Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 2

message: I would like to add a bulletpoint to the list of information that is acceptable if supplied by the subject, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_source:
: Information supplied by the subject may be added to the article if:
:* It is simple biographical information, such as birthdate/location, employment history, schools attended, names/occupations of parents, and other elements which help to improve the article concerning non-notable parts of the subject's life.
Does this sound acceptable? --Elonka 23:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that not already implied on the other bullet points? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The list of criteria reads as an "if all" list, not an "if any one" list.  That is, you can include information only if all five criteria are met.  Adding this would either impose a further restriction (if it remained an "if all" list), or would require some rewrite to the rest of the list.  Also, some reference to privacy issues would seem appropriate. Gimmetrow 01:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't mean to be dense but how would adding trivia about "non-notable parts of the subject's life" help to improve the article?  Why would we want any of that data added to an encyclopedia article?  I don't think we should be encouraging subjects to add content to articles about themselves.  I worry that it will just encourage disputes and will lead to ill will when other editors remove the content as irrelevant.  If it really is critical to the article, post it on the article's Talk page and let someone else decide whether and how to add it to the article.  Rossami (talk) 01:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information supplied by the subject 

message: I want to make a change to the portion of this guideline that says
Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources.
I don't think it makes sense to exclude primary sources.  One does not improve informaiton by passing it from ear to ear.  I do think there are specific things that should not be taken from primary sources, including a person's home value or vehicles owned.  Court cases should be allowable as these are often part of what makes the person notable enough to be in Wikipedia.  This is not the case for the value of their house or their income tax records and the like.  I propose changing this statement to:
Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations,  vehicle registrations and home or business addresses.  Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publically available.
I would like to get consensus to make this change. Johntex\talk 04:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see (at the moment) a flaw with your example case, but I oppose your wording.  If nobody has written about something, we should definitely not cover it at all, even if primary sources can verify the facts.  For instance, even if a famous person's criminal record is accessible on a public web site, we should not write about it, if nobody else has.  Often "public records" are "hidden in plain sight".  Often nobody has put the pieces together.  It's not our role to discover/expose things.  I don't want the enemy of a person to come to Wikipedia, to tell the world about a court case, that no newspaper saw fit to print.  Rather than us deciding what should be notable, we should find what reliable sources have found to be notable (by writing prose about the subject).  However, if reliable media has covered something broadly, but failed to give the "low level details" we want, than certainly, it's ok for us to go "straight to the source".  Also, for trivial/uncontested things, like an alumni lists at a college, primary sources can be fine.--Rob 07:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Rob. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOVand WP:RS must be considered along side WP:BLP. Wikipedia needs to rely on mainstream reliable publishers do the original research for an article in their publication. Primary sources such as court records might be used to provide clarity about a particular topic if the topic is already addressed in the published article. IMO, other uses of primary sources is likely to be against the spirit of WP:NOR. FloNight talk 13:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With repsect, I think that the two of you are misinterpretting WP:NOR.  I would say that WP:NOR would prohibit attending the court-room to write your own story about what happened during the proceedings, and it would prohibit calling up the lawyers involved or e-mailing the judge and then using those conversations for the article - but I don't see it at prohibiting any type of online research.  If the records are in plain site, then I think they are fair for us to research. Johntex\talk 14:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Flo et al.  First somebody else should become convinced enough it is notable to publish it.  Then WP can pick up on it.  Midgley 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All facts reported by reliable sources are welcome in all articles including biographies of living people. The WP:BLP guideline was created to curtail libel and defamation, to protect living people from these, and to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from lawsuits related to the possible abuse of their web servers in this respect. What is asked of editors is to take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A special issue with biographies and primary sources such as court records is assuring that the reference concerns the subject and not a similarly-named person. Another concern is with court papers, such as divorce filings, which make unrebutted and unsupported accusations. Otherwise, I agree with the principle that primary sources should be usable for BLPs in accordance with our other policies. -Will Beback 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed the veiled threats, personal bios, and long diatribes. Please stick to discussing the policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change re primary sources

message: I would like to propose the addition of the following section to the guidelines. In part this has been prompted by a number of complaints and comments coming in via OTRS which, I believe, have merit and support the "do no harm" of the current policy.
:Privacy of family
:Wikipedia includes details of siblings, children, and life partners for some famous people, but including this information for most living people should be handled with caution. While many well-known living persons' family relationships are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures. With issues about chidren's security, and with identity theft on the rise, the privacy of such details should be carefully considered prior to their inclusion in an article. In general please err on the side of caution and simply list the number of siblings and of children rather than their names and ages.
Comments? --AlisonW 09:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept makes sense but it seems awfully wordy.  Could you accomplish the same goal by tweaking the Privacy of Birthdays section?  Rossami (talk) 15:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Families 

