Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content

Didn't we just do this?
This RFC smacks of wonkery to me. I'm not sure what it's actually meant to accomplish, other than drawing a bright line between editors. Unit Anode  01:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems more narrowly focused than the main one, but I get what you mean. ++Lar: t/c 05:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is related, but not exactly the same subject. The other RfC was (at least, at first) on deletion of completely unsourced BLPs.  This one is on deletion of material from BLPs.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is meant to achieve exactly what is stated in the introduction, an understanding of policy and procedure for dealing with verifiable but unsourced BLP content. If you consider me a wonk for trying to resolve that, so be it.  I asked at the main RfC whether I should post it as a separate RfC or not, and having not received a clear answer, I went ahead and created a sub-RfC.  If someone thinks there is a better place to have this discussion I'm all ears.  Meanwhile, I've done everything humanly possible to make sure this is in the right place.  - Wikidemon (talk)

First Mover
I know the first mover advantage in RFCs (whereby the people who get in comments early are more likely to attract support and wield influence) is well known and commented upon but this is the first time I've seen someone hastily put in their opinion then delete it and ask everyone to reserve the spot for them while they come up with something better. I foresee a great wiki-land grab in which people create likely RFC topics for the sole purpose of booking the top slots for themselves and their friends. 87.254.70.16 (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I think we need an RFC about how to do RFCs better. Seriously! Individual views only works well in small enough quantities, and even then it has weaknesses. Rd232 talk 09:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Concur. But that discussion doesn't belong here. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Framing Questionable
From the RfC introduction: "...removals of such content are exempted from... the consensus process more broadly..." - that is incorrect. Consensus applies to all things, by definition. The BLP policy could be changed by consensus (and if you look at the history of the page, you will see that it actually has been in flux recently). Thus, it appears that the RfC introduction is not an entirely neutral summary. — James F Kalmar  21:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Updated. — James F Kalmar  21:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Commentary
It seems to me that the view of User:Pointillist is that all material is contentious: that is, any unsourced or undersourced information in a BLP article may be removed*. On the other extreme, User:SoWhy's view appears to be that no material is contentious: the removal of any material, even if in a BLP, requires at least a good-faith effort to source. Most of the the other proposals fall on a scale between these extremes.

But most proposals (that of User:Jc3s5h is an exception) do not actually discuss what material might be contentious! This seems odd for an RFC ostensibly asking for such a definition.

* That is, removed without discussion, notification, attempted sourcing, or consensus. Obviously any material can be removed with proper process.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The original proposal of Wikidemon, who started the RfC, which he temporarily removed here, had some good ideas.John Z (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right that in effect I was saying "anything could be contentious", but when I posted View by Pointillist it followed a long View by Wikidemon section (see here) that has since disappeared, so the apparent context for my view has changed. I would like to reiterate that I was addressing only new/infant articles containing details about living people, not articles that have survived for more than a couple of weeks, and certainly not the backlog of unsourced BLPs.
 * That said, I think I do specifically disagree with SoWhy's view about the responsibility to find sources. I think very new articles are a special case because they aren't yet being watched by experienced neutral editors, but they are being indexed by Google. In this situation I think the burden of proof should shift to the author, so other editors are not inhibited from deleting unsourced statements (but not the entire article) without being obliged to search for sources that the author did not bother to cite. I like and respect SoWhy, but IMO raising the bar for newly created BLP articles will do nothing but good. - Pointillist (talk) 00:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Jayron32's view: the removal of content constitutes an edit. Note also WP:BURDEN's "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." and "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations..." (emphasis added) Rd232 talk 07:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I like "the original proposal of Wikidemon, who started the RfC, which he temporarily removed here." Maurreen (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Opposing
Is this a petition, without opposes? Someone removed my oppose section earlier. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a "petition", it's an RFC. RFC's are not supposed to have oppose sections. If you have a view to share, share it in your own section, and see if it draws support. Unit  Anode  01:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's too late. You have to be one of the early ones.  Oh well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

General breakdown
It seems like this can break down into one or two main questions:
 * Whether unsourced BLPs are inherently a major problem.
 * The pace of any changes to BLP practices, such as the usual incrementalism, something quicker but moderated, or something en masse.
 * Maurreen (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary of views so far
Guidelines for what is "contenious"
 * Sandstein
 * If the content was not already contentious before the initial deletion, that initial deletion can not be justified with the WP:BLP instruction that "contentious material ... should be removed immediately". If there is no other policy-based justification for the deletion, it may constitute disruption.
 * Jc3s5h
 * Unsourced/poorly sourced material that could cause harm or unfair advantage should be removed immediately. (Gives examples.)
 * Themfromspace
 * It must be recognized that the more that material is likely to cause real-world issues for the subject, the more thoroughly it should be sourced.
 * Ntsimp
 * My definition of "contentious material" is "material that would likely be defamatory if false." I recognize that this is still not an objective standard, but there are many harmless unsourced statements that should pass the test and stay,
 * Mild Peril
 * Indiscriminate removal of unsourced material is counterproductive for a number of reasons. ... we need to exercise some good old-fashioned common sense. (Gives two examples.)
 * Maurreen
 * Unsourced BLPs are not inherently a major problem. (Includes guidelines for what is "contentious.")

