Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:18, 4 August 2008 editZuluPapa5 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,447 edits →WP:SELFPUB conflict: new section← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:18, 7 August 2008 edit undoZuluPapa5 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers6,447 edits →Further Reading Blog Link Proposal: fix signatureNext edit →
(69 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 169:		Line 169:
	*I would also favor removal. this is an '''essay''' which, regardless of what links to it, has no force of policy. Because we link to it from WP:BLP, we introduce a means for people to push positive POV on a subject. BLP is sufficient in scope '''and''' explanation to describe how we should treat defamatory information on all BLP's or overly negative information on marginal BLP's. treating this essay as if it were a policy (which is strikingly common) circumvents the process by which we would normally reach consensus on policies and creates an unnecessary hurdle for editors who wish to create a factually accurate and neutral biography. ] (]) 16:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)		*I would also favor removal. this is an '''essay''' which, regardless of what links to it, has no force of policy. Because we link to it from WP:BLP, we introduce a means for people to push positive POV on a subject. BLP is sufficient in scope '''and''' explanation to describe how we should treat defamatory information on all BLP's or overly negative information on marginal BLP's. treating this essay as if it were a policy (which is strikingly common) circumvents the process by which we would normally reach consensus on policies and creates an unnecessary hurdle for editors who wish to create a factually accurate and neutral biography. ] (]) 16:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
	:I think you're confusing the essay on do no harm, with mention of the phrase do no harm. Many policies link to essays intended to clarify various parts of policies. Of course, these essays should be treated as essays and not a binding part of policy. Even BLP currently links to ] which is an essay; and also links to a bunch of guidelines and a bunch of articles. Clearly these articles and guidelines are not policy, but this doesn't mean we should remove the part of policy that references them. Worst case scenario, we should remove the reference (wikilink) but not the part of policy without good reason. Note that according to the above discussion, the phrase has been part of BLP since 3 days after it's introduction in November 2005. The essay was created in mid 2007 ] (]) 07:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)		:I think you're confusing the essay on do no harm, with mention of the phrase do no harm. Many policies link to essays intended to clarify various parts of policies. Of course, these essays should be treated as essays and not a binding part of policy. Even BLP currently links to ] which is an essay; and also links to a bunch of guidelines and a bunch of articles. Clearly these articles and guidelines are not policy, but this doesn't mean we should remove the part of policy that references them. Worst case scenario, we should remove the reference (wikilink) but not the part of policy without good reason. Note that according to the above discussion, the phrase has been part of BLP since 3 days after it's introduction in November 2005. The essay was created in mid 2007 ] (]) 07:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			::I am. thank you for the correction. ] (]) 01:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


	This entire discussion is itself ''proof'' of the need to have rewritten "'''An''' important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"" as "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement". Policy was NEVER "do no harm". "Do no harm" was always just one of many important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement. Any policy sentence so consistently misread by some editors needs to be written to be more clear. We did that. We made existing policy clearer. Policy was not changed. ] (]) 08:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)		This entire discussion is itself ''proof'' of the need to have rewritten "'''An''' important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"" as "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement". Policy was NEVER "do no harm". "Do no harm" was always just one of many important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement. Any policy sentence so consistently misread by some editors needs to be written to be more clear. We did that. We made existing policy clearer. Policy was not changed. ] (]) 08:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			:Which editor here expressed the opinion that policy was solely about "do no harm"? ] (]) 19:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
			::I suppose it could be argued that my statement said this (I said that my interpretation of "do no harm" summarized ] pretty well). However, I think the fundamental problem here -- which has NOT been addressed by the rewording -- is what "harm" means. What is harm? I took harm in a legal sense, meaning actionable legal harm. It appears that ZuluPapa below made the same assumption by using the word "libel". Others seem to interpret "harm" in another way, including any negative statements, statements that the subject disapproves of, etc. Given that we can't agree what "harm" means, I completely disagree with WAS 4.250 that anything is clearer. Taken from my legalistic point of view, applying "editorial judgment" is not only a change, but totally against several policies (and ] doesn't apply in this case, in my view). However, taken from the other definition of "harm", WAS 4.250's change is completely reasonable. The problem is the word "harm". I think, at this point, the best thing to do is either a) define "harm" or b) remove any mention of "harm" whatsoever. <font style="font-variant: small-caps;">-- ]<sup>(])</sup></font> 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			:::We are concerned with both legal and ethical issues here. Our current policy says "Misplaced Pages editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so." Ultimately we are relying on the judgement of our editors. We simply cannot define everything. I am still waiting for examples of actual situations where the "do no harm" wording created significant problems.--] (]) 08:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			::::Look at my post from 31 July, above.--] (]) 09:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			:::::That post points to Orwell's ]. See rules 3 & 4. We are going from a concise imperative that has a whole literature behind it to a long, passive admonition that any editor can read as supporting what ever editing choice they prefer. The reason I insist on examples is to see where actual confusion occurs, so we can make clarifications that are needed rather than treating this as a writing exercise. --] (]) 15:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			<span id="donoharmexamples" />
			::::::Pardon me, I meant my post from 00:50, 31 July 2008. I'll just repeat it here:
			<span id="donoharmexamples" />
			::::::Sure I can give examples. The phrase is routinely bandied about at AfDs regarding biographies ( ), commonly in a way that completely undermines NPOV. ("]" This logic -- which is typical of invocations of "do no harm" -- would allow anyone to get anything they disliked deleted from the encyclopedia.) The principle of "do no harm" has many passionate advocates, but Misplaced Pages is governed by consensus, not by passion. There was and is insufficient consensus to make ] policy, but ] is one of our most broadly embraced principles. When "do no harm" undermines NPOV, it ''does harm''. It is simply not one of our guiding principles, and should not be portrayed as such.--] (]) 23:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			:::Having thought about this a while (even going back a long time if you look in the talk archives of this page and the essay that is of later date than the policy), I believe I can conclude the following: 1) the community is more concerned about harm to specifically identifiable individuals (usually, but not necessarily an individual named in the biographical material) than to large numbers of unidentified individuals - the community may not even support giving any weight to the effect on large numbers of unidentified materials; 2) the community cares more strongly about material that might give rise to a legal cause of action than it does about other material that might be harmful; 3) the community is generally willing to listen to any of a subject's concerns and adapt in reflection of them when it can do so without jeapordizing NPOV (classic example: replacing one picture with another suitably licensed picture at the subject's suggestion). Those observations may help everyone understand what is meant here. ] 16:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			I strongly support the deletion of "do no harm". It is an invitation to ignore and override all of Wiki's other policies, including ]. The flip side of "do no harm" is "do good". Is it legitimate to argue that <i>"yes, it is a NPOV violation, but I'm 'doin good!'. The world is a happier place, as I unilaterally visualize it. Your neutral rendering creates 'harm'!"</i>] (]) 12:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
			:In theory "Do no harm" is great. In practice it can be used to delete all manner of biographical information. A recent example concerned singer ]. It has been widely reported that he artifically inseminated a friend of his. Editors insisted that the information be removed from the article lest the mention in the Misplaced Pages article do harm to him. Since there is no limit to "do no harm", the fact that it has been published a hundred other places is not sufficient. While the particular story may simply be gossip, the "do no harm" clause sets a standard different from the rest of the policy, and different from other core policies like NPOV. If an editor chooses to assert that something in an article may do harm, how can that even be rebutted? If it's kept it should be better defined. ]] ] 16:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
			::This is an excellent example to talk about. It is far from clear to me that this information is relevant to an article about a singer unless, say, he wrote a song about it. I'm not saying exclusion is clearly required under BLP but it certainly demands caution. If the article included the mother and baby's names, that would really raise a red flag in my mind, regardless of how widely the information was reported at the time. My concern here is that the changes we are discussing here are aimed at weakening the BLP policy, not clarifying it.--] (]) 18:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
			:::Leaving aside this not-so-"excellent" example, it's not a settled issue that it shouldn't be weakened. <i>Weakening the policy DOES NOT mean weakening</i> enforcement <i>of the policy.</i> I might add that even if BLP policy was weakened to nothing at all, I happen to believe that if neutrality, reliable source requirements, notability requirements, and no original research/synth requirements were fully enforced across Misplaced Pages, the vast majority of the problem BLPs would be solved right there. How many problem BLPs have the attention of many editors from varying backgrounds? Not many, I suggest: most problem BLPs principally suffer from a lack of attention. Now how do policies typically get used? They get cited by some users against other users who are acting inconsistent with policy. When policy parsing arises, you've thus already got a battle of editors, and the policy is being cited in order to win the battle for one side. The talk about Misplaced Pages's "BLP problem" is accordingly a red herring, since in the vast majority of cases, the problem is a lack of time and effort to edit in the face of isolated and ignorant opposition or, even more commonly, no opposition at all than in confronting groups of editors who can't be dealt with with ], ], ], and ] such that a "strong" ] club has to be given to one side of the dispute as well.] (]) 12:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
			: If an editor rasies a concern that the subject belives the info to be harmfull. Then they would have a stonger point, then just saying it's harmfull by itself. It really takes harm to be acknowleded to really be harmfull, to the parties and community. "Do no<s>t continue<s> harm" ] (]) 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)



			=== Suggest considering ] in this discussion ===

			Hi the ] requirement for a secondary source under conservative assumptions of harm (libel) from negative information is relevant here. The truth can be better verified with a secondary source. ] (])