message: This guideline has been stable for a while now, and given its importance, and comments made here and in the mailing lists, I would want to gauge if there is sufficient support for such upgrade. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this being upgraded. People regularly refer to this page and it seems to have wide acceptance. I don't see anything controversial or problematic in it. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree also. AnnH ♫ 16:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Me, too. IronDuke 16:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree.  BLP is important both in protecting us from liability, and in preventing WP from being used as a tool to wage private vendettas.  It needs the status of policy.  Guettarda 16:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: To pile on, I also agree. Garion96 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It sounds like a good idea to me.  Jim62sch 20:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, frequently cited guide. Used by Arb comm in many of their decisions. FloNight talk 22:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree also. -Will Beback 22:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support KillerChihuahua?!? 11:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, overdue. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks fully baked to me. Jayjg (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Make it so.  I've been citing it for some time. -MrFizyx 01:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Support. If anything, should be stronger on privacy. I'm amused what happens when "common folk" become afraid they might gain, via Wikipedia, a tiny fraction of the loss of privacy as the average TV or screen actor. SBHarris 03:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Soooo... are you supporting the upgrade, suggesting changes or working out something for a blog? -MrFizyx 02:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that was a bit strong. Have fixed it so not so offensive.SBHarris 03:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then, all is well. -MrFizyx 03:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've given it some thought. No inspiration so far. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to upgrade this guideline to policy 

message: Nice one, Jossi. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy in a nutshell

message: The policy says, in different ways in in different places: "Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page". OK, but what about unsourced or poorly sourced positive material, especially if it amounts to cheerleading a controversial figure? I can imagine a fan putting fulsome praise in a bio, without balance (the current policy would discourage an attempt to provide balance, although it would allow toning down the excess); it could even be specifically objectionable when the subject has a well-known antagonist who is implicitly referred to. For the policy to focus on negative material seems so...asymmetrical (apart, of course, from the practical concerns of unsourced negatives attracting libel claims). Sorry to come to this late; I came here from Signpost. David Brooks 02:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsourced material on a controversial issue is always bad. However, I understand this is specially bad for negative remarks on LPs. In this case agressive deletion is better. Other cases can be handled by asking for sources and discussing in talk pages. JRSP 03:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about excessively positive information? 

