in Misplaced Pages comes across as racial classification or attempts at group conscription that are out of place in an encyclopedia."'' I don't think we should be saying what is ''"out of place in an encyclopedia."'' Misplaced Pages is ]. My perception is that many people are very interested in knowing the ethnicity of others. In many cases this is wholesome and innocuous. But I don't think we need to be imposing rules on the construction of this project with the purpose of creating a better world. Ethnicity is an attribute of identity. In biographies it is exceedingly common to find references to an individual's ethnicity, as well as to a variety of other personal attributes. I think editors should have free rein to reach decisions in this regard by discussion at article Talk pages or at the ]. ] (]) 02:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::We go by what sources say on ''matters of fact''. There is a basic philosophical difference here. What is at issue is not whether, say, a table is brown, but whether a certain kind of classification is meaningful and acceptable. There is so much leeway on this issue that there is barely any kind of fact, actual of false, here: rather, what is at issue is the exercise of the power of groups to conscript individuals or to classify other individuals according to blood. | |||
| :::::::Very many sources - and just about any serious, non-sectarian, general print encyclopaedia - will never indulge in such classification. Applying rules intended for matters of fact to this issue results in an enormous bias towards classification: it is enough for one source to classify, for whatever reason, and this will outweigh 99 sources that refuse to classify. ] (]) 09:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Incidentally, you are showing your colours clearly with your "wholesome" comment. ] (]) 09:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Feketekave—you say, ''"you are showing your colours clearly with your 'wholesome' comment."'' What are my ''"colours"'' and how am I showing those ''"colours"'' by my using the word ''"wholesome"?'' (My whole sentence was, ''"In many cases this is wholesome and innocuous."'') ] (]) 14:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Ethnicity, Gender, day 3 === | |||
| * '''Oppose''' While editors should use discretion, and err on the side of caution in those rare instances where the correct category is disputed, they should not be <s>prohibited from proving</s> required to prove that, for example, a monarch's gender is "notable" before placing the ruler in either ] or ]. Identifying the person's gender or ethnicity is not an invasion of privacy. ] (]) 01:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *#I think you might have an extra ''not'' in there, otherwise you are agreeing with me! Nobody in this proposal is "prohibited from proving" notability. On the contrary, other guidelines already require it!!! | |||
| *#While an "invasion of privacy" argument may seem easy with a ''']''' like highly public officials named Kings and Queens, it certainly wouldn't apply to sportspersons, etc.<br />--] (]) 14:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::You really think it's an invasion of privacy to identify a sportsperson as a man or a woman?!?--] (]) 14:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I repeat: as is required to document the result of many ''']'''. Many of those are sportsperson categories.<br />--] (]) 16:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You again seem to be confusing the question of whether categories should exist (which is what your link refers to) with that of whether to put an article in a given category (which is what this guideline refers to). Until we can get that distinction clear in all our minds, I don't see any point in further discussion. NickCT's comment below seems to sum up the "thinking" behind all the support for this proposal: ''"I'll support any policy wording that ethnic categorization more difficult"''. Never mind whether the resulting policy wording makes any logical sense. This still seems to me like a knee-jerk, improperly-thought-through reaction against what is widely perceived (quite reasonably) as excessive categorization and listing by ethnicity. We really need to ask the right questions, clearly, if we are to get meaningful answers.--] (]) 17:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support - for ethnicity''' Ethnicity is a highly subjective category. In current discourse, it depends partly on self-identification; when others - as often happens here - assign an ethnicity to an individual irrespective of this fact, many readers will reasonably assume that the individual identifies with the ethnicity in question. Moreover - ethnicity, if understood culturally, is a multiple and non-binary matter; if understood racially, it is a category that should most definitely not be used in Misplaced Pages.<br /><br />I would moreover be wary of having an instance or two of self-identification be taken in and of themselves as a sufficient criterion for ethnic labelling: the instances may be rhetorical, they may be a response to provocation, etc. ] (]) 11:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are you suggesting that living African-American musicians cannot be included in the Category ] unless they publicly say "I am African American"? Or that living Jews cannot be included in ] unless they say "I am Jewish"? That is not sensible, and - as a practical matter - will never be followed. Mind you, I have no objection to requiring that there be a Reliable Source that asserts the ethnicity, but the requirement for ''self-identification'' is not reasonable. --] (]) 15:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would suggest that both the category and (certainly) the list you mention have no place in an encyclopaedia. ] (]) 19:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, in fact, those two things already require self-identification via the guidelines. Certainly after death, we require a consensus of sources. But more importantly, self-identification rarely comes up, because it's not both notable and relevant.<br />--] (]) 16:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Hey ], as someone who's conversed with you in the past and generally been impressed by your reasoning, I'm disappointed we fall on different sides of this issue. I think the basic problem here is that there exist editors on WP, who finds out that "Black Times Weekly" notes that John Doe's great granddad was african american, and so they want to apply ] to John Doe. We need some kind of policy that explicitly prevents this kind of practice. Could I beg you to reconsider your position? ] (]) 16:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::NickCT: Thanks for the insight about the "Black Times Weekly" situation you are citing ... I've never really seen that situation before, but I can see how it might happen. My experiences have been pretty straightforward: the editor must supply an excellent reliable source that squarely puts the individual within the category (ethnicity, religion, etc). Cant there be some middle ground between "self identification" (which would eliminate much valuable and accurate info from the encyclopedia) and "any old source" (which is your Weekly example)? Every editing decision in WP comes down to judgement and consensus. I think the best middle-ground guideline is: "Ethnicity must be determined by reliable sources" and let editors work it out on the Talk pages. --] (]) 17:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::That example isn't a problem. A statement in a source that John Doe's granddad was African American isn't the same as a statement that John Doe is African American, so it doesn't cut it in the first place as far as categorisation goes. What if John Doe is quoted as saying: "My granddad was African American"? And why the need for a rule to address a non-problem when it produces the bizarre side-effect that even if Stevie Wonder's own mother is quoted in the back page of the Bible as saying that he is African American, the category has to go until he says it himself? --] (]) 16:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::@] - Ok, so what if the source is an article on "notable black musicians", and it mentions John Doe's grand dad is African American in a way that might infer that John Doe himself could be considered African American. I promise you there are editors who would take this as sufficient grounds to categorize John Doe. re Stevie Wonder, I take your point. Really, I'm mostly worried about places where race/ethnicity is an open question. I think when there is a huge slew of RS noting an individual as being African American (as is probably the case with Wonder) with no RS arguing to the contrary, it's probably OK to categorize Wonder as such. At the moment though, I'm more concerned with over-zealous ethnic categorization, rather than over-cautious ethnic categorization; hence, I support the rewording. ] (]) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, if you think "when there is a huge slew of RS noting an individual as being African American ... with no RS arguing to the contrary, it's probably OK", then I think you ought to oppose this proposal. That's not to say there isn't an issue, just that this isn't the right solution. In cases where there are contradicting sources etc we already have policies (chiefly ] and ]) that should work. If they are not working, I agree that's a problem. But a proposal that will prevent as much good editing as it will bad is not the answer.--] (]) 17:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, the thing is, I'm more concerned that ambiguous cases are inappropriately labelled, than that obvious cases aren't labelled. If we can't have some really clear and consistently followed policy on ethnic categorization, than it's best to be as conservative as possible when categorizing; however, I would support some additional wording to the policy that says something like "when there is a huge slew of RS ... it's probably OK". As sort of a thought experiment, I've mocked something up ]. ] (]) 17:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yes, this is an excellent idea. It aims for a good middle ground between draconian exclusion and the wishy-washy inclusion. It attempts to codify what is really happening in the Categories & Lists, so it reflects a broader consensus. I'll take a stab at tweaking your sandbox wording (just revert if you want to manage it yourself). --] (]) 18:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Tweak away. The correct way to deal with this might be to have several interested just to brainstorm language. ] (]) 18:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Okay, I've refined the text to make it as crystal-clear as possible. I removed some duplication, consolidated similar things, made explicit was what implicit, and added a few examples. Other editors are free to continue refining. The draft text is in Nicks sandbox ]. --] (]) 19:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Self-identification may or may not be a valid criteria. But what about "relevance to notability"? Somebody could presumably repeatedly self-identify, yet still be removed from the category because somebody says it's not relevant to their career. That's the most inexplicable part of this proposal to me. And one no one seems to be talking about. NickCT, in your sandbox proposal, if "B" is true, why do you need "A"? ] (]) 18:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Precisely - the text of the article should mention these matters only when relevant, and these lists and categories are extremely controversial in part because, by their own rationale, they run against any sensible policy of the kind that is being proposed. If these matters can be left to the text of the article, then a non-mention that X is supposedly Fooish, Fayish or X-Y will in no way imply that X is not Fooish, not Fayish or not X-Yian. Lists and especially categories force these complicated matters in one way or the other. ] (]) 19:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Yeah. I partially agree. We should include some kind of provision for explicit self-identification. ] (]) 18:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're saying a provision that says explicit self-identification is enough to list them in the category, regardless of whether someone things it's relevant or not? ] (]) 19:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support - for ethnicity''' - I've made arguments on this topic in several forums, which I don't care to repeat. Needless to say, people ought to be categorized by ethnicity very cautiously. I'll support any policy wording that ethnic categorization more difficult. ] (]) 16:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly oppose''' regarding ethnicity as unencyclopedic, POV, and ] regarding the relevance of personal identity as a valid categorization of people in the world. It's also very naive, as self identification is but one of a number of factors pertaining to individual identity, others including social construction, external perception, and legal classification. This would basically do away with a range of knowledge (ethnic studies, concerns of ancestry and heritage, etc) that has deep cultural and scholarly relevance. I would also dispute that we can legislate this kind of ] from the top down on a page like this. There is obviously consensus on Misplaced Pages for inclusion of categories like Jewish-American X, or X of Irish descent, because those categories, lists, and articles are duly sourced and have long been a part of the encyclopedia, but just as obviously there are editors who have sought to do away with all of these, many based on the stated opinion, biased and offensive to some, that ethnicity doesn't mean anything. You are six-feet-two, or from Minnesota, or of Irish descent, whether or not you identify as such, and whether or not it is a significant part of your notability. If a person suffers from Parkinson's disease, we can put them in a category of sufferers from Parkinson's disease even though with few exceptions that's not what they're notable. From whence the opinion that being of Jewish descent is something to purge from the encyclopedia? I have not contemplated gender, and wonder what that arises from. - ] (]) 21:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*''It's also very naive, as self identification is but one of a number of factors pertaining to individual identity, others including social construction, external perception, and legal classification.'' That's exactly why identifying people by ethnicity is problematic to begin with. There is no uniform understanding of ethnicity and when identity politics are involved the situation becomes even muddier. I'm not sure it's the support arguments that are naive on those grounds. Just the opposite.] (]) 21:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Griswaldo—you say ''"There is no uniform understanding of ethnicity…"'' ], for our purposes, determine ethnicity. We need not have expertise in this area. We need not personally grasp all that there is to know about ethnicity. It is your assumption that there is no ''"uniform understanding of ethnicity"'' but in point of fact reliable sources use the term all the time. It is only rarely that sources are in conflict about what an individual's ethnicity might be. In those instances that sources adequately identify an ethnicity for a subject, I think that becomes usable information just as any other well-sourced information. ] (]) 02:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If I humor your claim for a second can you tell me how often reliable sources say something like "John Doe is ethnically Lilliputian"? I can answer that for you, they rarely ever do. Instead they say, "John Doe is Lilliputian". For some so called ethnicities, this isn't a big problem. "African-American" fits that bill for instance, but for most it is highly problematic. If your source says "John Doe is Serbian," how do I know it doesn't just mean he is a citizen of the ], which is a nationality and not a so called ethnicity? If your source says, "John Doe is Chinese," which of the ] does that mean he belongs to? If your source says "John Doe is Jewish", does it mean he is "ethnically" Jewish even if he's ]? The truth is that sources rarely ever make emphatic categorizations of ethnicity, instead they ambiguously identify people with identifiers that may or may not really be ethnic (as opposed to national, religious, etc.). So yes we rely on sources, but if you really wanted to rely on sources that clearly identify ethnicities good luck.] (]) 03:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::We go by what reliable sources say. Don't forget the reader is exposed to the same sources that the editors are exposed to. The reader inhabits the same world that we editors inhabit. We share in common the available sources. The only difference is that the reader is presumed to be ignorant of the ethnicity of the person being researched, and we have to see to it that we determine what reliable sources have to say in regard to the ethnicity of the person that a biography is written about. If nothing serves to identify the person as regards ethnicity then obviously we report nothing for ethnicity. But the default position should not be that we report nothing as concerns ethnicity. An encyclopedia is a meeting of minds between reader and writer. The mediator between reader and writer (or editor) is the reliable source. Reliable sources are also writing for readers. Our job is to compile information. If our sources are indicating an ethnicity for a person then there is a good likelihood that will suffice for the reader's purposes. Yes, it is true that sometimes this is more clear than in other cases. But that is still not a reason to fail to report on an attribute of identity that is in demand by readers and that is being supplied by reliable sources. ] (]) 03:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia of all things, including social constructs like ethnicity, race, and gender identity. It's naive to think that self-identification is either a necessary or sufficient basis for determining ethnicity, even if we were in a position to decide that. But we aren't in that position, the sources are. Nor are we free to do away with ethnicity as a sourced attribute of people just because it's complicated. Ethnicity, or gender identity, is not necessarily a contentious or negative thing, which is where the POV comes in. Some people just don't like ethnicity or consider it valid, and some of the comments here reflect that. Other people derive great meaning from it, as fuzzy as the boundaries are, and would as I said be offended to be told that it does not matter. Yet others are chauvinistic. Some resent being categorized, and many people ignore it. Anyone who's watched the subject of identity politics knows that there are strong feelings on many sides of this. Deciding that ethnicity is not a valid way to categorize people, or that self-identification is the only valid means, is taking one side of a contentious issue. - ] (]) 23:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Other people derive great meaning from it.'' So what? We are not a social network for people who are interested in reaffirming their own personal sentiments of national or ethnic belonging. As I said in my response to Bus Stop, the sources are rarely clear about whether or not an identification they make is properly understood as "ethnic" in the first place. A source might say, "John Doe is a German," but it will rarely if ever say, "John Doe is an ethnic German," or "John Doe's ethnicity is German." What does being a German mean? Depending on the context, "being German" might actually mean any number of things, but it does not unequivocally mean being of German "ethnicity," that's for damn sure. My own perspective has nothing to do with any strong feelings about ethnic identification. What I would like to do is to keep everyone's strong feelings about ethnicity out of the encyclopedia as much as possible. Now I don't think that we do this at the expense of losing quality information either. These types of identifications are only meaningful if the context in which they are being utilized is fully explained -- who is making the claim, what group are they referring to, what does it mean to them to be a member of that group, etc. The idea that a category label, or a list of people can ever provide this context is simply absurd. So no, we don't lose anything even remotely informative by being stricter with our ethnic categories. Cheers.] (]) 03:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Griswaldo—you say, ''"We are not a social network for people who are interested in reaffirming their own personal sentiments of national or ethnic belonging."'' Nor are we trying to be. We go by what sources say. Our aim as editors should be to adhere as closely to what sources say as possible. You say, ''"These types of identifications are only meaningful if the context in which they are being utilized is fully explained -- who is making the claim, what group are they referring to, what does it mean to them to be a member of that group, etc."'' That is not always 100% correct. We exercise judgement in matters of an editorial nature all the time. True—if we are confronted with a situation in which actual ethnicity is frustratingly unclear—we may have no alternative but to fail to address that dimension of a person's identity. But sources commonly try to address questions that concern an individual's relation to a group. This is exceedingly common in biographies. Biographers often try to flesh out the derivation of the individual from an originating group. If this is complex—then more than one category may be necessary. You are expressing your personal opinion when you say, ''"The idea that a category label, or a list of people can ever provide this context is simply absurd."'' In fact sometimes this is quite straightforward. But no matter what the case may be—if reliable sources can be found going to pains to explain what group of people this individual derives from or belongs to—that is usable information. The reader should be presumed to be interested in that information. And the reverse is operational as well: a reader may be able to ''only'' recall the ethnicity of a person whose name they are ignorant of or have forgotten. The purpose of editorship, or at least one of the purposes of editorship, is bringing together the pieces of information in a workable project. Categorizing by ethnicity facilitates research. ] (]) 03:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Ethnicity, Gender, day 4 === | |||
| *Support for ethnicity only. This is not something that is provable/falsifiable/scientific like gender. ] (]) 06:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::First off I have to point out that it seems obvious that Donama was by William Allen Simpson and that was by using language that is not completely neutral: ''"Trying to remove an end-around of WP:EGRS that's being exploited."'' | |||
| ::In response to Donama—not everything has to be ''"provable"'' or ''"scientific".'' At WP:VERIFY we find: ] Ethnicity need not be ''scientifically provable'' or ''true.'' Incidental sources as well as more focussed biographies address such questions, and that establishes ''fact'' regarding these issues. ] (]) 15:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' BLPCAT and EGRS have been the centre of substantial ] particularly over the last 18months - previously on this page there has been discussion about removing/repairing the policy with little progress. Without resolving issues such as verifiable, relevant identification which is not "self-identified" as well as the fact that Lists and Infoboxes can contain caveats yet are included in a section that exists because categories cannot have caveats, we should not allow further instructions to creep in. ] (]) 06:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''No consensus''' - Clearly there is no consensus here. Rather than wasting more time with alternating Support and Oppose !votes, the issues need to be broken down into smaller chunks. Specifically: (1) gender vs ethnicity: several editors above explained they would support one but not the other; and (2) category vs list: several editors indicated they would support one but not the other. For instance, a proposal to add Ethnicity (but not gender) for categories (not lists) would, perhaps, garner more support. --] (]) 05:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :In any case, if some consensus could be reached, there might be exceptions. Especially regarding people who are trying to hide some ethnic/gender characteristics that might be relevant to their activity that has been widely commented upon by WP:RS, especially should they be trying to cover up some questionable, bigoted, criminal, etc. behavior. ] (]) 05:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for ethnicity. Gender is somewhat tricky when it comes to BLP and lists.--] (]) 14:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : | |||
| *'''Support''' per nom. ] (]) 19:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::You should disclose that you were blatantly canvassed by the proposer . --] (]) 21:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, the dude spent the canvassing. I know life isn't "fair", but someone should take this into consideration. ] (]) 04:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not sure if that qualifies as canvassing since I was part of a similar discussion on this same talk page over a related issue not too long ago. My two cents. ] (]) 18:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *''' Canvassing?''' - The originator of this proposal has invited several individuals to comment (see contrib history for March 9th). The invitations explicitly state that the proposer is "trying to remove an end-around of WP:EGRS that's being exploited." If we are going to invite people, the invitations should be made to Projects, and the invitations should remain silent on the POV of the inviter. --] (]) 05:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :He's already quite a times during process. We can add to the list of those successfully canvassed. Not too shabby. ] (]) 06:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've also been but openly my POV is opposed to the nomination so in my case at least it may be seen as neutral canvassing ] (]) 06:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I disagree with the canvassing accusation. Misplaced Pages rules allow individuals to be contacted if they have been involved in a particular discussion previously. (I have been contacted, as I have been discussing this particular issue a couple of months ago, and in several articles.) But, I do think that this applies only when people with differing opinions are approached equally. Otherwise, it could be considered canvassing.--] (]) 14:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You seem to miss the point that the notification was not neutrally worded. That makes it seem a clear case of canvassing to me. --] (]) 16:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The notifications that Noleander points to were indeed ''not'' neutrally worded, and as such would constitute a breach of the guidelines on such notifications. However, the earlier notifications All Hallow's Wraith points to were different, and in my view neutral. I received one of those earlier notifications myself. Now, that said I think people are making more of this than needs to be. If he contacted individuals who are opposed to his perspective, and did so with a non-neutral message, that non-neutral message is going to have an adverse effect on his desired outcome. The real problem with canvassing is not the tone of the message but who gets it. Its clear that he did not discriminate in that sense. Now someone warn him or take him to AN/I about this if you want more satisfaction, but please don't use it as a means to poison the well here. If you think the discussion is too tainted to continue then propose a way to fix it, but again don't just taint it more with talk about someone's conspiracy to manipulate the result. Thanks.] (]) 16:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::For what it is worth, I would not mind being contacted on the issue in the future. ] (]) 16:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Well, ] does say "However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate". This would appear to have been the goal of the initial canvassing as well. ] (]) 22:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I was asked to comment here. The restriction on religion and sexual orientation exists because those are generally considered to be subjective personal matters which only the subject can truly designate. OTOH, gender and ethnicity can be determined objectively. There are good arguments that we should not routinely categorize people by their ethnicity and gender, but I think there are better arguments for using those categories where they help the reader find articles of interest, which is the purpose of categories. <b>] ] </b> 22:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Ethnicity, Gender, day 5 === | |||
| *'''Support''' for ethnicity, not gender. Someone was kind enough to inform me of this discussion on a topic about which I've had a strong interest for many years, and it's clear to me that this specific inconsistency needs to be explicitly addressed, particularly as there are on-going and often nearly intractable ] issues with the current wording. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 02:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''support''' for ethnicity. I think gender requires special rules as it is generally non-controversial, except in certain cases where it becomes an important blp-issue, I think this needs to be thought through very thoroughly.] 22:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I have no idea why WAS thought I might have something to contribute to this discussion. I haven't participated on this talk page since June 2009, and it was on a topic entirely unrelated to ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexuality. Nor is this proposal explained well enough for a layman to be able to express any useful opinion on it. All I can say, as an uninvolved editor, is that something seems fishy in the way WAS is going about this. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 13:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:Because the rules require that everybody who participated in the relevant section is supposed to be notified, regardless of position. You do have to read the links (in the section above) to understand this topic. Sorry you weren't interested, but thanks for your help.<br />--] (]) 21:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *::What relevant section is that? ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 03:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Several sections of ]<br />--] (]) 05:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *As with LtPowers, I am confused as to why I received a notification on my talk page indicating an unacceptably high level of ] is occurring within this discussion. Based upon the comments I have read, I wonder if the problem is ] instead of Wikilawyering. --'']'' <sup>]</sup> 21:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:Sorry that you are no longer interested in ]. "Unfortunately this means cleaning up articles after the periodic appearance of someone obsessed with ethnicity/religion/nationality/blood type/anatomical measurements of porn stars feels the need to add (usually unsourced speculation about) such characteristics."<br />--] (]) 05:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I was also just canvassed by WAS.. <s>but anyway, I '''oppose''' his proposal.</s> Ethnicity and gender are things reliable sources can decide, even when the subject hasn't "publically self-identified" with them. If reliable sources say ] is of Haitian descent, then I think we should include it, regardless of whether or not he's said anything about it publically. After all, Charlie Sheen publically self-identified as being from Mars - should we change his ethnicity to "Martian"? (sorry, I couldn't resist. :D ) ] (]) 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I misunderstood; I didn't realise we were talking about inclusion in categories. ] (]) 21:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Upon further reflection, the problem seems to be whether articles like ] (and therefore ]) meet the ]. They don't ''obviously'' satisfy this guideline.. and there doesn't seem to be consensus about how to resolve this. ] (]) 01:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Despite leading the opposition to this nonsense, I wouldn't even necessarily vote to keep these categories. While we do have the category American people of Haitian descent, however, it should be accurate and not bound by inexplicable rules that someone made up and added to EGRS without the help of a single other editor. It's not even about self-identification. Derülo could repeatedly self-identify as Haitian-American, and apparently he could still be de-listed if someone thinks it's not "notable" to his career (and I would say it's not). ] (]) 01:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::My point was that without a reliable source which talks about "American people of Haitian descent" ''as a group or set'', then it fails the notability guideline. If no such source exists, then should we have a list / category on it? That's the fundamental question.. and the community appears to be divided on it (as mentioned in ]). ] (]) 02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Right, but that's to do with the existence of the category itself. Like I said, I wouldn't necessarily vote to keep these categories. I was saying that while they exist, why wouldn't Derülo be in it? And what does the BLP policy have to do with him being in it? If reliable sources agree that he's of Haitian descent, what possible harm or damage can it do to include him in it? ] (]) 02:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I see; yes, you're right. The proposal that started this thread is not the way this problem should be fixed. The problem is the existence of the lists/categories in the first place. ] (]) 03:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Simpson spent the day . I will give him credit for being so persistent, I suppose. But this is ridiculous. ] (]) 00:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:Not exactly "the day" — looks like about 15 minutes today (21:22–21:36). But perhaps you could explain your ] my contributions, yet again!?!? Of course, bringing a topic to the attention of interested groups of editors is a requirement; see the quotation I've already posted several days ago. It's always best to do no more than a dozen at a time, as recommended by the policy process. '''PLEASE STOP asserting "bad ]"''', over and over and over again.<br />--] (]) 05:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Following edits that are directly related to what we're doing here (like, oh, asking over 30 people to ''come over here using non-neutral language'') is not considered wiki-stalking. How else are we supposed to know someone is canvassing? Guess? You asked 15 people to come over here just '''today''' using loaded language. Yes, that is relevant to this conversation, without question. BTW, speaking of your "quotation" from WP:CANVASS, maybe you should read the rest of the page. Like the parts about what's considered inappropriate: "Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand"; "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner."; "Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement"). All of the above is true of what you've been doing, so yes, it does need to be mentioned. ] (]) 07:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Ethnicity, Gender, day 6 === | |||