			For clarification, my point about harm, not matter what ] for a ] or ] is that we must prevent it. So any definition that aims to not prevent harm with ] as the standard, no matter how defined, will not be beneficial. Harm is the most simple and relevant definition to me. ] (]) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			:NPF is a subsection of BLP for a reason. We add an explicit hurdle for marginal BLP's because[REDACTED] is likely to be the single most public thing in their lives. This does not apply for public figures for whom[REDACTED] is one of dozens of public views. That difference results in our treating marginal BLP's with considerable care, even bending NPOV to ensure that we don't provide an unfair portrayal of a private person. applying that standard to someone like ] is wrong. It results in content that is boosterish and unhelpful. ] (]) 01:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			:: I agree with you. It seems like there are far greater incidents when this should apply on Wiki than when it shouldn't, therefor seems like it safe to assume ] unless under the most obvious cases of politicians and celebrities. I mean, I feel like some editors consider some BLP's a ] becasue the subject has some small status or notability above them. I am dispute with an editor with a bias toward negative info that just ignore this standard to be cautious, ever after many warnings from me and others that it might be best to apply it. ] (]) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			:::Well, where the line can and can't be drawn is a good discussion to have. I don't know how much NPF is enforced in practice. My guess is that it should apply to a large majority of BLP's, but that we don't need to define it broadly in order to do that. I hope that makes sense, if not, I can clarify. ] (]) 02:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			:::: I see it as up to active editors, in my case there have been several complaints by others (maybe even directed by the article subject), which is reason enough. General rule is "no foul no harm", when someone cries foul, even remotely realted to the subject, then best to clean-up with ]. ] (]) 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			:::::I think that is a poor interpretation. It leads to the incentive to "massage biographies" for semi-public figures. If I am a semi-public figure and I am interested in improving my public image, all I would need to do is claim that some harm has been done and the biography would be scrubbed of offending material (under NPF). This violates the whole basis for making a public encyclopedia. We don't want private and disproportionate control over content and tone. There are exceptions, of course. ] is one of them, but it should deal strictly with non-public figures. Foundation action on BLP's is another exception. In that case we simply have to trust that the foundation wouldn't delete, redact or protect a biography without due cause. Broadening either of those exemptions under the supposition that they 'do less harm' is damaging to the encyclopedia and against ]. ] (]) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			:::::: I see your point as which side of safty must the issue fall, on the subject's side or on wiki free speech. Well, for good reason most folks have sided on the protection of privacy and human rights for non-public figures. The editors must uphold these principals. Remember, Wiki is a non-profit which is a subtal form of government ownership. This issue carries the same weight as an invasion of privacy. The Foundation should not have to get involved if editors act responsibly. The Foundation is the last resort for appeal. ] (]) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::I don't think I'm being clear. ] is good policy. It should be followed. It stops from hurting people by turning their most public online image into an attack. But applying NPF to everyone who isn't an avowed celebrity is wrong (I know I'm oversimplifying). this isn't a "free speech vs. don't harm" issue. That isn't a dilemma I have presented. The issue is that application of NPF for most people in BLP or application of NPF on request violates ] and reduces the legitimacy of the encyclopedia. Read NPF again, please. All BLP's are required to be sourced from reliable sources and factually neutral. Applying NPF to an existing BLP would require that even source material not relevant to the subject's notability be removed. For figures who are more than marginally notable, BLP is sufficient to protect their reputations. ] (]) 21:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			::::::::: OK, thanks for the clarification. I agree except when there is reason to believe the subject has issues with the material, then it's safe to apply secondary source requirement. ] (]) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			:::::: Let me add, the standard here is primary and secondary sources are required, not just some harm has been done. ] (]) 20:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			:::::::The standard for BLP's is that reliable sourcing is required, that has nothing to do with NPF. ] (]) 21:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			:::::::: Sorry, I am not following you well here. I meant the standard specifically to non-public figures a.k.a not well known. This is what I mean by WP:NPF, this link does not go right there. ] (]) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			:(outdent)Let me be more clear. "''In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability''" That sentence is the important one in my eyes. The other sentences in NPF talk about why NPF is a good idea or repeat admonitions made elsewhere (with the possible exception of the "use primary material from the source with caution" bit). All BLP's require a stringent standard of sourcing and demand the removal of defamatory language. but only NPF gives specific guidance on what negative material must go. For an example, let's take ]. Not a public figure, but not marginally notable. He's been covered in secondary sources, he's written several books, he's offered lots of commentary to the media, etc. If we assumed (for the sake of argument) that Roth was caught plagiarizing or doing some other cardinal academic sin and that this offense was reported in reliable sources but not widely reported. It is possible (though not likely) that the scandal would not be too large. If the scandal was small (ie reported on by parochial journals or press), we could ''further'' make the argument that an accusation of plagiarism was not relevant to his notability. We would be required (if we accepted those two caveats) to remove it per NPF but not per BLP. We would have used a policy designed to protect individuals to scrub a biography of negative information. BLP only requires that that information be from a reliable source, not be defamatory and result in the article being factually neutral. BLP would allow us to include that negative detail in his biography. NPF would not (unless coverage were so widespread as to result in the negative fact being part of the subject's notability). That is my point. ] (]) 22:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			: Excellent and thoughtful response, do you mind if I lobby you to reflect this in my Request For Comment? ]. Is it inappropriate to ask, this? ] (]) 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			::I don't think it is inappropriate. I've summarized my thoughts at the RFC. ] (]) 23:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

	== ] conflict ==		== ] conflict ==

	Can someone review ] ?		Can someone review ] ?

	I am involved in a ] dispute now. It seams this section in in conflict with ] becasue it says the material must be "writen" by the source. This apears to excluded self-published material with others' help. Can this be beter clarified? I don't want to have a technicality occur in my dispute. It seems the purpose is in line with "self-published material, not self-writen material. I made a change and my disputed friend reverted it. A outside review would be appreciated. ] (]) 16:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)		I am involved in a ] dispute now. It seams this section in in conflict with ] becasue it says the material must be "writen" by the source. This apears to excluded self-published material with others' help. Can this be beter clarified? I don't want to have a technicality occur in my dispute. It seems the purpose is in line with "self-published material, not self-writen material. I made a change and my disputed friend reverted it. A outside review would be appreciated. ] (]) 16:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

			:I think "written" is better as one can "publish" stuff one disagrees with for for a variety of reasons. "Written" is very vague. The point is that the person ''agrees'' with the content. "Written" better conveys that. "Published" is more of a commercial type act and can be motivated by one's employment or contractual agreements. Perhaps both should be replaced with a more clear description of the idea that the point is that the person actually conveys his agreement with the content, rather than is merely is a link in the chain resulting in its availability to be read. ] (]) 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

			:: I see your point has to do with the editorial process, how much the subject is involoved and has editorial control. ] (]) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

			:::Yes. ] (]) 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

			::::] says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons." ] says "Self-published material may be used in BLPs", but it does not mention anything about third-party sources. These two linked sections seem to not be working together. Per the information at ], maybe ] should say something like "Self-published material may be used only as a ] in BLPs and then only if written by the subject himself." The confusion, for me at least, is the missing reasoning behind the rules - the degree to which the person is in agreement with the content in the source. In any event, both sections should be consistent with each other. Thanks. ] (]) 02:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Perhaps, I mean, "Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself and then only as a ]." ] (]) 02:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
			:I think the proper wording is written. If the material is published (say, an autobiography published by a reputable publisher), then selection and control have been exerted. Citing barack obama's autobiography in his page might have some POV issues, but it is a reliable source. SELFPUB refers to vanity press, blogs, personal websites, 'zines, etc. written by the author that don't have editorial control or selection. "written" also allows us to distinguish published autobiographies that make claims about other people from personal blogs that make claims about other people.

			:As for the issues with 'publishing with help', that is a whole 'nother can of worms. What is and is not a vanity press is disputed heavily on wikipedia. Few vanity presses self-identify as vanity presses (for obvious reasons), so most arguments rely on third party assertions (website X says publisher Y is a vanity press) or argumentation (they won't publish without the author buying books as a "partner", ergo they are a vanity press). Both of those methods of reasoning have limited success. Sometimes the suppositions of wikipedians and random english major websites are not correct. Sometimes they ARE correct but not enough to overcome the chorus of "Nuh-uh!" from people who claim things like "but he has sold X copies, that means it isn't a vanity press". Those issues can't be fixed with a wording change in BLP. they usually need to be addressed case by case on ]. ] (]) 02:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

			== The Blog Policy -- Time for Another Look? ==

			I feel that the policy banning blogs is far too severe, and does not take into account the vast authority and reputation carried by certain blogs, particularly blogs of long standing written by prominent figures under their own names. Do we really lose that much if we permit blogs on a case by case basis?

			My immediate motivation for this question is the deletion discussion at ], where a prominent figure's biography was nominated because he is principally an online personality. Despite his vast influence, I spent a good 10-15 minutes hunting in vain for dead-tree sources attesting to his notability. This lack did not keep other editors at AfD from joining the consensus to keep the article; but it does leave the article's sourcing in an unsatisfactory state.

			More generally, at this point quite a few people and institutions of prominence are blogging under their real names and putting their entire professional reputation behind those blogs (to give a few examples: ], ], the ], ] and ], and so on. To say that a statement of fact by one of these figures in their area of expertise is not reliable would be absurd.

			Most blogs are likely to remain unreliable, but a general policy banning blogs as sources for biographies of living persons is untenable.