message: Note: I am restoring this archived talk information in order to continue the discussion and reach a consensus on this.
I want to make a change to the portion of this guideline that says
Material from primary sources should generally not be used. For example, public records may include personal details such as home value, outcomes of civil court cases, traffic citations, arrest records, and vehicles and real estate owned. Use material only from reliable third-party sources.
I don't think it makes sense to exclude primary sources.  One does not improve informaiton by passing it from ear to ear.  I do think there are specific things that should not be taken from primary sources, including a person's home value or vehicles owned.  Court cases should be allowable as these are often part of what makes the person notable enough to be in Wikipedia.  This is not the case for the value of their house or their income tax records and the like.  I propose changing this statement to:
Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations,  vehicle registrations and home or business addresses.  Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publically available.
I would like to get consensus to make this change. Johntex\talk 04:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see (at the moment) a flaw with your example case, but I oppose your wording.  If nobody has written about something, we should definitely not cover it at all, even if primary sources can verify the facts.  For instance, even if a famous person's criminal record is accessible on a public web site, we should not write about it, if nobody else has.  Often "public records" are "hidden in plain sight".  Often nobody has put the pieces together.  It's not our role to discover/expose things.  I don't want the enemy of a person to come to Wikipedia, to tell the world about a court case, that no newspaper saw fit to print.  Rather than us deciding what should be notable, we should find what reliable sources have found to be notable (by writing prose about the subject).  However, if reliable media has covered something broadly, but failed to give the "low level details" we want, than certainly, it's ok for us to go "straight to the source".  Also, for trivial/uncontested things, like an alumni lists at a college, primary sources can be fine.--Rob 07:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Rob. WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOVand WP:RS must be considered along side WP:BLP. Wikipedia needs to rely on mainstream reliable publishers do the original research for an article in their publication. Primary sources such as court records might be used to provide clarity about a particular topic if the topic is already addressed in the published article. IMO, other uses of primary sources is likely to be against the spirit of WP:NOR. FloNight talk 13:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With repsect, I think that the two of you are misinterpretting WP:NOR.  I would say that WP:NOR would prohibit attending the court-room to write your own story about what happened during the proceedings, and it would prohibit calling up the lawyers involved or e-mailing the judge and then using those conversations for the article - but I don't see it at prohibiting any type of online research.  If the records are in plain site, then I think they are fair for us to research. Johntex\talk 14:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Flo et al.  First somebody else should become convinced enough it is notable to publish it.  Then WP can pick up on it.  Midgley 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All facts reported by reliable sources are welcome in all articles including biographies of living people. The WP:BLP guideline was created to curtail libel and defamation, to protect living people from these, and to protect the Wikimedia Foundation from lawsuits related to the possible abuse of their web servers in this respect. What is asked of editors is to take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A special issue with biographies and primary sources such as court records is assuring that the reference concerns the subject and not a similarly-named person. Another concern is with court papers, such as divorce filings, which make unrebutted and unsupported accusations. Otherwise, I agree with the principle that primary sources should be usable for BLPs in accordance with our other policies. -Will Beback 04:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a danger of encouraging people to do original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would not allow original research.  This would be relying on information from public sources.  Saying "I saw Joe Blow growing marijuana in his back-yard." would be original research.  Citing sources that say he did it is not original research.  All this does is clarify that it is OK to use primary as well as secondary sources to get more detailed information. Johntex\talk 01:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I specifically include mention of "verifiable by a notable source".  I put this in in response to Flo Night and Rob's suggestion that someone else should have decided that the information is notable before we include it. We can specifically link to WP:V if you like. Johntex\talk 01:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal opens the door to too much possibility for people to engage in original research, connecting the dots inaccurately. Sandy 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please provide an example or a revised set of wording?  Primary sources are always the most accurate.  We should be using reputable primary sources when they are available. Johntex\talk 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  'Original research' refers to publishing a novel theory, it does not refer to going to the primary sources to look something up.  In fact, WP:NOR specifically states "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.", so I don't see why this raises any concern about original research.  What we are talking about here is not against the policy. Johntex\talk 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please provide an example or a revised set of wording?  Primary sources are always the most accurate.  I don't feel qualified to propose wording, but I can show where I see problems.  I've already seen (along with cleansing of referenced criticism in the name of BLP) examples of primary documents being used as OR by editors connecting the dots, in ways that damage living persons.  Something is needed to account for:  Material from primary sources should almost never be used. For example, public records that include any details not attached to or verified by a reliable source reference, is needed.  We can't have people getting hold of a public document and drawing their own conclusions.  Sandy 03:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We will be opening to big of a gap here for original research. The current wording has served us well so far. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the next paragraph of WP:NOR implies that secondary sources are preferable, by saying that only in rare cases can an article be based entirely on primary sources.  --Allen 15:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My proposal is that primary sources of this type should be used only once a secondary source has reported the information.  I will try to make that come across more clearly. Johntex\talk 16:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Johntex, I don't think there is a way to word your proposal that doesn't open the door to original research.  I'm sorry the example that I can provide is in Spanish, but it's the best I can do.  This pdf is allegedly a "list" of people who signed "some version of something" in Venezuela.  Defining exactly what these people signed under what circumstances is where it gets tricky, and OR comes in, as some of these signatures were attached to blank pages of what appears to be a "guestbook".  This is a public document.  It is used now in at least 3 articles on Wiki to disparage the character of a living person.  Yet, there is no journalistic or reliable source commentary which explains what this "list" was, how some people came to sign it, provide context for this list, or provide the signers' explanations for how, when or where they signed this "list" (which was actually a guestbook, according to some accounts).  The same editors who are misinterpreting WP:BLP in a way that allows them to cleanse Criticism of Hugo Chávez, are using this "list" – not discussed in any journalist context – as criticism of María Corina Machado, a pro-democracy advocate in Venezuela.  WP:BLP is already being used incorrectly:  your proposal allows for further misuse. I agree with others above who say this proposal has no wings.  If anything, the wording on BLP needs to be much tighter to help stem the extent of abuse that is already occurring.  Sandy 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This wording seems fine to me. Using a primary source to double check a fact or provide clarity is a good idea. FloNight talk 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with FloNight.  But -- and I know this is not the main issue here, but since we're talking about wording -- how about changing the two instances of "verifiable, notable" to "reliable" or perhaps "verifiable"?  My impression is that we generally avoid saying "notable" in official policy, because it's a less well-defined concept than reliability or verifiability.  Please correct me if I'm wrong; partly I bring this up to test my own understanding... --Allen 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I will change it to just "verifiable".  WP:V makes clear what we mean by that.  I'm changing it in place above, rather than making yet another version taking up room here. Johntex\talk 23:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change re primary sources