| *'''Support'''. Persons, living or dead, do not usually need to be categorized by ethnicity or gender, unless there's a clear reason to do so, but if there is such a clear reason, then it's fine. This is what ] already says. The issue here is that ]'s wording implies that EGRS only applies to dead people (and non-people), and BLP's wording trumps that of EGRS because the former is a policy and the latter a guideline. They should be in agreement, to avoid confusion and nonsense. And to avoid blathery week-long flamewars like this one. Existence of a category (and its survival at ]) is generally "a clear reason" for these purposes. There is no reason at all to create ], but there is (for better or worse) a general consensus that ] is useful, and that anyone who qualifies for this category should have their article so categorized, or there would be no point to having the category. So, "oppose" !votes above that complain that categories won't be properly populated are silly. I.e., this entire "debate" is mostly not a rational discussion, but a bunch of miscommunication. No proposal to change actual practice or redefine common sense is before us, only a proposal to make two WP guidance documents agree with one another so that common sense is actually more likely to prevail. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 07:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC) @Mlm42: Yes, reliable sources can be used, carefully, to categorize someone in ways that the subject has not publicly spoken about, or even to contradict the subject. You also beg the question, though. If Charlie Sheen does in fact self-identify as a Martian, and can be reliably sourced as doing so, this is possibly notable information for his article. Not that WP would say he ''is'' a Martian, but that he ''says'' he is a Martian. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ***WP:EGRS says this because William Allen Simpson added it to that page after no discussion with other parties whatsoever and no agreement to add it. I never said (and no one else did either) that because BLP didn't say it, it doesn't count. I said it doesn't count because there was no agreement to add it and only one person had brought it up/added it/reverted it back into the article. And you're here because he you over today. ] (]) 07:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Please don't make assumptions about my motivations and rationales. I'm here because I was notified of the discussion and it interested me. W.A.S.'s opinion on the matter pro or con had nothing to do with it. If you check my record at CfD and elsewhere, you'll find I've been plenty active in discussions about proper categorization of people, overcategorization, handling of living people, etc. While I agree that the tone of the notification I received was biased, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of either side of the debate. If ]'s wording were disputed any any significant number of people, a discussion like this would be taking place at its talk page instead, and the entire thread here would be marked {{tlx|Resolved|1{{=}}Moot; language at ] under consideration for inclusion in BLP is disputed at EGRS.}} — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 18:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for ethnicity. The gender issue should be argued separately, hopefully not by wikilawyers. I believe I have said this before... having oddball ethnicity categories is just a problem waiting to happen. For example, if a famous person's article were to be stealth-vandalized by including them into some oddball ethnic category, a type of electronic graffiti, they could place that person in the electronic ghetto of mind-numbing ethnic categorization. I know it happens all the time, especially when some celebrity makes a publicized racist comment, they often get put into every category imaginable, from ] and ] to ]. Adding a BLP to an ethnic category requires no proof, no sources, and leads to both mistakes and vandalism. Let's prefer not to do that without good sources. The gender category would be less likely to offend, as a person's gender is rarely controversial and therefore it would seem unlikely to cause significant problems. (Any examples?) ] (]) 08:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **For the record, Uruiamme was using loaded language. P.S. - the requirement being added here isn't "good sources" (I hope we can all agree that's required already). It's self-identification, which isn't so bad, and "notability to career", which is inexplicable and impossible to define. ] (]) 08:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ***For the record, haven't you over-worked that angle? I immediately thought I was indeed canvassed, (knee jerk) but I realized that I had indeed commented on this elsewhere and that we refer to it differently. (I needed to assume good faith.) Why do you take up other people's offenses for them? Are you a lawyer? Could I not have defended myself against canvassing without your cries of foul? | |||
| ***By good sources, I mean sources of notability to a person's career. Like a footballer of a particular ethnicity -- not related to a person's career but sports sources may spin it into a topic. My view is that a footballer's career is not going to be related to their ethnicity without some good sources. Their gender, well, I think is different. It would be very instructive to consider why ]' ethnicity and religion are apparently notable, while ]' ethnicity and sex are categorized, but ] is notable for neither his race, his gender, nor religion. Now, certainly not all of those categories would be changed in this proposal, but I wanted to throw out some big names to see if anyone else can spot some potential problems and extrapolate them to rank-and-file BLP articles. ] (]) 09:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ****I don't think I "over-worked" it. Easily half the support votes here have come from people William Allen Simpson has personally canvassed, and with a loaded message, to boot. That's an issue. He canvassed 15 people just today. That's an issue. I don't really understand what you're saying re notability, and indeed, it seems everyone has their own take on what it means. That's part of the problem. Are you saying that if multiple sources have given someone's ethnicity coverage, it's notable enough for a category? How would that be decided? (and it doesn't quite say so in the proposal). Aside from that, how does one decide "multiple"? ] (]) 10:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *****I do not see the language used as notably non-neutral, and, at any rate, that would have been something that can work both ways. It is clear that Mr. Simpson contacted interested parties on both sides of the issue. For the record, I was not contacted. Let us stick to the issues. ] (]) 11:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| '''Comment''' - All Hallow's Wraith please stop poisoning well. Enough is enough. If you think William Allen Simpson has acted improperly then take the matter to one of the many venues in which editor behavior is scrutinized. You have made your point here already over, and over, and over, and over. Few people seem to agree with it btw, but that's not the point. The point is that this venue is for discussing the proposal being made and not for complaining about canvassing. If you continue to do so I will have no choice but to assume bad faith -- that, ironically, ''you'' are trying to manipulate the result here through well poisoning. Cheers.] (]) 16:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Indeed. W.A.S. did obviously canvas, but that's an issue for his talk page or, if someone's going to have a real fit about it, for ]. Has nothing to do with the issues raised. A.H.W., please read ]. I say that as someone who has made the mistake of over-repeating arguments in debates like this, so it's not a slap, just a "learn from my mistakes" word of advice. — <font face="Trebuchet MS">''']''' <span style="white-space:nowrap;">] ʕ(<sup>Õ</sup>ل<sup>ō</sup>)ˀ</span> <small>].</small></font> 18:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Ethnicity, Gender, day 7 === | |||
| *'''Reminder''': links to the excellent compilation of prior WP:CFD decisions about suitable categorization of: | |||
| *#] | |||
| *#] | |||
| *:The vast majority of these categories were deleted. Of those kept, some have a restriction on their notability, relevance, and self-identification. While these results were frequently codified in the category naming and EGRS pages, this discussion is about adding these two words (and '''only these words''') to this policy, to better reflect prior decisions and conform to all other guidelines.<br />--] (]) 04:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **I don't necessarily support the existence of some of these categories, but the fact that they exist and who is categorized in them are two very different issues. ] (]) 04:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ***That's not a meaningful analysis. Suppose the majority of new articles about high school athletes are deleted for lack of notability. That doesn't mean the community has decided Misplaced Pages should not cover high school athletes. - ] (]) 07:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ****That's not a meaningful objection. This is '''not''' about articles, this is about categories/lists/templates/etc. When these categories have been agreed upon, the agreement almost always discusses or restricts the membership. Therefore, these are not separate issues.<br />--] (]) 14:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *****Again, not a meaningful conclusion. It's a pretty simple logical fallacy. Nearly all rocks are judged to be small. Therefore, we ignore boulders. The meaningful categories on notable subjects are rarely deleted, only when a closing admin legislates policy (the ones I've seen have been overturned on review) or when something sneaks by without anyone noticing. It's a straw man argument to pose things like Swedish-American knitters, point out that category or others like it have been deleted, and use as an argument for a categorical exclusion of ethnicity that people are supposedly promoting trivia. - ] (]) 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment'''. I was asked to comment here, but it's a lot to read. Is the proposal saying that we may not describe or categorize someone as Welsh—even if she was born and raised in Wales to Welsh parents and has never lived anywhere else—unless she has actually said of herself: "I am Welsh"? <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 07:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *#We'd already categorize your example by nationality in ], or ] as some variant of '''People from''' Wales, so I'm not sure that's a good example. | |||
| *#However, for somebody who has never lived in Wales and is merely Welsh by descent: '''yes''', plus an independent third party has said, "Her acting skills draw upon that Welsh background, as her best work has been playing Welsh characters." Otherwise, it's not relevant or notable — no better than categorizing by eye color or blood type. | |||
| *#Moreover, '''that is not the question'''. A preponderance of guidelines already require notability, relevance, and self-identification (see ], and late November's ].) | |||
| *#We are only discussing whether to explicitly add two words ("ethnicity, gender,") to this policy to bring it into conformance with all other guidelines. | |||
| *#So far, nobody has given any rationale for making BLP an exception to the general rule. Do you know any reason we would categorize/listify/etc. a ''living'' person as Welsh, then delete them from the category/list/etc. after they died?<br />--] (]) 14:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::William Allen Simpson—you say, immediately above: | |||
| ::::And you also say, immediately above: | |||
| ::::But so far you have not given any ''reason'' why we should add "ethnicity" and "gender" to this policy. | |||
| ::::You imply immediately above that the ''reason'' might be And you also imply at the top of this discussion that the ''reason'' might be Is that the extent of the ''reasons'' that you have for the change that you are proposing? Again, the only two ''reasons'' that I am aware of that you have given for your proposed change is: | |||
| ::::1. ''"to bring it into conformance with all other guidelines"'' | |||
| ::::and | |||
| ::::2. ''"to reduce quibbling"'' | |||
| ::::Have you offered any other ''reasons?'' ] (]) 16:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Hi William, the proposal says: "Categories regarding ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the information in question ..." That means someone would have to say "I am Welsh," or similar, before we could categorize them as Welsh, no matter how obvious it was. Comparing gender and ethnicity to religious beliefs and sexual orientation doesn't quite work, because it's not obvious what a person's religion is unless they have self-identified in some way; the same is usually true of sexual orientation. But with ethnicity it's often obvious, and there would usually be no reason for a person to say "I am Welsh," or "I am a man." So we would sometimes end up not being allowed to state what was demonstrably true.<p> Personally, I don't think this matters much, because we categorize living people too much anyway, so trying to reduce that is a good thing. But it would be so counter-intuitive not to be allowed to say of an English male writer that he was an English male writer that enforcement would be impossible, so I fear this is a proposal that wouldn't work in practice even if it's accepted on this page. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 17:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::*#Part of the problem with the use here of "Welsh" is it could either be a nationality or ethnicity. When used in an occupation, that might be ]. No need for self-identification. | |||
| ::*#But some folks seem to want to categorize people (who are not Welsh citizens) with one or more Welsh parents (or grandparents, or great-grandparents) as Welsh, too. There are people in 4 or more ethnic categories. | |||
| ::*#Likewise, we don't have a gendered ] or even ], whether or not they self-identify. Simply not notable or relevant. | |||
| ::*#Instead, we have ]. For that we need notability, relevance, '''and''' self-identification. | |||
| ::*#An example given earlier in this discussion has clearly stated that he doesn't want to be pigeon-holed by his ethnicity. Yet folks here argue we should categorize him anyway, because it is "obvious", and can be verified from multiple sources. That's wrong! | |||
| ::*:But in practice, this only provides us with a hook to gently remind errant editors that categorizing/listing/etc. people as such is against a policy or guideline. A never ending quest perhaps. (frown)<br />--] (]) 23:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::William Allen Simpson—you say, ''"An example given earlier in this discussion has clearly stated that he doesn't want to be pigeon-holed by his ethnicity."'' Which person are you referring to? ] (]) 23:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support.''' I see no reason to have such categories. --] (]) 15:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. I definitely oppose this proposal when it comes to gender, and less strongly oppose it for ethnicity as well. Both are generally objective enough that we can assign them based on descriptions in reliable sources, without having to wait for the subject to identify themselves. (Obviously, if they have identified themselves as a particular ethnicity, that should take precedence over what the sources say.) As for the suggestion that 'our current approach means treating BLPs differently' - I don't see how. We should adopt exactly the same approach for biographies of dead people: self-identity should not be required in order to categorise them into a gender or ethnicity-based category. ] (]) 16:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *:As an afterthought: wouldn't this proposal mean we would be unable to categorise someone as 'French', 'Russian', 'Japanese' or 'Korean', unless they have actually stated 'I am French/Russian/Japanese/Korean/whatever'? If that's right, it seems like a complete non-starter to me; since the vast majority of citizens of those countries are of those ethnicities, most of them probably don't see any need to explicitly state it. ] (]) 17:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *::I'm pretty sure this is yet another '''].''' You know that we don't put any people in Heritage categories who are already covered by Nationality + Occupation? Of course you do, I remember you from years ago.<br />--] (]) 23:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', per reasons explained extensively in the section below. --]] 19:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Is it me, or is it not appropriate for William Allen Simpson to be making personal appeals to the apparent closing editor (Raul654) that includes more loaded language () and running tallies ("). He also originally summoned Raul654 with the same type of language ("). Surely there's something not quite right with this? ] (]) 01:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::That is improper. This page should be where arguments and counterarguments are made. Most involved people's eyes are on this page. There is no reason (that I can think of) that any one editor involved in this process should be making a special appeal to the closing administrator. ] (]) 01:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| === Ethnicity, Gender, day 8 === | |||
| *'''Oppose''', especially for the reasons well-articulated by Wikidemon. And because this proposed expansion would lead to another diversion of editorial energy from (i) developing and organizing verifiable content dervied from reliable sources to (ii) behind-the-scenes procedural disputation based on particular editors' preconceptions about what sort of content they like and don't like. For me, at least, this is a happier place when there is more of the former and less of the latter. --] (]) 06:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*Err... you mean the opposite. It seems that this would force a user to work ''less'' on the trivial aspect of tagging their favorite celebrity's ethnicity and ''more'' on actually building an encyclopedia. ] 07:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for ethnicity. Neutral on gender at the moment. I see where some of these problems lay concerning gender overclassification, but it's such a ''minor'' problem compared to the <u>massive train-wreck</u> that is "reporting ethnicity" on Misplaced Pages, that I don't feel it's necessary for now. Griswaldo has made a stellar point regarding the misconception that it's easy to find external sources that report a person's <u>ethnicity</u>. It's not. In most cases (especially cases where there is no relevance attributed to the mention), it's near impossible. On the other hand, if their ethnicity ''is'' relevant, it's fairly easy to find a source reporting it for that person. Also, I think a lot of ''red herring'' arguments are being made on the oppose sections here. Nobody is suggesting we "do away with ethnicity" on Misplaced Pages. ] 07:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::If no sources can be found for something, it shouldn't be in the article, much less categorized. I don't think there's any debate on that. I've probably personally removed more uncited ethnicity categories than almost anyone else participating in this discussion. The difference, I feel, is that I want to remove uncited categories and some of this guideline's supporters want to remove cited ones. This proposal will let them do that. And yes, I've seen much argument over the understanding of this- or that-ethnicity related guideline on Misplaced Pages. It does take away time from valuable editors. ] is so simple, direct, easy-to-explain, and obvious that it should be all we need. Using that policy alone, you could go out there right now and remove probably 70% of ethnicity categories. Isn't that good enough? ] (]) 07:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Bulldog123—I don't think ethnicity reporting for individuals should be construed as the final word on the subject. I don't think the reader should be understood to be utterly accepting of everything they read. We should be utilizing sources to not mislead, more than to firmly answer for a person's ethnicity. What I am saying is that I don't think there is an unreasonable amount of harm in categorizing someone where they may not 100% fit. I do not think sources have to literally and precisely pinpoint a person as being of an ethnicity. We should be allowed flexibility in categorizing a person by ethnicity where they most likely fit. We have a Talk page of an article and we have an excellent ]. These resources allow balanced decisions to be made, affording the input of a broad range of editorship. I don't buy the notion that categorization requires wording in a source that an individual is ''"ethnically XYZ",'' or ''"of XYZ ethnicity".'' That argument can be made. But it should be made on a case-by-case basis—and with reasons given. Certainly ]s require sensitivity. An argument would have to be presented that categorizing in a particular ethnic way would pose an imposition that we should not be engaging in. Well-sourced information that is approximately on-target concerning an ethnic category for an individual should be considered. It can always be rejected, but we should reserve for ourselves the right to consider categorizing by ethnicity in ways not necessarily 100% in accordance with the exact words sources use. | |||
| :::The proposal is unwise because it takes away from us the ability to categorize by ethnicity unless an unreasonable set of standards is first met. I see little reason to require self-identification in all cases concerning ethnicity, and I do not think relevance to notability should need to be established—in all cases. Once a person has been declared notable, for our purposes, it follows that there is a readership interested in knowing about such factors as their ethnicity. Much of this discussion has circled around the validity of ethnicity and its ''"social construct"'' status. Sources should determine for us if the noting of ethnicity is called for concerning an individual in question. That is—if sources conspicuously note ethnicity—we should (probably) follow suit. ] (]) 11:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose proposed wording''' - Although it is appropriate to restrict the application of ethnicity and gender categories to cases where the information is relevant according to reliable sources, the categorization guidelines ''do not'' justify requiring public self-identification for ethnicity or gender.<br />Religion and sexuality are completely personal, and ethnicity and gender are at least partially public. One can not know a person's religion or sexuality unless that person openly declares it; it is possible, however, to know (to a certain extent) a person's gender and ethnicity even in the absence of a public declaration. Whether a person actively identifies with those identities is, of course, another matter, but it should not be our only concern.<br />To address existing problems related to categorization by ethnicity, we should require the highest standards of sourcing when such categories are added in the absence of self-identification. For instance, an article about John Doe should not be added to ] based on a source that identifies one or more of Doe's parents or grandparents as "African American"; we should require a source that explicitly identifies the subject of the article, John Doe, as African American. If we do this, I see no problem with continuing to categorize living people by ethnicity, even in the absence of public self-identification by the subject, so long as the characteristic is relevant according to reliable sources. -- ''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 17:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{discussion bottom}} | |||
| ==No valid consensus== | |||
| * The discussion close here is not a reflection of community consensus regarding ethnicity, and not a reasonable way to legislate policy across the project. If implemented, it would overturn the result of multiple AfD discussions and deletion reviews, as well as longstanding practice on Misplaced Pages regarding some ethnic categories. My specific objections are discussed in the discussion above. If anyone has a specific proposal for how to modify a policy page, we can conduct an RfC on this. - ] (]) 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ** A specific proposal exists above. It was discussed for 8 days and an admin closed the discussion declaring a consensus to make part of the change it proposed. You clearly don't agree with the result, but denying what happened is not the way to go. Also what AfD discussions is this going to overturn? This effects inclusion in categories and on lists. It does not directly effect the existence of categories and lists. No AfD discussions have decided on inclusion criteria so I'm unsure what you mean there.] (]) 18:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ***What happened is that the proposal does not have project-wide consensus. I do not deny that an administrator closed the above discussion and made a declaration. However, that declaration is not a legitimate basis for imposing policy across the project, something that is potentially very contentious. An 8-day canvassed vote is no way to deal with issues of how the encyclopedia deals with ethnicity. Following the sources of the world, one's ethnicity need ''not'' be sourced as "relevant to their notable activities or public life" to be included in a category intersection. It must simply be reliably sourced. My exposure from the "List of Jewish-American X" articles and related categories is that the editors there have steadfastly refused to allow others to depopulate the lists on this basis. If they try again, armed with above declaration, they will not find consensus. - ] (]) 18:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :The closing admin's statement is deficient: "''Closed. No consensus to add gender to the BLP guidelines. I'd say there is consensus (about 2:1 as I read the discussion below) to add ethnicity to the BLP guidelines".'' It has three major flaws: (1) contains no discussion of the ''merits'' of the arguments (which are more important than the !vote-counting); (2) it is blatantly relying on vote-counting, which is contrary to WP consensus policy; and (3) it does not reflect the fact that numerous strong arguments were put forth by both sides. I suggest that if someone wants to make any changes to BLPCAT, they submit a new proposal, that (for instance) just focuses on Ethnicity and Categories. --] (]) 18:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::...also, it is important to not that ] is a ''policy'', and the threshold for making changes is higher than for mere guidelines or essays. The proposed ethnicity change would cause literally hundreds, perhaps thousands, of persons to be removed from Categories and Lists, and such a major change to the encyclopedia needs a very strong consensus, which does not yet exist. --] (]) 18:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::If there is a proper way to appeal a decision like this, and I'm not knowledgeable on those types of things personally, I suggest you follow that process instead of simply proclaiming your disagreement with the result here.] (]) 18:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Sorry, but single drive-by admin cannot make a major policy change like this. Even his !vote counting is wrong: it was 3:2 (based on 21:14), not 2:1. --] (]) 19:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Why are you telling me that instead of appealing it in the proper manner. What I see is an RfC closed by an admin and the complaints by two people who don't agree with the decision. If you are planning to do something about it then do something about it instead of complaining here. Cheers.] (]) 19:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| To anyone who thinks there is consensus, I invite you to edit ] and remove all the living persons who have not, as the proposal requires, self-identified as Jews. Or remove all living writers from ] who have not self-identified as African-American. Of course, that is a rhetorical request, because any such edits will be reverted, because the vast majority of WP editors do believe that there is no need for self identification. This proposal is plainly inconsistent with the consensus of the wider WP community. --] (]) 19:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Uh. I'd say it's pretty easy to source ] per self-identification of living people. In fact, I'll gladly collect sources for that now. Anyone interested? Also, Noleander, I think your complaint here is a bit extreme concerning the African American cats and lists. These lists shouldn't include ''any'' African American writer, but one's whose African American-ness is relevant to begin with. Therefore finding sources where they mention being Black or experience the African American life... isn't going to be as hard as you purporting. ] 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Wouldn't the first step here be to at least strike up a conversation with the closer about this by the way? Also, I'm unsure of how productive this combative, "I just dare you to edit these entries", challenge is. BTW, the idea that the regulars at these entries represent more of a community consensus regarding these pages than those who responded to a community wide RfC is absurd. Cheers.] (]) 19:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sure, a conversation with the closer would be good. I'm sure he is watching this Talk page, and perhaps he can clarify his understanding of ], why he did not mention the canvassing, his assessment of the impact to existing ethnicity lists, and the absence of a summary of the pros and cons. As for ''"the regulars at these entries represent more of a community consensus"'' - I agree with you that those editors are no more authoritative than these Talk page editors. My point was simply: only 21 editors weighed-in here to support the proposal, but there have been hundreds, or even thousands of editors that have implicitly opposed the proposal (by their deliberate acts of building-up the hundreds of ethnicity-baesd Lists and Categories). My point was one of magnitude, not quality. --] (]) 20:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{unindent}} | |||
| I've posted a notice of this discussion at ], so that we can get broader range of input. --] (]) 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :For the record, this is pretty much classic Wikidemon behavior: screaming "no consensus" when consensus doesn't seem to ''go'' his way. Examples: | |||
| * -- arguing that a unanimous Cfd consensus against ethnicity/sports categories was "invalid" and should be overturned because he doesn't agree with it (literally lol) | |||
| * -- trying to overturn a deletion by importuning the closing admin to "rethink" his decision instead of sending it to DRV (where it might not be overturned) | |||
| * -- striking up a deal with a closing admin to "overturn his close decision" if a separate (related) article is overturned at DRV. The admin, rather inappropriately, agreed to this instead of requesting it goes to DRV as well. | |||
| :Clearly, Wikidemon will never believe there is a consensus ''for anything'' unless (maybe) it's unanimous. These unattainable standards for "worldwide magic consensus" seem more like an agenda-driven filibuster than any actual concern that people's opinions are being ignored. In the end, all this does is preclude any type of positive change on wikipedia and, frankly, we should rather start looking for self-identification sources (which are much easier to find than one might imagine) than continuing with these endless complaints. ] 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::(out of sequence) Bulldog, please stick with the issues and not the editors, and if you're going to cite my edit history to advocate your position don't distort it to argue bad faith. It is a courtesy to first notify the closing administrator and ask them to reconsider before invoking process. The admin here is presumably still watching this page as are all of the participants; in a CfD once the decision is made the page is archived and everyone goes home. The deletion decisions you mention were all fatally flawed, and the two so far reconsidered are now overturned. The third will happen in due time but as a mass nomination of 25+ categories, some valid and others not, it is more complex. - ] (]) 21:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{xt|...as a mass nomination of 25+ categories, some valid and others not, it is more complex.}} That some are valid and some are not is only your very nichey (and sometimes totally unsubstantiated) opinion. And on that CfD, it appears to be one not shared by a pretty good sampling of average unaffiliated Wikipedians. There's nothing improper about mass nominations and your post-CfD !keep rationale, although well-presented, is still unconvincing. However, constantly attempting to overturn deletion discussions because you believe the delete !voters opinions are inconsequential, "random," or wrong... in my mind... ''is'' bordering on inappropriate. Oh, and I made no "distortions" whatsoever. Everything I said can be verified by what you write in those diffs --- and it just so happens that most of what you write lengthy post-AfD/CfD !keep rationales that you treat as "fact" instead of just your opinion. ] 22:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I cannot speak for Wikidemon. But here is what I would expect to see in the above discussion before consensus were declared: | |||
| :::#Notification to the relevant WP ethnicity-oriented projects, so they could participate | |||
| :::#A compromise proposal that is somewhere between the two extreme ends | |||
| :::#A final statement of the final compromise so that everyone can scrutinize it | |||
| :::#An assessment of the impact of the canvassing | |||
| :::#A summary by the closing admin of the pros and cons, and a discussion of how they do or dont promote the BLP policy | |||
| :::#A discussion of the impact to the hundreds of ethnicity-based lists and categories. | |||
| ::So, no, I personally am not looking for some magical 100% consensus, but a 21:14 !vote with no back-and-forth and no discussion of the long-term ramificatiions is not sufficient to extend a major policy. --] (]) 21:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I agree with the above. 22 support votes to 14 opposes (or 21 supports if Noleander has it right) is not 2 to 1 - the ratio cited above to justify consensus. Aside from that, it's simply inappropriate for the same editor who proposed these changes to personally contact the closing admin and ask him to , as well as prod them with language like , (which wasn't true when he said it and isn't true now), and ). Why is this okay? Surely it wouldn't be okay if I did it? I'd be the first to say so (I hope). And this is all on a policy proposal that has been rejected / reached no consensus before. ] (]) 22:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Speaking as one of the people who opposed this, it looks like the close does reflect the actual consensus of editors above. I also think that some of the comments did have implict back and forth since people do in subsequent remarks address concerns raised by others. There is a plausible argument that this should have had a large RfC given the major policy aspect that is involved in this and the past failed attempts to make this policy. I don't have any strong opinion on that part in either direction. ] (]) 22:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :My problem with the close is based on two things: | |||
| ::"2 to 1" was cited as the vote tally. But 22 to 14 isn't 2 to 1 or "about 2 to 1". And if we're going by numbers here, shouldn't the canvassing be an issue? | |||
| ::The person who proposed these changes was the one who the closing editor and asked him to be the one to close it. He then continued to contact him with . ] (]) 22:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Do you really think that Raul would be so easily swayed that a message happening to have slightly loaded language would influence his close? ] (]) 22:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *Silent majorities don't count untill they speak up. In this case it didn't. ] 22:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == The questions == | |||
| Since there seems to be a lot of confusion, partly caused by the muddled wording of the policy and guidelines as they stand, and as they would still stand if this proposal were implemented, it might be more profitable to consider the relevant questions separately: | |||
| #When is it desirable to have categories (of people) based on (a) gender (b) sexual orientation (c) ethnicity (d) religion? | |||
| #When deciding whether to place a person's article into an existing category based on (a) gender (b) sexual orientation (c) ethnicity (d) religion, what additional criteria need to be considered over and above those that are normally considered when placing articles in categories? Do these extra criteria (if any) apply to all people or only to living people? | |||