			Sincerely, ] (]) 02:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
			:No way, jose. There are already good exceptions to the 'self published' rule for experts in their field speaking about their area of expertise and we have exceptions for blogs where editorial control ''does'' exist. Unless we find a biographer, we aren't likely to find one where that exception could be used for BLP. More to the point, editorial control for BLP means that someone accepts responsiblity for and chooses to air negative information. That puts a big hurdle for otherwise unsourced negative info. How do you propose we deal with that without a blanket ban on all other self published sources? ] (]) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

			::I agree, editorial control is required. We must assume Blogs have none, however Wiki does. Blogs might be OK as a third cited reference to point folks to other views (an innovative POV ref cite), but the blog material it self should not be considered a verified source to support any material in Wiki. ] (]) 03:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


			::Who said anything about negative information? The way I read the current policy, you may not cite a blog posting about the subject of the article, unless written by the subject. Full stop. If Terry Tao exposits on the quality of a person's work, you have to hope some print reporter copies it. In an academic discipline, good luck with that. If Richard Posner says that somebody's work is a brilliant discussion of a particular aspect of American law on his blog, you have to hope that you can track down another source before you can put it into their article.
			::If, to use a more recent example, somebody is accused of something in a newspaper, and only a blog reports on their reply, we may not print it, until it's picked up elsewhere. ''If'' it's picked up elsewhere. The way it's written, what Meghan McCain writes about her dad on the campaign trail can't be used, unless some reporter echoes it. The current policy on blogs doesn't care about the quality of the information, its source, the authority of the source, whatever. If it comes out on a blog, forget about it. That's what's unreasonable about it. I'm okay with the concept of subjecting negative information about a person to higher scrutiny -- that's on some level what the whole BLP thing is about. But the blog ban doesn't do that. In cases both hypothetical (and, I fear, increasingly real), it does the opposite, by muzzling positive information not yet picked up (or not picked up in full, with pertinent details) by media sources. ] (]) 03:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
			:::Right. and that sucks. It's a tradeoff. Once you or anyone else can think of a solution that allows us to include something like Becker/Posner without including , then we should entertain it. but every restriction is going to come with limitations that are in some way unpalatable. I personally think the current BLP restrictions are a pretty good solution to the problem. As for waiting for people to 'copy' comments, we don't. We would wait for the sentiment to be expressed independently. If someone writes a good book on statistics and says he's awesome for writing it, then you can rest assured that someone else in the profession feels the same way and will say so in a journal or magazine article. ] (]) 03:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
			::::Let's let this go for a few days, see if people can give it a try? I mainly got into this because I'm worried that good information is being left out, in some cases even getting articles deleted (not Doc Searles, to be sure, but maybe less-prominent equivalents). The way I see it, at the minimum, we need a strong wall against negative information, and impeccable credentials for blog-sourcing. But I can see us making an exception for noncontroversial, or maybe just nonnegative, information coming from blogs that would clearly meet the ] guidelines as they currently stand for things other than BLPs. As things continue to move online, I suspect we're going to get more people like Doc Searles -- living people for whom such an overwhelming majority of sources come from variously "self-published" online media, with few dead trees in sight, that we'll have to revise the policy anyhow. ] (]) 03:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

			::::: I can't support any trial on "let it go for a few days". There should be a place to cite blogs, they are an evolving and a potential valuable content source. However, the lack of editorial control is a major liability. I envision a special citation template for blogs, that makes it clear your going to "out of control" land. ] (]) 04:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
			:::::I still say no. Some thoughts:
			:::::*Trust isn't transitive. I may feel that person X is an authority on ] but that doesn't make him an authority on other people. For that matter, even if it did, the important part isn't the authority, it is the vetting of information and some institutional responsibility for claims.
			:::::*A 'no negative' blog policy would just shift POV away from neutrality as a whole class of previously unreliable sources becomes available to people but only to boost a bio.
			:::::*Misplaced Pages isn't going anywhere. If we don't have information ''right now'' on a notable figure, it can wait until someone does a bio piece or writes a book or somethign along those lines.
			:::::*Like it or lump it,[REDACTED] is a backwards looking resource. Our goals and our content (and source) guidelines mean that we effectively look to the past rather than the future. If and when personally published blogs supercede normal publishing organizations,[REDACTED] will not be ahead of the curve. We will be relying on dead trees longer than other internet sources, I guarantee it. ] (]) 04:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

			We can already distinguish between Becker/Posner (or Greg Mankiw, Eugene Volokh, etc) and johnmccainisastupidasshole.com by assessing the "scholarly credentials" of the source, amongst other things. What makes no sense is the argument that if the claims of the world's most respected authority appear in hardcopy, they are somehow, by that fact alone, more reliable than if they appear electronically. It is the messenger, not the medium, that is reliable or unreliable.] (]) 11:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

			::Don't conflate electronic publishing with self publishing. The difference isn't the medium. The difference is the editorial control of the message. If there is nothing between the speaker and the audience, we need to be careful in using the resulting speech to form a permenant record of events. there are exceptions to this in the case of academic or otherwise reliable sources speaking extemporaneously '''in their field of expertise'''. We do that because there is a raft of valuable information that would be lost otherwise AND because the speaker would presumably suffer some penalty in reputation for being off the mark (even in a blog).

			::To state that the 'messenger' is the operative word is to misinterpret the intent of RS. Who says it is very important, but so is "where it is said". A statement made in a published book is to be granted more weight than a statement made in a blog. A scientific statement made in a journal or conference paper is to be granter more weight than something on the scientist's home page. To say otherwise ignores the whole basis for ]. We may feel (as users of the new media) that this is bullshit or that it is antiquated, but it is true. ] (]) 19:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

			:::<i>Usually</i>, a claim made in a "published book" ought, indeed, to be granted more weight, but that's NOT because of "where it is said", it's because it <i>usually</i> correlates with more independent fact checking. The medium is still irrelevant. If a blog, for whatever reason, should happen to have some sort of independent fact checking mechanism, like regular recognized experts who consistently and reliably speak up to challenge erroneous material, it is more reliable than a book if it can be shown that that book's publishing house/editors don't perform any fact checking at all.] (]) 10:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

			:I agree with Bdel555 above, and wonder if that isn't something we can deal with under the current version of a policy or a very minor change to indicate that the issue with blogs is generally the lack of expert contributors or editorial control. Incidentally the Doc Searls deletion discussion doesn't suggest that any change is needed. It looks like a hasty nomination that is a sure "keep" on other grounds, so no problem there that needs fixing. The confusion there is that a certain class of people (pundits, bloggers, experts, editorialists, journalists, etc) are known for their works rather than their personal lives, so their degree of influence and accomplishment (and hence, interest to our readers) is not matched by a commensurate number of significant mentions in third party reliable sources.] (]) 19:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

			To give a real life example instead of a hypothetical, a prof who has taught at NYU and Boston U and has regularly published in hardcopy attended a conference and noted the remarks of widely recognized professional historian. The historian said "the vast majority of historians" accept that a certain person engaged in espionage, according to the attending prof's account of the conference . Was the topic outside the prof's field of expertise since his expertise was in journalism as opposed to history? Yes. And so it was that when I asserted that the historian said that, a person who thought the historian's statement impugned the character of the Wiki article's subject claimed that my sourcing was unreliable and inadmissable as it was sourced to a blog (never mind the fact that the same historian, and many many other historians, have made other claims in dead tree sources that indicate that the remark would be 100% consistent with the general view of both this historian and others). Is the prof's claim as to what the historian said somehow less reliable than the hardcopy ] because it appears on a blog? The fact that our blogging prof here didn't paraphrase the historian but instead used quotation marks is, itself, something of a "fact check" that makes the possibility of misinterpretation, spinning, or lying less likely. The blogging prof's <i>opinion or conclusion</i> was not being cited here. The Wiki community is surely intelligent enough to assess these situations on a case by case basis instead of handing deletionists a blanket policy prohibition on cites to blogs.] (]) 11:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

			=== Further Reading Blog Link Proposal ===

			I propose that Blog Links be allowed in "Further Reading" presuming they meet some standard set on Wiki. The idea is to allow editors to categorized blogs and have a simple list of unobtrusive links. I assume the new "Blog Standard" would follow a combination of ], ] and ] to not be excessive or unrelevant. For simple example:

			Blog Links
			* Pro
			* Con


			] (]) 13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
			:I think that's already allowed under ]. Plus, under ] if it helps the article and nobody objects, a link will stay in. If someone objects for good reason, given that it's a BLP it makes sense that a link be removed. I suppose you could say the same thing about blogs overall. If the information is uncontroversial and the source looks reliable, a blog citation will probably stand. If it's contested and the only source is a blog, even an expert-written blog, perhaps the information isn't as reliable as it could be or else not terribly notable. That ad-hoc approach is a little messy but it avoids instruction creep. ] (]) 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

			: Yes, I think so too. I suppose I meant to constructively guide the discussion here, for better written guidance since I don't support Blogs in content, with the exception that if Blogs are fair use publishing already published reliable material. ] (]) 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

			== Living vs. recently deceased ==

			It is my understanding that our BLP policy, as a practical matter, extends to recently deceased individuals as well as the living. However, I see nothing in the policy that reflects this. Have I got it wrong? Obviously WP:V and WP:NPOV apply at all times to all biographical articles, but do the additional special cautions spelled out in this policy cease to apply immediately following a person's death?--] (]) 02:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

			:As far as I know, the policy means what it says: it only applies to living people. Good editorial judgement might suggest we don't insert every salacious tidbit ever printed about a person as soon as their death is confirmed. And other living people mentioned in an article on a recently deceased person are, of course, still covered by BLP. But dead people aren't. In the U.S. at least libel law only applies to living people. (Here is an interesting NYT article on a proposal to extend libel protection to the recently deceased that, as far as I know, went nowhere: .) --] (]) 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:18, 7 August 2008

The project page associated with this discussion page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. Before you update the page, make sure that changes you make to this policy really do reflect consensus.

