Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 1

message: Well done - these look good. However, some suggestions
* We need a section to cover where a book by an author such as Kitty Kelly makes claims or a claim that is not supported in other books by more reputable authors.
* We need a section regarding claims made about other people that are not the subjects of the article and the need to be fair to them.
* Finally, we need a section stating that biographies should aim to inform not titillate. We should also make sure our biographies where possible are appropriate for readers of all ages. Some biographies by necessity will contain adult information ie Linda Lovelace but we should make sure that the information is appropriate for an encyclopedia. Capitalistroadster 04:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV is policy, and non-crap writing is needed. I shudder to think of the misapplication of this policy by e.g. fans of pop stars. Our pop star articles read like hagiographies already - David Gerard 18:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other issues

message: I think this page should include guidelines related to invasion of privacy issues.  Many WP articles are about people who are (it seems) notable enough to warrant a WP article, but who nevertheless are (or consider themselves to be) non-public persons.  I think WP policy should reflect deference to the privacy interests of such persons. --FRS 06:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree absolutely and totally  ...  and I have not the slightest idea on how to even BEGIN with dealing with this. In twenty years, will everything about everybody be known to anyone who cares enough (to search or pay X dollars)??? This is far far wider than Wikipedia. We must CARE. But the ratchet moves onward. WAS 4.250 06:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. How about Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons_deserve_special_sensitivity#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy? I've also created a shortcut for the page, which is WP:LIVING to make it easier to find, and this page is WP talk:LIVING. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Another point, taking into consideration the example presented about unfounded allegations that someone might have "touched" a child inappropriately, is that there would necessarily be more than simply the subject of the article involved. It would be absolutely paramount that no information could be included which might lead to the identification of any child alleged to be involved in anything like this. I'm tempted to say "particularly if it turns out to be a malicious hoax" but in actual fact it would be damaging to any such child no matter what the circumstances. This would obviously apply to other third parties, even those viewed as less vulnerable: this could so easily turn into a tool to cause maximal collateral damage. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy issues 

message: And well done to all involved in writing this. This needs to be policy. Agnte 10:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long Overdue 

message: Good work. Need to add policy that prevents people involved in a legal case from editing articles related to people in the legal dispute. There is documented bias in these cases. 
People have the right to sue each other, but they have no right to edit Wikipedia.--FloNight 12:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Parties in legal cases

message: Perhaps the long contentious Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are now species of slime-mold beetles may be an appropriate test case for,
*no sense of glee or excitement about negative material, no snide tone, and no undue laboring of the criticism 
and other proposals to see how sincere we really are. Wikipedia:Biographies on living persons deserve a special sensitivity#Tone of the writing.  nobs 18:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad writing on George W. Bush? I am shocked, shocked! - David Gerard 18:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: slime-mold beetle

message: I think this is a very good idea to write this, so thank you to Sarah :-)
A few ideas or comments just boiling in my mind.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikipediAhimsa : i like this page, which is more than 3 years old. It reminds me very much of the introduction of the policy proposal, in particular in describing the point of the totally abashed editor trying to correct, sometimes in all good faith, an article about him. It reminds me of this music performer, listed months ago amongst homosexual performers, correcting the wp entry, being rebutted ... and discovering that possibly 30 mirrors were repeating the claim on wikipedia. He was most polite, but answering him "yes, we made a stupid mistake, and right, we are morally responsible of 30 sites claiming this, but we can not do anything"... must have been real tough to him. I wish that we avoid such things in the future. There is a reason why so many history books do not publish information on current people, but rather wait for 20 years before doing so :-) We can not do this, but we should be *super* careful in the information we add in our articles. 
Second point is I think that the page may be too long. But I also understand that length. What I would recommend is also making a nice and gentle page, where this is summarized and things explained gently to the newbie. This one is too long for the newbie. The page for the newbie should also mention "contacts" nearly at the top of the page. When an editor edits his own biography, he should be given a link to the policy page (this one here) and to the shortened newbie oriented page, so that he understands a bit more what is going on here and what he should do in case things get hot !
I am not so happy right now with the paragraph called Legal threats. Here is why
Legal threats implies a certain stance. It implies that what is important is the fact the person is making a "threat". I do not think this is a good approach to the issue. It should be more "lenient", maybe rather be something of the type "contacts in case of the editor wants to go on legal grounds" or "legal contact" or something of that type. More neutral. Not a title implying the one complaining is already an "ennemy". He might be acting in all good faith and he might actually  even be right in his complaint.
Of course, an editor trying to "save" the page from the *bad* and *dangerous* newbie will perceive this as a legal threat. So, it may be important to differenciate two pages : one intended to the editor trying to "keep" the page as is. And one intended to the "newbie" trying to fix his biography... Because the goals of the two pages are different. The first one (for the editor) will contain guidelines of policy for the editor, as well as strong recommandations about what to do in case of legal threats, as well as recommandations to be avoid biting newbies. The second one (for the newbie trying to fix is biography) should contain quick explanations of how the system work, explanations of what is gonna happen to him if he edits with too much "energy" and who he should contact in case he wants to raise the issue with non-involved people (mediation or legal approach).
 
The other point is this one. While it make sense to tell an editor to have a legal threat be forwarded to the foundation, there is a danger in saying this. First because it will imply that the Foundation is necessarily the entity to attack (in short, the legal publisher). The second because it might imply that the editor himself is not responsible of what he writes. Which is NOT true. If an editor here keeps writing someone is a rapist, and this is untrue, the Foundation should act as soon as possible to remove the lie, but the editor writing the lie is definitly the original author of the lie, and as such, the one legally responsible. So, I believe the text should be rewritten so as to avoid to imply the Foundation is the publisher and is legally responsible. 
I would also personally recommand against putting the office adress here, as the more often it is mentionned, the more difficult it will be to update when necessary. There is a link which might be best : Wikipedia:Designated agent. I would also recommand against putting a phone number. Finally, adressing the correspondance to danny@wikia.com does not look very professional :-) please remove it. There is no reason to let an email adress with a first name, nor with the name of a firm unrelated to Wikipedia. It could frankly be very confusing. We are starting to receive emails adressed this way "Dear Wikia people". I do not think it is suitable. 
That is all I can think of immediately. Thanks a lot for this. Anthere
:Please edit as you see fit! In particular, as a Board member you're someone who should be diving into the legal section to fix it or remove it entirely - David Gerard 10:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: a few comments

message: In this example, perhaps we could show the difference between an "allegation" made in print, and a sworn "allegation" made under oath, like a police report.  nobs 20:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Professor Molester