message: In consideration of the above discussion, I would like to offer the following ammended wording:
Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations,  vehicle registrations and home or business addresses should not generally be used.   Where a fact is verifiable by a notable source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources.  Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publically available.
Here by the way is just one example of a primary source document  which could be useful in  a biography of a living person, Jeff Bezos.  It is an FAA report for his planned new space tourism venture, obtained directly from the federal government. Johntex\talk 00:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a danger of encouraging people to do original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would not allow original research.  This would be relying on information from public sources.  Saying "I saw Joe Blow growing marijuana in his back-yard." would be original research.  Citing sources that say he did it is not original research.  All this does is clarify that it is OK to use primary as well as secondary sources to get more detailed information. Johntex\talk 01:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I specifically include mention of "verifiable by a notable source".  I put this in in response to Flo Night and Rob's suggestion that someone else should have decided that the information is notable before we include it. We can specifically link to WP:V if you like. Johntex\talk 01:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal opens the door to too much possibility for people to engage in original research, connecting the dots inaccurately. Sandy 01:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please provide an example or a revised set of wording?  Primary sources are always the most accurate.  We should be using reputable primary sources when they are available. Johntex\talk 03:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  'Original research' refers to publishing a novel theory, it does not refer to going to the primary sources to look something up.  In fact, WP:NOR specifically states "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged.", so I don't see why this raises any concern about original research.  What we are talking about here is not against the policy. Johntex\talk 03:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please provide an example or a revised set of wording?  Primary sources are always the most accurate.  I don't feel qualified to propose wording, but I can show where I see problems.  I've already seen (along with cleansing of referenced criticism in the name of BLP) examples of primary documents being used as OR by editors connecting the dots, in ways that damage living persons.  Something is needed to account for:  Material from primary sources should almost never be used. For example, public records that include any details not attached to or verified by a reliable source reference, is needed.  We can't have people getting hold of a public document and drawing their own conclusions.  Sandy 03:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: We will be opening to big of a gap here for original research. The current wording has served us well so far. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the next paragraph of WP:NOR implies that secondary sources are preferable, by saying that only in rare cases can an article be based entirely on primary sources.  --Allen 15:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My proposal is that primary sources of this type should be used only once a secondary source has reported the information.  I will try to make that come across more clearly. Johntex\talk 16:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Johntex, I don't think there is a way to word your proposal that doesn't open the door to original research.  I'm sorry the example that I can provide is in Spanish, but it's the best I can do.  This pdf is allegedly a "list" of people who signed "some version of something" in Venezuela.  Defining exactly what these people signed under what circumstances is where it gets tricky, and OR comes in, as some of these signatures were attached to blank pages of what appears to be a "guestbook".  This is a public document.  It is used now in at least 3 articles on Wiki to disparage the character of a living person.  Yet, there is no journalistic or reliable source commentary which explains what this "list" was, how some people came to sign it, provide context for this list, or provide the signers' explanations for how, when or where they signed this "list" (which was actually a guestbook, according to some accounts).  The same editors who are misinterpreting WP:BLP in a way that allows them to cleanse Criticism of Hugo Chávez, are using this "list" – not discussed in any journalist context – as criticism of María Corina Machado, a pro-democracy advocate in Venezuela.  WP:BLP is already being used incorrectly:  your proposal allows for further misuse. I agree with others above who say this proposal has no wings.  If anything, the wording on BLP needs to be much tighter to help stem the extent of abuse that is already occurring.  Sandy 16:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new proposed wording

message: Thanks again to everyone who has commented, I have tightened up the wording again to make it even more clear that primary documents should be used only after a notable, verifiable seconday source has reported the information originally:
Material from primary sources should be used with care. For example, public records that include personal details such as home value, traffic citations,  vehicle registrations and home or business addresses should not generally be used.   Where a fact has first been presented by a verifiable secondary source, it is acceptable to turn to open records as primary sources to augment the secondary source.  Material that is related to their notability, such as court filings of someone notable in part for being involved in legal disputes, are allowable, as are public records such as graduation dates, dates of marriage licenses and the like, where they are publically available and where that information has first been reported by a verifiable seconday source
I think this makes very clear that we are encouraging use of primary sources only once a secondary source has deemed the primary material to be relevant. Johntex\talk 20:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This wording seems fine to me. Using a primary source to double check a fact or provide clarity is a good idea. FloNight talk 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with FloNight.  But -- and I know this is not the main issue here, but since we're talking about wording -- how about changing the two instances of "verifiable, notable" to "reliable" or perhaps "verifiable"?  My impression is that we generally avoid saying "notable" in official policy, because it's a less well-defined concept than reliability or verifiability.  Please correct me if I'm wrong; partly I bring this up to test my own understanding... --Allen 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I will change it to just "verifiable".  WP:V makes clear what we mean by that.  I'm changing it in place above, rather than making yet another version taking up room here. Johntex\talk 23:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third attempt

