"Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves."
It doesn't take a genius that the emphasized part contradicts WP:UNINVOLVED, even though it isn't explicitly spelled out. UNINVOLVED isn't just some bureaucratic process, it a "check and balance" system, and an important principle, that user shouldn't wear both admin and editor hats at the same time.
At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Causa sui, there is now a debate regarding an incident where (as I understand it) a clearly involved admin removed a borderline BLP vio, and then blocked the editor who introduced it. Many debate whether this was a BLP vio, and more importantly whether the admin abused his admin privileges. In my opinion, he didn't. Policy was on his side. It shouldn't be so. Even at that discussion there appears to be consensus that the admin shouldn't have blocked the editor, and should have instead brought the believe violations to an administrators' noticeboard. But why would he when he clearly has policy on his side?
I believe that this part of the policy creates more problems than it solves. I don't believe that it is in anyway necessary: for serious cases we always have WP:IAR, and even UNINVOLVED isn't so strict to completely disallow editors to act as admins: "In cases which are straightforward, ... , the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved ...". As such, I have boldly removed the emphasized part from the policy. RamiR08:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Not all policies are equal. Just as this policy trumps 3RR, it also trumps WP:UNINVOLVED. The problem with many BLPs of marginally notable, is they get very little attention beyond those who know the subject personally, which might be one person with a personal gripe, who "wins" be re-inserting whatever junk they wish. The attacker has an edge, because nobody else has the time or concern to stop them. If you call the first admin who reverts them an "involved" party, then you're effectively requiring two admins to a fix problem, which reduces our efficiency in solving problems in half. --Rob (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the restoration, for Thivierr's and other reasons. Hard cases make bad law. This is arising from a complex of articles on highly notable alleged terrorists or malefactors, some discussed above, frequently edited by people with nonconsensus or imperfect understanding of BLP. The problems there are sometimes subtle and small, but throughout the articles, which do IMHO have serious BLP problems. Basically they take the US gummint POV as truth, and ignore their subjects' and many RS's out there that differ. The problems in these articles add up to a level calling for administrative attention, but are not well suited to quick solutions using adminstrative tools, which has been the real cause of the drama at ANI and elsewhere.John Z (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
(@Rob) I understand that the policy trumps UNINVOVLED, that's what I said. I also stated why I don't think it should. Your example is a good one: you say that the problem is marginal BLPs with few participants, but your example already has an admin at the scene. By the same logic you employ, we should abolish UNINVOLVED completely.
(@John Z) You don't appear to be disagreeing with me. You say that the issue was "not well suited to quick solutions using adminstrative tools", but this is what current policy wording actually allows. I'm not trying to dispute whether admin actions were needed, this is not really the place for this discussion. I am disputing whether the involved admin's actions were needed. RamiR10:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that "and blocks" should be taken out - or at least clarified - as it was apparently what lead Causa sui to believe that blocking a long-term contributor with whom he disagreed on a content issue was appropriate. If the involved admin absolutely must take action (which I doubt in many cases they must, there is always WP:ANI and WP:RFPP), page protection would be preferred to an involving admin blocking. –xenotalk13:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with xeno. We don't have such a severe shortage of admins that we need to let involved admins make blocks in content disputes. Gigs (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
My understanding was that this section was to deal with blatant and unambiguous BLP violations, like "John Doe was the assistant to Attorney General Robert Kennedy in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." Hipocrite (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec)I agree that clarifying and emphasizing the protection option would be desirable, particularly in more ambiguous cases of BLP violation. I don't agree with removing the block option, however. As an example, a couple of articles on my watchlist are subject to ongoing, months apart, BLP violations using different IP addresses. e.g. [1], [2]. Yes, I revert (so by some people's definition I am involved) and yes, sometimes I protect, and yes, sometimes I block. I could take the blocks elsewhere, but I think blocking editors who made unsubstantiated allegations that living people are criminals or Nazis is uncontroversial and thus should not require uninvolved admins to hit the block button. --Slp1 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
So, then some clarification is still required. If it is an patently obvious BLP violation being inserted by from an unregistered user, I think a block is fine, even from involved parties (i.e. if 99% of administrators would have taken the same action...). But here is a case where it was disputed whether it was a BLP violation and it was an established user on the receiving end of the block. Perhaps what needs to be made clear is that there is a a difference between being a regular editor of the article and being involved in a specific dispute. –xenotalk14:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see the difference between whether problematic material is being added by an IP or registered/established user, or whether the admin has been editing the article extensively or not. In my examples, whether I had rewritten the article and/or whether the IPs had registered seems a moot point. The key (to me!) seems to be whether the BLP issue is obvious: if so, blocking may be a fine decision; if not, consider removing the material temporarily and then referring to ANI (or elsewhere) or if necessary removing the material temporarily, protecting and then referring to ANI. --Slp1 (talk) 14:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you suggest some method of clarifying so situations such as the one linked above do not re-occur? –xenotalk14:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
How about something like "Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks. In the case of clear BLP violations, administrators who been editing the article may block or protect the article themselves; in more ambiguous cases, removing the material, protecting the article and referring the dispute to ANI is recommended."--Slp1 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think this could be a good compromise, because it keeps content out of the article (makes me happy) and doesn't involve blocking users (makes you happy). Do it, I say. :-) --causa sui (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that a big problem underlying the dispute about my block of Epeefleche (talk·contribs) wasn't really any vagueness in the policy, but a disagreement over whether what I was blocking him for was actually a BLP violation. Had he been inserting text that was so blatantly a BLP violation that nobody could mistake it, even if they were unfamiliar with the subject and the history of the article, the outcome of that ANI post might have been less two-sided. Would you agree with that, xeno (talk·contribs) (or anyone else who followed it)? --causa sui (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
This? [3]? Doesn't look blatant to me. In any case, you blocked him 5 hours after his last edit to the article. The page wasn't protected until 4 days later. I don't know how that block could be called anything but punitive. Gigs (talk) 14:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
@Causa - Yes. I disagree that the insertion was so blatant that it required an involved admin to block (or a block at all). If I had been in your shoes, and felt it was a blockable violation, I would have reported to ANI. –xenotalk14:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. The problem was that the edit didn't unambiguously or blatantly violate BLP, as making unsubstantiated claims about nazism or criminality would. --Slp1 (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, good. In that case, it seems that the real dispute there wasn't about policy, but about whether it was clear that Epeefleche (talk·contribs) was actually inserting BLP violations. Therefore, I see no need to amend the policy. (By the way, why is everyone focusing on that one diff? The dispute was much bigger than that... but maybe I should be asking this question over on ANI.) --causa sui (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
(od) As said above, the BLP vio (if it existed) wasn't so blatant to justify an involved admin taking action. The problem isn't (IMO) so much what is or isn't a BLP vio, but that there's no distinction between borderline vios and clear vios, specifically in regards to involved administrator actions. Hows about this as a compromise: the "even if they have been editing the article themselves" part is omitted, and in UNINVOLVED, after where it currently says "e.g. blatant vandalism", "or clear BLP violations" is added. This will thus still allow prompt admin action when needed, and yet require more care before enforcing BLP despite being involved. RamiR14:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No. Administrators (and everyone else, for that matter) should be explicitly permitted to remove BLP-problematic content immediately and regardless of circumstances. Recall that articles are never finished and it is easy to restore content that was removed in error; but it is not easy to undo the ethical and legal damage of having defamatory or libelous content in our articles. That's why we err on the side of caution and work it out on the talk page. We do not need any barriers to removing BLP-violating content instituted in policy. --causa sui (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
That's great and all, but it has nothing to do with my suggestion. I never suggested limiting you in removing the potential-vio from the article; that's not the issue. The question is why do you (the involved administrator) need to protect and more importantly block? Why is dealing with a borderline violator so urgent that you can't leave it up to an uninvolved admin's discretion? RamiR15:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to be defensive. Omitting "even if they have been editing the article themselves" is a barrier, because it obligates administrators to follow WP:INVOLVED in every case. My case is not a good test case to base such an alteration because the blatant cases of editors persistently adding BLP-violating content are a much more serious problem than any rogue admin blocking a user to advance his own position in a content dispute. The latter can be handled retroactively on ANI, as it was in my case: the former is damage that cannot be undone, and so reasonable people should have all available tools at their disposal to mitigate the damage. --causa sui (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Bear in mind that in this case, blocking could have been easily avoided had the user simply discussed the matter before restoring the content. We remove problematic content with all possible haste and talk it out; users who refuse in principle to even discuss it pose a serious problem that these provisions of the BLP policy are specifically worded to address. Perhaps another way to amend policy to prevent this from happening in the future would be to emphasize that users must engage in discussion before restoring contentious material. --causa sui (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) Yes!!! That an admin should always follow INVOLVED unless the outcome is obvious is exactly what I am suggesting! I can understand the urgency in removing edits, and I am not suggesting the 3RR exception be revoked. What I can't understand is what is the urgency in administrative actions in borderline cases. RamiR15:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there's any one easy set of rules to cover every case -- that's a persistent problem with this approach to amending policy in general. Ultimately, you can't prevent all possible mistakes with excruciatingly clear and detailed rules; and borderline cases are always going to create problems because we expect people to exercise their judgment and common sense. What I don't want is to create the impression that anyone should have to jump through bureaucratic hoops before taking out BLP violations in any circumstance. Do you think that's not a risk, or do you think it's a risk we should be less concerned with than I am? --causa sui (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
The latter. If borderline cases are such a huge problem, and a simple ANI report such a significant bureaucratic hoop, why don't we scrap UNINVOLVED completely? RamiR16:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Because WP:INVOLVED is a very important admin conduct policy when it comes to ordinary content disputes. It does not apply when the content dispute is over potentially defamatory or damaging information. See, among others, Wikipedia:BLPBAN. --causa sui (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
"Administrators with direct involvement in an article may not take action regarding it under this provision." Gigs (talk) 17:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a single policy that trumps all others. Some common sense is in order. Administrators should not use tools, or policy arguments, to favor their own personal agendas, or disputed / minority positions about what policy means. Blocks and page protection should be used sparingly to begin with. Where administrators have a stake in things, it should only be for (a) clear / blatant cases not subject to reasonable dispute, (b) where there is substantial harm to be avoided, and (c) where no other administrator is immediately available. If any of these conditions are not met blocking or page protection by an intvolved editor unwise and the decision should be left to others. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think your viewpoints are reasonable, but it's a reversal of a lot of standing precedent including very seriously worded Arbcom rulings. --causa sui (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikidemon and Causa sui, can we accept that blocking and page protection are two different things and discuss them on that basis, rather than lumping both together as indistinguishable "admin tools"? I commented in the Causa sui discussion that if Causa Sui had protected that Allaki article while involved, then taken it to ANI and asked for an uninvolved admin to take over the issue, there would not have been nearly as much drama even if the protection turned out to be a misjudgement. So people are briefly stopped from editing until another admin unprotects, there is no deadline, yawn. Blocking on the other hand sticks to the recipient and causes a lot more headache.
Causa sui, in every instance, blocking is intended to prevent further occurrence of a problem. In an incident like the one you were involved in, are you of the view that protecting the Allaki article would not have been sufficiently preventive? The only way I can see it failing is if Epeefleche were to start attacking multiple articles, in which case blocking might be necessary. So I'm saying follow the arbcom ruling using common sense--if the situation calls for admin action, use protection and let another admin sort it out if possible. Block only as a last resort. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I think protection would have done the work, as Epeefleche (talk·contribs) was not (to my knowledge) involved in inserting BLP-problematic content to other articles. However, I chose blocking because we generally try to avoid using page protection to prevent edits by a single problem editor, as page protection prevents other editors from working on the article as well. For instance, now that the article is protected, other well-intentioned editors who appreciate the severe BLP problems still remaining in the article are prevented from fixing them due to the software limitations of page protection and also the protection policy requirements not to edit protected pages. For those reasons, I think blocking is slightly better than page protection, though not hugely better, and so I don't mind having it done either way. --causa sui (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I really have no idea, but I don't have control over the behavior of others. FWIW, I'm still a bit surprised that what I did generated any objections at all. --causa sui (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
If I had it to do over, I suppose I would use page protection instead before implementing important changes; though that would be so that I could avoid spending hours explaining myself on WP:ANI instead of working on productive things like fixing the article. I don't really understand the substantive differences we have here, and I still believe that getting BLP problematic content out of articles is more important than any other procedural concern, so in the future if I find myself in similar circumstances, I probably won't hesitate to use sysop tools to enforce BLP -- just like Risker did, just like other admins did, and have done, with the blessing of the BLP policy and of some very strongly worded arbcom rulings. --causa sui (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
"we generally try to avoid using page protection to prevent edits by a single problem editor, as page protection prevents other editors from working on the article as well" - Consider that in an ordinary non-BLP conflict, WP:UNINVOLVED says to do nothing administratively at all (except seek external help). That shows there's longstanding agreement that non-involvement is important enough that we accept slightly prolonging the disruption while waiting for help to arrive. The BLP factor doesn't change this: it's still ok to inconvenience editors in order to turn admin operations over to someone uninvolved, to the extent possible. The purpose of exceptional actions under BLP is to prevent real-world adverse impact on the article subject, not to avoid inconvenience to Wikipedia editors, so once the potential BLP impact is contained, just fall back on normal wiki practices of uninvolvement even if it inconveniences editors.
The idea of protecting the article (maybe I should have said explicitly) is to remove the severe BLP problems and -then- protect (or remove them while it's protected if you have to, one of the easier things to justify based on BLP). If you're concerned that editing through protection might look like advancing your preferred version in an edit dispute, or if removing the problems in the heat of the moment is too complicated, you could even just blank the article completely and replace it with a protected info message saying the content is temporarily unavailable pending editorial review. That gets rid of the BLP problems and is guaranteed to not be anyone's preferred version, so you're off the hook while someone else sorts it out. Does this make sense? 66.127.53.162 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I think what you're saying makes sense from a pragmatic point of view, because it makes it more difficult for people who are late to the party to misunderstand what happened, as I am increasingly beginning to believe happened here: it increasingly looks to me like my efforts to explain the BLP policy on the talk page and engage in discussion gave others the misguided impression that this was just an ordinary content dispute and that I was using blocking to get my way. What you guys are describing sounds like a good way to avoid that kind of misunderstanding. What I don't get is how what I did is concretely improper from the standpoint of perfect information. But you know what, at this point I don't really need to understand. I'm just going to do it your way in the future -- page protection and seeking blocks on ANI. It's less of a hassle that way. --causa sui (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Right, there are two ideas to keep in mind: 1) BLP takes priority over wp:uninvolved, but does not obliterate it. When the two policies conflict, resolve the conflict by taking the minimal admin action necessary to contain the BLP impact, then treat the action as a hot potato that you want to get rid of as fast as possible (by dumping it on ANI). Don't get into the complexity of it by issuing things like topic bans. 2) Any admin action (at any time) will be either the right thing or a mistake, and in an unclear situation, you don't find out which it is until afterwards. So if there is a choice, pick the action that will have the least fallout if it turns out to be a mistake, which usually means picking actions that are easiest to undo. Blocking always causes drama because the block log makes blocking impossible to completely revert. Protection and unprotection is a yawner by comparison.
Also: part of the idea of wp:uninvolved is that analysis under perfect information is basically irrelevant, because of the high likelihood of conflicting analysis. Someone will always think you got it wrong, so the idea is to step away from the problem and let someone else handle it. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 21:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure. At this point, further discussion is academic. All I can do is state my frustration at the somewhat Kafkaesque result of all this: in the future, I have to resort to use of sysop tools (protection) first rather than attempting to discuss it with interested parties and reach a diplomatic solution, as participating in discussion creates the appearance of "involvement". Frustrating, but that's how it's going to be. Thanks. --causa sui (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think so, you're already involved, and discussion doesn't make you more involved. Taking any sysop action while involved is drastic but sometimes necessary. If you can avoid the drastic action through discussion, do so, including by announcing your intentions. If you have to take the drastic action, then take it, but disengage as fast as you can. Say at ANI, "I just did <action> while involved in a dispute at <article> because of an urgent BLP concern", describe what the problem is, and let someone else handle it. You got rid of the BLP side of the dilemma by doing the admin action, so now wp:uninvolved is in full force, and you should provide whatever info is needed but otherwise just stand back while others discuss remedies. Accept ahead of time that the action may be a mistake, and consider the likely aftermath of a mistaken action. Wrong protection => uninvolved admin says "that protection went overboard, I'm undoing it", you say "ok, thanks", and things are back to normal quickly. Wrong block => "ZOMG, drama, oh my poor block log, etc." and there is a big mess. Don't worry too much about avoiding every mistake. Just choose your actions so that mistakes are less likely to result in messes. I hope this makes sense. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
@Causa. Isn't your above statement that implies strongly that your only "involvement" was in talk page discussion perhaps a little misleading? Given that you were heavily involved in rapidly editing the article (so much so that a 3RR discussion was initiated with regard to your edit warring and 3RR violations, and the talk page discussion that you were involved in was about your non-consensus edits?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, and even more important, is his incredulous suggestion that he did not realize he was involved. Consider the following. He had wp:involved quoted to him, and was told that if he were to use sysop tools in the editing dispute that would be a violation of the guidance. The next day, he seemed to have a fine understanding of the applicability of the guidance to the matter, and did not suffer from any confusion at all as to the fact that he was involved--and it's relevance to using sysop tools. For he wrote: "I do not want to use sysop tools to enforce BLP in a dispute in which I am a direct participant". (emphasis added). The following day, he used his sysop tools to block me and to topic ban me. And on top of that, he has had the "guidance" of various sysops and other editors on this page and the block page over the past week on this issue. Given his statements, this doesn't appear at all to be a lack of understanding. It appears to be a refusal to follow wiki guidelines, which is consistent with his past statement about willfully refusing to follow them, and his more recent refusal to commit to following them. I don't see how we can tolerate a sysop who willfully violates and refuses to follow wiki guidelines. That would seem to be the barest minimum requirement to wield the mop.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you're definitely making sense, and I really appreciate you taking the time and effort to go over this with me and help sort out my confusion. The point I'm still stuck on is understanding at what point I really become "involved". I get the sense that the WP:INVOLVED policy -- not to mention everyone's common sense intuition -- hasn't fully mapped the distinctions between administrative and editorial involvement. That's really what the nub of this is, I think. When you say I'm "already involved", do you mean that I'm involved now, or that I became involved at some point between when I made my first edit to the article and now, or that I'm involved the moment I use sysop tools? It can't possibly be the latter, since that would mean no admin could use sysop tools in any instance. It seems to me that I did the right thing to try to solve the dispute diplomatically, as that falls very much into line with what Will Beback (talk·contribs) described below -- using admin tools as a last resort, rather as a first resort. But the result seems to be that people think I was "involved", because I was communicating my considered opinion that the content was a BLP violation, and inviting the interested parties to help correct it before doing anything draconian to force the issue. --causa sui (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. You know you were involved before you applied the block and the topic ban in your edit dispute. How do we know that? Because you said so. The day immediately preceding your imposing the block and the topic ban. When you wrote, as to this very matter: "I do not want to use sysop tools to enforce BLP in a dispute in which I am a direct participant". (emphasis added). You knew you were involved, and you knew that the nature of your involvement was such that it bore on your right to use your sysop tools. You suffered from no confusion, and for you to imply that you did to lead the other participants in this discussion in a red herring diversion is duplicitous.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
1) If you've been editing and discussing the article content, you're (generally) considered editorially involved (that's what I meant by "involved"). That might not be the case if you're responding to an ANI or BLPN thread and make one two edits, but by the time you've made 75 edits (that's what Epeefleche said, I didn't check), that's editorial involvement. 2) WP:Uninvolved says: don't be editorially and administratively involved at the same time, which normally means don't use sysop tools if you're editorially involved. 3) WP:BLP says: getting rid of BLP vios takes priority over other policies, but the ANI thread shows that the other policies still have to be taken into consideration. So it's just a question of how to juggle these conflicting issues.
