Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 22

BLP Editnotice
Hmm, when did this happen? :) ViperSnake151 Talk  00:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

One event question
Articles for deletion/George Russell (criminal) argued that being a serial killer is one event. That is to say, multiple murders on different occasions, the media coverage, the trials, subsequent criminological writing about the case, etc. all constitute a single event. Is that a proper application of the policy? Wouldn't this mean that an actor who won major acting awards is not notable because being an actor is one event? Or someone who is President is not notable if their prior notability was also only for political offices, etc.? This would seem to require that only polymaths get articles; serial killers who were also award-winning cake decorators, actors who set records in the Olympics, politicians who were also decorated firefighters. This seems odd to me. Шизомби (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The person who made such an argument should be given a large helping of WP:TROUT. Serial killing is serial that is, multiple murders on different occasions. It's patently impossible for any serial killer to be eligible for BLP1E, but that doesn't stop people from misconstruing what BLP1E is all about. Jclemens (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've done a bit of searching, and the article does a rather poor job of representing Russell's notability and importance. I've userified it to User:Jclemens/George Russell (criminal) where anyone who feels like contributing to the article can feel free to do so. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One Event refers to one Media Event, so it's perfectly possible for a serial killer only to be covered in relation to one event (being caught for having done multiple murders). And as so often, I'd argue that a person known for one thing about whom little bio info is available should be covered in an article on the thing (if it's notable enough; otherwise not at all). It's just more logical to me. Rd232 talk 21:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP1E is so inconsistently applied it's ridiculous: Any editor who AfD'ed Matthew Shepard or Todd Beamer as a BLP1E would get it speedy closed quite fast, and likely pick up a WP:POINT block at the same time. If the subsequent coverage of either deceased gentleman isn't part of the one event, then neither should subsequent information generated about Russell's crimes be "one event".  If you look through Google Books and the like, you find that (false positives notwithstanding) this particular serial killer has plenty of after-the-fact RS coverage of his crime and action.  Now, I'm fine with converting an article on a person with little bio info to an article on the event, but that's often not what happens--it didn't in this case.  Besides, with redirects and whatnot... who really cares where the article lives, since "murders committed by foo" can be redirected to "foo" or vice versa. Jclemens (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Auto Bios
There should be a section talking about some users who make bios on them selves an article and what to do about it--70.253.189.141 (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That is dealt with by "Autobiography". — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 04:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

assume people born before 1900 are dead
The current WP:BLP states that we can assume people born before 1887 are dead. This seems extremely conservative and I think 1900 would be a better number at this point. If somebody is over 109 years old, and still living, then that is a pretty notable fact about them that is probably known (they would be among the oldest living humans). If all we know is that the person was born sometime after 1887 and before 1900, and we do not have any information suggesting that they are still alive, then it is a very reasonable assumption at this point, in 2009, that they are dead. - JRtx (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say so. Sure, 109 is an unlikely age to live to, but it has been proven possible to do so and we must be as conservative as possible with what can potentially be a very controversial fact; certainly, living to that age is going to give someone fame to some extent. We can't source the fact that they're still living, anyway. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) 1900 is a rather arbitrary cut off point. I think the policy is necessarily conservative; in fact, I would rather it were explicity defined as "persons born prior to the oldest living person (currently 6 April 1894)". I assume the 1887 date refers to Kamato Hongo who died in 2003, in which case the current wording of the policy is outdated. PC78 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be a lot simpler to say "anyone born more than X years ago" and I think 120 is an apropriately conservative value for X (until such time as reaching that age becomes non-notable). Roger (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We can just make X=1894 and make a footnote explaining that this is the age of the oldest known living person. Protonk (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why mention an explicit date? Just say "anyone born prior to the oldest living person (regardless of gender) is assumed to be dead."  Editors who need to know will follow the link to check.  That way you aren't bequeathing a perpetual maintenance task to your successors—Wikipedia has enough of those already! Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with either way. Mentioning the explicit date allows the policy to be clear and self contained.  Linking to an article and leaving the date variable allows the policy to be updated gracefully. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is not simple and I got into the debate at longevity claims and longevity narratives partly because of this WP:BLP reference. 1887 refers to the longest-lived person documented to the highest standards, Jeanne Calment, and I've been asking myself whether the date should be shifted forward or backward from "now minus 122". If you look at longevity claims, you're dealing with living people who claim to be in their 120s and 130s. The primary issue for WP:BLP is that an ordinary person who is not known to be dead cannot be presumed to be dead by WP at any given age other than arbitrarily, in that there is no firm cutoff and the odds just change a bit every year. I am discovering there is also no accepted cutoff among supercentenarian trackers, although it is stated and disputed that 130 is an accepted cutoff. 1900, 120, 130, oldest living high-standard-documented (115), and oldest dead high-standard-documented (122) are all arbitrary. I'm trying to get an answer out of the more knowledgeable at the talk on those two articles, but none is forthcoming; you can help. JJB 00:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the set of articles where the subject's status is unknown, the subject's birthdate is between 1887 and 1894 and the article doesn't already effectively meet BLP is vanishingly small. I don't think it is unreasonable that the BLP policy simply state persons are presumed not to be living for the purposes of this policy if their birth date is before 1894 or 1887 or whatever, absent evidence to the contrary.  Should someone show that the person is alive or might be alive, it is trivial to slap the BLP tag on the talk page and leave a note as to why.  Of course we can always just say "now -130 years" and be conservative. Protonk (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy delete, AfD, or prod?
When dealing with an entire article of BLP that is unsourced, it should be deleted, but what kind of deletion is it? Speedy, AfD, or prod? The article in question is Kirstin Jean Lewis, and may not meet WP:NOTABILITY, as it is a single event, but the enire article is unsourced, and he tag on the article says unsourced info should be taken out immediatly. D rew  S  mith     W  hat I've done  10:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can take it to AfD if you like, but my guess is that it will be kept. It is a relatively unassuming article about someone who probably meets WP:ATHLETE.  Obviously the easiest solution is for you to grab some sources and improve the article yourself. Protonk (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

AFDs
FYI, I've re-started a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy regarding a proposal that was made over a year ago. That proposal was that a consensus should be required to keep a BLP. Right now, a consensus is required to delete a BLP.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Contactinfo for dead people
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you shouldnt put contactinfo for dead people on wiki.. they might answer ;-) Quote: "In a similar vein, Wikipedia articles should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted." I think it might be a good idea to change this to: "In a similar vein, Wikipedia biographies should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information, though links to websites by the subject are generally permitted." or, more specific: "Wikipedia biographies should not include addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information, though links to websites created or maintained by the subject are generally permitted." I understand this is a page about "Biographies of living persons" and people tend to care more about their privacy when they are alive (imho) but let's be clear about this. I makes no sense to list an emailadres, telephone number or other contactinformation for a dead person. I might make sense to list adresses where they lived, but there is no WP:BDP (because that is covered in WP:BIO).

Ergo: I think that the phrase: "for living persons" should be deleted, and that the lines should be rewritten to make clear that (street)adresses for people that are alive today are forbidden because of privacy issues, although streetadresses for dead people are not forbidden if mentioned in an encyclopedic context (with relevance to the subject).

A good example for the importance of (street)adresses on the biographies of dead people might be Vincent van Gogh. An example of the privacy issues I come across can be found here.

Kwiki (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a decent idea, I'd go one further to state "Wikipedia articles and biographies..." There's really no need for this kind of information in any article (i.e. not about companies etc either). Perhaps this is better placed elsewhere in the guidelines? Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 14:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless the location itself is notable - Monticello for example. Mishlai (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on "contentious"-ness
"Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Surely all unsourced material about living persons is "questionable"? Therefore, isn't "contentious" contradictory and/or grammatically redundant, and therefore ambiguous? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the main concern is about information that is potentially libellous. That is the sort of information that is regarded as "contentious" and which warrants immediate removal without discussion. If, say, an editor inserts a generally innocuous piece of information such as a date or place of birth without adding a reference, this is undesirable but probably warrants tagging with fact (and eventual removal if no reference is supplied) rather than immediate removal. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 04:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As above, but I also use the reasonable person standard: If an hypothetical reasonable person would likely find the material offensive if inaccurate, it must be sourced or removed. That's a pretty low standard, but it keeps us safe from libel territory.  Plenty of Americans would object to being called Republicans if they were Democrats, and vice versa, for example: source it, or remove it.  This means I pretty much nuke unreferenced porn bios as CSD-G10 on sight, but I've yet to have anyone object to such a deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I read this differently to others I think. I see the section describing 2 types of unsuitable content: unsourced material, and poorly sourced contentious material. Neither type of material has any place in a BLP, although it is reasonable to allow some time for sourcing of innocuous claims. Kevin (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we should not be confused about the purpose of BLP, which is to ensure that potentially libellous information is removed from articles immediately without discussion. Unsourced material which is not contentious is dealt with by "Verifiability", not BLP, and such material does not have to be dealt with in this summary manner. I think this is clear from "Verifiability":


 * — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 08:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP is a special case requiring special caution. Even seemingly innocent and neutral information like the year of birth could be inflammatory if wrong.  The policy's insistence on removal of questionable material "whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable" makes it clear to me that it isn't just about avoiding libelous claims, it's about getting it exactly right.  We shouldn't be adding uncited statements to a BLP article in the first place - this isn't a technical article in which we can summarize our own understanding to make the description flow and then look for sources later - so I don't think a waiting period to allow sourcing is necessary, though common sense still applies.  It's easy enough to restore the offending statements once proper sourcing is provided.  Contentious seems redundant to me as well.  I read it as meaning "statements about which there is room to have doubt".  I think if you had an unsourced statement that George W. Bush is a former U.S. President that this would not be contentious because every editor on EN Wikipedia would already know it to be true.  Something like that still needs to get sourced, but I wouldn't nuke it out of the article pending citation because it's a completely non-contentious statement.  That's how I read it anyway.  Mishlai (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing part of the purpose of this policy. It's not all about legal protection for Wikipedia (i.e. potentially libellous information), it is about our ethical responsibility to protect the living subjects of biographies from harm, broadly construed. I am unclear on how an editor here is to determine whether a particular piece of unsourced material is harmful to the subject or not, or if it is contentious or not (to the subject). It is not our place to even make such a determination. Material should be reliably sourced, or removed. Kevin (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much what I was saying actually. I think the policy would stand without the "contentious" wording.  Mishlai (talk) 17:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, I was responding to Jacklee, but my posts are being reindented for some reason. Kevin (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was trying to distinguish your posts from the existing comments, and didn't realize you were using a particular system. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 05:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding us about the ethical responsibility aspect of this guideline. Well, it sounds like a change to the guideline is being proposed here, for at the moment it is aimed not just at all unsourced or poorly sourced material but only unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons, whether negative, positive, or just questionable. This suggests to me that material that is uncontentious is not intended to fall within the guideline (though it may, of course, run afoul of "Verifiability"). Like most things on Wikipedia, whether information is contentious or not it is a matter of judgment and for editors to discuss and hopefully reach consensus on. If there are differences between editors as to whether a piece of information belongs in an article or not, then this is a good indication that it is contentious. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 10:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that too many claim that if something is "verifiable" than it can not meet the "contentious" reason for deletion from a BLP (heck, I would include all articles in this). If the primary reason for the material is to include a claim about any criminal activity where the subject has not been adjudicated guilty, then I would consider it likely to be "contentious." Where a court has made a final ruling, then it is less so. BLPs, and other articles, should avoid charges of any sort which are patently charges of criminal activity not proven, and where allegations have been made, they should be clearly marked as "allegations"  and properly sourced. Collect (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that interpretation isn't accurate. If someone has been charged with a crime, and that fact is reported in appropriate reliable sources, then that fact is fair game for inclusion: "X has been charged with such-and-such in Y court, a trial date is scheduled for Z, and X is free on bail" is a perfectly fine way to cover it.  It might not be included for other reasons, but BLP or verifiability aren't among them.  The main purpose of BLP is not to prohibit reporting all damaging things, but rather to not start them (we need a "better" source than for a non BLP fact) nor repeat them if unverifiable.  There are plenty of things which hit the news which we may be simply unable to not report and keep NPOV. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Having thought about all of this more, I agree with Kevin above. Unsourced material is unacceptable.  Material that is both "contentious" and poorly sourced is unacceptable.  Contentious, as I understand it, would be material about which there is any disagreement whatsoever, so a single editor who thought that the statement was inappropriate in any sense could, if it were poorly sourced, just remove it without discussion.  Contentious material that is well sourced would be handled normally - discussion, consensus, etc.  I think the wording of the sentence is unclear, and I would suggest changing "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." to something more like:


 * "Unsourced material or material that is both contentious and poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. This standard applies whether the material in question is negative, positive, or neutral.  If even a single editor disagrees with a passage then it is considered contentious, and should be removed immediately if not well-sourced."


 * Even greater clarity might be achieved by breaking the 2 cases into separate sentences. "Unsourced material should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.  Additionally, material that is both..."


 * Thoughts? Mishlai (talk) 09:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And actually per Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material I think it's clear that the existing standard is contentious material that is either unsourced or poorly sourced.  What I suggested might be better anyway.  In what circumstances would we want to keep unsourced material in a BLP, even if not contentious? Even if we elect to keep it as is, I think a reword is appropriate to make the meaning clear.  Similar phrases are used several times throughout the policy and only one of them (the one I linked) is written unambiguously.  I'm going to make that clarification of existing policy pending discussion, feel free to revert if you think that's premature.  Mishlai (talk) 09:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Mishlai. I think the clarification you've made is fine. However, I think the point about whether the reference to "contentious material" should be removed needs further discussion. Yes, unsourced material is undesirable in Wikipedia articles generally. However, the great difference between BLP and WP:V is that material that falls afoul of BLP may be removed immediately without discussion. This is a deviation from the general approach, which is to provide an opportunity for the problem to be fixed and/or for discussion to take place. Therefore, it should not be resorted to unless absolutely necessary. I am not sure it would be a good idea to give editors the licence to summarily remove material that is merely unsourced and not contentious. That sounds like a recipe for creating edit wars. And my feeling is that it is not enough to regard material as contentious simply because one editor disagrees with it. Whether a fact is contentious or not is also a matter for debate and consensus. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I can agree with you about leaving "contentious" in, however I think the idea of contentiousness itself being a matter of debate and consensus is problematic. It would be impossible, if that were the case, to remove contentious, poorly sourced material "immediately and without waiting for discussion."  In my mind at least, a point is contentious if there is (or reasonably could be) disagreement about it.  Even if that definition of contentious isn't the one we want to use, I think the policy as written requires some definition or criteria that can be determined in the judgment of a single editor who sees the material, concludes that it is contentious and un/poorly sourced and takes immediate action.  I'm going to dig through the archives, etc. & see if I can find the discussion that put these words in to begin with.  Mishlai (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What you say is true. Yes, see whether there's anything in the archives that sheds light on the meaning of contentious in the guideline. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree with this change. It has opened up to door for inclusion of unsourced material, which is not in line with the later statements "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully". The statement "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" is referenced to, and needs re-writing if we are to keep the reference to JW's email (text below). Note that he is talking about all information, not just contentious or controversial information. Kevin (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I can NOT emphasize this enough.


 * There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong.  It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.  This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.


 * I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. (This is not a policy statement, just a statement of attitude and frustration.)


 * No real change has been made.  In several places in the policy it was worded ambiguously, and in one place it was worded clearly.  The clear wording has just been copied to all locations.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that unsourced or poorly sourced (but uncontentious) material is acceptable, just that it does not require the "knee-jerk no-discussion 3rr-may-not-apply unilateral and immediate removal" response.  All the normal policies concerning verifiability and sourcing still apply, so what is seen here in BLP is a tightening of the rules not a loosening of them.  I see the "contentious" clause as an attempt to make clear that editors should not go through a BLP and remove every sentence that doesn't have a superscripted number at the end of it or anything similarly thoughtless/reckless.


 * It may be that the intention has always been to invoke the policy for both unsourced material (no matter how innocuous) and for poorly sourced contentious material. I don't have a problem with that if that's consensus; I'm a fan of carefully citing everything anyway, BLP or not.


 * As far as the meaning of contentiousness, there has been a lot of discussion about this in the archives. I got distracted before I was able to finish perusing, but the impression I was getting was this:


 * Whether or not something is contentious is a matter of consensus. It could be contentious in the sense that editors disagree (or might) on its wording/inclusion, or it could contentious in the sense that the material was a matter of off-wiki controversy.  For the purposes of immediately removing contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, an editor who reasonably and in good faith believes that material is contentious should treat it that way in the short term, but once a consensus is later developed the editor has a responsibility to respect it and not fly solo.  The same approach would apply to the judgment call of "poorly sourced". Once arrived at, consensus determines content even if you're prepared to argue ad nauseum that it should be removed because of your personal interpretation of BLP.  You might continue reverting if you're convinced that the other involved editors are inexperienced and just don't understand policy, and that there really is a BLP violation at stake, but you'd better be right and you'd better be asking for more eyes on the article or you're just edit warring and headed for a block.