message: The current policy says 
Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only information relevant to their notability. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has fist been mentioned by a verifiable source. (see above)."
I believe the wording,"include only information relevant to their notability", if interpreted too literally, would be damaging to the idea of presenting a rounded view of the person.  For example, we would have to exlude things like what they do for a living if it is not what they are famous for, maritial status, where they grew up, where they went to school, awards they have won if they are not the primary reason the person is notable...etc.  If the person is best known because of something negative, we would be running the risk of biasing their article too far to the negative. Theefore, I propose changing this to:
Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are nevertheless entitled to the respect for privacy afforded non-public figures. In such cases, editors should be particularly careful about using Verifiable sources. Material from primary sources should generally not be used unless it has fist been mentioned by a verifiable source. (see above).
If the information meets WP:V, then that means a reputable source has thought it notable.  I look forward to everyone's thoughts. Johntex\talk 00:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Flo Night - even in today's topsy-turvy world where people change jobs frequently and divorce is common, most people are only married once or maybe twice, and they may change jobs but they don't tend to dramtically change careers (at least not often).  Some things, like what state they grew up in, will never change.  I think the best way to address your concern is to encourage the use of year-specific qualifiers: "Born in 1965, Janet Blow attended Harvard University in the 1980's and was working as an accountant for Exxon in 2006." - Johntex\talk 00:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Non notable people who wish to remain anonymous, famous for a specific incident and dropping out of sight thereafter, do not deserve to have their personal details documented.  In particular, I object to documenting possible sexual assault victim's biographies when they wish to remain anonymous.  For example, see Crystal Gail Mangum and its associated Talk page.  Abe Froman 00:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Crystal Gail Mangum article is a perfect example of what is wrong with the wording of this policy.  The article currently mentions that she is a mother, that she used to be in the Navy, that she is a good student... None of that information is strictly related to the scandal resulting from the allegations she has made against these alleged criminals.  Surely it is not in Mangum's best interest or the reader's best interest to remove this information, yet a literal interpretation of the wording could lead to someone trying to do that.  That is why the wording needs to be tightened up. Johntex\talk 00:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:LIVING implies it is not our place to make an anonymous victim's mind up for them.  Anonymous victims are non notable except for some horrible incident the press is interested in.  Other than carrying the details of the specific situation reported in the press, WP:LIVING is right to deny editors the right of documenting a sexual assault victim's life against their wishes.  We are not a tabloid.  Abe Froman 00:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We would still be sticking to verificale sources and only reporting what has been published in them.   It is to the subject's advantage and the reader's advantage that we try to present a rounded picture, without focusing in too narrowly on a single event.  The sources we are citing generally gives a wider view of the subject than that, and we should do the same. Johntex\talk 01:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addresing Abe's point, we shouldn't have articles about non-notable people. The answer to that problem may be to change the notability standards so that flah-in-the-oan types are excluded, or are only mentioned in articles about the broader topic in which they've achieved their limited attention. On the other hand, our articles about notable people should be real biographies, including the verifiable details common to all biographies. -Will Beback 05:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and a good way to avoid having articles on non-notable people is to require that an external, third-party source has considered the person notable enough to write directly about, i.e. the No First Biographies proposal above. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people are notable even though their notability is flash-in-the-pan (or "ephemeral" as it's sometimes called on AfD).  I think that both Douglas Corrigan and Jennifer Wilbanks should have articles, although in each case the person's notability is derived from one brief episode that had no lasting impact on world affairs. JamesMLane t c 22:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General information about the person

message: After noticing several persons and a few questions about persons who may not fit cleanly into subpages "Politics" or "Media, art and literature", and sometimes get put into the default category of "History and geography", I am considering creating an RfC subpage for biographies of living persons. What do the people here think about that? Is there a better place to direct editors looking for input about BLPs? etc. —Centrx→talk • 19:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Maurreen 00:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Should it be just living persons or biographies in general? —Centrx→talk • 02:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would go for bios in general. Maurreen 02:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why clog it with dead people?  You'll have enough time to spend dealing with lives ones.SBHarris 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe "contemporary" biographies could be grouped together for Rfc whether the person is living or dead. FloNight talk 14:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A reason for having a "contemporary" biographies might be that historical figures would more cleanly fit into one of the present subpages. Someone who knows about George Washington is going to be looking in the history section Bach in the arts section, but those more history-oriented editors are not going to care about Britney Spears (or...who? who cares), and vice-versa. —Centrx→talk • 04:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any idea when a biography RfC subpage might be created?  I think it's a great idea!  Dreadlocke 16:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Beautiful!  Thank you! Dreadlocke  ☥  22:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RFC|RfC]] subpage for BLPs 