Note, I have to go do some other things for a while but can continue to discuss this later if you think it is helping. You might alternatively offer at the ANI thread to take some admin coaching or seek temporary informal mentorship from an admin experienced in BLP issues, to help work through this stuff. IMO, both of those make more sense than resigning. 66.127.53.162 (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Let's all remember that WP:IAR is still a policy. Among other things, it means we don't have to create instructions to cover every possible eventuality. As it applies to this matter, it seems like the sound solution is to maintain the principle of uninvolvement, but recognize that if there's a particular BLP problem that can only be solved by the action of an an involved admin, then he or she can act under WP:IAR and defend their decision. I think it would be a bad idea to give admins a carte blanche to use their tools on articles where they're significantly involved . Will Bebacktalk22:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this bit: "it would be a bad idea to give admins a carte blanche to use their tools on articles where they're significantly involved". I really don't think anyone here disagrees with that, or that the policy authorizes it. The question is not about giving admins a blank check, but giving admins room to enforce the BLP policy by any means necessary where they feel it is required, regardless of their editing history in the article. --causa sui (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
That authority is already granted by WP:IAR. But IAR has a high threshold. An admin should use his or her tools in an involved article as a last resort, not as a routine matter. Will Bebacktalk22:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I've added "if necessary" to the policy text. Perhaps there's a better way to express the idea that this should not be done lightly. Will Bebacktalk00:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
First, to clarify one point, the focus of wp:grapevine is on "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". Without even getting to the question of whether a Washington Post article is a poor source, the material that Causa deleted was not contentious. Why? Because it (AA is trying to kill Americans) was consistent with other language already in the article (about AA's involvement with the recruitment and/or planning of the Christmas Day bombing). If we insert "he was trying to kill American, in the view of x" into an article about Mother Theresa, well -- that would be contentious. Anwar al-Awlaki, where the article already says nearly as much? No; not contentious at all.
Second, wp:involved says that "In cases which are straightforward, (e.g. blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion." There is a standard there, and perhaps it should be clarified in WP:GRAPEVINE that it is to be read in conjunction with wp:involved, and that the right to impose a block is tempered by the requirement that it be for a matter that is straightforward, where any reasonable admin would probably have the same conclusion.
It is a basic rule of statutory construction that if two provisions that overlap can be read in a manner that gives effect to both, that is the proper reading. It is also a basic rule that the provision with greater specificity, in the event of conflict, is the one that controls. This, I submit, is the proper reading, and the only sensible one. A clarifying amendment could easily be made to wp:grapevine to reflect it.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The "Grapevine" issue is entirely unrelated to the "Involved" issue, and it's probably unhelpful to discuss them in the same thread. I'd just say though that the assertion that the AA subject would want to kill Americans does not appear to be an extraordinary claim, given the context of the other sources. If the assertion isn't really controversial then the sourcing seems more than adequate. Will Bebacktalk09:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary break 2
causa sui, I've read much but not all of the discussions related to the block, and some discussions related to the article. It looks like you got involved with the article, and mentioned possibly using admin tools with it, on 8 April. It looks like you did the block more than 10 days later.
What I haven't seen is any explanation of why you didn't bring up the matter to any uninvolved admin between when you got involved and when you made the block. Maurreen (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
That's a complicated question. The short answer was that my understanding of certain provisions in the WP:BLP policy as well as various Arbcom decisions gave me the strong impression it wasn't necessary for me to do so. --causa sui (talk) 00:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
but why would you have preferred not to do it? In a matter as sensitive as BLP, why would you not want to make the handling of the situation something that could not be taken exception to? Why would you prefer to do a necessary block in a dubious rather than a less dubious way? Based on the discussions, no other administrator here would have considered the block necessary, and you must have realized it, and that was the actual reason. The best way of preventing this in the future is to absolutely remove the exception that permits admins to do this. there has never been a situation in the enWP that only one admin is available. (and for those WPs where that is not the case, that's why we have stewards) DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
@Causa--Your response strains credulity, frankly. Let's consider the context. You were involved in heavy editing of the article. So heavy that it spawned a 3RR discussion of your edits, and a series of talk page criticisms of your non-consensus edits. You threatened to use your sysop powers in the dispute. You had wp:involved quoted to you, and were told that if you were to use sysop tools in the editing dispute that would be a violation of the guidance. The next day, you seemed to have a fine understanding of the applicability of the guidance to the matter, and did not suffer from any confusion at all as to the fact that you were involved--and it's relevance to your using sysop tools. For you wrote: "I do not want to use sysop tools to enforce BLP in a dispute in which I am a direct participant". (emphasis added). The following day, you used your sysop tools to block me and to topic ban me. At no point in all of this did you say anything that suggested you were going to assert: "Oh, was I involved ... really? Wow. Who would have thunk. I didn't realize." Just the opposite. This doesn't appear at all to be a lack of understanding. It appears to be a refusal to follow wiki guidelines, which is consistent with your past statement about willfully refusing to follow the block policy, and your more recent refusal to commit to following the wiki guidelines on wp:admin and consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
At this point, I don't think I could give an answer that satisfies you. I think my agreement to use page protection and request blocks at ANI in the future ought to satisfy your concerns, though. --causa sui (talk) 04:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think you can, either. You have already done an admirable job defending yourself doing the indefensible, arguing how you had the letter of the law on your side. I think the point at which this blew up into a serious matter, rather than an isolated 'bad block' - admins are human, after all - is that you still ride around in your open top convertible, dismissing the complaints from all around, compounding the misjudgement you made by the block by saying the letter of policy allows you to do what you did. By doing so, you completely dismissed the political dimension of conflicts of interest, and of your action. It has been clearly demonstrated that you have been in a conflict situation with Epeefleche for a number of days. Look, I am not arguing about the Washington Post citation which I have previously stated should not go in IMHO. Your continued belligerence here, in a thread which 'clarifies the rules for thickoes like me' which is arguably to save your skin, is a pretty strong indicator to me that your judgement is impaired beyond redemption. Ohconfucius¡digame!07:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Mmm. All right, I'll try it this way. If you consider this a reversal of my previous statements, then so be it: I did what I did because I sincerely believed the policy explicitly authorized me to do it. I was confused by the massive response that I got because the policy, and some arbcom rulings, so explicitly authorized it that I assumed that everyone criticizing my behavior must have been mistaken about the policy. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the policy was simply out of alignment with community expectations, and so I have amended the policy per the suggestions of others to bring it into alignment with those expectations. I agree on those grounds, because my finger was more on the pulse of the text of the policy and not the wider community expectation, that my beliefs about the policy -- which motivated my action -- were in error. Consequently, my action was in error. Therefore, I agree to abide by the policy as it now stands amended. --causa sui (talk)
I tweaked the changes in this section to try to make it more clear, but I'm not sure if I succeeded. The previous version was a little alphabet soupy & unclear as to what was being blocked. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)05:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like some clarification on this section. What does "contentious" mean? I think the word "contentious" is used with regard to material challenged or likely to be challenged by editors. User:Jclemens argues that "contentious" means contentious among secondary sources: " No disagreement between sources? No contention."[4] This interpretation seems plainly wrong to me. Please clarify. Thanks. ^^James^^ (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's plainly wrong. If there is contention amongst sources, WP:NPOV mandates representing the conflicting views so that readers can make their own judgement. It is also an illogical interpretation, as the policy states, "any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced", i.e. not "contentious material ... which is well sourced." Ty09:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Slightly unrelated, I like the current "clear or urgent" wording. There's still plenty of wiggle room there for discretion. Gigs (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Contentious refers not to Wikipedia editors' disagreements on whether it should be included, but rather whether the material itself is disputed off-wiki, or of a nature likely to be disputed, as unfair, untrue, scandalous, etc. It is contentious to say about someone that they committed a crime; it is not contentious (absent special context to the contrary) to say about someone that they were born in 1962. The distinction is important to a number of recent policy disputes here, as some seeking to delete things for no other reason than lack of sourcing basically took the "I am deleting it, therefore it is contentious" approach, which would render the distinction meaningless. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I read it as criteria: contentious among editors (any material challenged or likely to be challenged) and unsourced or poorly sourced material. It's there in plain english. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
That's an unfortunate misunderstanding, per WP:BURDEN, challenged material--that is, anything disputed in good faith by another editor--must be sourced. Contentious BLP material is a higher standard than simply being challenged--that has historically presumed a reasonable expectation of harm to the living subject from incorrect material. Jclemens (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It needn't involve harm, as the policy says: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" Contentious material can be positive too. SlimVirgintalkcontribs20:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
How do you interpret the difference between "material challenged or likely to be challenged" in WP:BURDEN and "contentious" material within the scope of WP:BLP, given your historical interest in the evolution of this policy? Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
In practice there is no difference. If someone challenges something it's contentious. I forget the exact evolution of "contentious" in this policy. I recall that the word was "controversial" at one point, and it did lean toward the negative— i.e. only negative controversial material should be removed if not well sourced—but several editors were keen to stress that NPOV had priority over BLP, and that therefore not only negative contentious material should be removed. Because that would mean that vanity articles containing positive nonsense could be retained. So that sentence was smoothed out to make clear that anything contentious at all, even if not negative, should be removed if unsourced or poorly sourced. SlimVirgintalkcontribs21:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation. The historical evolution of BLP was about harm to persons. While it's absolutely proper to remove peacockery as well, I do not believe the community consensus or ArbCom decisions support the use of "extraordinary measures" (which is really what's under discussion here) to remove neutral or positive statements. Jclemens (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Not as such, no, but we generally agree that even apparently positive nonsense is a BLP worry: without proper sources, something that is superficially positive in appearance could cause real harm because of context we cannot be aware of. — Coren(talk)23:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
This seems like a semantic difference that doesn't change practice. If either the positive nonsense or the negative material are well-sourced, and meet due weight requirements, then it belongs in the article. Otherwise, the policy requires removal of poorly sourced material no matter the tone. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)01:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
negative material is not necessarily contentious, but in practice it is a great deal more likely to be so than positive material, in the typical BLP situation. Unjustified positive mateerial is usually just regarded as puffery, and it shouldn' be dignified by calling it contentious, just removed as amatter of course by copyediting--as in any other article also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Which is back to what I was asserting: there's much more pronounced community support for "exceptional means" to remove clearly negative or defamatory material from BLPs than there is support for the same exceptional means to remove neutral, positive, or inscrutable material. All unsourced material is bad and should be removed per WP:BURDEN, but negative BLP material is an extra-special kind of bad, immune to 3RR limits, etc. Jclemens (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily. If someone adds to the John Seigenthaler article that he was married to Marilyn Monroe, that he is a Muslim, and that he owns Yankee Stadium, and sources it to someone's blog, it should be removed immediately, per BLP. If unsourced junk is added to a living person's article, we don't need to classify it as positive, negative or neutral; we just get rid of it, immediately. Crum375 (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
No, actually, that all should be removed per WP:V. The problem with that example is it's too egregious for good editors to differ over it: it's clearly vandalism, and I can see how two of the three assertions could reasonably be harmful if untrue. The issue isn't getting rid of nonsense, and never has been. The question is, has always been, and remains, "What sort of BLP material can or should trigger extraordinary measures?" Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Actually, BLP does also require the removal of unsourced material. However, the specific case we are talking about (what is an emergency) only need apply to unsourced negative material. As I understand it, BLP was created to prevent libel, which potentially damages the project financially. Those are the emergency situations that allow an involved admin (or other editor) to take whatever measures necessary to remove potentially libelous material. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)04:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Clarification - anything that is contentious (which I take to mean of doubtful veracity) and unsourced should be removed. To quote from WP:BLP: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)04:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Eh... no. Unsourced material of any sort should be removed per WP:V. If all WP:BLP is doing is reiterating WP:V, then we should strike the section from BLP as confusing and redundant to V. I'm OK with doing that, but I'm fairly certain that that's not what's meant. BLP issues are qualitatively different from other V failures, in that they can cause harm to living people, yes? Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
BLP was created to prevent harm to living individuals, caused by unsourced or poorly sourced material in their WP article, or even over-promoting well-sourced material which is only marginally relevant to their notability (i.e. WP:UNDUE). This does include libel issues, but not only. The point is simple: for living persons we increase our level of care about proper sourcing and neutrality, and immediately remove unsourced or poorly sourced material. What to an editor may seem harmless, could still end up harming the subject. So we take no chances, and this is the essence of BLP. Crum375 (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Wait, what?! Did you (Crum375) just say that BLP concerns allow editors to delete material that they, unilaterally, believe to be UNDUE, without limit, even if it's well-sourced? That can't be right, can it? Jclemens (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Jclemens (to your earlier reply), WP:V states "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed, and unsourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately." (emph. mine) It doesn't say that all unsourced material should be removed.
Crum, that's a pretty big stretch to say that anything that doesn't meet WP:DUE must be removed, but I agree with most of the rest. If it's well-sourced, then it doesn't need to be removed immediately. WP:DUE only requires the material in "rough proportion" to the coverage in reliable sources, so there is a wide area of interpretation there. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)14:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) That'd be wrong. If it's properly sourced, then UNDUE becomes normal editorial judgment that has to be worked out, and neither requires nor allows exceptional measures (except, perhaps, the limited exception of BLP1E). — Coren(talk)14:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Some history: when BLP first started, there was a fear that it might overshadow NPOV. To counter that—to make sure that NPOV always had priority—it was made clear early on that contentious material applied to anything not properly sourced, whether positive, negative, or just questionable. That was to ensure that bad stuff and puffery were treated equally. People here saying, "I disagree" can't disagree with the history, because it's a matter of fact that that's how things evolved. To overturn that position now risks giving BLP priority over NPOV, which is problematic.
Also, as Coren says, apparently positive unsourced material could be a nuisance for living people too. We don't know what the effect might be of our publishing unsourced material, so we err on the side of caution, whether it's good, bad, or indifferent. SlimVirgintalkcontribs14:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
To try to get back on topic, is there anything in the policy now that we don't feel should be in there? I think this discussion was started because an involved admin took steps they felt were needed in order to protect a BLP from contentious material, and there was a backlash. So it seems community consensus didn't exist for the policy as written; general feeling was that an uninvolved admin should be consulted on less than clear cut cases. That admin re-wrote the paragraph to try to reflect consensus, and I & others have tried to edit it for clarity. —Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)21:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Involuntary BLP's
By involuntary BLP, I mean a BLP article that the subject has asked us to delete from Wikipedia. Do we have a list of them? Should we have a talkpage category for them? Should we NOT create such a list or category? Do we even have any idea how many there are? Do we care? 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I care about them. Each one should be carefully scrutinized for notability, and dealt with appropriately: deleted if non-notable, semi-protected if notable to keep people from anonymously adding improper OR removing appropriate information. I really don't care whether the subject of a BLP wants to be in Wikipedia or not, (I find notability to be a better measure of encyclopedic content than personal desires to be included or excluded) but the subject objecting to a BLP is a nice red flag that people who like or dislike them may be (or start) messing with it. Jclemens (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Good points.
Notability is often a gray area. If the bio is involuntary, maybe that should be taken into consideration with people on the low end of the notability range.
Also, I wonder if there are two groups within involuntary bios -- those who don't want to be in WP under any circumstance, and those who don't like their WP bios (whether for encyclopedic reasons or not). Maurreen (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
By "involuntary blp" (let's abbreviate it "IBLP") I was limiting the term to biographies that the subject have asked us to delete for whatever reason. If they've asked us to change something in it, but not asked us to delete it, we could use a different description. There have been all kinds of proposed and observed policies and practices about IBLP's but what I'm asking at the moment is whether we track them, not what to do about them. It is quite possible to care about the concept of IBLP's and want to give heightened attention to known ones, but at the same time not want any explicit tracking or marking of them because of the Streisand effect. So one possible answer is that OTRS is keeping the info private. If that's the case, it's fine with me. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, no one is tracking such information. What would be the point of putting them in a list or category? Maurreen (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying that we should, I'm just asking if we do. (Actually I'm convinced by now that we shouldn't generally keep this info on wiki in any consolidated way, though in some cases the removal demand is noisy enough that we all know about it regardless). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
"Unflattering" photos?