| If we could get clear answers to these questions, it would be easy to word the relevant policies and guidelines to match.--] (]) 17:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, and the same questions with regard to ''lists'' in place of categories.--] (]) 17:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::These are always, or almost always, intersection categories. We don't have lists or categories of females, lists of bisexuals, Christians, etc. We have lists or categories (say) of African-American poets, or gay German playwrights, etc. It is desirable to have a list if: (a) the subject is notable in its own right, e.g. there are scholarly works, major reportage, etc., on the topic of African-American poets; and (b) there is a sufficient but reasonably limited number such that we can construct a useful list with sensible inclusion criteria. The fact that ethnicity is a social construct is neither here nor there. So is being a poet, and almost every other piece of humanistic knowledge. Once we've decided that there ''should'' be such a list or category, the next question is the inclusion criteria. In general it's up to the editors on a given page to decide on the criteria, and it's dangerous to legislate that from above. One problem is that ethnicity is different than gener, or sexual orientation, and also one ethnicity has different bounds than another. One is Native American in a very different way than one can be Hispanic, or African American, or First Nations in Canada, and one can be all at the same time. But at a minimum, I would say that there has to be strong enough reliable sourcing from a single source that a person fits all the categories. If one source says a person is African-American, and another says he is a poet, I don't think we can necessarily call him an African-American poet. You would have to find a source that calls him that. The question of a list's notability is fairly rooted in policy; the inclusion criteria is more of a discretionary thing about how we want to build an encyclopedia. - ] (]) 21:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Wikidemon: Look again: there is ] and ] and several other broad lists. They serve a valuable purpose in the encyclopedia: indexing and searching. --] (]) 21:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay, as super-lists and super-categories. If we have a list of Christians, and a list of writers, and a list of athletes, and a list of Norwegians, what's the big deal with intersections anyway? Is there a technical means where the reader can make their own intersections if they wish? If I want a list of all the Norwegian Christian writer-athletes, something that doesn't seem likely to stand around here, is there any kind of query I can run for that? I know people are talking about making Misplaced Pages content more database / semantic web friendly like that. That could make all this discussion moot. Just do away with ''all'' intersections in favor of a tool, and then header articles about the intersection as a subject. - ] (]) 23:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's exactly right. And until WP has some decent database query capability, we have to rely on the tools we ''do'' have now: Lists and Categories. And we should endeavor to make them as supportive of indexing & searching as possible. --] (]) 04:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Excuse me - how on earth, and for what legitimate means, would you want to classify biographies - especially those of living people - in this fashion? It has already been made abundantly clear that there is no way to construct these categories here in a way that is scientifically valid. ] (]) 09:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::How on earth? Sources. I'm not sure what science has to do with anything here. There are plenty of subjects, most really, that fall outside the scope of science. - ] (]) 14:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I completely agree with Wikidemon's above response. Misplaced Pages follows the world of information—not the other way around. When sources say something is so—it is so. This project should not be about creating a new body of information that has been altered in ways that make it better fit our personal beliefs. Reliable sources dictate our content—not the other way around. WP:VERIFY says, ] That does not mean that we are including ''untruth.'' It means we are including the real world—and yes—with all its blemishes. There is an alternative to this, but the alternative is worse. It is compiling the encyclopedia in accordance with ]. I think standard policy frowns on ''"original research".'' ] (]) 14:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Again: this is not about factual information. This is about how living individuals are classified and used. ] (]) 16:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::- and this is why we already have other BLP guidelines stating what we may and may not do. ] (]) 17:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Feketekave—you say, ''"This is about how living individuals are classified and used."'' Can you please explain to me how individuals are being ''"used"?'' | |||
| ::::::::::On a similar note in a previous post you say: How are individuals being ''conscripted?'' I don't think that we are ''using'' individuals and I don't think that we are ''conscripting'' individuals. All that we are doing is following a lead set by reliable sources as concerns ethnicity, and we are doing so for the purposes of categorization. | |||
| ::::::::::I also find you saying at another post: Can you please tell me how categorization by ethnicity can be construed as ''"group conscription"?'' ] (]) 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::That ethnicity is not a "fact" is a perfectly reasonable personal viewpoint. It is an opinion, which is the problem. Purging ethnicity from the encyclopedia because one doesn't believe in ethnicity is an extreme exercise, and not one reflective of the current state of human knowledge. Most major American universities, for example, have ethnic studies departments, concentrations, scholarship, etc. It's quite a stretch to say that otherwise reliable sources - scholars, newspapers, books, government records, and so on - become opinion pieces when they describe someone's ethnicity. - ] (]) 02:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{od}} Pardon the sarcasm in advance ... because I'm sure those ethnic studies programs are training a slew of young scholars in the discipline of creating and maintaining lists of Armenian race car drivers. There is zero correspondence between the academic understanding of ethnicity and the nationalistic back patting going on when editors who self-identify as this or that decide to list everyone else who is notable and can possibly also be called this or that. Sorry, but I find this argument bordering on offensive to all the scholars who take ethnic studies seriously. Cheers.] (]) 03:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Griswaldo—you refer to ''"…the nationalistic back patting going on when editors who self-identify as this or that decide to list everyone else who is notable and can possibly also be called this or that."'' Can you give an example of this? ] (]) 05:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure, but it goes beyond "nationalism" strictly speaking. I meant the comment more generally to include other group identities like ethnic and religious ones, for instance. I used only "nationalistic" out of convenience. Here are some recent prominent examples: ] and ] (as well as the relevant category) and ] and ] (as well as the relevant category). Cheers.] (]) 13:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Griswaldo—how do you see ''"nationalistic back patting"'' manifesting itself in the examples that you have given? You mentioned: ''"Andre Geim and List of Jewish Nobel laureates (as well as the relevant category) and Ed Miliband and List of atheists in politics and law (as well as the relevant category)."'' Can you please tell me what would lead you to believe that ''"nationalistic back patting"'' was taking place? ] (]) 14:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::In those cases we're talking about ethnic and religious back patting, though Geim also had ] (which is nationalistic) slapped on the entry as well before I removed it. I'm not sure what you don't understand about these examples? Individuals who identify with the groups in question argued and even edit warred to keep Geim labeled as a member of their group despite rather obviously not meeting our criteria. Why? Because he's a Nobel laureate and people want the pride of that fact associated with their group. That's what I mean by "back patting". "Good job guys, another one of us is awesome!" The same issue was going on with Miliband and his supposed "atheism". These two examples were also seminal in getting the wider discussion going about this aspect of our BLP policy. Cheers.] (]) 15:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| No one here has suggested that we erase "ethnicity" from the encyclopedia altogether. Not in the least. Sorry, but that's just plainly inaccurate.] (]) 03:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I do find the effort to get rid of ethnicity on Misplaced Pages borderline offensive. That's the clear subtext, and often the overt text - it gets stated again and again in these arguments that ethnicity is nonsense so we shouldn't cover it even though the sources do. The relation between scholarly conceptions of ethnicity and including ethnicity in the encyclopedia is precisely the relation between scholarly conceptions of any topic and including it in the encyclopedia. It's a part of the corpus of human thought, it gets written about, and we compile it for the encyclopedia. If you want to dismiss the editors who care about this as engaging in nationalistic back-slapping, well, maybe that's where the sarcasm begins. I have no opinion or knowledge about Armenian race car drivers, but recent weeks have seen failed campaigns to get rid of Jewish-American entertainers, Irish Americans in sports, Italian-American architects, and plenty of other significant topics. This has been going on for months, perhaps years. There's an ongoing campaign to change the nature of Misplaced Pages's coverage of ethnicity. - ] (]) 03:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Again I don't see any arguments ''in this discussion'' about removing ethnicity from the encyclopedia. Scholars don't compose lists of Swedish-American knitting champions, by the way. I don't think anyone has a problem with well sourced entries on ''meaningful'' intersections that have significant coverage in reliable sources, and yes I mean even those dealing with ethnicity. That's simply not the same thing however, as claiming that any intersection with ethnicity in it is inherently meaningful. Especially when it is sourced via sources that have no inherent expertise in ethnic studies (newspapers, etc.). My point is that you're trivializing the work done on ethnicity in the academy by suggesting that these things are comparable. The sources used to categorize people by ethnicity in the encyclopedia are going to be 99% non-expert sources. Given that fact alone, I wonder why there is such an uproar over being more careful when it comes to ''living people''. Cheers.] (]) 05:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Last time I checked newspapers were reliable sources. Some people ''do'' have trouble with meaningful intersections. I don't see anyone here advocating that all ethnicity intersections are worthy, or for Swedish-American knitters in particular (although you never know what ). What I ''do'' see on this page is advocacy that ethnic categories should be removed despite the sourcing, and some opinionated statements on the nature of ethnicity. I had mentioned American Jewish entertainers, Irish-Americans in sports, and Italian-American architects, all amply sourced. Scholars generally don't compose lists of any sort, but they do write on various topics, ethnicity included. The scholarship establishes the noteworthiness of the subject, the news accounts establish the verifiability of the list items. Am I trivializing the scholarship of jazz music by saying we can use newspapers to source ]? - ] (]) 05:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The scholarship establishes the noteworthiness of the subject, but it does not establish the noteworthiness of the list of X people based on labels thrown around in a popular news media. Your argument suggests a connection there that simply does not exist. Regarding jazz violinists, I have no expectation that the category is populated in a manner that respects the scholarly understandings of jazz. And why would I? Regarding ethnicity, I don't have that expectation either, but that is exactly the point. That's why we need stricter criteria for things like ethnicity, religion, and sexual preference, because unlike being called a jazz violinist, being categorized as, for example, Croatian, an atheist or a homosexual ''can be'' quite contentious, even at times, dangerous. I should also add that the music example is particularly poor here, since the popular media industry involved in labeling musicians has much more expertise in the subject than the general news media has on ethnicity. But I don't want to sidetrack the main point. These types of lists, when they exist, will always be populated in a way that has no direct connection to the scholarship not he subject, and that is absolutely to be expected. Given that fact, we need to figure out how to deal with them most appropriately, and to do so with each specific context in mind. Cheers.] (]) 12:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You can't call someone a Jew because being Jewish is more contentious than being a saxophonist? That in itself is a contentious position, and reflects the POV I am concerned about - some people are uncomfortable about ethnicity so they want to deny it. Populating a list of Jewish American entertainers because there is a nexus between Jews in America and being an entertainer is no different than populating a list of anything else. You establish through the sources that the topic is worthy, you find sourceable examples, and you list the examples. Incidentally, I cannot grant that scholars are a better source than journalists at noting a person's ethnicity. - ] (]) 07:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Who said you can't call someone Jewish? Did I miss something? Here I thought that we were discussing a stricter policy when it comes to categorizing someone as X ethnicity and not a proposal to do away with all ethnic labels across the project. That you constantly require a straw man to argue against is rather telling here, and indicative of why its pointless for me to continue. You're not disagreeing with your interlocutors, you're disagreeing with an caricature of their arguments. Yes Wikidemon, it is a fact that it is ''more'' contentious to call someone a Jew (on average) than it is to call someone a saxophonist. It follows that we should be ''more'' cautious when we do so -- and that is what is actually being proposed here. I'm sorry that I can't live up the black and white farce of an argument you are trying to pin on me, but I'm just more comfortable with arguments I actually believe in than those you want to put in my mouth. Cheers.] (]) 20:22, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Hey, don't blow your lid over this with the edit summary, it's just an encyclopedia. You didn't miss anything, you're just advocating a result then denying that's your goal. The proposal as worded would do away with many of the Jewish-American X categories that have already withstood deletion attempts, and depopulate those that remained, resulting (if adopted and enforced, which appears unlikely at this point) in a broad removal of ethnic categorization from the encyclopedia. I disagree strongly with these efforts because they delete a lot of important encyclopedic content from the project that is of particular interest to people who are interested in ethnicity. Also troublesome, much of the support for this effort is very aggressive and uncivil, accompanied by taunting, word games, and sarcasm, and accompanied by a troublesome explicitly stated POV that ethnicity does not matter and that people should pay less heed to ethnicity. - ] (]) 21:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Griswaldo—you expound at length about the improper motives of other editors but you portray your own motives as pure. You say, and also you say Why are other editors acting improperly while you are acting properly? How do you reach this conclusion that another editor's wish to include ethnicity for a notable individual who is the subject of a biography is improper while your wish to not note ethnicity is somehow proper? You say, I don't understand how you make this distinction between another editor's wish to put sourced information into the project and your wish to keep that sourced information out of the project. Editorial disagreements are normal but there isn't a blanket right or wrong concerning ethnicity. I disagree with you on other points as well. For instance I am not suspicious of people's motivations. I do not care if it is boosterism for one's own ethnic group that motivates editors to wish to note in an article the ethnicity of a notable individual. Their motivation does not enter into the calculations as to whether that bit of information should stay or not. I also don't know how you know what motivates someone else. But the bottom line is that the information regarding ethnic identity for a notable person has to be evaluated by Misplaced Pages standards. We have a ] that can help with that. We have of course the quotidian article Talk page. These decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis. Also—how does a minority ethnicity group of editors outweigh the much larger group of editors who do not belong to that ethnicity? You talk about what has to be a small ethnic minority of editors engaging in Wouldn't consensus prevent a small handful of editors from putting spurious claims of ethnic identity into an article on a notable individual? I fail to see how an ethnic clique of editors can gain consensus support since the far larger group of editors paying attention to any article is not likely to be members of that particular ethnic identity. If there is editorial disagreement there are probably some sources to support each side of a disagreement. I simply don't care about the hypothetical ethnic pride of an editor. It completely escapes me why that is part of an argument for a policy change. Sources are what matter—we examine sources. We see how well sources support material for potential inclusion in articles and/or categories. ] (]) 22:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Exactly. Ethnicity as a social construct is a valid topic for academic study. To study it, you need to recognise what it is - a social construct. The fact that some editors cannot progress beyond their own obsession with vacuous ethno-tagging in order to actually understand the phenomenon is no reason to surrender to their obsessions. I 'believe' in ethnicity in the sense that I believe (actually, I know) that it is a typical part of social discourse in many (if not most) societies. I do however believe (actually, again, I know) that there is nothing 'real' to ethnicity beyond the constructs of those who consider it significant. Furthermore, all the evidence suggests that even in the minds of those who see it as 'real', it is a fluid, amorphous and contextual concept, rather than a fixed 'attribute'. Or to put it another way, an opinion. Nobody is suggesting that ''ethnicity as a subject'' shouldn't be discussed on Misplaced Pages - all that is required is that we discuss it for what it is, not as some form of ]. ] (]) 03:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::AndyTheGrump—reliable sources determine what material gets included in Misplaced Pages. I find at WP:SOURCE that ] You say, ''"I do however believe (actually, again, I know) that there is nothing 'real' to ethnicity beyond the constructs of those who consider it significant."'' If reliable sources support unequivocally an ethnicity for a person, then that ethnicity becomes ''"real",'' for our purposes. You may feel strongly that ''"…there is nothing 'real' to ethnicity beyond the constructs of those who consider it significant"'' but I don't think the encyclopedia has to follow your beliefs. Misplaced Pages's principles concern themselves with the presenting in a neutral way what sources say—on all topics. When a reliable source supports an ethnicity for an individual that is mentioned in an article, that ethnic identity becomes potentially usable material for the project. ] (]) 05:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Bus Stop, I am no longer interested in debating with you what you think is 'real' or reliable'. If you wish to ignore the research of sociology, anthropology, psychology, historiography, and almost every other relevant discipline of academic research, and assert that ethnicity has a 'reality' beyond being a social construct, there is little point in arguing. You are wrong. Fact. ] (]) 05:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::AndyTheGrump—I am not ''"assert that ethnicity has a 'reality' beyond being a social construct".'' I have not said that. ] determine, for the purposes of the Misplaced Pages project, what a person's ethnicity is, as well as if indeed they have an ethnicity at all. We go by sources. You should not think that because you believe that ethnicity is merely a social construct that it is not material that is reportable in an encyclopedia. Sources determine inclusion/exclusion. Editorial consensus does too. This is standard operating procedure—applicable to ethnicity as to myriad other types of information. ] (]) 06:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Social constructs aren't encyclopedic subjects? That would mean deleting 99% of the encyclopedia. - ] (]) 05:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::So if you don't approve of a topic, the editors who do are obsessing? I think I understand Jewishness as well as the next guy, and it is a very real thing, thank you. The notion that qualities that are fluid and multivariate are not attributes seems a little simplistic, epistemologically. Human knowledge is not a relational database. - ] (]) 04:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::"Human knowledge is not a relational database". Precisely. So why should we pretend it is, and have a ] 'Jew'/'not Jew' field in our Misplaced Pages BLPs? Of course 'Jewishness is' real (as is Irishness', or 'South Londoner' or...), but we need to recognise the ''sense'' in which it is real, and the limitations this puts on the extent to which it has meaning. And no, I've seen nobody object to ethnicity as a topic. What is being objected to is the arbitrary way it is applied by POV-pushing editors and ethnic train-spotters. ] (]) 04:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::AndyTheGrump—you say, ''"…we need to recognise the sense in which it is real, and the limitations this puts on the extent to which it has meaning."'' No, we do not. Sources do that for us. We do not have to ''"recognise the sense in which it is real".'' Sources, if they are reliable and authoritative and reputable, determine whether something is real or not. You are perfectly justified in wondering if an ethnic identity ''"has meaning."'' But your doubts should not keep sourced material out of an article. ] (]) 05:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Bus Stop, will you please stop spamming this thread with repeated postings of exactly the same simplistic argument - other contributors have moved beyond this, and are actually trying to discuss the issue in a constructive manner. Your complete refusal to answer the point that others make, and endless repetition of the words 'reliable sources' suggests to me that your only objective is to side-track rational debate. Misplaced Pages has never been a repository for random 'facts' dragged from sources, reliable or otherwise. It is an encyclopaedia, and as such has always relied on editorial judgement regarding the relevance of sourced data. Furthermore, where such data is frequently ambiguous, as 'ethnicity' is, it has long been the policy to avoid stating as fact things which are better attributed to the words of those claiming them, when such claims are included at all. If you think that Wikiopedia should change its policy in this regard, and simply include ''any'' 'fact' found in ''any'' 'reliable source' with no discussion as to reliability, meaning, or relevance, you are arguing in the wrong place. If you have nothing constructive to add to ''this'' discussion I suggest you find some other forum or topic instead. ] (]) 14:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::AndyTheGrump—I agree with you that ''"editorial judgement"'' is called for. I thought I made myself clear that only when sources are of good quality and make their assertions without ambiguity do we follow their lead. We would also exercise a great deal of caution if various sources contradicted one another. Just as anything can be ''included'' in Misplaced Pages, so can anything be ''excluded.'' The sort of material we are discussing is only ''potential'' material for inclusion. ''"Editorial judgement"'' is always available as a counterbalance to those attempting to add junk to biographies: even if an ethnic attribute is reliably sourced, an editorial decision can be made to leave it out. The place for making this sort of decision should be the article Talk page. Editors at articles are more than capable of weighing the applicable factors in order to reach conservative decisions, and we also have the ] which is well-used and seems entirely capable of resolving these sorts of questions on a case-by-case basis while bringing to bear the input of a large number of editors. In my opinion we should build flexibility into our processes. I'm opposed to limiting the options available to editors. I'm also opposed to limiting the number of editors involved in day-to-day decisions. | |||
| :::::::I don't take the negative view that there is a great deal of self-promotion going on here vis-a-vis ''"tagging"'' notable individuals on the basis of shared-membership in an ethnic group. In one post you have said, And in a subsequent post you have said, | |||
| == Proposed addition to ] == | |||
| :::::::I don't think what you are describing is widely practiced. And I am not sure that even if it is practiced that it is necessarily all that harmful. The success of Misplaced Pages I think has something to do with the enormous number of editors providing input to it. That implies that any ethnic group that may be represented by editors is small in relation to all editors. In short I think you are ] and you are in support of a policy change that will further reduce the autonomy of the multitudinous editors that are probably a key ingredient in this project's success. I'm opposed to limiting the flexibility of editors and I am opposed to limiting the number of editors involved in these decision-making processes. ] (]) 17:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- ] 18:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1735668071}} | |||
| Question: What does the issue of ethnicity being a social construct have to do with BLPs? BLP exists for a reason. That reason is not to push through any policy or sub-policy you like simply because you can't think of another place to put it. If you don't like the ethnicity categories and want to curb them, this desire and opinion has nothing to do with why BLP was created. At least not in the way it's being argued by AndyTheGrump and a few of the others. It's the equivalent of putting in what should and should not be in the opening paragraph of an article into the BLP rules instead of into ] - could be useful or not useful, but totally unrelated to what this page is here for. ] (]) 04:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| I propose the following text be added to WP:SUSPECT: | |||
| :''Given the legal presumption of innocence, criminal proceedings including those against prominent public persons, should not be mentioned on the ] of the encyclopdia until the cases are resolved either by conviction or acquittal. Any appellate proceedings shall have no bearing on whether or not to post the initial findings of a duly constituted court of law." | |||
| I have decided to post this as an RfC as this would involve a non-trivial amendment to ] and the issue has become a contentious point of debate involving several nominations at ]. -] (]) 17:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Clarification''': This proposal only applies to the main page of the encyclopedia, not to any specific articles. -] (]) 18:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Misplaced Pages is not a news blotter and we have no need to be first to cover a story. Anything we can do to protect the presumption of innocence for BLPs is a good thing. Furthermore a clear and unambiguous policy regarding how to handle suspects of crime would avoid tedious debates about who constitutes a public person. ] (]) 17:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :All Hallow's Wraith makes a good point. | |||
| *:One small question though: by the main page do you mean a BLP's article-space or do you mean the en dot wikipedia dot com landing page? ] (]) 18:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am referring to the ]. -] (]) 18:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I see. I'd still support it but somewhat less enthusiastically. I would like us to stop reporting on in-process criminal proceedings altogether as inappropriate to the scope of an encyclopedia. Don't suppose you'd be willing to expand the proposed policy revision accordingly? ] (]) 18:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::I think that if somebody is actually convicted and it's major news, posting it at ITN is fine. I supported posting Donald Trump's conviction in the New York case. My objection is to putting unresolved allegations on the main page. There is a huge difference between mentioning widely reported criminal charges in somebody's BLP article and putting them on the front page of one of the world's most heavily trafficked websites. But if you have a specific change in mind feel free to suggest it. -] (]) 18:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Here's my pitch: replace the current text of WP:SUSPECT with, {{tq|A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. Given the legal presumption of innocence, criminal proceedings including those against prominent public persons, should not be mentioned until the cases are resolved either by conviction or acquittal.}} | |||
| *:::::{{tq|Any appellate proceedings shall have no bearing on whether or not to post the initial findings of a duly constituted court of law. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.}} ] (]) 18:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. But you can always add it as separate proposal for discussion underneath this one. -] (]) 18:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::Rather than having dueling RFCs could we suggest your text as an option 1 and mine as an option 2? That way, in cases like mine where I would support either but have a preference it's all in one place. ] (]) ] (]) 18:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::We already have several comments so I would be reluctant to materially alter the RfC. But I will add your suggestion below this. for discussion in its own right. -] (]) 18:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::The notion of appellate proceedings not having any bearing on the proceedings below is on its face contradictory. Also there are a variety of types of appellate proceedings, levels of appeal, and legal systems in which all these things play out, some of which of course don't even presume innocence or otherwise derogate from the general presumption. | |||
| *::::::You'd also, if you went forward with your green texted pitch, need an additional comma: after "criminal proceedings". ] (]) 22:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' Such allegations are going to be included in the BLP article in any such case where the conditions are in line with BLPCRIME. It makes no sense to then say that we should hide that from the main page if they are in the news, as long as the blurb is clear that they are only allegations or charges and not convictions. It ''does'' make sense to avoid including news items around such allegations when they are less news and more a due to the spectical around it (eg some of the jadedness editors have around Trump rings true here), but that's something that current ITN guidelines should handle, not a special exemption on BLP. <span id="Masem:1732644684600:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 18:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - we can presume innocence while mirroring the reliable sources that choose to cover a story (or do ''not'' choose). Editors of main page processes currently have appropriate leeway to decide whether a legal case is prominent enough to be mentioned. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 18:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. The ongoing legal proceedings against Trump make clear that there are circumstances in which unresolved legal allegations are clearly ]. —] (]) 18:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' Criminal allegations and proceedings are normally major points in an individual's life and they should be covered, whether on the MP or not. As long as the wording is appropriate (ie provides context and makes clear it's an allegation or part of a proceeding), and not giving any indication of guilt or innocence, there is no reason not to have information on the MP. - ] (]) 18:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', though this is without prejudice to the policy in ] that we should tread very carefully when publishing negative information about ''non''-public figures. Major public figures, however, should not have that protection: where newsworthy allegations have been made against them, they should be reported objectively and as accusations, following ]. '']'' <sup>]·]</sup> 18:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' (invited by the bot) Since everything "in the news" violates wp:not news, there's no strong argument for inclusion of anything and IMO so no argument agains setting a bit higher bar. Criminal charges vary from meaningless to meaningful depending on the particulars (such as who is making the charge, the nature of the charge) and there's nothing wrong with setting a bit higher bar for the front page of Misplaced Pages. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *{{Strikethrough|Very, very weak oppose}}, though I support the spirit of this proposal. There are absolutely circumstances in which unresolved proceedings are quite notable, though. @{{u|Ad Orientem}}, I don't too much follow ITNC, might I ask which specific instances of BPPCRIME on the main page have conflagrated? Changed to '''support''', and thanks to whomever signed my post (the reply tool has spoiled me). <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *:There have been a number over the years. The most recent would be Jair Bolsonaro's indictment in Brazil. That discussion is still open and currently looks pretty deadlocked. In the past each of Donald Trump's indictments were nominated. At least two and possibly three of them were separately posted. I am pretty sure the last one was turned down. We posted his actual conviction in New York, which I supported. It's also worth noting that all of the Federal charges have since been withdrawn, albeit for purely legal reasons. In theory he could be reindicted when he leaves office. A proposal to post the withdrawal of those charges was going nowhere the last I looked. -] (]) 19:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::As for those, I'd argue they have little impact on the world stage. A conviction might be. Changing my vote to '''support''' <span style="color: #1a237e; background-color: #fff176; font-weight: bold;">]</span> <span style="color: #fff176; background-color: #1a237e; font-weight: bold;">]</span> 21:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::@] You should strike your oppose comment to avoid confusion. -] (]) 22:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' ]s, ]s and ] are common in many jurisdictions and often used against opposition politicians. We should therefore have a high bar for promotion of such, per ] and ]. ]🐉(]) 23:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:This is an argument ''against'' the change. Convictions can easily be obtained in such cases. Similarly, cronies of the leader in many jurisdictions may be protected from convictions for crimes they very clearly have committed. The result is really that legal decisions should not as a rule trump wikipedia's own processes for handling verification. We should be exceedingly careful, but convictions/acquittal should not be a bright shining line. ] (]) 11:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Doesn't the brightness of the line here completely depend on the system in which the charging and/or conviction has been made? It's for sure a bright shining light to most rational people in the real world in well functioning democracies. ] (]) 22:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' the blanket prohibition, as there still may be ''limited'' circumstances where an arrest made or formal charges against a very prominent person cannot be ignored (I am thinking ]-level celebrities, or current or former heads of state), that grab the international consciousness that ITN is designed to capture. --] (]) 01:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. If someone has been accused of a crime and we properly state such has occurred, I fail to see the issue. It is factually correct. I'd like to believe our readers are smart enough to believe and trust us to "report" (or what you wish to call it) on these things properly. ] (]) 05:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:A (1) charging addressed to a court, in a decently thoughtful legal system, by a properly-acting prosecutor (think: Jack Smith) is more significant and important to readers than (2) a mere accusation by eg a private individual (think jilted ex-lover). Reporting (1) as such (not as guilt, but as a charging), is quite proper, indeed the open, non-arbitrary nature of justice proceedings (a value in many rule of law systems) relies upon the public nature of that information broadly. Reporting (2) is usually just third hand defamatory distraction. ] (]) 22:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This proposal would create a prohibition that goes far beyond breaking news. Criminal proceedings can take years and sometimes even over a decade. – ] (]) 18:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' It's not clear what the "contentious point" is that the proposal is seeking to resolve. Saying that someone is indicted ≠ guilty.—] (]) 05:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly oppose''' - The proposal is misguided and arbitrary. It would prohibit mentioning the cases of ], ], ], ], ], the ], and any criminal charges that do not result in either a conviction or acquittal. {{pb | |||
| }}The proposal wrongly supposes that the publication of criminal charges would be harmful to the accused and the legal ]. Public scrutiny ensures that the rights of the accused are protected against abuses of judicial and prosecutorial power. Suppressing that can shield those in power from accountability and create an environment where ]s are more likely to occur. {{pb | |||