message: You need to explore four additional areas:
1) Florida statutes and case law regarding invasion of privacy. Here's one place to start: http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/RHandbook01.nsf/1119bd38ae090a748525676f0053b606/dfc00ac22467b7f5852569cb004cbc2a
2) State and federal law that distinguishes and defines a private person as opposed to a public person.
3) Wikipedia as a special case: Anyone can come along and sabotage a biography, which means that biographies on living persons have to be locked down in some fashion. A court would take a dim view of Wikipedia's "anyone can edit anytime" if someone attempts to present this as a defense of Wikipedia in a legal proceeding. Remember, it is an open question whether Wikipedia would be considered immune from torts under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as an interactive Internet service provider. Even if it would be, there are more than a few legal scholars who already argue that Wikipedia is playing a completely different role than, for example, a provider such as BellSouth, and should be treated differently under this law.
4) Subjects should be notified that a biography is in progress, and they should be invited to participate, and if they prefer not to have a biography, then it should be deleted. This relates to the above point: Many subjects will not enjoy the prospect of checking their bio every day if it isn't locked down, and would prefer that it be deleted. Daniel Brandt 04:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Subjects should be notified that a biography is in progress, and they should be invited to participate, and if they prefer not to have a biography, then it should be deleted." I know you'd like this, but no, it's not going to happen - David Gerard 10:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a band-aid when Wikipedia needs surgery 

message: http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/RHandbook01.nsf/1119bd38ae090a748525676f0053b606/dfc00ac22467b7f5852569cb004cbc2a says
"One man's gossip may be another man's news, but distinguishing between the two is often the key in determining whether the press is guilty of "invasion of privacy." Whether an article or broadcast is newsworthy, whether the information was gathered in an objectionable fashion, whether truthful information is nonetheless highly offensive -- all are considerations in weighing individuals' claims against the news media. Invasion of privacy is a tort, a civil wrong, which can lead to jury trials and potential claims for compensatory and punitive damages. It also places judges in the unfamiliar and uncomfortable role as "editors" of last resort. The right of an individual to be free from invasion of privacy can be expressed in several different ways. Sometimes it is called the right "to be let alone." Cooley, Torts, 29 (2d ed. 1888). Often it is seen as a geographical area, "a kind of space that a man may carry with him into his bedroom or into the street." M. Konvitz, Privacy and the Law: A Philosophical Prelude, 31 Law and Contemporary Problems, 272, 279-80 (1966). Invasion of privacy is a relatively recent addition to American law. Rather than evolving from the English common law, as did libel, invasion of privacy can be traced directly to an influential article by Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, later to be a Supreme Court Justice [Samuel D. Warren and Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890)]. They argued for the creation of a private remedy -- a lawsuit -- to vindicate privacy rights. Writing before the era of electronic eavesdropping, telephoto lenses, and other modern technology, Warren and Brandeis prophesied that "mechanical devices threaten to make good the prediction that `what is whispered in the closet shall be proclaimed from the housetops'." Id. Not surprisingly, American courts today do not look kindly upon the media in these cases. However, the media's exposure to liability can be minimized through a grounding in privacy law. A two-step process determines whether the press is liable for invasion of a person's privacy: [...]" WAS 4.250 06:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  his source 

message: I've added a note to the new version suggesting that users identify themselves on the talk page of their biography using  (and copied it to Wikipedia:Autobiography.
Assuming that violent disagreement fails to ensue, could someone please clean up my rather clunky prose?
Ta muchly —Phil | Talk 11:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  &#x7B;&#x7B;Notable Wikipedian}} 

message: The policy reads:
:Potentially libellous or defamatory statements not sourced to highly credible verifiable sources should be removed.
Andries changed this to:
:Statements that are normally considered potentially libellous or defamatory not sourced to highly credible verifiable sources should be removed. However statements perceived by a person as defamatory or libellous, only because of his or her extraordinary claims about himself do not demand such a high degree of credibility. For example, if a person who has made the extraordinary claim to having invented a perpetuum mobile then questioning or criticism of this claim, though perceived as defamatory, by this person or his believers does not need to be sourced to a highly credible sources, but instead normal standards of credibility and verifiability apply here.
The above misinterprets what defamation and libel is. Defamation:false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions.  Libel: a false and malicious publication printed for the purpose of defaming a living person. Criticism of a person is not libel or defamation. Making false accusations is. As we, as editors, cannot make value judgments in respect of the truth of falseness of a statement made against a person, we have to rely on the guideline of "reputable sources" and provide highly credible and verifiable information as it pertains to accusations.
≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO Andries' intent is fine, but it went into the wrong section. We simply shouldn't include any extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. For the special case of over-unity quack, it was recently noted , that an overly enthusiastic description of inventions may even lead to legal troubles with misguided investors. Perhaps somewhat far fetched, and in my POV lost investments in perpetuum mobiles are just another tax on stupidity. --Pjacobi 23:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We simply shouldn't include any extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. That is a given. I agree 100% with this statement. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: But a person who has invented a perpetuum mobile may feel that questioning of his claims is a false accusation and hurts his reputation and is thus libel. I think that questioning of such claims does not need such highly credible sources when compared to e.g. an assertion that a scientist (whose notability is unrelated to his sex-life) had an extra-marital affair. I mean, in the case of Sathya Sai Baba questioning of his claims of materialization is seen by his followers as a false accusation and hurts his reputation and is thus libel. Following the current version of the guideline  means that we can only write that Uri Geller is a fake if a highly credible source says so, not just the private opinion of Richard Feynmann? Should we remove Richard Feynmann's opinion from the Uri Geller article? This contradicts my common sense. In such cases, normal standards suffice. Andries 23:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Andries. Libel has a component of malicious intent. i.e.  a person knowing that the statement he is making is false and making it anyway with the purpose of harming their target. This comes to play not so much about claims of superhuman powers, but about allegations of sexual harassment against a person, for example. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And how do you distinguish between malicious intent and non-malicious intent? I cannot distinguish. Several proponents of Sathya Sai Baba believe that the critics of Sathya Sai Baba (incl. me) have malicious intent by accusing him of sexual harassment. Andries 23:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, you can't. As editors cannot make value judgments in respect of the truth of falseness of a statement made against a person, providing highly credible and verifiable information is crucial in such cases. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but the main difference is that this is related to his notability: he made claims of purity and attracted followers as a consequence. This claim is extraordinary and he has to provide extraordinary evidence for his extraordinary claims. The burden of proof is  not on his ex-followers, who say that he has sexual relations as most people have (though some of them are abusive and constitute sexual harassment). So normal standars apply here, not extra highly credible sources. Andries 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, step back a bit. Perpetuum mobiles, miracle healings, spontanous materialisations and sexual harassments are extraordinary claims. It cuts both ways. --Pjacobi 00:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No Andries, again you are confusing things. If a notable person was fired from his post because he was found guilty in a court of law to have been sexually harassing a subordinate, and we write about that instance in this person's biography, that would never be considered libel, would it? And why not? Simply because it is a verifiable fact that he was fired for that reason. What you are referring above is an issue that falls beyond this encyclopedia as defined by its three governing principles of  Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that claims of purity are a lot more extraordinary than an assertion of having a sexual relationship. And I also think that sexual harassment is a lot less extraordinary than materializations and miracle healings etc. Andries 00:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I continue to disagree. Andries 00:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I don't follow... What claims of purity have to do with libellous/defamatory statements? ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For example, If somebody (such as Sathya Sai Baba)  says  that s/he is is always pure then even the accusation of the slightest taint of egoism may be considered defamatory by him/her or his/her followers. Of course when s/he makes such a claim then accusing him/her of sometimes being egoistical does not need to be sourced to highly credible sources, but instead normal standards apply. Andries 00:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Note that defamation is a "false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions", not the perception of such. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not extraordinary that a man who is virtually untouchable and who has immense authority sometimes uses this authority to get sex from men that he considers attractive. It is not extraordinary to have sex, even if a person claims to be 100% pure. Andries 00:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What has this to do with this discussion? We are discussing Wikipedia policy as it pertains to biographies, not morality. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Questioning extraordinary claims of a person, such as 100% sexual purity, does not have to be sourced to highly credible sources, but instead normal standards apply. Andries 00:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I fail to follow your logic. Questioning extraordinary claims is not the purpose of Wikipedia, is it?. Reporting on such questioning by reputable sources is. Nevertheless,  we are discussing issues related to libellous and defamatory statements made in biographical articles in Wikipedia? please stay on subject. Thanks. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 01:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defamatory statements 