 * I think the feel of it here should be "take all precautions to make sure that BLPs are accurate and verifiable, and be aggressive in doing so, but do not think that you can edit war with impunity by hiding behind BLP technicalities. Ultimately consensus still applies." Mishlai (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we clarify the matter of recently deceased individuals?
Most previous discussions on WP:BLPN have agreed that this policy doesn't apply to recently deceased individuals. However, the policy as currently written has an extremely vague section about recently deceased individuals. This is made all the more confusing since other parts of the policy make clear that death is absolute. For example, we state "Persons born prior to 1887 can be assumed dead for the purposes of this policy" someone born in 1886 isn't treated as the default assumption that they just recently died. Can we clarify this? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed new global policy: Biographies of living people
There is a proposal for a new global policy regarding biographies of living people. Comments, suggestions, and other input are welcome at m:Talk:Biographies of living people. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to "Privacy of names" section
I am relisting for further discussion the following proposed change to the wording of the "Privacy of names" section. I was under the impression that consensus on the change had been reached following discussions that took place on the talk page between 27 March and 3 May 2009 (see "Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 21"), but Jclemens thought not and reverted my edit. Further comments are welcome. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This idea seems basically OK to me, but I wonder if we couldn't simplify the list of criteria when presumption is stronger to "when such individuals are not in themselves sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article". That seems to me easier to balance in practice against the "adding value" criterion. (Also it says "There is a stronger presumption against... [when]" without clearly saying first that there is a general presumption against.) Rd232 talk 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

IMDB as a source for BLPs?
Curious - Can the Internet Movie Database be used as a source for biographies of living persons? Note the difference of opinion at this edit. It seems to me something as innocuous as a date of birth can be sourced via IMDB, but wanted to get some other opinions.Greedyhalibut (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the first time this has been raised - but I'm not sure there's a solid conclusion. cf WP:RSN archives and Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb. Rd232 talk 15:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - A brief scan through those links tells me the answer is generally no, although not an unanimous no. Such an answer makes a lot of BLPs quite problematic - I don't know how many BLPs of movie folks I have seen which cite only IMDB or use it as a major source.Greedyhalibut (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always been understood that the IMDb is not a reliable source (doubly so for BLPs) because it's a user-generated source, akin to a wiki. Once upon a time, I was so informed. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 16:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not all of it is user-generated: Citing IMDb. Rd232 talk 16:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, but the rub is determining what information comes from where. —   pd_THOR  undefined | 16:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured BLPs
On the off-chance that anyone is interested, I did a brief analysis to come up with some stats and a snapshot listing the featured articles concerning living people. The results are here in my userspace. Carcharoth (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Disentangling race & ethnicity
We've a couple of related nominations, intended to help disentangle the many cross-categorization and category intersections that have arisen recently:
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28
 * eliminating race categories (leaving ethnicity only)
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 28
 * splitting ethnicity from nationality (leaving nationality only)

Should the first be successful, we must amend the Naming conventions (categories) and Biographies of living persons policies and related guidelines to clarify that "race" is not appropriate for categorization.

The second is somewhat dependent on the first. However, the inclusion of ethnic "origin" and "descent" is already against policy without notability, and these should never have been intermixed with the less contentious (more easily verifiable) nationality categories.
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

New criteria for speedy deletion
I have proposed a new speedy deletion criteria related to this policy. Jehochman Talk 17:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy should reflect practice re: deletion
I added the line "Articles about non-public figures are generally deleted at the subject's request," in the section "People who are relatively unknown ("non-public figures")" This was removed twice, both times without the remover saying he thought this change did not reflect current practice. Does anyone actually disagree that we currently generally delete articles about non-public figures at the subject's request? If so, could you cite some examples of us failing to delete articles about non-public figures at their request? Policy is supposed to reflect practice, not guide it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really oppose this as such, but generally, as far as I know, policy should get consensus before being changed. More to the point, is this what actually happens? Could you cite some examples of it happening? Also, would it be better to say something assertive, e.g. "Articles about non-public figures should generally deleted at the subject's request", or is there no consensus for that yet? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal and like the idea of using active voice instead of passive voice. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be comfortable with "should." I have seen this happen to article with incredibly high visibility - the individual who owns Namebase, David Boothroyd, Seth Finkelstein, but I am certain that there are scores of others. I can't think of any counterexamples where there was an agreement the individual was non-public, that they requested the article be deleted but that we should retain it. There are examples where people's non-publicness was disputed, but that is support for this change (Angela Beasley, as the cannonical example, was undeleted "because the subject's notability is not ambiguous." Hipocrite (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The specific wording I'd most support would be:
 * If the living subject of a Wikipedia biography wants their biography deleted, and that person does not have an entry in any reliably published paper encyclopedia including specialty encyclopedias, then we delete their biography upon request.

That would reduce a lot of argumentation by sending people to the library for sources, which is how Wikipedians ought to settle debates. But Hipocrite's edit is a step in the right direction: the living subject of a biography is more affected by its existence than anyone else, and courteous opt-out is the sensible way to balance our WP:COI request that they refrain from editing about themselves. Durova Charge! 18:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A private person should not have to spend their time (or money) to ensure that a highly visible page on Wikipedia about them remains accurate and free of slander. Jehochman Talk 18:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While I don't disagree with Durova I question if that level of specificity is appropriate for policy as opposed to guideline/procedure. Hipocrite (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Articulating it within a guideline would be fine. The central problem is that people argue endlessly about the definition of 'borderline'.  This gives a clear measure people can check, and it's consistent with our general spirit of deferring to reliable sources.  Durova Charge! 18:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't like this because you are making it too specific. By enumerating the conditions, you open the door for instruction creep: the next time someone wants to delete an article due to the subject's request but doesn't find authorization for it in the policy, they will want to pack the policy with more clauses and stipulations. If you think the policy should reflect current practice that we delete articles when the subject requests it (if that is current practice), just say that. That people argue about what counts as "borderline" is a good thing because it forces them to think critically and consider each deletion individually rather than blindly adhering to bureaucratic rules that do the thinking for them. --causa sui talk 19:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As it happens, I think this problematic. Some article subjects may have encyclopedic significance and they should not be able to have their article deleted simply by requesting. If an article subject requests deletion, then maybe the article should be sent to AfD to have the encyclopedic importance of covering the subject scrutinized and weighed against the subject's request, but it shouldn't be a knee-jerk reaction. --causa sui talk 20:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's where the "generally" and "non-notable" comes in. We do generally delete non-notable bios of people when they ask. Sometimes we discuss if they are actually non-notable. Sometimes we discuss if this is a special case. What we don't do is say "You're not-notable and you asked for us to delete your biography. No." Hipocrite (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Right; we definitely shouldn't just ignore these requests. That's why I suggested sending it to AFD. What I don't want the policy imply is that people should ever speedy delete the article of someone who asked if the article otherwise met the guidelines for inclusion. If the article doesn't meet the guidelines for inclusion then it should probably be deleted regardless of whether they asked, so there's no reason to put this in the policy unless its meant to suggest that some articles that met the inclusion guidelines should be deleted if the subject asks. If that's what it means, that the request can occasionally overcome the guidelines in "borderline" cases, then their asking shouldn't cause us to delete the article by reflex without thinking (and talking) about it first. --causa sui talk 20:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see, nor am I making, the implication that we should speedy every article where someone asks for it to be deleted. I am suggesting that in borderline cases we place substantial weight on the subjects request, and that is current practice, not a change to current practice. I don't see any suggestion here that we change current practice to provide for the speedy deletion of questionably notable people if they ask for it. Hipocrite (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All right, how's this: I'm saying that no article should be speedy deleted due to a subject request unless the administrator would have speedy deleted it anyway. If the subject request is a compelling reason to consider deletion, the article should be sent to AFD with the comment that the subject requested deletion. --causa sui talk 21:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you agree that "Articles about non-public figures are generally deleted at the subject's request?" How about "Articles about non-public figures should generally be deleted at the subject's request?" Hipocrite (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what the common practice here is. If it is the common practice, then you should read my comments to be an objection to speedy deleting them. I'm very wary about putting something in the policy that could be read to endorse that. As such, if I had to pick between the to I would go with the former, since I always think policy should be written to reflect what is done rather than prescribe what should be done. But I'd rather have neither. --causa sui talk 21:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed very strongly. It may make sense to take such articles to AfD. Speedy deletion based on subject requests is a really bad idea given how unclear community views are on these issues and given that it isn't even always clear whether the individual is a public figure or not from a simple glance through without a discussion. Speedy deletions should be for uncontroversial deletions. BLP courtesy deletions are by nature controversial. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The dilemma has been that we've gotten two kinds of bad results: some people look through the minimum notability requirement and disregard the subject's request entirely, and others debate endlessly about 'borderline' or 'questionable'. I've been nominating biography articles for deletion for two years now per the proposed wording (which I call the dead trees standard) and it's solved some long term problems such as the Seth Finkelstein and Daniel Brandt biography disputes. Durova Charge! 21:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's certainly the case that some editors will just about automatically favor deletion of a bio if the subject requests and there's any reasonable question about notability. It's also the case, however, that many other editors think that the subject's wishes are totally or almost totally irrelevant.  Those of us in the latter camp, like the others, are applying our judgment.  I, for one, believe that it's the Finkelstein and Brandt fiascos that were "bad results".  In both those cases, the "consensus" to delete was, to say the least, far from unanimous.  This isn't a dispute that needs to be or readily can be settled by a generalized policy pronouncement. JamesMLane t c 21:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you really think that an abstract notion about the result was more important than the time and energies those disputes consumed? There's a lot of higher priority encyclopedic articles that could use improvement; it's a question of sensible resource allocation.  Durova Charge! 00:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the point. Given that the issue was debated for so long in the past, we don't want to make blanket pronouncements about these kinds of articles in the future. Some of them will be easy and others will be controversial, and in each case we want to at minimum get AFD's eyes on it before we delete it. --causa sui talk 00:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ryan Delaney that we should not be fast-tracking contentious deletions. As for Durova's question, I agree that the Finkelstein and, especially, Brandt controversies wasted huge amounts of editorial resources.  That occurred because those favoring deletion brought, what was it, more than a dozen separate AfD's until they finally got the Brandt article deleted?  If you're concerned about "sensible resource allocation", work on restricting multiple AfD's.  As it stands, the side favoring deletion can just keep pounding away with one nomination after another until they get a closing admin who agrees with them.  The only indisputable fact is that people on both sides of the disagreement thought that it was worth investing time and energy in pursuit of their desired result. JamesMLane t c 05:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been argued endlessly. There is no consensus. And, by the way, the core of NOR, NPOV, V, and BLP are prescriptive - as in if actual practice differs then it is the practice that must change, not the core of the policy. Implementation details (how we get to the desired end result) is another matter. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Public BLP watchlist
There is now a bot running to compile a list of articles reported to the BLP noticeboard to make a problem-BLP watchlist. The list is at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Watchlist and the watchlist is here. Mr.Z-man 19:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! ⟳ausa کui × 15:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

People who are relatively unknown ("non-public figures")
I have removed the parenthetical, quoted phrase in the section heading, while leaving the body of the section alone. The reason for removal: the phrase public figure is a legal one. Someone who is not legally a public figure is not necessarily someone who is "relatively unknown". I believe a good example would be a well-known sports figure (say, a quarterback of professional American football team) who doesn't do advertising (celebrity promotions), participate in politics, discuss his private life in the news, or in any way do anything public other than play football; he would not then (based solely on that behavior) be a public figure. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories
The wording had gradually diverged from Categorization of people detail guidelines. Therefore, combined nearly identical sections into a Categorization of people/boilerplate fact policy subpage to prevent any drift from this policy language, and to ease editing.
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP policy applies to people doing life in prison too I guess
NPOV policy notwithstanding, should we even be concerned about BLP issues of people in prison for life? Besides, aren't the rights of someone in prison revoked? I was going to tag it with refimproveBLP but scum like Theresa Knorr doesn't even deserve to have BLP policy apply in my opinion. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 22:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it applies. People have been wrongly sentenced before... The policy applies to "living persons", period.Mishlai (talk) 22:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course it does. BLP has nothing to do with "rights" being revoked by a government (those rights vary country to country and state to state and a lot of the "rights" revoked in the US for felons or former felons were done so by southern states to keep the franchise from blacks).  BLP has to do with a recognition of libel law in the US, some decency involved in authoring a widely read resource that the subject has little control over and a safety valve which allows us to maintain a wiki editing system where accuracy and diligence remain paramount.  None of those things change if a subject is in prison. Protonk (talk) 23:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mishlai and Protonk and wish to thank them both for their prompt and clear defense of persons! As a member of Amnesty International I've read about many, many prisoners who ought to have their freedom and all human rights. - Hordaland (talk) 01:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Presence in prison is not a reason to remove BLP. Even aside from the reasoning given by Protonk and Hordaland, many people who are in prison are not in prison for severe crimes. Deciding which crimes are so severe as to not merit it would be an inherently emotional and subjective decision. If one thinks that BLP is about basic human dignity then it is hard to see how there is any point where that dignity should be removed. Furthermore, many of the people who commit the most heinous of crimes are mentally ill anyways and thus shouldn't be objects of contempt. Also if one does care about BLP as a libel concern then one would have the additional issue that libel laws in most jurisdictions (including the US) apply just as much to convicted criminals as everyone else. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Subjective opinions like "scum" aren't even encyclopedic, anyway. Things like this are exactly why we have WP:NOTCENSORED; we shouldn't be applying concepts of "moral decency" or the like to a completely neutral, factual source, as this hinders what the project is supposed to be. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why I stated it was just "my opinion", and I agree with you. I admit I had an emotional reaction after reading that article. I don't know why I felt like I was defending her rights by tagging it. There's more I have to say about this, I just don't have the time at the moment. -- OlEnglish (Talk) 12:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way: you're not defending her, you're defending Wikipedia's article about her. Rd232 talk 16:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, isn't this a WP:BLP1E? Why not merge into the related murder article? Rd232 talk 15:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree 100% with Protonk et al, but will add a small caveat. Once people are convicted, presumption of innocence goes out the window, it is easier to find articles that say some fairly nasty (presumably factual) things about them, and articles may appear to be quite negative.  Circumstances change with conviction, not BLP.  Smallbones (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a journalistic standard, but I have severe reservations about making it our standard. Some people who are convicted are still going through appeals. --causa sui talk 18:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A conviction is a conviction. An appeal overturns a pre-existing conviction, that is overturns a prior conclusion of guilt. We have no need to worry about ongoing appeals any more than we need to worry about that OJ is still trying to find the real killer. If appeals are ongoing they will be reported in the media and can be dealt with in that way. In any event, this isn't that connected to the basic issue here in this thread which is that we don't let people throw garbage at people who have been convicted simply because they have been convicted. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A conviction is a conviction, and if someone has been convicted, we should report that. I've had problems with some articles that seemed to be making the case for the guilt of a convicted murderer and death row inmate, and that's intolerable. --causa sui talk 22:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We report the evidence as reported and we place suitable weight on the individual being convicted. Convictions are findings of fact. That they occasionally turn out to be wrong doesn't make the results of trials any less of reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't, no... but I didn't say that. I'm not really sure what you think we're arguing about. --causa sui talk 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe not. What do you think the issue is precisely? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The particular article in question was written from an obvious pro-guilt POV, as if the article itself was advancing the position that the subject actually did the deed. There is absolutely no reason to do this. I had to change a lot of statements like "Circumstantial evidence pointed to inconsistencies in the defendant's alibi" to neutral statements like "The prosecution in the case argued that the defendant's alibi was inconsistent because of this circumstantial evidence." My argument, which I don't expect you to disagree with (once I've made it clear) is just this: That a jury convicted him isn't a reason for us to convict him, and neutrality doesn't go out the window once someone is on death row. We report bald facts and we don't make judgements about guilt or innocence. This is a neutrality issue, but I think it should be a BLP issue as well, since some of these convicts are still living and we can do harm by writing articles about them as if we are trying to persuade the reader of the correctness of the guilty verdict. --causa sui talk 21:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense although one needs to be careful. Without seeing the example you are thinking of I can't comment in detail. However, something like ""Circumstantial evidence pointed to inconsistencies in the defendant's alibi" would be ok if for example it was stated in a reliable source such as a newspaper. But yes, obviously prosecutors are not by themselves reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Some more on this topic. Who wants to help me defend List of murderers by number of victims from being vandalised? -- &oelig; &trade; 12:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Contentious
I noticed a phrase in the WP:COI article that I think would be very appropriate to add to the end of the first paragraph in the Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material section, with one slight wording change:

Does anybody see any problems with that? --Rob (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that seems fine to me. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll give it 48 hours, give or take, and if nobody's objected by then, I'll put it in. --Rob (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As there have been no objections to this addition, I'm adding it to the main article now. --Rob (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Signatures
This is just a point for discussion. I'm not sure whether this is the place to be asking this - if not, I apologise. And it's something that I've no doubt has been covered before, so sorry as well if I'm going over old ground.

The article on BLPs mentions dates of birth as personal information, and on similar lines I wondered if anyone had any thoughts on the inclusion of scans of the written signature of the subject in biography articles. I've noticed this on the articles for several politicians and national leaders (for example Dmitry Medvedev and Gordon Brown). Is there a particular reason why we include signature scans? Most 'ordinary' people will use their signatures on financial and legal documents and therefore, if they're anything like me, tend to consider them 'personal information'; and while I know it's the purpose of a biographical article to publish personal information, something about this (and I don't mind admitting it's purely an instinctive reaction on my part) feels a little excessive, somehow.

