Wikipedia talk:Publication bans

message: A discussion at Talk:2008 UEFA qualifier fan attack exposed the need for a policy on this matter. It was discussed in the Policy section of the Village Pump on June 8, 2007. -- Mwalcoff 07:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems like a reasonable guideline to me.  It is, basically, a clear application of the principles of WP:NOT#CENSORED and WP:V to a particular class of situation that's likely to happen with relative frequency. I don't really see anything I'd change. JulesH 08:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good initiative.--Bagande 12:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: I oppose the proposed policy because it gives privileged status to one country.  A better strategy would be to set up fully-functional Wikipedia mirror sites in various countries so that Wikipedia doesn't have to give such special status.  (The mirror site in each country might have different limitations.)
I also oppose the proposed policy because it places a new restriction on Wikipedia editors.  If nothing is said in policy, then Wikipedians are free to make choices about what to include and what to delete based on a variety of criteria such as what fits smoothly into the article, what we think is relevant or interesting, what we think is true, etc.  This proposed policy would reduce the set of criteria Wikipedians are free to use.  --Coppertwig 14:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be said that the location of the Wikimedia servers gives privileged status to one country. What's always been practiced is that Wikipedia follows the laws of Florida, the United States, and international treaties. The inclusion of information in this case is a legal—not an editorial—decision. For that reason, this proposed thing does not sound like a bad idea (I think that it should be a guideline, lest people enforce it to push their own agendas). GracenotesT § 21:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I'm not convinced by this policy, it is just a synthesis of Wikipedia is not censored and the Verification policy.
What does this page add ? Nothing. The "problem" posed by the first talk page could easely been solved using the existing WP:NOT WP:RS and WP:V. Making a synthesis for the sake of creating a new policy ? I think this policy should not be adopted on the ground that it is useless. — Esurnir 19:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't neccesarily mean its useless. A summary of policies applied to a particular situation can be useful for editors, but it shouldn't be listed as a policy. See Template:Policy Summary and Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset for examples of this. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless 

message: All seems fine from a legal standpoint, but not from an ethical standpoint.  In many jurisdictions, publishing information which may be prejudicial to an ongoing legal case constitutes contempt of court, but if that jurisdiction is not Florida or US-federal, that has no legal impact upon us.  However, is it right to deliberately and knowingly act with contempt?  Is it right to publish information that will have a direct effect on the outcome of such a case (in the UK, we call such actions perverting the course of justice).  Remember, Wikipedia may not be subject to the jurisdiction, but in many cases the contributors of the information are.  Thus, I feel that this proposal, which basically says "It's OK to publish this information", cannot be justified.  We do not play dice with people's lives.  81.104.175.145 23:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposed policy deals with a legal question.  And should have the nutshell summary "laws not applicable in Florida is not applicable to Wikipedia."  The ethical issues you are raising is, I belive, covered by WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy.  Which this policy perhaps should mention.  Taemyr 01:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Laws prohibiting the release of information prejudicial to legal cases exist for a reason.  The ethical issues should be dealt with here.  General censorship laws with respect to obscenity, etc. are already dealt with in WP:NOT#CENSORED.  81.104.175.145 08:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it should not.  While I agree with you that care should be taken when dealing with ongoing or upcoming legal cases, wikipedias stance on these issues should be independent of laws of other countries.  We do not want the laws of Iran to apply to wikipedia. (I have no idea what can and can not be published in Iran, so it's possible that this is a bad excample.) Taemyr 16:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly we're not dealing with a legal issue.  The legal question is easily answered - Wikipedia is not bound to jurisdictions outside of Florida and US-federal.  Job done.  The ethical issue remains unaddressed.  81.104.175.145 17:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, I maintain that it is in part delt with under WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy.  This specific policy however deals with the impact of other nations laws.  As such it is not the appropriate place to introduce general conserns that should be independent on legislature. Taemyr 17:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethical standpoint 

message: There appears to be a cultural gap here between U.S. and non-U.S. editors.
In the U.S., it is typical for media to publish the names and backgrounds of criminal defendants. The jury selection process weeds out jurors who have been influenced by pretrial publicity. Jurors are instructed not to read or watch material about the trial while it goes on, and, in highly publicized cases, may be sequestered to keep them from being influenced.
Therefore, Americans would not consider it unethical to name a criminal defendant -- provided that the publication goes on to report on the result of the trial, guilty or not guilty.