Shortcuts

To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the
Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biographies of living persons page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biographies of living persons page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Naming the spouse or intended spouse -- when the subject has named him or her

For an article which already exists, does the inclusion of the name of a spouse or intended spouse have to satisfy an independent notability test for the spouse or intended spouse?
Provided that the name of spouse or intended spouse is not disputed -- having been stated by the subject in a reliable source -- isn't the inclusion of the name considered per se relevant, or is there a meaningful Misplaced Pages concept of an "irrelevant", unnamed spouse or intended spouse in a biographical article?
Provided that the name of spouse or intended spouse is not kept private by the subject -- having been stated by the subject in a reliable source, is there still a privacy test that needs to be satisfied before including the name?

To open the discussion: no, no, and no. patsw (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Additional question: If patsw is correct, then is WP:BLP#Privacy of names not applicable to spouses? And in that case, should that section be amended to make that explicit? --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal (as I read it, it seems to be superfluous, since you asked):

In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is stated by the article's subject, is verifiable by its wide publication in a reliable source, the presumption is that this event or intention and the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is public and not private.

The counter proposal:

Please comment on its clarity, necessity, or lack thereof. patsw (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The answers should have been "no, yes, yes". The spouse need not be independently notable, but the names of spouses and children are subject to privacy restriction under almost all parts of WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy and especially WP:BLP#Privacy of names. All of Patsw's versions err in assuming the relevant test is a single reliable source. Widespread availability of data is evidenced by the data being published in many reliable and secondary sources. If the data shows up in lots of reliable secondary sources then it can reasonably be evaluated as well known and suitable for inclusion. If the data is only self-published by the article subject, then we shouldn't use it at all. Instead, refer to the family members as "wife and two children" or whatever is accurate without using names. GRBerry 05:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I will stipulate that the test is not a single reliable source but multiple reliable sources.

I don't understand the objection to what you call "data self-published by the article subject". When an article subject states "I am married to X" or "I am not married to X", isn't this an issue of assume good faith on the part of the article subject? This seems to be an obvious thing to me. If the contrary is actually the policy -- where has the lack of a citation for marital status caused the spouse's name to be deleted or changed " claims to be married to X", or " claims to be married". The case where a marriage, divorce, or legal separation is factually disputed is a separate case.

GRBerry's concerns address the question of accuracy and verifiability. However, this issue arose over a "presumption of privacy" when naming the spouse in an article when the article subject himself or herself names the spouse, and those secondary reliable sources are not presuming privacy with respect to the name of the spouse.

Revised Proposal

In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is stated by the article's subject, is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the presumption is that this event or intention, and the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is public and not private. patsw (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't verifiability, it's the privacy rights of the intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse. We shouldn't presume that the article's subject may waive those rights.--agr (talk) 11:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't giving an interview by the article subject that is picked up by the Associated Press and appears in hundreds of newspapers, creating a new presumption (or conclusion) -- that the article subject doesn't consider it private?

Is it now a requirement for there to be a corresponding interview by the named spouse (intended, or ex-) in multiple reliable sources to corroborate the marital status or change in marital status? Have there even been edits to support this interpretation of the BLP? Is any such corroboration even commonplace in the sources used by Misplaced Pages editors?

I don't believe that Misplaced Pages policies are helped by using words that have a specific meaning in American law, but yes, the proposed policy is to define what constitutes a consensus method for editors here to recognize with respect to actual changes in marital status, or declared intent to change marital status when stated by the article subject, what is private and what is not. I am not trying to be tendentious here. For example, if the article subject stated the venue of the wedding or honeymoon, while widely and publicly known, I wouldn't consider the venue relevant on its own to be added to Personal life section of the article. On the other hand for I plan to marry X, the name X is relevant on its own. patsw (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the article's subject considers it private, but whether the intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse considers it private. The current policy talks about a "presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability." I don't see a reason to reverse that. --agr (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not taking issue with the stated policy. Absent other information, editors can presume that for an article's subject, his or her spouse's name is private, or even the marital status is private. The essence of presumption is judgment in absence of information. What I am seeking is some guidance and consensus about how to apply the policy when there isn't an absence of information, and it is provided by the subject himself or herself, and appears in multiple sources.

Agr's interpretation of the policy appears to require a corroborating statement from the named spouse (intended, or ex-). The Misplaced Pages is full of the names of spouse without a corroborating statement from the named spouse. In any case, such statements are not commonplace in sources used by Misplaced Pages editors.

So, are all those spouse name appearances we have now privacy violations of the Misplaced Pages policy where the spouse does not appear in secondary sources sufficiently to merit their own biographical article? Should there be a "purge the non-notable spouse name bot"? patsw (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any change. Current policy says there are a number of factors that should be weighed before including the name of a living person. That seems appropriate to me. We don't need an additional presumption when there are so many different situations that can arise. To change this policy you need a strong case the the current policy isn't working. I don't see it. --agr (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think your interpretation of the existing policy is incorrect -- you appear to be reading into policy either a corroborating statement from the spouse test or a notability for the spouse test. If you want that interpretation to be definitive, go ahead and propose it as part of the policy. patsw (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking the BLP editing community to answer some of the questions I am raising. I am not suggesting a new "presumption" -- a judgment made in the absence of information -- on the contrary, I am talking about the cases where information is present. It's not presuming anything but recognizing when the subject states their marital status with WP:V in multiple WP:RS, and it is not disputed by the named spouse, it should be included in their biography. Are some editors are reading "presumption" as "assertion"? Should there be a "purge the non-notable spouse name bot"? patsw (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All spouses are known via public record (marriage documents), therefore, there cannot be any "privacy" to remove the name of a spouse, since all spouses are notable to a notable individual's biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Revision 2

In a biography of a living person, an event such as marriage, divorce, legal separation, or when the intention to marry, divorce, legally separate is verifiable by its wide publication in several reliable sources, the name of the subject's intended spouse, spouse, or ex-spouse is not private, unless there has been a court seal on the disclosure of the name.

Comment

Marital status is relevant to a biography.
The name is relevant to a biography.
The ordinary means of satisfying verifiability is sufficient, there is no higher standard to be applied.
There has never been, there does not now exist a Notability (People) test required for the inclusion of the name of a spouse.
A complaint that privacy has been compromised can be handled by the WP:OTRS system.
This modification of WP:BLP is not a new thing but an attempt to align the existing practice and existing reality of the Misplaced Pages's of inclusion of spouse names in thousands of biographies of living persons with the WP:BLP policy. patsw (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Related policy proposal

I've proposed a new policy related to BLP at Misplaced Pages:Obscure public information. Please direct discussion to the talk page there. --Tango (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Pseudonyms

After much discussion on whether or not Misplaced Pages should reveal pornstars real names I've proposed the wording for a new section on all persons using Pseudonyms to be added to the BLP page. Unfortunately I put it at Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing_BLP_concerns#Proposal_for_a_vote instead of here.

Can we have the vote there?Filceolaire (talk) 22:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Existence of WikiProject Tags a Violation of BLP?

This question stems from a discussion at Charlie Crist you can find here. To sum up, he is the current governor of Florida. Rumors have been circulating about his sexual orientation, and they have been printed in some reputable newspapers. They can be (and personally I think, probably are) gist for a political rumor mill. Crist is on the short list of VP running mates for John McCain. Because his political profile is increasing, and to deal with the rumors, WP:LGBT placed a Wikiproject template on Crist's talk page. It has been removed.

I recognize that some of this issue overlaps with what the purpose of a Wikiproject is, but my question here is: does the placement of a Wikiproject template on the talk page conflict with WP:BLP policy for information in the article? Please keep in mind that {{LGBTProject}} does not state that the subject of the article is or is not gay, only that material in the article falls within the scope of the project "to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Misplaced Pages". I appreciate your responses. --Moni3 (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Moni, I've responded to your post on my talkpage in similar fashion, and I will again state that, like it or not (or correct or not), adding the "LGBT" tag carries some real-world connotations that are possibly construed as POV. Right or wrong, I strongly feel that the LGBT wikiproject should not be included in the Crist article until if/when Mr. Crist either confirms or denies the sentiment that he is in fact gay (or not). Without reliable sources, we are merely projecting based on substandard sources perhaps, and based perhaps on our own wishes, his orientation. I'm not "the bad guy" here, merely a Wikipedian. I would state the exact same argument for any BLP without reliable third party sources, regardless of the issue. Keeper ǀ 76 01:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion here Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Justification for WikiProject tags?. While I know this is moving the discussion to yet another location, I feel it's the best place since this issue may go beyond BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 07:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Do no harm

I've removed this since: a)it makes no sense. There is no action that does not cause harm to someone. b)it fundimentaly conflicts which the perpose of an encyclopedia c)People keep useing it to try and supress any negative information about subjects no matter how well cited.