message: In reviewing other encyclopedic forms, biographies are concerned with the person, and discuss the merits which demonstrate the qualifications for entry. But does the policy address at what point does an entry cease to be about the person, and more about what brings that person the notariety? Two examples, (but not to be construed as comments on the following Wikipedia entries for either example):
*At what point does a biography of Isaac Newton tip into an extensive explaination on the theory of gravity?
*At what point does a biography of former British Secretary of War John Profumo tip into an complete explaination of Christine Keeler and the subsquent scandal known as the Profumo Affair?
I know that this is really rather subjective, but biographies are about the person and should be NPOV. OnceBitten 15:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that you cannot separate the one fromn the other. After all, a person's notability is based on the person's life-work. A summary of achievements of the person can be included with links to articles discussing these achievements if warranted. In the case of John Profumo, the article as it stands now, (one long paragrah about the affair, and very little about his lifework, makes the article not NPOV. I would summarize the long paragraph and provide a wikilink to Profumo Affair. I will try just that. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Its simply a judgement call about when one article should be two or two articles should be one and this editorial question comes up all the time, not just on bios. WAS 4.250 18:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is not as hard as it may look. Most of the article on The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was in Thomas Samuel Kuhn originally; but the work is easily separated from the main bio if it's notable enough to deserve its own article. Lesser works can be covered in a few sentences in the main bio - David Gerard 12:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When does biography cease being a biography? 

message: On the section about people in this gray area between notable and non-notable, I think the example could be improved.  Here it is:
An academic who has a Wikipedia article because of his work in physics is alleged to have touched a student inappropriately during a party. She tells her story to the university's student newspaper, and the story is picked up by a satirical magazine writing about sexual relations between academics and their students. No other newspaper repeats the claims, to which the academic has not responded. This allegation should probably not be placed in the article — it is not relevant to his notability, he is only marginally notable outside his work, it originates with a single witness and unsworn testimony, the sources are not particularly credible, no mainstream source has picked up the story and his life may be seriously affected if the allegation is spread.
Is the credibility of the source really a deciding factor?  What if there were multiple credible sources?  The allegations wouldn't be any more relevant to the person's notability, would they?  --Allen 00:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just stay within the boundaries of our main content polices: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NOT and WP:NPOV and you will be in safe territory. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 00:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, I am of the school of thought that says that marital status and number of children (if known) should be included if it comes from a verifiable, published source. Such information is not really "personal" per se but helps provide a fuller picture of a person. In addition, many biographies, even of seemingly trivial people, published in a newspaper include that information in a fact box. Calwatch 03:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no problem in including that info, if it was published in a newspaper or other media. That fits within WP:V. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request clarification of physicist example 

message: What rules should apply about when to reveal the true name of a person known by an alias if they strongly try to keep it secret, and protest it's inclusion.  This is brought up by Brandy Alexandre (porn star).  Now in this specific case, I think revealing the name is ok *if* there are very good reliable sources.  However, i'm posting this question here, as I can imagine other cases where we might have a tougher decision.  For instance, what if it's illegal to reveal a name.  For instance, Canadian courts regularly ban the publication of names of defendents (especially juvenille ones), but their names are published in US papers, and ultimately Wikipedia.  I assume US courts sometimes issue similiar bans, which presumably effect the home of Wikipedia (but I don't know).  Another case might be where a secret agent's identity is revealed, and it's not lawful to reprint it.  Anyway, I'm just curious a) What is the current policy and b) what do people think the policy should be and c) maybe I missed the old discussion on this, and you can point me to that discussion. --Rob 23:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the same question, the article should address this. Examples include sollog, ashida kim, and Acharya S. Sam Spade 13:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue has also come up at Brent Corrigan, another porn star. Zeromacnoo 13:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Divulging personal details. -Will Beback 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to name a person 

message: I have upgraded this from "proposed" to "guideline". If there are any concerns regarding this, please voice them here. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 23:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline 

message: The section on Privacy of birthdays is unreadable. Kaldari 17:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what it means but could be said simpler. Kaldari, take a stab at re-writing it. --FloNight 17:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy of birthdays 

message: Say a person is notable, but no reputable sources are available for a detailed biography, only hagiograhical material plus a lot of criticsm from reputable sources. Then how should the article on this person look like? See User:BostonMA/Mediation#Proposal_by_Jossi and User:BostonMA/Mediation#Suggestion_for_a_two_week_effort_to_add_non-critical_content. This mediation is about the article Sathya Sai Baba. Andries 19:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One does the best one can with what one has. That's why this is a guideline, because it requires clueful editorial judgement - David Gerard 19:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly, and that is why I requested mediation between you and editors opposing your POV: So that editorial judgement agreed by all parties can be applied to this specific article. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 19:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And what to do when there is a huge disagreement between editors that cannot be resolved with this guideline? Andries 19:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What to do when a person is notable but no reputable sources are available?

message: This guideline mentions "negative", but what is negative? The assessment of a trait or event as negative is subjective. For example, some people consider homosexuality negative. Others do not. I would rather have this re-worded more objectively. Andries 20:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Negative in this context it relates to negative traits about a person, as per a value judgement vs. a fact. If a person sexual orientaton can be verified as homosexual, that is a fact, not a value judgememt. On the other hand, saying for example that a person has an "aggressive disposition toward others" is a negative value judgement. The difference between a verifiable fact andf a value judgement is very easy to establish. That is why the guideline states that "Wikipedia is not a place for editors to assess the morality of a person, their beliefs or their orientations, nor the place to advocate for or against a political or religious point of view." ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 19:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is "negative"?

