Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 24

change or add tag line for "Criminal status" to "Judicial status" (or "propose name" status) for BLP

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Template is used to indicate status of persons awaiting trial or "wanted." The keyword criminal_status is probably okay as a tag, but the Infobox should change the display to "Judicial status". As an example, James Eagan Holmes is awaiting trial or other judicial process. The only tag that is close is "criminal_status" and is displayed as

Criminal status Jailed, pending trial

problem is that he has no status as a criminal as he is in the system pending outcome. The status is still important but a BLP violation to say he has a "criminal status". Please add a "judicial_status" tag and display or change existing display to "Judicial status". --DHeyward (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The documentation says that "Criminal status" is "For convicted criminals only", so it shouldn't be used on James Eagan Holmes at all.

That said, I would support propose changing the label and parameter to "Legal status" (legal_status), as that field would apply to people pending trial, and also be more broadly useful potentially in other situations. --Netoholic @ 09:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with assessment of my provided example and I don't know how prolific that field is used. There are many arrested/awaiting trial in jail/not convicted statuses that could be conveyed by changing to legal status. I am not skilled enough to change a field (adding is easy, but changing may be a bot). I also didn't want to add a field without other input. Changing to "Legal status" (or anything similar) would be my preference as a non-prejudicial legal status field for a generic person infobox. --09:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

I'd be happy with a change to "judicial status", but "legal status" is ambiguous ("married" is a legal status, for instance, as is "holds temporary residence permit"). I've disabled the "edit protected request" template, until consensus is reached. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have working version in sandbox using legal_status but can easily be modified for judicial. I have nopreference. The Implementation is that the label follows the tag. Label is "Criminal Status" if criminal_status and "Legal status" if legal_status. I used the same data54 field so as not to grow the template and upon conviction it requires just the change in tag. Please review. --DHeyward (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more prudent to omit such a contentious parameter from this infobox and leave it to {{Infobox criminal}}? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)0

No. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I oppose changing "Criminal status" to "Legal status" because when I read "Legal status" I think in terms of ('Illegal alien', 'work visa', 'citizen', etc) or ('married', 'divorced', 'separated', 'annulled', etc). The reason this parameter exists is because these people are being tried in a criminal court, and as such we should call a spade a spade and not try to tone it down. The hearings are called "criminal hearings" and not "judicial hearings", and we should follow that legal precedent and call it a criminal status. As long as it is clear that the case is still being tried, and that the outcome is pending, I don't see any issues with it. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Avoiding referring to an innocent person as having a criminal status, is not "censorship", it simply accords with our BLP policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please review the implementation. It avoids giving persons that are not convicted criminals a "Criminal Status." The template clearly says not to use "criminal" fields on non-convicted BLP's. However there are conditions where persons are awaiting trial, in jail, out on bond, etc, etc, that is useful information that, in the example given, is using the "criminal status" field. The name we give that field should depend on whether they are convicted or not. For convicted criminals, it stays the same. For BLP's of person's not convicted, the name can be "Legal status", "Custodial status", "Pre-trial status" or "Judicial status." Pick one or propose one but I'd rather keep the data and change the label where appropriate rather than having to delete pre-trial status. Otherwise, that data needs to be removed for those persons like in the example. --DHeyward (talk) 16:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I support Michael Bednarek's comment and recommend removing the parameter altogether. If a criminal conviction is so noteworthy, e.g., one of the "key facts about a subject", then {{Infobox criminal}} works fine and ought to be used. Otherwise the parameter is subject to the problems discussed above. – S. Rich (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, there are plenty of people who are notable for something else, but still have a conviction (or are awaiting or undergoing trial). More importantly, {{Infobox criminal}} is simply a wrapper for this template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - reading the responses, I think we should keep things as they are, and just enforce the guidelines that are in the documentation to remove use of criminal_status from non-convicted. The known_for field is available, and can be tailored to fit the needs of those people awaiting trial. I also don't mind careful use of {{Infobox criminal}} for those known only for being charged with a crime, as long as they choose fields that don't imply guilt (like criminal_charge is fine, for example). --Netoholic @ 18:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Andy. As for those awaiting or undergoing trial, I support the legal presumption of innocence and am loath to include such information. (Do we want Wikipedia to be another venue for the perp walk?) Regarding the "wrapper", I'm afraid that is a technical matter which I don't know anything about. (No need to explain 'cause I can study it on my own.) I'll restate that adding convictions to the infobox, when the person is not noted for being a criminal, is not a good practice. – S. Rich (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Another rationale to avoid "pending" type descriptions is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

These aren't "pending" type descriptions. James Eagan Holmes is "jailed, pending trial." That is infobox material, but not criminal material. He may never be convicted of a crime and be incarcerated in a jail until he is able to stand trial. The edit to the template to allow this information without the BLP violation is already done in the sandbox and the same field supports both criminal and non-criminal status. If it's not implemented, though, it will be removed from the infobox material completely. This isn't an additional field either, just a translation just as {{Infobox criminal}} maps "conviction_status" to "criminal_status." Just as we can use {{Infobox person}} for a wide variety of people, we can use the status field to have appropriate labels depending on their record. --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It appears a lot of people are stating opinions on whether criminal status should be used for non-convicted persons. That is not being proposed. Nor is the proposal to change 'criminal status' to something else for those that have been convicted. As I said, the sandbox and testcase show the same field number with different labels to accommodate the particular person. The data type and terms are generally the same ("in jail pending trial" or in "jail pending execution" are similar data with different inferences). The label of that factual data is what varies, not the circumstance. Supporting multiple labels for that field has already been done and is in sandbox. The question is what do we label the status of someone that is jailed or out on bond or held for extradition, etc etc. What is the label name? That's the only question. --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

RfC on proposed change to have context specific tag for "criminal status"

- from above discussion, broadening to bio editors but also reducing scope of work as it's already been created and no additional template work is required.

In the {{Infobox person}}, one of the fields in the template is "Criminal status." This template is transcribed into other templates including {{Infobox criminal}}. The instructions for the use use of the three "criminal" fields is that they only be used for convicted criminals. This makes sense since the label is "Criminal status" and is a BLP violation to imply that someone that has not been convicted is a criminal. We have a number of people, however, that are in the system awaiting trial or out on bail or any other possible pre-trial status or even acquitted. Therefore "Criminal charge" is a valid field label if they are indicted or charged with a crime, but "Criminal status" is not valid unless they are convicted.

I have made a change to the template that allows the same field number (that determines data order) to allow for different descriptions depending on context. The testcase side-by-side comparison is here. [1] The first two persons are BLP's that exist today. Richard Reid is a convicted criminal and there is no difference or change in his description. James Eagan Holmes, however, has not been convicted and the template modification changes the field description to "Legal status" and replaces "Criminal status" as the label. By reusing the same spot as "criminal status", the template stays the same size and the only the labeling changes at the editors discretion. The change is made such that "Legal status" preempts "Criminal status" and there is only one field in the template. "In jail, awaiting trial" is the same status in both the current and proposed template. Using the current template as it is currently, is a BLP violation and the proposed one in sandbox is not.

This change doesn't affect existing criminals that are convicted (i.e. it stays "Criminal status" as can be seen in Richard Reid (per WP:SPADE). It only adds an overloading feature for the "Criminal status" such that information about pre-trial/non-convicted status can be communicated without calling a person "criminal" prior to trial. If a person is subsequently convicted, the "Legal status" can be changed to "Criminal status" and maintain the same position in the template. Likewise, an acquittal or hung-jury can use "Legal status" for description and occupy the same space reserved for criminal status.

This isn't a change to "Criminal status", rather it's an additional option for editors to describe BLP subjects' status without creating a BLP violation. Not implementing this feature means that persons like James Eagan Holmes will need to have "In jail, awaiting trial" removed from their infobox.

Please comment on the testcase above [2] and indicate if a neutral language judicial status should be an option for persons that are not convicted, whether "Legal status" is the proper term or state a preference or if the context dependant labeling should not be added and status should be removed from existing BLPs. The template has already been modified in the sandbox and tested so no additional work is required, just update the template with sandbox version. The testcase area is probably the best way to view the proposal as it would be implemented. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: I changed "Legal status" to "Judicial status" per Andy's comment. The testcase reflects the update.

• Support as submitter/template editor to implement template modification to allow editors to have a neutral language status labeling option for BLPs like James Eagan Holmes whose status is "In jail, awaiting trial" but are not criminals. Wording of label "Legal status" seems okay but open to other options as long as it's not BLP violation implying criminal. --DHeyward (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support with caveat' I and others pointed out above why legal status is not an appropriate label. Why was this ignored? The label should be judicial status. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if it appears it was ignored. That wasn't my intent. I don't have a preference and coded "Legal Status" but will change to "Judicial status" if RfC decides that's best. I asked for the preferred terminology in RfC question so "Judicial status" is certainly valid option and, at this point, the preferred one. I listed a lot of terms in previous section that might be applicable. --DHeyward (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Update: I changed it to Judicial status in sandbox and testcase. --DHeyward (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• 'Support' this modification to the template to allow editors to use more accurate language when labeling the legal/judicial status of a person.
• Comment: I looked at the links [1] and [2] but saw no differences between the left and right-hand boxes for Holmes: they both read "Criminal status". //No harm if the change has already been implemented, but was there a problem that needed fixing? We all have a criminal status, which may be "No known convictions" or "Awaiting trial". Likewise, we all have a marital status, which may be "Single": Noyster (talk), 16:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Easier solution, merge with existing "Status" label

There is an existing Status label, currently used for {{{disappeared_status}}}, but we could easily change that to {{{status|{{{disappeared_status|}}}}}} and make that line more generally useful. -- Netoholic @ 21:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Status of template-edit request

 Done – The contents of the sandbox has been transferred to the live template. Please update the documentation where necessary. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 18:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Children parameter

Further to an ongoing debate on Robin William's talk page regarding his infobox and whether his non-notable children should or shouldn't be mentioned, I would like to have some form of consensus to that effect. I attempted to point out that this page was relatively clear on not using non-notable children (as was the case on Robin William's ex-wife's page) but with the torches and pitch forks approaching it was a good idea to have this matter settled here. The Infobox Person has had the notable children only to be named criteria since 05:30, 12 June 2007, so it's not like everyone should be in a panic over a new way to do something.

It may also be a good idea to add to this page whether it is simply a suggestion for users or a guideline. On the French version of Wikipedia, the Infobox Biographie page is much more obvious on how it should be used, as it clearly gives out assignments for each parameter. Hoping for some clarification from the higher powers. Thanks. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe also may consider adding the term widow and widower to the Infobox Person as a new parameter, so people may chose it in lieu of spouse for recently deceased individuals. The current practice of writing "1997-2014 his death" is not becoming of an encyclopedia. --[[User:Slave28|Slave1]] (talk) 05:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Death date and age template

Any reason why the (aged xx) part of this template is now appearing on a line break when used in the death date field? eg. [3] [4] Never used to do this until recently... can it be fixed? Connormah (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

the template in common in both examples is template:death date and age, so perhaps you should ask there? Frietjes (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

labelstyle's padding-right

Having just passed by Pythagoras, I'd recommend increasing labelstyle's padding-right from 0.65em to e.g. 1.0em. Anyone know if that would cause a malfunction somewhere..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Citizenship

I was wondering whether the concept of citizenship could be brought to more prominent positions in the infobox listings.

In comparison to "nationality", "citizenship" gives more flexibility:

• In the case of someone from the UK, an editor could use:
  • British (even though a large chunk or the British Isles, the Republic of Ireland, is not part of the UK) or
  • United Kingdom.

• In the case of someone from the US, an editor could use:
  • American (even though the US only constitutes one of the 55 nations in the Americas albeit with the US consisting of ~one third of the American population) or
  • United States.

On a POV basis and, while not claiming to be an expert, I would be much more inclined to promote Patriotism than Nationalism.

Being a patriot the example I checked through was Paul McCartney (no prizes for guessing where I'm from). Although I did not do an extensive search, the parallel article in the majority of other languages tended to name the nation at the end, or following, the birth section of text.

A notable difficulty with the proper noun terms is that they frequently link to disambiguation pages:

• Chinese (disambiguation page), Indian (disambiguation page), American (disambiguation page), Indonesian (disambiguation page), Brazillian (disambiguation page), Pakistani (> Pakistani people), Russian (disambiguation page), Japanese (disambiguation page).
• American (disambiguation page), British (disambiguation page), Canadian (> Canadians), Australian (disambiguation page), New Zealander (> New Zealanders).

As examples:
>The code for "Chinese" can either be written: [[Chinese people|Chinese]] or [[China|Chinese]].
>The code for "American" can either be written: [[Americans|American]] or [[United States|American]].
>The code for "British" can either be written: [[British people|British]] or [[United Kingdom|British]].
Both types of option are used so, I guess, some editors have the priority to indicate nation even under the name of nationality.

At the moment the:
Blank template with basic parameters
reads:

| residence    = 
{{Infobox person
| name        = <!-- include middle initial, if not specified in birth_name -->
| image       = <!-- just the filename, without the File: or Image: prefix or enclosing [[brackets]] -->
| alt         = 
| caption     = 
| birth_name  = <!-- only use if different from name -->
| birth_date  = <!-- {{Birth date and age|YYYY|MM|DD}} or {{Birth-date and age|birth date†}} -->
| birth_place = 
| death_date  = <!-- {{Death date and age|YYYY|MM|DD|YYYY|MM|DD}} or {{Death-date and age|death date†|birth date†}} -->
| death_place = 
|  nationality = 
| other_names = 
| occupation  = 
| known_for   = 
}}

Can citizenship replace nationality or at least be added?

At the moment the:
Blank template with all parameters
reads:

...
| residence    = 
|  nationality  = 
| other_names  = 
| ethnicity    =      <!-- Ethnicity should be supported with a citation from a reliable source -->
|  citizenship  = 
...

Can this be reordered as follows?:

...
| residence    = 
|  citizenship  = 
|  nationality  = 
| other_names  =      (a section that I suspect is rarely used)
| ethnicity    =      <!-- Ethnicity should be supported with a citation from a reliable source -->
...

I think it makes sense for citizenship to follow residence and for ethnicity to follow nationality. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Birth and baptism dates

The parameter |baptised= "will not display if |birth_date= is entered". However, where we know a subject's approximate birth date (i.e. the exact month), and an exact baptism date; we should be able to display both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Political party parameter in non-politician bios

I thought it might be worth having a discussion on this issue as there seems to be an inconsistency with the use of the political party parameter. I recently undid this because although the subject is on record as supporting a political party, she's not a politician. But I soon became embroiled in a discussion about whether or not its use was relevant for non-politician bios, and there seems to be some indecision now over whether or not to include it. I've always understood that particular parameter is reserved for politicians, but it seems to be used in other bios. Several people in the public eye have spoken of their support for one or other political party, or undertaken fundraisers for various individuals or causes. Adele and Cheryl Cole have voiced their support for the UK Labour Party, for example, while William Roache is well known as a Conservative supporter, who spoke in support of William Hague during the 2001 UK general election. Sean Connery has publicly and financially supported the SNP, while Oprah Winfrey has endorsed Obama. Gwyneth Paltrow also famously endorsed the US President recently. Yet not all of the articles about these people have the parameter. Any thoughts on this? This is Paul (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

If the subject is a politician or their political stances are particularly notable, I would say it's worthy of inclusion. Otherwise, no, though there may occasionally be exceptions such as Oprah, whose political endorsements are quite notable (emphasis on may - I'm not completely sure it belongs in her infobox). For the likes of Adele, Cheryl Cole, and Goop, it's a definite no. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is marvelously inconsistent. IMHO, party is more likely to be relevant in the body of a biography than in an infobox, but sometimes the "political persona" of the subject seems exceedingly strong. In the US, one can track donations, but that often is misleading, as $5,000 donations are not major sums to the very wealthy. Best source would be self-categorization, as always. Collect (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Orson_Scott_Card. In this case the only connection to the party was an (occasionally qualified) self-catagorization; nearly all other expressions of support were aligned with the other party. Most of the opinions were that party should be removed from the infobox, and it was.

I agree self-catagorization is necessary but I don't believe it's sufficient. Anyone can say they are a member of a party (at least in the US); it doesn't imply any real connection. It seems to me the appropriate standard is that there be a reciprocal relationship, e.g., the subject has won a primary, been employed by the party, held a formal volunteer position, or been given a podium. Bennetto (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

For Card, the "occasional self-identification" is quite a bit more than "occasional." And yes, self-identification on such matters is the strongest source. In fact, he specifically seems to support a variety of socialism. That noted, I know of no case where a person who does not self-identify with such a group should be labeled as part of such a group on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

death_name paramter

Would it be useful to have a death_name parameter? This would cover for cases where the person is not now commonly known by the name they had on their death. Yaris678 (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't | other_names = cover this on occasions when it is needed? (Though if significant it ought to be in the lede anyway). Do you have any examples in mind that could benefit from adding a death name parameter? GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The case that made me think of this is Joan Clarke. Famous for her code-breaking during WWII, she late married Jock Murray. It seems she took his surname name but kept her maiden name as a third middle name.

I'm open to suggestions of a better way to summarise this in an infobox.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Since work by User:Pigsonthewing later that day, our biography Joan Clarke handles this with parameter value/setting |other_names=Joan Clarke Murray (1952-1996) (prefer dash to hyphen).

--P64 (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

First Lady of Japan?

I'd say that's the Empress of Japan. The "second lady" would be the Crown Princess. Akie Abe is neither. Surtsicna (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Our article First Lady says nothing about Japan but clearly disagrees (as it did in October). See especially its top WP:HATNOTE which says, "This article is about the unofficial title for the spouses or partners of elected heads of state." [We say that the Emperor of Japan is "symbolic head of state". That is not "head of state" in my book, but I don't know that the Prime Minister of Japan is the head of state. I don't know that we should identify anyone as First Lady.]

The lead section of our First Lady is strictly limited to the United States, which mismatches the page grossly. Beside the top hatnote, section 3 covers "Use in other countries" including 13 others by enumeration 3.1 to 3.13.

--P64 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)