While obviously it is is important to be darn sure of any negative information before putting it in an article there are far better ways of expressing this a rule of thumb.Geni 13:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the intent of the phrase continues to be misunderstood, I agree we need to replace that phrase with something better. Harm can be caused by not including important negative information. Harm can be caused to other living people by over-praise of the BLP subject. The point is that harm as a concept is one concept to be considered when exercising editorial judgement. The problem is that we have too many people trying to substitute rules for editorial judgement. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

How about "when it comes to includeing negative information the case for it being true must go beyond reasonable doubt" Only slightly better phrased?Geni 14:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not "negative information". That issue is "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". It is another misconception of this policy that it is all about either libel or negative data. Praise for X can make Y look bad. Unsourced neural sounding data can contradict what he said in a court case or elsewhere and make him look like a liar. The point is not negative data. The point is to exercise thoughtful, careful, caring editorial judgement. And when you interact with people, treat them with common courtesy. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the recent edits. Substantive changes to policy require broad consensus. In particular the "do no harm" wording links to an essay Misplaced Pages:Avoiding harm that explains its meaning in some detail. Removing it significantly dilutes the meaning of the policy. --agr (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Essays are not policy.Geni 14:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case any rule of thumb that needs an essay that long and winding that even then can't really come to a conclusion is firmly in worse than useless territory.Geni 16:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quite. If there's something we want to say here, we ought to say it in clear words without relying on extraneous writings. But as far as I can see there is no significant content in this sentence that isn't already contained in the rest of the policy, so we would do well to delete it (or at least rephrase it, as had been attempted before the revert).--Kotniski (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Essays are not policy, but the fact that this policy links to it gives the essay weight for BLPs as an explanation. The phrase "do no harm" has been in the BLP policy since November 19, 2005, three days after the policy was created. The phrase is an old medical dictum that has its own article, Primum non nocere. Maybe a better explanation of what is meant is warranted, but I object to removing it.--agr (talk) 23:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes I rather expected someone to bring up the medical context. You realise that if followed appendicitis would have a rather higher mortality rate and that most forms of anti-cancer chemotherapy would be right out? I wasn't kidding when I said the phrase has no place in rational theory. I'm aware how long the phrase has been on the page. I'm also aware how long it hasbeen causeing problems. Yet another attempt to ah "explain" it won't help. It's been tried. We have a whole fricken essay that tries and fails. No enough. The principle is fundimentaly flawed and no amount of explaining it will fix that.Geni 01:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "rational theory" is or what it has to do with Misplaced Pages. We are not trying to produce bright line rules that cover all cases. Rather we are trying to guide editorial judgement. There will always be hard cases and people who use the policy inappropriately. I don't see where "do no harm" is causing undue problems. --agr (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case the rational theory of how to constuct an encyclopedia. do no harm has no place in that. It tends to cause problems when it acts an enabler for people trying to push a POV or with insanely extreamist aproaches to this policy. In any case the sentance serves no useful perpose which is alone enough to justify it's removal.Geni 04:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I favour removal. It is inapplicable in practice, and can be used to violate WP:NPOV. The only thing it can helpfully mean is that[REDACTED] should not contain content about someone that is not already prominent in the public domain, i.e. that is not verifiable with reliable sources. And we already know that. Ty 04:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV is the guiding principle on this matter. A coatrack article is non-neutral and should be fixed (or removed if it can't be fixed); a hagiography is also non-neutral and should be fixed (or removed if it can't be fixed). "Do no harm " is just not our mandate. It is a sub-portion of NPOV mutated into something that contradicts NPOV, and is errant. If we are applying NPOV correctly, "do no harm" is unnecessary at best, destructive at worst. We should not leave it in the policy when it causes such problems.--Father Goose (talk) 05:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I also favor removal. Our mission is to provide free knowledge. We do harm to that mission when we remove well-sourced information that someone may not happen to like. This, and only this, is our first rule. Everything else, everything else we do, is subordinate to it. If writing a neutral and complete article means we step on a toe, we step on it. If the person would prefer a hagiography, they're welcome to go write one on Myspace. This does not mean, of course, that we should tolerate attack pieces or coatrack articles—these are by definition non-neutral. But we should similarly not tolerate unduly positive articles, when well-sourced negative or controversial information is also available. We go for neutrality in every article, every time, and we under no circumstances suppress information which otherwise passes our inclusion policies. Seraphimblade 05:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we're going to need a strong consensus to remove a pivotal phrase which has been around for three years. People should briefly state their position on this issue; side-debates should occur elsewhere to reduce the noise. We're going to have to let this debate stew for at least a week to gather people's opinions; it should probably also be posted as a RfCpolicy, and on the Community Board. My position is that it should stay. II | (t - c) 06:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you overstate the importance of this one sentence. It doesn't say anything specific enough to make it key to any aspect of the community's behaviour. However by remaining here it makes the policy less clear and opens up the possibility of misinterpretation. In my view we should either get rid of it, or (if it is claimed to add something to what is already in the policy) reword it so that people can see what it means.--Kotniski (talk) 08:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be open to a reword -- or rather, I was. Unfortunately, I just scrutinized the policy to see what form that rewording could take, and I saw that the simplest way to fix it would be just to remove the two sentences that say "do no harm". The "presumption in favor of privacy" section gets it right, but the words "do no harm" lurch into the absolute, and undermine the reasonable, balanced advice given everywhere else in the policy.

I appreciate the sentiment behind "do no harm" -- but it's the wrong sentiment for an encyclopedia.--Father Goose (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't appear to have produced any arguments to support your position. Appeal to antiquity is a logical fallacy.Geni

I don't think it's advanced as a logical argument, just a principle of prudence, like the statement in the United States Declaration of Independence that "Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes". In this instance, however (as in that historical example), I believe the case has been made. I favor removal -- or, since it's out as of this writing, I favor keeping it out.

A question for the proponents of the phrase: Can you give an example, actual or hypothetical, of a dispute where "do no harm" would come into play and would dictate a result not already called for by the other policies that editors have cited above? JamesMLane t c 15:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - the debate over including the real name of the Star Wars kid. His name is verifiable and doesn't raise point of view problems, but is still desirable to leave out (and currently left out), because its inclusion adds nothing meaningful to the article and could do harm to a living person. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

If something adds nothing meaningful to the article, then there's no reason to include it, whether or not it's perceived by some editors to do harm. JamesMLane t c 17:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are a lot of examples when something adds nothing meaninful to the article but is allowed to remain. One of the problems is, in a lot of cases a significant amount of stuff doesn't really add anything meaningful but when taken together do help to make an article more complete. And in any case it's pointless to argue with another editor who feels something does add to the article if there is no harm in leaving it behind. Real names are a good example. There is a long running dispute about what sort of sources we need to include real names (particularly of pornographic actors). In most cases, real names don't really add much to an article. Nor do birthdates. But they do add to a sense of 'completeness'. So I'm not going to argue with an editor over the inclusion of this information when it's clear there's no reason to exclude it. Nil Einne (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Anyway perhaps a better example is Genie (feral child). This article refers to a person who suffered serious abuse & neglect as a child, something from which she never recovered. At the time she was discovered, her real name was published in a fair number of sources. However since then, most sources (which are academic) referring to her have not referred to her real name. There is other information like where she currently lives which editors have proposed adding (although no sources have came up for this so it remains a RS issue). During the discussion of the name the 'do no harm' principle was frequently brought up and was one of the reasons IMHO the name was removed. Some people argued that the information was not meaningless since it e.g. could have been used by a relative (and a bunch of other reasons). Note that even if there are arguably other reasons why something should be removed, the do no harm principle often arises and from my experience it usually helps focus the discussion in a positive way (I appreciate that this is not always the case). I agree with "Gnangarra". The most important thing about the "do no harm" principle is that it sums up the policy in a simple way. It helps (many but not all) people understand that BLP is not about libel or legal stuff, (and from my experience a lot of people think BLP is just about protecting[REDACTED] from libel) but about the fact "Misplaced Pages articles can affect real people's lives" (as the in a nutshell bit says) Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you give actual examples of where the phrase has caused a problem? Replacing "do no harm" with "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement" is a significant dumbing down of this policy. Such a change requires good reasons and a strong consensus based on a widely advertised discussion.--agr (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that it's a dumbing down - it simply explains more explicitly what is meant. Obviously we don't literally mean "do no harm" - that would mean include no criticism of anyone ever, however justified. So better to have wording that says what is meant, than something that needs an essay somewhere to try to explain that it actually means something different.

Sure I can give examples. The phrase is routinely bandied about at AfDs regarding biographies ( ), commonly in a way that completely undermines NPOV. ("Is Richard Stern harmed by the existance of the WP article? He says yes. Therefore let us do no harm." This logic -- which is typical of invocations of "do no harm" -- would allow anyone to get anything they disliked deleted from the encyclopedia.) The principle of "do no harm" has many passionate advocates, but Misplaced Pages is governed by consensus, not by passion. There was and is insufficient consensus to make WP:HARM policy, but WP:NPOV is one of our most broadly embraced principles. When "do no harm" undermines NPOV, it does harm. It is simply not one of our guiding principles, and should not be portrayed as such.--Father Goose (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

in the simplist form do no harm means exactly that, in case of a BLP stating that a person has died when they havent is doing harm. I can a remember a discussion where an editor posted that the subject of the article had died, this person is estranged from their family. A family member contacted the Foundation asking for more information, it took over a week to establish that the edit was an error during that time the family was of the belief that this person had died. 'Do no harm should be seen as its presented it a quick, easy to remember catch phrase that encompass the whole context of BLP, it transcends the understanding of all editors from the 100,000 edit count old timer to 10 edit newbie or first edit IP. Yes its vague yes its glitzy, but what it is is effective prose and it serves a legitimate purpose as everybody understands its basic meaning. That being said if a better turn of phrase can be created that conveys the context of BLP so succinctly then put it up for discussion, I'm open to improving Misplaced Pages, its policies, its content at every opportunity. Gnan garra 17:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