message: Statements of fact are made on this article page, about which no citation is given.  These statements of fact are predujical to achieving a certain point-of-view, and therefore should have a citation.  Do we not strive to achieve a higher level of excellence on the guideline and policy pages than what we attempt on the article pages?  Or should guidelines and policies be based on uncited "facts" ? Wjhonson 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, this is Project space.  Second, when Jimbo and Danny say these things arrive daily, it is reasonable to believe them: they are a reliable source for this information.  Third, the people on OTRS can back it up.  Fourth, the precise frequency of complaints is irrelevant anyway: one lawsuit could close the project down.  Just zis Guy you know? 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where exactly is this evidence that Jimbo or Danny said this?  Where is the evidence that anyone on OTRS or anywhere else "backs this up" ? Wjhonson 19:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Multiple statements about the place, including WikiEN-l.  But you missed point 4: the precise frequency of complaints is irrelevant anyway, one lawsuit could close the project down.  Just zis Guy you know? 14:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fact tag

message: Following a recent case where defamatory content was posted in an AfD, it seems to me that we should make it clear in the relevant section that this ruloe applies not only to mainspace and talk, but to related debates in project space. Just zis Guy you know? 19:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project space 

message: I've taken the liberty of adding living=yes parameter to the new  tag to simplify things. It will include the language for the  tag. See Talk:Lance Armstrong for an example. What do you think? plange 02:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: WikiProject Biography has been completely overhauled and reenergized and we are organizing task forces like the military history project. We invite anyone who works on biographies to cast your vote for different task forces. Task forces would get a parameter to our Project banner (for instance: politicians-task-force=yes) and a note would appear that says the article is a part of that task force (see example on military history article), plus having peer reviews and collaborations, and being able to grade articles by class and importance so that the articles can be part of the WP:1.0 project and much more... Come join us! plange 16:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation 

message: What does "poorly sourced" mean?   Can we have some examples?
Justforasecond 15:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, could use some examples. Lou Sander 15:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What about a reliable source like a major newspaper using unattributed words?   I have an article (not an opinion column) where the paper says a particular politician has been described as "underhanded" -- but doesn't say who said so.    Justforasecond 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about opinion columns (which, by definition, explicitly include a point of view)? It seems to me that when one uses them as sources for something in an article, one includes their point of view in the article. Lou Sander 16:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: sounds good Justforasecond 01:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  poorly sourced? 

message: Just checking, does this policy also apply to negative information or personal attacks posted in the AfD (deletion discussion) about a living person's bio? --Elonka 16:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy relates to article and talk namespaces. I would argue that this includes AfDs as well. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so too; and the policy does say: "This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia".  Dreadlocke 17:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it were up to me, I'd say just refactor the entire page to history, so it's easily accessible to Wikipedians, but stays away from the Google spiders.  But I'm trying to be sensitive to the WP:AUTO guideline, as well as the WP:BLP policy, and I don't have any great desire to stir up a huge controversy.  Perhaps someone else could take a look  and give me an opinion on whether it would be appropriate to invoke WP:BLP in this case?  --Elonka 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I decided to be bold and blanked the page. Garion96 (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was reverted again recently. If you want it blanked, better ask an admin if they agree and let him/her do it for you. Garion96 (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Elonka, you received overwhelming support for keeping the article about you. In my opinion, apparent bad-faith comments reflect badly on the users who said them, not on you. --Zoz (t) 23:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do agree with Zoz's statement, but I also see no harm in blanking per your request. Garion96 (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Zoz, but against blanking. There are personal attacks against Elonka-the-editor in that AFD ("abusing Wikipedia", "very tasteless spamming"), but none against Elonka-the-article-subject. In other words, it doesn't say anything bad about ED's personal life or achievements other than as an editor of the Wikipedia. So I don't think BLP applies in this case, or it would apply to every personal attack against an editor. There is harm in blanking, as that 1) makes the article more vulnerable to another attempt at deletion on basically the same grounds, 2) hides our process, which in this case worked, and quite well (I've almost never seen an article kept with that many and that margin of votes before), 3) in general makes us look as if we had something to hide. However, as Zoz writes, this whole episode reflects much more on Danny than on Elonka. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly you cannot separate out "Elonka-the-editor" from "Elonka-the-article-subject" since they are both the same person - even WP:BLP itself makes a distinction for article subjects who are editors: "especially when those subjects become Wikipedia editors".  While blanking the whole page may not be a good idea, any unsubstantiated and unwarranted accusations, negative comments and other violations of WP:BLP should be removed or retracted in some manner.  Dreadlocke 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is so bad about blanking? Editors can always check the history for the discussion. Casusual readers perhaps can't, but project space is more for editors anyway. Plus, like Elonka said, blanking stops google spiders. Garion96 (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of what's on the page is fine, so there's no real need to blank the whole thing, and just targeting the specific statements that need to be removed makes for a much clearer history for anyone going back to read the results of the RfD.  I'd just refactor it to get rid of the problematic statements.  Unless the whole thing is bad...but I thought the support for Elonka's article was impressive.  Dreadlocke 18:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Patent personal attacks ("User:Example is an evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet") are always removed immediately from discussion pages. In my opinion, everything else should stay. "What is so bad about blanking?" (1) It can become a bad precedent - in the worst case, users could cite this and demand that all negative criticism of them be removed from discussion pages. RfCs and RfArs are filled with negative comments / criticisms, blanking them all would be counterproductive. (2) It may be perceived as a bias in Wikipedia - Daniel Brandt was not allowed to edit out a sentence he didn't like from his bio; IMO long-term editors shouldn't be able to remove negative criticism of them either, even if it's on talk pages and the comment is harsh. (3) Replacing archived discussions with "Courtesy blanking" and having editors to check the page history is against the KISS principle, (4) against transparency, and unprofessional in my opinion, especially when the AfD discussion resulted in "keep" - in favour of the subject. So I think the cons of blanking the page clearly outweigh the pros (no google spiders). --Zoz (t) 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Note the difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll". "Very tastless spamming" is a harsh and probably unwarranted negative criticism but not a personal attack imo. --Zoz (t) 18:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Negative information in Deletion discussions

