Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZuluPapa5 (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 4 August 2008 (→WP:SELFPUB conflict: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:18, 4 August 2008 by ZuluPapa5 (talk | contribs) (→WP:SELFPUB conflict: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)

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)

WP:SELFPUB conflict

Can someone review Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Dealing_with_edits_by_the_subject_of_the_article ?

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)