According to some of the preceding comments, it is being misunderstood and misapplied. I think the phrasing I tried to introduce at least tried to address those problems.--Kotniski (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We still haven't seen examples. Switching from an imperative ("do not harm") to a passive suggestion ("one of the factors to be considered") is a major change that requires more than the opinions of some editors.--agr (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Nyet that the former is irrational is alone enough to remove it.Geni 18:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's actually part of the problem. The more we recite trite little mantras like this, the less they mean. — CharlotteWebb 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Politics and the English Language#Six rules ;-) --Father Goose (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I wholly disagree that "do no harm" is irrational. Why is "do no harm" the central component of BLP and why is BLP policy? Simply put, "do no harm" means "don't expose Wikimedia to a lawsuit". I fully realize that slander, defamation, and the publishing of private information are covered by WP:V and WP:NOR. However, WP:BLP places special emphasis on these other policies because it truly is the Achilles' Heel of Misplaced Pages. The theory behind "do no harm" is that the republishing of already published reliable information, even if negative, does no harm, because whatever harm there may be has already been done by the original sources. As Misplaced Pages is never the publisher of original thought, Misplaced Pages should, by policy, never be able to harm anyone. Given this perspective, I feel that "do no harm" is not only incredibly rational, but sums up WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR very well. I have a real fear that turning "do no harm" into a subjective editorial 'judgment' is a mistake and undermines the special emphasis that BLP provides. I don't have a problem, however, with additional text defining exactly what "do no harm" means. -- ShinmaWa 19:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

So to try and make do no harm logical you have to redefine it to a point that it ceases to mean what it says. Interdentally "don't expose Wikimedia to a lawsuit" is largely meaningless given safe harbour provisions. But back to the core suggestion that if it has already been published[REDACTED] cannot do further harm. Firstly[REDACTED] has a higher profile than many reliable sources. Secondly wikipedia's profile doesn't go away. That political promise made 5 years ago that everyone else has forgotten about? Misplaced Pages hasn't and[REDACTED] is still at the top of the search results. Why do you think we keep running into politicians removing cited info?Geni 19:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Google's page rank has absolutely no bearing on our policy. At all. I also didn't redefine "do no harm", I explained what it means to me and the meaning I took from it. Perhaps "harm" means something different to you than it does to me, but that just indicates that we need to clarify what "harm" means rather than to simply remove it. Also, if Safe Harbor is so absolute, why does WP:BLP exist at all when everything it covers is just a rehash of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR? It's because we must get BLP articles right, because if we don't it exposes the project legally. It's really that simple and says so right in the "In a nutshell". -- ShinmaWa 20:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss the reasons for the existance of BLP. Your claim was that "do no harm" means "don't expose Wikimedia to a lawsuit"". Are you seariously claiming that that is not a redefinition of "do no harm". You relaese that under that reading "do no harm" would not conflict with putting person X is a shitheaded moron into an article (insult isn't actionable)? As readings go I would suggest this one conflicts with english as it is commonly understood.Geni 21:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm seriously saying that -- or rather I'm saying that the spirit behind "do no harm" is to not expose Wikimedia legally. I'm also seriously saying that "do no harm" sums up the purpose of WP:BLP very nicely and that purpose is not expose Wikimedia legally. I'm quite serious when I say that "harm" means "legally actionable harm" and "ethical harm". I'm very serious when I say that with this definition of harm it should always be preceded with the words "do not" -- not "should not" and never "sometimes". I'm also serious when I say that the current version that references "harm" in terms of "editorial judgement" undermines the whole purpose of WP:BLP and the gravity it attempts to impose. Feel free to disagree, but please don't question my seriousness. -- ShinmaWa 21:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The legaly actionable is taken care of by the safe harbour and the ethical harm is too ill defined.Geni 23:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

We are now officially going in circles. When I say that I take "harm" in a legal context, you say that legality doesn't matter. When I explained above that WP:BLP talks about legal responsibilities not only in the "In a nutshell", but also the first sentence, you remarked we aren't here to discuss the purpose of WP:BLP! I've expressed my opinion and am hereby dropping my WP:STICK. -- ShinmaWa 00:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Achilles had two heels, by the way. — CharlotteWebb 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also favor removal. this is an essay which, regardless of what links to it, has no force of policy. Because we link to it from WP:BLP, we introduce a means for people to push positive POV on a subject. BLP is sufficient in scope and explanation to describe how we should treat defamatory information on all BLP's or overly negative information on marginal BLP's. treating this essay as if it were a policy (which is strikingly common) circumvents the process by which we would normally reach consensus on policies and creates an unnecessary hurdle for editors who wish to create a factually accurate and neutral biography. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the essay on do no harm, with mention of the phrase do no harm. Many policies link to essays intended to clarify various parts of policies. Of course, these essays should be treated as essays and not a binding part of policy. Even BLP currently links to Misplaced Pages:Coatrack which is an essay; and also links to a bunch of guidelines and a bunch of articles. Clearly these articles and guidelines are not policy, but this doesn't mean we should remove the part of policy that references them. Worst case scenario, we should remove the reference (wikilink) but not the part of policy without good reason. Note that according to the above discussion, the phrase has been part of BLP since 3 days after it's introduction in November 2005. The essay was created in mid 2007 Nil Einne (talk) 07:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am. thank you for the correction. Protonk (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This entire discussion is itself proof of the need to have rewritten "An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm"" as "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement". Policy was NEVER "do no harm". "Do no harm" was always just one of many important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgement. Any policy sentence so consistently misread by some editors needs to be written to be more clear. We did that. We made existing policy clearer. Policy was not changed. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Which editor here expressed the opinion that policy was solely about "do no harm"? Nil Einne (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it could be argued that my statement said this (I said that my interpretation of "do no harm" summarized WP:BLP pretty well). However, I think the fundamental problem here -- which has NOT been addressed by the rewording -- is what "harm" means. What is harm? I took harm in a legal sense, meaning actionable legal harm. It appears that ZuluPapa below made the same assumption by using the word "libel". Others seem to interpret "harm" in another way, including any negative statements, statements that the subject disapproves of, etc. Given that we can't agree what "harm" means, I completely disagree with WAS 4.250 that anything is clearer. Taken from my legalistic point of view, applying "editorial judgment" is not only a change, but totally against several policies (and WP:IAR doesn't apply in this case, in my view). However, taken from the other definition of "harm", WAS 4.250's change is completely reasonable. The problem is the word "harm". I think, at this point, the best thing to do is either a) define "harm" or b) remove any mention of "harm" whatsoever. -- ShinmaWa 00:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We are concerned with both legal and ethical issues here. Our current policy says "Misplaced Pages editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so." Ultimately we are relying on the judgement of our editors. We simply cannot define everything. I am still waiting for examples of actual situations where the "do no harm" wording created significant problems.--agr (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at my post from 31 July, above.--Father Goose (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That post points to Orwell's Politics_and_the_English_Language#Six_rules. See rules 3 & 4. We are going from a concise imperative that has a whole literature behind it to a long, passive admonition that any editor can read as supporting what ever editing choice they prefer. The reason I insist on examples is to see where actual confusion occurs, so we can make clarifications that are needed rather than treating this as a writing exercise. --agr (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, I meant my post from 00:50, 31 July 2008. I'll just repeat it here:

Having thought about this a while (even going back a long time if you look in the talk archives of this page and the essay that is of later date than the policy), I believe I can conclude the following: 1) the community is more concerned about harm to specifically identifiable individuals (usually, but not necessarily an individual named in the biographical material) than to large numbers of unidentified individuals - the community may not even support giving any weight to the effect on large numbers of unidentified materials; 2) the community cares more strongly about material that might give rise to a legal cause of action than it does about other material that might be harmful; 3) the community is generally willing to listen to any of a subject's concerns and adapt in reflection of them when it can do so without jeapordizing NPOV (classic example: replacing one picture with another suitably licensed picture at the subject's suggestion). Those observations may help everyone understand what is meant here. GRBerry 16:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support the deletion of "do no harm". It is an invitation to ignore and override all of Wiki's other policies, including WP:NPOV. The flip side of "do no harm" is "do good". Is it legitimate to argue that "yes, it is a NPOV violation, but I'm 'doin good!'. The world is a happier place, as I unilaterally visualize it. Your neutral rendering creates 'harm'!"Bdell555 (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

In theory "Do no harm" is great. In practice it can be used to delete all manner of biographical information. A recent example concerned singer Clay Aiken. It has been widely reported that he artifically inseminated a friend of his. Editors insisted that the information be removed from the article lest the mention in the Misplaced Pages article do harm to him. Since there is no limit to "do no harm", the fact that it has been published a hundred other places is not sufficient. While the particular story may simply be gossip, the "do no harm" clause sets a standard different from the rest of the policy, and different from other core policies like NPOV. If an editor chooses to assert that something in an article may do harm, how can that even be rebutted? If it's kept it should be better defined. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an excellent example to talk about. It is far from clear to me that this information is relevant to an article about a singer unless, say, he wrote a song about it. I'm not saying exclusion is clearly required under BLP but it certainly demands caution. If the article included the mother and baby's names, that would really raise a red flag in my mind, regardless of how widely the information was reported at the time. My concern here is that the changes we are discussing here are aimed at weakening the BLP policy, not clarifying it.--agr (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside this not-so-"excellent" example, it's not a settled issue that it shouldn't be weakened. Weakening the policy DOES NOT mean weakening enforcement of the policy. I might add that even if BLP policy was weakened to nothing at all, I happen to believe that if neutrality, reliable source requirements, notability requirements, and no original research/synth requirements were fully enforced across Misplaced Pages, the vast majority of the problem BLPs would be solved right there. How many problem BLPs have the attention of many editors from varying backgrounds? Not many, I suggest: most problem BLPs principally suffer from a lack of attention. Now how do policies typically get used? They get cited by some users against other users who are acting inconsistent with policy. When policy parsing arises, you've thus already got a battle of editors, and the policy is being cited in order to win the battle for one side. The talk about Misplaced Pages's "BLP problem" is accordingly a red herring, since in the vast majority of cases, the problem is a lack of time and effort to edit in the face of isolated and ignorant opposition or, even more commonly, no opposition at all than in confronting groups of editors who can't be dealt with with WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE, and WP:OR such that a "strong" WP:BLP club has to be given to one side of the dispute as well.Bdell555 (talk) 12:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If an editor rasies a concern that the subject belives the info to be harmfull. Then they would have a stonger point, then just saying it's harmfull by itself. It really takes harm to be acknowleded to really be harmfull, to the parties and community. "Do no~~t continue ~~harm" Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)~~~~