Of course it's difficult to argue that a national leader's signature is similarly 'private', since I've no doubt there are a great many public and state documents that bear them. I'm certainly not marching in here demanding they be removed. I'm just wondering if there's a particular reason to include them beyond just the fact that we can. - Mithvetr (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the 60s, most political signatures are autopen -- "real" signatures are rarely seen (JFK is notorious for an impossible-to-vet real autograph). For celebrities also "real" legal signatures are rarely found as an autograph.  No bank will take the autograph as a legal signature, I trust.  Collect (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. I'm still not sure precisely what benefit there is in inclusion, other than to check an autograph; but I accept that as shown on Wikipedia they aren't intrusive.  Thanks.  - Mithvetr (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP problem
In case anyone watching here is interested. ^ --MZMcBride (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Section on Basic human dignity
Sorry to see that section has been removed. That seemed like a core principle to me. Dloh cierekim  02:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I heartily agree and think it was improperly removed by a single editor without much discussion - mostly opposing the removal. Smallbones (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this actually an encyclopedia?
After reading a few debates on multiple article, I can help but wonder if this is realy an encyclopedia in regards to BLP's.

Every other encyclopedia makes no mention of a celeb's personal life, lawsuits, litigation, scandals, rumors or anything else that is not part of what he is famous for ie: his career. Why? why does wikipedia chose to not only include these topics but allow so much weight to be put on them? I see it on every BLP of a celeb that i look at. But when i look up that same celeb in ANY other encyclopedia..... no mention of anything other than what he/she is famous for.

I propose that the wiki:BLP should be revised to include a policy that article on celebs are restricted to career events and we leave the news and current events to their respective wiki's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emely1219 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * User is a SPA (and either a meat or sockpuppet) who is unhappy at their progress at white-washing an article - having failed on the article, I guess a round of forum-shopping is in order. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with Cameron Scott. He spotted it before me, well done. :) ► RATEL ◄ 05:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Be that as it may, I think is plain wrong to say that a celebrity's personal life, and involvement in litigation and scandals, should never be mentioned in an encyclopedia article. There are certainly cases where a celebrity's personal life or involvement in litigation or scandals are part of what make the person notable. Provided such information is properly referenced, there is no good reason to omit such information from the article. On the other hand, there is no place for rumour (even if repeated in reputable sources) in Wikipedia articles. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 13:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, the addition of all that extra information only shows how much more comprehensive Wikipedia is over other encyclopedias. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * a sockpuppet? Cameron Scott? didn't we already clear that up in an investigation? Please stop making accusations against me that are so far from true it's ridiculous!!!! The only reason I brought up a lil' history on myself is so that people would understand that I am new and not 100% familiar with all the policies.

I was not right to ask that all personal information be excluded but I do have to say that there needs to be some way of deciding when enough is enough!! If there are more facts in an article that are negative parts of a Person's private life than there are about what the person is famous for that that seems to contradict the definition of an encyclopedia. I would just like to have an explanation of why there are no policies to address when an article is digressing away from the topic of what a person is notable for. If there is nothing in the policy, why not add it? It seems to be argued on every single BLP at one point or another! Allowing editors to add anything they want as long as it is sourced without providing any policy for editors that are trying to keep it balanced to quote seems unbalanced. We can all read it and see that its too much but we have no policy to back us.

The conflict that collect reffered to is about a case where a rumor was reported in a tabloid. The person sued and that lawsuit was reported about in RS. They reported what the rumor was and that it was proven false in court. Some editors are trying to post a section all about that lawsuit citing the RS that only explained what the lawsuit was about. This editor is not only listing that the lawsuit existed, but repeating all of the defamatory rumors(proven false) that started the lawsuit to begin with. (an RFC has been opened so I will not say what page i am referring to) I am only using this as an example to say... what policy is there to dictate what is right and fair? I feel that this topic should be addressed in the BLP policy. I am not attempting to write it... just suggesting that it be discussed and added.Emely1219 (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If I understand you, you are expressing the view that it is not acceptable for a biography of a living person to contain a potentially libellous rumour about the person in the context of a description of a lawsuit, even if the article explains that the person won the lawsuit. The guideline currently states in the section "Biographies of living persons":
 * Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims. See Libel. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link ... . Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.
 * It appears the guideline is more concerned with whether the information is from a reliable source or not. This part of the guideline does not really say anything about whether potentially libellous information that is from a reliable source should be removed from an article. On the other hand, the lead section of the guideline says this:
 * Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
 * Therefore, I would suggest the following approach:
 * Consider if the potentially libellous information from a reliable source (bearing in mind the need to avoid "feedback loops": see "Biographies of living persons"). If not, remove it.
 * Consider if the information relevant to an encyclopedia article about the person – does it contribute to the person's notability? If not, remove it.
 * If the above considerations lead to the answer "yes", present the information conservatively and, as far as possible, without repeating the libel itself.
 * Comments? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 06:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is all about a RfC at David Copperfield that started out as a simple question and has turned into another train wreck revolving around the above baiting and rock throwing. The sockpuppet stuff is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Karelin7/Archive Flowanda | Talk 06:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I note from that page that there was insufficient evidence of sockpuppetry against Emely1219, so I think discussion should focus on the point that Emely1219 has raised. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some quotes:


 * WP:HARM states,

According to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy:


 * -- Rico  05:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to "Privacy of names" section, redux
The following proposed change to the wording of the "Privacy of names" section still hasn't received a full discussion after being auto-archived, so I am relisting it again. Please do comment on it. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This idea seems basically OK to me, but I wonder if we couldn't simplify the list of criteria when presumption is stronger to "when such individuals are not in themselves sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article". That seems to me easier to balance in practice against the "adding value" criterion. (Also it says "There is a stronger presumption against... [when]" without clearly saying first that there is a general presumption against.) Rd232 talk 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have two comments:
 * I am not sure if the test for whether a relatively non-notable person should be named in an article should depend on whether that person is notable enough for an article on him or her. That seems to be too high a standard. It may be appropriate to mention a person in an article even if it is not appropriate to create a whole article about that person.
 * I agree that the guideline shouldn't refer to a "stronger presumption" without first talking about a general presumption.
 * — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, "they are not relatively notable in their own right" is basically another way of saying "they are not notable enough for an article", no? But the latter concept is something WP is much more familiar with. We're basically proposing a trade-off which balances the value of mentioning the names versus privacy, with a presumption in favour of privacy if the person named is not notable enough for their own article - a presumption which can be overturned if the value is high enough. The value needn't be sky-high, but it needs to be there. Basically, the default should be a sort of "notability is not inherited" - don't mention names unless there's a particular reason, for example if the relationship with the person is described in some non-trivial way, rather than the fact of it just being mentioned. I mean, that's basically what your proposal is anyway, I'm just suggesting a clarification, I think. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can I assume that there are no objections to the proposed change to the guideline (taking Rd232's comment into account) if no other editors comment on it by the time this section gets automatically archived? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

People who may be dead
Where do we draw the line at whether a biography falls under the purview of BLP? Does it apply to anyone born since 1887 who we don't know is dead? How about, say, Amelia Earhart or Richey James Edwards, who were both declared dead in absentia? It's a hypothetical question that I would like to see answered (of course, I'm of the school of thought that believes that the ethical standards of BLP should apply to the dead too). Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My view is that if a court of law has declared a person dead, there is no good reason for Wikipedia to go on assuming they may be alive. As things now stand, BLP does not apply to deceased persons. Do a search of the talk page archives if you want to read the previous discussions on the subject. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In more general answer to Sceptre's question, I believe we assume people are alive unless it is either unreasonable to do so (especially for people known to be born a long time ago) or we have a reliable source that says they're not. For example in the case of a stub bio without a birth-year and any info suggesting a person is dead, we assume they're alive. Perhaps, though, Sceptre is more interested in the specific case of people declared dead where there's some doubt about whether the declaration is right? For BLP purposes I'd say that if there's a reasonable doubt, we should apply BLP standards (which after all are basically general WP standards, applied more rigorously and cautiously). Disembrangler (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that BLP should only apply to persons declared dead by a court of law if (and only if) there is some reasonable doubt as to the declaration backed up by a reliable secondary source. There is no warrant for editors to go around doubting court decisions without any basis, or on the basis of original research. That would be tantamount to giving a licence to every editor who subjectively believes that Elvis is alive to apply the BLP guideline to his article. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 19:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was implied that "reasonable doubt" in such a case would require a reasonably reliably source. Disembrangler (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, so long as we're all clear that some reliable source is required to overturn a legal finding of death. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 04:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say, when in doubt, treat it as a BLP. As Disembrangler said, BLP is just a stricter standard of normal content policies, there's no loss by being overly cautious. Mr.Z-man 20:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is that there is no reason for doubt if a court has declared someone to be dead, unless there is some reliable secondary source pointing to the existence of doubt. It shouldn't be a case of a particular editor saying, "Well, I don't agree with the court's decision," without any sufficient basis for that view. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 20:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection of an article for BLP's rumored to be dead or in grave situations
When the news was starting to spread that he was in the hospital, Michael Jackson was fully protected with the rationale "Jackson reportedly taken to hospital with heart attack - make sure that the page doesn't get swamped". Especially with high profile individuals in the midst of controversy or in such a situation, should we require that a BLP be protected until there are reliable claims available about the situation? ViperSnake151 Talk  00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Require" is probably the wrong word. "Allow to protect preemptively" is probably a better formulation. In the case of deaths, it's better if we're later to report the event rather than early.   Will Beback    talk    00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur absolutely. Not everyone is as sanguine as Samuel Clemens when their death is prematurely reported. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)c
 * I admit to an assumption of a stereotype, the propensity of persons of a certain age to vandalize, but I think that such articles should be protected to two levels above the highest degree now possible.
 * Wikipedia purports to be an encyclopedia. It should not be a source or target for unconfirmed or scantily referenced information.
 * When an incident such as the deaths of Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett or the alleged infidelity of Mark Sanford the relevant articles should be protected and the current template should be edited to inform users that information about the incident is not yet verifiable and is not yet to the point that it is valid as a subject for analysis.
 * The talk pages should be left open for editing. Give the vandals and the trolls an outlet.
 * JimCubb (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I disagree. Wikipedia is not an outlet for vandals and trolls. We don't cater to them. Period. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with Will Beback. Actually, I'd go with "have it become an expectation that" such articles would be fully protected and handled appropriately by interested admins. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary or desirable to word it that strongly. The vast majority of dead people with articles pass on with virtually no comment or controversy.  It's only when someone famous (as opposed to merely notable) dies that we have a problem with incessant editing.  Powers T 12:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever we do, we should use the terms "high profile" and "major impact" within this. I think it should be placed within the protection policy as an additional criteria for full protection:

An article that is the subject of a high-profile occurrence (such as a major scandal, incident, event, or the rumored death of its subject) can be temporarily full-protected in the occurrence's early stages in order to protect it from potential vandalism and the introduction of unverifiable or unreliable or unsourced citations, especially in cases when the article will potentially be viewed by a large number of users, or the article is a biography of a (presumed) living person ("presumed", used as the incident may be rumors of the subject's death). The encyclopedic impact of the event on its subject and how high-profile the subject is should be factored in when deciding if an article should be full-protected under this doctrine. Articles protected under this doctrine should be clearly marked with a template indicating the situation.

Once a sufficient amount of reliable information has been obtained, the protection of the article may be reduced to semi-protection.
 * Feel free to tweak. This would also be accompanied by a special Current template:


 * Nice? ViperSnake151  Talk  13:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. I just want to note for the record that while I fully support the ability for anyone to edit an article, this revised guidance would simply head off the inevitable "he's dead"/"not confirmed; take it to talk"/"I heard he died"/"Not yet; see talk" back-and-forth as everyone and his brother comes to Wikipedia to see if they can be the one to flip the proverbial switch on the article.  Allowing anyone to edit is one thing; going through this whole rigmarole every time a famous person dies is another thing entirely.  Powers T 13:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, completely appropriate template. Good work. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Can we put back the material that was removed?
What do you guys think of this? There are some downsides to keeping policy text on a separate page and transcluding it in. - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:VPP. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Material now reinstated (possibly with a change, which I'll go stick in the Update). Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (Dank beat me here) The minor changes are the result of merging the two slightly divergent texts (that once were identical). Numbered instead of bullets. Wiki-links to policy. Caution paragraph at the bottom, with example (from WP:COP).
 * Sadly transclusion of subpages is not frequently used, despite the support for in the software. Therefore, to avoid textual drift, put all our eggs in one basket, and watch that basket here!
 * Thanks. I didn't put the addition of the links into WP:Update, since they're the pages people would expect given the terms.  I'll be happy to add more detail to the Update on this if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd add that the example was merged from Categorization of people. I'm often looking back through histories for precedent, and knowing where to look is useful to me, so it might be useful to somebody else.


 * I've never included information at WP:Update other than how the page has changed, that I can remember. I'd prefer not to start, that would open the door to a whole new set of things to argue about (the relative importance of the commentary).  I see the point that someone might revert thinking the language is "brand new" when in fact it's been around for a while, on another page, but if that happens, we can always point them to this thread so they'll know.  Glad to have another informed experienced editor chipping in. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"The late X" or "X (deceased)"
Sorry if I can't find anywhere this has been discussed previously, but I think in general the above forms should be avoided as in most cases it will be apparent whether X is alive or not. Is there any support for adding these to this guideline as deprecated usages? Rodhull andemu  18:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether a specific guideline is required for this (WP:CREEP). Is it a big problem? Can't you just edit the affected articles and remove the unnecessary words? Also, WP:BLP really deals with living persons, so I'm not sure this is the right place for such a guideline. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 04:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

titilate
In, out, in, out, shake it all about. To titilate or not to titilate. In the context it is very fitting, there are press reports that are designed to titilate and these reports are citable but not worthy of insertion in an encyclopedia. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes. There is no reason for us to have a problem with being the world's number one site for finding out the date of some famous person's death; but we should not be where people turn to find out what random sex rumors have circulated about somebody. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As was said in the edit summaries, "titilate" in this context serves grammatically to limit the sorts of original claims forbidden. Removing the word clarifies that ANY original claims, titilating or not, are not proper for Wikipedia inclusion.  I believe that to be correct, but wouldn't mind if "titilating" or similar wording was kept in as an example. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. WP:NOR clearly indicates that "original claims" are against the rules. This sentence about "titillating" claims refers to sourced claims, not original claims. Apparently you are the first person to not get that. If I am wrong about that and it is unclear to many people, it should be made more clear. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Assistance with policy interpretation, please
Hello. I have been told by numerous admins/editors previously, that WP:BLP applies to keeping the privacy of accident victims and their families by suggesting that the victim names not be included in an article that talks about the incident. Current edit warring and talk page discussion is going on over at Incidents at Disney parks, with some editors being passionate about including the victim's name in the text, and other editors (disclaimer, including myself) continuing to maintain page status quo of not including names. This is similar to what occured with the teenager at lost her foot on a ride at Kentucky Kingdom two years ago. Can those more familiar with the BLP policy assist? SpikeJones (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The discussion at the article, including my rationale, is here. It has been my experience that once a deceased victim's name has been mentioned in major sources, such as the Associated Press in this case, then it's ok to mention it in the article.  If the victim is injured but still living, that's another matter and BLP applies, but if the victim is deceased, then it's ok to mention the name.  Any other details about the dead victim, such as if they were at fault or not in the accident, however, should wait until a formal investigative report is released in order to comply with BLP as it concerns recently deceased individuals.  If no one here is sure on the policy interpretation, I'll be openining an RfC on it. Cla68 (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, the relevant part of WP:BLP is "Privacy of names": "Caution should be applied when naming individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed (such as in certain court cases or occupations), it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When evaluating the inclusion or removal of names, their publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." This is a tricky case because the individuals in question are named primarily in terms of single events (accidents at Disney parks), but since the article is specifically about accidents, not mentioning their names may arguably result in a significant loss of context. On balance, I think that the victims' names are not essential to the article. Thus, erring on the side of caution, the article could just refer to, for instance, "a 40-year-old American woman from Houston, Texas". I don't think very much would be added by naming the victim. Note also that some editors feel that minors should be given more protection from being named (although this is not yet policy: see the discussion above at "Proposed changes to "Privacy of names" section" and comment on it if you wish to). — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 04:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I right in understanding your opinion that it isn't against the policy to include the name, but is arguably unnecessary for the particular article in question? Cla68 (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My reading of the guideline as it currently stands is that the names of victims should not be stated unless there is a consensus among editors active at "Incidents at Disney parks" that the omission of the names would "result in a significant loss of context". As I mentioned, I think this is a borderline case but would prefer to err on the side of caution by not mentioning the names. I don't think it makes much difference to the article to say "A 40-year-old American woman from Houston fell off a rollercoaster" rather than "Jane Doe fell off a rollercoaster" since nobody would have heard of Jane Doe if not for her accident. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 05:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

(above posts by Jacklee copied, with permission, to Talk:Incidents at Disney parks where primary RFC conversation is occuring. Including Cla68's comment in the text copy, and further responses will be placed there.) SpikeJones (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories that are unsourced or irrelevant
Templates for deletion/Log/2009 July 6
 * Template:Category unsourced – has no verifiable, reliable sources.
 * Template:Category relevant? – both unsourced and irrelevant (unsupported by even a passing mention in the text)

I've nominated them for deletion, as they present an attractive nuisance. Editors may think it's a good idea to leave an unsourced or irrelevant category on an article, simply because these templates exist. Something like fact for categories, except these present a large block of text.