| }}The proposal would suppress well-written and reliably-sourced articles that are deemed to be of wide interest to readers and editors. There is a high bar for publishing on the ]. Events published on ] are reviewed case-by-case. This proposal aims to preempt that review. It leaves no room for context and nuance. ] (]) 21:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:**I think the proposal as worded is only for the “proceedings”, which would not prohibit mentioning the publication of criminal charges. That wording only speaks to court cases while they are in progress. It would seem to me that excludes only intermediate events within the courts which would be the ] guessing or gossiping about a specific days sensationalist testimony and those seem worth excluding. Personally, I think the restraint specified is little and limited but that some restraint is necessary. Cheers ] (]) 09:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:**:If the goal is to avoid gossip and minutiae on the main page that should be addressed through policies against that. There's no need for a special policy on criminal cases. We don't want to be in a perverse situation where it's easier to have a ITN about someone being accused of having an affair than being accused of murder. ] (]) 12:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Not an issue -- again, as worded it would allow mention of the start of trial for either murder or an affair, it only says to exclude the "proceedings" of day-by-day trial (or divorce) coverage. Cheers ] (]) 05:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' {{ping|Ad Orientem}} Are there any examples of items that (1) were published on the ] that should not have been, and (2) would have been prevented by the proposed amendment? ] (]) 23:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Well, we individually posted at least two, and possibly three (memory fails) of Donald Trump's indictments. The fourth one I do recall we decided not to post. Trump's sole conviction was posted, quite properly. The Federal charges have now been dismissed. In theory they could be revived, though for obvious reasons (he will be in control of the DoJ for the next four years, and he could attempt to pardon himself) this is exceedingly unlikely. So we repeatedly posted unproven charges against a very prominent and controversial person, followed by a single conviction. As for the the Federal indictments, the community pointedly declined to address their dismissal in the same way we posted them when issued. It goes w/o saying that this sort of thing gives ammunition to those who claim that Misplaced Pages has a leftwing bias where the subject touches on politics and/or culture. But it goes beyond that. We are also posting unproven charges against non-Trump figures, on the main page of one of the world's most heavily trafficked websites. And yeah, I think that is deeply problematic, and I say that as someone who detests Trump. -] (]) 01:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::There is a bright line between unfounded accusations, as can happen in the case of sexual misconduct accusations, and charges that have been made by an official law enforcement agency after a lengthy investigation. The former, that is the type of stuff we should even be careful of posting in the BLP's own article, public figure or not, and only really include that info should there be significant coverage in high-quality, non-tabloid sources. The latter, particularly with those that are or were sitting world leaders, those charges are not being thrown around without the agencies understanding the weight of said charges, and would know there would be heck to pay if they were filing those without any chance of prosecution. Add in the weight that we get from long-term enduring coverage of such charges (not just for Trump, but now Putin and Netanyahu and Bolsanano), and these are far beyond the line where we'd normally take caution with those accusations. ] (]) 02:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::If charges are filed without any chance of prosecution, I think Buffalkill's point about potential prosecutorial misconduct is a good reason for why this type of blanket prohibition could actually benefit those who bring those types of charges. – ] (]) | |||
| *'''Support with edits''' The guidance for restraint is generally a good idea, but the issue here should not be limited by ‘Given the legal presumption of innocence’, as that is not the only reason or desirable limit on the guidance about star coverage. Yes, Misplaced Pages is not a news blotter and we have no need to be first to cover a story - and that is to be reputable and avoid ], ] or ] rather than only the legal concerns for libel or affecting a case during prosecution. For ITN, the restraint would be to avoid posting something that is simply accusations as it seems simply rumors about sports or entertainment figures is ubiquitous and not actually deserving a headline mention unless it escalates beyond that. Similarly, it is not just the ‘presumption of innocence’ or just the initial accusation — ITN should avoid covering every single daily step of a trial for a star even if the daily press covered it - it would just seem obviously gossiping over trivia at some point. Cheers ] (]) 11:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' since the proposal would prohibit even mentioning allegations absent a criminal conviction or acquittal, would it prohibit mentioning the ], since the charges against ] haven't been adjudicated? How would the proposal have applied to cases like ], who was not criminally charged but was given an unconditional pardon? How would it apply to ], who also was given an unconditional pardon for any federal crimes he might have committed during the past decade? ] (]) 20:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. This would mean that even the warrants against Netanyahu c.s. couldn't be posted on ITN. As long as we have ITN, such worldwide news about clearly notable people should be postable. ] (]) 11:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Strongly oppose''' Presumption of innocence is a judicial standard, not a journalistic or academic one. Harm mitigation and legal responsibilities to avoid slander are appropriate considerations but writing someone probably did a bad thing is simply not the same as sending them to jail for it. Thus presumption of innocence simply does not apply from a philosophical viewpoint. ] (]) 11:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Why are some of you arguing about and and ''?'' | |||
| ::Furthermore this is unworkable and unethical considering the diversity of legal systems and criminal codes. For example this grants a high level of protection to powerful individuals in corrupt jurisdictions who can control their legal system, and no protection at all to persecuted individuals. Precisely the opposite of what we want. ] (]) 11:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''', per Fangz, Masem, and Buffalkill. For example, if WP had been around during the Nuremberg trials, it would have prevented mention of those truly significant trials. ] (]) 17:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' - | |||
| :At WP:BLP I read the ''page in a nutshell:'' ] | |||
| :blanket prohibition unwise; | |||
| :the presumption of innocence is not applicable in all countries or all systems or all cases; | |||
| :chargings are often important for Misplaced Pages readers to know about; | |||
| :good high standards journalists and publications routinely report on chargings, but they do it ''as such''; | |||
| :complete prohibition on mentioning will delay or prevent relevant information getting to wikipedia readers, and articles will thus be misleading by incompleteness; | |||
| :confidence in legal and political systems is founded on transparency, and transparency and information is a value of wikipedia; | |||
| :open justice requires some knowledge of what the actual system is doing, people knowing that certain people are being brought, and certain litigants/defendants need that openness to win their legal/broader case. ] (]) 22:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''', absolutely not. Trials can go on for years, sometimes decades, and can often be central to the subject; by this standard we wouldn't have been able to, for instance, mention the OJ Simpson trial anywhere on his article while it was in progress. We are not a news channel but we have an obligation to write an ''up-to-date'' encyclopedia. And this isn't even practical - how would we cover long-running cases against politicians, when they become massively relevant politically? Netanyahu's legal troubles are central to writing about Israel politics; major events going back ''years'' would make no sense at all if we tried to write around them. What happens if an accusation is central to someone's bio for a long time, with extensive ] academic coverage, and we write the article around it, only for it later to go to court - would we suddenly remove it? But on a more basic level this is saying that we could ignore coverage and write an article that ignores sourcing (no matter how strong and overwhelming) based on the gut feelings of a few editors that ongoing trials are never encyclopedic. That is not how we write articles - we reflect sourcing and coverage. If you want to try and demand higher sourcing for recent events, sure, that's something we can argue; but an ''absolute'' ban like this goes against core policy (which is not subject to consensus) and is therefore not something that can be considered. --] (]) 15:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''' per Buffalkill, Aquillion, and others. BLP is already sufficient to guide editors in whether or not something should be featured on the front page. ] <small>(])</small> 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose''', we have to balance privacy vs censorship and this seems too far into the area of censorship. Our current way of doing things already greatly favors privacy when it comes to living people, I see no pressing need for the proposed addition. ] (]) 23:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Alternative proposal=== | |||
| :I agree with ''All Hallow's Wraith'' that the complaints that some of you are making are out of place at WP:BLP. ] (]) 05:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| From {{u|Simonm223}}. See discussion above. | |||
| {{tq|A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. Given the legal presumption of innocence, criminal proceedings including those against prominent public persons, should not be mentioned until the cases are resolved either by conviction or acquittal.}} | |||
| ::We aren't 'arguing'. We are pointing out that ethnic categorisation is neither 'verifiable', or 'neutral' in any fundamentally objective sense, and has no place in a neutral encyclopaedia, unless given proper context - which WP lists and categories singularly fail to do. Hence the debate. ] (]) 05:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Excellently put. ] (]) 09:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Really? So I see that ] is listed in ]. Do you actually believe that Obama's membership in the ethnic group "African-American"—widely reported, relevant to his notability, self-identified, etc.—is "unverifiable" and "non-neutral"? ] (]) 19:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{tq|Any appellate proceedings shall have no bearing on whether or not to post the initial findings of a duly constituted court of law. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.}} | |||
| What we have here is plainly a case of confusion between "verifiability as the standard of truth" as a policy and as some sort of guiding principle. If taken as a principle, it is clear that it does not apply here; the statements we are discussing are not statements of fact, and it is extremely important not to use the principle to magically make them into statements of fact. There are, needless to say, other principles that are at least as important and do apply here: namely, scholarly seriousness and, of course, respect for the autonomy of living individuals. (This last point is why this discussion arose as a discussion of BLP guidelines.) | |||
| *<s>'''Support''' as proposer. I think this would not only eliminate the question of crime reporting on marginally public people but would also, generally, be a great service toward supporting ]. Our website isn't for breaking news and we should consider the balance of public good between extreme inclusionism and respect for presumption of innocence. Yes, that should be applied by Misplaced Pages even for distasteful politicians.</s> ] (]) 18:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Withdrawing proposal''' I no longer stand by this as an appropriate response to the problems I want to solve. ] (]) 15:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as long as the person is a public figure and the documentation of any allegations are from reputable reliable sources, there is zero reason to not include them. For example, taking this to heart, it would mean that we'd have to scrub out all of the convictions Trump faced for J6, which is in a lot of articles, including the SCOTUS case (he wasn't convicted or acquitted). We just need editors to keep their writing impartial and neutral, and work in writing summaries of legal proceedings rather than write to the level of detail the news gives (Wikinews can be used for that) <span id="Masem:1732647080481:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 18:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| *:A key part of my contention here is that Misplaced Pages has really strayed from the spirit of ] in that a vast array of the articles on the website are just news aggregation. I'm honestly not of the opinion that we need to be talking about the indiscretions of contemporary American politicians unless they turn out to be historically significant. ] (]) 18:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am 110% behind you on the NOTNEWS issue, but it affects more than just accusations and trials of BLP. It is a far larger problem that needs to be addressed at a much large venue, one that I have been brewing how to start in the back of my mind. The over details coverage of news absolutely impacts BLP negatively, but changing just BLP isn't the way to resolve it.<span id="Masem:1732647581590:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 18:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| *:::This is touched upon at the guideline ]: {{tq|It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.|q=yes}} —] (]) 02:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::Unfortunately, if you ever try to get some BLP errata revolving around a crime on the basis that it has not been demonstrated to have a lasting impact the response will be that it definitely will and should not be removed because it is so very important. ] (]) 12:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::Yes, it's easier to trim (or even AfD) once the topic has died down. I've yet to see a realistic solution on how to manage the excitement before then. —] (]) 00:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I feel like "strayed" implies we were ever doing anything else. If it was written one way it was clearly never obeyed, and trawling through old talk page archives I find we have actually gotten far more strict about NOTNEWS than we used to be (which is probably for the best, but I take issue with "strayed") ] (]) 02:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Wikinews is dead and dysfunctional and should have never been started. Quite frankly the wiki format does not gel with news. Propose what you want to deal with the NOTNEWS issue but any proposal that says "go to wikinews" is a ''no''. ] (]) 02:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' Support in spirit but this is too complicated and US-centric on the details. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 19:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' - absolutely not. As I said for the other proposal above, we can presume innocence while mirroring the reliable sources that choose to cover a story (or do ''not'' choose). This is not a solution to the larger problem alleged by the proposer. ] <sup>]] ]]</sup> 19:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' for the same reasons as above. Criminal proceedings against ''public figures'' are often ] and should be covered. Additionally, the presumption that all proceedings end in conviction or acquittal seems misguided; cases are often settled without advancing to those stages but may nevertheless be DUE. —] (]) 21:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as explained by David Eppstein. If there are problems with "In the News" blurbs, perhaps this issue should be discussed there (perhaps with a discouragement to accept blurbs that are about an early part of a criminal proceeding, recognizing that this could not be a hard and fast rule). --] (]) 21:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' If the subject of a bio was removed from a public role over an allegation before criminal proceedings completed, or perhaps even started, the proposed change would prohibit any substantive NPOV explanation from being given in the bio.—] (]) 02:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Lawsuits''' What about a (civil) ] (e.g. sexual assault), which has a lower burden of proof than a criminal case?—] (]) 02:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This proposal would create a prohibition that goes far beyond breaking news. Criminal proceedings can take years and sometimes even over a decade. – ] (]) 18:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', no matter how hysterically funny I think it would be to have to retroactively remove all the Trump trial stuff from this site. Also doesn't make any logical sense - "or acquittal"? Given the principle this proposal operates on, innocent until proven guilty, for consistency if someone gets acquitted we should simply never mention it. Which obviously doesn't square with a lot of notable topics - plenty of politicians can be highly notable for being involved in alleged things which they were never found guilty of, see Matt Gaetz. Newsy events have an awkward tension with encyclopedic-ism, but unless we want to restrict article content and creation to a point twenty years in the past (the only real way to solve the NOTNEWS issue) there is no way to put this into policy without severely, severely hampering our coverage of encyclopedic topics. We're always going to be dealing with news sources and new things happening, unless we ban current events entirely - which I don't think would serve us or the readers. If we're talking about ITN/the front page, I'm less bothered by that proposal because it does make some sense to be stricter for the front page, but that also won't work too well in practice. ] (]) 02:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', imagine how confused readers would feel with a ] article only covering him as an investor who was friends with many famous people. He died before his most notable cases could be "{{tq|resolved either by conviction or acquittal}}". ] (]) 03:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Clarification''' {{ping|Simonm223}} The difference between the original proposal, and the alternative proposal, is (a) the addition of: {{xt|"A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction"}}, and (b) the removal of: {{xt|"on the ] of the encyclopdia"}}. The former is simply an affirmation of the ] of the ], and the latter affirms the proposed prohibition on mentioning unadjudicated criminal charges on the ], and extends it to all of Misplaced Pages. Is that correct? Thanks. ] (]) 00:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:No, my proposal would suggest we should not discuss unproven allegations of crimes made against living people without conditions. ] (]) 00:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::So, is it correct that your proposal would forbid us from saying on ] that he "was assassinated at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018 by agents of the Saudi government at the behest of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman" (currently in the lead) because bin Salman is alive and has never been taken to justice? Given that the assassination happened in Turkey, despite being at a Saudi embassy, I assume this would be considered a crime under Turkish law. —] (]) 01:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Not to mention cases where individuals are being tortured, held incommunicado or driven into exile for alleged "crimes" like "insulting the president" or "promoting homosexuality" or whatever. ] (]) 15:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' as less clear than the earlier proposal whether it is for ITN or all WP. I also have view that there is a sharp separation between what is accusations and what has become official charges. Accusations and investigations often turn out frivolous or fleeting with no impact, but legal cases are a notable point where it becomes official with enduring and significant impacts. Cheers ] (]) 11:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Sometimes accusations and investigations are a notable point with enduring and significant impacts, and sometimes legal cases are not. There is too much variation in individual circumstances for either of these blanket prohibitations to be useful. – ] (]) 18:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Accusations *often* turn out frivolous or fleeting, and only if it turns into something enduring - such as the sharp distinction of when it becomes actual official charges which are *not* frivolous - would it be mentioned. An accusation that creates enduring impact has an enduring impact worth mention, but it is the enduring impact that deserves a mention - the accusation alone never would be. Cheers ] (]) 06:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' per {{u|Rjjiii}}. We (sadly) have a whole bunch of people like Epstein and ] who escaped trial for their crimes by dying before they could be tried in court. There are also perpetrators of suicide attacks, and school killers who kill themselves rather than face trial. This is well-intentioned, but it would cause far more trouble than it would solve. ] (]) 19:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Neither Epstein nor Savile are BLPs even when considering the "recently deceased" note. As such statements about living people would not affect them. ] (]) 19:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Epstein was a BLP when the accusations came out and Saville was recently deceased. Everyone will eventually become a non-BLP. Turning the issue into "how long should we wait after they die" doesn't seem helpful. – ] (]) 19:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. Worse than the first proposal. It would make a mockery of e.g. the ] article, if all crimes he was accused of but not convicted for would have to be removed completely. ] (]) 11:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''. That doesn't mean that half an article about a person has to be taken up by a minor DUI charge, but imagine the ] article without any mention of his current legal trouble. In that case, it is well-sourced and it is clearly significant to writing a biographical article about him, even though the charges have not yet reached disposition. We just need to be very clear in the article that the individual has been accused, indicted, whatever have you, but not convicted. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strongly oppose''' As this is much broader, it's even worse than the original proposal. There are significant criminal cases where there is neither conviction nor acquittal, including those where the person dies while awaiting trial and it suddenly becomes possible to discuss the case only after death (as notwally notes), those where the person is pardoned (as with the legally significant case against ], where it would prevent discussing the reason for the pardon, since he is still alive), and those where crimes are alleged but never charged because the person is too powerful (as David Eppstein notes). It's also unclear about the implications for civil suits (like the huge opioid case involving the ]), since those result in liability rather than conviction/acquittal. ] (]) 17:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' This is a well-intended proposal, but it has not been fully thought through. There are (at least) two problems. First, it follows that if material were excluded from any part of wikipedia on the basis that a person has not yet been convicted of an offence, then it could never be included if the person were in due course found not guilty. Yet it would plainly be unacceptable to censor all mention of charges followed by not-guilty verdicts since sometimes these events will have significant consequences and be notable of themselves. Imagine a politician is charged with a specific financial offence and resigns as a finance minister, then markets collapse and social cataclysms follow. There could be no mention of the alleged specific offence for the years it might take to come to court? Then, following a not-guilty verdict, there could never be mention of the specific detail which led to the social cataclysm. "In 2025, '''something happened''' in Xanadu which resulted in the temporary collapse of the financial system there, causing riots, mass deprivation and large scale refugee movement"? Second, it would be unwise for Misplaced Pages to validate verdicts in places like Iran and North Korea, whether guilty or innocent. Such a validation would be the consequence of treating verdicts differently for the purposes of inclusion at Misplaced Pages, even if only limited to the landing page. I appreciate the sentiment behind the proposal, and that's a decent one, but the response to bad actors putting in bad content is to apply present policies, frustrating as that might sound to the proposer. ] (]) 16:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| It is my humble opinion that, if taken as a policy, verifiability does not apply here either: on top of the arguments given before, there is also a slew of practical issues (a source that classifies a living individual in a simplistic way will defeat 99 sources that do not do so, simply because a mention defeats absence). Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, we need explicit guidelines that overrides a naive or willful understanding of verifiability as a policy. BLP already provides some; we are arguing for an additional guideline that is at least as justified as all the other ones. ] (]) 09:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Oppose in strongest possible terms'''. This solves none of the problems with the mess of a suggestion above. Sometimes accusations are central to a biography, or even to related articles; sometimes the legal process can go on for years or even decades without a resolution. Our obligation, per ] and ], is to follow the sources, and to cover things that are treated as significant in them; we are not permitted to ignore some of them based on poorly-considered gut instincts. I have some sympathy for suggestions that we shouldn't rely on breaking news sources (though I disagree with them); but this suggestion, I have zero sympathy for at all - it is deeply foolish and short-sighted, and I hope the proposer will take the sharply negative reaction to heart and ] on anything resembling it, here or elsewhere. As mentioned above, by completely ignoring sourcing and making no exception for coverage of any degree or quality, this proposal would contravene core policy and is therefore not implementable by consensus. --] (]) 15:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Yeah I'm happy to withdraw the proposal. I will say that I remain frustrated with the breaking news mentality we see on BLPs but I will agree that this approach was half-baked and wouldn't solve the problems that really concern me. ] (]) 15:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Alternative proposal 2=== | |||
| My answers to the questions brought by Kotniski are: | |||
| This is actually going the complete opposite direction of the proposal. | |||
| # Whenever there is an agreement of sources on the issue. | |||
| # No other criteria; perhaps defaulting to not cataloguing if sources indicate a controversy but nothing more. | |||
| Reword to | |||
| Misplaced Pages is based around ] and around ]. If verifiable reliable sources agree on ethnicity, religion or whatever else, we have not only the right, but the ''duty'' towards our readers to properly catalogue such information to help our readers find information. To cut it short: | |||
| * Ethnicity may be a social construct (this is an opinion, not a fact: as a molecular biologist, I can say that genetics would beg to -partially- differ), but this is entirely irrelevant. "Singer", "poet" or "politician" are social constructs as well. A socially constructed belonging is no less real than a material one, given that society and its network of constructs is a very real thing. | |||
| * In any case, we follow sources, we do not bend WP to our own philosophical views. So, if sources regularly use, even if only for the sake of brevity, ethnicity as a meaningful category (and they do), then we follow that, because it means it is considered a meaningful way to categorize the subject by sources. | |||
| * If there is a substantial controversy or disagreement between sources, I agree that a clear-cut categorization cannot be made, and so we should refrain from use such labels. This I agree, to respect ]. Otherwise, we're creating a problem where there is none. --]] 12:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Perfect. Can that be our policy please? --] (]) 12:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. For one thing, we have the right to select how to present our material; this is why we have policies to begin with. For another, "ethnicity" (a relatively recent invention as a popular concept, as somebody else pointed out) is a subjective construct in a much deeper sense than, say, "politician" - and it is so in ways that are related to the basic issues underlying BLP policy. People choose to be politicians. As for the networks (plural!) of belonging that people construct for themselves, the networks that are built for them by others, and what third parties project onto them, they are three entirely different things. The drive to ethnicise English Misplaced Pages (compare to fr.wikipedia.org or de.wikipedia.org!) is extremely unlikely to result from some sort of pure fundamentalism regarding the way that Misplaced Pages should reflect other material; rather, it is an attempt in itself to gain a space for the construction of ethnicity. (I was about to type "ethnic nationalism", but that may be the case only for a part of all participants considering one side of the issue.) | |||
| {{font color|green|A living person accused of a crime is legally presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Misplaced Pages is not a court or a legal system, so an article about a person accused of a crime does not have to be written as if they are innocent, absent a conviction, if the consensus of reliable sources is overwhelmingly otherwise. However, with the aim of minimising harm or slander, especially to individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests such persons have committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction.}} | |||
| ::We can and should have articles on ethnicity, just like we do and should have articles on theology. Shall we categorise all biographical subjects into ] and ] whenever any source deemed to be reliable gives information towards the same? ] (]) 12:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{font color|green|While Misplaced Pages must comply with United States law, as a project the content on Misplaced Pages is independent of any local national government and does not represent an official or judicial mouthpiece.(]) While the decisions of local courts should have a strong weight in writing an article, depending on the circumstances other reliable sources should also be included even if they contradict the official verdict, as per ].}} | |||
| *'''Support''' as proposer. This I think is an important clarification. Presumption of innocence is a thing in legal systems. It's not a thing in encyclopedias, academic works, and so on. It's reasonable that we should be more careful, but it should not 100% trump wikipedia's usual processes. If a guy shoots up a school and there's 100% incontrovertible video of him doing it and every reasonable source says he did it, but the guy escaped from prison before his trial, it would be perverse to write in the consideration that he is innocent of both the shooting and the prison escape until a conviction is obtained. It's okay to say "avoid using words the express an excessive certainty that they did it", so "alleged suspect" is often better. (Though in the case of the prison escape, would we really expect any editor to write "he allegedly escaped prison"?) But referring simply to the legal principle creates a false expectation. The standard of proof on wikipedia, even in BLP, is quite different from that in a court of law. ] (]) 11:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::*''we have the right to select how to present our material'' : Yes, of course. This doesn't mean that, as serious reliable editors, we should take our philosophical/political/whatever whims and happily use them to remove or add whatever we enjoy. As a matter of principle and as a matter of fact, we follow ], ] and ]. Even ] after all doesn't do anything different than calling to apply slightly stricter standards and being a bit more cautious on these principles. We may have a right to decide (not select) ''how'' to present stuff, but we shouldn't have the right to ignore what sources say due to our philosophical inclinations. This would fly in the face of NPOV for a start. We may not ''like'' that sources talk about ethnicity of people, but they ''do'' with impressive regularity, and we should follow them. | |||
| :::*''ethnicity" is a subjective construct in a much deeper sense than, say, "politician" ''- To be fair, it's the opposite. I can analyze your mitochondrial DNA and guess, with a reasonable confidence, if your mother is of relatively recent African or European or Native American descendence, for example. See ] for discussion. I am fully aware this doesn't fulfill the meaning of "ethnicity" as it is understood culturally, but there is an objective basis to at least part of it: it's in your DNA, in your very molecules building your body here and now. Now, of course I am aware that most sources don't do DNA testing of their subjects and merely report descendence and/or apparent ethnicity, and are fine with that. But again: if they do so (and they do), the same we do. | |||
| ::::Note: I am fine with putting something like "People considered to be X" rather than a simple "People of ethnicity X", to make clear that it's a classification that sources do and that may or may be not 100% objective. Yet if sources consider people to be X (whatever X is), then why should we self-censor to avoid reporting that? | |||
| :::*''As for the networks (plural!) of belonging that people construct for themselves, the networks that are built for them by others, and what third parties project onto them, they are three entirely different things.'' : Different why, in what meaning, and how is this relevant? | |||
| :::*''rather, it is an attempt in itself to gain a space for the construction of ethnicity.'' : This is a very serious ] violation and I ask you to retract. I don't care if it's ethnicity, religion or "People who are considered to like Kermit the Frog". I personally care about ] and I care about not letting our personal philosophical opinions remove what other readers could consider useful or otherwise interesting reliably sourced information (or a useful/interesting criterion to search within WP). We should remember we're doing this for the readers. It's not a game that we play to be politically correct: it's a service we provide to reorganize, sum up and put information in the most useful and complete way to the readership. | |||
| :::*''Shall we categorise all biographical subjects into ] and ] whenever any source deemed to be reliable gives information towards the same?'' : I am not aware of it being used as a meaningful categorization by many sources but in case it is so, why not? --]] 17:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::A corollary is that we should also not encourage editors to write as if an individual is guilty simply because a conviction was obtained. You can write that factually, the guy was convicted, but e.g. human rights groups say it's total rubbish etc. ] (]) 11:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Bias Categories and BLPs == | |||