message: I've been trying to figure this out. I can tell from the policy that statements in an article about a living person which are controversial need to be especially well sourced. But how does this apply to external links? If, for example, an external site makes controversial claims about a living person, there is no official "verification" process I know of for information on an external site.  Does that mean the link has to be to a site which is a reliable source in and of itself? Or is there some other rule of thumb?
This is also a practical question. I'm involved in a dispute about a link to a site which claims (ambiguously) to be written and maintained by a specific famous person. What's written there is not stunningly controversial, but it does effectively link a large body of written work (the site contains fiction) with a known, published author, and contains a few offhanded "personal" remarks -- I believe the guy says his agent is worthless, for one. Is there a specific way I should interpret WP:LIVING as it applies to information on external sites?  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 22:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general the same rules would apply for external links as content. Remember there is also a WP:EL policy that discourages links in favor of written content. the EL to each article needs to be determined on an individual basis, of course.  --FloNight talk 22:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. The link is in an appropriate place and not replacing real content -- it's in an external links section -- but it would seem the link I've described about is probably not usable in this case, since it fails to be verifiable. I ask in part because I've seen a lot of external links appear to be to fansites and similar; those seems to be generally considered okay even if they have a fair amount of questionable information, but the situation I'm dealing with now seems a bit more "controversial" than that instance.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 23:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We have WP:EL that advises on what to link and what not to link, but I would argue for extra caution when assessing external links in BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, if anyone wants to look at the specific situation, it would be incredibly helpful. The article is Stephen Colbert. I haven't been able to attract very much editor attention on the article's talk page, but the reverting situation is rather out of hand, and I don't exactly know what to do.  -- (Lee)Bailey(talk) 03:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That link looks like a joke site to me.   Just use reasonable judgment.  This policy is about protecting the innocent...and protecting from lawsuits.  Justforasecond 18:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How does WP:LIVING relate to our linking policy

message: On the subject of removing unsourced negative comments about the subject of an article, would this strongly worded negative comment about the subject’s mother fall under that policy?   Or is that just "opinion"?  I asked the editor to source it or remove it, but my request was ignored.  (second paragraph). Dreadlocke 19:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editor comments

message: I suggest we need to explain that we are not limiting the analysis of public figures. Say:
:This policy does not limit editors' analysis of the public actions of public people, such as politicians. If reliable sources indicate that action X has the specific results Y and Z, the article should state that reghardless of whether or not that can be construed as a criticism of the subject. (If other sources, also reliable, deny Y and Z that of course needs to be mentioned as well.) It is much better to explain the controversy than to not mention it.   Rjensen 12:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This policy does not restrict criticism that is based on high-quality references. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  public actions by public people 

message: Perhaps a month of birth as well as a year of birth would demonstrate that the author "knows what they are talking about" w/o revealing an exact date. -- 75.24.109.203 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A compromise on DOB 

message: If negative information must be very carefully sourced (understandably, to prevent libel), positive information should have the same restrictions.  Someone will say "but it's just the negative that can lead to libel."  True, but to keep NPOV if you limit negatives you must also limit positives likewise.  Someone else might say "But it's negative info that can be hurtful to the subject."  Again, NPOV is more important.
I understand restricting negative info to force careful sourcing, but then the same must be done with positive info.PhilO837 00:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To preserve NPOV 