Moved from ANI, it is a continuation of [5] and other related threads
Copied text
Since when has a picture being "flattering" or not had anything to do with anything? If you want to argue licensing, that's one thing. But a photo being "unflattering" shouldn't even be on the table unless there's a better one available that's not being used. Consider this one File:Tara Leigh Patrick cropped.jpg of Carmen Electra, which around 3 years ago was the main photo on her page until something better came along, and even then this one was retained in the article for awhile, despite the fact she looks like a witch, or at least "something the cat dragged in" as Mom would say. Why? Because it was free, and that trumps "unflattering". Or so I was told at the time. What has changed since then? Are we now concerned with getting not only free but also "flattering" user snapshots? If so, we had best wipe out about half the living-person photos on this website. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 21:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the issue here is deliberate baiting. It looks like he knew it would bug (er, bother :)) the guy and set out to do so as quickly as possible, without even caring about the copyright problem he created. We don't have to use only subject-approved images, but such behavior (if that's what it was) certainly doesn't cast Wikipedia in a good light. It's kind of not in the spirit of WP:BLP to deliberately enrage subjects. --Moonriddengirl(talk)22:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to know how this photo File:Don Murphy (cropped).jpg is so much worse than the Carmen Electra photo, noted above, which was considered perfectly acceptable somehow. I can understand, somewhat, the argument for a block, although it seems there's a bit of double standard here, considering how long it can take to banish editors that are 50 or 100 times more disruptive. But the argument about "flattering" is invalid, and even the claim that the photo is "unflattering" is a matter of opinion. Copyright is really the only issue that should be on the table here. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Like was stated in the beginning of this section, this edit shows that he knew exactly what he was doing when he put the image back in. This block has nothing to do with the image itself, per se, but the intent behind it when it had already been made clear that it shouldn't be added to the article. SilverserenC22:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to us what the picture looks like (though the subject took offense). The only thing being considered now is its copyright, no one is saying that unflattering is the reason why it should be removed. SilverserenC22:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Bugs: What has changed since then? We are more sensitive to BLP issues now, and the off-wiki effects of our content. We can't rely on eventualism in this sort of article any more. Are we now concerned with getting not only free but also "flattering" user snapshots? Our photos should adhere to the neutral point of view policy just like everything else in the encyclopedia. That means if we are writing a formal biography of someone, we should use photos representative of the kind you'd expect to see in a mainstream formal biography, especially if the article or photo is contested. If so, we had best wipe out about half the living-person photos on this website. Yes maybe. Perhaps a lot of the articles too. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the issue of the photograph being flattering or unflattering is a side issue. The subject clearly knew he was being photographed, so it's not as if he was caught in a private moment picking his nose or something like that. He's simply smiling for a camera. Will Bebacktalk23:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you're right. And the IP is dead wrong about any need to use "flattering" photos. If it's free, and it's not horrible or obscene or gross, it's fair game. Until wikipedia expands its "fair use" policy to square with the 21st century, we are stuck with these amateurish photos, and "unflattering" is an irrelevant argument. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
No we're not stuck with amateurish or any other kind of photos. Just like any other sourcing, if a photo is not up to our standards, we discard it. We're not stuck with it. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
We're all amateurs here. There is no practical way that we can depend solely on professional, free-licensed photos. The only policy I'm aware of that's applicable is WP:BLP#Images, which says: Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. There is a significant difference between "disparaging" and "unflattering", and I wouldn't even say the photo in question is unflattering. Not everyone looks like Brad Pitt. Will Bebacktalk00:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Not all of us move in exalted circles such that we can hob-nob with notable people, and therefore it tends to the result that "amateur" photos tend not to be particularly well-composed, well-lit, or even have the consent of the subject; however, in a public venue, copyright, and as far as I'm concerned, all other rights, rest with the photographer and not the subject. That is one limitation we have here, and if notable subjects of articles are unhappy with their images, they are quite at liberty to make available to us a copyright-free image. Rodhullandemu00:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Baseball Bugs and Rodhullandemu seem to think it's a catastrophe if we have an article that doesn't contain a photo, and that we should use inappropriate photos if we can't find appropriate ones. I don't see it that way. We are fine having articles without photos. I don't think that the policy Will Beback quoted is the right one to apply to this situation, and it may flat-out need revision so that the photos (especially the ones presented as main biographical portraits in the article, maybe less so in a thumbnail gallery at the bottom of the article) in our biographies are up to neutral mainstream standards. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
"Inappropriate" according to whom? Here is a professional, "mainstream" photo of the subject, taken at a movie opening, where he presumably would know photographers would be present.[6] It doesn't appear any more flattering than the photo in question. Both show the subject's appearance without putting him in a "false or disparaging light". Again, I don't think the quality of the photo is a significant issue in this dispute. Will Bebacktalk00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
My name is Gaston Dominguez, I own Meltdown Comics a big shop in Los Angeles. Don Murphy is one of my best friends. The photo you are referring to was taken at my shop, not at a movie premiere. It was a party for the comic book Y THE LAST MAN which features a monkey in it. The photo was paid for by Meltdown. The photographer had no right to post it anywhere, much less to allow it to be edited. I discussed this with Don's lawyers on Friday and have tried to track down the lady who took the photos of the event for us to have the photo removed. I emailed the author who posted the photo, Erik Kraft and asked him to removed it. His reply was "Murphy has to learn." Thank you for listening to me.BassandAle (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
BassandAle, this is Erik Kraft. Let me reiterate: I am not the wikipedia user "Erik" and I want nothing to do with this insanity. Also, I have received no emails from you. If I had, I would have told you I have no idea what you are talking about. If you want to email me, I'm at krrraft@gmail.com. If you want to call me, Don has my number--he called me 2 times yesterday. This is completely insane. Leave me out of it, I'm not this "Erik" you're after.
We have several separate issues going on here. The photo was hosted by Wikicommons. I'm not an admin there, but it looks it's been deleted. If not, someone should finds a connection there to deal with the copyright issue. Aside from the issue of a hired photographer posting free version, the issue of taking pictures which are "defamatory" might be part of his or her responsibility.
There is also the issue of the legal and telephone harassment of "Erik Kraft". It really needs to stop. If a photographer hired for the event by the hosts of the party posted those pictures with a free license, then no one who reuses those photos according to that license is at fault.
Finally there's the issue of WP:BLP and how it should handle people like this subject. That's a discussion better held on the relevant policy talk page. Will Bebacktalk08:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Forgive my writing since I am not an native English speaker. I don't believe anyone including Don called the photo defamatory. It was a private photo at a private event taken on private property paid for by my store. It was edited by a Wikipedia author so that it became a photo of Don alone. His wife and everyone else was edited out of it. Don had told me, with three movies getting ready to shoot, that he hadn't daily monitired the article like he used to and then was stunned that a previous rival had posted a photo like that. If you go over to WikiReview they have strong evidence that the two guys are the same guy. I don't think knowing Don that he would legally harass anyone- I am certain he is suing the right people. As far as telephone harassment, I think calling and asking someone who is likely the right person why they were doing this is harassment. Unless the Chicago cops arrested Don last night. Finally, look at the main smoking gun.
After being id on Don's site, Erik goes and completely rewrites every article that links to the site, calling it an attack site which it isn't. Stop feeling the pain of this Erik guy- he did it to see if he teach Don a lesson.BassandAle (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
If the photos is not defamatory, and if it was released under a free license by the photographer (who may or may not have had the right to do so), then it's hard to see what legal action could be taken against someone who used it in a biographical article. If BassandAle is a party to this legal case against a Wikipedia editor or the Wikimedia Foundation then it'd be best if he stops editing here until the case is resolved, per WP:NLT. If BassandAle is the person who hired the photographer then that would presumably be true.
Regardless of that matter, harassing someone for posting a legitimate, non-defamatory photograph seems unnecessary. I suggest that all parties to this conflict should ponder the Golden Rule, and treat each other as they'd like to be treated. Will Bebacktalk21:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I actually agree with you and the Golden Rule. I grew up in Chile and do onto others is the way to go. Talking with Don, however, this thing goes deep and dates back to the first Transformers movie being announced after which as am I told ( I didn't follow it, actually) children would show up here and author his article so that it read that he raped them and their childhood. As I was told, this caused huge embarassment at at least one studio meeting because the executive took what he read as truthful. Ever since then he has asked to no longer be on your site but you refuse. Last time it was people attacking his wife's article with maleviolence. From speaking to him yesterday he truly thought it was under control, it had lied basically dormant for months and he hadn't been focused on the site at all. It is clear that the Erik guy was hoping to start things up again and then he went and did so. I am not suing anyone and I believe the legal action is for hurt to reputation. I'm not a lawyer. But I have a radical idea. Remove the article. Watch- not a single person in the universe will care. Final! BassandAle (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
How can someone hurt Murphy's reputation by posting a non-defamatory photograph commissioned by you? I'm not condoning Erik's actions or his motives. But threatening lawsuits and instigating harassment is out of proportion. Will Bebacktalk21:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Like I said sir I don't think it is the photo. He liked the photo in private. He doesn't want to be on your site. He's willing to actually pay to be OFF the site. It is because he doesn't trust what has happened in the past. I know Don well enough that he didn't harrass the guy. He's too slick for that. But it has driven him crazy. For several years authors would put the Tarantino fight in there, which happened in the late 90s and lasted 2 minutes, like it was a big deal. You must have this problem with a lot of people, no?BassandAle (talk) 21:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, so it isn't about the photo after all? The one that he complained about? This is getting complicated. As for the Tarantino/Murphy fight, it was reported in legitimate news sources. Is Murphy suing them? Yes, we occasionally have the subjects and supporters of biography subjects seek to hide embarrassing but true incidents from their lives. What value would a biography be if it only reported the things that the subject likes to hear? Readers can go to the subject's website to get his opinion of himself. The job of Wikipedia is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.
Anyway, if even the [claimed] owner of the photograph says this dispute isn't about the photo then I think we can close this part of the thread. Will Bebacktalk22:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
So? He's smiling for the camera, which is what I wrote. The photo isn't disparaging and I don't think the quality of the photo represents any kind of policy violation. Let's avoid this distraction from the actual issues. WillBebacktalk00:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's not the actual issue. I was just saying that smile for the camera is saying to me, hey, I am shaking hands with a monkey type comedy smile. I don't think it really actually violates any policy although I have seen BLP used to remove pics that are poor representations of the subject In this case we have additional issues with the subject but usually a discussion and consensus on the talkpage would have sorted it out. We had a huge multiple discussion about the climate change denier Mr Monkton and a poor representation of him that some editors wanted to add and others did not and in the end the subject sent a better one. I am of the position that nowadays we should not add poor representations of living people just because of a desire to add a pic, any pic. Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
If you recall, I'm the editor who started that Monckton photo discussion because I thought the photo portrayed the subject in a false light. Briefly, it made him look bug-eyed while other photos taken at the same time and place, by the same photographer, did not. However I don't think this Murphy photo has the same problems. It isn't distorted and he looks more or less the same in other photos. I think we should use the best available photos that don't portray subjects in a false or disparaging light. The problem here isn't with the policy. Will Bebacktalk01:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you, this is not anywhere near as poor a representation as Mr Monktons was. Looking at a few pictures of the subject they are all pretty much of a similar appearance, without the subjects involvment there may well have been a consensus to include the picture. Off2riorob (talk) 01:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Please don't misrepresent something I haven't said. My preference is that this encyclopedia should be informative, and images are useful in relieving blocks of text and for recognitional purposes. If there is no free image available to illustrate an article, so be it, and we lose out on those purposes. It might be unfortunate, but not catastrophic. That's all. Rodhullandemu00:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think "false or disparaging light" or "knew photographers would be present" are relevant standards for something like this. The Life Magazine photo Will Beback linked to is also inappropriate for a neutral biography portrait (it might be ok as part of a mood piece in Life Magazine, but that's not what a Wikipedia biography is supposed to be). I know that we're sloppier about this in some articles than others (I just edited Robert Harper (computer scientist), which has a terrible photo), but in a disputed article where we're being super-strict about sourcing, that includes being strict about neutrality of the photo. The article covers a lot of events related to the subject's notability, so the photo should not create undue weight in the article for what could be called an informal point of view that emphasizes a particular instant. That's why formal portraits (as found in, say, our articles about politicians) look the way they do. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Using only flattering photos would not be neutral. You don't seem happy with either amateur or professional photos, so apparently the only standard you'll accept are formal, retouched portraits. Your views of the community standards would have more weight if you'd edit using your existing account, or get one. While IPs are welcome to comment, folks who've only been editing for 24 hours can't be assumed to know what they're talking about. Will Bebacktalk00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Do you really think I write like someone who's only been around here for 24 hours? I'm on a dynamic address and it reset several times in the past few days because of network issues (I noted an earlier address in the Obituarist thread). Anyway, I agree that flattering photos are also not neutral. We should not use a photo (even a professional quality one) of Murphy in a tuxedo triumphantly receiving a filmmaking award as the main biography photo, for example, if it doesn't representatively summarize the entirety of notable events documented in the article. It would be ok to use the photo further down in the article in connection with well-sourced and properly weighted text about the event. So yes, for main portraits of formal biographies (which is what this is), formal portraits are what we want. WT:BLP or WT:NPOV are probably better places to discuss this though, now that we've drifted from the ANI report topic. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
As I said, your opinions on what "we allow" would have more weight if other editors knew your history with Wikipedia. I don't think that a policy requiring that photos be neither flattering nor unflattering will work as that is such a subjective standard. A requirement that only authorized, formal portraits may be used in infoboxes is also likely to be unworkable. (Aren't formal portraits usually as flattering as possible?). The problem isn't with the existing policy or with the photo used. It's with the way a couple of editors and a difficult subject have interacted. Will Bebacktalk01:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
We're using the terms flattering/unflattering with multiple meanings causing confusion. The neutral point of view (NPOV) means one that represents the aggregate of all sources related to a subject, and the photo should be neither flattering nor unflattering compared with the NPOV. In some cases, the aggregate of sources may itself be unflattering in the other ("external") meaning of the term--for example, our article about Osama bin Laden is quite negative, which reflects the NPOV because the aggregate of sources about him are the same way. Formal portraits generally try to make the subject look good, but despite that, they are what one normally expects to find in a neutral biography, so in that way they reflect the NPOV. They are not as flattering as possible--imagine what opponents of Barack Obama would say if someone tried to replace the formal portrait currently in his article, with one of him receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. No we shouldn't eliminate every non-formal portrait from every infobox, any more than we should delete every unsourced but uncontroversial fact from every article. But, in disputed BLP's, we sometimes have to resort to a style where we really do attempt to source every single fact (you might remember the one about Daniel Brandt that someone mentioned). In those kinds of articles (which, again, is what this is), choices of photos also come under heightened scrutiny. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I search for free images quite often to improve celebrity articles. When I first started, I did upload some "unflattering" photos, mainly because authors didn't know that much about Wikipedia and didn't want their quality images to be included here. However, as I got more and more permissions, the quality of images continued to improve. I don't think that we need to remove an image that doesn't have great quality just because we don't like it. Some of the images I received permission for the subject of the article didn't like. Instead of doing what Murphy did, they issued an image under a free license (for example, File:RobertGouletMay07.jpg was recently replaced with File:Robert Goulet photo.jpg from the late actor's wife; File:LeilaniDowdingSept02.jpg was replaced after Dowding's request to instead use File:Leilani Dowding publicity shot.jpg; and several images uploaded for Wiig's article resulted in Wiig having her agent add File:Kristen Wiig - Pink shirt, portrait.JPG). Just recently we had a poor image of Stanley Tucci, but after pursuing a better one, a new image has replaced it of much higher quality. If an image is free and does not have the person in a compromising or inappropriate position, then we are better off including it in the off chance that someone can replace it with a better one, even if it is the subject. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It's unreasonable (in fact it comes across as extortion) to demand something like that from a subject who wants the article about himself deleted completely. He has no duty to improve the article. I'm more sympathetic to your argument if the person wants the article kept but wants the picture removed. As another angle about neutrality and why I don't like that party photo of Murphy: it has nothing to do with anything documented in the article as making Murphy notable. Compare that with the famous picture of Albert Einstein writing equations on a blackboard, capturing his notability by depicting him as a theoretical scientist. So I could live with a photo of Murphy in a director's chair or something like that, depicting him as a movie producer, conveying his notable aspects even if it wasn't a formal portrait. I guess the theater opening picture from Life Magazine is a little bit better than the party picture in that regard. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Added: the black-and-white photo of Stanley Tucci is interesting. I wonder if we could improve some other articles by converting color photos to black-and-white like that. I could make the case that this improves neutrality by decreasing the visual weight assigned to the picture in the context of the article. And as Paul Simon said in Kodachrome, "everything looks better in black and white". Maybe I'll try that with the picture of Harper. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
There are certainly unresolved issues with how to handle subjects who don't want to have their biographies on Wikipedia. But I don't think that changing the wording on photographs will really address them. Will Bebacktalk02:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not about changing the wording on a photograph, it's about removing the photo (or possibly de-emphasizing it by moving it elsewhere) unless we can rigorously justify its prominence on fundamental editing principles of BLP and neutrality. I don't think your analysis stands up under the hawkish interpretation of BLP and NPOV that I favor. I agree with you that my interpretation would result in our getting rid of a lot of photos. I'm simply not bothered by that. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I mean changing the wording of the policy governing photographs in BLPs. This dispute isn't due to the photograph, it's due to antagonism over the existence of the biography, and they way that is expressed. Will Bebacktalk04:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. Our moral defense for the rude act of publishing a biography of someone who doesn't want to be a subject, is that we go to great lengths to ensure that the article meets the highest standards of sourcing and neutrality and that we present the topic in a respectful and formal professional style. If the photo is a crappy snapshot, that defense is weakened considerably, at least to me. So yes, IMO the policy wording should reflect that. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll accept that there are certainly worse ones. I remember the bruhaha about the mug shots of Lisa Nowak that were in her biography for a while. I changed the word formal to professional above. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
This is not about photographs. This is about Don Murphy not wanting anything about him on Wikipedia, prose or image.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Regardless, we really shouldn't be antagonizing him further by using the most unflattering photograph we can find, and, frankly, this isn't really a new issue. Someone's just spoken up about it, and I think that's within the spirit of WP:BLP. If there's some reasonable argument that the photograph is unflattering, and there is, then it really ought to go. Our goal is a reliably sourced encyclopedic biography. The photograph is not core to that in almost all cases, so until (or unless) we can get a free one that is more neutral in appearance, we really ought to stick to the prose. jæs(talk)08:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
He can always provide an image if he cares that much. A free image is a free image. Of course one of him doing something terrible o looking super drunk might be suspect but him hanging out with a smile shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings. I was expecting much worse from reading the comments. It seems fine and if it isn't he can go through the OTRS process. The only argument I see against inclusion is the poorer quality (not him just the background and lighting) or personality rights (I don;t know enough about that sort of thing to know if it is a problem). Cptnono (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