message: In the privacy of birthdays section, it says "it is more common for the public to know which year someone was born without knowing his or her exact birthday".  I think this needs to expand/get clarified a bit.  To say "it is more common" implies that only most of the time are people's exact birthdate not public information, which in turn leaves open for debate who's exact birthdate can be published or not.  This issue came up in the Brian Peppers debate, and people were deleting his exact birthdate despite him being a sex offender and having his exact birthdate released as public information on his sex offender website profile.  I think we need to clarify if it is ok or not to release the exact birthdate in cases of non-public figures who's exact birthdate has been made public by the government.  I would certainly think there wouldn't be any problem with doing so.  Thoughts? VegaDark 02:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If such DOB was published by a reputable and public source, I see no reason for not including it in an article. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 02:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I propose a rewrite of the section to the following:
Privacy of birthdays
Wikipedia includes exact birthdates for many famous people, but including this information for some people should be handled with caution.  While many well known living persons' exact birthdays are widely known and available to the public, the same is not always true for marginally notable people or non-public figures.  With identity theft on the rise, it has become increasingly more common for people to consider their exact date of birth to be private information.  When in doubt of the notability of the person in question, it is best to err on the side of caution for adding specific birthdates.  It may be advisable to simply list the year of birth rather than the exact birthdate.  Some things to consider when adding an exact birthdate are:
*Has the person in question had mainstream media coverage?
*Has the person in question taken action intended to increase their notability? (Given interviews, been a guest on a talk show, etc.)
*Has the person in question's date of birth been published by a reputable and public source?
If the answer to all of the above questions is no, it is advisable to leave out the exact birthdate of the individual in question.  Exceptions can be made in cases where the government has made the information publicly available, such as a sex offender or criminal. (crossed out due to addition of the last bullet-in such cases it will always be published by a reputable and public source)
Feel free to comment or suggest any changes. VegaDark 03:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Rather than list exceptions, we can simply add an extra bullet as follows:
*Has the person in question had mainstream media coverage?
*Has the person in question taken action to increase their notability? (Given interviews, gone on talk shows, etc.)
*Is the birthday available from a public source such as a court judgement, government publication, etc?
I will make that addition. Let me know if this suffices. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I beat you to it. It was a good suggestion. VegaDark 03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good. Go ahead and do the honors :) ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is 2 people enough for a consensus? I'd rather wait for a couple more comments just to be sure. VegaDark 03:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is a pretty easy one and would be surprised if there is no consensus. After all is based on WP:V. If there is no consensus, editors will let us know. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 03:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll add it. Thanks for the support. VegaDark 03:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Henry Earl - Fits last 2, but no mainstream media coverage.  Tron (hacker) - fits 1st and 3rd but not 2nd.  Those are just a couple off the top of my head. -edit- Ok, I just realized the second doesn't apply because he's not living, but my first example does.  I'm sure one could scour through the living people category and find a bunch of stubs that shows no evidence of the person seeking out notability, and hence would have to delete their exact birth date. -edit2- just found Omar Abdel-Rahman, there is no evidence that person tried to increase their notability, unless commiting a crime automatically makes one elligible for that. VegaDark 05:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm putting back in the rewrite I made as nobody has refuted the points I have addressed.  Even if you disagree with its inclusiveness, I think it is much better than the ambigious version that we currently have, and if someone wants to propose changes we can work from there. VegaDark 06:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Privacy of birthdays clarification needed

message: What does a designated agent have to do with libel accusations?  Designated agents are supposed to receive DMCA takedown notices. Superm401 - Talk 01:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designated Agent? 

message: I added a section about admins maintaining their privacy if their wish to maintain their anonymity as Wikipedia administrators.  Admins can also cover for each other in deleting articles about admins if those articles expose the identity of an admin that wish to remain somewhat anonymous. The obvious problem being managed is that a Wikipedia admin might be stalked by blocked users if their true identity is known.  There has only been once such case so far and it is recent. The text reverted under a new sub-section name of Wikipedia Administrators under the Privacy section was:
:Wikipedia Administrators who are notable persons in their own right are permitted to delete and otherwise block biographies written about themselves and their notable immediate family members if they feel that such articles compromise any anonymity that they wish to maintain as administrators, in particualr so that they can minimize being stalked by blocked users. Realistically, a Wikipedian administrator who is notable or comes from a notable family is likely to only remain somewhat anonymous. One administrator may take such a deletion action on behalf of another administrator.
AWM -- 199.33.32.40 04:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Major changes make to this guideline article need to be brought up here before being added to the article.  I am therefore reverting your changes to the article.  If you actually want to propose a change in the guidelines, please phrase your proposal that way, so that others have a better idea how to respond.  Thanks.  --Allen 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any biography whose primary purpose or effect is to identify a Wikipedia contributor who wishes to remain anonymous is probably a case of bad faith editing. The problem is not limited to admins. -Will Beback 07:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: But by that simple-minded logic, any person who did not want their W article to exist (e.g. articles that show that the person has a prison record) could register an acount and then scream that they are a victim and insist that W remove their article.  It would be a clever abuse.  How do you prevent it? AWM -- 68.122.35.108 08:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By conducting a civil discussion on the matter with other editors, and assessing the notability of that person. See Wikipedia:Notability. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admins covering for each other 

message: For example, the New York Times says that John Doe was born in 1955 but John Doe himself tells you this was a mistake and that his year of birth is in fact 1965. The Wikipedia article must reflect the published record, and not what John Doe has told you privately. If a correction is published, this is verifiable and hence usable.  Since the claim has been called into doubt, it can be appropriate to write in this case "According to the New York Times, John Doe was born..." along with an appropriate citation of source.
You would think that John Doe would know his own birthday, Can we drop this paragraph with extreme prejudice? Kim Bruning 19:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, what about cases where John Doe might purposely attempt to conceal his true birthday? ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 19:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V is a core policy. We cannot have random editors, who claim to be notable subjects, asserting facts without providing a source. If they are indeed the subject then they should be able to provide a source for their information. If necessary, we can just delete info that we don't have undisputed sources for. Better to say nothing than the wrong thing. -Will Beback 21:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only where there's a clash with the public record that there's a problem. If the public record says the actress was born in 1940, but she says 1950, we go with 1940. She, of course, is free to have the public record changed. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  She just told you it was 1950. We could of course demand a photocopy of her birth certificate? But seriously, that would be nuts. Kim Bruning 19:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these people told everyone their birthday as well; that doesn't mean they were correct. —Kirill Lokshin 20:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they fabricate their age, that's their problem. Time to pull out ye olde turing test+conclusions. Kim Bruning 20:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: In addition to people lying about their own age, we also have to worry about impersonators.  Just because someone claims to be John Doe is no guarantee that they are.  Likewise, just because you claim to have spoken with John Doe is no guarantee to the rest of us that you're telling the truth.  That's the essense of WP:V.  We don't accept anyone's claims on pure faith.  If the birthday is wrong, there should be an independent source showing it somewhere.  If they lie about their age, we tell the truth as best we know it.  We don't parrot their lies.  Rossami (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly right. This is part of the point of WP:NOR. I could say I've interviewed X and he told me A, B, and C, but (a) why should Wikipedia's readers believe me and (b) how do I know that I was really speaking to X? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  INSANE! Subject is presumed to not know their own birthday? 