In both cases, the category should be removed entirely – especially in the latter case. These have been used on biographical articles. In one case, the unsourced WP:GRS category has been left on the WP:BLP article for nearly two years! When I've removed the category, was reverted with the edit summary (revert: the fact that a maintenance item has been outstanding for a long time is not a reason to remove it.)

Please join the discussion. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to have the discussion here, since I think this page is watched by many more editors than the TfD discussions. By arguing that any unsourced category be immediately deleted from BLP articles, you are holding categories to a much higher standard than any other information in a BLP article (this policy requires only contentious unsourced information be deleted).  This standard would lead to removal of Category:Living people and many other non-contentious categories from many thousands of articles where there are not (yet) sources for those categories.  I think a better alternative, one much more consistent with building a better encyclopedia, is to alert editors and give them an opportunity to identify sources for the non-contentions categories, just like the fact tag does in the article text.  I do agree that the appearance of the Category unsourced text block could be improved, but I am confident that editors more skilled than I can make that improvement.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would violate the intent of centralized discussion. And of course, you were the editor that restored the unsourced WP:GRS category left on the WP:BLP article for nearly two years! Hardly an uninvolved editor.... Let's have the discussion about the template in the proper place. After that discussion has concluded, see whether there's consensus to consider alternatives.

Deceased persons
"Biographies of living persons" currently reads as follows:

This seems to be causing a bit of confusion to some editors: see "Talk:Incidents at Disney parks" The problem seems to arise from the fact that the guideline states that "material must still comply with all Wikipedia policies", which could be taken to mean that WP:BLP continues to apply to deceased persons. There was previous consensus that this was not the case: see "Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 21". I would suggest the following rewording to avoid doubt (I have underlined the modified text):

Thoughts? — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sound good to me. Davewild (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Counting myself as one of the confused parties Jacklee is referring to, the change does make it more clear that BLP is strictly for living folks. But what is still unclear -- at least, to me -- is whether BLP is one policy that is to be thrown out the window once someone dies. Using BLP1E for example (as it is a subset of BLP), does this mean that once a person who would not qualify to be named in WP under normal circumstances would suddenly be eligible for inclusion just because they died? This was a part of the aforementioned discussion (sidenote: the consensus in that discussion appears to be that the people specifics were not relevant to the article in question anyway, which is not a BLP item, but merely a content decision).  Maybe I'm just being dense (hey, it's possible), so I figured I'd ask. SpikeJones (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the notability guideline - Notability (people) - has a section on people notable for only one event which makes no distinction between whether a person is living or dead. So for dead people who would come under BLP1E that notability guideline seems to be to be the relevant guideline for whether they should have an article or not. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Davewild that for deceased persons the relevant guideline is "Notability (people)" and not BLP. If editors wish to create a separate "Biographies of deceased persons" guideline I have no objection. But it would be confusing to have guidelines relating to deceased persons in BLP. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 18:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Works for me. Thx. SpikeJones (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tweak – more active voice and positive tone, instead of negative "nonetheless" and "not just" – remove needless repetition of "Wikipedia".


 * ✅. Looks good. I've updated the guideline. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 16:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Mangling of archive
Please don't delete and/or move parts of the Talk archives, as with Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 21 into Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive:Privacy of names. Pages and edit summaries have links to them. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought it would be better to group discussions relating to the particular topic in question together since it has been discussed on more than one occasion. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 10:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Many things are discussed repeatedly. New discussions should have links to the old discussions. To make that work properly, the old discussions cannot move!


 * OK, then. Feel free to revert. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 11:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Already done. Note the archives have an Index box and Search box, and your move defeats them, so I've reverted the removal from the numbered archive. I've left the split archive, as you've referenced it in an edit summary, with a notice that it's a duplicate. Someday will be even better with Liquid Threads.


 * OK. Liquid Threads? Very space-agey... — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 11:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A bold proposal
In an attempt to turn a divisive RfC into something productive I have created a new page. I believe people who watch this page have valuable perspectives and I hope you will look at this new page, and do what you can to help make it work: Areas for Reform Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

interpretation clarification
With regards to a BLP, if a reliable source describes the subject as a "native" and a "local" of a given town, is that sufficient to interpret that the subject is also of the nationality of the town? I.e. if I were described by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as a "native" and "local" to Seattle, does it follow (for the purposes of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on sourcing & BLP) that I am therefore an American? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 19:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This question is more appropriately asked at "Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies)". — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 19:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-identification for Papal and other religious categories
Does the rule here mean that unless we can find a quote where the Pope says "I am Catholic," we cannot categorize him as Catholic, even if we have reliable sources reporting that he is Catholic? Thanks.--Ethelh (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. How reliable is the source that does not reference the self-identification of the Pope? Are you having problems finding reliable sources where the Pope claims that he is Roman Catholic? Or just Catholic? Or was this a strawman argument?


 * Partly hypothetical, though I have done some work on Pope Benedict XVI's bio over the past year, and have not come across such a reference. The guideline strikes me as a little odd, as it seems to have started with sensitivity that people had to someone being referred to as gay when they were not, and that bled over to religion, but it was decided that it should not bleed over to ethnicity, nationality, etc.  We have Bertrand Russell declaring that he is not a Christian, and writing a book to that effect, but there appears to be a paucity of references  -- even by popes and cardinals and bishops -- to what their religion happens to be.  But it seems counter-intuitive to me that, absent someone else finding a citation to the pope saying he is Roman Catholic or Christian (if there is a citation, it has yet to be added to his article), the pope being deleted from the categories German theologians, German Roman Catholics, Roman Catholic Archbishops of Munich and Freising, Roman Catholic theologians, Christian writers, and Christian philosophers.  I do know with certainty that Brenda Pettenuzzo is a Roman Catholic however ... see  ... but unfortunately no one has yet deemed her notable enough as of yet to write a Wikipedia article about her.--Ethelh (talk) 10:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a strawman argument. There seem to be ample references to the current Pope accepting the papacy, including a cited quote containing the words "... the Cardinals have elected me...." Moreover, there are cited quotes about his becoming a priest, such as "... at the moment the elderly Archbishop laid his hands on me...." The categories "German popes | German cardinals | German theologians | German Roman Catholics" all seem to be present, although the latter parent category is redundant.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As to the claim that other Popes have a "paucity of references" (they all seem to be dead), the current Religion guideline is:
 * If any such references are missing, they should be promptly included.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Further evidence this was a strawman, Ethelh has been recently reported at WP:BLPN and WP:ANI.
 * In fact Category:Popes is a subcat of Category:Roman Catholic bishops, itself a (sub)subcat of Category:Roman Catholics, so the implication that a Pope is a Roman Catholic is built into the category structure. (It is not a strawman, but an indication of the ludicrous consequences of the insistence by some that even the least controversial category be justified by a consensus of reliable sources. And the ANI case against Ethelh seems extraordinarly slight. The 'outing' concerns are actually sock concerns, which appear to be justified. One doesn't have to look far to find that the behaviour of WAS is also under scrutiny at ANI.) Occuli (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting that you would say her "sock" concerns "appear to be justified." Please explain yourself, and be specific. I came across the Fuld article at WP:BLP/N, and helped out. It's as simple as that. And Ethel's post here is a classic strawman, as she was setting up a ludicrous example to try to justify inserting "Fuld, who is Jewish" into the article with not one shred of self-identification from him supporting that assertion. The "case" against Ethel is not "extraordinarily slight", as I've presented it. She asked me if I was Betty Logan, which is a clear violation of WP:OUTING, and she bald-reverted BLP violations into Sam Fuld. How is that "extraordinarily slight"? Unitanode  15:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I've been editing the article of Pope Benedict XVI for some months now (since May -- well before the Fuld issue mentioned above arose; and the dispute at Fuld is not about the category tags, in any event). Feel free to go to the Pope Benedict XVI article revision history, to double check me on that. So hopefully you won't scold me for raising the question, now that I am seeking to better understand how the cat tag guideline affects the article I've been editing for some time now.

I was asking whether if we don't have a statement by the Pope (or living cardinals and bishops) that they are Roman Catholic means, under our guidance, that we cannot category tag him as such. I had understood that we needed a direct statement from people to apply the cat tag, and that for me to say "but for heaven's sake, he accepted the papacy" would lead to an accusation that I have engaged in WP:SYNor WP:OR. And that, as far as cat tags are concerned, if I say "well, he is considered as such by the Church, or the New York Times", that would be a reliable source but would not satisfy the rule for cat tags.

I accept the point above and understand that this is only an issue for living persons (e.g., the one living pope, and the living cardinals and bishops). But from what research I've done, there appears to be a paucity of references even as to living cardinals and bishops and the Pope as to statements by them to the effect of "I am a Roman Catholic." I know that in the normal world we wouldn't question it, but I am living in the Wikipedia world.

If in fact there are such references, they are certainly not reflected in the Wikipedia bios that I have looked at (feel free to take a look yourself).

I also note, if I understand the guideline correctly, that I can category tag Magic Johnson as being HIV-positive with just a NYTimes reference, but I can't tag him as being a Protestant until I have something more, along the lines of him saying he is Protestant. And I can tag someone under "Palestinean Terrorism" with just a Wall Street Journal reference, but that would be insufficient support for me to tag them as "Christian". Do I have that right?

--Ethelh (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * His being Catholic satisfies the "central to his notability" portion of BLPCAT, but you knew that already, which is why this was just a straw man, as WAS first pointed out. Unitanode  04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, your snarky last addition settles it for me: I'm finished discussing this with you. Unitanode  04:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple of quick point -- First, as I began this thread, I would appreciate it if others do not change the title of it so as to delete my description. If there is room and you want to add, of course please do.


 * Second, while I've indicated above how this relates to an article I've edited for months now, of course I'm interested in the general rule and its application. That is in fact why I brought the issue here.


 * I'm not sure what all this tizzy is about "straw man". The Wiki entry that was inlined to indicates in part "Presenting and refuting a weakened form of an opponent's argument can be a part of a valid argument. For example, one can argue that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements - both being presumably easier to refute than the original position - must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, the refutation is valid and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument."  Heaven's to Betsy -- we don't even know if we have opposing positions here.


 * Anyway, before that phrase, the phrase "Socratic method" was the popular once upon a time to describe "a form of inquiry and debate between individuals with opposing viewpoints based on asking and answering questions to stimulate rational thinking and to illuminate ideas. It is a dialectical method, often involving an oppositional discussion in which the defense of one point of view is pitted against another; one participant may lead another to contradict himself in some way, strengthening the inquirer's own point."


 * Is that verboten on guideline talk pages? If so, I apologize.--Ethelh (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your initial section heading was "Question re Religion" – insufficiently specific.
 * My change to "Self-identification for Papal religious categories" covered the topic of the question.
 * Since then, you've started to expand the query to other religions, although without specificity.
 * This is about categories, not "figures".
 * Therefore, "Self-identification for Papal and other religious categories" is most appropriate.
 * While I went to school with Magic Johnson, and never remember him mentioning his faith, that is not the (only) reason that he shouldn't be listed as "christian" or "protestant" or any other denomination. The article itself has no reference (nor any text whatsoever) that supports that category, nor is he notable for any religious activity.
 * Finally, you are not our instructor, and the Socratic method does not apply.
 * --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

38 Reality TV contestants nominated for deletion today
I hope this doesn't break WP:CANVASS, but as this issue has been the subject of such intense debate over the years then I think its OK. Today I nominated 38 American Idol contestant articles for deletion (I've compiled all of the AFDs together here). Based on the results, I feel we need to reach a consensus on how we measure the notability of Reality TV contestants - something I have previously tried, and failed, at WP:REALITY (which I am going to edit and re-nominate). I'm going to post this at the talk page of WP:BIO too, but I suggest that we keep the discussion here. DJ 20:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Application to organizations/companies??
I could swear in the past these policies applied to controversial, defamatory, poorly sourced material against organizations and companies, whether or not specific individuals were named. Am I wrong? Has the been intentionally changed? Just slipped through the cracks? Need to make it a section to clarify? Dealing with a defacto attack article about a defamatory phrase against organizations and individuals (that just barely escaped AfD) and want to be able to use BLP defense. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If it "escaped" deletion discussion and you are trying to amend the BLP policy to support your cause, then you are wikilawyering. You probably should try dispute resolution to get the article's content improved. ⟳ausa کui  ×  22:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that if a policy point was deleted and people who might have supported it failed to notice (as can happen for a variety of reasons), tough luck? Not a great way to make policy. Anyway, I must have read it somewhere. Maybe WP:Libel or just WP:RS or WP:V. Will look around. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying that combing the history of policy pages for some clause that might overturn a deletion discussion in favor of your position is not what we call stand-up behavior around here. ⟳ausa کui  ×  23:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please re-read my first post. I was just asking if anyone remembered such a thing in this article. As I said last time, evidently what I was looking for was in another article, probably WP:Libel. Maybe someone else has been doing what you describe and you are mad at them? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just finally found what I remembered: FAQ/Organizations which reads: In cases of obvious libel, you may delete the offending material immediately, even in your own article. If there is nothing in an article but libel attacking the person or organization in question, and you have examined the history of the offending page and found nothing but unsourced attacks, ask an administrator to delete the whole article by adding the code {Db-attack} (include the braces) to the top of the page. An administrator will then examine the page in question and delete it if he or she agrees with you that the article is nothing but attacks. If you are unsure whether to do this, you can post a notice at the biography of living persons noticeboard.
 * So the question is, is FAQ/Organizations wrong? And should this mention of organizations be in this article? CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, i added two FAQs in see also that address my concerns: FAQ/Organizations and FAQ/Article subjects. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that BLP does not apply to corporations or organizations that are not natural persons, though of course it applies to living persons who work in those entities. The policy governing potential libel of corporations and organizations is WP:LIBEL. Complaints regarding potential libel of corporations and organizations should be made at "Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents" or "Requests for oversight", or an e-mail can be sent to info-en-q@wikipedia.org. — Cheers, Jack Lee  –talk– 06:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go back and look at FAQ organizations and make sure the BLP applies only to individuals and WP:Libel and WP:attack page are seen at the resolution for accusations against organizations and businesses. We'll see if a BLP arguer shows up and tell him/her to come over here and speak his/her mind. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E
Where were these changes discussed? Where was it decided that "one event" is now "local event"? Lara 17:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted this change. This is what was added: "Essentially, one event refers to people who have received "15 minutes of fame". Below are a few examples to serve as guidelines


 * Example #1
 * John Doe was covered in a local media news story for saving a cat: John Doe is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article
 * John Doe was covered by the national media for saving a cat and after receiving so much media attention he becomes a spokesperson for PETA: John Doe is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article


 * Example #2
 * Jane Roe committed murder and the coverage was limited to the local media: Jane Roe is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article
 * Jane Roe committed murder that was widely covered and captivated wide ranging media attention for a prolonged period of time: Jane Roe is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article"

For example one, John Doe being a spokesman for PETA isn't notable unless it's gotten significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. For example two, this is precisely what BLP1E was created for. Regardless of how long this murder remained in the media, it's the event that is notable, not the murderer. Lara 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I recognize that I was bold, but can you please explain what it is that you object to? Dems on the move (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not speaking for anyone else, but I can say that WP:BLP is a Big Deal,&#0153; and making a change without discussion and consensus could have an impact on a lot of what goes on around here. Frank  |  talk  19:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Being bold still applies to the core policies; it's expected that a larger number of eyes will result in quick reverts of any changes that don't have consensus. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clarification: you can be bold ONCE--then discuss once the first revert happens, regardless of whether or not the reverting person articulated a reason yet. Jclemens (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear: I object to User:Dems on the move's changes. I don't believe s/he has characterised the examples appropriately, and I'm not even sure that examples are appropriate per se. --AndrewHowse (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave my rationale for objection above. The most relevant reason being that your second example attempts to exclude articles BLP was specifically created for. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of BLP1E. Lara  21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you explain Susan Smith? Dems on the move (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not the point - that article may well be in serious need of fixing or deleting. The point here is that you are edit warring on a policy. You have been told your comprehension of that policy is flawed. Rather than discussing, you are arguing other stuff exists, which is not helpful. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I have seen WP:BLP1E misquoted so many times that I thought I'd put examples to provide better guidelines. The examples are based on what I have seen stand the test of WP:BLP1E and what fails the test. Dems on the move (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Which would be the B part of BRD; someone reverted. At that point, you should have discussed. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I did. I asked in the talk page what was the objection, and having seen none, I've restored. I thought that the intial reversion was in error given that the rationale was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dems on the move (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I assure you that the way you handled this is completely inappropriate. This is an extremely sensitive and important policy page and so we are obligated have everyone on board before edits are made. We are not here to argue about whether you think that's reasonable or not. If people are reverting you, that's a clue that you ought to try to find out what their objections are. ⟳ausa کui ×  22:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I should have handled it differently. Hopefully now we can focus on the topic in the subheading below. Dems on the move (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would note that this user is engaged in an AfD where BLP1E has been a point of contention. Coming here to edit a policy page to fit one's argument is not exactly a shining display of good faith editing. Tarc (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I reject the bad faith accusation. The AfD is clearly headed towards a keep, which is my position. This is not an attempt to influence that particular AFD, but to give more meat to a very small section that is so widely relied on in Wikipedia. Dems on the move (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we move to the Discussion phase? Perhaps Dotm can propose, in a new section on this page, a clarification; others can then offer their points of view. Dotm, please proceed slowly and carefully. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed examples of 1E
Because sometimes the scope of LBP1E can be tricky, I propose to add examples to the section. Below is my proposal: "Essentially, one event refers to people who have received "15 minutes of fame". Below are a few examples to serve as guidelines


 * Example #1
 * John Doe was covered in a local media news story for saving a cat: John Doe is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article
 * John Doe was covered by the national media for saving a cat and after receiving so much media attention he becomes a spokesperson for PETA: John Doe is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article


 * Example #2
 * Jane Roe committed murder and the coverage was limited to the local media: Jane Roe is not notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article
 * Jane Roe committed murder that was widely covered and captivated wide ranging media attention for a prolonged period of time: Jane Roe is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dems on the move (talk • contribs) 23:21 29 July 2009


 * Dotm, I hate to seem picky, but this doesn't seem to address Jennavecia's concern (signed Lara) above? I gather that you don't agree with her, but simply restating your position doesn't help to achieve consensus. If others feel that you haven't acknowledged their concern, then you'll just be shouted down. --AndrewHowse (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The second bullet in Example #1 doesn't appear correct to me. It is not at all clear the person would be notable enough for an article from the description given.  If the only thing someone is known for is saving a cat and being the spokesperson of PETA, there is no reason they cannot be mentioned briefly in the article on PETA instead of having an eponymous article.