People outside the project shouldn't be required to go through OTRS to force us to get it right. There are a lot of editors here who are saying this photograph is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It may not be unanimous, but, frankly, it need not be per WP:BLP: if editors reasonably believe there to be a problem with the content of the article (in this case, a photograph) — and here there are a number of editors of that opinion — then the photograph should be replaced with a more neutral one. If one is not currently available, we can remove the problematic one and wait for a neutral replacement. There is no deadline. jæs(talk)09:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Define what a "neutral" photo is - and tell me what's wrong with the one in question. Because it looks like any other amateurish snapshot on wikipedia, of which there are thousands. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that we're now told the pictures was taken by a professional photographer. The professional/amateur distinction isn't really helpful in this discussion. Will Bebacktalk21:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't much think the "professional" versus "amateur" distinction is all that relevant, quite frankly. Everybody can take a good photograph, anybody can take a bad photograph. This happens to be a bad photograph, for various reasons (the technicals of which have been discussed on the talk page of the article). Do we have a history of having generally poor photographs on this project? Yes, so much so that The Gray Lady did a story about it. Does that mean we should stick our heads in the sand and say "Whatever, that's the best we've got"? Not at all, and especially not on biographies of living people. jæs(talk)23:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It's strictly a subjective judgment, so numbers don't matter. There's no reason not to include that picture in the article until a better one comes along, or until we change our policy to get away from this obsession against "fair use". ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Virtually every editorial judgment we make here is subjective to one extent or another. You may think one fact in a biography is not contentious while other editors may think it is problematic. That, in fact, is exactly the issue here. The policy on biographies of living people obviously is geared towards absolutely ensuring that we present neutral content, and that is not limited to the prose itself. Simply put, WP:BLP essentially allows for a "content veto" of sorts, unless or until consensus says the content should be restored. There is no consensus here (or at the article's talk page) for the reinsertion of the photograph. The bottom line is that a number of editors feel the photograph is inappropriate, and that is sufficient, frankly, for the photograph to be removed. jæs(talk)01:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
"Inappropriate" how? Just because someone claiming to be an associate of the subject doesn't like it? You all have done a 180 since 3 years ago, and many ugly photos remain in place based on the older way of thinking. This guy just got singled out because he and/or his buddies raised cain about it, and wikipedia jumped. That is not a promising sign for the future. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 01:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That would be a question better posed on the article's talk page. But, as I said, I don't think the burden is on them to prove to you that it's inappropriate or to try to illustrate to you why it's inappropriate. I think most other editors have apparently agreed the photograph is not an appropriate choice (whatever their reasons), and that's why the photograph is no longer in the article. But, again, I think it's time this discussion went back to the article's talk page, with the understanding that a clear consensus would be required to restore the photograph. jæs(talk)01:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Bugs—can you name any more BLP articles where 1) the article contains a similarly crappy snapshot of the subject, 2) the subject has persistently demanded that the article (not just the photo) be removed from Wikipedia, and 3) we retained both the article and the photo? Jaes—I think this general topic (use of low-quality photos in disputed BLP's) should probably go to an RFC or policy talkpage, rather than to a the talkpage of a particular article. I begin to think an RFC would be useful, and if someone opens one then I'll try to participate. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
We haven't retained the picture in the article. See Don Murphy. Whether the photo is "crappy" or not is in the eye of the beholder. As for the presence of the article, newspapers don't delete articles based on the requests of newsmakers. If there is anything incorrect in it then let's fix it. But the photo is not defamatory, and even the [claimed] copyright owner and friend of Murphy says this isn't really about the photo. The mutual antagonism between the subject and editor(s) is the real problem. Will Bebacktalk02:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Excellent, the picture is gone from the Murphy article. Do you want us to similarly remove comparable pictures from other comparable articles? If yes, I think we're in agreement. If not, my request stands for Bugs (or you) to name an article where we kept the picture under such circumstances. Will, a crappy photo is what it sounds like. Imagine we have a disputed BLP that is basically accurate, but crappily written in terms of organization, spelling and grammar. We wouldn't say that its "crappiness is in the eye of the beholder" and we wouldn't say it was the subject's responsibility to fix it. And we wouldn't accept keeping it in such a state. We'd fix it ourselves or (if for some reason we couldn't fix it) we'd delete it. Crappy photos are often unfixable. That doesn't give them an automatic pass. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Quite simple. If Don Murphy doesn't want an article about him here, he simply travels back in time and becomes a non-notable person. Unfortunately, the laws of physics being what they are, that just isn't going to happen. There are many people who perhaps would prefer not to have articles here, but, er, they went public to push their careers. Tough bun. If Murphy doesn't like his picture here, he can provide a copyright-free picture with which he is happy, or shut the fuck up, and all this flummery is otherwise nonsense. We do not bow to egos here, especially marginal egos. Up to you, Mr Murphy, because what you want ain't gonna be what you get. Rodhullandemu02:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Rodhullandemu, that is absolutely inappropriate. An article subject who wants the article deleted has no more duty to give us a good picture for it, than he does to clean up lousy spelling and grammar in the article. That cleanup is our job if we are claiming any kind of legitimacy for our practice of retaining articles that the subject wants removed. We are not paparazzi. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
No, Rod's comment is appropriate, and 100 percent correct. There is nothing inherently wrong with that photo, but if the subject doesn't like the photo, he could give us a free one to use in its place. He doesn't have to, but he could. His opinion should not matter one iota as to whether the photo currently under discussion should be used. I'm saddened by wikipedia editors cowtowing to that guy, or to anybody. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with that photo. It's a crappy photo. Ask any sane person who evaluates photographs whether it's anything other than a crappy photo. That Murphy likes the photo in less serious contexts than a globally-visible biographical article is irrelevant. There are lots of photos of me of comparable crappiness that I like just fine in casual contexts, but would consider inappropriate even for my passport, much less something like Wikipedia. My passport photo is not a fancy studio shot (it was taken at home by my mom), but before it was taken, I spent a minute combing my hair and putting on a decent shirt, etc., and got a much better picture that way. That's just basically what you have to do to get a reasonable documentary photo (I'll stop using the term "formal").
What this is really about is our goal as a project. As I see it, we are here to write a professional quality reference work and we often succeed at that with our writing, even though we're not professional writers. We should aim for similar quality with our photographs, even if we're not professional photographers. We do have plenty of badly written articles and crappy photos that we keep around on eventualistic principles. But if there's one direction that WP BLP culture has been moving in the past few years, it's towards no longer accepting eventualism in disputed BLP's. We require professionalism in the BLP article's text and as I see it, that should also apply to the photos we use in such articles. If we don't have the ability to get a good photo, that's a WP:COMPETENCE problem on our part, and fixing it is our problem, not the article subject's. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
And I don't agree with that assessment of the photo. Certainly it's not the best, but it's in focus and he's not giving us the finger or something. And getting a good photo is not a function of "competence", it's a function of Wikipedia's highly restrictive attitude toward fair-use. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 03:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you're saying that we'd get better photos from a more aggressive approach to fair use (which is probably true), then I think you've stopped contesting that the photo is unrepresentative of the photos we'd find in comparable contexts in mainstream sources. In my interpretation of WP:NPOV, we are supposed to follow the mainstream not just in the facts that we document, but also in our writing and presentation style and our quality expectations. So the unrepresentative photo IMO fails on neutrality grounds, as I've said before. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 05:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
How is it "unrepresentative"? Does it not look like him? Does he never actually smile in public? I have to ask because until this debate I had never heard of this guy, let alone seen him. We're taking it on faith that the photo really is him, even. Which brings up another issue I have with snapshots of celebs here, that it is frankly "original research". We're supposed to get sources for information. But the opposite is true of photos - we're supposed to get our own somehow, because of the fair-use taboo, and then we're supposed to take it on faith that the person shown actually is the celebrity. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 06:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On removal of articles, that has been utterly established beyond doubt. To cite a crass example, if Adolf Hitler were still alive, there is no way on earth that we would delete his article simply on his preference. There are many, much weaker examples to hand. In the current case, Mr Murphy has clearly lost the debate as to whether he is worthy of having an article here. If I were he, I might realise that rather than resist this, I would prefer to show myself in the best light possible, and release a copyright-free image that depicts me as I would prefer to be depicted, as opposed to an opportunistic image. Unfortunately, my experience of Mr Murphy is otherwise, as he has already been advised on his own website that he does not get it his own way. The natural alternative, of course, is to have no image of him whatsoever on his article, and that suits me fine; he doubtless has his own conduits for publicity, and doesn't need us to do that for him, even in an objective and encyclopedic sense. Rodhullandemu02:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
However I, for one, am not convinced Murphy is notable enough that we would not honor opt-out. Producers are much more prevalent than directors, most movies have many. I think we'd be better off without his bio. That he isn't a very nice person has no bearing on that, except that we should be nicer, not meaner. The notability of Murphy perhaps is not best discussed here though. ++Lar: t/c02:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I have to disagree that he is not notable, as the producer of Natural Born Killers, a seminal work, amongst others. There are few films comparable to that, and it perhaps stands alone in its genre. As regards violence, it perhaps harks back to the work of Alfred Hitchcock, Straw Dogs, and forwards to the earlier parts of A Clockwork Orange. In filmic terms, however, he is neither Peckinpah nor Kubrick. But it remains that he is notable. Rodhullandemu03:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Our picture of Hitler is quite a bit better than that one of Murphy that we're talking about. Hitler was a major public figure and I wouldn't support deleting the article about him if he was alive and requested it, but if its photo were as bad as the photo of Murphy, I'd support getting rid of the photo and keeping the Hitler article without a photo until we could get a better one. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, I wondered about that, but decided that it didn't count as long as it's not another discussion participant who was being compared to Hitler (it's just photos being compared). ;) 69.228.170.24 (talk) 03:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That is missing the point, with respect. The issue is whether our article on Don Murphy actually needs an image. Although his notability for our purposes is established, I can't see any reason why it needs to be there. It's not as if he would be mobbed by fans who would have seen his picture here when he walks down Hollywood Boulevard, or any other street, given that he he clearly does not want to be offered gratuitous sex by young girls who have maybe seen his image here or elsewhere, and perhaps imagine that he might be able to deliver some sort of satisfaction. On balance, therefore, I think it prudent as far as we are concerned that we protect this person from unwanted attention by not publishing any image whatsoever of him. Apart from that, we of course also deal with the naked vanity thereby involved. Rodhullandemu03:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, none of our articles really need photos, but if we had a good photo, the argument for keeping the photo in the article would be a lot stronger. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 04:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
See WP:IINFO. Let me put this another way: we have a fairly well-defined quality standard that we're (in eventualistic terms) theoretically trying to pursue for every article on Wikipedia. That standard is the featured article criteria, which a few thousand articles have achieved so far. Let's ignore for a moment the drama aspects of this Murphy article (i.e. forget for now that he's trying to get it deleted) and imagine that we got it up to FA level in all regards except it still has that photo in the infobox, and now we want to run it as the daily FA on Wikipedia's main page, one of the most viewed pages on the internet. As I see it, presenting that photo on the main page would or should embarass the crap out of the project. Now our response to BLP drama has generally (in my subjective description, not as an explicitly documented practice) been to make sure that a contested article's sourcing, neutrality, and writing quality is up to FA standards, though not necessarily other aspects like comprehensiveness or the presence of images. Following that same idea, we can ask: is this image of a quality that we can run on the front page without embarassment? If not, it's inappropriate for a BLP that the person is arguing with us about. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
We've established that the apparent copyright owner doesn't care about the copyright issue, so issue has been dealt with. He also says that the photo is not defamatory and that the subject likes it, so the issue of whether the photo violates BLP does not seem to be an issue. The photograph is basically adequate, in that it's well-lit and in focus, so it isn't amateurish. In addition, we now know it was taken by a professional photographer. Other photographs, including those taken on the "red carpet" at a movie opening, show that even when he know he'll be photographed for the media he does not appear in designer suits and fancy hairdos. So all of the issues that concern WP policies and guidelines concerning the use of photos have been addressed. What remains is the antagonistic manner in which the Wikipedia editors and the subject have related to each other. I don't think anyone here can condone the actions of any of those involved parties. There is no further administrative action that needs to be taken at this time. Discussions about policy and guideline revisions should be held on more relevant pages. Now can we please close this unproductive thread? Will Bebacktalk06:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Given that, HalfShadow's comment about posting the picture potentially irritating the subject is based on a false assumption and thus is rendered moot. So why is he still blocked? Indef, yet? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the thread is no longer appropriate for ANI but I think it could usefully be continued someplace else (it is mostly a policy discussion by now, but a legitimate one). I don't think "subject likes it" as a party snapshot has anything to do with whether it is an appropriate photo for a widely disseminated biographical profile. They are not the same thing and you are trying to draw a false equivalence. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Added: I will endorse the request to close and I'll try to stop replying here. If I get energetic I may open a thread at WT:BLP and ask people there to give their views. If I do that, I will post a pointer here. Thanks for the discussion--it has been interesting, even though we haven't agreed on much. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
(ec)Then there needs to be a project to review all celeb photographs for "appropriateness" or "encyclopedic" value. Picking on one guy's photograph, when you've seen far worse, while leaving other "unflattering" photos intact, is itself inappropriate. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 07:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a policy question in the above mess, and I don't think moving it here is appropriate. Gigs (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I see a shit-tonne of discussion over whether it is appropriate to use unflattering photos in a BLP. –xenotalk18:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we ever arrived at a definition of "unflattering". The recent dicussion seemed to focus on so-called "crappy photos", which was also undefined. Is there a problem with the existing policy language? Will Bebacktalk18:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
It's too subjective to ever be any kind of policy. Our current language about misleading pictures is fine. The only potential policy question I see is "BLP subject opt-out" and it seems the current stalemate there is just "default to delete at AfD if no consensus and subject wants opt-out", and I doubt consensus has changed there. Gigs (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
For ease-of-discussion, the relevant text appears to be "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed.". I agree that "unflattering" and "crappy" are subjective. –xenotalk18:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
example of type of photo under discussion The policy question is not about flattering vs unflattering. The question is what technical quality standards we should expect of an infobox photo in 1) a disputed involuntary BLP that the subject is trying to get us to delete; 2) any BLP in general. I don't think there's terribly much subjective disagreement of the quality of the photo that was under discussion. The abstract policy question (as I see it): on a scale of 1-10 with professional studio portrait as 10 and goatse as 1, we're asking what to do with a party snapshot that might measure around 6. For example, is the photo on the right suitable for the infobox of a supposedly neutral and serious biographical profile that the person is trying to get removed? I think it makes us look like paparazzi.
I'm of the view that if we're trying to defend keeping a biography against the subject's wishes, we should be able to say that the article meets high standards of sourcing, neutrality, writing quality such as spelling and grammar, and so forth. "And so forth" includes the quality of the photography in the article. So if our best photo isn't of quality (say) 8 or better, we should not insist on putting it in the infobox. If the photo documents some well-sourced aspect of the subject's notability, it can go into the body of the article with appropriate commentary if it meets the standard of due weight. Otherwise, the article does not need a photo. Some other participants are advocating a lower standard which I don't see as consistent with our principles (I elaborated on this in the collapsed thread). That's why I think this is the appropriate discussion venue. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
That's actually a complicated proposal, with at least three parts. 1) It suggests creating a special class of biographies, "disputed", in which additional rules apply. 2) It asks us to create a way of categorizing photographs by their quality, but it still doesn't give a clear way of doing it. 3) It proposes that the placement of photographs within an article should be covered by policy. I think that all three of those are bad ideas. 1) All BLPs should be of high quality. 2) So long as a photograph isn't defamatory or portraying a person in a false light it should be acceptable. A distracting background, etc, are not good reasons for categorically prohibiting them. 3) I don't think it's wise to make layout decisions at a policy level. On a slightly related isue, there have been discussions concerning shocking (to tender sensibilities) photographs below the likely first screen so that people who came to those articles, like Penis, by accident aren't forced to see something horrifying. I think that makes some sense, but I wouldn't want to see it become a strictly enforced policy. Will Bebacktalk21:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Will, 1) True all BLP's should be high quality, but the disputed involuntary ones are the ones cause the most urgent problems and tend to get the most careful editing workovers in practice; 2) image placement in articles is already discussed by policy (WP:Images) and there's nothing wrong with expanding on that; 3) We already categorize photos by quality through the wp:featured images process and we can do the same with this type of photo through common sense. I think it is ok that we retain a not-so-good but non-defamatory photo on the site and connect the article to it in a non-affrontive way, e.g. the "commons has media about this subject" template. I don't think photos like the above qualify as neutral documentary photos by the standards of mainstream sources, and as such, they go against (my interpretation of) the spirit of NPOV. There is a difference between illustration and documentation, and the infobox photo should be documentary. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Added: for clarity I have changed "disputed" to "involuntary" as describing a biography that the subject wants removed from Wikipedia. A "disputed" biography could be one where the subject just wants something changed, or one that WP editors are arguing over without the subject's involvement. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Photos should be selected based on 1) V. If we aren't sure it's the person, we don't use it, period. 2) Licensing. Any free photo trumps any "fair use" photo--which may not even be permissible in the first place. 3) Aesthetic considerations: which photo(s) best depict the subject? If they're notable as a convicted felon, a mug shot is fine. If they're a celebrity who's gotten a DUI once, a mug shot is out of line. Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Jclemens, I agree on 1 and 2. I don't understand what you're saying about 3 (in particular whether you're supporting using a photo like the example). As I see it, we're looking for a neutral photo, like the ones in most of our articles about politicians. If we don't have one, then we're better off not using any photo. We don't have a duty to "depict" if our best depiction can't meet a high standard of neutrality. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:Images is a guideline, not a policy. Any guideline may be broken if there's a good reason. Policies are more stringently enforced, especially BLP. I don't see the problem with using a snapshot of a celebrity so long as they are identifiable and it looks like them, and doesn't place them in a false light. A picture of a diva in her jogging suit taking out the garbage, photographed without her knowledge and consent would probably not be acceptable, but someone who poses for a photograph in public should be acceptable, even if it's a little blury or isn't exposed perfectly. When a better photo copmes along we can replace it. But using a slightly blurry photo shouldn't be a policy violation or grounds for blocking someone. Will Bebacktalk22:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm ok with guideline status for what I'm suggesting. Our photo of Osama bin Laden is of low quality but there is good reason to keep it where it is. I don't see a comparably good reason for the picture we're talking about. The problem with the snapshot is it doesn't meet the quality expectations that a mainstream source would usually follow, so I see it as an NPOV problem. Would Encyclopedia Britannica use that picture (especially in an involuntary biography) if it was the best one they had? If not, we shouldn't either. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
What is the difference between Don Murphy and Osama bin Laden, from a policy perspective? How many of our biographies are "voluntary"? And I still don't understand how we'd assess photographs. Can you explain that better? Will Bebacktalk22:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
A biography is involuntary if the subject has asked us to remove it. Bin Laden's picture is different from Murphy's based on notability of the image through mainstream sources. Your question about assessing photo quality seems to me to border on deliberate obtuseness: mix Murphy's photo with our infobox photos of any ten US senators and ask anyone which of the pictures is not like the others, and I think everyone will give you the same answer. It's like evaluating the grammar and organization of an article. We are perfectly capable of doing that even if we don't know how to program a bot to do it. There are many books and courses you can study about how to take good photos and evaluate them, and I don't think we're in in any serious disagreement of how good or bad the Murphy photo is. We're just disagreeing about whether our expectations should call for something better or that we should use it the way it is. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
So it sounds like you're saying that a crappy photo is OK if it's well known. Hmmm. I suppose there's a logic to that. Regarding disputed/involuntary biographies, I still don't see why they should be placed at an even higher level than other BLPs, though they may get more scrutiny. Creating special rules for them would probably lead to more trouble, not less. Regarding the definition of "crappy", when we write guidelines and policies we need to define things. How do we define a "crappy photo"? What policy language would we use? Will Bebacktalk23:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I'd go farther than saying the Osama image is well-known; it's also a question of what a mainstream source would use. Regarding non-crappiness, we apparently already have a standard, one that I don't like and am proposing that we replace. The apparent current standard of "knew cameras would be present and expected his picture to be taken" or even "he likes the photo" (in a non-documentary context) is IMO not sufficient. The Murphy photo might be perfectly fine for some fan to put on her myspace page for the enjoyment of the subject's friends and supporters. That is different from use in a neutral article (which by definition can contain adverse content) and is intended for reference by friends and foes alike, and which mustn't create undue weight for the spirit of a specific and non-notable instant of the subject's existence (that's the "snap" in "snapshot") when that spirit doesn't match the notable events documented in the article.