message: I would like to change this from a guideline to a policy. There's nothing contentious in it that I can see, and all good editors do it anyway as it mostly reiterates the need to adhere to our content policies. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the page should be made policy yet, as long is it continues to have meaningful changes made to it.  I think the exact birthday issue (just removed) is a signficant change (not huge, but signficant).  Also, I don't like proliferating policy pages to quickly.  At some point it should be policy, but lets leave it for now.  If it sits around, with not much change (beyond typos and grammar), then make it policy.  --Rob 06:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to see this become policy as well, but as said above, things like the privacy of birthdays issue needs to be addressed and agreed upon. VegaDark 07:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the privacy of birthdays thing because it didn't seem to make sense. If a birthday has been published by a reliable, mainstream publication, it's no longer private. If it hasn't been published, or is published only in a disreputable publication, then we shouldn't be adding it anyway. So I couldn't see the point of the section, unless of course I misunderstood it. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V is our guiding star. If a biographical fact is so well-known as to be reliably sourced, then it is suitable for a biography. If it isn't then it ain't.  "Living people" issues are sufficiently litigious that care is required. We've all seen what happens when the "Office" has to intervene. Making this a routine policy should help keep biographies "kosher" and out of the "press". I'm now done using "quotes". -Will Beback 09:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also many that feel that it shouldn't be in the article even if it is found by a reliable source (in the case of a non-public figure).  We need this section in there and discussed before it becomes policy. VegaDark 18:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say "many," what do you mean exactly? Can you give an example of an article about a non-public figure, where the birth date had been published by a reliable source, but there was a dispute about whether to publish it on Wikipedia? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, whether or not the page becomes policy doesn't affect whether you can re-insert that paragraph. I can see you might object if there was something on the page you felt was inappropriate, but to object because of an omission makes no sense, because if enough people want it, it can always be added. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: During the Brian Peppers debate, his exact birthdate was published on his sex offender profile, which was released by the government - The most reliable source we can expect for this info.  There were 2 administrators who were deleting his birthdate because he was a "non-public figure" and they didn't think we should be publishing birthdates of non-public figures. Needless to say I strongly disagreed with their logic, and so did many other editors, and there was a revert war over including it or not before Jimbo came in and deleted the page. That is why this needs to be in in the policy, so we either know it can be added or know it can't. I tried starting a discussion on it a while back but very few people participated. VegaDark 19:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Thanks for explaining. It seems to me that this kind of example would be covered by the policy. If the information has been made public by a reliable source, we can use it. However, if a person complains, we should bear in mind that BLP recommends sensitivity, particularly for non-public figures. The question to ask is: is the date of birth relevant to the person's notability? Clearly, it wouldn't be unless it was an article about, say, a 50-year-woman who became known because she had an affair with a 14-year-old boy, and even then the exact date probably wouldn't be relevant. So I would say, in a case like Brian Pepper, that if he complains, we should remove the date; but if he doesn't, we should leave it in. Do you know whether he complained? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone claiming to be a relative of his complained that we had an article on him at all, not specifically mentioning the birthdate as far as I know.  That is why there was such a fuss over it and the constant deletions/recreations of the page. VegaDark 19:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked through the archives, and I can only see two people who argued very briefly that the date of birth should be left out. No one made a big deal of it, and I think they were just trying to pare the article down to the absolute minimum: the date of birth wasn't in itself an issue. I'd say the policies and this page are pretty clear: material may be published by us if already published elsewhere, but if someone complains, show a bit of sensitivity so long as the issue doesn't go to the heart of why they're notable. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope you're right.  I am confident this is going to be an issue when the article is recreated, however, unless this becomes policy before then. VegaDark 19:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  I remember birthdays coming up but in a completely different context.  (I'm afraid I don't remember the article but I do remember the arguments which were made.)  Technically, your birthdate is a matter of public record since it's recorded on your birth certificate.  But it is sufficiently difficult to find the paper copies (since you generally have to go in person to the county courthouse where the person was born) that birthday is often used as a piece of data when authenticating your identity (for example, on a banking application).  Given that it is commonly used for identity and that it can be used to commit identity theft and that identity theft is the fastest growing class of crime right now, we should use extra caution before publishing the birthdates of living persons.  There are, of course, exceptions for people who are clearly public figures but people who have put themselves that far in the limelight already have to take extra precautions against identity theft.  For the rest of us, if the article can survive without the birthdate, we should leave it out in the interests of privacy.  I agree that if a birthdate is not reliably sourced, it should come out.  But that's a minimum.  Even if you do have a reliable source, it still may not be appropriate to include a birthdate in the biography of a living person.  Rossami (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very valid points. I would think that for anyone where this would even remotely be an issue, a birth year would suffice -- then people can figure out how old the person is but there's a much lessened chance of identity theft or other potentially damaging behavior. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 18:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the issues addressed above by Rossami.  Just because we can find a source for someone's birthday does not mean that we need to make the editorial choice to include it.  SlimVirgin did not address these issues before removing the guideline.  I think birth year only should be sufficient for marginally notable living people.  We should put the guideline back in place. -MrFizyx 20:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe I should give some examples of the type of things I'm concerned about.  I'm a fan of many obscure singer-songwriters that play intimate shows to small groups of fans, but generally can enjoy having the same level of privacy of average citizens.  Someone recently wrote an article for one such artist, possibly someone who knew him personnally, because the original version included an exact birthdate and the names of his parents.  I removed this, but now the cat is out of the bag and copies of the wikipeida article appear elsewhere. In another example, it is here on wikipedia that I learned that Jeffrey Foucault and Kris Delmhorst are married--these artist don't publicly advertize this relationship.  The only reliable source I found to back this up was a single article in the Boston Globe that said, "oh, by the way...,"  In our article on Foucault, his marriage is mentioned in the second sentence.  I like the idea of wikipedia having a policy that says "hey some details aren't relevant and it's better if we choose to leave them out."  (OK, not really that exact wording). -MrFizyx 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy

message: Hi Uninvited, it was Anthere, as I recall, who wanted that information to be included, so it might be a good idea to put it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As there's been no response, I'll put it back. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that the matter is deserving of more discussion particularly if Anthere was not editing in some sort of official capacity.  The "Contact us" pages have been heavily reorganized with an eye towards catching WP:LIVING issues and redirecting them to OTRS; having a link to the "contact us" pages is probably sufficient.  In general, WP:LIVING issues should be sent to info-en@ rather than board@ since they will usually end up in that queue anyway and since in most cases mail sent to info-en@ will get a faster response. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see a specific link on Wikipedia:Contact_us that refers to WP:LIVING issues. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Contact us -> report a problem -> article about you  They are on separate pages to improve the wheat-to-chaff ratio we get at OTRS, which is working splendidly.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked Anthere to look at the page and that was one of her suggestions, so I'd prefer to leave it. Perhaps you could add to it rather than deleting what's there? Something like: the best way to receive a fast response is to contact ... SlimVirgin (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Designated agent