| *'''Vehemently Oppose''' ] ] both apply here. While Misplaced Pages may not be censored, such a policy would open flood gates for attack pages and coatracks as well as adding further ripped-from-the-headlines recentism to the project. ] (]) 13:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:This does not overrule those other policies. Rather the opposite: the point is that those policies apply and should not be overruled by "the X government says this guy is guilty/innocent". The current text gives the appearance that criminal charges (criminal where? According to whom) are an overly special case. Attack pages should be prevented by rules against attack pages. If you think individuals should get attack pages dependent on whether their local government (which, lest you forget, includes anywhere from North Korea to ISIS) handed them a guilty verdict or not, that's a ridiculous state of affairs. By what metric or logic should we handle differently writing about someone's bigamy allegations vs them having an extramarital affair? ] (]) 13:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Put it this way, in a legal context the reasoning for a presumption of innocence is easy to understand. The State must refrain from applying harm (punishment) undeservingly. In a Misplaced Pages content, the harm is reputational damage, but the thing is, reputational damage is essentially unrelated to the criminal nature of accusations. When a "crime" could depending on jurisdiction be anything between a major crime against humanity to smoking some weed or being a homosexual, while non-criminal allegations could include child rape and again major crimes against humanity... if you just want to avoid recentism and attack pages etc, it's a meaningless distinction to make. ] (]) 14:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Yep. ] (]) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''' - I think revision of that section is worth discussing, and I agree with the overall sentiment, but am not sure how I feel about the proposed wording. It's clear that WP articles do not always treat criminal allegations as if the person is innocent absent conviction. For example, the article on ] says that he "was assassinated at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018 by agents of the Saudi government at the behest of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman," even though the agents haven't been convicted (and won't be, as Saudi Arabia refused to extradite them to face the charges), and bin Salman will never be charged. For that matter, WP can discuss the possibility of wrongful conviction even if a conviction hasn't (yet) been overturned, as in appeals brought by the ]. I'm not convinced that the section needs to be modified, and if it is modified, I also wonder whether it should be revised to apply to significant civil suits as well as criminal ones. And US law is not the only legal system that is relevant. ] (]) 18:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| FYI, per <u>]</u>, individuals and organizations should no longer be added to the various "bias" categories (racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, anti-Islam sentiment, etc. I don't know if anybody will be running a bot through such lists to remove BLPs and organizations or if it will happen haphazardly as people feel motivated. The admin who made the decision did put a template on the top of the talk page of each category. I also don’t know if this point needs to be added to the category section of this article. ] (]) 05:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Carol: you ask ''"if this point needs to be added to the category section of this article"''. I was thinking the same thing. The bias categories (I would call them bigotry categories) arguably fall under the ] policy already, because it covers ''"categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light)."'' In fact, user NickCT started a draft update to ] at ]. With Nick's permission, I made some modifications, and you'll see I explicitly listed the bias/bigotry categories as examples of the "poor reputation" policy. (at least, that is how it is until someone else modifies it :-) --] (]) 06:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' For the reasons I give at the end of the first alternative proposal (NB: I accidentally put that comment here until alerted by ] | |||
| == BLP1E: is it really part of policy? == | |||
| I've been involved in a couple of AfD's and similar discussions where this section has been invoked and it isn't proving particularly convincing. Policy is usually more or less the established consensus of the community. If the consensus is that "famous for a day" human interest stories where there are abundant sources (i.e. ] is satisfied) even when the person's long term notability is dubious or ] should, per the AFD, have an article in spite of ], should we re-evaluate the presence of that section in this policy? BLP is a little more complicated in that more than the community's consensus goes into writing policy, of course, but this appears to be a ] issue rather than the types of issues that make BLPs have special interest. At the very least, this section needs to be rewritten so that it isn't negated on a regular basis. ] (]) 23:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : |
*:], did you mean your response to be placed at the end of ''Alternative proposal'' rather than at the end of ''Alternative proposal 2''? (It seems so, based on the content.) ] (]) 20:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | ||
| *::You are correct! :-) Oops. Moving now. Thanks. ] (]) 16:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Support'''. This is the way. We must follow the sources wherever they lead; we can urge ''caution'', we can set criteria for what good sources are, which are well spelled-out in policy and referenced here, but ultimately it is not up to editors to second-guess the sources or to create their own byzantine rules about when we can report what the best sources say. If an accusation is central to a biography, and there is ''clear and unequivocal'' agreement among the sources, then as an encyclopedia, the encyclopedic thing to do is to reflect that; likewise, if there is clear and unequivocal agreement among the sources as to guilt, we have to reflect that in our article regardless of legal processes (though of course the legal processes would, I'd expect, be covered in the sources and therefore mentioned.) The legal process is important but is not the be-all-and-end-all or the final word when it comes to writing an encyclopedia; we must summarize ''all'' coverage, with weight according to its significance - giving legal processes (which are, in many countries, highly politicized) final say is inappropriate. If the legal process is worth so much deference, then the highest-quality sources will defer to it; in cases where they do not, we should not, either. Beyond that this proposal would put a well-deserved stake in the heart of the awful suggestions above and would block people from trying to present them on talk, which is badly-needed given how damaging they would be to Misplaced Pages's mission if not totally shut down. --] (]) 15:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Strong Oppose''' - this is factually wrong and morally improper. If a person has not been convicted, it is simply wrong to use of legal language that means someone who is convicted, a distortion of facts. You can mention video evidence and such, or say they died before there was a trial, or whatever the actual events are -- but the simple fact is if they were not convicted, they are not convicted and so it is incorrect to use language as if they were or to include such incorrect statements from third parties based on "reliable sources should also be included even if they contradict the official verdict, as per WP:DUE." | |||
| ::Well, the one I'm stuck with now is ], which appears to be a fairly obvious case of "one eventism" but the deletion discussions have been anything but obvious. There are a couple of others referenced in that discussion (e.g. Sullenberger, can't remember his whole name, but that airline pilot with the "successful" crash), Nadya Suleman (aka "Octomom" which has two articles), and there are likely others. The reality is that in this age of 24-hour news, finding reliable sources on these people isn't really all that hard when they take their fifteen minutes of fame before disappearing into obscurity again. ] (]) 12:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :It's also morally wrong to invite a libelous judgement based on casual volunteers and limited information. This is not going to be about incontrovertible evidence and some well-defined metric of "consensus" in RS -- it is going to wind up in situations of partial knowledge from media coverage and limited volunteer looking time and arguing over whether this is "enough" or whether I have 10 sources versus you have 9 contrary ones so that's a "consensus". I don't even see it as wise editorial policy to go something that would lead to more disputes. Cheers ] (]) 06:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::], what is your opinion about the lead in the article on ]? The first paragraph says that he "was assassinated at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018 by agents of the Saudi government at the behest of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman," even though the agents haven't been convicted (and won't be, as Saudi Arabia refused to extradite them to face the charges), and bin Salman will never be charged. It doesn't mention conviction, but it's implying that they're guilty (though not using that word). I think that's what's meant by {{tq|an article about a person accused of a crime does not have to be written as if they are innocent, absent a conviction, if the consensus of reliable sources is overwhelmingly otherwise}}. ] (]) 22:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Public figure == | |||
| :::Sorry, SDY, but I don't think those examples illustrate your point very well. Daniel Hernandez Jr is a current AfD, and looks to be leaning towards being merged. ] appears to have independent notability as an author and air safety expert (I know nothing about him, but if he does then he does). I can't for the life of me see why we need separate articles for ] and ], but I'm not sure this is a great example of a breach of BLP1E. Per the wording of the guideline, I'd say that Suleman's involvement in her own pregnancy is "substantial and well-documented". Should an article for ] be created instead? | |||
| : |
Is ] really needed? All living persons with Misplaced Pages articles are public figures, and it’s really vague how does one determine who’s a public figure.--] (]) 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :"All living persons with Misplaced Pages articles are public figures" is not true at all. – ] (]) 18:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unless we stop talking about crimes then, yes, ] is absolutely critical. Furthermore please remember that, to be a public figure, a person needs to be independently notable for something other than an unproven accusation of a crime. ] (]) 18:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not true if we have a clear definition on what a public figure really is. WP:PUBLICFIGURE links to ], which is in terrible shape and lists only the legal definition in the United States. What about the legal definitions in other countries? If there's no universal legal definition about a public figure, the easiest way to go is with the general meaning of the term, that is, a person known in public. Therefore, one has to be a public figure so that biographical information is available in reliable sources, and that's what is required for a stand-alone Misplaced Pages article.--] (]) 20:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::No, I don't believe your argument is accurate at all. "Biographical information is available in reliable sources" is not the standard for a public figure in any legal code, nor in any discussion I have seen on Misplaced Pages. Further, ] links to the explanatory essay ], which provides additional guidance. Clearer guidance would be helpful and making that guidance part of actual policies or guidelines would probably also be helpful. However, I'm not aware of any discussion that has ever concluded that notability for Misplaced Pages purposes is the same as being a public figure, and in some cases, that would be obviously not true. – ] (]) 22:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You're talking about legal codes, but ] only lists the legal case in the United States. Could you please expand the article with the legal codes of all countries or find a universal legal definition? A policy linking to an orange-tagged article in terrible shape cannot be a good policy. Furthermore, ] isn't a reliable source or a legal code, but just an essay which is chiefly advisory. Low-profile (or non-public) figures are unlikely to suffice stand-alone articles, so it really gets to the point that all living persons who merit articles are public figures. Persons notable for single events don't have stand-alone articles, and the articles on the events typically contain their biographical information (e.g. ], ] etc.).--] (]) 07:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree that our definitions of public figures and low profile individuals is quite vague and imprecise. I do also agree that this distinction is important. - ] (]) 19:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't dispute that these are cases where I have an opinion (well, other than Sullenberger, which I was never invovled with). The Hernandez case shows, though, that for policy BLP1E isn't very authoritative in that it was no less obvious a 1E case at the first AFD and yet the first AFD closed as no consensus. Given the very loose nature of 1E, wouldn't it be better classified as a guideline? ] (]) 14:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, it advises editors that being neutral does not necessarily mean the exclusion of negative material for public figures. —] (]) 04:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::IMO, the first AfD was wrongly decided, but that's going to happen from time to time and it isn't evidence of a crisis. I don't think 1E is loose. It does sometimes go against what people instinctively feel, but the same can be said for any policy and it just shows why we need written rules, at the end of the day. --] (]) 14:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's not the point. All material in reliable sources is eligible for inclusion, unless specifically restricted by other policies. We ] to encourage editors not exclude negative material from reliable sources. Moreover, this policy isn't written in an efficient way as there's not a systematic list of legal definitions about "public figure" in all countries in the world. The only thing we have is a link to ], an orange-tagged article with information on the legal situation in the United States. How does this policy help editors from other countries in the world discern who's a public figure? --] (]) 07:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::There's almost 1,000 links to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so some editors apparently find it useful to reference. Are there specific instances where there was a conflict over ''public figure'' that we can reference to consider opprtunities for improvement? —] (]) 08:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If we acknowledge that "public figure" is a real thing on Misplaced Pages that needs to be singled out, then we need to make sure that anyone gets the right meaning. Otherwise, we involuntarily put our editors at risk in case there's a litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation. This policy explicitly calls for adding biographical information that may be deemed defamatory, but it doesn't legally protect our editors from any unwanted scenario. In general, all relevant information in reliable sources should be included, but there are countries in which editors have to weigh their contributions against their personal safety. Misplaced Pages is neither a lawyer nor a platform for human rights activism. It should promote, but not mandate, full transparency. I find this policy redundant.--] (]) 09:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::If you're referring to ], I'll leave it to WMF lawyers. As for individual editors, if they want to be more strict and not add the information themselves, ] they are not comfortable with. —] (]) 09:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :PUBLICFIGURE is really more used in the negative sense, in that people that are clearly not public figures (by any definition) should have added BLP concerns related to privacy and other information. A person can have an article but not be a public figure if they are not regularly in the spotlight, as I would consider most academics and professors, many authors, and some business people, all whom might have a good deal of coverage to be able to be notable, but to the extent that we would not include a random accusation within their BLP if only a single source covers it. ] (]) 21:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Yes, ] is needed, both as editorial guidance to what is proper and as legal cover so WP is not guilty of fostering libel. No, all people with articles are not public figures, as said in ] at “regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article”. Functionally WP article cannot be the criteria as that would circularly open PUBLICFIGURE to be a hack of just create an article on the person to get around the policy. I think it is clear enough that a public figure is a high government official, a listed royal, or a person who sought public prominence. I think there is even a division between those whose actions directly seek prominence via speeches and personal press conferences, and those who are simply famous by dint of notable performance in sports or entertainment. I would tend to try and respect the individuals life choices for personal privacy where reasonable and supported. Cheers ] (]) 07:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I do not think every holder of a named chair in a univeristy, or several other criteria that we have make people public figures. Someone who won a medal at the olympics 30 or more years ago, or even less, may or may not have been a public figure then, and notability always holds once it is reached, but I think people should have the right to privacy if they chose it, especially those who were thrust into the public spotlight as children or young adults in many ways not by themselves, many gymnastics medalists are minors, so I think it does not make sense to assume all holders of articles are actually public figures.] (]) 13:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Djair Parfitt-Williams Official Name Change Update == | |||
| == The minority report == | |||
| http://www.islandstats.com/sport.asp?sport=2&assoc=1&newsid=63984 | |||
| Here it is: The whole idea of WP's BLP is intrinsically evil, from the get-go. And yes, that includes BLPs of George W. Bush and Barach Obama, on down to the BLP of your local soccer/football goalie. The idea of assisting in making any site in the internet a central repository about personal information about living people, with strangers deciding what goes into their information "file" or not, is a very bad idea. The fact that other sites (newspapers, blogs, what-have-you) do some of this, just amounts to the argument that OTHEREVILEXISTS, and thus it's okay for us to be evil too, because standards are falling everywhere. Wrong. The fact that other websites do evil doesn't mean WP needs to help. If WP's 400,000 BLPs had been crowd-source compiled on-line by a site that ended with ".gov," everybody would be having a fit, right now. Instead, we permit it on WP-- in fact it drives some of the interest in WP, because BLP is a constant 12% of WP's articles (a fact that never seems to change much). <p>This whole sub-categorization mess with ethnicity and gender is a side-effect of a larger issue that everybody refuses to address. <p> WHY do they refuse to address it? Because BLP is gossip, and it's fun. The defects of dead people don't generate much drama. And most of the people who participate on WP don't think it will ever apply to them, because they don't even have a BLP. Indeed, many are anonymous, because they prize their privacy-- how hypocritical is that? They tell themselves lies, such as all BLP victims are public figures who chose to promote themselves, even when that's not true (or is undecidable), and that they DESERVE to have BLPs (wrong, nobody deserves a BLP unless possibly the matter is decided by judge and jury and appeal). People who control Misplaced Pages, and who should know better, divert the issue by simply controlling their own BLPs, and by controlling their friends and lovers' BLPs, or having them deleted entirely (you'll never see a BLP of WMF's criminal COO who went to prison, since she embarasses WMF). So the board of WMF and those who make money from it, have no personal reason to care. <p> In case some of you have forgotten how to tell that something is immoral, unethical, or (that unpopular word) evil, and have no help from your rabbi or pastor or priest or parents, allow me to remind you of something that you know already, unless you're a sociopath. Don't do anything to somebody else unwillingly, that you'd be unhappy if they did to YOU. That's called the "golden rule" for a reason, because it serves for all ethical systems, in all capacities. There is no ] policy, and I think there's a reason for that, also. WP couldn't abide it. Even though WP:GOLDENRULE should be the ONE pillar that controls the other five. Actually, as you see by its fundamental hypocrisy when it comes to BLPs, Wikpedia is seriously morally deficient. <p> I realize that these words have a ]'s chance of making any difference in the present debate. But they still need saying. Many of you reading are uncomfortably aware that I'm right, but still you do nothing. <p> Well, shame on you. ]]]] 18:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :]. I'm 100% for having a well defined BLP policy that is restrictive enough to protect living people, hence my support of the proposal above, but what exactly are you proposing? NO BLPs on Misplaced Pages ever again? If you really want to start and RFC or other community discussion about that be my guest, but I'm not sure ranting like this is the solution, especially not when you are insinuating that people who don't share your ethical principles would have to be sociopaths. Cheers.] (]) 19:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's as likely to be a start to the solution as anything else. All change starts from somebody in the streets of Tunisia, or in Boston Harbor, saying: "This is wrong!" NOTAFORUM simply translates to "somebody said something on a TALK page, and ]." Also, NOTAFORUM doesn't apply to advocating for or against WP's own policies; it's meant against using WP as a soapbox about the world. Yes, people who don't get the Golden Rule are sociopaths. How you reconcile BLP with your own understanding of the Goldern Rule is your own business. I observe that you've very private about your own life, though. Is your BLP up on Misplaced Pages anywhere? Which one is it? ]]]] 19:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm not going to quibble over the definition of sociopathy and what is meant by "getting the Golden Rule" because that was not my point. Your rant suggests that if people don't agree with you they are either completely self-serving because they "get the Golden Rule" but don't apply it, or sociopaths. That perspective is self-righteous and demeaning. Cheers.] (]) 12:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't think this is a ] issue, it's just so ] that it's not worth discussing. ] is for talk page discussions unrelated to actually writing an encyclopedia, and this discussion is about writing the encyclopedia... albeit one that is so ridiculous that I think the proper reference is ]. ] (]) 02:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::NOTAFORUM, because Sbharris is not actually suggesting any changes to be made to the policy, but instead is opining in a very general (though extreme0 manner on the very existence of BLP articles at Misplaced Pages. Cheers.] (]) 12:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| i am Djair Terraii Parfitt , i have been advised to raise discussion here . I have legally changed my name to “Djair Terraii Parfitt” … i no longer go by Williams . Can you please update the Misplaced Pages Page | |||
| :::::So we're arrived to the point that talking about living people on the Internet is unethical. Thank you for your outstanding contribution to our daily {{facepalm}} dose, SBHarris. Now you can leave this place of sin and let us continue our job of documenting notable subjects (which include, incredibly enough for humans, other notable living humans). --]] 12:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: You have enough scientific publications to have crossed WP's notability-threshhold yourself, Cyclopia. So take the plunge and start a BLP on yourself. At least use your name and a picture on your userpage. It's immediately obvious from published sources who you are, so all this is referenceable. I even find on the internet a photo of you in clown makeup (hilarious! Did you do that?), though that might not be verifiable, so I presume would not be includable (we must follow the BLP rules). The internet forgets nothing. You appear to be (like other some editors here) an example of a person who wants to do unto others what they would be most displeased to see done unto themselves. Why is that, do you think? Is there something about the prospect of needing to check your BLP every day to see if it's been vandalized, that makes having one, a bit unappetizing? As a scientist, why do you have so much difficulty generalizing a hypothesis from a good specific case, plus many other reports? You are too modest, perhaps? ]]]] 18:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Regards ] (]) 00:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *If you think Sbharris's concerns are totally off the wall, read , or spend some time answering mails from aggrieved BLP subjects in the OTRS queue. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 01:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*Look I fully recognize that there are BLP problems on Misplaced Pages that still need to be sorted out, and I fully support any measure that would help us write BLPs more carefully, but SBHarris' remarks ''are'' off the wall.] (]) 04:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *One possible solution short of deleting all BLPs: Make BLP editing a user right that must be earned, and can be lost. This wouldn't solve all problems, but it might diminish the problems we (or rather, our BLP subjects) have. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 01:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :*I'm not sure how that would work, but it is an interesting suggestion to only allow established accounts to edit BLPs, and as such to take away the privileged even from such accounts if they cannot handle the responsibility.] (]) 04:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :**See . --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 10:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :***Sbharris employs some hyperbole to good effect, but his point looks valid to me. There are people among us who, despairing of ever attaining self respect on their own devices, have resolved to steal it from others. They will try every possible tactic to impute dismerit, and BLP's have been great arenas for them. More does need to be done about it. Maybe the idea of turning BLP editing into a privilege might work. ] (]) 12:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The hyperbole just makes the argument look like a temper tantrum over a broken toy, and steals any viability it might have had. While I agree that there are problems with the BLP process, accusing the entire project of bad faith is a non-starter. As for the "BLP userright" why not just semi-protect all BLPs by default? Either that or have a "recent changes" exclusive to BLPs so that the mop and bucket brigade can whac-a-mole more efficiently? Either would be simpler to implement than a new userright. ] (]) 12:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Default semi (and/or default flagged revs) on BLP would be an excellent solution; the problem is that every time it is proposed ''nobody'' of the hardcore BLP "ethicists" shows up to support it, while they bend over backwards to support much more destructive measures with much less substantial impact (read: BLPPROD, "default to delete" suggestions, etc.) --]] 15:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::That's because it is a worthless piece of junk, as I've pointed out on countless occasions. Its only utility is that it is thrown up by BLP "non-ethicists" as a token nod to "doing something" any time an ethical issue is raised, only to be killed off by insisting on yet another round of discussion, process and feet-dragging. I've been hearing the "flagged revisions will solve this" mantra for five years now. Implement it or don't implement it, I really have ceased caring. It will not solve the BLP problem, indeed it won't really do much at all.--] 16:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| (undent) The arguments against these "pre-emptive anti-vandalism" are mostly driven by trying to be open and friendly to new users. Are there any other suggestions as to how to empower admins and the people who fix this kind of garbage? Recent changes patrolling is how we handle most of the "could be protected but isn't" problems, and making that mechanism work more efficiently can only be good. Honestly, there will always be errors, malcontents, and vandals, and in a "golden rule" scenario, I wouldn't expect anything more than due diligence in fixing it. Errors in basic information about any number of topics can have far more important impacts on the real world than someone being offended about what's being written about them online. ] (]) 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :This misses the point utterly. We're doing our best and remember there's people dying in Africa is not an adequate response to the fact that we are allowing anonymous people to write encyclopedia articles about living individuals and we are utterly unable to prevent a large amount of libel, bias and other hurtful things being passed of as encyclopedic content. Saying "what else can we do?" misses the point to. Try not hosting material on living people! Don't like that solution? OK, now work out the way of doing it that makes the risk of bad material on living people low enough that it is reasonable to ask our subjects to live with it. Frankly, it is obvious that "due dilligence" isn't enough here, so we need to do things differently. But that's a discussion that's simply anathema to those who deny any problem and assume a God-given right to do what we do.--] 16:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::We can't write an encyclopedia without writing about living people. An article about ] is inevitably going to involve living people, as is an article about ]. Virtually any article is open to "libel, bias, and other hurtful things." Other than giving up on the entirety of the project, we're going to have to accept that some errors and bad faith will take place. Unless we shut down the project entirely, there will be "libel, bias, and other hurtful things" in BLPs somewhere in the encyclopedia. A ]-style police state might stop 90% of it, and even then you'd still have some absolutist claiming that "we aren't doing enough" to stop these problems. There's a question of what we can practically do, and reasonable proposals like semi-protection or tools for improved vigilance can help, but unless we want to give up on an "encyclopedia anyone can edit" we're not going to implement much else. ] (]) 17:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::There is no God-given right to have an encyclopedia where anyone can write about living people. If you want to have one, then you need to think about how you do that in a way that minimises the chance of harting people - and the onus is on you to come up with it. (Unless you take the view that you are legally entitled to be reckless here, so who give a fuck about anyone else.) The argument that you can't entirely eliminate the risk of harm is not an argument for not trying your damnedest to eliminate as much of it as possible. And there is lots we could do here - semi-protection and flagging are at the very low end of a spectrum that goes up to doing things like, removing all lower-notability BLPs, only letting established users edit BLPS, even to requiring people editing BLPs to use their real names. Of course, if you start by assuming Misplaced Pages's right to do what it is doing, and not really seeing the harm as being your responsibility, then you'll not entertain any of this. Which makes arguing with you pretty pointless.--] 18:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::What is meant by "harm" here? What are we referring to when we refer to "hurting people"? Policy can be abused. ] is abused, or at least it is not unheard of for WP:BLP to occasionally be abused. The crux of the question pertains to what sort of "harm" we are trying to prevent. As I read the above, I think I see an emphasis on ''how'' to prevent that "harm". I think attention needs to be drawn to what "harm" we are trying to prevent. ] (]) 18:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There are various harms. See ] for an analysis of harm. The greatest harm to a living subject is the plausible untruth: the edit which is false or misleading, but to anyone who don't check the facts, or know the subject, would look possible (i.e. it would not be reverted as obvious vandalism).--] 18:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| (undent) There's a difference between "being reckless" and "being obsessive-compulsive." The chance that someone will suffer actual physical harm because of what is written about them on Misplaced Pages is very, very, slight. The most likely thing is that they'll be offended, and hurting people's feelings is not exactly genocide. The world will not end if Misplaced Pages is naughty, and treating the existence of BLPs as a crime against humanity is just nonsensical hysteria. ] (]) 18:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :] | |||
| :I did not read this as carefully as I should have but I have seen some suggestions offered. One suggestion that I have not seen but would offer is a more strict enforcement of ]. If an article is not sourced properly, it should be deleted. For a very long time, this was ignored. Then along came the idea and a nifty template that said that BLPs that were created after a certain date in this year (I have forgotten that detail) must have at least one reliable source. I have only seen the template in action, I have not studied its history or rationale. I am merely a little frustrated every time I see it. ] is fairly clear that every article must be reliably sourced and that statements that do not have sources should be deleted.<br> | |||
| :this page ^ ] (]) 00:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :As for the suggestions there are two that I believe I have read that I believe have merit and a possibility of being adopted. | |||
| :* Only registered users should be allowed to edit BLP articles. IPs can make suggestions for changes on the article's talk page and a registered user could act on the suggestions. | |||
| :* I think that a re-vamping of the ] process is in order. Editors should have to earn Reviewer status. I should not be a Reviewer, even though I am. No one should be a Reviewer ''ex officio'', such as Admins. There should be a process for granting Reviewer status which would include provisions for removal of the status. Self-nominations for Reviewer status should be suspect and subject to greater scrutiny that a second-hand nomination. This is not to say that they should not be approved or that their terms (if it is decided that the status should be subject to renewal) shoulc be shorter, merely that Reviewer status should not be a coveted feather in ones cap. | |||