~~Suggest considering WP:NPF in this discussion~~
Hi the WP:NPF requirement for a secondary source under conservative assumptions of harm (libel) from negative information is relevant here. The truth can be better verified with a secondary source. Zulu Papa 5 (talk)
For clarification, my point about harm, not matter what Vagueness for a Continuum fallacy or Slippery slope is that we must prevent it. So any definition that aims to not prevent harm with WP:NPF as the standard, no matter how defined, will not be beneficial. Harm is the most simple and relevant definition to me. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
NPF is a subsection of BLP for a reason. We add an explicit hurdle for marginal BLP's because[REDACTED] is likely to be the single most public thing in their lives. This does not apply for public figures for whom[REDACTED] is one of dozens of public views. That difference results in our treating marginal BLP's with considerable care, even bending NPOV to ensure that we don't provide an unfair portrayal of a private person. applying that standard to someone like Barack Obama is wrong. It results in content that is boosterish and unhelpful. Protonk (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you. It seems like there are far greater incidents when this should apply on Wiki than when it shouldn't, therefor seems like it safe to assume WP:NPF unless under the most obvious cases of politicians and celebrities. I mean, I feel like some editors consider some BLP's a Public Figure becasue the subject has some small status or notability above them. I am dispute with an editor with a bias toward negative info that just ignore this standard to be cautious, ever after many warnings from me and others that it might be best to apply it. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, where the line can and can't be drawn is a good discussion to have. I don't know how much NPF is enforced in practice. My guess is that it should apply to a large majority of BLP's, but that we don't need to define it broadly in order to do that. I hope that makes sense, if not, I can clarify. Protonk (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I see it as up to active editors, in my case there have been several complaints by others (maybe even directed by the article subject), which is reason enough. General rule is "no foul no harm", when someone cries foul, even remotely realted to the subject, then best to clean-up with WP:NPF. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that is a poor interpretation. It leads to the incentive to "massage biographies" for semi-public figures. If I am a semi-public figure and I am interested in improving my public image, all I would need to do is claim that some harm has been done and the biography would be scrubbed of offending material (under NPF). This violates the whole basis for making a public encyclopedia. We don't want private and disproportionate control over content and tone. There are exceptions, of course. WP:NPF is one of them, but it should deal strictly with non-public figures. Foundation action on BLP's is another exception. In that case we simply have to trust that the foundation wouldn't delete, redact or protect a biography without due cause. Broadening either of those exemptions under the supposition that they 'do less harm' is damaging to the encyclopedia and against WP:NPOV. Protonk (talk) 17:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I see your point as which side of safty must the issue fall, on the subject's side or on wiki free speech. Well, for good reason most folks have sided on the protection of privacy and human rights for non-public figures. The editors must uphold these principals. Remember, Wiki is a non-profit which is a subtal form of government ownership. This issue carries the same weight as an invasion of privacy. The Foundation should not have to get involved if editors act responsibly. The Foundation is the last resort for appeal. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I'm being clear. WP:NPF is good policy. It should be followed. It stops from hurting people by turning their most public online image into an attack. But applying NPF to everyone who isn't an avowed celebrity is wrong (I know I'm oversimplifying). this isn't a "free speech vs. don't harm" issue. That isn't a dilemma I have presented. The issue is that application of NPF for most people in BLP or application of NPF on request violates WP:NPOV and reduces the legitimacy of the encyclopedia. Read NPF again, please. All BLP's are required to be sourced from reliable sources and factually neutral. Applying NPF to an existing BLP would require that even source material not relevant to the subject's notability be removed. For figures who are more than marginally notable, BLP is sufficient to protect their reputations. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification. I agree except when there is reason to believe the subject has issues with the material, then it's safe to apply secondary source requirement. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me add, the standard here is primary and secondary sources are required, not just some harm has been done. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The standard for BLP's is that reliable sourcing is required, that has nothing to do with NPF. Protonk (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not following you well here. I meant the standard specifically to non-public figures a.k.a not well known. This is what I mean by WP:NPF, this link does not go right there. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Let me be more clear. "In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability" That sentence is the important one in my eyes. The other sentences in NPF talk about why NPF is a good idea or repeat admonitions made elsewhere (with the possible exception of the "use primary material from the source with caution" bit). All BLP's require a stringent standard of sourcing and demand the removal of defamatory language. but only NPF gives specific guidance on what negative material must go. For an example, let's take Alvin E. Roth. Not a public figure, but not marginally notable. He's been covered in secondary sources, he's written several books, he's offered lots of commentary to the media, etc. If we assumed (for the sake of argument) that Roth was caught plagiarizing or doing some other cardinal academic sin and that this offense was reported in reliable sources but not widely reported. It is possible (though not likely) that the scandal would not be too large. If the scandal was small (ie reported on by parochial journals or press), we could further make the argument that an accusation of plagiarism was not relevant to his notability. We would be required (if we accepted those two caveats) to remove it per NPF but not per BLP. We would have used a policy designed to protect individuals to scrub a biography of negative information. BLP only requires that that information be from a reliable source, not be defamatory and result in the article being factually neutral. BLP would allow us to include that negative detail in his biography. NPF would not (unless coverage were so widespread as to result in the negative fact being part of the subject's notability). That is my point. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Excellent and thoughtful response, do you mind if I lobby you to reflect this in my Request For Comment? Talk:Jetsunma_Ahkon_Lhamo#RfC_-_WP:NPV_violations. Is it inappropriate to ask, this? Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is inappropriate. I've summarized my thoughts at the RFC. Protonk (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

~~WP:SELFPUB conflict~~
Can someone review Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source ?
I am involved in a WP:SELFPUB dispute now. It seams this section in in conflict with WP:SELFPUB becasue it says the material must be "writen" by the source. This apears to excluded self-published material with others' help. Can this be beter clarified? I don't want to have a technicality occur in my dispute. It seems the purpose is in line with "self-published material, not self-writen material. I made a change and my disputed friend reverted it. A outside review would be appreciated. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I think "written" is better as one can "publish" stuff one disagrees with for for a variety of reasons. "Written" is very vague. The point is that the person agrees with the content. "Written" better conveys that. "Published" is more of a commercial type act and can be motivated by one's employment or contractual agreements. Perhaps both should be replaced with a more clear description of the idea that the point is that the person actually conveys his agreement with the content, rather than is merely is a link in the chain resulting in its availability to be read. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
~~I see your point has to do with the editorial process, how much the subject is involoved and has editorial control. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)~~
~~Yes. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)~~
WP:SELFPUB says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons." Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source says "Self-published material may be used in BLPs", but it does not mention anything about third-party sources. These two linked sections seem to not be working together. Per the information at WP:PRIMARY, maybe Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source should say something like "Self-published material may be used only as a primary source in BLPs and then only if written by the subject himself." The confusion, for me at least, is the missing reasoning behind the rules - the degree to which the person is in agreement with the content in the source. In any event, both sections should be consistent with each other. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Perhaps, I mean, "Self-published material may be used in BLPs only if written by the subject himself and then only as a primary source." Suntag (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the proper wording is written. If the material is published (say, an autobiography published by a reputable publisher), then selection and control have been exerted. Citing barack obama's autobiography in his page might have some POV issues, but it is a reliable source. SELFPUB refers to vanity press, blogs, personal websites, 'zines, etc. written by the author that don't have editorial control or selection. "written" also allows us to distinguish published autobiographies that make claims about other people from personal blogs that make claims about other people.
As for the issues with 'publishing with help', that is a whole 'nother can of worms. What is and is not a vanity press is disputed heavily on wikipedia. Few vanity presses self-identify as vanity presses (for obvious reasons), so most arguments rely on third party assertions (website X says publisher Y is a vanity press) or argumentation (they won't publish without the author buying books as a "partner", ergo they are a vanity press). Both of those methods of reasoning have limited success. Sometimes the suppositions of wikipedians and random english major websites are not correct. Sometimes they ARE correct but not enough to overcome the chorus of "Nuh-uh!" from people who claim things like "but he has sold X copies, that means it isn't a vanity press". Those issues can't be fixed with a wording change in BLP. they usually need to be addressed case by case on WP:RS/N. Protonk (talk) 02:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

~~The Blog Policy -- Time for Another Look?~~
I feel that the policy banning blogs is far too severe, and does not take into account the vast authority and reputation carried by certain blogs, particularly blogs of long standing written by prominent figures under their own names. Do we really lose that much if we permit blogs on a case by case basis?
My immediate motivation for this question is the deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Doc Searls, where a prominent figure's biography was nominated because he is principally an online personality. Despite his vast influence, I spent a good 10-15 minutes hunting in vain for dead-tree sources attesting to his notability. This lack did not keep other editors at AfD from joining the consensus to keep the article; but it does leave the article's sourcing in an unsatisfactory state.
More generally, at this point quite a few people and institutions of prominence are blogging under their real names and putting their entire professional reputation behind those blogs (to give a few examples: Terry Tao, Bruce Schneier, the United States Department of State, Richard Posner and Gary Becker, and so on. To say that a statement of fact by one of these figures in their area of expertise is not reliable would be absurd.
Most blogs are likely to remain unreliable, but a general policy banning blogs as sources for biographies of living persons is untenable.
Sincerely, RayAYang (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No way, jose. There are already good exceptions to the 'self published' rule for experts in their field speaking about their area of expertise and we have exceptions for blogs where editorial control does exist. Unless we find a biographer, we aren't likely to find one where that exception could be used for BLP. More to the point, editorial control for BLP means that someone accepts responsiblity for and chooses to air negative information. That puts a big hurdle for otherwise unsourced negative info. How do you propose we deal with that without a blanket ban on all other self published sources? Protonk (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, editorial control is required. We must assume Blogs have none, however Wiki does. Blogs might be OK as a third cited reference to point folks to other views (an innovative POV ref cite), but the blog material it self should not be considered a verified source to support any material in Wiki. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 03:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about negative information? The way I read the current policy, you may not cite a blog posting about the subject of the article, unless written by the subject. Full stop. If Terry Tao exposits on the quality of a person's work, you have to hope some print reporter copies it. In an academic discipline, good luck with that. If Richard Posner says that somebody's work is a brilliant discussion of a particular aspect of American law on his blog, you have to hope that you can track down another source before you can put it into their article.