 * Example 2 seems like a direct BLP1E application: if there is prolonged coverage of the murder, and that is all Roe is known for, then Roe should only be covered in the article on the murder, not on her own article. After 20 years or so, we can look back and decide if the Roe is actually notable apart from the murder; until that time, the assumption written into BLP1E is against making a separate article. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I stated above, but I was completely ignored, twice. Lara  03:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. All you said was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. CBM put forth concrete arguments against the examples. Arguments which I have addressed below.Dems on the move (talk) 04:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Examples like these are generally to be avoided. If there is something unclear or omitted in the original text then we should try to clarify the existing policy, rather than appealing to examples. ⟳ausa کui  ×  04:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Examples are extremely important, as they help bring down the theoretical concepts to real life situations. We just need to agree on good examples. Not to chicken out. Dems on the move (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

For example #1, perhaps we can add the word prominent to say: As for example #2, I cannot see how that does not apply given that there are articles about murderers such as Susan Smith, Mohamed Atta, Seung-Hui Cho Kip Kinkel, Byron Looper, the list goes ad nauseam. Dems on the move (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * John Doe was covered by the national media for saving a cat and after receiving so much media attention he becomes a prominent spokesperson for PETA: John Doe is notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article
 * What part of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is confusing? Your second example is a perfect example of what to apply BLP1E to. It's precisely what BLP1E was created for. Your first example is highly unlikely, as "spokespersons" are rarely notable. It's simply a poor example. Regardless, we don't need examples. We need tighter wording on the BLP policy. All of it. Lara  05:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let us quote from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:
 * Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested
 * I agree that not every spokesperson is notable, which is why I added the word "prominent". Sample prominent spokesperson: Wayne LaPierre, a very high profile spokesperson for the NRA.
 * Dems on the move (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So your example would be of a prominent spokesperson for PETA who has written five non-vanity books abut animals and their rights, and is well known in the field outside of their rescuing a cat or being a spokesperson for PETA. Sure, they'd be marginally notable, depending on how well the books did and their other credentials. But you're still missing the point. LaPierre's article is other stuff and saying "Oh look, here is another article which I think is the same" does not change policy; it merely shows that we have articles which sometimes fail to meet policy, and we have lots of work to do. If you drag in 100 articles which might fail BLP1E it will not change what BLP1E is; it will just show you're arguing with poor examples. Other stuff is expressly explained to you as a really bad argument, one which is not only useless but also considered tendentious here, and what did you do? You used an "other stuff" argument. I cannot help but feel you're not listening. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 10:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that 1E is a sub head under "Presumption in favor of privacy." It's not about notability, but whether otherwise private individuals should have a bio on Wikipedia. It says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." But it then says "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person 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 secondary sources." That seems pretty clear to me (though I would change "and/or" to "and") and would seem to justify the articles cited as supposedly violating BLP, e.g. Susan Smith. A discussion about just how notable a murderer has to be to have an article belongs at WP:N, not here, it seems to me. --agr (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * John Hinckley, Jr. has historical significance, which goes into a whole other discussion. It's not an apt comparison to some random cat rescuer who ends up being a spokesman for PETA. Does anyone else have a problem with the current wording of BLP1E? If so, please present some proposed changes so that discussion may begin. Lara  18:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears the verbiage is unclear enough to confuse at least one editor into thinking that a random PETA spokesperson might be notable enough for a bio if they once had ink for rescuing a cat; this appears somewhat problematical to me. I'd support clarification which would help prevent this type of confusion; I confess I have no specific suggestions for improving the policy regarding this at this time. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 19:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and would like to reiterate that if there is something unclear about the existing text then it should be reformed (without overcomplicating it) to handle the confusion, rather than relying on examples. ⟳ausa کui  ×  19:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we can strengthen the wording of BLP1E. If there is a need for examples, perhaps we can link to some actual articles; however, I think the application of BLP1E is spot-on most of the time, and in cases where people misapply it, there seems to be enough editors willing to chime in and point out that it doesn't apply in that case. Lara  19:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change in wording
One change I would like to make is in the sentence "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate." I would change "and/or" to "and". In other words both the event would have to be significant and the living person's role in it would have to be substantial before we'd even consider a bio. --agr (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I support this change. Lara  19:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * yes indeed, good catch. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems straightforward enough. "And/or" is usually a recipe for confusion. ⟳ausa کui  ×  20:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense - Pointillist (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made the change. I agree it's more of a minor clarification; I doubt the "or" meaning was ever intended. --agr (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

My final words on this topic
I have obviously stirred up a hornets nest here. People here are overly sensitive to any changes, and it takes someone who is well known and commands a lot of respect in order to make changes here. I am certainly not such a user. I have seen similar cases before. I asked for Bristol Palin to be unprotected, and was rebuffed and belittled. A week later the article was unprotected. Although I completely reject the allegation that I acted in bad faith, it is true that my proposed examples have come from an AFD in which people do not seem to understand the BLP1E policy. Although it is clear from reading the AfD that the policy is completely misunderstood, the highlight of the misunderstanding can be seen in this response to Arnold's spot on Keep. Many biographies on Wikipedia are for people who have done only one thing. One such notable person is none other than Jimbo who is notable for only one thing -- founding Wikipedia. To mitigate the confusion and misunderstandings, I submit that we need to do more than just provide examples, we need to merge WP:ONEEVENT with WP:BLP1E. The two touch on the same topic, but don't convey the same message. Given that it is such an important issue, the topic should be expanded to have its own project page with the two paragraphs, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E, as the core of this new project page. So just like the case with Bristol Palin, I'm sure eventually the right things will happen, I just won't be involved with it. I will now go back to doing the real work on Wikipedia. As you can see from my contributions profile, I mostly deal with editing articles, and do my best to avoid getting dragged into endless chatter. All the best, Dems on the move (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Wales is notable for far more than Wikipedia. He's been covered extensively in the media, as can be read in his article. BLP1E in no way applies to him. BLP1E doesn't apply to Bristol Palin because she is now notable as a spokesperson for abstinence campaigns. Susan Smith and Seung-Hui Cho are exceptions to BLP1E because of the significance of the murders in the media, the sustained and widespread media coverage and the subsequent publications that spawned from them. Mohamed Atta is another exception as he has historical significance and there is much too much detail to merge that article into another. Your other two OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, Kip Kinkel and Byron Looper, could possibly be renamed or moved to event articles per BLP1E. I'll look at them closer later. That said, your examples were not adequate. Your second being quite specifically what BLP1E applies to. It is unfortunate that you can't see that, considering your passion would be helpful on the BLP front.  Lara  17:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO, Kinkel and Looper are in the exact same category as Smith and Cho. Dems on the move (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cho and Kinkel are different because Cho received a great deal more media attention, and his killing spree has a great deal more significance. His background was deeply investigated resulting in a detailed biography. The last paragraph of BLP1E reads
 * If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person 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 secondary sources.
 * As I noted above, John Hinckley, Jr. has historical significance, as does Cho. I believe this exempts Susan Smith from BLP1E; if not, that article should be renamed as well, as it's almost completely void of biographical information unrelated to the case. I have to get to work soon, but will look at them closer tomorrow. Lara  18:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dems, did you consider the possibility that it is far, far more likely that you are the one that misunderstands 1E policy, rather than everyone else that disagrees with you? This is further cemented by the fact that the AfD in question just closed as a delete. Tarc (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine -- I don't understand. I need examples to help me understand. Dems on the move (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. I see about a 99.9% chance of that going to DRV. Lara  17:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very shrewd.Dems on the move (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably, but I'd hope that the closing admin's discarding of the SPAs and the "OMG she's on mah tee-vee!" votes will be looked upon favorably. Tarc (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Noting that the entire discussion thus far took place over 2 days. This is a policy page. WP:BOLD explicitly says: "In these cases, it is often better to discuss potential changes first." The edit summary There is no requirement to first discuss before adding is false.

Note also that several of the repeated addition reverts took place over a period of mere minutes or hours: (unless there is an objection, there is no reason to delete). The first revert itself qualified as an objection. According to WP:BRD,

Changes here should be discussed for at least 7 days, to give all stakeholders an opportunity to participate. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC about policy template
Fresh eyes would be appreciated at Template talk:Policy. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 01:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP1E change
I just read Charles Robert Jenkins. A nice article that should never be considered for AFD. However, the current wording could cause an AFD. I propose the following change in the section heading only.

Articles about people notable only for one marginally significant or insignificant event
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options.

If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person 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 secondary sources.

--- The change is one word at the heading User F203 (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually more than one word, but I don't support this change either way. This heading change ignores the third paragraph, which speaks on significant events. Lara  15:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking over this section, it is listed under "presumption of privacy" heading. This is very poorly written. Presumption of privacy should have a separate section. This is just bad writing. I am fixing this by modifying the heading typeface. User F203 (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, I believe. In your change here, you said it was a forgotten =, but that's not the case. All those "other considerations" have to do with the presumption of privacy, which is why they were all subsections of it. People who are notable for only one event are presumed to, in most cases, keep a low profile, and thus we should protect their privacy. I believe this change should be reverted. Lara  18:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

On the Presumption in Favor of Privacy and the Gates Issue
I've found what I consider the most compelling piece of evidence against inclusion of the mugshot in the Gates article. It comes directly from WP:BLP and can be found here. The particularly pertinent quote is as follows: ...It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. ... This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. The way I see it, as the the charges were completely dropped, adding the mugshot anyway is a clear violation of the last portion of the above quote particularly. Where the first portion comes in is with regards to the "written conservatively" portion. It is not in any way "conservative" to include a mugshot that implicitly portrays Gates as a criminal. Lest anyone bring up the fact that this article is about an event and not a person, WP:BLP does not materially distinguish between an article about a living person, and an article about an event that deals extensively with a living person. Unit Anode  20:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) And that would be a very compelling argument, were Gates only famous for this kerfuffle; he isn't. The dude is famous all by himself, and a lot more so than Crowley - and yes, that is a fabulous reason to exclude Crowley's image from the article, as it the accusations of racism threaten both his reputation and livelihood as a cop.
 * Wikipedia is not censored, Unitanode. The primary fact that Gates was indeed arrested was the lightning bolt from which all the buzz ensued. Just like the booking information on Rosa Parks' featured-quality article, the booking info serves to not only highlight the matter, but to conversely demonstrate the injustice of the matter (or perceived injustice, if you prefer). The same sort of reasoning is present in a great many articles; the implication is not that the person is a criminal, but they were treated as such. The body of the article explains not only the arrest but what happened after, better serving to frame and address the booking photo. While a picture is indeed worth a thousand words, to assume that our readers are essentially sightless moles who can only perceive the visual content without the text is about as fair and charitable as assuming that they paint on cave walls and communicate by a series of grunts, whistles and Wii finger movements. I tend to give them a little bit more credit than that. The image is sound, reasonable and is explained fully by the text. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You keep pointing to WP:NOTCENSORED, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. No one's trying to censor any information from Wikipedia. Rather, many of us feel that the photograph does harm to Gates. Additionally, you are certainly making a lot of assumptions yourself, Arcayne, as to what those of us who think that this arrest mugshot is damaging to Gates think of the Wikipedia readership. Please stop assuming you know such things, as I find it a bit offensive. Thinking this photograph does harm to Gates != thinking Wikipedia's readership are "sightless moles." Unit  Anode  00:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are making tenuous and speculative arguments that Gates is harmed in an apparent attempt to censor the photo. You may very well be making repeated uncompelling arguments in good faith, but the end goal of removing the photo from Wikipedia is indistinguishable from censorship and is appropriately discussed as such. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I to understand, then, that any good-faith argument that the photograph is harmful to Gates is an attempt to censor? This seems contrary to policy to me, and I find it incredibly unfair. Consistently being accused of censorship seems to be poisoning the well, and if we can't discuss the issue apart from such accusations, I see no way forward here. Unit  Anode  00:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You make a fair point, Unitanode; for the record, I do not consider your opinion that the image does harm to be a direct outgrowth of thinking our readers are moles (or even worse, lemmings). I think, however, you might consider that if the image represents an injustice to you, you could be unable to see its possessing any other value. Images are value neutral - it is how they are used which renders them harmful or helpful. In this case, paired as it is with insightful text explaining not only the arrest but the aftermath, it serves as highlighting the injustice of the matter. And, as Jclemens pointed out, the natural outcome of your argument is the removal of the image from the article. As I and others believe that the image is important and fulfills the criteria for inclusion, removing the image thereby censors it out of the article. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  03:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a good faith argument that this picture can cause harm, in that no argument yet has provided 1) any assertion of concrete harm to Gates by the photogrph's circulation, 2) that Wikipedia inclusion of the photo is a part of that harm, and 3) that removal from Wikipedia would materially reduce that harm. Think of it in tort law terms, if that helps. By saying that you have advanced no such argument I'm not accusing you and other adherents of bad faith, merely in not advancing an actionable argument.  If someone did try to advance such a comprehensive argument in light of the Streissand effect, AGF would demand I infer that the advocate lacked experience in trying to remove content from the Internet. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that no argument advanced by those advocating against inclusion of the mugshot would be considered an "actionable argument", as it would already be flowing from the poisoned well, as I mentioned previously. When you prejudge arguments against inclusion as censorship, no arguments (at least that you would accept) can be advanced. Unit  Anode  03:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the toughest nut to crack is "would it meaningfully reduce the aggregate harm of the photo's overall publication if we removed it from en.wiki?" which is the part I simply cannot fathom. Assuming everything else for the sake of argument, I just don't see how that can possibly be accomplished. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to break it down and respond to each point of the policy quote:
 * ...It is not Wikipedia's purpose to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
 * Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
 * ... This is of particularly profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions.
 * Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.