Other countries may do things differently. But I don't see why the entire world should be prevented from reading about a defendant for the benefit of 12 or 15 jurors. If the British justice system does not do an adequate job of weeding out those jurors who have been influenced by pretrial publicity, I don't think that's Wikipedia's problem. And some countries that regulate pretrial publicity don't even have juries.
Now it's important to note that a publication ban may make it impossible to find verifiable information on something. In that case, it might be safer not to include information on the defendant. But in the Danish case that led to this discussion, the ban was imposed after the defendant had been named in the press. The Danish press then stopped using the defendant's name. The question was whether Wikipedia should follow their lead. In this case, with verifiable information available from older editions of Danish newspapers, I don't think we should remove the name. -- Mwalcoff 13:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an issue for high-profile individuals.  At the time of the initial trial, whether or not it was discussed in the Michael Jackson article was irrelevant, since he was alredy well-covered, so there are no inferences to be drawn from mentioning it.  In the case of otherwise non-notable individuals named in an article, an inference of guilt can be drawn - after all, if the guy is innocent, why is he in the encyclopaedia?  Verifiability alone is not a necessary and sufficient condition for inclusion.  81.104.175.145 13:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but someone who's not notable enough for his own article may still be mentioned in another. -- Mwalcoff 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the point I'm trying to make.  If people only have an article because of some accusation, we can remove it as non-notable.  If someone is only mentioned in the encyclopaedia because of some accusation, it is information prejudicial to a legal case, as we've got no reason for the mention in the first place.  81.104.175.145 15:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree -- there are many things mentioned in the encyclopedia that don't merit articles themselves. If we're writing about a crime, it makes sense to mention someone arrested for the crime, even if that person is not himself notable. The question as to whether the information is "prejudicial" is a cultural one, as described below. From an American's perspective, the entire world shouldn't be prevented from learning a fact simply to make it easier to find 12 people to serve on a jury. -- Mwalcoff 01:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you're concentrating on the legal problem.  The legal situation is a non-issue, and utterly irrelevant (it's already answered).  The problem is an ethical one, which you still fail to address, namely whether it is right to name someone in an article who has otherwise done nothing simply because they have been accused (rightly or wrongly) of a crime.  Not only is it potentially prejudicial, a permanent record of this in Wikipedia is likely to affect them for the rest of their lives.  There is nothing anywhere which mandates that we should name non-notables in articles, and nothing anywhere which mandates that simply because we can find a source for something that we must include it.  81.104.175.145 12:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone knows, or should know, that someone is innocent until proven guilty. If people don't know that, that's not our fault, and we shouldn't keep important information out of an article on those grounds. -- Mwalcoff 23:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it's not "important information".  If the only reason someone's name appears in the encyclopaedia anywhere is because of an unresolved allegation, they should not be there.  It's as if we've already judged them guilty, which si a gross violation of NPOV.  81.104.175.145 23:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, if we say a person has been arrested or charged, it simply means he has been arrested or charged. It doesn't mean he's guilty, and anyone who thinks that, based simply on the fact that he has been charged, is making an improper assumption. And that's not our fault, and it shouldn't influence the way we write articles. Note that while you might consider it unethical and unimportant to publish the name of a criminal defendant, American media always give the name of who's been arrested or charged with a crime they're reporting on (unless it's a juvenile and the name is unavailable). An American reader would find it strange if we wrote about a crime for which someone has been charged and did not name that person. -- Mwalcoff 00:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Mwalcoff, please read WP:BLP1E. Taemyr 00:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BLP1E says two things. One is that a person only notable for one event may not be a good candidate for his or her  own article. That is not in dispute. The second is that editors should "consider whether the names of private individuals could be redacted from articles without the loss of significant information." I would say that criminal defendants in high-profile cases would be considered "public figures" rather than "private individuals," and, anyway, that the name of someone who has been charged of a crime we're writing about certainly is "significant information." -- Mwalcoff 00:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It most certainly is not "significant information" until they have been convicted.  WP:NOT a newspaper.  Criminal defendants in any sort of case are "private individuals" unless they have attracted the sort of attention outside of the alleged crime itself to meet WP:BIO.  By the very fact of mentioning them in relation to the crime, having no other reason to include them in any other article, we are effectively saying they're guilty by giving the case undue weight.  If they do not merit an article, then we don't have a balancing viewpoint, and therefore should not be naming them in articles.  The same goes for acquittals, to a limited degree - the whole point is that they leave the case without a stain on their character, there's no need for us to leave one.  On the other hand, once they are convicted (rightly or wrongly), then they are fair game.  