If, to use a more recent example, somebody is accused of something in a newspaper, and only a blog reports on their reply, we may not print it, until it's picked up elsewhere. If it's picked up elsewhere. The way it's written, what Meghan McCain writes about her dad on the campaign trail can't be used, unless some reporter echoes it. The current policy on blogs doesn't care about the quality of the information, its source, the authority of the source, whatever. If it comes out on a blog, forget about it. That's what's unreasonable about it. I'm okay with the concept of subjecting negative information about a person to higher scrutiny -- that's on some level what the whole BLP thing is about. But the blog ban doesn't do that. In cases both hypothetical (and, I fear, increasingly real), it does the opposite, by muzzling positive information not yet picked up (or not picked up in full, with pertinent details) by media sources. RayAYang (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Right. and that sucks. It's a tradeoff. Once you or anyone else can think of a solution that allows us to include something like Becker/Posner without including johnmccainisastupidasshole.com, then we should entertain it. but every restriction is going to come with limitations that are in some way unpalatable. I personally think the current BLP restrictions are a pretty good solution to the problem. As for waiting for people to 'copy' comments, we don't. We would wait for the sentiment to be expressed independently. If someone writes a good book on statistics and Andrew Gelman says he's awesome for writing it, then you can rest assured that someone else in the profession feels the same way and will say so in a journal or magazine article. Protonk (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's let this go for a few days, see if people can give it a try? I mainly got into this because I'm worried that good information is being left out, in some cases even getting articles deleted (not Doc Searles, to be sure, but maybe less-prominent equivalents). The way I see it, at the minimum, we need a strong wall against negative information, and impeccable credentials for blog-sourcing. But I can see us making an exception for noncontroversial, or maybe just nonnegative, information coming from blogs that would clearly meet the reliable source guidelines as they currently stand for things other than BLPs. As things continue to move online, I suspect we're going to get more people like Doc Searles -- living people for whom such an overwhelming majority of sources come from variously "self-published" online media, with few dead trees in sight, that we'll have to revise the policy anyhow. RayAYang (talk) 03:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't support any trial on "let it go for a few days". There should be a place to cite blogs, they are an evolving and a potential valuable content source. However, the lack of editorial control is a major liability. I envision a special citation template for blogs, that makes it clear your going to "out of control" land. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I still say no. Some thoughts:
Trust isn't transitive. I may feel that person X is an authority on Chondrichthyes but that doesn't make him an authority on other people. For that matter, even if it did, the important part isn't the authority, it is the vetting of information and some institutional responsibility for claims.

A 'no negative' blog policy would just shift POV away from neutrality as a whole class of previously unreliable sources becomes available to people but only to boost a bio.

Misplaced Pages isn't going anywhere. If we don't have information right now on a notable figure, it can wait until someone does a bio piece or writes a book or somethign along those lines.

Like it or lump it,[REDACTED] is a backwards looking resource. Our goals and our content (and source) guidelines mean that we effectively look to the past rather than the future. If and when personally published blogs supercede normal publishing organizations,[REDACTED] will not be ahead of the curve. We will be relying on dead trees longer than other internet sources, I guarantee it. Protonk (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
We can already distinguish between Becker/Posner (or Greg Mankiw, Eugene Volokh, etc) and johnmccainisastupidasshole.com by assessing the "scholarly credentials" of the source, amongst other things. What makes no sense is the argument that if the claims of the world's most respected authority appear in hardcopy, they are somehow, by that fact alone, more reliable than if they appear electronically. It is the messenger, not the medium, that is reliable or unreliable.Bdell555 (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Don't conflate electronic publishing with self publishing. The difference isn't the medium. The difference is the editorial control of the message. If there is nothing between the speaker and the audience, we need to be careful in using the resulting speech to form a permenant record of events. there are exceptions to this in the case of academic or otherwise reliable sources speaking extemporaneously in their field of expertise. We do that because there is a raft of valuable information that would be lost otherwise AND because the speaker would presumably suffer some penalty in reputation for being off the mark (even in a blog).
To state that the 'messenger' is the operative word is to misinterpret the intent of RS. Who says it is very important, but so is "where it is said". A statement made in a published book is to be granted more weight than a statement made in a blog. A scientific statement made in a journal or conference paper is to be granter more weight than something on the scientist's home page. To say otherwise ignores the whole basis for WP:RS. We may feel (as users of the new media) that this is bullshit or that it is antiquated, but it is true. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Usually, a claim made in a "published book" ought, indeed, to be granted more weight, but that's NOT because of "where it is said", it's because it usually correlates with more independent fact checking. The medium is still irrelevant. If a blog, for whatever reason, should happen to have some sort of independent fact checking mechanism, like regular recognized experts who consistently and reliably speak up to challenge erroneous material, it is more reliable than a book if it can be shown that that book's publishing house/editors don't perform any fact checking at all.Bdell555 (talk) 10:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Bdel555 above, and wonder if that isn't something we can deal with under the current version of a policy or a very minor change to indicate that the issue with blogs is generally the lack of expert contributors or editorial control. Incidentally the Doc Searls deletion discussion doesn't suggest that any change is needed. It looks like a hasty nomination that is a sure "keep" on other grounds, so no problem there that needs fixing. The confusion there is that a certain class of people (pundits, bloggers, experts, editorialists, journalists, etc) are known for their works rather than their personal lives, so their degree of influence and accomplishment (and hence, interest to our readers) is not matched by a commensurate number of significant mentions in third party reliable sources.Wikidemo (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
To give a real life example instead of a hypothetical, a prof who has taught at NYU and Boston U and has regularly published in hardcopy attended a conference and noted the remarks of widely recognized professional historian. The historian said "the vast majority of historians" accept that a certain person engaged in espionage, according to the attending prof's account of the conference on his blog. Was the topic outside the prof's field of expertise since his expertise was in journalism as opposed to history? Yes. And so it was that when I asserted that the historian said that, a person who thought the historian's statement impugned the character of the Wiki article's subject claimed that my sourcing was unreliable and inadmissable as it was sourced to a blog (never mind the fact that the same historian, and many many other historians, have made other claims in dead tree sources that indicate that the remark would be 100% consistent with the general view of both this historian and others). Is the prof's claim as to what the historian said somehow less reliable than the hardcopy Weekly World News because it appears on a blog? The fact that our blogging prof here didn't paraphrase the historian but instead used quotation marks is, itself, something of a "fact check" that makes the possibility of misinterpretation, spinning, or lying less likely. The blogging prof's opinion or conclusion was not being cited here. The Wiki community is surely intelligent enough to assess these situations on a case by case basis instead of handing deletionists a blanket policy prohibition on cites to blogs.Bdell555 (talk) 11:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
~~Further Reading Blog Link Proposal~~
I propose that Blog Links be allowed in "Further Reading" presuming they meet some standard set on Wiki. The idea is to allow editors to categorized blogs and have a simple list of unobtrusive links. I assume the new "Blog Standard" would follow a combination of WP:CITE#QUALIFY, WP:SELFPUB and WP:EL to not be excessive or unrelevant. For simple example:
Blog Links
Pro

Con

~~Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)~~
I think that's already allowed under WP:EL. Plus, under WP:IAR if it helps the article and nobody objects, a link will stay in. If someone objects for good reason, given that it's a BLP it makes sense that a link be removed. I suppose you could say the same thing about blogs overall. If the information is uncontroversial and the source looks reliable, a blog citation will probably stand. If it's contested and the only source is a blog, even an expert-written blog, perhaps the information isn't as reliable as it could be or else not terribly notable. That ad-hoc approach is a little messy but it avoids instruction creep. Wikidemo (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think so too. I suppose I meant to constructively guide the discussion here, for better written guidance since I don't support Blogs in content, with the exception that if Blogs are fair use publishing already published reliable material. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

~~Living vs. recently deceased~~
It is my understanding that our BLP policy, as a practical matter, extends to recently deceased individuals as well as the living. However, I see nothing in the policy that reflects this. Have I got it wrong? Obviously WP:V and WP:NPOV apply at all times to all biographical articles, but do the additional special cautions spelled out in this policy cease to apply immediately following a person's death?--Father Goose (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, the policy means what it says: it only applies to living people. Good editorial judgement might suggest we don't insert every salacious tidbit ever printed about a person as soon as their death is confirmed. And other living people mentioned in an article on a recently deceased person are, of course, still covered by BLP. But dead people aren't. In the U.S. at least libel law only applies to living people. (Here is an interesting NYT article on a proposal to extend libel protection to the recently deceased that, as far as I know, went nowhere: .) --agr (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)