Okay, so for 1/ It's not sensationalistic to include the image, and we are far from the primary vehicle for spreading this information or the image. 2/ "Written conservatively" is not in dispute, as far as I am aware. The inclusion of the image does not negate the text. 3/ Gates was notable long before this incident, thus this does not apply. 4/ There has been no evidence provided that our use of the image and the text explaining the entire incident is somehow harming or victimizing Gates. Quite clearly to what seems to me to be the majority, it's a baseless claim. That said, I do see how this reinforces an argument for removal. You can claim there is well-poisoning preventing any argument you present from being enough to have the image removed, but I think it's a matter of no argument you've presented has been persuasive enough to warrant the removal... or censorship, however one prefers to word it. Lara 04:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, it seems now that no argument presented will be deemed "persuasive enough" or enough of an "actionable argument" to those who wish to see the mugshot included. I still have yet to see someone cogently present what benefit including the mugshot provides that isn't already provided by simply having the arrest described with text. Right now, it just seems that people are arguing "because we can" and "it's not against policy", though neither of those answers the question. Unit  Anode  04:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this will meet your request for a "cogent" argumnet, but I'll repeat what I explained to you in another talk page "It's a photographic representation of a portion of his arrest. As an official document of the Cambridge police, it captures both the banality of the police booking process, and as an archetype, it also symbolizes the injustice of black man being arrested in his own home. As such the photograph is both a record of the arrest, and a touchstone for concerns around racial prejudice in the police." The fact that you're so passionate about censoring it demonstrates its value to the article.Mattnad (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The mugshot may be "a photographic representation of a portion of his arrest" and an "official document of the Cambridge police" but it does not "capture both the banality of the police booking process" or "symbolize the injustice of black man being arrested in his own home". That is entirely your POV and that is the problem with a mugshot. It is loaded with pre-existing concepts. This is a contentious issue with extreme views on both sides and an encyclopedia should present facts in a neutral way, a mugshot cannot.Momento (talk) 09:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What's so extreme about including a picture and providing an explanation and context. If NPR, Time Magazine, and Newsweek thought it relevant and proper to include the photo in various articles and essays, that speaks volumes to the appropriateness of its use in the context of the arrest and articles related to that arrest.Mattnad (talk) 11:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "extreme about including a picture and providing an explanation and context". What I said was this incident is "contentious with extreme views". The fact that magazines and newspapers thought it relevant to use the photo, probably within a few days of the arrest, is completely different from an encyclopedia deciding to use it weeks, months and even years later.Momento (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I've avoided this issue up to now, but I must say that the mugshot photo seems both tasteless and unnecessary. The arrest photo is the famous and informative one; the mugshot adds nothing. In addition, this discussion seems to have increasingly little reason to be here rather than at Talk:Henry Louis Gates arrest incident, where I suggest an WP:RFC, since the matter is clearly still unresolved and is not one of policy amendment but of policy application. Rd232 talk 10:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I support this position, and until the RFC is complete there is no clear consensus to insert the pictures so they should be removed as the default position is out . (Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC))

Disagree so much. An arrest that turns into drinking on the white house lawn is not private and will never be private. My God. And now these nobs are asking Gates permission for what can go into the article. So so sad.69.38.252.83 (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I rather agree, Rd. I should have posted it there. I also agree with Off2riorob that the mugshot should be out during the RfC, per WP:BLP as well. Unit  Anode  12:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree too, anon69, but ease up on the name-calling, That gets us nowhere, and trashes whatever good faith you might have accumulated. They have a point of view. I disagree with it mightily, but I respect their right to have it (so long as it isn't some racist bs).
 * That dispensed with, the images should remain until the RfC is completed. Nothing here has been presented indicating the damage to Gates. As the info in question has the virtue of being verifiably accurate, I am having difficulty with any reasoning as to why this shouldn't be in the article. - (Arcayne) 18:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mugshots and BLP
There's been a discussion at Talk:Henry Louis Gates, Jr. over the appropriateness of using a mugshot of the scholar's recent arrest as an image in the article. (Currently, it is not used.) It occurs to me that this is a BLP issue: we should not use mugshots on BLP articles unless the person's primary "claim to fame" has to do with crime, being arrested, civil disobedience or protest leading to being arrested, etc. Thoughts? --FOo (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This might be an issue for inclusion in this article. I was thinking of using one for Howard K. Stern. Searched for other celebrity mugshots that were used and only thing I found right off was Paris Hilton's with a complicated rational and then a box with a warning and a link to Photos of identifiable people. So it is a complicated issue that perhaps needs at least relevant links here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If a mugshot is the only free picture available... eh, still, I'd rather have no picture at all than a mugshot unless the person in question was a notable criminal. Jclemens (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. There has been a recent similar discussion at Talk:Phil Spector. My take is that a mugshot is likely to be wholly unrepresentative of the person depicted if they are notable otherwise. That's why I think a mugshot at Jeffrey Dahmer is appropriate, but not at Phil Spector, bearing in mind that the latter is still alive, although incarcerated, and WP:BLP still applies to him. I am not impressed by arguments such as "well, this is a free picture, the only one we have, and he brought it upon himself"; that's just limply inhuman and lazy as regards finding a free image. Rodhull  andemu  23:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since they're in the public domain, can they be cropped down to a head shot to not look so...mugshot-ish? That way we still have an image of the person, but minus the implied POV of criminality. Tarc (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree, but if someone is has committed a crime for which they've become famous then a mugshot isn't inappropriate, particularly when it's a photo that has been widely reprinted. Mugshots are designed to be representative of the person for purposes of future identification. However due to nature of the arrest process, many people are not at their best when the pictures is taken, and some are downright scary looking. There are photos of celebrities who've been arrested for drunkeness, for example, which we shouldn't include even if they are the only photos available. (Or Michael Jackson's mugshot, in which he has a weird look on his face.) On the other hand, the mugshot of Bill Gates, taken when he was in his 20s after being arrested for reckless driving and widely reprinted, is innocuous even though he's not famous for the crime. In the case of Phil Spector, he is now equally famous for his crime as for his producing career, so I don't think that the mugshot would be inappropriate (photos from the first day of this first trial, with the afro, are iconic but probably can't be found with a free license). As a rule, I think we should avoid mugshots unless there are good reasons to use them.    Will Beback    talk    00:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer Tarc's last question, are we suyre that all of them are in the public domain? Federal mugshots would certainly be, but at the state or local level they may not have the same blanket public-domain policy. As for the implied POV, if the image were manipulated to prevent it from looking like a mugshot then that would certainly help.   Will Beback    talk    00:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh for people whose arrest(s) would be a significant part of their bio (i'm lookin at you, Orenthal James Simpson), yea I agree that an actual mugshot is fine to use. As far as state and local being PD...I would tend to think so, as it is still the government and still producing work for official business and not for gain.  I'm sure its come up before in WP:NFCC discussions, I'll browse the archives and see. Tarc (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Another thing to consider is that there is a difference between using a mugshot as the main photo in the infobox and a mugshot used in a section of an article which discusses a subject's arrest. If there is a lengthy article which contains multiple photos of the subject, it might be appropriate to include a mugshot as one of those photos (assuming the subject's arrest is important enough to be included in the article with violating WP:UNDUE). In most cases articles with a single photo probably shouldn't use a mugshot as that photo. –Megaboz (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a really good point. A "feature-length" article on a person might contain several pictures, and a mugshot would not be inappropriate as one of them if an arrest or crime was a significant event in a person's biography. My original suggestion was overbroad; my primary concern was the use of mugshots as the primary or only picture on an article. --FOo (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think a mugshot is ever appropriate in a BLP, and certainly not as the lead or sole image. Police mugshots are inherently demeaning. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone is notable primarily for criminal activity then a mugshot is a reasonable image to use. Similarly, if there is a separate section in an article about a conviction then a mugshot is not unreasonable. I'm worried about using mugshots when someone is not primarily notable for criminal activity and would rather we not do that. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How does that work when it is a biography of a living person and not a rap sheet or a page about a crime? (Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure I understand your question. If someone is notable for being a criminal then there's no BLP issue with a mugshot: it is an accurate representation. BLP doesn't mean we need to pussyfoot or whitewash. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * edit conflict..Take this page where the picture has been removed Ma_Anand_Sheela, here is the mugshot [] The woman in question is notable only for crimes commited in 1985. She served 29 months in minimum-security federal prison, released on good behavior in 1988.  Unless the page is a record of a crime and not a biography of a person I would say it is unfair and demeaning to the person to use this mugshot, the mugshot is not free to use and a better picture could be taken. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Technically, Rio, you're the one who removed it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are going to have to explain in more detail whats wrong with using a mugshot for her. She's notable as a criminal and only as such. A mugshot in that context is an accurate portrayal. The only way it would not sufficiently accurate is if she were notable for something else. It is no more "demeaning" than having an article about her in the first place. Lot's of people have mugshots of them. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

If she is notable only as a criminal then how is it a biography? Her life is unnotable except for this crime, so the page is actually about the crime. So it should be titled after the crime or then the name of the page is incorrect. It would be better titled the such and such crime article, it is only disguised as a biography of a living person. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Well, in her case she's notable for repeated separate criminal activities. Also note that in some cases someone can be notable for a single crime and we can still ahve an article about that person. The obvious example would be John Hinkley. I don't think anyone is going to claim that that should instead be an article "1981 Attempt to assassinate U.S. President Ronald Reagan". JoshuaZ (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEVENT all the crimes and charges were basically one event. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Thats a side issue really, a fair use mugshot from 1986 is demeaning in a BLP and wikipedia could do a lot better. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC))
 * If someone was convicted of trying to poison over 750 people then there's no issue of being demeaning with a mugshot: the simple facts are so damning themselves that use of a mugshot doesn't matter at that point. Incidentally, regarding ONEVENT are you claiming that we really shouldn't have an article on Hinkley? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes the charges were severe, but if you are American you'll know that two and a half years in a low security jail is a lightweight punishment in a country where punishments are long and severe. I appreciate your comments and I would like to get some more feedback on this picture. When you say that there is no issue of demeaning, I have to disagree with you. Since her release twenty one years ago this person has lived an upright crime free life. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC))
 * You bring up that "Since her release twenty one years ago this person has lived an upright crime free life" and I have to say "so what?" If you think that her crime spree isn't notable enough then AfD her article. If her criminal behavior is enough by itself for an article then there's no issue using a mugshot. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Rio, you must be a UK editor. It's not unusual in the US for people to serve a few years even for murder.  You might have heard about certain cases where a mandatory minimum applies, such as drug trafficking or "three-strikes" laws in some states where people do get severe punishments, sometimes way out of proportion to the crime. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been mentioned to merge the article, there is already a page about the crime, but I would imagine the Oregon editors would vote to keep. Anyway this is about the mugshot, if someone is still in prison then it is understandable to use the mugshot, but in this case there is the opportunity to get a free use picture that is not demeaning. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC))
 * If we've got another picture that we actually have, sure we can use that. But at this point you are repeating yourself. What is demeaning about using a mugshot for an article about someone who is notable solely for their criminal record? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is demeaning for someone that has a biography here on wikipedia and they have at one point in their life commited crimes and spent only two and a half years in jail that we should forever portray them with a mugshot. I was just having a look at the mugshot list and looking for other instances of the mugshot being the lede picture in a BLP. I would like to have a look through for similar situations. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Actually it is anything but common practice. Where it is a bio of a deceased person the mugshots are used. Also if the person is incarcerated for life the mugshot is used. But I have not yet foung a similar situation where the mugshot is used in the lede after such a lengthy spell out of jail. I don't think that saying, we haven't got another one is a fair excuse to use this one. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Rio, would you have any objection to including booking photos in the article on 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack? Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If the booking photo cum mugshot was used in the Rajneeshee bio terror attack page, I would request a merger of the bio of the criminal and the crime articles. In respect of the crime, I can see usage for the mugshot, but not in a BLP. In the crime article the mugshot would not be the lede photo and I think that is ok, in respect to the crime article. If this particular person is only notable for the crimes and then you want to add her photo to the crime article, I would say that merger of the biography is required (Off2riorob (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC))

There is an IFD in progress. The basis is whether Massachusetts' public records law puts this mugshot in the public domain (it likely does), but if there is no way we would use the image in an article, should that also be a reason to delete it? To what extent do we keep embarrassing photos of living people? Say someone snaps a notable person picking their nose or with their clothing in some revealing disarray and wants to upload it to us? --agr (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The image isn't used in our bio of Gates, it's used in an article about the controversial arrest, which is the proper place for it. The IFD is goofy though; the booking photo from the City of Cambridge is clearly a public record.  If it was a photo from say the Harvard University PD, which is essentially an organization deputized by the MA state PD and where theres been controversy over their police logs being public record, then the IFD would be justified. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a new section immediately after "Categories" with similar language:

In this case, repetition would be good reinforcement that the same principles apply. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Should "and images" be "or images" instead?


 * I'd have to oppose that unless (maybe) there was clear language that this only applied to biography-only articles ( not articles about news events ), and that it only applied if the sole image used was a mugshot.
 * For instance, the Gates mugshot is appropriate in the article about the arrest. It would not be appropriate as the only photo in the article on Gates.  It could be appropriate as one out of ten photos in an article on Gates if it was not the lead, and was next to a paragraph about the arrest.
 * Also, should we be editing policy at this point, or is this simply a question about one or two articles? Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Squidfryerchef and others who have made similar comments. And I think we do need a PHOTOGRAPHS section that will cover the relevant issues: copyright, privacy, mugshots, number of photos, appropriateness, etc. Who wants to draft it? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no way I'd have time to draft it, but there's a few things I'd like to throw in. In the debates over the Gates mugshot, before somebody found the MA law that releases all public records to the public domain, there was a question on whether it reached the bar to be used as a fair-use image.
 * Someone pointed out that even a copyrighted mugshot is a ministerial function of government as opposed to a creative work. And I agreed, noting that an important part of fair use is that it should not deprive the copyright owner of profit.  Therefore, it's easier to justify fair use of a copyrighted mugshot than most other copyrighted photographs, because the police do not sell mugshots for profit.
 * Which reminds me of the hubbub a few years back over using publicity stills in celebrity bios. There's a decent fair use argument for those, but they eliminated most of the publicity stills if it was likely that a free image could be found.  I believe this was so commercial publishers could repackage and sell WP content, and fair use is more difficult if for commercial purposes.
 * I could imagine if some company started selling a "celebrity-pedia" based on such content, there'd be trouble from irate talent agents mad at us for uploading their entire client base. But I think police booking photos would still fall under fair use even in that situation.
 * So we should probably have something to the effect that even if copyrighted, police booking photos are easier to justify fair use than most other works, because they are a ministerial function of government and there is no profit motive in selling them, not even indirectly as in the talent agent example.
 * However there should be a strong warning not to use a mugshot only because it is the "freest" image available, i.e. a movie star picked up for drunk driving, the mugshot should never be the lead or only photo in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would object to anything that allows mugshots to be used, unless there is some controversy about the arrest and the taking of the mugshot, perhaps. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 14:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I failed to notice the proposal in the box. Here's another version:


 * I think awaiting trial is ok too, since you'll probably get more visits to the page during that time AND that photo will be widely used during that period, so it's not undue for Wiki to use it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That would still cause problems at Arrest of Henry Louis Gates, where charges were dropped but the photo is obviously relevant to the controversial arrest. If we're going to be adding new rules, I'd suggest it be mugshots should not be used as the sole or lead image in an article solely about a living person ( as opposed to an article about an event ), unless the person is notable for criminal activity. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly I like the more permissive standard, since editors can still consense it's inappropriate for a variety of reasons. So should I put it up at Howard K. Stern who is awaiting trial for conspiracy in the delivery of controlled substances that lead to the death of Anna Nicole Smith. It would be the only photo. Of course he's highly litigious, so maybe not... CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While I dig that we are addressing the underlying issue of mugshot apprpriateness and policy/guideline wording, I am wondering if anyone pointed out that we aren't talking about the mugshot being used in the main BLP article for Gates. The use of the mugshot is being considered in a subsidiary article that speaks specifically to the arrest - indeed the article is called "Arrest of Henry Louis Gates" (though alternate titles are being considered at this time). As the article is specifically about the arrest and aftermath, why would it be inappropriate to use the (free) mugshot as the lead image? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Would be helpful if you read the discussion before asking questions that are 90% of the above debate. "If anyone pointed out that we aren't talking about ... the main BLP". Indeed many people raised this point. Consensus, as I outlined on the page that brought you here, is that they should not be used in the main BLP unless the person is currently incarcerated. The debate is whether they should be used in articles on the crimes/arrests; and, if so, with what, if any, limitations. Lara  20:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) Oh, I had read the material, Jennavecia/Lara; I was re-asking a question that I felt had rather become lost a bit. Pardon my attempt at refocusing. Btw, which do you prefer to be called by now - Lara or Jennavecia?
 * I had noted why booking photos might present an unduly negative influence in a BLP article that generated little in the way of aftermath, like the separate arrests of Nick Nolte or Margot Kidder. In all, the arrests represent little in the way of who the person is as a whole, and their troubles with the law do not, as a general rule make a lot of waves. That makes sense. We should generate guidelines that express that idea clearly, so that calmer heads can prevail here - the urge for some wiki editors to confuse themselves with reporters looking for a scoop is sometimes too alluring. The need to corral/quash that aspiration seems prudent.
 * What doesn't make sense is the idea that all booking photos are "inherently demeaning". I don't buy that. Being arrested is demeaning, but the image taken during that process is not. Granted, it could be an image like Nolte's (his hair disheveled) or Phil Spector (no hair at all, as wigs aren't allowed) that is embarrassing, but if it is part of a larger issue or the arrest has taken on a life of its own, then the need of the subject takes a backseat to the notability to the image. Such is the case with the example of Gates's arrest. The fellow wasn't convicted of the charge, the matter being dropped by the DA, but the matter had taken on a larger life, due to calls of racism and some rather ill-considered comments by the US president. Because the arrest is not a substantial part of Gates' life, but substantial in and of itself, a sub-article was calved off from the main to detail it. As such - the article was focusing solely upon the arrest and aftermath - the booking photo should be there. IF the matter surrounding the arrest is enough to generate its own sustainable article, it stands to reason that the booking photo of the subject should be included. After all, it is being described in the accompanying text.
 * Therefore, i am unsure of the consensus you allude to, nor have I seen its prior implementation. And I do not see application of it in articles daling solely with the subject matter for which the booking photo would be useful to the reader. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most people still called me Lara, so I changed my sig to go with that. I need to correct myself. The consensus I speak of is in the section below. It's not being applied anywhere as it's an ongoing discussion. Other than that, I agree with everything you said. Lara  04:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will call you Lara, too (except when referring to you whilst speaking He Majesty the Queen of England. One must remember to use proper names and titles - grn).
 * I am thinking that these different discussions on this page that refer to the Gates booking photo image should e grouped together - it appears we have no less than three different sections and 6 total discussion threads ont he subject. It's making the collation of a binding consensus a logistical nightmare. Perhaps we should group the common sections together, summarize each of them and work from there. I don't mind doing the heavy ifting, but I think that working with someone else would stave off claims of personal bias (I am very much in favor of appropriate usage, and am aware of others who despise their usage under most circumstances). Thoughts? (forgot to add sig: - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  18:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC))
 * I fully agree with the need to consolidate these discussions and appreciate your offer to do the heavy lifting. I think we've been on opposite sides of this issue and I'd be happy to offer my assistance. One possibility is to separate out the general policy questions from the Gates arrest incident issues and direct the latter to be continued on that article's talk page, perhaps as part of the suggested RFC there. --agr (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is very necessary, and I agree that one editor from each side of the debate should be involved. I have no reservations about the two of you consolidating and summarizing these threads. Good luck! Haha, Lara  17:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Instruction creep
Could editors bear in mind that this is a policy and that it needs to remain stable and consistent with other policies? People are showing a tendency to add whatever the pet peeve-of-the-moment is, which will lead to the page being unreadable, and also unenforceable because inconsistent with other pages. Please make sure that you are very familiar with the content policies and guidelines before adding anything, and preferably seek support on talk first to make sure you're not introducing a contradiction. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been a problem for some time. Sometimes edit wars erupt on these pages (a very bad thing). Perhaps we should have a big red box that pops up when someone edits, telling people that before any change (except the most minor) is made, it should be discussed on the talk page first. Only after gathering support should the change be made. We can also all agree to revert any non-minor change that have not been discussed first. Perhaps we can have this as an editing guideline on this and the 3 contentious policy pages: WP:V, WP:OR & WP:NPV. LK (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Also remember that BLP is a very big stick. Editors have the authority to revert BLP violations without comment and without regard to 3RR. Admins have the authority to enforce BLP summarily using blocks, topic bans and page protection in a way that they may not intervene otherwise. BLP is therefore best kept short, broad in spirit and delimited in specifics. BLP is here to say only "don't defame living people, respect decency and privacy and ensure contentious claims are always sourced". That's it. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'd support some kind of box at the top saying something like, "Before editing this page, unless your edit involves a non-contentious minor change or copy edit, please make sure you gain consensus on the talk page. Contentious edits that have no consensus will be reverted." SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I couldn't disagree more. Forcing editors to gain consensus prior to edits violates WP:PILLAR Be bold  WP:BOLD in your editing.  Scribner (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:POLICY, WP:CON. Policies need to be stable.  Articles don't.  Specifically BLP needs to be stable because we want the 'tribal knowledge' of what blp is to accord closely to the text of the policy.  So big changes should be discussed first and justified well. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Being BOLD in policy editing is never a good idea; see the template at the top of every policy page. Otherwise what happens is that every editor who wasn't able to make the article edit he wanted, because someone cited policy X, will turn up at policy X to make the changes he needs for the next time. Before long, the policy pages will be an incoherent, unstable mess, and no one will pay them any attention i.e. we will have no written policies. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Being BOLD is OK... just be intelligently BOLD about changes to long-standing policy. If you understand why things are written the way they are, and see a no-brainer change that doesn't cause cascading effects... go for it!  If someone wrote "effect" but meant "affect" in a policy, and no one had yet caught it... go for it!  The maxim to be BOLD is there to discourage analysis paralysis, not be a license for willy-nilly changes.  Part of the art of Wikipedia-Fu is discovering when to edit a page first, and when to start a discussion first. Jclemens (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See also Editing policy. Rd232 talk 19:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Being WP:BOLD is more that okay it's part of the five pillars and means exactly what it says. This is becoming ridiculous.  Scribner (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that WP:BOLD is a policy, not a one-word injunction. Please read the entire policy, including the section on non-article namespaces. Rd232 talk 20:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Beyond ridiculous. Later.  Scribner (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That section says in part "Care must also be taken when editing Wikipedia-space pages which reflect a community consensus or view, such as the central policy pages on verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. In these cases, it is often better to discuss potential changes first." IMO, if the text in question here had been discussed beforehand, sufficient objections would have been raised to avoid it being added, unless perhaps it were improved somehow. DanielM (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, discussion of policy belongs on the policy talk page. Secondly, no editor needs to gather consensus to edit Wikipedia, period.  The policy we refer to had survived editor scrutiny until slimvirgin overreached and abused her admin authority and removed it from the policy page without discussion.  Scribner (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * SV merely edited the page. S/he did not use any administrator tools in this dispute.  Please stop saying that s/he did. Protonk (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Slimvirgin reverted the policy, twice, Protonk. Read it slowly with one eye closed if you must.  Scribner (talk) 22:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But not through page protection. When s/he edited the page, any registered editor could have.  Had s/he protected the page or edited the page through full protection, I would be on the road to agreeing with you,  But that is not the case.  S/he didn't edit through protection and s/he didn't protect it, I did.  Whatever your opinion about standards of admin behavior is, when an admin edits a page it means nothing different than when a regular editor does.  Thus, those edits are not an abuse of the tools.  Also, can you please knock off the sarcasm?  I really don't need it.  I'm trying my best to be clear and calm and I don't appreciate the condescending tone or the suggestion that I'm slow. Protonk (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good for you, Protonk. And I don't appreciate administrators having more than a common editor's proxy vote on issues, particularly when I see admins like slimvirgin commenting and taking actions on issues with which they aren't familiar.  Perhaps administrators should stick to basic administration, stop the heavy-handed rule-by-ban absolute power that has caused so many editors to abandon wiki altogether.  Go away and let the editors work it out.  Scribner (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am indeed familiar with this and the other content policies, which is why I reverted your addition. In future, if you make a contentious change to policy, and people object, you don't revert back; you go to talk and try to gain consensus for it. There's no point in making ad hominem attacks; people disagree with you, which isn't in any way a criticism of you, and there's nothing heavy-handed about it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 00:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "People" didn't object, in fact another editor even added to the policy, one other attempted to simply the policy. I would imagine quite a few people agreed with the policy since I posted it for all to see on an active talk page.  Only one person objected and that was because their POV Op-ed edit was affected by the policy.  For future reference, discussion of policy changes belongs on the relevant policy talk page, where editors familiar with the issue may comment.  Removing the policy, reverting and then locking down the page is heavy-handed and not appreciated, particularly when you're unfamiliar with the events leading up to the policy change.  By the way, I'll place the policy back in at a later date.  If you object at that time, comment on the policy talk page - you know the drill.  Scribner (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Scribner, anybody who takes a look at the edit you linked will find that that text is neither POV nor op-ed-based. You're using these words, but you don't seem to have learned their meanings. DanielM (talk) 01:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I supported the policy because I have a pretty strong stance about inappropriate use of "opinion" content in Wikipedia, and I feel that stronger guidance should exist to clarify exactly what "opinion" content is appropriate. "Reliable source" is not well defined, and having recently been through an article where partisan media watchdog groups are claimed as "high quality sources" I'm not convinced that quality of sources is the panacea to cure all inappropriate content in BLPs. Some clear guidelines about what editors should not do is badly needed. WP:IAR can deal with exceptional cases where praise (Nobel prize winners) or criticism (Ig Nobel Prize winners) are unambiguously justified. SDY (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty ridiculous. The main purpose of having policy on living people which is different from our general policies is to protect wikipedia from libel. Having a rule which prevents us from including criticisms of Alan Greenspan or Paul Krugman in the introduction to their articles is ridiculous, and does nothing to advance that goal - we can't be sued for libel for describing opinions expressed about somebody by a third party. I'd imagine a reasonably strong case can be made in many individual cases that including such material in the introduction is giving undue weight to certain views - I would agree that the Economist stuff about Krugman shouldn't be in the introduction for a wide variety of reasons, but certainly not because of BLP. john k (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Negative Op-ed and opinion related material should be omitted from all biography leads. I'm going to write that into the WP:LEAD and WP:BLP.  You're welcome to comment on those policy talk pages or contribute in a constructive manner.  Scribner (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's for all biography leads, there's no reason to put it in BLP, which is about policies relating specifically to living people. Beyond that, there's clearly not a consensus for such a thing, and there's already a policy which deals with this in WP:DUE.  Why are you insisting on adding this without any consensus? john k (talk) 12:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need consensus. But, it'd be helpful to have policy clarification on the use of Op-ed and opinion related material that's used in a negative way.  In politically-charged BLP's, opinion related material is the ammo of choice for POV pushers.  That's clearly not the intent of the policy as it's written.  Scribner (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen this movie before. You do need consensus to edit policy pages. Protonk (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be lazy, prove it. Scribner (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I really don't understand where this animus is coming from. You and I don't have a 'beef'.  I don't know you.  We are just two editors on a policy page who have different views.  There isn't any reason for this to be testy. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Protonk, you said, "You do need consensus to edit policy pages." And I'm asking you to prove your statement.  If you can't prove your statement, please stop disrupting the conversation.  If I need consensus, let's get on with it, where do I start?  Scribner (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I link a policy page will you read it? Protonk (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm beginning to not give a damn, but let's see the link. Scribner (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. POLICY outlines the basic idea behind editing policy pages. In the 'cycle' of editing described there, we are past the original insertion of the change.  There are some good faith objections to your suggested claims.  The second is WP:BOLD.  I won't belabor the points made there. Protonk (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like I followed policy and SlimVirgin was wrong in removing the policy because of the objection of one editor who is pushing a POV edit. At any rate, we know two things:


 * 1) There's a problem with vague policy allowing negative Op-ed and opinion-related material to be used in BLP articles to push POV content.
 * 2) Heavy-handed administrators being unfamiliar with policy is one of the obstacles we'll have to overcome in changing this policy.

This discussion has been a tremendous waste of resources and good will to defend the one individual's desire to add one POV edit. I'll work on it again at a later date. Scribner (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You do understand that "alan greenspan" good/bad has no bearing on this discussion, right? I don't care what kind of edit was made on the alan Greenspan page.  If the content is inappropriate for that page it is inappropriate for that page.  You are facing entirely different rationales for opposition in changing BLP.  The reason that many editors (including myself) oppose your change is not because we feel that the ledes for persons X, Y and Z are good, but because we don't feel that BLP is the right tool to stop those ledes from becoming slanted. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If I devote any more time to this it'll be to address policy regarding the use of negative Op-ed and opinion-related material in BLP's or perhaps even all articles. The problem isn't one particular article, it's vague policy that needs to be addressed.  Life calls and I'm done with this for now.  I've learned one thing I've known for years.  Wiki needs fewer, more knowledgeable administrators.  Scribner (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion has indeed been much ado with little to show for it. It does seem you've expanded your concept from 'no negative op-ed material in lead' to 'no negative opinion-based material in lead.' This is more logical IMO. Still wrong, but more logical. Maybe you'll convince a lot of people with that. I on the other hand believe strongly that Wikipedia should include reliably-sourced, relevant, critical text about the subjects of its articles. We don't need any if-you-can't-say-something-nice-then-don't-say-anything encyclopedia. DanielM (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Redacted portions of this comment voluntarily to improve discussion environment. DanielM (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Daniel my comments are about negative opinion material, not negative material in general. I'll admit I'm surprised that you started this thread and still don't have that concept.  I think you walked away with less than the rest of us.  Scribner (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

←I was asked to have a look at this dispute. A couple of people said above that WP:PILLAR is on their side and that WP:BOLD is policy, but the fifth pillar says "Be bold in editing, moving, and modifying articles" ... articles, not policy. And WP:BOLD is a guideline; WP:CONSENSUS is policy. Edits to policy that are intended to reflect consensus are always welcome; bold edits that don't reflect consensus, not so much. Protonk's point that we should be even more careful to make sure changes have consensus here at WP:BLP than on other policy pages seems like a valid point to me, for the reasons he gives. On the other hand, there's no need to cut off debate early; clearly, it's a good idea to keep NPOV material out of lead sections, and any clarification of wording here or at WP:NPOV that would actually help accomplish that would be welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously?
''Actor John Doe has lent his name to a campaign for tough criminal sentences for heroin addicts. Newspapers have reported that his adult son was arrested for possession of heroin. In spite of the irony of the public allegation the son is not notable in his own right, and his privacy should still be protected.''

Really? Our Jeb Bush article talks about Noelle Bush's problems with the law. If there is significant media coverage of something like this, on what basis should it be excluded? I find this to be a really dubious prescription. john k (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP1E, if the son is not otherwise notable. Notability is not inherited, thus we shouldn't have an article on it. However, if reported in the media and an adult, I don't see why this information couldn't be included in the article of notable John Doe. Lara  04:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say we should have an article on it - I would agree that being the son of somebody famous and being arrested do not immediately qualify one for one's own article. The guideline seems to be saying that we cannot mention the son's name or his arrest in the article about the father.  This seems both wrong on the merits and against actual practice. john k (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding - while notability is not inherited per se, a person who has done nothing particularly interesting, but is the child of someone famous, can still be notable if they are the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. john k (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No one else has anything to say about this? john k (talk) 14:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Still nothing? Do I have to actually change content to get a response?  The current statement is absurdly restrictive. john k (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mug shot and arrest pictures, in or out.
There has been a lot of discussion over these pictures in or out, an editor has started a head count of opinions at the [| Gates talkpage] This is an important decision for the Wikipedia, please come there and leave your opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While I feel that mugshots should not be used as the sole or lead image in an article solely about a living person, unless the person is notable for criminal activity, this is an article about an arrest, and the photo is well within context. This is not a case where a booking photo was used because it was the only free photo available or added to promote a point of view.  It's just as appropriate in the article about the Gates arrest as it is in our featured article on Rosa Parks. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the porch arrest photo is quite inflammatory and is not a free image, apparently taken by a photographer for commercial purposes. It may or may not meet fair use. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This discussion has gone on in too many places. I would suggest continuing it at the article talk page not here. --agr (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Draft wording for WP:MUG
Here is a proposed draft wording on the use of images (especially mugshots), to be added as a new section in this policy:

Images
Images should be used in a way compliant with United States privacy laws. Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false light, or to otherwise embarrass them. This is particularly important in the case of police booking photos ("mugshots").

Mugshots are sometimes used in Wikipedia because they are public-domain images. However, mugshots have a documented and powerful prejudicial effect on how a person is perceived. Their use, especially as the lead image of a living person's biography, is therefore discouraged.
 * 1) A mugshot should not be used in a biography of a living person if the subject is not currently incarcerated. Exceptions may be made in cases where the arrest is the subject's main claim to fame and the subject has clearly chosen to keep awareness of the arrest in the public consciousness, for example by using it as a tool for self-promotion.
 * 2) Mugshots resulting from a false, illegal or wrongful arrest should not be used in a living person's biography. This includes cases where the person was later cleared of all charges, or where all charges were dropped. Exceptions may be made where the subject has reproduced the image in their own published or self-published writings.
 * 3) In articles other than biographies, for example articles on notable events involving living people, mugshots should only be used in article sections discussing the arrests in question.
 * 4) A cropped and touched-up version of a mugshot may be used as a BLP image if no other image is available, provided that the edited result is not readily recognisable as a mugshot.