message: As sugested by Jimbo Wales in WikiEN-I, I would want to upgrade this guideline to policy. For that to happens, it needs some attention and more thought put into. Any suggestions on how to move this forward? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrading to policy 

message: :Jossi, an issue above that has a few people bothered is whether we should say something about not including birthdates, even if they're published elsewhere, because dates of birth are used in identity theft. Is that something we could sort out? I'm in favor of not publishing them: a year of birth would be enough in most cases. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that exact days of birth in bios of living people add little or no encyclopedic value. Let's find some suitable wording to address this. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Birth year only seems normal, like John Doe (1948-). An actual mention of birthday just seems silly from a stylistic view, regardless of the (real) concerns above about identity theft. - cohesion 02:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In cases where privacy is not an issue (e.g. the person currently publicizes their birthdate on their web site), I like showing the exact date.  One minor utility, is it helps disambiguate between people with similiar names.  I find it handy when matching bios between different languages wikis.  Maybe one day, we'll even be able to have software convert the birthdate into a current age.  So, I'ld hate to see a loss (or failure to capture) the data.  Basically, my rule is, if you have any reason to think the exact birthdate is being withheld by the subject, then we should withhold it.  But, if somebody is giving it out, by all means show it.  Perhaps for now, we should simply ask for sensitivity on the issue, without formulating an exact rule.    --Rob 03:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Identity theft problems are relatively new and connected to very modern technology. Self release in the past, in particular to print publications, should not indicate a desire to self release personal identifying information on one of the largest web sites in the world. I think we should keep complete DOB off except for the super famous. FloNight talk 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you feel about cases, where an "up and coming" actor/singer has their own web site, actively maintained, with a biography, which gives their date of birth. --Rob 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would worry about their agent jazzing up their personal information. : ) Until they are famous enough to be under sustained media scrutiny, these facts can fluctuate. FloNight talk 22:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: *Hey Rob can you direct me to an example of an "up and coming" performer who is giving out this sort of information in the way you describe?  I don't think we should avoid a sensible policy just because it might sometimes be OK to break the rule in some hypothetical situation.  I also don't see how this trivial infromation on an "up and comer" is encyclopedic. I think the language contained in an early edit was reasonable and is a good place to start.  -MrFizyx 08:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that years of birth are enough, but I like the wording linked to by MrFizyx, although I'd add to it: "If the subject of a biography complains about the publication of their full date of birth, it should be removed." SlimVirgin (talk) 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On this wording, I would replace "taken action intended to increase their NOTABILITY" with "taken action intended to increase their FAME".  The people who need protection are notable non-famous people.  Somebody who publishes a new cancer treatment in a medical journal is seeking notability, but not necessarily fame.  Also, I object to the "Reputable and public source" wording.  Things like the eSorn Sex Offender List, which list with Brian Peppers, is an example of a reputable public source, but the people on it, are argueably private figures.  It's also redundant to say reliable, because theoretically all sources of information we use are suppossed to reliable.  I suggest for living figures we could require an up-to-date online publication that is well known nationally or internationally. For instance, if a birthdate is pubished at CNN.com, we do no added harm by showing it.  If somebody's birth was announced in a paper newspaper in 1985, then our use of the date *might* pose harm in a few cases.  --Rob 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinserted the text and made some changes to address Rob's concerns.  Does this work for everyone? -MrFizyx 21:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Good addition, Fizyx and Rossami. I've made a few tweaks elsewhere, nothing major, all explained in the edit summaries I think. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you please explain what do you mean by "dangerous"? Dangerous to whom? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saforrest, as explained above, many people released their information years ago and under different circumstances than exist today. They did not realize that their private information might end up on an international web site read by millions of people. Also some people are notable for one narrow area of their life but are not overall famous people. Wikipedia guidelines reflect these different levels of notability and fame. --FloNight talk 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privacy of birthdays 

message: Getting back to Jossi's original point, should this be a policy? It is written as a guideline, meaning that it offers guidance but with many grey areas. The addition of unsourced critical information is handled by Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Biographies of living persons. Rather than making this a policy, I suggest that would be simpler all around if those aspects which we consider serious (birthdates perhaps) are added to the blocking policy, while retaining this as a guideline. -Will Beback 18:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If judging by the comments made on the mailing lists, it seems to me that upgrading this guideline to policy (either in its current form or suitably amended) it is very much necessary, in particular as the profile of Wikipedia becomes more prominent. It will take one or two more snafus to compromise the project if we do not take action to curtail the use of WP to defame people who's biographies are featured in WP. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be a policy.  Midgley 01:20, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy or guideline

message: Regarding categories, one issue/problem with having a living-specific policy, is we could have conflicts with regard to dead people.  For instance, the policy says living people must be convicted of a crim Consider the wording:
:For example, add only people convicted of a crime in a court of law to Category:Criminals, and make sure the conviction was not overturned on appeal. See Wikipedia:Categorization of people.
Does this also apply to dead people?  If it does, we should say so explicitly here, and elsewhere.  If it doesn't, we have a major consistency issue.  Currently, there's a disagreement over sub-cats of :Category:Criminals as to whether people famous for committing crimes, but who never were convicted, should be placed in the category.  For instance, a renowned (lond dead) brothel operator, is known definatively to have committed a crime, but may never have been convicted. Since living and dead people go in the same category, some common approach seems warranted. --Rob 15:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, you feel you are the competetant editor, and I am not.  Please, enlighten me, and inform me what the policy is in terms of dead people known to have done criminal activity, and not convicted of it.  Do they go in the "Criminals" category, or are they excluded, as they would be if they are alive.  --Rob 16:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Added:  I think it's important to note a distinction between categories, and other claims within a biography.  Those other claims are contained only within the biography article, so we can easily treat living bios with extra sensitivity, beyond that we would dead people, especially long dead historic figures.  But, when a category has both living and dead people, it is not so easy to treat them differently.  --Rob 17:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, the articles that spurred this inquiry are Phoebe Doty and Adeline Miller. We may as well throw Julia Brown in there, as well. These were well-known 19th-century prostitutes and madams, but none of them was ever convicted of anything. — BrianSmithson 17:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These were the examples that brought this to light, but I don't want us to focus to much on specific cases (note: I did revert myself, and put back the category).  My concern here, is the illogic have having different rules for inclusion in the *same* category.  Treating one group better then another within the same category seems to be a form of bias.  Where living and dead people are in the same category, we should go by the higher standard (e.g. one for living people) and use that standard for all people.  If we want a lower standard for dead people, we should have a separate category for them (e.g. ":Category:Deceased criminals").   Perhaps WP:LIVING should apply to all entries in a category, if any entry may be a living person.  --Rob 18:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, according to the current wording, even if reliable sources have said somebody committed a crime, without a conviction, it is not ok for us to categorize them as a criminal.  And you're right, its absurd to mix wildly different types of criminals.    --Rob 19:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you are describing a case where thoughtful knowledgeable people would use categories like "famous as prostitute", "convicted mass murderer", "famous as mass murderer" (or something like that) and put them in a larger "crime" category. I think your problem here is not being bold enough and using your abilities to the full, somehow being mislead that you are supposed to be following rules in situations where the rules don't make sense. No one is going to be sued over how we categorize what someone did 100 years ago. WAS 4.250 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The individuals are already categorized as prostitutes, which is in turn categorized as an illegal occupation. That seems sufficient. Regarding the general principle, many people are known by historians to have committed crimes that they were not convicted of. Jack the Ripper, Jeff Weise, etc.  -Will Beback 20:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Exactly.  Things are considered criminal here that are perfectly legal in other countries.  Who are we to label them criminals?  Unless we define criminals as people who violated the law of the country they were in at the time of committing the act.  Then we get into arguments like having civil rights leaders (like Rosa Parks) in that category, and the debate can go on and on. Personally I think it is illogical to have such a broad category called "Criminals" for those reasons and the reasons listed above. VegaDark 05:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please comment at Category_talk:Criminals#Use_of_this_category ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 16:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead people 