| :] (]) 18:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Reading the Doc Glasgow essay, it appears that semi-protection is not viewed as a viable solution since the problem is not in vandalism (rapidly recognized and blocked), but in tendentious editing (usually recognized but rarely blocked). One suggestion that's floated there that's worth discussing is bumping up the notability requirements for living people, which I'd strongly endorse. Borderline notable people where Misplaced Pages is the only readily available source (e.g. if it's the only source in English) are the obvious class to be protected. Anyone who's unquestionably notable has bigger PR problems than some cranks writing an encyclopedia and will likely have counter-cranks to defend them. ] (]) 19:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I believe we are still talking about ''how'' to prevent harm without identifying that harm. ''What are we trying to prevent?'' Give specific examples, ''please.'' In the absence of an articulated identification of the sort of "harm" we are trying to prevent, this discussion is about setting up structures and procedures ''that are prone to abuse.'' We want to avoid the unintended consequence of whatever procedures we are proposing putting in place resulting in an overall deterioration in the quality of our biographies of living people. I am not a gossip-monger, I don't think, but the free inclusion of sourced material should not be hampered. I think that the free inclusion of sourced material is the lifeblood of the project. We should be clear about what it is we are trying to combat. Setting up barriers and tests can hamper article production. I think it is reasonable to assume there can be disagreement about what constitutes "harm". Can we even identify "harm"? ] (]) 19:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Surely qualifies as "harm". --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 20:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Surely it does. But the next supposed instance of "harm" is going to take on a different form, is it not? When it is in the mature and thoroughly articulated form that we see in it is not difficult to identify. My question is—how do we identify "harm" in its incipient stage? Wouldn't there be likely many false alarms, in which editors suggest that an individual—the subject of a biography of a living person—is in danger of being "harmed", when that may not be the case at all? Identifying "harm" is the key here. I'm suggesting that identifying harm in its early stages is difficult and that setting up structures to combat it may be futile and even potentially counterproductive. ] (]) 20:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Yet another manufactured reason to do nothing. Perhaps a sandbox would be useful - to bury your head in.--] 22:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Despite what you're claiming, Mac, the sky is in fact not falling. There have been some isolated incidents of seriously problematic BLPs, but is there any evidence whatsoever that this is a widespread issue? With 400,000 BLPs, even with ] we'd expect more than one to fail, and Misplaced Pages is nowhere near that good. ] (]) 22:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::So, the odd bit of collateral damage is fine then. I mean as long as the sky don't fall on your head. Can't have anything like concern for the odd person or two get in the way of our anonymous little hobby can we?--] 23:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| (undent) Misplaced Pages's open editing model has generated oceans of useful content and provided accessible knowledge to huge numbers of people. Benefits means that yes, there are some acceptable risks. I still drive to work in the morning, even though I know it's possible it will kill me or other people, even though I've personally been involved in an accident that very well could have killed me, because there's a clear benefit and the risk is very small. ] (]) 00:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :The problem here is that the risk to you here is zero - when you drive you (at very least) share the risk to like and limb with the person you might hit - that tends to encourage more responsible driving. But, as it stands, you seem incapable of considering that you might wish to drive at a significantly lower speed to reduce the risk to others (because slowing you down is an unacceptable price to pay to reduce a statistically small risk to someone else). That is the essence of moral irresponsibility - or to put it another way selfishness. Maybe if we insisted people edit under their own names, and thus they shared the risk to reputation and of harassment with the subjects they write about, then your analogy might work. --] 00:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Are we discussing any proposal here or is this a meta disagreement? It's not a moral issue, not if phrased in that way. It could be an ethical on. Misplaced Pages does a lot more good than harm to the world and its living human inhabitants, and refusing to spread knowledge about people for fear that one person could be harmed in the course of helping countless others would be abdicating our important role in society. Of course we should try to get it right, but we have to balance that against a lot of other concerns. Absolutism isn't a good way of doing that. Instead we have a lot of mechanisms - the content policies, administrators, BLP, OTRS, and so on. I sometimes think that we should all have confirmed identities, or at least accounts, but anonymity seems to be a fundamental tenet around here. - ] (]) 05:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it is a moral issue. But it is not "absolutising" to say we should do a hell of a lot more here. The fact that roads are a good thing doesn't mean that speed limits should not be lowered or red-lights introduced. And the fact that something seems to be a "fundamental tenant" is part of the absoluiting language of those who reject change. I'm rather sick of being called an absolutist by people who think that Misplaced Pages would be destroyed by "absolutely" any change, and that we should do no more to prevent harm.--] 08:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Where do I direct queries from BLP subjects? == | |||
| ::::(agreeing) As long as WP has editors who think as one did (examples of his opinions are anonymously contained at ], the need for strong controls over BLPs is self-evident. Yes - we do need "red lights" here. And the fact that we only have a choice now for "yield signs" does not mean we should have no controls until someone invents "red lights." ] (]) 12:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a forehead-slappingly obvious central place where a subject of a BLP may go for help? If I were Sylvester Stallone, and I had an issue with my recent coverage, where would I send such queries? On the talkpage of the article certainly. Not to the BLP noticeboard. Public AND Private, as a sysop what are the best places to direct such inquiries or concerns? ] (]) 12:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{WP:FACEPALM}}. We ''do'' have strong controls for BLPs. They could be stronger, but they will never be strong enough to appease absolutists, but unless we ] the entire project they might not be satisfied. Heck, absolutists would probably require that we delete any cached copies that exist on any hard drive anywhere in the world. I'm going to stop feeding the trolls and de-watchlist this page. ] (]) 12:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :], ]? ] (]) 13:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You are the only one bringing in absolutist arguments - it seems as an excuse for doing absolutely nothing more. Others are arguing to do a LOT more, sure. But the notion that "it won't satisfy hypothetical absolutists" is simply your straw man. And who are these trolls you are referring to? People who disagree with your rhetorical nonsense?--] 13:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::If there's anything we're actually talking about here, or any real problem that needs a solution, it would help to lay it on the table. Meanwhile, the extremist meta-statements are absurd. - ] (]) 14:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Well Jayen had an interesting suggestion above, but the rest of this is beginning to look a whole lot like a pro v. anti BLP pissing match. But then again it started with a rant that offered no workable solutions to any of the known BLP problems -- just the claim that BLP articles are inherently evil. I guess the suggestion that we all edit with our real names was also made, to be fair, but if you ask me that would be a death blow to this project. It is an impractical suggestion because a vast majority of volunteers would no longer edit here. At the end of the day, the project needs these volunteers. Now I fall firmly in the camp of people who think that more needs to be done to protect BLPs. How about we do discuss some actual proposals to change the policy or to change the way we regulate BLP editing more broadly (e.g. like Jayen's proposal)? Cheers.] (]) 15:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == A discussion of interest? == | |||
| ===Hybrid suggestion=== | |||
| While I do not support the notion that all editors should edit under the real names, what about taking that idea and melding it with Jayen's suggestion? What if we did only allow certain editors to edit BLP entries? What if those editors had to disclose their real life identity, not to the general public, but at least to the foundation? This way we don't ruin the project by chasing away all the editors who will only edit anonymously while setting a higher standard for BLP editing that includes a certain level of accountability, but still ensures the more general anonymity that some would not want to do away with. Thoughts?] (]) 15:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :There are several problems here: | |||
| :# We have no way of identifying BLPs until they have been created - so a new account could create a new article on a living person, then a tagger would tag it as a BLP, and the author would then be unable to edit it even to add a reference or fix their own mistake. | |||
| :# Many of our worst BLP violations take place in articles that are not themselves BLPs. | |||
| :# One reason for not disclosing editors identities to the foundation, is that when people send legal letters to the foundation demanding the identity of particular editors the Foundation can reply that they don't know those identities. As the Foundation is located in a litigious country I think that is a useful precaution. | |||
| :#This is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, and we get our best improvements when we remember that. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::For the sake of argument I'll answer your points. | |||
| ::#I don't understand where the problem here is. If editing BLPs was something not everyone was allowed to do, and if such new accounts fall into that category then we wouldn't want them to be able to edit even entries they authored. Also, there would be nothing preventing them from using the talk page, and otherwise discussing the entry with others who were BLP worthy. | |||
| ::#This is a good general point when it comes to talking about BLP problems, but let's not judge the merits of a proposal to help solve ''some'' BLP problems based on the fact that it might not prevent ''all'' BLP problems. If you have a better alternative then let's hear it, but if the alternative is to solve ''none'' of the problems then how can that be better? | |||
| ::#While you've spun this in a negative way, that's exactly the point of making people ''accountable'' for their edits in the area of BLP. Ethically speaking, it is this objection that gets the BLP enthusiasts going on their "moral" arguments, and I have to say they have a point. You know other authors, who do not hide behind the anonymity that Misplaced Pages editors have, write about living persons all the time. Why should our editors have more protections than they do against possible lawsuits? You're simply advocating for less accountability here than we would all agree that people should have when the publish materials in the real world outside of Misplaced Pages land. | |||
| ::#Yes, and wouldn't effect that much at all, with the very minor exception of the BLP arena. I think it would be an improvement if the process of getting BLP entries up and running were a bit slower than it currently is. Patience is a virtue that very few Wikipedians have mastered.] (]) 15:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Folks, see ]. Primarily concerns organizations/companies and biographies. BLP is an issue in some cases, obviously, given the very topic... <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 09:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::We don't currently have a mechanism to stop people creating BLPs and no-one here has proposed a method for doing so. Every proposal for treating BLPs differently relies on editors identifying BLPs and tagging them as such. In my view it would be at best an unworkable mess if the author of an article wasn't able to fix their own typo ten minutes later. | |||
| :::This isn't choice between doing something slightly positive and doing nothing, this is a choice between different ways of improving BLPs. The risk of doing something for the sake of making a change is that you could repeat the mistake of the Jan 2010 BLP deletion spree and do more harm than good by diverting volunteers to lower risk areas. There are improvements going on re our BLPs, I've worked on various things myself, including the ] which now runs uncontentiously here and on half a dozen other languages. I'll make some more suggestions in a new section. | |||
| :::As for making people accountable for their edits, if you are going to bring ethics into it then one has to cover the issue of to whom you are accountable to, I'm not convinced that publicly accountable editing is as good as our current model. I think that the amount of time I spend deleting attack pages and resolving other BLP violations makes me a net positive to our BLP processes, but without the shield of anonymity I would have stopped after my first death threat. | |||
| :::If you want to slowdown the article creation process then the most effective ways would be to limit it to autoconfirmed accounts, or to put a prompt in the software that asked people for their source. I'd support a trial of the latter. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 16:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::#Again I have no idea why you think that is a problem | |||
| ::::#By diverting ''some'' volunteers to lower risk areas, how does that do more harm than good? Not clear on that. | |||
| ::::#So the type of person who (I'm assuming anonymously) emails a death threat to you because of your work protecting BLPs, that's the type of person you worry could subpeona your name from the foundation? I don't see it. Remember I am not proposing completely public editing. | |||
| ::::#I don't ''want to slow down'' article creation, I'm merely saying that if something that helps protect BLPs and helps us write more reliably sourced articles also slows down the process then that's not a bad thing. I'm not 100% wed to this suggestion, it was just meant as a point to discuss, but I have to say I'm rather unconvinced by your various objections.] (]) 16:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::#Our existing new page creation process is a complete minefield for newbies and very close to institutionalised newbie biting. Already if you create a new article on a living person you are liable to find it proposed for deletion within minutes of creation. At present that proposal does at least spell out how you can edit the article to add a reference, if it also said "and I've tagged it as a BLP so only certain approved editors can edit it" then in my view we have an even less welcoming article creation process. | |||
| :::::#One should always be careful when choosing what to prioritise, diverting volunteers to low risk area risks diverting them away from high risk areas. I put a lot of time into the uBLP cleanup last year, and as a direct result was finding and deleting far fewer attack pages per month than in 2009. | |||
| :::::#I live in a country where authorities are relatively trustworthy. We don't all, and even then I hesitate before getting involved in certain areas of editing. Sometimes we fall into the trap of envisaging a solution which would be perfectly normal for people in our own particular culture but not such a good idea on a global scale. But there is a wider issue, we have a shortage of editors and we want these BLPs to continue to be updated and improved. We currently have half a million BLPs, even if we dropped the requirement for "trusted BLP editor" down to autoconfirmed I'm not convinced we would have enough editors to make up for the loss of IP edits. If we also required identification to the office then I don't believe we would have more than a fraction of those editors, and the talkpages would be permanently backlogged with IPs and other editors saying that Grandad has now died, X has now signed to Spurs, Y has won an Olympic Gold for something sporty and <redacted> is having a messy divorce due to infidelity and upcoming court cases. | |||
| :::::#My comment about ways to slowdown article creation was a response to your comment ''"I think it would be an improvement if the process of getting BLP entries up and running were a bit slower than it currently is.''" If that doesn't mean you want to slowdown the creation of BLP articles then I'm happy to stop that particular thread. | |||
| :::::#I'm sorry you find my objections unconvincing, getting consensus for change here isn't always easy. But it does require understanding and trying to resolve other editors concerns. But I've now made some alternative suggestions and you are more than welcome to pick holes in them. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 17:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Reconsidering the third point of BLP1E == | |||
| ==Alternative suggestion== | |||
| I think that most people watching this page would like our protection of BLP information to be more stringent. Though we are clearly unable to agree on some changes there are others that I would hope would be less contentious. | |||
| #We know from DE wiki and others that flagged revisions, pending changes or some such system that means every newbie edit is looked at least once is better at screening out vandalism than our current system at recent changes whereby most edits are looked at many times but some slip through unchecked. | |||
| #Huggle and similar systems have algorythms to prioritise the article that hugglers check, if BLP was added as a positive in the default setting then it might result in more protection for BLPs (though the trial would be interesting and you'd have to check to see if this extra protection for BLPs justified any less attention elsewhere) | |||
| #Researchers analysing Misplaced Pages for wikitrust type software now reckon they can identify >99% of the vandalism if we accept a sizable minority of false positives. I wouldn't support reverting edits automatically if they contained a large minority of good edits, but if we implemented pending changes or tweaked huggle etc to use such software to prioritise such edits we should be able too get a step change improvement in quality. | |||
| #User:DeltaQuad has recently taken over poop patrol from Botlaf, so once again we have the ability to check for highrisk phrases to remove the unsourced BLP violations. I'm working through various searches such as ] and adding the legit ones to ]. But now the technology is working I've started queries such as ], does anyone fancy checking those articles and adding the fictional characters and reliably sourced statements to ]? Or alternatively add your own search to the bot. I would like to extend this to check for unsourced allegations of working in the porn industry. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 17:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Currently, the 3rd point of BLP1E states: {{green|The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.}} I know what this is getting at, but I think that we need to make this a bit stronger in its wording based on how many keep !votes there were at ]. <br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Part of the issue is the fact we have a huge amount of trouble getting editors to recognize the bounds of WP:NOTNEWS, that every tiny news detail is not necessarily appropriate for a summary article. As such editors conflate a massive amout of news coverage with being notable or significant. That's itself a wholly separate issue that needs a broader venue to tackle, its not just a BLP problem, but it is affecting how BLP1E is read.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>In terms of BLP, whether Mangione's roll in the killing is going to have the same type of long-term analysis and investigation as there was for Hinckley or someone like Lee Harvey Oswald, we simply don't know yet. There's tons of news coverage, but right now nearly all the coverage related to Mangione is also covered in the killing article; what little there is unique to him is superficial biography stuff like DOB, schooling, and career (none which would be notable). Because of this, the article for Mangione is nearly duplicate of the kiliing article, or mixing up the details such as the trial which should be part of the killing article (that event clearly notable). The article for Brian Thomspon (the victim here) also had some of the same problems too, and that's more rip for eventually merging due to this.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>I don't know how to change the BLP1E wording here, but it should emphasize that we should be looking at the ''long-term'' significance and coverage of the person's role in the event, and not flash-in-the-pan type coverage. Simply having massive cover in the short-term news should not be considered sufficient to meet BLP1E.<span id="Masem:1734793882643:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 15:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| == Wayne Gretzky == | |||
| :Given that AfD, I'd suggest that any attempt to change BLP would be an action against consensus. The real issue here is recentism in general, rather than BLP, and anyone trying to get anything deleted within a month of the sentinel event faces a steep uphill battle, likely fraught with charges of political bias or other suspect motivation. Better to let editors continue editing that article as long as and until it proves that no sufficiently detailed analysis exists or is going to exist. But I think that may border on a fool's errand as well, since we still have ], who appears to have the smallest amount of information known about him of anyone on planet earth (hyperbole...) and yet we still have an article just because with the Internet, there is now nothing to stop or throttle ongoing coverage of topics that pique the public's interest, as assassins and assassinations seem to. ] (]) 18:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * I mean, it was a SNOW keep. I don't think you're going to successfully find consensus for any change that would have allowed that article to be deleted. I wouldn't be totally opposed to "lacks long-term significance" instead of just "not significant", but it's important to understand that the overwhelming majority of Keep !voters there are just going to tell you that they think that yes, it's sufficiently significant in the long term. (But if your argument is that actual long-term ''coverage'' should be required, ie. you're trying to make it impossible to cover anything until enough time has passed for that coverage to exist, then that's a nonstarter because there clearly are things, including articles about individuals only famous for one event, that are required immediately for encyclopedic completeness - if someone eg. successfully assassinates a major world leader, there is no question that we'd need an article about them immediately, even if that's the only thing they will ever be known for.) --] (]) 19:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **There is a massive problem across WP that editors rush to create and expand articles on breaking news, without following what NOTNEWS, GNG, and NEVENT all stress. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. As I said, there's a need to re-establish NOTNEWS and stop editors from jumping in to creating articles on breaking news topics just because there's a large mass of news coverage. I am not saying that there could never be an article on Mangione, in this case, but we should strive to avoid that much expansion and detail until it is warranted by longer-term sources rather than news coverage; the details about Mangione being wholly appropriate in the existing event article; we should be striving for comprehensiveness and appropriate summarization in one single article than massive detailing across multiple different articles. Otherwise we get tons and tons of articles that duplicate the same information from other articles, creating possible POVFORKS (a key problem for BLP), and other problems. Adjusting BLP1E's 3rd point to make it clear that its not just short term news coverage but long-term sourcing is a desparetely needed step. Note that likely won't stop article creation, but it is a necessary tool as to reassess articles after the rush of coverage has died down and then to determine AFD or merging or other processes.<span id="Masem:1734810109932:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons" class="FTTCmt"> — ] (]) 19:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)</span> | |||
| **:{{U|Masem}} I respect your contributions here and your take 99.5% of the time... but this is wrong. {{tq|For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage}} is the core of NOTNEWS, and has been (with some wording updates) for more than a decade. I recommend seriously contemplating what NOTNEWS ''actually says'' and not just what people who throw it around as a bare policy reference think it should mean. ] (]) 19:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **::But, NOTNEWS as well as NOT itself stresses that we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Keeping topics up to date is reasonable, but we shouldn't be going as overboard as we are doing now in covering immediately current events. We write in far too much detail for what summary style that we should be aiming for, and editors frequently claim important and long term significance without any clear sourcing towards this which is both against NOTCRYTSTAL and NOR. And this leads to problems that can arise with BLP, such as excessively personal details that would not be included if one were creating an article about that same person but a few years later after a major event. Eg with Brian Thompsin, editors were scrapping any detail about his life to support that article, leading to several BLP violations. This type of editing also leads to common duplication and poor separation of content. We have the Killing article which seems the obvious place to discuss all facets including a arrestt and this trial, and it's clear that event article isn't going anywhere. But the Mangoine is heavily duplicating the Killing article, which is not helpful for future editors and to readers, from an encyclopedic view. We need to reign this in and get editors to write for a encyclopedia, because we are not Wikinews, which is far better suited for the type of constantly updated news style articles. ] (]) 17:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| **:::I 100000000% endorse this. ] (]) 14:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ***Again, the RFC was a snow keep with overwhelming attendance; trying to immediately rehash it is mostly a waste of time. If you want to argue that such articles should be written in a ''specific way'', there might be something to discuss, but sometimes we have to just look at an event and, based on the tone and content of an existing flood of coverage, go "yeah, there's clearly going to be books, biopics, academic papers, etc. about this person in the long term." And people can disagree about that! But I think it might be more useful to think about what it would take to convince you that a particular event was significant in the long term, or at which arguments were decisive ''in that discussion'', and calibrate any suggestion for that, with the acknowledgement that the community clearly believes Mangione is on the "definitely needs an encyclopedia article" side of the line and that you're not going to succeed at drawing a line that would exclude it. To me, stuff like eg. long-term projects focusing on someone being announced is a major factor, since it means that your argument goes from "you're just speculating that it will be important" to, essentially, you yourself speculating that the announced projects won't be completed or won't be significant. See eg. - to me that's the sort of source that we'd look for to see if someone passes the BLP1E line. If you don't find that convincing, why not, and if so, how ''would'' long-term significance be demonstrated to your satisfaction? --] (]) 19:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ***I can see the value in adding something to emphasize the importance of long-term sourcing to ]. After requirement #3, the next paragraph starts with, "{{tq|The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.}}" Maybe that line should be incorporated into the first sentence of #3, such as "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented, which is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources over time."? ] seems to be worded more strongly, and is certainly worded far stronger than it is implemented in practice, especially when it comes to news reports about living people. – ] (]) 01:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ****I've never seen wikipedia publish a news report about a living person... Perhaps you're simply misinterpreting NOTNEWS? ] (]) 16:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *****There are so many examples that I assume this is just a bad faith argument by you because we disagreed in another thread. Please leave me alone in discussions unless you have something substantive to add. – ] (]) 18:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ******I've never seen wikipedia publish a news report at all, about a living person or otherwise... Even The Signpost is technically published by an external entity and thats the closest we seem to come. ] (]) 01:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *There is no way to write a rule that covers events like ] (yes, I said ''event'', not ''person''). I can't define art but I know it when I see it and there will be an article on this person. ] (]) 02:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *"Simply having massive cover in the short-term news should not be considered sufficient to meet BLP1E." and it wasn't in this case, next please. ] (]) 16:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:All the coverage related to him right now is short term. We are still in a burst of news coverage, not where enduring coverage would start. ] (]) 17:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::BLP1E isn't required, its a "generally should" not a "must" which means that being kept doesn't mean that it meets BLP1E. ] (]) 01:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm just not seeing the problem. In this specific instance, the {{tqq|event is significant and individual's role substantial}}, and what is known is {{tqq|well documented}}. Remember, it's an {{tqq|or}} in the current BLP1E text, so either the event they're involved in is "significant" '''''or''''' their role is "either substantial or well documented". I think the current guidance is working as intended, and the community recognized that with the result we achieved. I don't see that a change here is necessary as we'd only be preventing articles about subjects our readers are looking for from being produced. —] • ] • ] 02:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Looking for input on an FA article that is having a slow edit war the past 6 months - pls see ]. Thank you all] (]) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :As someone who edits in this kind of field ''but'' avoids breaking news, our inconsistency on BLP1E/BIO1E drives me mad, even though I tend to be more lenient towards splitting articles like these. There is no rhyme or reason to who does or doesn't. It's not the policy's fault - I think the section is well written, this is just inherently a very finnicky topic area. Given this specific case I would find stronger cause for not keeping it, as he has not been convicted and he is not otherwise notable. But people have... strong feelings, and that results in bad decisions in this topic area. | |||
| :Avoiding the breaking events thing, I really just think it's generally more of a NOPAGE question. After the dust is settled, will it benefit the reader to have more than one page? For a fully comprehensive telling of events would it be most logically covered with a separate article? If cases are widely known, historically significant and have very in depth coverage the answer tends to be yes. Or are you making an article for the sake of having an article? I think these are better questions to ask. ] (]) 05:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think one of the challenges our community faces is that BLP sets a high bar for creating a page about a living person, but there is a tendency for editors to want to create pages about individuals (especially individuals connected with a high-profile crime) and there is a tendency to quickly try to delete BLP articles while the event is in the news (so passions are high). - ] (]) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with this, those two challenges are why we're instructed to not rush to creation *and* to not rush to deletion however contradictory that may seem at first glance. ] (]) 21:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::It's just there are no gaurdlines on creation, and once a page gets loaded with references (even if they are principle primary sources, from short term news coverage, and which fail to demonstrate notability beyond a single event, it becomes near impossible to merge or delete such articles because editors that vote to keep frequently equate massive news coverage with notability, which is not always true. I don't want to see us suppress article creation, but we need to have better ability in policy to handle cases once it has been shown no long term coverage exists and merging into a more comprehensive article makes more sense. | |||
| ::::I'll also add that both BLP CRIME and Victim suggest a stronger form that what the current third point of BLP1E offers, in the cautionary aspects about creating articles separate from a notable event article for previously non notable victims or suspects/convicted individuals. ] (]) 21:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't know about that... I would be interested to see some hard statistics on deletions but it seems much more doable than "near impossible" ] (]) 21:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 22:16, 26 December 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biographies of living persons page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | This is not the place to post information about living people. See creating an article for information on how to start a new article. |
 | To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
|
| BLP issues summary |
|---|
|
Proposed addition to WP:SUSPECT
I propose the following text be added to WP:SUSPECT:
- Given the legal presumption of innocence, criminal proceedings including those against prominent public persons, should not be mentioned on the main page of the encyclopdia until the cases are resolved either by conviction or acquittal. Any appellate proceedings shall have no bearing on whether or not to post the initial findings of a duly constituted court of law."
I have decided to post this as an RfC as this would involve a non-trivial amendment to WP:POLICY and the issue has become a contentious point of debate involving several nominations at WP:ITNC. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Clarification: This proposal only applies to the main page of the encyclopedia, not to any specific articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Misplaced Pages is not a news blotter and we have no need to be first to cover a story. Anything we can do to protect the presumption of innocence for BLPs is a good thing. Furthermore a clear and unambiguous policy regarding how to handle suspects of crime would avoid tedious debates about who constitutes a public person. Simonm223 (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- One small question though: by the main page do you mean a BLP's article-space or do you mean the en dot wikipedia dot com landing page? Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am referring to the front page of the English Misplaced Pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see. I'd still support it but somewhat less enthusiastically. I would like us to stop reporting on in-process criminal proceedings altogether as inappropriate to the scope of an encyclopedia. Don't suppose you'd be willing to expand the proposed policy revision accordingly? Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think that if somebody is actually convicted and it's major news, posting it at ITN is fine. I supported posting Donald Trump's conviction in the New York case. My objection is to putting unresolved allegations on the main page. There is a huge difference between mentioning widely reported criminal charges in somebody's BLP article and putting them on the front page of one of the world's most heavily trafficked websites. But if you have a specific change in mind feel free to suggest it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here's my pitch: replace the current text of WP:SUSPECT with,
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. Given the legal presumption of innocence, criminal proceedings including those against prominent public persons, should not be mentioned until the cases are resolved either by conviction or acquittal.
Any appellate proceedings shall have no bearing on whether or not to post the initial findings of a duly constituted court of law. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.
Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)- I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. But you can always add it as separate proposal for discussion underneath this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Rather than having dueling RFCs could we suggest your text as an option 1 and mine as an option 2? That way, in cases like mine where I would support either but have a preference it's all in one place. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- We already have several comments so I would be reluctant to materially alter the RfC. But I will add your suggestion below this. for discussion in its own right. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Rather than having dueling RFCs could we suggest your text as an option 1 and mine as an option 2? That way, in cases like mine where I would support either but have a preference it's all in one place. Simonm223 (talk) Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- The notion of appellate proceedings not having any bearing on the proceedings below is on its face contradictory. Also there are a variety of types of appellate proceedings, levels of appeal, and legal systems in which all these things play out, some of which of course don't even presume innocence or otherwise derogate from the general presumption.