message: Up at the top of this page, "Speak ill only of the dead" is a NPOV?  (Selah...)  Newspapers/magazines don't do that, but on the other hand- Time's done it with Hitler and Hussein.  Oh, that's right-- Hussein's still alive.  Mdoc7 17:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if "speak ill only of the dead" is a proper way of putting it.  So can we now lower the bar for Kenneth Lay since he's dead?  Wouldn't his family have something to say about it?  Being dead does not necessarily protect from libel.  Descendants of famous figures could protest too.  I'm sure Martin Luther King Jrs.' descendants would not be too happy if negative  poorly sourced or unsourced material was put into his article.  That term might need to be rephrased.  MrMurph101 20:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your premise is quite wrong. It is a well established legal truism that the dead cannot be libeled. Libel involves actual harm due to false damage to one's own reputation. MLK's family has a financial interest in his "legacy" but if it is protectable by civil suits, it has to be under some other theory than libel.--Jerzy•t 05:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a lawyer, but I think my point still stands.  Libel may not be the right term for those not living but "speak ill only of the dead" is still not the best phrase to use.  Even taking legalisms away, it seems to go against wikipedia's guidelines. MrMurph101 17:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So this is NPOV?

message: seeing as no one seems to be able to define "poorly sourced" (see discussion above), i propose we either
#) remove this wording from the policy or
#) define this more clearly
any thoughts?
Justforasecond 01:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Poorly sourced means that the sources provided are not reliable enough to warrant their use. In an article about a non-lving person, we may allow sources that are not pristine. That is not the case in biographies of living people, for the reasons explaind in the policy. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 02:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The danger with trying to define it, JFAS, is that people will seek loopholes. Probably the only rule of thumb we should have, with negative material about BLPs, is "if in doubt about the source, remove the negative material." SlimVirgin (talk) 03:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed policy change 

message: How should we address the labeling (most often political) of a particular subject?  If a person describes themselves one way but is regarded differently, perhaps even in contradictory fashion, by many others, what is the proper way to address this? Should we even use them?  Should we just cite the subject's self-description or include that and add what others say also?  
I personally think the labels should go entirely unless the subject's notability revolves around these labels.  For instance, it is obvious that Ann Coulter is conservative and does not like liberals and that can be easily verified.  However, Michael Moore may be liberal and may criticize conservatives but does not use these labels as overtly as Coulter does.  Also, Bill O'Reilly describes himself as an independent but is generally regared as conservative by others. 
All that said, what I am asking is if there is a clear policy toward this? MrMurph101 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you answered it.  In your example, Bill O'Reilly's view of himself is sourcable.  "is genrally regarded as conservative" would fit under weasel words.  There are sources for these labels.  If the New York Times calls Ann Coulter conservative, then the label should reflect the New York Times views and attirbuted to the New York Times.  But if it's a vague "most people regard Ann Coulter as conservative" it should be avoided as an example of weasel words.  Generally the label should be sourced and attributed to those believing it.  Otherwise the label should be avoided.  --Tbeatty 08:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I believe I understand.  Just use direct, sourced statements and avoid generalizations (weasel words).  MrMurph101 00:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subjective labels

message: This official policy states:
"Editors should remove any negative material that is either unsourced or relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources from biographies of living persons and their talk pages, and may do so without discussion; this is also listed as an exception to the three-revert rule. " 
In practice this means that what is considered "negative" or what is considered "poorly sourced" will be left to the interpretation of an administrator when he reviews your 3RR violation report and that enforcing this policy in good faith can get you blocked, so there is no exception. --Paul E. Ester 03:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interpreting Poorly sourced materials/whats negative

message: Why don't you change the name to Bios of living people? —Argentino (talk/cont.) 20:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a particular reason you want to use "people" rather than "persons"? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for Argentino, but "people" sounds more like normal speech. -- Fyslee 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Biographies of living people already redirects here. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: severally appropriate :)  Mdoc7 22:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: "people" rather than "persons"

message: I suggest that some section be added under "Remove ..." about how to discuss a disagreement of whether or not a source is reliable, something like this:
If you disagree about the legitimacy of a source used to back up an assertion, err on the side of caution and leave it out. Find the remover's talk page and ask them about their concerns. If they doesn't work, consider asking other's opinions on the talk page of the articel. If the disagreemnt continues, see WP:DR.
Mainly what I'm concerned about is a PoV/revert/edit warrior looking at the 3RR exemption and deciding to try and defend their warring by claiming that their opponents were "posting unsourced negative material", similar to the way some past pushers have by claiming their opponents were "vandalizing". I'm not seeking a change to the policy itself but the supporting framework to so everyone understands this can't be used to justify repeated reversions without discussion. 68.39.174.238 15:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion on preventing related misuse