New BLPs Pointillist
 * This view relates specifically to new/infant articles and does not apply to unsourced BLPs more than two weeks old.
 * Any editor should feel free to 'delete unsourced (or unreliably-sourced) statements about living persons in new articles, without feeling responsible for finding reliable sources.
 * When deleting unsourced contributions by novice editors, it is important to explain the reason and help the contributor understand how to improve the article. copied across by Pointillist (talk) at 09:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No removal en masse
 * Rd232
 * On the issue of whether unsourced content can/should be removed from BLPs en masse without review -- Interpreting WP:V to justify a deletion of unsourced content solely for being unsourced goes beyond the policy's intent.
 * SoWhy
 * Support the removal of questionable or "contentious" (as WP:BLP puts it) but make it clear that it does not mean that we can or even should delete just anything that is unsourced - BLP or not.

OK to remove any unsourced biographical content
 * Kevin
 * Any editor who is working to decrease the amount of unsourced biographical content by either adding sources or by removing the content is acting in good faith, and therefore is also supported by this policy.
 * Jayron32
 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain".
 * KieferSkunk
 * "If the content cannot be verified, it should be removed, period." I realize this is the standard for all WP content as it is, but what I mean here is that a person who reviews a BLP and discovers a piece of info that "doesn't look right" or needs verification, they should either immediately remove it or add a reliable source for it, such that the info can be verified.

Technical answer Jubileeclipman -- Technical answer (look at the edit and see this for an edit I made recently)?
 * Hide unsourced material with the cn template like this:

This is a compilation of sections so far. Maurreen (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Summary page
I've started a page to develop guidelines on what is "contentious," at my sandbox. Please jump in as you see fit. Maurreen (talk) 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability
Verifiability policy: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability."

"Verifiability" is not the same as "verification given." Maurreen (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Progress in BLP RFC
There is momentum for a proposal to close the request for comment on unsourced biographies on living people.

The RFC will be open through Monday night, 23:59 Wikipedia (UTC) time.

In a nutshell, this proposal would declare consensus for:
 * 1) Stronger policy against new unsourced BLP's, and
 * 2) A deletion process for new unsourced BLP's.

There is a Q&A on the talk page. Maurreen (talk) 04:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Status of this page?
Comments on this RFC have dwindled. People are now using this project page as a talk page. Should we do any of the following:
 * 1) Formally close the RFC?
 * 2) Determine whether there is any progress on the point of the RFC?
 * 3) Move the less-related new sections somewhere?
 * 4) Other? Maurreen (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I suppose this goes to your second point, Maurreen. I'd be interested in seeing what your analysis or impression is about consensus at this time. I've not attempted to meticulously count, but from just taking an overview I have some substantial doubt that a clear consensus exists on anything at this point. That's unfortunate because there are a substantial number of folks (myself included) who believe that the policy can, in its current state, be read to justify the idea that it's okay to immediately remove any unsourced BLP information. There are also a substantial number who believe just the opposite. Whichever side of the debate one is on, that's a sad state of affairs and a recipe for disruption. I dislike the contentiousness requirement because it is vague and a potential source for conflict, but I'd rather have it apply — even undefined — than the present situation because it would be less disruptive than the two schools of belief I just defined. If you also see us at a no–consensus juncture, perhaps we ought to try to more narrowly focus or structure the RfC. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My choice would be to close this as "no consensus," move the semi-related new sections somewhere, and move on, away from the "contentious" issue.
 * The leading viewpoints here each had about 25-30 "support" !votes, but can't all be reconciled.
 * There is much more agreement and participation at the other RFC. So I think it would be good for interested people to concentrate on that, and other people to focus on whatever they usually focus on. The proliferation of discussions related to the overall issue is not ideal.
 * I am confused by this statement: "I dislike the contentiousness requirement because it is vague and a potential source for conflict, but I'd rather have it apply — even undefined — than the present situation ..." The "contentiousness" requirement is the present situation.
 * For the sake of disclosure, I support the "contentiousness" requirement. It might help if the requirement were better defined, but I don't feel strongly about that. Maurreen (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarifying -- I think removal of material needs more of a reason than that no source is listed. Maurreen (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get a consensus