message: The lead now reads: All unourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.
I would argue that this needs tightening. People may add such negative materials by citing sources that are not reliable, such as a a personal homepage, USENET or a discussion forum.  The current wording needs to refer to the appropriate policies to avoid this. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 04:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "or poorly sourced," Jossi, which might do it, as the policies are already mentioned in the intro. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And then I removed it because SlimVirgin had already web-cited ot fomr the list... Just zis Guy you know? 09:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced material 

message: I do not agree with Jossi's revert of my edit. The guidelines have to give two limits, not just one, to the space dedicated to criticisms. Otherwise I think this guideline does not properly reflect the NPOV policy of undue weight.
Here was my version 
:"Be careful to give a proportionate voice both to proponents and to critics to ensure that majority views and minority views are given due weight. For example, if the criticism represents a tiny-minority view then it has no place in the article."
And here is Jossi's version to which he and only he reverted repeatedly 
:"Be careful not to give a disproportionate voice to critics as you could be representing a minority view as if it were the majority view, and if the criticism represents a tiny-minority view, it has no place in the article."
See also Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/archive1#Ways_to_assess_a_proportionate_fraction_of_criticism_and_controversy for an old inconclusive discussion about this between Jossi and me. Andries 16:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with jossi. If it makes you feel better, consider half his reverts as coming from me. WAS 4.250 17:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Andries, you need to read that sentence in context with the first part of the section that reads" [critics] views can be represented so long as the material is relevant to the subject's notability, is based on reputable sources, and is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article, or appear to side with the critics' material. This is 100% compatible with the content policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV. You can read the last comment on that old discussion in which I addressed your concern regarding NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also note that there is no such policy of due weight. The policy of NPOV refers unambiguosly to undue weight in this context. And lastly, this section is not about "proponents", but about  "safe harbor" provisions needed to curtail critics and detractors POVs that are poorly sourced, or that represent minority views. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also prefer Jossi's language.  IMOHO it seems the more frequent error is with editors giving criticism too much weight rather than not enough (all-the-while claiming NPOV). -MrFizyx 18:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proportional weigth of criticism

message: Hi. While reading the "Safe Harbor" section, I went to look up WP:CSD criteria A9 and couldn't find it. Eventually I discovered this edit, so I've edited this article accordingly. (BTW, A9 only existed for 9 hours!) Cheers, CWC(talk) 06:03, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSD A9 now folded into A6 

message: I've created Template:blp, which says: 
This article should adhere closely to the policies and guidelines relevant to biographies of living persons.
The template can be placed on the talk pages of biographies, so that new editors know what to do, and so that subjects of bigraphies can see what policies apply and who to contact if something goes wrong. I also thought we could add to the page a list of editors willing to help subjects sort out biography problems, so they don't have to contact the Foundation as a first step. Any thoughts about doing that? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this whole template idea. I disagree with "adhere closely". If I had a better idea, I would give it. I only know this is less than optimum. We can do better. WAS 4.250 03:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be edited in accordance with? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "This article must be edited in accordance with biographies of living persons; especially no unsourced accusations."? WAS 4.250 12:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WAS 4.250, your wording is probably better because it more specifically spells out the problem that we are addressing. FloNight talk 13:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think advice on what people should do about their own biographies, perhaps belongs in WP:AUTO (bio subjects are often sent there).  I have suggested on Wikipedia talk:Autobiography, that people seeing negative unsourced statements should *not* wait for assistance from other Wikipedians, but should instead just remove such stuff.  You're idea of a list of editors willing to help such people is still good (and can go in either/both places), but I don't want people to think they have to tolerate negative unsourced statements about themselves for one second.  Hypothetically, if somebody says you were implicated in a Kennedy assassination (for a purely random example), please don't ask for help first, just remove the junk.  Nobody should revert you, and if they do, then you can go to WP:ANI for some help (e.g. blocking the offender). --Rob 03:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the template. I think "adhere closely" is okay. Perhaps there is better wording, but I don't know what it is. Rob, I think we have to walk a fine line here. There are many people that start vanity articles about themselves and would love to dictate the content. We need to be careful not to give them the impression that they have the final word. I like the list of editors that are willing to help with BLP. FloNight talk 03:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, some real world people don't want to make the changes themselves. They expect us to fix it for them because we were the ones that messed up. FloNight talk 03:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify things: do you agree with my basic premise that a) anybody (including the bio subject themselve) is welcome to immediately remove any *unsourced* negative claims against themselves (or any living person); and b) another editor putting back those claims repeatedly without sources is a blockeable offense.  I'm not clear if we disagree with what the policy is, or with how to present it.  --Rob 04:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Rob, I agree that subjects should be allowed to remove unsourced negative material, but I've seen it happen several times that they end up being blocked for disruption or 3RR, or they make a legal threat and get blocked indefinitely. I think this is happening less and less because the Foundation has made it clear that it takes living bio issues very seriously, but even so, I think it's helpful if a subject can be directed quickly to WP:BLP where he can find information abour the policies and who to contact if there's a problem. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: In article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an editor has now removed twice  tags I placed on negative views of this... unpopular... figure. His argument is that the info is sourced in the subarticle. Should I let it go, insist, delete the unsourced material? What do you all think? --CTSWyneken 16:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide a diff? Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason why not to include the refences available in the subarticle. Think of the reader: he/she may not malke the effort to go and read the subarticle. So we need to have that summary properly referenced as well as per WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 01:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI, I reinserted the  tags and a second editor removed them. The implication of what is being said is that this guideline does not apply, since the cites are in the subarticle. Since I'm not an admin, and I've reached my second revert, I need to back off. If others agree this guideline should be fought for in the case, Jossi and I could use some support. --CTSWyneken 12:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: CTS, could you perhaps copy the citations from the subarticle into the disputed paragraph? SlimVirgin (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will do that. For the matter of principle, though, do we want to let this sort of thing go or insist on citations being in the article itself? --CTSWyneken 15:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally speaking, citations should be in each article, because as Jossi said, the reader may not want to have to search for citations in a sub-article; and if the citations exist in the sub-article, it's easy to copy them into the main article too. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! I appreciate the opinion. --CTSWyneken 18:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are summaries of subarticles exempt from the reference negative opinions rule? 