- You'd also, if you went forward with your green texted pitch, need an additional comma: after "criminal proceedings". Djpmccann (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'd go quite that far. But you can always add it as separate proposal for discussion underneath this one. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Here's my pitch: replace the current text of WP:SUSPECT with,
- I think that if somebody is actually convicted and it's major news, posting it at ITN is fine. I supported posting Donald Trump's conviction in the New York case. My objection is to putting unresolved allegations on the main page. There is a huge difference between mentioning widely reported criminal charges in somebody's BLP article and putting them on the front page of one of the world's most heavily trafficked websites. But if you have a specific change in mind feel free to suggest it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I see. I'd still support it but somewhat less enthusiastically. I would like us to stop reporting on in-process criminal proceedings altogether as inappropriate to the scope of an encyclopedia. Don't suppose you'd be willing to expand the proposed policy revision accordingly? Simonm223 (talk) 18:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am referring to the front page of the English Misplaced Pages. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- One small question though: by the main page do you mean a BLP's article-space or do you mean the en dot wikipedia dot com landing page? Simonm223 (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Such allegations are going to be included in the BLP article in any such case where the conditions are in line with BLPCRIME. It makes no sense to then say that we should hide that from the main page if they are in the news, as long as the blurb is clear that they are only allegations or charges and not convictions. It does make sense to avoid including news items around such allegations when they are less news and more a due to the spectical around it (eg some of the jadedness editors have around Trump rings true here), but that's something that current ITN guidelines should handle, not a special exemption on BLP. — Masem (t) 18:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - we can presume innocence while mirroring the reliable sources that choose to cover a story (or do not choose). Editors of main page processes currently have appropriate leeway to decide whether a legal case is prominent enough to be mentioned. Ed 18:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. The ongoing legal proceedings against Trump make clear that there are circumstances in which unresolved legal allegations are clearly WP:DUE. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Criminal allegations and proceedings are normally major points in an individual's life and they should be covered, whether on the MP or not. As long as the wording is appropriate (ie provides context and makes clear it's an allegation or part of a proceeding), and not giving any indication of guilt or innocence, there is no reason not to have information on the MP. - SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, though this is without prejudice to the policy in WP:NPF that we should tread very carefully when publishing negative information about non-public figures. Major public figures, however, should not have that protection: where newsworthy allegations have been made against them, they should be reported objectively and as accusations, following WP:V. UndercoverClassicist 18:50, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support (invited by the bot) Since everything "in the news" violates wp:not news, there's no strong argument for inclusion of anything and IMO so no argument agains setting a bit higher bar. Criminal charges vary from meaningless to meaningful depending on the particulars (such as who is making the charge, the nature of the charge) and there's nothing wrong with setting a bit higher bar for the front page of Misplaced Pages. North8000 (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Very, very weak oppose, though I support the spirit of this proposal. There are absolutely circumstances in which unresolved proceedings are quite notable, though. @Ad Orientem, I don't too much follow ITNC, might I ask which specific instances of BPPCRIME on the main page have conflagrated? Changed to support, and thanks to whomever signed my post (the reply tool has spoiled me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayCubby (talk • contribs) 19:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)- There have been a number over the years. The most recent would be Jair Bolsonaro's indictment in Brazil. That discussion is still open and currently looks pretty deadlocked. In the past each of Donald Trump's indictments were nominated. At least two and possibly three of them were separately posted. I am pretty sure the last one was turned down. We posted his actual conviction in New York, which I supported. It's also worth noting that all of the Federal charges have since been withdrawn, albeit for purely legal reasons. In theory he could be reindicted when he leaves office. A proposal to post the withdrawal of those charges was going nowhere the last I looked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- As for those, I'd argue they have little impact on the world stage. A conviction might be. Changing my vote to support JayCubby Talk 21:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- @JayCubby You should strike your oppose comment to avoid confusion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- As for those, I'd argue they have little impact on the world stage. A conviction might be. Changing my vote to support JayCubby Talk 21:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- There have been a number over the years. The most recent would be Jair Bolsonaro's indictment in Brazil. That discussion is still open and currently looks pretty deadlocked. In the past each of Donald Trump's indictments were nominated. At least two and possibly three of them were separately posted. I am pretty sure the last one was turned down. We posted his actual conviction in New York, which I supported. It's also worth noting that all of the Federal charges have since been withdrawn, albeit for purely legal reasons. In theory he could be reindicted when he leaves office. A proposal to post the withdrawal of those charges was going nowhere the last I looked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Support Political trials, show trials and lawfare are common in many jurisdictions and often used against opposition politicians. We should therefore have a high bar for promotion of such, per WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is an argument against the change. Convictions can easily be obtained in such cases. Similarly, cronies of the leader in many jurisdictions may be protected from convictions for crimes they very clearly have committed. The result is really that legal decisions should not as a rule trump wikipedia's own processes for handling verification. We should be exceedingly careful, but convictions/acquittal should not be a bright shining line. Fangz (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't the brightness of the line here completely depend on the system in which the charging and/or conviction has been made? It's for sure a bright shining light to most rational people in the real world in well functioning democracies. Djpmccann (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- This is an argument against the change. Convictions can easily be obtained in such cases. Similarly, cronies of the leader in many jurisdictions may be protected from convictions for crimes they very clearly have committed. The result is really that legal decisions should not as a rule trump wikipedia's own processes for handling verification. We should be exceedingly careful, but convictions/acquittal should not be a bright shining line. Fangz (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose the blanket prohibition, as there still may be limited circumstances where an arrest made or formal charges against a very prominent person cannot be ignored (I am thinking OJ-level celebrities, or current or former heads of state), that grab the international consciousness that ITN is designed to capture. --Enos733 (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. If someone has been accused of a crime and we properly state such has occurred, I fail to see the issue. It is factually correct. I'd like to believe our readers are smart enough to believe and trust us to "report" (or what you wish to call it) on these things properly. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- A (1) charging addressed to a court, in a decently thoughtful legal system, by a properly-acting prosecutor (think: Jack Smith) is more significant and important to readers than (2) a mere accusation by eg a private individual (think jilted ex-lover). Reporting (1) as such (not as guilt, but as a charging), is quite proper, indeed the open, non-arbitrary nature of justice proceedings (a value in many rule of law systems) relies upon the public nature of that information broadly. Reporting (2) is usually just third hand defamatory distraction. Djpmccann (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This proposal would create a prohibition that goes far beyond breaking news. Criminal proceedings can take years and sometimes even over a decade. – notwally (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It's not clear what the "contentious point" is that the proposal is seeking to resolve. Saying that someone is indicted ≠ guilty.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose - The proposal is misguided and arbitrary. It would prohibit mentioning the cases of Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Slobodan Milošević, Roman Polanski, Bill Cosby, the Guantanamo Bay detainees, and any criminal charges that do not result in either a conviction or acquittal. The proposal wrongly supposes that the publication of criminal charges would be harmful to the accused and the legal presumption of innocence. Public scrutiny ensures that the rights of the accused are protected against abuses of judicial and prosecutorial power. Suppressing that can shield those in power from accountability and create an environment where malicious prosecutions are more likely to occur. The proposal would suppress well-written and reliably-sourced articles that are deemed to be of wide interest to readers and editors. There is a high bar for publishing on the main page. Events published on WP:ITN are reviewed case-by-case. This proposal aims to preempt that review. It leaves no room for context and nuance. Buffalkill (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- I think the proposal as worded is only for the “proceedings”, which would not prohibit mentioning the publication of criminal charges. That wording only speaks to court cases while they are in progress. It would seem to me that excludes only intermediate events within the courts which would be the WP:CRYSTALBALL guessing or gossiping about a specific days sensationalist testimony and those seem worth excluding. Personally, I think the restraint specified is little and limited but that some restraint is necessary. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- If the goal is to avoid gossip and minutiae on the main page that should be addressed through policies against that. There's no need for a special policy on criminal cases. We don't want to be in a perverse situation where it's easier to have a ITN about someone being accused of having an affair than being accused of murder. Fangz (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think the proposal as worded is only for the “proceedings”, which would not prohibit mentioning the publication of criminal charges. That wording only speaks to court cases while they are in progress. It would seem to me that excludes only intermediate events within the courts which would be the WP:CRYSTALBALL guessing or gossiping about a specific days sensationalist testimony and those seem worth excluding. Personally, I think the restraint specified is little and limited but that some restraint is necessary. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not an issue -- again, as worded it would allow mention of the start of trial for either murder or an affair, it only says to exclude the "proceedings" of day-by-day trial (or divorce) coverage. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question @Ad Orientem: Are there any examples of items that (1) were published on the main page that should not have been, and (2) would have been prevented by the proposed amendment? Buffalkill (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we individually posted at least two, and possibly three (memory fails) of Donald Trump's indictments. The fourth one I do recall we decided not to post. Trump's sole conviction was posted, quite properly. The Federal charges have now been dismissed. In theory they could be revived, though for obvious reasons (he will be in control of the DoJ for the next four years, and he could attempt to pardon himself) this is exceedingly unlikely. So we repeatedly posted unproven charges against a very prominent and controversial person, followed by a single conviction. As for the the Federal indictments, the community pointedly declined to address their dismissal in the same way we posted them when issued. It goes w/o saying that this sort of thing gives ammunition to those who claim that Misplaced Pages has a leftwing bias where the subject touches on politics and/or culture. But it goes beyond that. We are also posting unproven charges against non-Trump figures, on the main page of one of the world's most heavily trafficked websites. And yeah, I think that is deeply problematic, and I say that as someone who detests Trump. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is a bright line between unfounded accusations, as can happen in the case of sexual misconduct accusations, and charges that have been made by an official law enforcement agency after a lengthy investigation. The former, that is the type of stuff we should even be careful of posting in the BLP's own article, public figure or not, and only really include that info should there be significant coverage in high-quality, non-tabloid sources. The latter, particularly with those that are or were sitting world leaders, those charges are not being thrown around without the agencies understanding the weight of said charges, and would know there would be heck to pay if they were filing those without any chance of prosecution. Add in the weight that we get from long-term enduring coverage of such charges (not just for Trump, but now Putin and Netanyahu and Bolsanano), and these are far beyond the line where we'd normally take caution with those accusations. Masem (t) 02:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Well, we individually posted at least two, and possibly three (memory fails) of Donald Trump's indictments. The fourth one I do recall we decided not to post. Trump's sole conviction was posted, quite properly. The Federal charges have now been dismissed. In theory they could be revived, though for obvious reasons (he will be in control of the DoJ for the next four years, and he could attempt to pardon himself) this is exceedingly unlikely. So we repeatedly posted unproven charges against a very prominent and controversial person, followed by a single conviction. As for the the Federal indictments, the community pointedly declined to address their dismissal in the same way we posted them when issued. It goes w/o saying that this sort of thing gives ammunition to those who claim that Misplaced Pages has a leftwing bias where the subject touches on politics and/or culture. But it goes beyond that. We are also posting unproven charges against non-Trump figures, on the main page of one of the world's most heavily trafficked websites. And yeah, I think that is deeply problematic, and I say that as someone who detests Trump. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support with edits The guidance for restraint is generally a good idea, but the issue here should not be limited by ‘Given the legal presumption of innocence’, as that is not the only reason or desirable limit on the guidance about star coverage. Yes, Misplaced Pages is not a news blotter and we have no need to be first to cover a story - and that is to be reputable and avoid WP:GOSSIP, WP:SENSATION or WP:TABLOID rather than only the legal concerns for libel or affecting a case during prosecution. For ITN, the restraint would be to avoid posting something that is simply accusations as it seems simply rumors about sports or entertainment figures is ubiquitous and not actually deserving a headline mention unless it escalates beyond that. Similarly, it is not just the ‘presumption of innocence’ or just the initial accusation — ITN should avoid covering every single daily step of a trial for a star even if the daily press covered it - it would just seem obviously gossiping over trivia at some point. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Question since the proposal would prohibit even mentioning allegations absent a criminal conviction or acquittal, would it prohibit mentioning the September 11 attacks, since the charges against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed haven't been adjudicated? How would the proposal have applied to cases like Richard Nixon, who was not criminally charged but was given an unconditional pardon? How would it apply to Hunter Biden, who also was given an unconditional pardon for any federal crimes he might have committed during the past decade? Buffalkill (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. This would mean that even the warrants against Netanyahu c.s. couldn't be posted on ITN. As long as we have ITN, such worldwide news about clearly notable people should be postable. Fram (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose Presumption of innocence is a judicial standard, not a journalistic or academic one. Harm mitigation and legal responsibilities to avoid slander are appropriate considerations but writing someone probably did a bad thing is simply not the same as sending them to jail for it. Thus presumption of innocence simply does not apply from a philosophical viewpoint. Fangz (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Furthermore this is unworkable and unethical considering the diversity of legal systems and criminal codes. For example this grants a high level of protection to powerful individuals in corrupt jurisdictions who can control their legal system, and no protection at all to persecuted individuals. Precisely the opposite of what we want. Fangz (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, per Fangz, Masem, and Buffalkill. For example, if WP had been around during the Nuremberg trials, it would have prevented mention of those truly significant trials. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose -
- blanket prohibition unwise;
- the presumption of innocence is not applicable in all countries or all systems or all cases;
- chargings are often important for Misplaced Pages readers to know about;
- good high standards journalists and publications routinely report on chargings, but they do it as such;
- complete prohibition on mentioning will delay or prevent relevant information getting to wikipedia readers, and articles will thus be misleading by incompleteness;
- confidence in legal and political systems is founded on transparency, and transparency and information is a value of wikipedia;
- open justice requires some knowledge of what the actual system is doing, people knowing that certain people are being brought, and certain litigants/defendants need that openness to win their legal/broader case. Djpmccann (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, absolutely not. Trials can go on for years, sometimes decades, and can often be central to the subject; by this standard we wouldn't have been able to, for instance, mention the OJ Simpson trial anywhere on his article while it was in progress. We are not a news channel but we have an obligation to write an up-to-date encyclopedia. And this isn't even practical - how would we cover long-running cases against politicians, when they become massively relevant politically? Netanyahu's legal troubles are central to writing about Israel politics; major events going back years would make no sense at all if we tried to write around them. What happens if an accusation is central to someone's bio for a long time, with extensive WP:SUSTAINED academic coverage, and we write the article around it, only for it later to go to court - would we suddenly remove it? But on a more basic level this is saying that we could ignore coverage and write an article that ignores sourcing (no matter how strong and overwhelming) based on the gut feelings of a few editors that ongoing trials are never encyclopedic. That is not how we write articles - we reflect sourcing and coverage. If you want to try and demand higher sourcing for recent events, sure, that's something we can argue; but an absolute ban like this goes against core policy (which is not subject to consensus) and is therefore not something that can be considered. --Aquillion (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Buffalkill, Aquillion, and others. BLP is already sufficient to guide editors in whether or not something should be featured on the front page. Gamaliel (talk) 21:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, we have to balance privacy vs censorship and this seems too far into the area of censorship. Our current way of doing things already greatly favors privacy when it comes to living people, I see no pressing need for the proposed addition. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Alternative proposal
From Simonm223. See discussion above.
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. Given the legal presumption of innocence, criminal proceedings including those against prominent public persons, should not be mentioned until the cases are resolved either by conviction or acquittal.
Any appellate proceedings shall have no bearing on whether or not to post the initial findings of a duly constituted court of law. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.
Support as proposer. I think this would not only eliminate the question of crime reporting on marginally public people but would also, generally, be a great service toward supporting WP:NOTNEWS. Our website isn't for breaking news and we should consider the balance of public good between extreme inclusionism and respect for presumption of innocence. Yes, that should be applied by Misplaced Pages even for distasteful politicians.Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)- Withdrawing proposal I no longer stand by this as an appropriate response to the problems I want to solve. Simonm223 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as long as the person is a public figure and the documentation of any allegations are from reputable reliable sources, there is zero reason to not include them. For example, taking this to heart, it would mean that we'd have to scrub out all of the convictions Trump faced for J6, which is in a lot of articles, including the SCOTUS case (he wasn't convicted or acquitted). We just need editors to keep their writing impartial and neutral, and work in writing summaries of legal proceedings rather than write to the level of detail the news gives (Wikinews can be used for that) — Masem (t) 18:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- A key part of my contention here is that Misplaced Pages has really strayed from the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS in that a vast array of the articles on the website are just news aggregation. I'm honestly not of the opinion that we need to be talking about the indiscretions of contemporary American politicians unless they turn out to be historically significant. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am 110% behind you on the NOTNEWS issue, but it affects more than just accusations and trials of BLP. It is a far larger problem that needs to be addressed at a much large venue, one that I have been brewing how to start in the back of my mind. The over details coverage of news absolutely impacts BLP negatively, but changing just BLP isn't the way to resolve it. — Masem (t) 18:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is touched upon at the guideline WP:LASTING:
It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.
—Bagumba (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)- Unfortunately, if you ever try to get some BLP errata revolving around a crime on the basis that it has not been demonstrated to have a lasting impact the response will be that it definitely will and should not be removed because it is so very important. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it's easier to trim (or even AfD) once the topic has died down. I've yet to see a realistic solution on how to manage the excitement before then. —Bagumba (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, if you ever try to get some BLP errata revolving around a crime on the basis that it has not been demonstrated to have a lasting impact the response will be that it definitely will and should not be removed because it is so very important. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- This is touched upon at the guideline WP:LASTING:
- I feel like "strayed" implies we were ever doing anything else. If it was written one way it was clearly never obeyed, and trawling through old talk page archives I find we have actually gotten far more strict about NOTNEWS than we used to be (which is probably for the best, but I take issue with "strayed") PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am 110% behind you on the NOTNEWS issue, but it affects more than just accusations and trials of BLP. It is a far larger problem that needs to be addressed at a much large venue, one that I have been brewing how to start in the back of my mind. The over details coverage of news absolutely impacts BLP negatively, but changing just BLP isn't the way to resolve it. — Masem (t) 18:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Wikinews is dead and dysfunctional and should have never been started. Quite frankly the wiki format does not gel with news. Propose what you want to deal with the NOTNEWS issue but any proposal that says "go to wikinews" is a no. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- A key part of my contention here is that Misplaced Pages has really strayed from the spirit of WP:NOTNEWS in that a vast array of the articles on the website are just news aggregation. I'm honestly not of the opinion that we need to be talking about the indiscretions of contemporary American politicians unless they turn out to be historically significant. Simonm223 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Support in spirit but this is too complicated and US-centric on the details. North8000 (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose - absolutely not. As I said for the other proposal above, we can presume innocence while mirroring the reliable sources that choose to cover a story (or do not choose). This is not a solution to the larger problem alleged by the proposer. Ed 19:47, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose for the same reasons as above. Criminal proceedings against public figures are often WP:DUE and should be covered. Additionally, the presumption that all proceedings end in conviction or acquittal seems misguided; cases are often settled without advancing to those stages but may nevertheless be DUE. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:07, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as explained by David Eppstein. If there are problems with "In the News" blurbs, perhaps this issue should be discussed there (perhaps with a discouragement to accept blurbs that are about an early part of a criminal proceeding, recognizing that this could not be a hard and fast rule). --Enos733 (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment If the subject of a bio was removed from a public role over an allegation before criminal proceedings completed, or perhaps even started, the proposed change would prohibit any substantive NPOV explanation from being given in the bio.—Bagumba (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Lawsuits What about a (civil) lawsuit (e.g. sexual assault), which has a lower burden of proof than a criminal case?—Bagumba (talk) 02:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This proposal would create a prohibition that goes far beyond breaking news. Criminal proceedings can take years and sometimes even over a decade. – notwally (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, no matter how hysterically funny I think it would be to have to retroactively remove all the Trump trial stuff from this site. Also doesn't make any logical sense - "or acquittal"? Given the principle this proposal operates on, innocent until proven guilty, for consistency if someone gets acquitted we should simply never mention it. Which obviously doesn't square with a lot of notable topics - plenty of politicians can be highly notable for being involved in alleged things which they were never found guilty of, see Matt Gaetz. Newsy events have an awkward tension with encyclopedic-ism, but unless we want to restrict article content and creation to a point twenty years in the past (the only real way to solve the NOTNEWS issue) there is no way to put this into policy without severely, severely hampering our coverage of encyclopedic topics. We're always going to be dealing with news sources and new things happening, unless we ban current events entirely - which I don't think would serve us or the readers. If we're talking about ITN/the front page, I'm less bothered by that proposal because it does make some sense to be stricter for the front page, but that also won't work too well in practice. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, imagine how confused readers would feel with a Jeffrey Epstein article only covering him as an investor who was friends with many famous people. He died before his most notable cases could be "
resolved either by conviction or acquittal
". Rjj (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC) - Clarification @Simonm223: The difference between the original proposal, and the alternative proposal, is (a) the addition of: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction", and (b) the removal of: "on the main page of the encyclopdia". The former is simply an affirmation of the legal doctrine of the presumption of innocence, and the latter affirms the proposed prohibition on mentioning unadjudicated criminal charges on the main page, and extends it to all of Misplaced Pages. Is that correct? Thanks. Buffalkill (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, my proposal would suggest we should not discuss unproven allegations of crimes made against living people without conditions. Simonm223 (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- So, is it correct that your proposal would forbid us from saying on Jamal Khashoggi that he "was assassinated at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018 by agents of the Saudi government at the behest of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman" (currently in the lead) because bin Salman is alive and has never been taken to justice? Given that the assassination happened in Turkey, despite being at a Saudi embassy, I assume this would be considered a crime under Turkish law. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Not to mention cases where individuals are being tortured, held incommunicado or driven into exile for alleged "crimes" like "insulting the president" or "promoting homosexuality" or whatever. Fangz (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- So, is it correct that your proposal would forbid us from saying on Jamal Khashoggi that he "was assassinated at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018 by agents of the Saudi government at the behest of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman" (currently in the lead) because bin Salman is alive and has never been taken to justice? Given that the assassination happened in Turkey, despite being at a Saudi embassy, I assume this would be considered a crime under Turkish law. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, my proposal would suggest we should not discuss unproven allegations of crimes made against living people without conditions. Simonm223 (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as less clear than the earlier proposal whether it is for ITN or all WP. I also have view that there is a sharp separation between what is accusations and what has become official charges. Accusations and investigations often turn out frivolous or fleeting with no impact, but legal cases are a notable point where it becomes official with enduring and significant impacts. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes accusations and investigations are a notable point with enduring and significant impacts, and sometimes legal cases are not. There is too much variation in individual circumstances for either of these blanket prohibitations to be useful. – notwally (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Accusations *often* turn out frivolous or fleeting, and only if it turns into something enduring - such as the sharp distinction of when it becomes actual official charges which are *not* frivolous - would it be mentioned. An accusation that creates enduring impact has an enduring impact worth mention, but it is the enduring impact that deserves a mention - the accusation alone never would be. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes accusations and investigations are a notable point with enduring and significant impacts, and sometimes legal cases are not. There is too much variation in individual circumstances for either of these blanket prohibitations to be useful. – notwally (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per Rjjiii. We (sadly) have a whole bunch of people like Epstein and Jimmy Savile who escaped trial for their crimes by dying before they could be tried in court. There are also perpetrators of suicide attacks, and school killers who kill themselves rather than face trial. This is well-intentioned, but it would cause far more trouble than it would solve. John (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neither Epstein nor Savile are BLPs even when considering the "recently deceased" note. As such statements about living people would not affect them. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Epstein was a BLP when the accusations came out and Saville was recently deceased. Everyone will eventually become a non-BLP. Turning the issue into "how long should we wait after they die" doesn't seem helpful. – notwally (talk) 19:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Neither Epstein nor Savile are BLPs even when considering the "recently deceased" note. As such statements about living people would not affect them. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Worse than the first proposal. It would make a mockery of e.g. the Mohammed Deif article, if all crimes he was accused of but not convicted for would have to be removed completely. Fram (talk) 11:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. That doesn't mean that half an article about a person has to be taken up by a minor DUI charge, but imagine the Sean Combs article without any mention of his current legal trouble. In that case, it is well-sourced and it is clearly significant to writing a biographical article about him, even though the charges have not yet reached disposition. We just need to be very clear in the article that the individual has been accused, indicted, whatever have you, but not convicted. Seraphimblade 14:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose As this is much broader, it's even worse than the original proposal. There are significant criminal cases where there is neither conviction nor acquittal, including those where the person dies while awaiting trial and it suddenly becomes possible to discuss the case only after death (as notwally notes), those where the person is pardoned (as with the legally significant case against Michael Flynn, where it would prevent discussing the reason for the pardon, since he is still alive), and those where crimes are alleged but never charged because the person is too powerful (as David Eppstein notes). It's also unclear about the implications for civil suits (like the huge opioid case involving the Sackler family), since those result in liability rather than conviction/acquittal. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a well-intended proposal, but it has not been fully thought through. There are (at least) two problems. First, it follows that if material were excluded from any part of wikipedia on the basis that a person has not yet been convicted of an offence, then it could never be included if the person were in due course found not guilty. Yet it would plainly be unacceptable to censor all mention of charges followed by not-guilty verdicts since sometimes these events will have significant consequences and be notable of themselves. Imagine a politician is charged with a specific financial offence and resigns as a finance minister, then markets collapse and social cataclysms follow. There could be no mention of the alleged specific offence for the years it might take to come to court? Then, following a not-guilty verdict, there could never be mention of the specific detail which led to the social cataclysm. "In 2025, something happened in Xanadu which resulted in the temporary collapse of the financial system there, causing riots, mass deprivation and large scale refugee movement"? Second, it would be unwise for Misplaced Pages to validate verdicts in places like Iran and North Korea, whether guilty or innocent. Such a validation would be the consequence of treating verdicts differently for the purposes of inclusion at Misplaced Pages, even if only limited to the landing page. I appreciate the sentiment behind the proposal, and that's a decent one, but the response to bad actors putting in bad content is to apply present policies, frustrating as that might sound to the proposer. Emmentalist (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose in strongest possible terms. This solves none of the problems with the mess of a suggestion above. Sometimes accusations are central to a biography, or even to related articles; sometimes the legal process can go on for years or even decades without a resolution. Our obligation, per WP:NPOV and WP:V, is to follow the sources, and to cover things that are treated as significant in them; we are not permitted to ignore some of them based on poorly-considered gut instincts. I have some sympathy for suggestions that we shouldn't rely on breaking news sources (though I disagree with them); but this suggestion, I have zero sympathy for at all - it is deeply foolish and short-sighted, and I hope the proposer will take the sharply negative reaction to heart and WP:DROPTHESTICK on anything resembling it, here or elsewhere. As mentioned above, by completely ignoring sourcing and making no exception for coverage of any degree or quality, this proposal would contravene core policy and is therefore not implementable by consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 15:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm happy to withdraw the proposal. I will say that I remain frustrated with the breaking news mentality we see on BLPs but I will agree that this approach was half-baked and wouldn't solve the problems that really concern me. Simonm223 (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Alternative proposal 2
This is actually going the complete opposite direction of the proposal.
Reword to
A living person accused of a crime is legally presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Misplaced Pages is not a court or a legal system, so an article about a person accused of a crime does not have to be written as if they are innocent, absent a conviction, if the consensus of reliable sources is overwhelmingly otherwise. However, with the aim of minimising harm or slander, especially to individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests such persons have committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction.
While Misplaced Pages must comply with United States law, as a project the content on Misplaced Pages is independent of any local national government and does not represent an official or judicial mouthpiece.(WP:NOTCENSORED) While the decisions of local courts should have a strong weight in writing an article, depending on the circumstances other reliable sources should also be included even if they contradict the official verdict, as per WP:DUE.