---

Thoughts? How can it be improved?  JN 466  21:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I had not previously been aware of this discussion; I came here from a link in Talk:Frank DiPascali. (Mr. DiPascali was the CFO for Bernard Madoff, and was both charged and pleaded guilty in federal court yesterday.)  Consistent with my comments there, I think this proposed guideline is generally good except for the following.  In item 1, after "incarcerated", I would add "or has pleaded guilty or has been convicted."  We might also want to add some language such as "of a felony" or "of a serious crime" though each of those would present some issues in some cases -- though not in the case of Mr. DiPascali, who has pleaded guilty to securities fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, perjury and several other things in connection with a well-publicized $65 billion scam.  The point is, there is no reason why a mug shot should necessarily be excluded if the person has formally admitted guilt or has been convicted, just because of the happenstance of whether they are "incarcerated."  In the example I am giving, there was actually a deal between the defendant and government to release him on bail pending sentencing, but the judge sent him to prison anyway.  Either way, at this point he is officially "guilty" and a mug shot should be ok as long as the other criteria are met.  (Although, number 4 might be a little too restrictive for someone who is officially "guilty" -- if it is the only photo available, maybe it should still be ok even if the photo, after editing, is still readily identifiable as a mugshot.)  Obviously, none of this applies to Mr. Gates, whose mugshot should not be included in Wikipedia.  Neutron (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on Gates, but there is currently a 2:1 majority in favour of retaining Gates' mugshot at Talk:Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_incident.  JN  466  12:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't terrible, but it's much too specific. You're essentially saying that it's okay to use a mugshot in an article about an event but not an article about a person? Legislating article organisation in the BLP policy is simply overreaching, and will inevitably lead to tiny breakout articles. I'm also concerned about this idea that the subject should be the ultimate arbiter of which images can be used in their biography; this slips towards ownership. It's better to simply say that if the arrest receives substantial coverage in their biography, the mugshot can be used to illustrate it. As a motivating hypothetical example, consider an article about a musician who wrote a hit song about his wrongful arrest. I'd also like to argue that edited mugshots should be usable even if other images are available, or in addition to such other images, since they may be higher quality or illustrate special qualities (for example, the Bill Gates 1977 image shows him at a young age). In short, there should be no restrictions on the use of these images. Dcoetzee 17:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutron makes some very good points, up to the last one anyway. I think the exceptions portion of point 2 is too exclusive. I think it would be better if closer in wording to that of point 1. Dcoetzee lost me. You're essentially saying that it's okay to use a mugshot in an article about an event but not an article about a person? Yes, that's exactly what it says, which has been discussed for days now. It's all with exceptions, but that's the gist. If their primary claim to notability is their crimes, then that'd be a good exception. This is where Hugh Grant comes in as a good example. He's a famous actor and his was a notable arrest. It was not, however, so notable it warranted its own article. Therefore, as he is not currently incarcerated and did not himself keep the arrest in the media's attention, we should not place the mugshot in his article. Gates' on the other hand, had an arrest notable enough for its own article and one where he continued coverage of it in the media, so while the image shouldn't be used in his biography, it's completely relevant for use in the article on the arrest. Lara  23:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we can't have Grant's mugshot in the section of his article which discusses his arrest. And I am deeply uncertain that Gates's arrest is in any clear way more notable than Grant's.  In general, it seems to me that mugshots should not be used as a main image, I don't see why they shouldn't be used if the article contains a significant discussion of the person's arrest.  john k (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are actually far more sources discussing Grant's arrest than there are for Gates' arrest: ; . Partly this is a reflection of more time having elapsed; the Gates incident will receive many more mentions in RS over the coming 15 years. On the other hand, we need to bear in mind that many of the contemporaneous articles on Grant are probably not on the Internet today; the incident occurred 15 years ago, when the Internet was in its infancy. It can safely be assumed that practically every major newspaper in the English-speaking world, and many elsewhere, reported on it at the time.  JN 466  13:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Now we're conflating notability with having an article. Sometimes whether something is covered in an article section or its own article has a lot more to do with organisation and content volume than with how significant the event is. The point is that the arrest receives substantial discussion, regardless of where exactly that discussion is written down. Dcoetzee 01:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, are you in favour of any policy restrictions at all pertaining to the use of mugshots? If so, could you outline them for us?  JN 466  13:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mainly, I favour the excluding of obvious mugshots either when they are presented out of context, or when the arrest was not a significant event in the person's life. Dcoetzee 22:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This proposal may be too restrictive overall. I like that it acknowledges that booking photos are not to used indiscriminately, but I think that we need to let editors use their judgment more on when a photo is allowable. The Current WP:BLP guidelines handle a lot of this, including the Harm Test essay.  So coming to the challenges to of this proposed set of rules:  Bullet #3 may be too restrictive since it provides an exception for sections about on an arrest even though the heading could be broader, like a trial or an even broader topic.  Even #2 could prevent us from using a photo that is centrally important to an article. For instance, if a person were physically harmed during an unlawful arrest, and the booking photo were widely published evidence of the individual's injuries at the hands of the police, an article or BLP that covers the controversy should include that photo as part of the exposition on police abuse. Should we keep it out because of rule #2?  I'm in favor of explaining the that mugshots are different, and to propose sensitivity to their use, but we'll run into trouble if we try to restrict use too much.Mattnad (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the Harm Test Essay is just that – an essay. It is neither a policy nor a guideline. An essay is just the view of a Wikipedian, which any other Wikipedian can take on board or ignore as they see fit. That is very different from a WP guideline, and even more different from a WP policy.  JN 466  20:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is too restrictive overall. I think the opening paragraph is sufficient guidance. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking for current consensus
Do we have consensus then for inserting the first paragraph of the above proposal? We can always thrash out the rest later, either leaving it at that, or adding further instructions, depending on the result of discussions. At any rate, I reckon that by inserting the first para we'd also get input from previously uninvolved editors. This is the paragraph I'd like to insert: Any objections?  JN 466  20:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the scope - I do wonder whether "to otherwise embarrass them" is too broad and hard to test. How would we know if something is embarrassing to the subject and can we know the intent of an editor who inserts a booking photo. Moreover, a guilty person who was justly arrested (cf. Larry Craig) might be embarrassed by the related booking photo.  Whereas the false light can be investigated and assessed by the community as a test since it allows us to find sources, look for weight and notability etc.  Would you consider dropping that clause. How about this as an alternative:


 * Mattnad (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not need "images should be used in a way compliant with US privacy laws" - all of Wikipedia must comply with all US law because it is in the US.
 * The term "false light" is a legal term of art (which differs from state to state in the US). Even if this were written by an attorney, our policies should be written in plain language.
 * I think the only current consensus is that not all photographs are appropriate for Wikipedia. We need to use editorial discretion and discussion when this is brought up. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Would removing the link to false light help? The term "false light" is plain English language, and the legal term was derived from it. Dcoetzee 00:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that occurred to me too; the wikilink makes it too specific. I propose we put in Mattnad's wording minus the privacy laws, i.e.
 * If no one has any further objections, I'll drop this in in a few days when the page is open again. If it still needs further tweaking, please let's hear about it.  JN 466  12:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Text about prohibition of "op-ed" criticism and praise in article intro
"Op-ed criticism and praise should never be in the article lead" was recently inserted in WP:BLP by editor Scribner (well, someone added the "praise" part after). You'll find it under "Criticism and praise." Scribner made this edit a little more than an half-hour after mass-deleting all criticism from the intro of the Alan Greenspan article commenting it as "op-ed" and weasel-worded." I discussed this editing at that article, stating that I found it somewhat Orwellian, and Scribner responded in part that it didn't start there. Anyhow, to begin, I find the expression "op-ed" to be somewhat indeterminate. Is it supposed to be strictly when some guest furnishes an opinion piece in a traditional newspaper or an opinion video segment (I guess this happens) for a television news program? Does it also cover opinion columnists who launch some criticism or praise in the course of their regular columns? Exactly what is the Wikipedia definition of "op-ed" if we're to prohibit op-ed stuff from article intros? Further, I find this to be somewhat of a micro-management of the editing process. If there's a problem with criticism or praise in the article intro, wouldn't it be addressable already through WP:WEIGHT or some other rule? Okay, I'll close by saying that while I have no particular attachment to "op-eds," however that term is construed, I don't think this portion of the policy is appropriate, but I hesitate to clip it out, because I have never edited a policy before, and I don't know what is proper or improper when doing so. DanielM (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it, all to often especially in political articles, comments from opinionated editors are cited as if fact. I agree with what Scribner did to the lede of Greenspan, it reads a lot more encyclopeadic after his editing. I also agree with the comment staying in the policy.
 * I also see Daniel has reverted the work done by Scribner and then brought it here. One of Daniel's edit summaries says restore some of the erased criticism to lead, this is exactly what was done, critisism was replaced. This is awful and standard practice around..criticism, criticism..even criticism sections, this style of editing is one of the reasons for the low quality of many political articles.I often wonder if some editors have ever opened an encyclopedia and looked inside.Off2riorob (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's a "revert" to restore some of the criticism, and that part of it I restored I changed and added a reference. DanielM (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Bah, I further comported with the "no op-ed" text in doing so. Encyclopedias can and should include some amount of criticism IMO. DanielM (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have had to sit on my hands not to revert to Scribners version of the lede, it is much clearer and less pushing opinions on to the reader. All politicians have as much criticism as they get praise, the other side criticises anything they do. It is hard to remove as people resist removal of their slant on things, this is especially bad in politics and religion articles here. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I would Keep/Support the new text. My axe-to-grind with this is that the criticism should in no stretch of the imagination be the focus of the article. The lead in particular should be limited to positions held, major accomplishments, major scandals (i.e. those that meet notability requirements in and of themselves), and enough context to determine when and where the person lived and worked and became famous. Neither praise nor criticism should be in the lead, and frankly they should be only a minor component of the actual article. Some of the articles have become simple battlegrounds of partisan opinions. SDY (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially in the lede.Keep/Support the new text. Off2riorob (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose the use of "[o]p-ed criticism and praise should never be in the article lead" in WP:BLP. The term "op-ed" is not clearly defined, not logically distinguished from other sources of criticism or praise. Text is somewhat arbitrary, constitutes editorial micromanagement IMO of something that could already be addressed with WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, or other policy. Further, once something is prohibited in the article intro, what's to stop the next logical step of prohibiting it throughout the article? DanielM (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Like to be unenforceable in practice. Process creep.  Uses a poorly defined term which if applied narrowly could be ineffective and if applied broadly would eliminate too many sources.  Also WP:LEDE should have us kick most cited claims down to the body of the article. Protonk (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/Support My text and policy change. Op-ed material is problematic in BLP articles but its use in an article summary, the lead, is a slippery slope we needed to address.  This policy change is common sense editing, merely a guideline.  Attacking subjects of BLP's in the lead with opinionated statements against them is a strong violation of WP:NPOV, wiki becomes more a tabloid and less of an encyclopedia by allowing Op-ed materials in the lead.  Scribner (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Policy is that op-eds are not reliable sources, and shouldn't be used except as a source about the opinion of the writer. Opinions of others about a person should not be in the lead, especially for a BLP. I suggest instead of the term 'op-ed', the wording be changed to 'unless supported by high quality reliable sources, criticism and praise should not be included in the article lead'. LK (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed this because it contradicts WP:LEAD, which requires that notable controversies be discussed in the lead. It also contradicts common sense and the writers' need to use their editorial judgment. If someone well known has said of a subject, "John Smithsky is widely regarded as the greatest Russian novelist of the 20th century," there is no reason on earth that can't be added to the lead; indeed, it would be odd to leave it out. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But if someone has a well known opinion about someone else, it should be in a reliable source. It won't be sourced to an op-ed column or website. How about, 'Statements in the lead should be backed by high quality reliable sources'. LK (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * All material in BLPs should be backed by high-quality sources, with the exception that self-published material from the subject may be included. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't edit war over policy. The page has been protected in the most recent revision for one week. Protonk (talk)18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * SlimVirgin has it right: if the Op/Ed is high quality RS, it goes in the BLP, and if the lead can summarize it without WP:UNDUE, so be it. Jclemens (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Op-ed criticism should never be in the article lead" was my policy change, which is common sense and merely enforces the guidelines of WP:NPOV. Another editor added the praise mention.  Perhaps the praise mention should be omitted, not the entire policy change.  My change is in the best interest of Wikipedia BLP articles, in maintaining encyclopedic content in the lead, not tabloid Op-ed attempts to smear BLP subjects.  Op-ed materials are still allowed in the article.  As an example of how Op-ed criticism in the lead can be abused, Gore's comment about Bush's not signing the Kyoto Protocol described it as, "a stunning display of moral cowardice."  Scribner (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But this is all partially duplicative of and partially contradictory with WP:LEDE, WP:NPOV and other policies/guidelines. And it isn't hard and fast enough to offer a good rule.  Your rule would presumably allow editors to revert without comment and admins to block to enforce the stance that Al Gore, former vice president and winner of the gorram nobel peace price, can't be relied upon for a comment about his opponent.  Does that make any sense at all? Protonk (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Criticism and praise from reliable sources can be entirely appropriate in the lead, Scribner, and editors have to be allowed to use their judgment as to when it's appropriate. In addition, WP:LEAD demands it in certain circumstances. To rule that op-eds are ipso facto not reliable sources would be a significant policy change, which would have knock-on effects elsewhere. Although I agree that the "stunning display of moral cowardice" is too detailed for the lead of Bush (if that's where it's being used), Gore is definitely a reliable source. Whether to include it has to be left to the editors on the page. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 19:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I like bold and encourage it in general but I think policy pages require a depth of consensus, agree policy pages need to be stable, articles don't. Off2riorob (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Hard rules with ill-defined terms make bad policy. It's also unnecessary - praise and criticism should pass WP:UNDUE in the body, as applied specifically to BLPs in the existing WP:BLP section; and WP:LEAD in the lead. That's all that's needed policy-wise, the rest is down to judgement and discussion. Rd232 talk 19:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a common sense editing change and it benefits Wiki standards. Negative Op-ed material shouldn't be used in the lead.  Think about that for a few days.  Slim, I'm disappointed in your heavy-handed approach to an issue non-administrators were working out without your interference.  Offer your opinion but keep please keep admin powers out of the issue.  Poor display of the trust vested in you.  Scribner (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Slim didn't use the tools. I did. Protonk (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking to you or referring to use of any "tools". Scribner (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Offer your opinion but keep please keep admin powers out of the issue. Poor display of the trust vested in you." Were your words to SV. I'm saying that SV didn't protect the page in its current form, therefore s/he didn't 'use the tools' in this dispute.  You may not be speaking to me, but I am speaking to you. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm proud of you. Keep up the good work, whatever it was.  I don't know what page you're talking about and guess what, I don't care.  Scribner (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * you wrote it about 30 minutes ago and I responded directly beneath it. I'm not trying to have a snark off here, just trying to carry on a discussion and correct what I saw was a misapprehension on your part. Protonk (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good, I'm proud of you. Keep up the good work, whatever it was.  I don't know what page you're talking about and guess what, I don't care.  Scribner (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe Scribner's concerns stem from this dispute, where an editorial in the Economist (an actual editorial, not an op-ed) was used to criticize Paul Krugman, an economist. Two issues are raised by this. First, by any standard, an editorial in the Economist is a perfectly valid source, especially for an economist, whether in the lead or elsewhere; to change BLP to forbid this would be to stand Wikipedia's sourcing culture on its head.

Secondly, this shows the problems that can arise when someone tries to change long-standing policy because of one dispute they're having somewhere. When writing policy we should bear in mind that hard cases make bad law. Policy should only be changed when an editor sees multiple problems in different areas, and any change has to be judged against the dynamic of all the other policies and guidelines, because they all have to work together. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong. It's obvious to anyone familiar with this RFC you're commenting on something you don't understand.  The title of the RFC is "Op-Ed material used to cite defamatory/negative material of BLP".  I hope this is a cause of embarrassment for you Slim, in that your comments and actions appear uninformed and overreaching.  The policy was clarified because another editor pointed out the criticism in the Greenspan article.  Unlike you, I had thought about this problem and sought others' opinions and made mention of my changes in a good faith effort.  I'm embarrassed for you and your reckless judgment and actions in this case.  Scribner (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, wait, Scribner. There you discussed a specific and somewhat unusual situation. I remember it was already a problem at Paul Krugman two or three years ago. Succinctly, The Economist magazine had cited a blog that "ranked" Krugman as the #1 or #2 most partisan columnist using some elaborate methodology, but the edit made it appear that it was The Economist (the reliable source) doing the ranking. So there was a question of what to do when you have this mix of reliable and potentially unreliable source. By referencing the blog, has The Economist validated its ranking? I saw it more as laundering. So because of the specifics of the situation, which encompassed way more than a simple question of op-ed criticism, and that the RFC occurred in the Krugman article and not here, I think that's different than generally or abstractly discussing the question of prohibiting op-ed criticism. DanielM (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The individual case shows pretty clearly, from what I can tell, that there is absolutely no reason to change the BLP policy in this way, in that the specific point in question was resolved in the way Scribner thinks it should have been, without much apparent support for Scribner's proposed justification. Wikipedia policy, especially WP:DUE, already provides tools for dealing with inappropriately prejudicial material in ridiculous additions to BLP.  There's absolutely no reason to come up with ridiculous additions to BLP. john k (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy edit was hardly a "ridiculous additions to BLP" as you claim in your stammering, marginally coherent statement. The clarification does have editor support, particularly from those who work with BLPs, unlike a couple of drive-by admins who think they have more than a proxy vote on issues.  You do not, and your opinion and judgment are flawed by ego and haste, especially in your case.   WP:DUE is too vague a policy, and does not prohibit negative Op-ed or opinion material in the lead or anywhere else in an article.  Scribner (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's an ongoing edit war in which WP:LEDE is used to cite a reason to include negative Op-ed material in the the lead.


 * Cue the crickets.... Scribner (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Concur with Slimvirgin and Rd232. Existing rules like BLP, NPOV, and RS cover any potential problems adequately.  We shouldn't limit ourselves arbitrarily.  As Slimvirgin said, a high quality source which provides a common sense statement which encapsulates prevailing consensus opinion shouldn't be excluded like this.  Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per WP:LEDE: The lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." (emphasis added). In eg Mother Teresa, it was an entirely proper decision, taken after extensive discussion on the talk page, to included a paragraph in the lead foreshadowing the discussion of criticism of MT to come.  This was a judicious decision, carefully made, and has not been significantly challenged since.  Whereas previously there had been tugs of war over the article, this intro has stood the test of time, and the article has no longer been attacked either as a whitewash or a smear job.  MT is of course dead; but I think the same probably applies to many BLPs.  Per WP:LEDE again, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article".  While taking care not to be WP:UNDUE, that must include both the good and the bad.  Jheald (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)