I gave the alternative example in the collapsed thread of my passport photo (I had to take one recently). It's not a professional portrait, but I put a little bit of preparation into it (combed hair, put on nice shirt, set up shot with indirect lighting (added:) and no crap in the background), based on the expectation that it would be viewed by unsympathetic strangers rather than just by my friends, as part of a neutral "biographical" document. That's much different from the expectation attached to a snapshot. Most of our pictures of politicians were taken with the same basic expectation, that the photo was taken to be widely published as a neutral depiction not attached to a particular moment. More subjectively, I'd ask "would this photo embarrass the project if we ran it on the main page as part of today's featured article?" If we're not willing to say it wouldn't, we shouldn't emphasize it in the article even if the article is not an FA. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion of this photo is now moot. I dispute that it was ever granted CC permission and it is gone from Flickr, so that's that. I particularly enjoyed some of the conversation here. The IP author makes many good points while others, led by Will, miss the point- the only reason why the photo was inserted by Erik was to start again with Don. He admitted as much. You could ask him, but he ran the hell away. BassandAle (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
BassandAle, the issue of this particular photo was taken care of at ANI; the purpose of coming here was to get the views of the wider BLP community of what our general approach should be to this sort of picture. Will and I have rehashed the same points multiple times with each other by now, so I think I'll try to stay away for a day or so in the hopes that other people will weigh in. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's extortion to say "if you don't like this photo, license us a better one", if the photo merely suffers from technical inferiority, and does not violate our policies. If they give us a better one, then we should use it. I don't think any policy changes are necessary. Gigs (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but it does come across that way, especially if the biography is in wikipedia against the person's wishes to begin with. "We're your #1 search hit and we're going to plaster this terrible picture of you to everyplace in the world unless you come up with a better one and sign over the rights" is coercive. Blackmail might have been a more precise term than extortion. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The picture we've been discussing is not a "terrible picture". Are you referring to a hypothetical picture that's worse? Further, should we say that the subject doesn't like it because an account who denies being the subject complains about it? If we're talking about following the wishes of the subject then we should be sure we know what they are. That kind of communication is best handled through the OTRS process, because they are better able to establish the identity of a user through email or phone contact. Will Bebacktalk18:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
In this thread we're talking generally about hypothetical pictures. The particular one we've been using as an example is at best "not very good", but I used the term "terrible" in the context of how the an involuntary subject could reasonably perceive what we tell him if we insist on using it unless he gives us a better one. Keep in mind that also that we are trying to write a professional quality encyclopedia whose writing and pictures meet professional standards, even if we sometimes start out with sloppy writing and low quality pictures as stopgap measures in the hopes of fixing them later. But we cannot suddenly switch to the standards of casual snapshots in making our evaluations just because that's the type of picture we have for a given article.
I think we could agree that an article that used a picture like that could reasonably be on a "list of articles that we're seeking better pictures for", while our article about Senator So-and-so probably already has a good enough picture to not be on such a list. The shorthand way of saying that is: we're talking about a picture that's not up to our standards. It's not the unwilling subject's job to fix that for us, if he wants no part of the project in the first place. We're the ones writing the encyclopedia, not him. [edited slightly] 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
We still don't have any definition for a "picture like that". FWIW, the photos we have of members of the US Congress are freely released as products of the federal government. Otherwise their photos probably wouldn't be any better, on average, then those of other bio subjects. So it's not a practical standard for biographies. Will Bebacktalk21:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand this obsession with definitions. WP is a human-edited encyclopedia, it's not "botpedia", and we're capable of making reasonably consistent judgments like this without having to spell out a mechanical algorithm. More philosophically, I think you're coming from a perspective of believing that photos are somehow important or necessary for biographies, that the biographies are deficient without them, and so you're looking for ways to defend keeping crummy photographs in them based on that perspective. My perspective is that there are a few special professions (politicians or movie actors, say) where the person's physical appearance is relevant to their notability and so a photo is helpful to the biography, but for just about everyone else the photo is borderline WP:IINFO and we can dispense with it without much sadness if any significant factors weigh against including it. And in the case of photos that do document a notable appearance, they should show it neutrally relative to other sources that establish the person's appearance's notability. That means use pictures that show the notable public persona, i.e. one where the person properly prepared for the photo, not a fan snapshot.
As someone linked in the collapsed thread, the low quality of Wikipedia's photography is well documented by what we usually take as reliable sources,[7] so I think you're engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when you say that the photos under discussion are actually acceptable for our goals. (Personal perspective: I don't want to be a WP biography subject, but if I did something notable enough to become one, it would not be based on my looks, so I'd want my biography to not have a photo). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Clear definitions are important in this policy since we block accounts for violating it. As for the NYT article, it seems to look forward to there being more and better photos on Wikipedia, and it notes, as many other editors have in this thread, that having a poor quality photograph is often the trigger for getting a better quality one. So far I haven't seen any concrete proposals that would work on either the policy or the guideline level. We already have language that covers photos in this policy. I suggest that unless anyone can offer an actual proposal that this thread has run its course. Will Bebacktalk22:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Proposal
Proposal: we remove photos from BLP articles on the subject's request, unless there is consensus that a) the relevance of the person's appearance to their notability is well-documented by reliable sources at the level required for contentious material in BLP's, and b) the photo neutrally depicts the person's appearance by the standards of reliable sources that also depict it to document the relevance. "Neutrally depicts" means that the photo's content and quality is consistent with those that the reliable sources themselves use. (This should let us keep the picture of Bin Laden that we discussed earlier, for example). If a person requests deletion of their biography, then under our current policy we don't necessarily honor the request, but we should inform them of the above policy on removing photos (if we adopt it), and ask if they want to invoke it. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Added: I'm not very impressed by the argument that lousy photos are good because they've led to our getting better ones (at least for involuntary subjects). It's like saying that factual errors in our articles are good because they've led to getting corrections. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how we can defend inclusion of anything contentious in the article unless we document its notability and reach consensus on its neutrality. If the subject hasn't said anything about the photo's presence, we can reasonably AAGF and treat it as non-contentious. If the subject has complained, then it's contentious by definition, and is subject to the full RS and due weight requirements of anything else contentious in a BLP article. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 05:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I oppose this. This idea of 'relevance to notability' is not conducive to writing encyclopedia articles. This isn't "Who's who", and we properly include many things that aren't directly relevant to a person's notability. Notability is a big messy inclusion guideline, and I really don't think content policies should rely on it or refer to it in any way. On top of that, we also introduce the nebulous concept of "relevance", something we've never quite been able to codify when it comes to content. A bad photo is an aesthetic and subjective issue, not a factual one, so your analogy there is completely flawed. If someone doesn't like their picture, they can give us a new one. Gigs (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Gigs, I think you're confusing a few issues. The notability guideline (WP:N) that I think you're referring to is about whether we should keep the article in Wikipedia or delete it. We're talking about the contents of an article that we've already decided to keep. In that context, "document the notability of fact X" refers to WP:IINFO, and determining relevance is described at WP:WEIGHT. We have a fair amount of material of undocumented notability (sometimes called "IINFO" or "cruft") in our biographies, e.g. "Jane enjoys watching baseball and has a Siamese cat named Robert". That is fine as long as it's uncontentious and doesn't take over the article ("trivia section"). I'm taking the view that if Jane contacts OTRS and says that the name of her cat is nobody's business and demands its removal, we have to treat the info as contentious and give it the full BLP treatment and meet our burden if we want to keep it (AFAIK we already do this). If we want to give Jane's cat's name a lot of prominence in the article (e.g. include a lot of primary-source material someone dug up about how Jane's family decided to name the cat after Robert Schumann), we have to do that through an assessment of due weight per WP:NPOV. I'm taking the view that the infobox photo is one of the most prominent parts of a biographical article (it's the first thing the reader sees), so it has to be treated that way in a due weight assessment if it's contentious. And fan photos like Murphy's are primary sources by their very nature, so their presence in the article have to be justified through secondary sources (WP:PRIMARY).
Can you give some examples of some info other than photos, that we kept in an article without documentation of notability when a BLP subject contested it? That goes against our whole current approach to contentious BLP's, as far as I know. Are you suggesting that we overturn the parts of BLP policy that require such documentation for all such info? Or are you taking the view that photos are somehow different? If yes, I'd like to you know how you justify this on policy grounds under the current BLP regime. Thanks. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion?
Please see this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV. The NPOV policy currently contains two sections on specific topics: a 534-word section on pseudoscience and a 267-word section on religion. These sections were removed last month as being too specific after an RfC was posted on April 3. [8] The pseudoscience section was moved to WP:FRINGE, [9] and the religion section removed entirely. The sections have now been restored by others on the grounds that consensus was not established, or has changed. Fresh eyes would therefore be appreciated here on talk to decide whether to restore or remove the sections. SlimVirgintalkcontribs00:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
How do I deal with???
a user who's only edits are removing unsourced material, claiming WP:BLP and WP:V, even when the material is not "Material challenged or likely to be challenged". I'm not talking about someone removing things like "Person X is holds the NFL Record for most yards thrown" because it doesn't have a source, I'm talking about a particular user who's removing basic things "Person X is of armenian descent" and removing categories like "Category:American people of Russian descent" on an article about guy named Stoyanov or removing Category:African American players of American football from an article on a guy that's obviously an African American who happens to play football.
, claiming it's unsourced. I would try and reason with them, but it's hard to reason with an unreasonable person.
This person is taking WP:V and WP:BLP to the extreme and removing basic info that's not sourced- which makes the articles suffer severely in quality (plus- almost all of the stuff this guy is removing can be found by doing simple things like clicking on player bio's listed in external links sections or googling the person's name)
What do we do here? I would almost catagorize it as vandalism to an extent.. since it's being so counter-productive and degrading of article quality?
The user that RF23 is referring to is me. Firstly, if RF23 has a problem with edits I've been making recently, I just found out about them here and through his first attempt to contact me. Secondly, I've been removing articles from categories where there are no sources demonstrating that they are in fact of fooian ancestry. It is simply violated WP:BLP to include someone in an ancestry or ethnicity category that there are no sources to support. Take for example Mike Vrabel. Vrabel has been in the Americans of Macedonian descent category. It is entirely possible that he is in fact of Macedonian descent. However, don't we have to get it right? If no source can back-up the assertion, and I did in fact look through all of the sources provided on the page, we cannot claim he is of any descent.--TM21:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
... and that, I think, pretty conclusively takes option 1) off the table. Sorry, RF23, if someone else removes an unsourced statement, you really need to source it to reinsert it. Jclemens (talk) 21:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I think there's an intermediate ground between saying an editor is exercising good judgment, and trying to get them blocked. A one-second google search "mike vrabel macedonian" makes the claim look correct enough to me that I wouldn't have considered it likely to be challenged. FWIW, Mike Vrabel is also mentioned in a list at Macedonian American along with a lot of others (no sourcing), and his picture is in that article. I think it would be reasonable to leave a talkpage request there asking that the list members be sourced, but I wouldn't go berserk with removals right away. It's not an especially contentious claim in general. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
an example i used on the talk page,
"you don't see a source on George W. Bush's article after the sentence, "was the 43rd President of the United States" because nobody (and by nobody I mean nobody with common sense) will challenge that, so it does not need to be sourced. If any user removed that info claiming WP:V (since it doesn't have a source in it), they would be reverted, and if they continued, they would likely be blocked.:
I really agree with the IP user that there should be some intermediate ground.
To quote another user from Nambia's talk page that sums it up pretty well,
"In general, I think it's better to keep stuff that is probably correct but unverified (unless it's controversial, or negative BLP), as sources can be added later. From WP:DEADLINK: "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line" (I realise this is in slightly different circumstances, but the same guideline applies). I've therefore reinstated the text again, though removed the peacock language and added {{refimprove}}. Also please do not call someone a vandal simply because they disagree with you". User:Tivedshambo."
I think that categories about ethnic origin or ancestry should be sourced within the article. To take your example of a person with the surname Stoyanov getting a category American people of Russian descent, it is quite possible that Stoyanov is a Bulgarian surname (other several other possibilities). It's also possible that someone's surname was changed during or after emigration to the United States (or at some stop in between their country of origin and the United States). I am dubious of any ethnic origin assignments based purely on a surname's apparent origin (I see this done a lot to be honest, but I think it violates WP:CAT). Jogurney (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
It was recently brought to my attention that the biography of a minor European royal (10th in line to the throne) had no references and was threatened with deletion. I was able to find all the required refernces in the web site of the royal family concerned. Would this be deemed to be citing self-published sources? As far as I could see, his life has been pretty ordinary apart from him being part of the royal family concerned. Martinvl (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Opinions about living persons on talk pages
Does a mere opinion stated by an editor about a living person on an article talk page qualify as material or information about a living person subject to BLP?
Here is the specific example that prompted this question, but my question is the general one.
I don't see an answer to this question in the policy. Did I miss it?
It is quite clear at the top of the page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion ... This policy applies to BLPs ... and to material about living persons on other pages." An opinion is unsourced by definition. And talk pages are "other pages". Ty20:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's not clear to me and potentially others that an editor's opinion about someone qualifies as "contentious material" about that person. To me "material" is comprised of facts - and the point of BLP is to prohibit material that contains unsourced facts about living persons.
If the intent is to prohibit the expression of opinions about living persons, that's not clear in the part cited above, and should be clarified on this page. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Material is not synonymous with "facts", nor is "facts" a definition of "material". Material means matter, substance, stuff, irrespective of veracity or source. The wording is clear if you don't give an erroneous definition of "material". However, no harm in making it even clearer. Ty20:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I've blocked a user for opining on an article talk page that the living "persons of interest" in a particular unsolved homicide had in fact committed manslaughter rather than premeditated murder, and had that block sustained. Per the specific example in this case, I'd revert it immediately per NOTFORUM, as was done, and then give the editor an appropriate level of warning. He was stating his opinion on how a convicted criminal should be treated, which is less damaging than accusing an unconvicted living person of a crime, but that's still not what talk pages are for and doesn't help build an encyclopedia--even if the BLP harm isn't all that great in this specific case, it still should be a blockable offense if the editor doesn't knock it off after appropriate warning(s). Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Pornography tag as a BLP issue, itself
I just noticed a big "XXX" from the WikiProject Pornography's wikiproject template, on the Talk page of a one-time playboy magazine model, here. I removed the WikiProject tag, as it seems to me to be a BLP issue. There is no information in the article that the person ever performed in a XXX movie or otherwise has XXX rating associated with her name. XXX is a rating which I think applies to movies involving sexual acts of more pornographic nature than nude or semi-nude posing in photos that appear in a magazine. It seems like a kind of slander to attach XXX rating to articles on persons whose notability for wikipedia (dubious as it is) is that their photo appeared in Playboy magazine. Should "WikiProject Pornography'"'s wikiproject tag be removed from all such articles, if XXX film participation is not documented in an article? Others' thoughts? --doncram (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that XXX is normally associated with hard core pornography, so labeling a person under that category would require clear and reliable sourcing that that is an important component of his/her notability. I am not so sure it would be an issue on the talk page, however, when it's merely an icon for "project pornography". Crum375 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Rather than remove the tag maybe it'd be better to remove the XXX, if it seems offensive or inaccurate. Playboy nude photo spreads are still pornography by most measures, and for most playmates it's probably their main claim to notability. Will Bebacktalk20:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There was recently a big BLPN thread about whether it was a BLP problem for the LGBT wikiproject to tag an article talk page. The article was about a certain athlete widely believed to be gay and who had a lot of gay fans, and the debate was about whether the LGBT interest tag somehow insinuated that the person was actually gay when he didn't self-identify as such. I don't know what decision was reached. Maybe someone can look there. I think XXX is even more sensitive: there used to be a movie industry "X" rating that meant what we now call NC-17. XXX was never an actual rating with any mainstream film industry meaning. Porn producers invented it to sensationalize the naughtiness of their products. It was designed to titillate. So there's an inherent lack of neutrality in associating an article with it. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Using "XXX" for a logo is possibly much better than any other sort of logo for the pornography WikiProject.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for above comments; yes i equate XXX as indicating hardcore pornography, which posing semi-nude is not. I think the red XXX as a logo used in the WikiProject tag is deliberately sensationalist and over the line from what should be allowed. I think that just adding "WikiProject Pornography" to every article for any person who ever posed for Playboy, even if the Wikiproject tag didn't include the logo, is also provocative, tending to suggest the person is involved in the pornography industry when they might have just posed once. Does Jimmy Carter deserve an XXX tag because he gave an interview that was published in the mag? I think it would be disrespectful to tag the Talk page in the case of a former U.S. president, and it is also recklessly slanderous for the Talk pages of the relatively unknowns or the very accomplished others who once posed.