- Support as proposer. This I think is an important clarification. Presumption of innocence is a thing in legal systems. It's not a thing in encyclopedias, academic works, and so on. It's reasonable that we should be more careful, but it should not 100% trump wikipedia's usual processes. If a guy shoots up a school and there's 100% incontrovertible video of him doing it and every reasonable source says he did it, but the guy escaped from prison before his trial, it would be perverse to write in the consideration that he is innocent of both the shooting and the prison escape until a conviction is obtained. It's okay to say "avoid using words the express an excessive certainty that they did it", so "alleged suspect" is often better. (Though in the case of the prison escape, would we really expect any editor to write "he allegedly escaped prison"?) But referring simply to the legal principle creates a false expectation. The standard of proof on wikipedia, even in BLP, is quite different from that in a court of law. Fangz (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- A corollary is that we should also not encourage editors to write as if an individual is guilty simply because a conviction was obtained. You can write that factually, the guy was convicted, but e.g. human rights groups say it's total rubbish etc. Fangz (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Vehemently Oppose WP:NOTNEWS WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE both apply here. While Misplaced Pages may not be censored, such a policy would open flood gates for attack pages and coatracks as well as adding further ripped-from-the-headlines recentism to the project. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- This does not overrule those other policies. Rather the opposite: the point is that those policies apply and should not be overruled by "the X government says this guy is guilty/innocent". The current text gives the appearance that criminal charges (criminal where? According to whom) are an overly special case. Attack pages should be prevented by rules against attack pages. If you think individuals should get attack pages dependent on whether their local government (which, lest you forget, includes anywhere from North Korea to ISIS) handed them a guilty verdict or not, that's a ridiculous state of affairs. By what metric or logic should we handle differently writing about someone's bigamy allegations vs them having an extramarital affair? Fangz (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Put it this way, in a legal context the reasoning for a presumption of innocence is easy to understand. The State must refrain from applying harm (punishment) undeservingly. In a Misplaced Pages content, the harm is reputational damage, but the thing is, reputational damage is essentially unrelated to the criminal nature of accusations. When a "crime" could depending on jurisdiction be anything between a major crime against humanity to smoking some weed or being a homosexual, while non-criminal allegations could include child rape and again major crimes against humanity... if you just want to avoid recentism and attack pages etc, it's a meaningless distinction to make. Fangz (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yep. Emmentalist (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- This does not overrule those other policies. Rather the opposite: the point is that those policies apply and should not be overruled by "the X government says this guy is guilty/innocent". The current text gives the appearance that criminal charges (criminal where? According to whom) are an overly special case. Attack pages should be prevented by rules against attack pages. If you think individuals should get attack pages dependent on whether their local government (which, lest you forget, includes anywhere from North Korea to ISIS) handed them a guilty verdict or not, that's a ridiculous state of affairs. By what metric or logic should we handle differently writing about someone's bigamy allegations vs them having an extramarital affair? Fangz (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment - I think revision of that section is worth discussing, and I agree with the overall sentiment, but am not sure how I feel about the proposed wording. It's clear that WP articles do not always treat criminal allegations as if the person is innocent absent conviction. For example, the article on Jamal Khashoggi says that he "was assassinated at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018 by agents of the Saudi government at the behest of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman," even though the agents haven't been convicted (and won't be, as Saudi Arabia refused to extradite them to face the charges), and bin Salman will never be charged. For that matter, WP can discuss the possibility of wrongful conviction even if a conviction hasn't (yet) been overturned, as in appeals brought by the Innocence Project. I'm not convinced that the section needs to be modified, and if it is modified, I also wonder whether it should be revised to apply to significant civil suits as well as criminal ones. And US law is not the only legal system that is relevant. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support For the reasons I give at the end of the first alternative proposal (NB: I accidentally put that comment here until alerted by FactOrOpinion
- Emmentalist, did you mean your response to be placed at the end of Alternative proposal rather than at the end of Alternative proposal 2? (It seems so, based on the content.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are correct! :-) Oops. Moving now. Thanks. Emmentalist (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- Emmentalist, did you mean your response to be placed at the end of Alternative proposal rather than at the end of Alternative proposal 2? (It seems so, based on the content.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Support. This is the way. We must follow the sources wherever they lead; we can urge caution, we can set criteria for what good sources are, which are well spelled-out in policy and referenced here, but ultimately it is not up to editors to second-guess the sources or to create their own byzantine rules about when we can report what the best sources say. If an accusation is central to a biography, and there is clear and unequivocal agreement among the sources, then as an encyclopedia, the encyclopedic thing to do is to reflect that; likewise, if there is clear and unequivocal agreement among the sources as to guilt, we have to reflect that in our article regardless of legal processes (though of course the legal processes would, I'd expect, be covered in the sources and therefore mentioned.) The legal process is important but is not the be-all-and-end-all or the final word when it comes to writing an encyclopedia; we must summarize all coverage, with weight according to its significance - giving legal processes (which are, in many countries, highly politicized) final say is inappropriate. If the legal process is worth so much deference, then the highest-quality sources will defer to it; in cases where they do not, we should not, either. Beyond that this proposal would put a well-deserved stake in the heart of the awful suggestions above and would block people from trying to present them on talk, which is badly-needed given how damaging they would be to Misplaced Pages's mission if not totally shut down. --Aquillion (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose - this is factually wrong and morally improper. If a person has not been convicted, it is simply wrong to use of legal language that means someone who is convicted, a distortion of facts. You can mention video evidence and such, or say they died before there was a trial, or whatever the actual events are -- but the simple fact is if they were not convicted, they are not convicted and so it is incorrect to use language as if they were or to include such incorrect statements from third parties based on "reliable sources should also be included even if they contradict the official verdict, as per WP:DUE."
- It's also morally wrong to invite a libelous judgement based on casual volunteers and limited information. This is not going to be about incontrovertible evidence and some well-defined metric of "consensus" in RS -- it is going to wind up in situations of partial knowledge from media coverage and limited volunteer looking time and arguing over whether this is "enough" or whether I have 10 sources versus you have 9 contrary ones so that's a "consensus". I don't even see it as wise editorial policy to go something that would lead to more disputes. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Markbassett, what is your opinion about the lead in the article on Jamal Khashoggi? The first paragraph says that he "was assassinated at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018 by agents of the Saudi government at the behest of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman," even though the agents haven't been convicted (and won't be, as Saudi Arabia refused to extradite them to face the charges), and bin Salman will never be charged. It doesn't mention conviction, but it's implying that they're guilty (though not using that word). I think that's what's meant by
an article about a person accused of a crime does not have to be written as if they are innocent, absent a conviction, if the consensus of reliable sources is overwhelmingly otherwise
. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Markbassett, what is your opinion about the lead in the article on Jamal Khashoggi? The first paragraph says that he "was assassinated at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018 by agents of the Saudi government at the behest of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman," even though the agents haven't been convicted (and won't be, as Saudi Arabia refused to extradite them to face the charges), and bin Salman will never be charged. It doesn't mention conviction, but it's implying that they're guilty (though not using that word). I think that's what's meant by
Public figure
Is WP:PUBLICFIGURE really needed? All living persons with Misplaced Pages articles are public figures, and it’s really vague how does one determine who’s a public figure.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- "All living persons with Misplaced Pages articles are public figures" is not true at all. – notwally (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Unless we stop talking about crimes then, yes, WP:PUBLICFIGURE is absolutely critical. Furthermore please remember that, to be a public figure, a person needs to be independently notable for something other than an unproven accusation of a crime. Simonm223 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- It's not true if we have a clear definition on what a public figure really is. WP:PUBLICFIGURE links to public figure, which is in terrible shape and lists only the legal definition in the United States. What about the legal definitions in other countries? If there's no universal legal definition about a public figure, the easiest way to go is with the general meaning of the term, that is, a person known in public. Therefore, one has to be a public figure so that biographical information is available in reliable sources, and that's what is required for a stand-alone Misplaced Pages article.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe your argument is accurate at all. "Biographical information is available in reliable sources" is not the standard for a public figure in any legal code, nor in any discussion I have seen on Misplaced Pages. Further, WP:PUBLICFIGURE links to the explanatory essay WP:Who is a low-profile individual, which provides additional guidance. Clearer guidance would be helpful and making that guidance part of actual policies or guidelines would probably also be helpful. However, I'm not aware of any discussion that has ever concluded that notability for Misplaced Pages purposes is the same as being a public figure, and in some cases, that would be obviously not true. – notwally (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- You're talking about legal codes, but public figure only lists the legal case in the United States. Could you please expand the article with the legal codes of all countries or find a universal legal definition? A policy linking to an orange-tagged article in terrible shape cannot be a good policy. Furthermore, WP:LOWPROFILE isn't a reliable source or a legal code, but just an essay which is chiefly advisory. Low-profile (or non-public) figures are unlikely to suffice stand-alone articles, so it really gets to the point that all living persons who merit articles are public figures. Persons notable for single events don't have stand-alone articles, and the articles on the events typically contain their biographical information (e.g. Killing of Gabby Petito, Arrest of Randal Worcester etc.).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- No, I don't believe your argument is accurate at all. "Biographical information is available in reliable sources" is not the standard for a public figure in any legal code, nor in any discussion I have seen on Misplaced Pages. Further, WP:PUBLICFIGURE links to the explanatory essay WP:Who is a low-profile individual, which provides additional guidance. Clearer guidance would be helpful and making that guidance part of actual policies or guidelines would probably also be helpful. However, I'm not aware of any discussion that has ever concluded that notability for Misplaced Pages purposes is the same as being a public figure, and in some cases, that would be obviously not true. – notwally (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that our definitions of public figures and low profile individuals is quite vague and imprecise. I do also agree that this distinction is important. - Enos733 (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, it advises editors that being neutral does not necessarily mean the exclusion of negative material for public figures. —Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's not the point. All material in reliable sources is eligible for inclusion, unless specifically restricted by other policies. We don't need policies to encourage editors not exclude negative material from reliable sources. Moreover, this policy isn't written in an efficient way as there's not a systematic list of legal definitions about "public figure" in all countries in the world. The only thing we have is a link to public figure, an orange-tagged article with information on the legal situation in the United States. How does this policy help editors from other countries in the world discern who's a public figure? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's almost 1,000 links to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so some editors apparently find it useful to reference. Are there specific instances where there was a conflict over public figure that we can reference to consider opprtunities for improvement? —Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- If we acknowledge that "public figure" is a real thing on Misplaced Pages that needs to be singled out, then we need to make sure that anyone gets the right meaning. Otherwise, we involuntarily put our editors at risk in case there's a litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation. This policy explicitly calls for adding biographical information that may be deemed defamatory, but it doesn't legally protect our editors from any unwanted scenario. In general, all relevant information in reliable sources should be included, but there are countries in which editors have to weigh their contributions against their personal safety. Misplaced Pages is neither a lawyer nor a platform for human rights activism. It should promote, but not mandate, full transparency. I find this policy redundant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- If you're referring to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation, I'll leave it to WMF lawyers. As for individual editors, if they want to be more strict and not add the information themselves, no policy obligates editors to add anything they are not comfortable with. —Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- If we acknowledge that "public figure" is a real thing on Misplaced Pages that needs to be singled out, then we need to make sure that anyone gets the right meaning. Otherwise, we involuntarily put our editors at risk in case there's a litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation. This policy explicitly calls for adding biographical information that may be deemed defamatory, but it doesn't legally protect our editors from any unwanted scenario. In general, all relevant information in reliable sources should be included, but there are countries in which editors have to weigh their contributions against their personal safety. Misplaced Pages is neither a lawyer nor a platform for human rights activism. It should promote, but not mandate, full transparency. I find this policy redundant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- There's almost 1,000 links to WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so some editors apparently find it useful to reference. Are there specific instances where there was a conflict over public figure that we can reference to consider opprtunities for improvement? —Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- That's not the point. All material in reliable sources is eligible for inclusion, unless specifically restricted by other policies. We don't need policies to encourage editors not exclude negative material from reliable sources. Moreover, this policy isn't written in an efficient way as there's not a systematic list of legal definitions about "public figure" in all countries in the world. The only thing we have is a link to public figure, an orange-tagged article with information on the legal situation in the United States. How does this policy help editors from other countries in the world discern who's a public figure? --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
- PUBLICFIGURE is really more used in the negative sense, in that people that are clearly not public figures (by any definition) should have added BLP concerns related to privacy and other information. A person can have an article but not be a public figure if they are not regularly in the spotlight, as I would consider most academics and professors, many authors, and some business people, all whom might have a good deal of coverage to be able to be notable, but to the extent that we would not include a random accusation within their BLP if only a single source covers it. Masem (t) 21:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, WP:PUBLICFIGURE is needed, both as editorial guidance to what is proper and as legal cover so WP is not guilty of fostering libel. No, all people with articles are not public figures, as said in WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE at “regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article”. Functionally WP article cannot be the criteria as that would circularly open PUBLICFIGURE to be a hack of just create an article on the person to get around the policy. I think it is clear enough that a public figure is a high government official, a listed royal, or a person who sought public prominence. I think there is even a division between those whose actions directly seek prominence via speeches and personal press conferences, and those who are simply famous by dint of notable performance in sports or entertainment. I would tend to try and respect the individuals life choices for personal privacy where reasonable and supported. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- I do not think every holder of a named chair in a univeristy, or several other criteria that we have make people public figures. Someone who won a medal at the olympics 30 or more years ago, or even less, may or may not have been a public figure then, and notability always holds once it is reached, but I think people should have the right to privacy if they chose it, especially those who were thrust into the public spotlight as children or young adults in many ways not by themselves, many gymnastics medalists are minors, so I think it does not make sense to assume all holders of articles are actually public figures.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
Djair Parfitt-Williams Official Name Change Update
http://www.islandstats.com/sport.asp?sport=2&assoc=1&newsid=63984
i am Djair Terraii Parfitt , i have been advised to raise discussion here . I have legally changed my name to “Djair Terraii Parfitt” … i no longer go by Williams . Can you please update the Misplaced Pages Page
Regards 2A04:4A43:892F:F797:F1AC:BB2C:9658:8426 (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Djair Parfitt-Williams
- this page ^ 2A04:4A43:892F:F797:F1AC:BB2C:9658:8426 (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Where do I direct queries from BLP subjects?
Is there a forehead-slappingly obvious central place where a subject of a BLP may go for help? If I were Sylvester Stallone, and I had an issue with my recent coverage, where would I send such queries? On the talkpage of the article certainly. Not to the BLP noticeboard. Public AND Private, as a sysop what are the best places to direct such inquiries or concerns? BusterD (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Article_subjects, Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Help? BusterD (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
A discussion of interest?
Folks, see Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Suggestion_to_rename_many_criticism/controversies_articles_to_include_both_concepts_in_name. Primarily concerns organizations/companies and biographies. BLP is an issue in some cases, obviously, given the very topic... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Reconsidering the third point of BLP1E
Currently, the 3rd point of BLP1E states: The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented. I know what this is getting at, but I think that we need to make this a bit stronger in its wording based on how many keep !votes there were at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Luigi Mangione.
Part of the issue is the fact we have a huge amount of trouble getting editors to recognize the bounds of WP:NOTNEWS, that every tiny news detail is not necessarily appropriate for a summary article. As such editors conflate a massive amout of news coverage with being notable or significant. That's itself a wholly separate issue that needs a broader venue to tackle, its not just a BLP problem, but it is affecting how BLP1E is read.
In terms of BLP, whether Mangione's roll in the killing is going to have the same type of long-term analysis and investigation as there was for Hinckley or someone like Lee Harvey Oswald, we simply don't know yet. There's tons of news coverage, but right now nearly all the coverage related to Mangione is also covered in the killing article; what little there is unique to him is superficial biography stuff like DOB, schooling, and career (none which would be notable). Because of this, the article for Mangione is nearly duplicate of the kiliing article, or mixing up the details such as the trial which should be part of the killing article (that event clearly notable). The article for Brian Thomspon (the victim here) also had some of the same problems too, and that's more rip for eventually merging due to this.
I don't know how to change the BLP1E wording here, but it should emphasize that we should be looking at the long-term significance and coverage of the person's role in the event, and not flash-in-the-pan type coverage. Simply having massive cover in the short-term news should not be considered sufficient to meet BLP1E. — Masem (t) 15:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Given that AfD, I'd suggest that any attempt to change BLP would be an action against consensus. The real issue here is recentism in general, rather than BLP, and anyone trying to get anything deleted within a month of the sentinel event faces a steep uphill battle, likely fraught with charges of political bias or other suspect motivation. Better to let editors continue editing that article as long as and until it proves that no sufficiently detailed analysis exists or is going to exist. But I think that may border on a fool's errand as well, since we still have Thomas Matthew Crooks, who appears to have the smallest amount of information known about him of anyone on planet earth (hyperbole...) and yet we still have an article just because with the Internet, there is now nothing to stop or throttle ongoing coverage of topics that pique the public's interest, as assassins and assassinations seem to. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, it was a SNOW keep. I don't think you're going to successfully find consensus for any change that would have allowed that article to be deleted. I wouldn't be totally opposed to "lacks long-term significance" instead of just "not significant", but it's important to understand that the overwhelming majority of Keep !voters there are just going to tell you that they think that yes, it's sufficiently significant in the long term. (But if your argument is that actual long-term coverage should be required, ie. you're trying to make it impossible to cover anything until enough time has passed for that coverage to exist, then that's a nonstarter because there clearly are things, including articles about individuals only famous for one event, that are required immediately for encyclopedic completeness - if someone eg. successfully assassinates a major world leader, there is no question that we'd need an article about them immediately, even if that's the only thing they will ever be known for.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is a massive problem across WP that editors rush to create and expand articles on breaking news, without following what NOTNEWS, GNG, and NEVENT all stress. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. As I said, there's a need to re-establish NOTNEWS and stop editors from jumping in to creating articles on breaking news topics just because there's a large mass of news coverage. I am not saying that there could never be an article on Mangione, in this case, but we should strive to avoid that much expansion and detail until it is warranted by longer-term sources rather than news coverage; the details about Mangione being wholly appropriate in the existing event article; we should be striving for comprehensiveness and appropriate summarization in one single article than massive detailing across multiple different articles. Otherwise we get tons and tons of articles that duplicate the same information from other articles, creating possible POVFORKS (a key problem for BLP), and other problems. Adjusting BLP1E's 3rd point to make it clear that its not just short term news coverage but long-term sourcing is a desparetely needed step. Note that likely won't stop article creation, but it is a necessary tool as to reassess articles after the rush of coverage has died down and then to determine AFD or merging or other processes. — Masem (t) 19:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Masem I respect your contributions here and your take 99.5% of the time... but this is wrong.
For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage
is the core of NOTNEWS, and has been (with some wording updates) for more than a decade. I recommend seriously contemplating what NOTNEWS actually says and not just what people who throw it around as a bare policy reference think it should mean. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- But, NOTNEWS as well as NOT itself stresses that we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Keeping topics up to date is reasonable, but we shouldn't be going as overboard as we are doing now in covering immediately current events. We write in far too much detail for what summary style that we should be aiming for, and editors frequently claim important and long term significance without any clear sourcing towards this which is both against NOTCRYTSTAL and NOR. And this leads to problems that can arise with BLP, such as excessively personal details that would not be included if one were creating an article about that same person but a few years later after a major event. Eg with Brian Thompsin, editors were scrapping any detail about his life to support that article, leading to several BLP violations. This type of editing also leads to common duplication and poor separation of content. We have the Killing article which seems the obvious place to discuss all facets including a arrestt and this trial, and it's clear that event article isn't going anywhere. But the Mangoine is heavily duplicating the Killing article, which is not helpful for future editors and to readers, from an encyclopedic view. We need to reign this in and get editors to write for a encyclopedia, because we are not Wikinews, which is far better suited for the type of constantly updated news style articles. Masem (t) 17:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I 100000000% endorse this. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- But, NOTNEWS as well as NOT itself stresses that we are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Keeping topics up to date is reasonable, but we shouldn't be going as overboard as we are doing now in covering immediately current events. We write in far too much detail for what summary style that we should be aiming for, and editors frequently claim important and long term significance without any clear sourcing towards this which is both against NOTCRYTSTAL and NOR. And this leads to problems that can arise with BLP, such as excessively personal details that would not be included if one were creating an article about that same person but a few years later after a major event. Eg with Brian Thompsin, editors were scrapping any detail about his life to support that article, leading to several BLP violations. This type of editing also leads to common duplication and poor separation of content. We have the Killing article which seems the obvious place to discuss all facets including a arrestt and this trial, and it's clear that event article isn't going anywhere. But the Mangoine is heavily duplicating the Killing article, which is not helpful for future editors and to readers, from an encyclopedic view. We need to reign this in and get editors to write for a encyclopedia, because we are not Wikinews, which is far better suited for the type of constantly updated news style articles. Masem (t) 17:59, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Again, the RFC was a snow keep with overwhelming attendance; trying to immediately rehash it is mostly a waste of time. If you want to argue that such articles should be written in a specific way, there might be something to discuss, but sometimes we have to just look at an event and, based on the tone and content of an existing flood of coverage, go "yeah, there's clearly going to be books, biopics, academic papers, etc. about this person in the long term." And people can disagree about that! But I think it might be more useful to think about what it would take to convince you that a particular event was significant in the long term, or at which arguments were decisive in that discussion, and calibrate any suggestion for that, with the acknowledgement that the community clearly believes Mangione is on the "definitely needs an encyclopedia article" side of the line and that you're not going to succeed at drawing a line that would exclude it. To me, stuff like eg. long-term projects focusing on someone being announced is a major factor, since it means that your argument goes from "you're just speculating that it will be important" to, essentially, you yourself speculating that the announced projects won't be completed or won't be significant. See eg. - to me that's the sort of source that we'd look for to see if someone passes the BLP1E line. If you don't find that convincing, why not, and if so, how would long-term significance be demonstrated to your satisfaction? --Aquillion (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I can see the value in adding something to emphasize the importance of long-term sourcing to WP:BLP1E. After requirement #3, the next paragraph starts with, "
The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
" Maybe that line should be incorporated into the first sentence of #3, such as "The event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented, which is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources over time."? WP:NOTNEWS seems to be worded more strongly, and is certainly worded far stronger than it is implemented in practice, especially when it comes to news reports about living people. – notwally (talk) 01:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)- I've never seen wikipedia publish a news report about a living person... Perhaps you're simply misinterpreting NOTNEWS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are so many examples that I assume this is just a bad faith argument by you because we disagreed in another thread. Please leave me alone in discussions unless you have something substantive to add. – notwally (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've never seen wikipedia publish a news report at all, about a living person or otherwise... Even The Signpost is technically published by an external entity and thats the closest we seem to come. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- There are so many examples that I assume this is just a bad faith argument by you because we disagreed in another thread. Please leave me alone in discussions unless you have something substantive to add. – notwally (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've never seen wikipedia publish a news report about a living person... Perhaps you're simply misinterpreting NOTNEWS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- Masem I respect your contributions here and your take 99.5% of the time... but this is wrong.
- There is a massive problem across WP that editors rush to create and expand articles on breaking news, without following what NOTNEWS, GNG, and NEVENT all stress. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. As I said, there's a need to re-establish NOTNEWS and stop editors from jumping in to creating articles on breaking news topics just because there's a large mass of news coverage. I am not saying that there could never be an article on Mangione, in this case, but we should strive to avoid that much expansion and detail until it is warranted by longer-term sources rather than news coverage; the details about Mangione being wholly appropriate in the existing event article; we should be striving for comprehensiveness and appropriate summarization in one single article than massive detailing across multiple different articles. Otherwise we get tons and tons of articles that duplicate the same information from other articles, creating possible POVFORKS (a key problem for BLP), and other problems. Adjusting BLP1E's 3rd point to make it clear that its not just short term news coverage but long-term sourcing is a desparetely needed step. Note that likely won't stop article creation, but it is a necessary tool as to reassess articles after the rush of coverage has died down and then to determine AFD or merging or other processes. — Masem (t) 19:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- There is no way to write a rule that covers events like Luigi Mangione (yes, I said event, not person). I can't define art but I know it when I see it and there will be an article on this person. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- "Simply having massive cover in the short-term news should not be considered sufficient to meet BLP1E." and it wasn't in this case, next please. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- All the coverage related to him right now is short term. We are still in a burst of news coverage, not where enduring coverage would start. Masem (t) 17:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- BLP1E isn't required, its a "generally should" not a "must" which means that being kept doesn't mean that it meets BLP1E. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- All the coverage related to him right now is short term. We are still in a burst of news coverage, not where enduring coverage would start. Masem (t) 17:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm just not seeing the problem. In this specific instance, the
event is significant and individual's role substantial
, and what is known iswell documented
. Remember, it's anor
in the current BLP1E text, so either the event they're involved in is "significant" or their role is "either substantial or well documented". I think the current guidance is working as intended, and the community recognized that with the result we achieved. I don't see that a change here is necessary as we'd only be preventing articles about subjects our readers are looking for from being produced. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC) - As someone who edits in this kind of field but avoids breaking news, our inconsistency on BLP1E/BIO1E drives me mad, even though I tend to be more lenient towards splitting articles like these. There is no rhyme or reason to who does or doesn't. It's not the policy's fault - I think the section is well written, this is just inherently a very finnicky topic area. Given this specific case I would find stronger cause for not keeping it, as he has not been convicted and he is not otherwise notable. But people have... strong feelings, and that results in bad decisions in this topic area.
- Avoiding the breaking events thing, I really just think it's generally more of a NOPAGE question. After the dust is settled, will it benefit the reader to have more than one page? For a fully comprehensive telling of events would it be most logically covered with a separate article? If cases are widely known, historically significant and have very in depth coverage the answer tends to be yes. Or are you making an article for the sake of having an article? I think these are better questions to ask. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think one of the challenges our community faces is that BLP sets a high bar for creating a page about a living person, but there is a tendency for editors to want to create pages about individuals (especially individuals connected with a high-profile crime) and there is a tendency to quickly try to delete BLP articles while the event is in the news (so passions are high). - Enos733 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this, those two challenges are why we're instructed to not rush to creation *and* to not rush to deletion however contradictory that may seem at first glance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- It's just there are no gaurdlines on creation, and once a page gets loaded with references (even if they are principle primary sources, from short term news coverage, and which fail to demonstrate notability beyond a single event, it becomes near impossible to merge or delete such articles because editors that vote to keep frequently equate massive news coverage with notability, which is not always true. I don't want to see us suppress article creation, but we need to have better ability in policy to handle cases once it has been shown no long term coverage exists and merging into a more comprehensive article makes more sense.
- I'll also add that both BLP CRIME and Victim suggest a stronger form that what the current third point of BLP1E offers, in the cautionary aspects about creating articles separate from a notable event article for previously non notable victims or suspects/convicted individuals. Masem (t) 21:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know about that... I would be interested to see some hard statistics on deletions but it seems much more doable than "near impossible" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with this, those two challenges are why we're instructed to not rush to creation *and* to not rush to deletion however contradictory that may seem at first glance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think one of the challenges our community faces is that BLP sets a high bar for creating a page about a living person, but there is a tendency for editors to want to create pages about individuals (especially individuals connected with a high-profile crime) and there is a tendency to quickly try to delete BLP articles while the event is in the news (so passions are high). - Enos733 (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)