message: G._Patrick_Maxwell Talk:G._Patrick_Maxwell  This policyguideline should apply.  There is a contentious section, which depends upon a single, primary, source. Midgley 01:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please look at this article 

message: "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material 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."
The essential phrase "Editors should remove any unsourced or poorly sourced negative material" occurs twice in this article, and it's badly writen because it's not clear. Does it only refer to negative material?  Or is unsourced material meant to be singled out whether negative or not? It can be read in two possible ways:
Editors should remove any unsourced (or poorly sourced negative) material  
or
Editors should remove any (unsourced or poorly sourced) negative material
This issue has actually come up, in the context of bio of a living person in which some editors seem to think that so long as material is not negative, it really needs no good source. Thus, neutral "info" material or stuff they have from private emails, they believe is includable, simply because it's not libelous. I would argue that for non-famous persons, it's an invasion of privacy. See the Talk page for Houston McCoy for more. Steve 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original sentence was "unsourced negative material".  "Or poorly sourced" as added to clarify "unsourced."  Neutral "info" directly from the subject of the bio is generally includable if relevant, but privacy concerns could prevent inclusion.  Truly unsourced material can be removed per WP:V, which is a major policy; WP:BLP is only a guideline. Gimmetrow 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that we need to be citing sources.  However, let's be realistic.  WP:V does not say to remove all information that is unsourced.  If we did that, a huge number of articles would completely disappear because they have no source whatsoever.  I think it is clear that this BLP guideline is aimed at preventing libel.  As such, there is no added imperative to remove unsourced positive or neutral statements from articles on living persons - no more so than our general desire for accuracy and sourcing, and clearly unsourced statements are allowed (not desired) in general. Johntex\talk 21:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, the BLP guideline relates to libel.  Unsourced neutral material often represents "common knowledge" of editors familiar with the subject - but if challenged by another editor in good faith, maybe it should be sourced?  Gimmetrow 21:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would generally agree with that statement.  Johntex\talk 21:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to interpret the above statement

message: Let's say there is an individual who has an article in Wikipedia but who has had very little media coverage and coverage has been primarily negative (say it dealt with his denying the holocaust occurred, allegations that he embezzeled funds from a political party and numerous charities in 1988 and then again in 1994 and 2002, and his participation in starting a soup kitchen in 1996 but that he had to leave due to an allegation of misappropriation of funds. He was only convicted once in 1994). Let's say this individual has a website in which he denies the negative media allegations and claims that the media is against him due to his personal political view that President Bush is controlled by the Israeli state. No media outlet has ever published or mentioned the individual's thoughts on this subject. The individual would like the Wikipedia article on himself to expound on his political theory because he feels that is what he is known for. Further, he objects to the inclusion of the negative material since he feels it is his politcial theory that he is known for. Should the article be primarily about his political theory since his website serves him as a verifiable resource? Bernie Radecki 22:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you clearly have a specific case in mind and it would be helpful if you told us what page you're talking about.  However, speaking only in generalities, his personal website is not a reliable source for any but the most uncontroversial of topics.  I might trust a personal website to pull an occasional quote or to correct an entry on hair color but would not rely on it as the basis for the whole article.  Furthermore, the website would be a primary source.  Citing it would make Wikipedia a secondary source.  Encyclopedias, however, are tertiary sources by definition.  In general, personal websites do not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiable.  Rossami (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a person to have an article on Wikipedia, they must be notable in a Wikipedia specific encyclopedic way. This means that they must have verifiable reliable sources about their area of notability. We can use their own web site to help fill in appropriate background details about their life. Depending on their area of notability, we might also use it to expand or clarify their opinions on various topics. Agree that we need to know specifics of the biography to answer the specific issues raised in the question. FloNight talk 23:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: [Francis Schuckardt] is the article I am involoved with although my example above was contrived. In the actual case, there is media coverage on his starting a splinter group from the Catholic Church, allegations of incompetance to be in charge of a church, alleged drug and sexual abuse,  allegations that he considers himself to be the Pope, and coverage on the unique or bizarre beliefs and practices of his church. The media coverage started in the early 80s and has occurred as recently as 2005 on MSNBC. Francis Schuckardt's unpublished religious belief is that the Catholic Church in Rome has lost the faith due changing its teachings after Vatican Council II in the late 60s. He considers himself as a bishop of the real Catholic Church. A member of his church started a website after the Wikipedia article was created and has now copied a lot of Shuckardt's unpublished material on the state of the Catholic Church from the website to the Wikipedia article. This case is now in arbitration One of the arbitrators has posted this quote: "If the subject or a their representative edits the article they may offer information correcting the article or that information may be available through a personal website, blog or other self-published material such as an autobiography. Such material should be used in preference to contradictory unsourced material". I am wondering how much of his unpublished beliefs on the state of the Catholic Church should be in the article. Bernie Radecki 23:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To clarify through a somewhat contrived example, if I edit the article and say "The bishop's hair is black" but don't provide a source, you can look to the blog or personal website to overturn that edit and say "No, it was dyed in that picture.  The bishop's hair is red".  But if someone pulls up a New York Times article which says "The bishop's hair is really blonde", that takes precedence over the non-independent cite.  Of course, none of the sourcing has any bearing on whether or not the bishop's hair color is relevant to the article.  The decision about what to include and how much of it to include is an editorial decision to be worked out on the article's Talk page.  Your original question was "Should the article be primarily about his ... theory since his website serves as a verifiable resource?"  The answer to that question, I believe, is no.  The article should primarily be about the things which are independently sourced.  Rossami (talk) 00:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is just one more question. What if the New york Times article reads: "His barber stated that the bishops hair is gray." Would this published statement that contradicts the bishop's website trump the bishop's website assertion or would you have to give both viewpoints like this: "Although the bishop's website shows him to have red hair, his barber told reporters that his hair is gray."Bernie Radecki 14:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like the latter would seem appropriate.  Even if multiple independent sources agreed the hair was gray, it may be appropriate to also state that his personal website still says it is red.  How much this dispute is covered would depend on how important the hair color is to the article.  Gimmetrow 17:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: His website may be used as a source of information about himself in an article about him. How much of it should be included would depend on the article and the context. It shouldn't be so much that it crosses the line from being encyclopedic to turning Wikipedia into a platform for his beliefs. Where that line is drawn is a judgment call for the page editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been watching that article for a while and made comments in its talk page. IMO, the article as written is too long, tedious to read and incomprehensible to all but to insiders. Given that there is very little tertiary sources on the subject, that article needs to be reduced to a much shorter version. Less is more in these situations. As editors of this page are currently under arbitration, I am awaiting to see its result before commenting any further. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it is against protocol for me to even bring the topic up at this time. I was just curious, that is why I used a contrived example originally. My apologies for being over-anxious. Bernie Radecki 05:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using a personal website to expound on a personal, unpublished theory