Spot-checking in the 58 unreferenced BLPs currently appearing in Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Unreferenced BLPs, it seems that XXX rating is not defensible for many of those persons (e.g. Anka Romensky and Eileen Daly). I do think this is a general BLP issue that the WikiProject Pornography has this logo in its wikiproject tag. In my view, either the logo needs to be removed, or the WikiProject must accept/adopt restrictive guidelines on what articles it will include in the wikiproject, or both. I'll post mention of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography now to ask for other views. --doncram (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Two points: first, project tags always go on the talk page, so they do not alter what is in the article itself. Second, project tags are usually applied liberally and don't mean anything about a subject. For example, if there are rumors about a person being gay the LGBT project tag may be added so that project members can keep tabs on the article to make sure it's not reporting those rumors improperly. As for Anka Romensky, her sole notability comes from appearing naked in photographs. I don't see how the project tag is inappropriate there. Will Bebacktalk19:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Did she appear naked? That isn't actually established. And i think hardcore is different than just appearing nude. I am not sure on the policy involving application of WikiProject tags on Talk pages. It seems to me that widespread, indiscrimant application of the Pornography project tag (particularly if its logo is suggesting hardcore association) would constitute something like reckless treatment of people's reputations. Maybe Anka Romensky seeks and/or deserves that reputation, but maybe not for some others, so it seems best to just drop the logo or the project tag, or both. --doncram (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't want to give the impression that I'm too familiar with the contents of Playboy, but in my experience the main centerfold playmates always appear nude. "Hardcore" usually refers to actual sex acts, but not all pornography is hardcore. There is softcore pornography as well. It's still considered pornography. That said, I agree with removing the logo - it doesn't serve any purpose. Will Bebacktalk19:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
If you think the XXX logo is suggestive of hardcore pornography, let's remove the logo or find a better one. There is absolutely no reason to remove articles related to pornography—including softcore pornography, and including anti-pornography activists such as Catharine MacKinnon and Donald Wildmon—from the WikiProject. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk21:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. WP:P* is reasonably inclusive terms of scope (from the project page):
Pornographic actors, actresses and models, as well as related infobox templates. Additionally, the project is to implement a standard means of procuring information on pornographic actors, as well as to address what is proper for an encyclopedic article on porn stars.
Other porn-related biographies, such as notable porn film directors and photographers.
Other pornography-related topics, such as pornography genres.
The larger topic of pornography itself, and social and cultural issues surrounding it.
Removing the porn project tag from an article due to issues over the icon simply defeats the purpose of the project. Tabercil (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The WikiProject tag does seem to have been applied indiscriminantly, and inconsistently with the stated purpose for the project. The project's scope includes pornographic actors, which are defined as "A pornographic actor/actress or a porn star is a person who appears in pornographic films." Some/many/most persons whose photos appear in a single Playboy magazine are not pornographic actors: a one-time posing for nude or semi-nude photos is not at all the same as performing in porno films. So the WikiProject tag has been applied incorrectly according to the wikiproject's own scope. And readers of wikipedia who note the tag on a Talk page would tend to assume, would have been prompted to believe, that the one-time poser is a pornographic actor/actress in hardcore pornography. I don't want to see the scope of the WikiProject Pornography expanded; i would hope that it would choose to clarify that it is focused on hardcore actors and the social and cultural issues stuff. And come up with some definition of persons self-defining to be associated with the pornography industry, which i don't think should be that they once signed a release to a photographer for semi-nude pics. --doncram (talk) 02:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
What rubbish. If you read the preceding message carefully, you'll see the scope also includes pornographic models, which means... well, people who pose for nude or semi-nude photos. So the WikiProject banner has not been applied incorrectly. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk05:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Not rubbish. In the scope statement item where you point out "models" appear, only Pornographic actors is linked. (I just added links into that scope statement above, duplicating the links that appear in the WikiProject's scope statement.) I admit that i missed or breezed over the non-linked "models" word, but the stated emphasis is on performing actors/actresses. What i am saying is there an impression created. --doncram (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Will, the point that the wikiproject tag only appears on the talk page figured extensively into the BLPN discussion of the possibly-gay athlete. As I said, I haven't bothered checking to see what conclusion was reached (I don't read that board regularly), but a substantial contingent was well aware of this point and wanted the tag gone anyway. I don't have a terribly strong view myself, especially if talk pages are noindexed (which I think all of them should be). 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Here's the RFC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people. It has a lot that is relevant here, including the idea that a wikiproject might have a modified tag that states an article is "of interest" to the wikiproject, as an alternative to stronger/usual suggestion that the wikproject owns the topic / is more strongly associated. The further problem with XXX is that it is a rating, implying there might be a scale that the wikiproject is applying. I could imagine the following bad idea: the wikiproject could provide for different ratings of each person, and rate everyone by little x, xx, xxx, X, XX, XXX. Currently it would appear that they rate everyone the highest, hardcore. --doncram (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Please take a moment and review this discussion, in which two members of WikiProject Pornography agree that the XXX logo should be changed or dropped. At this point you seem to be tilting at windmills. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk05:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Huh? Looking now at the member list i see your name but don't recognize others from this discussion. It would indeed help if the wikiproject would drop the model, but i don't see how i could tell that is clearly in the works already. Show me that it is a done deal by just changing it then. That would be an advance, and with that I would be glad to drop this issue for now. --doncram (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The RFC is interesting though it's no longer open for comment. I have to ask whether there's been any actual complaints so far from subjects about talkpage tags. If the whole thing is purely speculative then we're freaking out too much. If someone has actually complained then we should do something. Maybe when we get flagged revisions we can also create some kind of template that marks part of a talk page viewable only to logged in users. Then we could use it on these tags and on other article discussion related to sensitive BLP issues. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 08:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we could ask at OTRS, or where?, about whether there are complaints ever.
A nice treatment of adult model categories in articles is now suggested by Template:Adult model, which now reads:
That tag now appears at Category:Adult models and related categories. I wonder if the WikiProject Pornography scope could be defined with similar wording, to cover actors/actresses who are verified to be involved in the pornography industry by occupation, as verified by reliable sources, so excluding appearance in one publication. And for academics / critics / whoever who choose to be involved in/with the industry in their social commentary-type roles, too. Etc. --doncram (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Why not just come out and say "sexual" or "pornographic", instead of using the confusing euphemism of "adult". Gigs (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
What reliable sources are there for the meaning of "XXX"? At the moment there actually aren't any sources on WP for it or citations on Wiktionary for it that I saw.
Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it comes to mind. If there have been no complaints, trying inquire about whether there ever have been, or imagining them etc. seems a waste of time. If time must be spent on it, possibly a broader issue is that perhaps all WPP tags would benefit from some kind of boilerplate disclaimer or explanation. People shouldn't be inferring things from the application of a WPP tag, and if they have questions about why it was added, they can always ask on the article's talk page and/or on the WPP's discussion page. If e.g. Alfred Hitchcock is tagged by the horror project, that makes sense, even though the majority of his films aren't in that genre; don't conclude he's only, or primarily a horror director. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Birthdays and Identity Theft
Should we really be posting people's birthdays, since this info might be used for identity theft? Is there a mechanism by which a living person can say, 'hey, please take my birthday off of my page and out of the history as well'? Maybe we could start a custom of just listing birth year, but not month and day?
See WP:DOB. Short answer? If your birthdate is already in reliable sources, taking it out of Wikipedia will do little or nothing to reduce identity theft. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Assuming that this Amy S. Bruckman is your page, I note that the dob is unsourced. I haven't been able to find a reliable source for it; there are multiple WP mirrors however, so it may be hard to put the cat back in the bag. However, our policy clearly says we should delete the dob if the subject requests, and since you have I will be doing so. In future you might want to make these kinds of requests at WP:BLPN. --Slp1 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, that's not how I read the policy; there's no "and" qualifier in the sentence about what we should do if the subject objects. In reality, I suspect that it's unlikely that a subject would complain about a dob or a full name being included on WP if they really were widely published elsewhere, but personally support the notion that we should nonetheless respect their wishes, and just use the year, if they do. In part because it might be that the person's info is "widely published" but only in obscure non-web accessible archives of newspaper articles (for example), whereas the WP article would be a number one google hit. But in this case, it's moot, as the subject has requested and her dob is not widely reported in reliable sources. --Slp1 (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
It really goes back to the overriding concerns of what I'm going to term "core BLP", which amounts to the opening line of the Hippocratic oath: "First, do no harm". Regardless of what a BLP subject thinks about Wikipedia, we don't and shouldn't publish things that aren't covered elsewhere in reliable sources. However, if they ARE published and covered elsewhere in reliable sources, there's almost never any practical point to us eliminating such coverage: What is the relative reduction in harm of taking a DOB out of the FIRST Google entry... when the year plus full name are enough to Google the DOB in non-Wikipedia sources? Thus, if RS DO cover something, there must be a clear potential for harm to be reduced for us to avoid using that content. While it's nice to both "be an encyclopedia" and "respect people's wishes", I'm afraid too many editors are choosing the latter when they are in conflict. Jclemens (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I agree that it is removing the dob/full name is pointless as a harm reduction strategy when the info is widely available elsewhere on the web; which is why I suspect subject requests in this category would be very rare. But the web isn't the only place things get published. Books/magazines and other off-line sources are also reliable sources; maybe some birth announcements, published long ago by proud parents, accessible by microfiche at the library. It may seem ridiculous but I've seen editors doing this or similar in order to find a dob or a name, and then legitimately say that the info is "widely published in reliable sources". When non-web (or even non-searcheable web) reliable sources are used, including the info on WP would clearly disseminate potentially private information in a new and much more public way.
I'm also not sure of the actual value of a full date of birth or a name to an encyclopedia article. A person's age, given by the year of birth, has obvious value; but is there really enough encyclopedic value in knowing a person's actual birth day/month or their middle name, to justify ignoring a subject's privacy concerns and objections? Personally I don't think so, though I acknowledge others might disagree. And certainly there are other topics about which a subject might complain, where building an encyclopedia requires a very different answer.--Slp1 (talk) 23:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm no Jimbo fan, we have religious differences as I don't think he's God, but I agree with him that it is worth fuzzing a bit to avoid potential harm to real people. I think we should be very willing to grant requests such as that from people, where the month/day is not widely known. Yes, it can be found in birth announcements but identity fraudsters look for the easy, not obscure newspapers on microfilm.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
We're agreed that if there aren't Googlable references to the DOB, that digging it out of an offline RS and slapping it into Wikipedia could indeed be reasonably expected to cause harm. If the info is already in Google at non-Wikipedia sites, though... really no point in (or harm forestalled by) removing it. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I can see an argument for always removing the month/day if the subject requests it, even if it's googleable. The reason is that the subject's goal would be (presumably) to make finding that info harder, and since WP is a top 10 site, it is much easier to find than more obscure places. Also WP has (believe it or not) a fairly good reputation for accuracy, better than a random googled site. In addition, WP gets mirrored into other sites. So from the subject's point of view, removing the day/month from WP would be beneficial all around, even if there are other sites carrying it. Crum375 (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem with that view is that if it's available on one site on the internet, it might as well be available everywhere. Cutting the number of sites with that information by 90% drops the risk by a level that's probably somewhere between 5% and 0%. Having your identity information "sorta" on the Internet is like being "sorta" pregnant. In fact, a much more effective counter would be to plant false DOBs to cause confusion, rather than trying to eliminate a real one. Chaff is a much more basic technology than stealth. Jclemens (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree about the chaff, and mentioned it above, indirectly. My experience in finding DOBs for article subjects is that there is often a wide disparity among the googleable sources, including for the birth year. And because WP editors are fairly conscientious, they typically end up digging up the most reliable DOB, which ironically for the subject, is the worst. So by having a year only in the article, after our mirrors lose the data, the other sites will be the "chaff" sites for the more detailed DOB. Crum375 (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Is it really possible to steal somebody's identity with just a name and a birthdate? Should whether a birthdate is easily Googleable be the determinant, as though Google is the only search engine people use? Subject's birthdate is in the U.S. Public Records Index online. Admittedly, it adds no particular value that I can think of to have it, other than that encyclopedias have that information on people for whom they have entries, and when that information isn't available for a living person, it might possibly be an indicator that the person doesn't have sufficient notability to warrant an entry. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems consistent with our policy in general to remove the month and day if the subject requests it. OK with you all if I add this to the policy? Asbruckman (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
We now have "Where the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or where the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year."
I disagree. The "and it is not widely reported" clause is necessary to keep focus on the "do no harm" part of BLP. Please read what I wrote above. Jclemens (talk) 18:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I've read what you wrote, and I also think the policy is fine how it is, as I explained above. I agree with others above that we should grant these requests fairly freely, though it certainly may be worth pointing out, as I did above to Dr. Bruckman, that deleting the info may/will be to limited purpose once the cat is out of the bag. The suggested wording "widely reported in reliable online sources" [10] also opens a can of worms about what it means: would online tweets alluding to his day/month of birth by this guy, (determined to be reliable at RSN) be enough to deny his later requests that we delete his dob? --Slp1 (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The bigger problem than this particular measure is that the more things we COATRACK on to BLP that have nothing to do with actual harm to living human beings, the weaker its moral authority gets. Because I think that BLP is so important, I entirely oppose having "preferences" play a part in it. I would be fine with the wording as-is if someone wants to move this out of the BLP policy itself and stick it in a separate document that doesn't give editors authority to use extreme measures to counter other editors who may in good faith see things a different way.
To the specific issue in question, two points 1) RSN is capable of reversing itself if consensus changes, and 2) We generally don't have much more assurance that a source requesting a DOB removal is any more authoritative than such a twitter source who tweeted it in the first place, do we? I have no issue at all with editors making local consensus based on a good understanding of specific instances--but the entire notion that we comply with a request first, before asking the encyclopedic value question, is inconsistent with BURDEN and V. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I take your point about the danger of any loss of moral authority of BLP, if "illogical" (if you know what I mean) requests for deletion are honoured. Personally, however, I just don't see a middle name/full dob as having much encyclopedic value in the general scheme of things, and thus wouldn't regard removing a full date of birth etc as extreme measures, or worth insisting on including if a subject protests.
My example was intended to demonstrate potential wording complications for "and widely reported in reliable online sources" rather than a request for comment about that specific situation. "Reliable online sources" covers a lot of territory (including tweets apparently). Here are some further examples of online reliable sources [11], [12][13][14][15][16][17] where people can go delving (sometimes for free and for a fee) for dates of birth etc in the same way as they can delve for information at the library. Your point, which I think is a reasonable one, is that it is pointless to delete dob/full name where the info is easily accessible using simple, non-pay google-esque websearches. If something of a qualifier needs to be added - and I am open to it though not convinced as yet - then somehow the "ease of access" issue needs to be included as part of the criteria. I'll stop here and will be glad to hear the opinions of others on this matter.--Slp1 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
If the subject's age, year or date of birth is unsourced, contributors are welcome to make an attempt to source it but they don't have to. It is OK to delete any unsourced statement about a living person. Editors are not required to second-guess the potential for harm and there's no need to wait for a request from the subject. - Pointillist (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate Jclemens' points. I would not oppose spinning off the DOB section into a separate document.
And there is merit on both sides concerning how "easily findable" certain information is.
But I try to weigh actual and potential good against actual and potential harm. I think the date of birth is not critical for many of our BLP articles. Maurreen (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
It is important. No biography is complete without a date of birth. It seems to be easy to forget that we are writing biographies here. If people want a neat promotional web page and not a biography, there's plenty of free web hosts they can use. Gigs (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
A question has arrisen regarding this source [[18]]. It repeats an anonymoous accustion regarding Nick Griffins loss of his eye. Would it violate the BLP guidlines to include this line of text? "Others have speculated that the accident happened during “survivalist manoeuvres”". Given that we don't know who these other are, or how they cane by their information.Slatersteven (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
In this case and generally, I lean against including negative information based on anonymous sources. Maurreen (talk) 22:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I should elaberate, the source is not anonymous, its the Times. But they do not say who has made this accusation, they just use the words I have used (I.E. Others). This is the relevant discusion [[19]]. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a question about this edit about groups added on April 4 by Blueboar. We say that BLP doesn't apply directly to groups but such edits can affect living persons, so exercise caution. Then the new sentences say: "With a small group or organization it is easier to draw a distinction between statements about the group's members (where BLP might apply) and statements about the organization itself (where it would not). This is harder to do with larger groups and organizations."
My reading of it is that BLP might apply less when dealing with smaller groups than with larger ones, whereas I'd say it's the other way round, if anything (though I'd prefer not to make the distinction). SlimVirgintalkcontribs18:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
My impression is that if the group is small enough then we are essentially talking about several individuals. For example, if we say that the law firm of Smith & Jones is unethical then we're coming very close to saying that Smith and Jones are unethical. On the other hand, if we say that Mega Corp is unethical then it isn't clear that we're talking about any individuals. However I don't think this is really helpful language for this policy and it feels like instruction creep. Will Bebacktalk18:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Earlier in that paragraph it says "...when dealing with groups, particularly very small ones, edits...could have a bearing on living persons, so exercise caution", so that edit was probably meant to convey the opposite of what it actually says. I went ahead and changed it so it doesn't contradict, but it seems like it should just be removed altogether. — Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)18:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
<-I've raised the issue of BLP and organizations a number of times and never really received an adequate answer past "that's the way it is". In older variations, BLP arguably applied to organizations but that has progressively been removed, supposedly by consensus, and this is continuing that path. The question is - why? Why is it ok to have poorly sourced information that is damaging to large numbers of people (ie organizations and/or their members or employees), but not to individuals? It just makes no sense that BLP-like rules don't exist for organizations. What's the justification?--Insider201283 (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
That's not an answer. If you say bad things about Google the company then you are saying bad things about someone's offspring - the people who run the company, which depending on the statement and context could be referring to thousands of people. What about Scouts? Aren't all scouts "someone's offspring"? How about "Americans"? --Insider201283 (talk) 23:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Bad information of any sort is bad. Bad information that can have an INDIVIDUALLY bad effect on people's lives is especially bad. Accusing "a company" of misdeeds is not the same accusing an individual of misdeeds; the latter is clearly a more focused accusation. Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Jclemens - yes, it is more focused - it affects fewer people. Gigs - I don't understand that reasoning. You're saying it's ok to libel groups of people, otherwise we'd have to protect all groups? Why should it be OK to leave "FreeMasons are a criminal organization connected to the Mafia" in an article? If you put that in the FreeMason's article, and I revert it 3 times, I'm in violation of 3RR. Put "Bob Dole is a member of the FreeMasons, a criminal organization" in the article on him, and it's instant delete. You can libel ALL freemasons, but not individuals or, perhaps, small groups of FreeMasons? Sorry, but that's absurd. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Maurreen and the others, Insider. We have to draw a line somewhere and we've chosen to offer somewhat special protection to living persons—but only somewhat, in the sense of applying V and NOR very carefully. The slippery slope you're describing illustrates why we don't go further. SlimVirgintalkcontribs01:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Again though - why? Why does the line have to be drawn somewhere? How would, for example, making WP:BLP apply to active organisations make Wikipedia worse? --Insider201283 (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Because it could lead to even more edit warring, reverting, blocking, etc.
For a multitude of things, people could get carried away with "This is negative and not sourced or not sourced well enough." Maurreen (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yep. People are now even claiming BLP requires the removal of primary sources. There's definitely a feeping creaturism about this policy at the moment. Jclemens (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm coming from the other direction - my experience, working primarily on organisation articles, is that much of the edit warring, reverting etc occurs because of a lack of BLP equivalent - "BLP doesn't apply to organizations" is a common refrain. If something is "negative" and not sourced or not sourced well enough then it should be removed - at least to talk while it's discussed. WP:V already says this - Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page --Insider201283 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Same applies for articles on people - you already have WP:V, the break for reverts is WP:3RR. So what's WP:BLP for? The problem with the 3RR without WP:BLP is it defaults to leaving libellous information in. Someone puts something libellous and poorly sourced in article. An editor, following WP:V removes it. The first editor puts it back. Second removes it. Repeat twice and the editor following WP:V is now guilty of violating WP:3RR and the libellous information remains.--Insider201283 (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
So can Joe Smith - in fact more easily I'd suggest. What response do you think there would be to Google editing the web page on Google? Or otherwise influencing someone to get it fixed? Joe Smith gets his page fixed immediately - Google has to go through all the hoops and hurdles of avoiding COI. Why? Why does Joe Smith deserve to have a fairer and more accurate article about him than Google and all it's employees? That's a fundamentally unfair position. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Life is unfair. But groups often have more resources (such as money and people) to take care of any problems. Maurreen (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Why? "life is unfair" is not a legitimate justification, and "they might have more resources" is not either - especially given guidelines on COI. How much money and resources does the average non-profit have to defend itself on wikipedia? Wouldn't broading BLP guidelines to active organizations encourage better quality articles? BLP did.[20] --Insider201283 (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
No, actually. BLP has been broadened to the point where it risks either becoming the club with which to beat anyone into submission, or watered down and ignored. Right now, I'm not sure which, but what I am 100% sure of is that it doesn't need to be further watered down by applying "the nuclear option" to defamatory material about corporations. The essence of BLP is that any editor is given permission and expected to do anything necessary to immediately to remove defamatory/potentially harmful material about living people. Anything else is policycruft that serves to obscure that core purpose. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
"Why does Joe Smith deserve to have a fairer and more accurate article about him than Google and all it's employees" - because Google doesn't have feelings, and Joe Smith does. This is not a valid comparison, since a negative statement saying "all Google's employees are evil" would not stay in an article anyway, because of BLP. On the other hand, saying "Google is evil" does not label its employees, just the organization, so I'm not sure how you can draw a parallel there. Next we would have to apply BLP to articles like dentistry when someone inserts negative material about dentists. Slippery slope. — Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)04:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how saying "Google is evil" doesn't say something about its employees - or perhaps more specifically, "Google does evil", but try something more membership based. Say, Freemasons are evil. As for dentists, on what basis do you believe poorly sourced negative material about dentists should be allowed? Why should an editor removing an unsourced libellous claim about dentists be at risk of 3RR and the material allowed to remain? My interpretation of this discussion is taht the objection is "this is a terrible slippery slope. If we go down this path then we'll have to improve the quality of articles about organizations" That's a bad thing how? --Insider201283 (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with avoiding the improvement of articles. It has to do with giving authority to unilaterally remove negative material from articles. In the case of living persons, the community and the foundation are in agreement that they must not be libeled on Wikipedia, and the community has given editors the freedom to do whatever is in their power to prevent libel. This is not the case with corporations, and hopefully will never be. A corporation is not a person. — Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)03:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose removing the mention of organizations from WP:BURDEN (but will do so at WP:V)... I am of mixed minds as to whether something about organizations should be included here. I can understand how extending BLP to groups could be abused... but, I also see how not extending it to groups can and is be abused.
Let us take two example statements (assume they are both either uncited or poorly cited): 1) "The Catholic curia refuses to deal with the issue of pedophile priests" and 2) "The Board of Directors of British Petroleum caused the deaths of 11 rig workers by knowingly skimping on safety". I would agree that the first statement does not (and should not) fall under WP:BLP (it has lots of other problems, but a BLP vio is not one of them). The second however, is a much more iffy situation. The board of Directors of BP is a limited body. It is made up of distinct and known individuals. A libel or slander against the board as a whole is a libel or slander against the distinct individuals that make it up... and that is very close to being a BLP issue. I do understand that WP:BLP would not currently apply... but think it should. Blueboar (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Here is my take on groups. I think we need to take extra care when small groups with identifiable individuals are involved, but the main BLP protection focus should be on individual persons, not groups. The main reason is that if we say "Group X messed up", even if group X consists of a small number of individuals, like the proverbial random blank issued to a firing squad, we don't know that every single member of the group was responsible for the bad decision, or that they are equally responsible even if the decision was "unanimous". For all we know, maybe one strong leader, or one with a veto right, was behind the decision. So group allegations are clearly more amorphous, and therefore can be handled by our normal V, NOR and NPOV/UNDUE sourcing requirements (e.g. not letting {{fact}} templates linger). I believe affording groups the same protection as individuals is a slippery slope which should be avoided. Crum375 (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Crum on this, although to Blueboar's examples, I think that the second statement could be covered under BLP. There is an exception for small groups, and it is a case-by-case basis, but accusing a small group of wrongdoing without evidence from multiple reliable independent sources should be removed immediately if it could be construed to be an negative toward the individuals rather than the group. --Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)06:46, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I think we are on the same page, but simply expressing it differently ... I would say that WP:BLP does not apply to the statement "The Freemasons are corrupt" ... I think it might apply to the statement "The members of Fidelity Lodge in Liverpool are corrupt"... And I think it clearly does apply to "Both of the Wardens of Fidelity Lodge are corrupt". Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree re BLP, but in the wider wikipedia picture I don't get it - why is it ok to libel all Freemasons but not some Freemasons. I just don't see the logic of this? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:06, 9 May 2010(UTC)
If one were to make the statement "The Beatles were a bunch of drug-taking pseudo-musicians", then one could reasonably be called on to justify whether they were talking about George, Paul, Ringo or John and things become very close to BLP (at least in the csae of Paul and Ringo). Martinvl (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
How about "The Mormon Tabernacle Choir are a bunch of drug-taking pseudo-musicians?" How does that not libel each living individual member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? --Insider201283 (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I certainly do not mean to imply that it is OK to libel large groups... the statement "The Freemasons are corrupt" could probably be challenged for a number of reasons... depending on how it was cited (or if it was cited), I could see challenging it on WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, or WP:NPOV grounds. All I am saying is that WP:BLP does not apply to such a large group... as the statement causes little direct harm to any individual Freemason (which is the point behind BLP). But as the group gets smaller, the likelihood of direct personal harm to an individual grows. Eventually there is no difference between the group and the individual living people who make up the group.
To give an other example: It is not a BLP vio to say "The US Congress is corrupt". No personal harm has occured to any individual. On the other hand, I think it is a BLP vio to say "The Congressional delegation from Vermont is corrupt" ... because the Congressional delegation from Vermont consists of exactly three identifiable individuals: (Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders in the Senate, and Peter Welch in the House) saying the delegation is corrupt is the same as saying Leahy, Sanders and Welch are corrupt. The statement causes direct personal harm. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd argue that "The US Congress is corrupt" refers to the formal organization as a whole, not individuals, however "The members of the US Congress are corrupt" explictly states that individual congressmen and women are all corrupt and is directly harming to them. Saying "the Catholic Church is corrupt" refers to the formal organization. "Catholics are corrupt" refers to individuals. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Is vs are might be an indication... but to me the key is determining if there is a possibility of direct personal harm to a living person, and if so how serious is that direct personal harm. Blueboar (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Well take an area I've been studying for a decade - Direct Selling and Network Marketing. Reps are individual businesses, but they'll often affiliate with a number of different organizations - the company, their particular "line" within the company, and/or some affiliated training organization. Libellous statements about the groups as a whole directly affects each individuals' (or couples') small business and reflects personally on them. Take Herbalife - there's a fellow who essentially makes a living making allegations against the company and shorting the stock. He's very good at getting his claims into the media, meaning they're now RS so the allegations are able to be posted in Wikipedia. Joe Smith & Wife Enterprises, Herbalife Distributors, go around to a friends place to promote Herbalife to them, perhaps considering them as business partners, perhaps just trying to sell the procucts. The friend goes on the net and reads the Wikipedia article with the allegations - thinks that's what Joe & his wife are doing - "thanks, but no thanks!" and now thinks lesser of Joe & Wife. Joe Smith & Wife Enterprises, a 2 person business, has been directly damaged and so has their reputations. Weeks, months, or years later (or perhaps never) the case gets kicked out and this fact then may or may not end up in the Wikipedia article. Over on Network TwentyOne, a newspaper reported that serious allegations were made about Amway and the organization, or rather, the numerous independent Amway business owners who affiliate with it. We have an RS source that these allegations were made, they end up in the article. Anyone promoting their Amway business who is connected with Network 21 will be damaged by these allegations. What's worse, when the judgement dismissing the case against Amway is released it shows the newspaper article wasn't even accurate in it's allegations, the case wasn't about that at all, the allegations weren't even made in the complaint. But the judgement is a primary source and can't be used without interpretation. Compounding this, the case against Network 21 itself is so unnotable that it never goes to hearings and gets dismissed without even being published on official websites. So the incorrect allegations remain, and not even the fact the case was dismissed is reported (subject of an edit war on that article) and every time Miss Jones tries to promote her individual business affiliated with Amway and Network 21, her prospect views Wikipedia and reads the allegations and thinks that's what Miss Jones does - "thanks, but no thanks!". I could go on and on with examples like. The reputations of individuals is clearly being harmed, but it's ignored because - as someone said above "google can look after itself". Really? What exactly can Miss Jones & Mr & Mrs Smith do? Zip. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah we'll get right on censoring Wikipedia to protect the reputation of Amway and Herbalife. Are you for real? Gigs (talk) 19:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
So in short, we shouldn't write about any published criticism of companies. Ever. Because it somehow might affect living people. I don't think this policy is supposed to work that way. --Conti|✉19:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I see no harm in stating "The New York Times said that the Vermont Congressional delegation was corrupt" (as long as the New York Times did on fact say that and it is cross-referenced). Moreover, since the New York Times is a reputable source (at least as a Brit I think it is), the onus of proof would fall on the New York Times, not on Wikipedia, especially if the article was backed up by other facts. Anyway, if the congressmen concerend wanted to sue, the New York Times has more money than me, and even if they found my address, they would need an extradition order before they could sue me! Martinvl (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
No offence Gigs and Conti, but chill out. I never made any such claim or attempt, not even remotely. You apparently have missed the fact that BLP doesn't prevent criticism of people being published. Those type of visceral responses are what worries me, as I think it can quite naturally lead to POV editing and POV application of policies and guidelines. Or are you suggesting that false and libellous information should be included in Wikipedia? On what basis? Let's take another different example from a completely different arena. Today Tonight is a television show in Australia that's been running for 15 years - something like 4000 episodes. Half the wikipedia article however focuses on criticism surrounding 11 episodes - less than 0.3% of the show. An inherent problem is that, by definition, it's only news if it's unusual, and thus media sources will be weighted towards criticism. BLP provides a measure of protection on this for people, why shouldn't it exist for groups? --Insider201283 (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Martinvl - that's exactly how I've been trying to approach the Network 21 article, alas without consensus :(. A related issue is the inconsistency between, for example, WP:V which state poorly sourced,damaging information about organizations should be immediately deleted, and WP:3RR which only allows exceptiopns for BLP. This means if you want to put poorly sourced or damaging information in an article with say, one opposing editor , you only have to do it 3 times and it stays, as the party following WP:V is now guilty of violation WP:3RR.--Insider201283 (talk) 20:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
What Ty says. Also, we have enough policies already that deal with false information (remove, demand sources) and libellous information (remove on sight, per BLP). I don't see what your example has to do with either, though. Articles that basically only consist of criticism sections are a problem, but they are not a BLP problem (unless we are talking about living persons, of course). --Conti|✉21:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
As per this discussion, "remove on sight" doesn't apply via BLP for organizations. What's more, there's nothing that deals with situations of having a RS source that is demonstrably false. Current consensus on WP is that secondary sources trump primary sources, so even when you have the primary source, and what the secondary source says is clearly wrong, the secondary source "facts" remain allowable. This would be mitigated if there was multiple secondary sources providing some kind of quality control, but policy says nothing about needing multiple sources (perhaps it should?). Which means you're left with dispute resolution to get stuff fixed. There are cases that have been listed for months awaiting help on the Mediation page. The point remains that there has so far been no reason given why individuals are deserving of more protection than groups of individuals. All of the arguments about "enough policies already" could be just as easily applied to BLP. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Again, you're trying to change a policy unrelated to your concerns. Wikipedia:Libel says: "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified." That includes living people, groups and bloody everything else. And in addition, there is no rule anywhere that we have to use sources. When we can prove (without a doubt) that a source is plain wrong, we don't use it. It's that simple. That ought to be written down somewhere, but definitely not here at WP:BLP, since, as you say, it's true for groups as well. WP:RS, maybe? --Conti|✉20:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I would say the main reason why individuals are deserving more protection than groups is the concept of direct personal injury. Consider the statement "Wikipedia editors are all self-important egotists who tout their sophomoric knowledge over that of true experts". I think we would all find this statement offensive, but none of us are personally harmed by it. Change the statement to "User:Blueboar is a self-important egotist who touts his sophomoric knowledge over that of true experts" and there could be direct personal harm.
That said... I think there is a huge difference between saying that individuals deserve more protection than groups... and saying that groups should not be protected at all. I hope we all agree that groups and organizations should not be libeled. I am coming to the conclusion that we need a separate WP:Companies, organizations and groups policy... separate from BLP. While the rules it would outline would have many similarities to WP:BLP, there would be significant differences as well. Blueboar (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
To extend your analogy, what if we wrote that "Blueboar's philosophy or religion is sophomoric and egotistical"? That could be hurtful too. Or what if we wrote, "Blueboar's new novel is egotistical and sophomoric"? Or "Blueboar's city is poorly planned and maintained"? Where would we draw the line? Every topic deserves to have an article that is NPOV and V. Businesses, religions, creative works, and settlements are all equally deserving so let's not make a special rule for any of them. Will Bebacktalk21:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I presume this is the correct place to discuss the BLP policy.
Vera Baker is a lady who the National Enquirer reported to have had an affair with (then candidate) Obama. Her page and all that went with it was deleted as rumor. Seems reasonable, we must be very careful with BLPs.
Elena Kagan is a lady who the New York Times reported (correctly) to be about to be nominated to the Supreme Court. Her page went with the rumor and allowed it to be posted.
Do we have one policy for 'favorable' rumors and one for 'unfavorable' rumors? For stories from one class of newspaper and another? Ought we to have such a policy? I do of course understand all of this is now overcome by events, but I wish to be quite clear on what may and may not be posted. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Herein lies a difference in interpretation. Some think that NPOV applies to BLP, so anything negative OR positive that's unsourced should be deleted without due process. Others think that BLP trumps NPOV, such that unsourced negative things get deleted without due process, but unsourced positive things should still be deleted, but with due process.
Why? Because you like one newspaper but not the other? Please tell me a rule I can fairly and objectively apply in this sort of situation. Does a mention on CNN equal the NYT? Why? Why not? We need a bright line, a rule that can be followed easily that will accomplish the goals of the BLP policy. I would propose such a rule would be not reporting on speculation in the press. We would miss some stories, or be late in publishing some information, but so what? We are not a newspaper repeating what is published elsewhere. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
If you're looking for a "bright line", you're not gonna get it. People like to take bright lines and construct their carefully-crafted, meticulously-worded, wiki-lawyered arguments to get what they want. If there is a claim or rumor that is exceptional or extraordinary, then it generally requires exceptional or extraordinary sources to confirm. Rumors about presidential affairs and angry wives shunting loose women off to remote Caribbean isles are exceptional, and require a bit more than a tabloid to collaborate. When reliable sources report that someone is in line to be the next Supreme Court nominee, noting the high probability given that said person was on the short list the last time there was open spot is not an extraordinary claim. Tarc (talk) 01:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I see I am losing this discussion, so I bow to the collective hive mind. Still I have to wonder if the urge to publish will lead to mistakes. Thank you all. (Loose women on Caribbean Islands? Which island in particualr, I am planning a vacation.) Paul, in Saudi (talk) 08:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
The point is that a rumor of an affair can harm all the alleged participants and their current partners. The rumor of an impending supreme court nomination is hardly bad news for anyone--even if a particularly silly pick, the actual harm to anyone's career will be minimal: rumors of appointments are leaked all the time. That sort of difference is part of what I'm trying to get at in WP:COREBLP. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
To the original question, I quote WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The New York Times is such a source, whereas the National Enquirer is most definitely not. I assume that you do not live in the US if you are not aware of NE's reputation; read this. --Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)17:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I am an American, although I live in Saudi Arabia. I am aware of the Enquirer. They broke the story of John Edwards' infidelity, of Saraha Palin's daughter being pregnant. But we can say that without also noting failures like the Carol Burdette story. They have a mixed record. To be generous. Still, they are a national newspaper, they try to get it right. Further the New York Times has printed stories that have not panned out. Other than "Come on, the Enquirer is not to be taken seriously," do we have a policy? I would advocate not publishing speculation. Better safe than sorry. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
After some discussion at WT:URBLP#MySpace_only_pages, I created a template {{BLP selfpublished}} to call attention to BLPs that only cite self-published sources. The discussion started due to the large quantity of MySpace sourced BLPs, but also extended to any other BLPs that rely only on self-published sources. Please note that articles tagged with this are still listed under the Category:All unreferenced BLPs, and the associated dated categories.
The rationale for the template is that new/inexperienced users may be confused by a {{unreferencedBLP}} template when the article clearly has citations. This allows us to more accurately state the problem, and possibly motivate them to help. Feedback is welcomed --Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)18:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Right, which makes this template message entirely redundant to (though more specific than) {{primarysources}}. I look at both templates, and I see no value add with the newer one. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Policy states that self-published sources may be used as sources on themselves, provided "the article is not based primarily on such sources." (point 5 of WP:SELFPUB). That's the rationale for the new tag. This tag functions as a replacement for the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag, making it clear that the article is still not referenced just by adding a link to a personal blog. The alternative for a BLP would to have it tagged as {{BLP refimprove}}and{{primarysources}}, which would have the undesired effect of moving it out of the unreferenced category. The tag would also allow consolidation of tags on the thousands of articles that would meet these criteria. --Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)16:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the rationale for this new tag. It's a niche that we don't have labeled well enough. Gigs (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Responding more to Jclemens, I think the difference is that this applies to self-published blogs, Myspace, Facebook, other web-stuff that is quite dubious, that i wouldn't want to consider as a Primary source about a person at all. I think of primary sources for a biography as being more substantial proof of assertions, as from trip itineraries and plane and ship ticket stubs, diaries that took some effort over a long time to write and keep up, and other serious evidence that, with reasonable interpretation, constitutes pretty good proof of something. What a person writes in a blog or Myspace is more likely to be entirely fictitious; it is just as easy to write something false than something true in a blog, but it costs effort to forge paper records. I support the new tag (and already did, at the previous discussion). --doncram (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Dealing with potentially defamatory material
I notice that under WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown we say: "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many countries repeating defamatory claims is actionable." Isn't this true in all cases, not just for relatively unknown people? It seems a bit odd burying it away in this section; would it be better placed higher up, most likely in WP:BLP#Avoid gossip and feedback loops? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Public figures have less protection against defamation and libel. We regularly do, and should, document potentially defamatory things that reliable sources say about public figures. Gigs (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Hard to access sources for contentious BLP information
(If this has already been hashed out and I just missed it in the archives, please disregard, though I would like a link to that discussion, please.) In most cases Access to sources says that hard–to–access sources, including pay-only sources, are considered to be no less reliable or freely usable than easy-to-access or free reliable sources. Assume good faith requires that article text sourced with an apparently–reliable hard to access source should remain posted unless some user actually checks the source and determines that it does not exist, does not say what it is alleged to say, is not reliable, or is otherwise defective. It has been determined in discussion here that "contentious" in WP:GRAPEVINE means something more than just "contested by an editor." In the current state of affairs, therefore (to state a worst–case scenario), if an editor posts something about a living person which would be unquestionably libelous if it is false and references that assertion by an apparently–reliable source which can only be accessed via an expensive and obscure but public source, then that assertion must remain in the active article text until someone goes to the trouble of checking it. Should the BLP policy say that contentious BLP information is poorly sourced if sourced only by a hard to access source, i.e. one to which WP:Access to sources applies? My opinion is, "no," it should not say that, but I think the issue is worth discussing.
Con addition: Checking hard–to–access sources is just another form of BLP source–checking and Wikipedia is on record as saying that peer–reviewed academic journals, which are frequently hard to access, are the gold standard for sources at Wikipedia. And Wikipedia has a process (WP:LIB) for getting access to hard to access sources to minimize the impact. Making the information subject to immediate deletion under WP:GRAPEVINE would just shove it into the edit history and further delay the source–checking process.
Pro addition: Source checking hard–to–access sources is generally much slower and leaves potentially harmful and damaging information exposed for much longer than the normal source–checking process. The process is also much more open to manipulation by puppets or by fellow travelers, and to errors or careless work by the source–checker who has access to the source.
In the case of a "hard to access" source, for any contentious issue, the editor adding the material should be able to provide upon request a quotation and page number from the source, which directly supports the material in question. In the case of contentious material added to a BLP, this becomes even more important. Only when this quoted text is supplied, can editors determine on the talk page whether the quote directly supports the added material. Crum375 (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it would depend on the case somewhat. If it's a claim that's also widely discussed in less reliable, but more readily available sources (even forums or blogs), then we should probably AGF on the offline source. If it's something surprising and defamatory that doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere other than this single offline source that no one has yet seen, then I'd be less inclined to AGF on it and might preemptively remove it until the source material could be verified. I don't think we could or should make that a guideline or a policy (it would be hard to word), but that's my personal take. Gigs (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Forums and blogs, unless meeting some special exemption (e.g. author tells about himself), are not reliable sources and should not be a factor in deciding the acceptability of other sources. In BLP articles, if there is a contentious issue, we must be extra sure that the source is reliable and that it directly supports the added material. Therefore, the editor adding the material should be able to provide a quotation and page number from the source, which directly supports the material in question. Otherwise, editors may remove the contentious material pending such proof. Crum375 (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
You completely missed the point. Reality isn't some cut and dry policy. If no one on the internet has ever mentioned the fact that Bill Clinton used to be a woman, and it's cited to an offline source, I'm sure as hell going to remove it preemptively. If there's talk all over forums and blogs about the new revelation that he was a woman, then I'll AGF until the person provides a quote. Gigs (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
AGF is fine. However, in my opinion, this policy overrides it. If potentially libelous material is sourced to an offline or inaccessible/paywalled source, I would say that we should require a direct quotation in the reference which supports the material. --Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)17:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
BLP1E
(moved from SlimVirgin talk)
Another user and I were discussing that the part that I just put it and you removed was more clearly written than what you replaced it with. What I put in was taken from the main article (see link in that section). I didn't change any wording at all.
You commented that it is too wordy. It's not that long. I changed it back. If you want to shorten it, that's an idea.
current long version
When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.
Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.
possible cutting out some sentences if you don't like the length
When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
-
- If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
-
- When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate.
-
- Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event.
Proposal-cut and paste from the main article to BLP1E
What I propose is not to change the way we consider articles. The current short version is written in a deletionist language suggesting to not allow anything except John Hinckley. The main article link is not too lengthy but gives examples of what to include and what not to include. Servers will not crash because of the slightly longer length.
Here it is:
When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.
Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. For example, Steve Bartman redirects to Steve Bartman incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.
Which could be shortened if you want to...
When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles, for example Howard Brennan, a witness to the JFK assassination.
Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.
In view of lack of interest and input, I will shortly add the BLP1E to read...
When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.
If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. On the other hand, if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles.
Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident. In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved.
I have NOT changed any ideas. I only used pre-existing wording from the main article link. The main article for BLP1E is ALREADY established. This expanded version covers BLP1E better but is not really very long.
Except that BIO1E is a notability guideline and this is a policy. We shouldn't copy and paste guidelines into policies. In fact, I oppose all copying and pasting and summarizing between policies and guidelines in general. Redundancy leads to inconsistencies. Gigs (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't make sense. Are you reading a different section? BLP1E makes no mention of privacy. It only deals with persons known for one event. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The parent section is named "Presumption in favor of privacy"; this is a subsection of that. Doesn't seem like this section belongs there at all, and I'm not sure what a notability guideline has to do with the BLP policy. --Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)19:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic discovery! You may have uncovered a point that anthropologists may one day research by sifting through thousands of edits. It might be that years ago, BLP1E was done for the purposes of giving privacy to obscure people. This makes sense because BLP1E is in the privacy section. Fast forward to the present and BLP1E is used by people who don't want fancruft and obscure articles. Most of them don't promote BLP1E for privacy reasons but to clean up Wikipedia.
For this reason, we may rethink the privacy part. For practical purposes, changing policies is very difficult so this is likely not to be done. Whether we want BLP1E as a policy to keep Wikipedia leaner is another question.
The question of the BLP1E part being poorly written in comparison with the main article it references (notability) still remains and should be corrected. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, I agree that as it stands right now it's kind of a bad summary of the notability page. If anything we should get rid of WP:BLP1E rather than copying WP:BIO1E to here. Gigs (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being mentioned in a news story does not imply an article should exist about that person. If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If an individual receives significant ongoing coverage—apart from passing mentions due to the event—a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr. fit into this category. Err on the side of caution in protecting the privacy of low-profile individuals.
My rationale is that this is the BLP policy, not NPOV, not Notability. I'm trying to move this back to being about the privacy/protection of a low-profile living person. Thoughts? --Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)01:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I'm an idiot. Of course I knew that, but somehow it didn't penetrate my head when I was writing the proposed version. I'm removing that from the proposed wording, thanks. --Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)17:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
My only feedback is to try to avoid the word "notability" unless we really mean "wikipedia notability and all that that implies" Gigs (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
LiberalFascist, it might help if "Subjects notable only for one event" became an independent section rather than being a child of "Presumption in favor of privacy". That would get you around the problem of aligning the section around privacy vs notability vs NPOV. Instead, the section could be set up as a navigation hub something like the example below. - Pointillist (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
“
Just because someone is mentioned in news stories doesn't mean there should be a specific Wikipedia article about that person. If reliable sources cover an individual only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them, because:
In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information into the event article and redirect the person's name to the event article.
”
I know that the word "notable" is already in the policy, but notability is only a guideline on Wikipedia, so we shouldn't be basing a policy on a guideline. There is quite a bit of leeway given to interpret notability, so it doesn't seem like we should be referencing it here. The purpose of the section (from what I can tell) is to establish that we shouldn't invade the privacy of lesser-known persons just because they were associated with a newsworthy event.
All that said, I'd be in favor of scrapping the section for something similar to your wording, if we take the notability piece out. I'd just strike that point, as notability is separate from the BLP policy. --Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)02:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Facebook
Wikipedia biographies are now appearing in Facebook. This Facebook/Wikipedia page was the subject of a recent complaint by its subject. (It's now being prodded.) Has this issue been discussed anywhere? It seems like this could generate more complaints and might not have an easy solution. Will Bebacktalk00:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be any organized mirroring of Wikipedia content, just random people cutting and pasting Wikipedia content to some Facebook pages they control. Wikipedia is free content so subject to the attribution requirement people can do what they want with it. The possibility that BLP violating old versions of articles will get copied, retained in caches, etc., is one of the things people sometimes take into account when considering what the policy should be. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This query isn't regarding that specific bio, but rather the appearance that the same coukd happen with other bios. Here is a Facebook FAQ which implies the material is uploaded automatically.[21] If this has been discussed before, then that's fine. Will Bebacktalk07:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Non article space...
Back in March, SlimVirgin made this edit to the non-article space section. It appears, based on my scanning of the talk page archives, to have been undiscussed, and hence I've reverted it as a logic error. In the consensus version, it was Unsourced OR poorly sourced AND unrelated to content discussion. SV's editing changed it to Unsourced OR poorly sourced OR unrelated, which allows the BLP-nuke option for anything that anyone asserts in good faith is not directly related to content decisions, no matter how well sourced it might be. Crum375 reverted my correction, indicating that he preferred SV's version.
Hence, I'm opening a discussion on it here: do we like the prior version, or the changed version SV apparently inadvertently made. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I support the BLP nuke version, although clearly it will only need to be used in limited situations. BLP needs to be as tight as possible, we have a strong duty of care to living people on the talkpage as well as the article, all too often users when they are unable to add content to the article repeatedly continue to populate the talkpage with their weakly claimed assertions. Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but remember--BLP is not limited in scope. Anything any editor reasonably thinks is covered is to be killed with fire on sight. I'm not sure that level of discretion for talk page deletions (or any other non-article space) is appropriate. Rather, I'm sure it's not appropriate. Does any userbox that mentions a living person then become speedily deletable under BLP? From a strict reading, a userbox that says "Stephen Hawking is my hero for not letting his disabilities stop his genius" is unrelated to content creation, is it not? Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that userbox would fall under "contentious material", since the user is just stating a personal opinion of Hawking, and it could not be construed to be negative. --Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist)02:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
But "contentious" is anything any editor demands a cite for, right? That's how some interpret it, and with BLP, any "reasonable" interpretation may be enforced summarily. I agree that that's a bit of a Reductio ad absurdum, but there are plenty of other absurd things being argued in the name of BLP around here, so I don't think it's too beyond the pale. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
"Contentious" in this context was never meant to mean "if an editor challenges something about a living person simply because it is uncited we must remove it instantly." That was an inventive reinterpretation from this January's unsourced BLP deletion drive, a prime example of twisting language to alter the spirit of the policy. Fences&Windows16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I completely and totally agree with you, F&W, but since there appear to be a sizeable minority of editors who do not, I'm being especially cautious about expansions to BLP that, in combination with that mutually disliked interpretation of contentiousness, cause weird issues like this. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted another attempt to make this policy change.[22] Folks, policy is supposed to reflect practice, not impose it - and it's supposed to change by consensus, not edit war. I tend to agree with Jclemens' observation above. A dose of reason and common sense should be applied to all policy interpretation, and clear defamation of living people on talk pages will be removed regardless of the exact wording of policy. However, stretching the policy to suggest that one can remove any statement made on a talk page about living people for lack of sourcing, however relevant to the discussion, would tend to fall in the hands of editors who have often disregarded commonsense. This does happen in practice - sometimes in the heat of a good faith talk page debate on whether to include a piece of content one side will take to removing the other side's arguments on claim that even talking about the proposed content is a BLP violation. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Good call, I didn't catch that at the time. Obviously, you have to talk about disputed edits on talk pages in order to reach consensus, evaluate that they're weakly sourced, and do other things related to collaborative editing. Contentiousness content has to do with the nature of the content irrespective of its status on Wikipedia. Content that is otherwise uncontentious does not become contentious simply because someone wants to remove it.Wikidemon (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
On a practical note, talk pages are hidden well enough from public view that we can tolerate a little more there than we could in actual articles. Gigs (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I see there is a to and fro over this, as I said, I am involved in multiple talkpage BLP violations that I give up on removing and just tidy and archive as best I can, any policy change that helps me to reduce those violations is appreciated my me and by the living subjects and likely by wikipedia foundation. It is common practice now by violators of policy and POV warriors and Conflict of interest accounts that don't like or have grudges against living people that they realize if they can't stuff it in the article they can do damage and defame and suchlike on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Proposal
Perhaps we can expand the wording a bit to address both sides' concerns. Here's a thought (emphasis added to clarify discussion, not as part of proposal):
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or impertinent to the page in question should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate, with reasonable allowance given for discussion of proposed content changes.
Also, please note that policy sets expectations for how good faith editors should contribute - it's a hopeless and potentially counterproductive task to try to write policy that is so watertight that agenda-driven editors can't game it, because the unduly restrictive provisions themselves become tools of gaming. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes agreed policy is not alone able to do that. So discussion of content from a source that is not wiki reliable can be deleted? Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I very much hope not, since source reliability is itself matter of dispute often, and we cannot be stopped from discussing such stuff. --Cyclopiatalk13:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Reliability is quite simple if you are discussing content from a source and I remove it under BLP discussion of content from a not reliable location then it is your responsibility to take your source and content to the reliable sources noticeboard to get it verified or rejected and come back with the resulting outcome to the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This is good practice for the article space. But deleting reasonable discussion from a talk page, even if it never gets to article space, creates a chilling effect that would make practically impossible to discuss. Everyone could erase its own opponent comments on the basis that "source is not reliable" during a discussion. No way. --Cyclopiatalk13:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Clearly a lot of sources are reliable and your worst case scenario will never ever occur. Any editor abusing this by removing clearly reliable citations and content from such locations would be himself in need of possible reports.Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Let me show a couple of examples of two possible discussions.
Discussion 1:
"Hi, I just found an article on the Random Gazette which states Mr.X went with a prostitute. Can I add it to the article?"
"I doubt the Random Gazette is a RS, its science articles suck"
"Well, it is considered reliable for this kind of information"
"But no, everyone knows the Random Gazette is biased against Mr.X, we can't trust it"
...etc. If the consensus is that isn't reliable, discussion is archived and courtesy blanked, and that's all.
Discussion 2
"Hi, I just found an article on the Random Gazette which states Mr.X went with a prostitute. Can I add it to the article?"
[ Post removed with e.s. "Random Gazette is not a RS"]
[ Undo previous edit: "I beg to disagree, everyone knows Random Gazette is a RS"]
[ Undo previous edit: "Bring it to RS/N"]
...goes to RS/N : "Is the Random Gazette a RS for the claim that Mr.X went with a prostitute"?
[ Post on RS/N removed by very same editor: "BLP violation: negative claim about living person not consensually attributed to a RS"]
...awkard edit war split between talk page and RS/N ensues
There are two points to notice. First, is that the proposal as understood by Off2riorob would make it excruciatingly difficult to discuss in case there is a non-trivial question on the reliability of a source which has genuine points from both editors (e.g. what about biased sources? what about some kind of primary sources?) : there is an asymmetry given that the "oppose" would be entitled to remove comments of the "support" , while the others would commit a TALKO violation. They could take it to edit warring, claiming 3RR exemption etc. and win basically by brute force.
The second is that it really solves little if anything, given that it would become the very same discussion, only fighted on edit summaries instead than in talk page space, with only lot more space for drama. In the end, I see no benefit that can't be had by simply using courtesy blanking or -at worst- noindexed subpages of talk page. --Cyclopiatalk14:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure the proposal is the right final product, but I definitely see it's a step in the right direction--Talk pages are for improving article contents, and expecting BLP references elsewhere to be discussing the construction of articles is unnecessarily restricting. That non-article BLP contents are in harmony with the purpose of the page on which they appear seems appropriate, but that purpose isn't always content editing. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
If the AND construction is used, anything anywhere relating to a living person that isn't expressly involved in developing article content would be BLP deletable. That standard makes sense for talk pages, but not for e.g. Userboxen, as illustrated in my Hawking example above. Jclemens (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally I don't think it could be disputed, presenting a citation on the talkpage and discussing content from it when the citation is not wikipedia reliable is against talkpage guidelines and BLP policy,as a continuation from that, if someone does that, then I should be able to remove the citation and discussion as a BLP violation, no? Worst case scenarios are by their nature very rare. We just use our common sense for most of this, presently in the above situation I may take the citation to the RS myself, if it was a severe case otherwise you just have to accept you can't do anything about it and take solace in the fact that BLP talkpages are automatically NOINDEX and take the first available opportunity to archive the offending comments and or web links. Off2riorob (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