 * I'm very inexperienced in RfC's and polls, etc, but do you think that we might flush out a consensus with a poll something like the following:


 * As for my own position about this, if you're interested you might see the fuller statement of it I made a few minutes ago to Gigs (here), but it really doesn't matter for purposes of this discussion, I think. Best regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 22:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC) PS: A Prop 4 might also be needed just like Prop 3 but asking about 1B, but it seems to me that the mass-deletion issue is much less of an issue with 1B than it is with 1A.  T RANSPORTER M AN   ( TALK ) 22:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC) PPS: There might need to be a "none of the above" selection for Prop 2.  T RANSPORTER M AN   ( TALK ) 22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One thing is, in theory, WP frowns on polls. One way or another, I would advise not being so restrictive in the type of input.

Given the result of both this and the other RFC, I don't think #1 would be a good use of time.

My understanding is that, as long as WP has a "contentious" requirement, you'd prefer that it be more clear what is "contentious." My advice is to focus on that part. I think that has a greater chance of success.

But you don't need to do it so formally. Whether on this page or elsewhere, you could invite some relevant editors to work with you to fashion such a guideline. By "relevant editors", I mean you could start with the people who suggested guidelines.

That's my take. Your mileage may vary. Maurreen (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Maurreen, having thought about it overnight, I think the effort would be futile. Thus to answer your original question: I support closing the RfC with "no consensus." Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 14:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Query about "sourced contentious material"
How do we handle, for example, a case where a source gives details about a libel suit which the subject of the libel wins and the offending medium retracts the libel? Is it proper to list the libel on the grounds that it is still sourceable per WP:RS and WP:V? Or is the knowledge that the material has been retracted sufficient to bar insertion of the material into the BLP? Should we just note that the suit existed and avoid detailing it? (fictional example: John Roe sued 'National Tattletale' over a claim that he murdered his ex-wife. The 'Tattletale' retracted the claim.)   If the claim is only detailed in the footnote, is that proper? Or should the entire detailed information be off-limits per the new rulings on contentious material? Where no libel suit existed, but a source retracts a statement, is the original publication still RS for WP purposes? Collect (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any new ruling on contentious material.
 * Depending on the context, I would probably mention the suit but not go into detail about it.
 * This is probably better addressed at the WP:BLP. Maurreen (talk) 06:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In the case at hand, I felt it went to the core issue of "what is contentious?" posed here, and to the Jinbo quotes. . Collect (talk) 11:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the US at least, "truth" is a nearly absolute defense to libel claims. Not necessarily in other countries, but we usually follow US law anyway. In the case of a retracted claim, we could and should report who said the claim and why they retracted it, rather than presenting the claim as fact.  Gigs (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Should presentation of the claim in a footnote then have a "retracted" comment added to it?  BTW, I was accused of "forum shopping" when I followed Maurreen's suggestion  and posted on WT:BLP! Collect (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. I think the body text should make clear that the claim was retracted. Retractions should generally be given at least the same amount of weight as the original claim. Maurreen (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Query about "if false"
Several folks have proposed standards or definitions for contentiousness which make material contentious if it is defamatory/harmful/negative/etc. "if false". If such a standard is to be adopted, why would it make any difference whether or not the information is false? If the standard is to be that we don't want to hurt people, then unsourced true information can be just as harmful as unsourced false information. If the standard is to avoid the possibility of legal liability for defamation, then the "if false" makes some sense but there are a number of situations and jurisdiction in which there can be liability for defamation or breach of privacy even if the information is true. Aren't we better off just not concerning ourselves with falsity? —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 18:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No. If Joe Schmoe is convicted of killing Mary Doe, we shouldn't exclude that information just because it's negative. Maurreen (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the query was regarding the need for sourcing - and negative material, even if true, requires sources. Sourcing is not a matter of true or untrue (hopefully very few untrue claims can be sourced) but whether the claim in itself is contentious or likely to be considered contentious.  As for liability for non-contentious information - that is not the US nor Florida standard, which are the rules under which the WMF operates to the best of my knowledge.  Collect (talk) 11:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Query about "high–quality" and "poor" applied to sources
If I'm not misreading the policy, when you really boil down what it says about sources, the verifiability and reliability standards for BLP information are actually no different than the standards for non-BLP information. That is, the terms "high-quality sources" and "poor(ly) source(d)" really mean nothing more than, respectively, information which meets the general verifiability and reliability standards and information which does not meet those standards. As such they're confusing and imply something that they don't really mean. Should they be retained? —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 18:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You would probably get more response at WP:BLP. Maurreen (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to close
Agree - as proposer. —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 21:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I second that. I'm not sure how to mark the page as such, that the main reason I didn't do it. Maurreen (talk) 20:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * We fools rush in, you know. Frankly I think we're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, but... —  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 21:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)