That's what this should be about.  If a court orders that some party to a trial not be named, is it binding on us?  Of course not, but we should respect such orders where reasonable, out of respect for whoever it is that is being gagged.  Don't play dice with people's lives.  81.104.175.145 02:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, in American law, defendants in high-profile cases are considered "limited public figures." See public figure. -- Mwalcoff 03:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it significant information?  WPBLP1 tells us to cover the event, not the person.  If the defendant is not known from other events the name adds nothing to the article, it becomes a synonym for the defendant. Taemyr 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't you ever heard of the Five Ws? What, where, why, when and who. -- Mwalcoff 03:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sure I have read somewhere that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor an investigative institution.  More importantly; When the defendant is not known from other events, the defendant is as good an answer to who as the name of the defendant.  Taemyr 03:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with you completely. To me, shielding the name of "the defendant" when the person's name is available from a reliable source is an abdication of our responsibility to tell the full story. As I told the anon user above, I believe this is a cultural divide between you and me that is not going to be bridged in this discussion. You simply are not going to get many Americans to agree with you on this. By the way, have you ever visited thesmokinggun.com? You'd probably find it shocking, but the information they provide (mugshots and police reports of criminal defendants) is not controversial over here. -- Mwalcoff 03:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a responsibility to tell the full story?  Also, I fail to see how the name of someone otherwise completely unknown adds anything to the story.  No, until today I had not visited thesmokinggun.com.  I have now, and found it to be a rather uninteresting site, as I am not that interested in American crimes.  It's not about what information is controversial or not, I see no reason that we should avoid controversy(as long as things are sourced).  It's about what content is added, and names will not automatically add anything. Taemyr 03:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of directing you to thesmokinggun.com was to point out to you what Americans are used to. To an American, saying "the defendant...the defendant...the defendant" throughout an article, when you know the person's name, seems ridiculous. Because in the U.S., it's simply not considered wrong to name a defendant, provided you don't claim he actually committed the crime. -- Mwalcoff 03:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But what Americans are used to is no more relevant than what English law happens to say.  The issue is whether or not the name adds any information to the article.  (Regarding WP:BLP1E that is.  I think we have strayed quite far from the suggested policy)Taemyr 04:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I think our interpretation of what information is "significant" for the purpose of WP:BLP1E is colored by what we're used to. -- Mwalcoff 04:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: WP:BLP1E indicates these situations should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. I think in the case, for instance, of the attack on the referee, the name of the defendant is clearly significant, even if the defendant is not notable for any other reason. In other cases, the name of the defendant might not be significant. I don't think the Marc Cohn article is lacking because it doesn't have the name of the guy who shot him. That's because the shooting is only a small part of the article and not the theme of the entire article. -- Mwalcoff 21:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree, the name does not add anything to the article as it stands.  As long as the name is given no more meaning than "aggressor in the fan attack during 2008 UEFA qualifier" it adds nothing.  If it is decided that the article would be improved by including more background information about the perpetrator then this would change, and I would have to review my stance.Taemyr 22:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I would also disagree with the importance you place on the attack.  The article is mainly about UEFA's reaction to the attacl. Taemyr 22:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If anything, I would hazard a guess that User:Mwalcoff considers the notion of omitting a name at least in part due to the common but misguided notion that the very fact that a given piece of information is recorded somewhere reliable means that it must be included in Wikipedia.  81.104.175.145 01:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I think we've gotten way off-topic. The question this policy is trying to address is not what information should be included in an article. As Taemyr has pointed out, that is addressed through policies like WP:BLP. This policy is meant to answer the following question: "Assuming the information in question would otherwise be included in the article, should it be removed because it violates a non-U.S. publication ban?" I apologize for not making that clearer. Perhaps that can be made clearer on the project page. -- Mwalcoff 01:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural issue? 

message: This "proposal" doesn't seem to propose anything new, everything said here is already covered in existing policy pages. I would suggest adding a line or two to those policy pages (if necessary) to clarify that we (generally) cover verifiable material even if people would like us not to. >Radiant< 11:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Wikipedia is not censored. In the absence of absolute jurisdiction, it would require office action to decide whether or not there were issues concerning Wiki*ia's legal liabilities. Who are we to decide that one country's publication ban is justified, and must be adhered to, or another country's ban is oppressive and censorious. As such, the policy is moot, and the topics touched on are already covered elsewhere - Tiswas(t) 13:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship