User:Zenswashbuckler/Thoughts on the Santorum Affair/BLP Concerns
BLP policy & its bearing on this article's contents
editPreemptive apologies for length.
It has been extensively alleged that this article should not contain x (where x = an external link, the property of existing, etc.) because inclusion of x would violate Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy. In the interest of resolving these disputes, I've taken the liberty of creating a chart of BLP policies, with shortcuts, and a short statement on the bearing of each policy plank on the article or its (prospective) contents. Many of these policies are also prudent guidelines (or resolvable to other policies) regarding all articles, not just biographies. I will therefore treat many of them as applicable here even though this is not a biographical article, but one about a (meme?) with culture-wide participation.
I strongly urge editors concerned about BLP to try to resolve those concerns here, point-by-point, so that there can no longer be any question of whether this or that violates or would violate the BLP policy. I'm sure we're all, on every possible side, sick and tired of making and hearing the same arguments again and again. So let's resolve it, in full detail. Thank you. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Table of BLP policy sections
edit| Specific BLP policies in relation to article | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| POLICY | SUMMARY | BEARING ON CURRENT ARTICLE | ||
| Tone | "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone..." | Article shouldn't take glee in campaign nor denigrate it, but simply report on it. | ||
| Criticism and praise | ...must be well sourced and comply with WP:UNDUE. | Article should dispassionately report on campaign; to the extent this includes disparaging remarks about people, these must be presented neutrally and vetted to ensure they really are notable. | ||
| Attack pages | WP articles should not consist of screeds or be dedicated to disparaging people. | Article should fully report on campaign without becoming part of it or part of the backlash against it. | ||
| Challenged or likely to be challenged | WP articles must be sourced reliably. | Article shouldn't use bad sources or make unsourced claims. | ||
| Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material | Badly or un-sourced material should be removed from WP articles in which it is found. | Article shouldn't use bad sources or make unsourced claims. | ||
| Avoid gossip and feedback loops | WP articles shouldn't spread rumors, or use citations to anonymous sources or those that cite WP itself. | Article should not use citations to anonymous sources or discussions of this very article, as sources. | ||
| Misuse of primary sources | WP articles should not contain original research or cite records un-vetted by media or other secondary sources. | Article should not use primary sources for information about Rick Santorum or Dan Savage, unless vetted by reliable secondary source. | ||
| Avoid self-published sources | WP articles should not cite self-published sources as to information about a living person. | Article should not use spreadingsantorum.com (or other blogs) as information about Rick Santorum, source non-quote statements about campaign to campaign's own website, etc. | ||
| Further reading and external links | Articles shouldn't link to self-published sites as if they contributed info or citations to article. | Question is whether link to spreadingsantorum.com would fall under WP:BLPSPS (as info self-published by Dan Savage or other campaigners about Rick Santorum, who is not the subject of this article) or WP:ELOFFICIAL (as the official website of the campaign for santorum neologism). | ||
| Avoid victimization | Articles shouldn't pile on every bad thing that happened to a person, nor harp needlessly on a few. | Article should not be a litany of every single time someone participated in campaign; rather should summarize and give some examples. | ||
| Public figures | "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it..." | Article should not be deleted or pared down simply because Rick Santorum (or Dan Savage) do not like coverage, or do not like our coverage. Info that is well-sourced and relevant belongs. | ||
| Privacy of personal information and using primary sources | Articles should not publish personal data about people. | If campaign ever outs Rick Santorum's date of birth, etc., we should only report the outing, not what the data are. | ||
| People who are relatively unknown | Articles should stick to covering people who are actually notable. | Article should not report on every person who participates in campaign, only those who are also otherwise notable. | ||
| Subjects notable only for one event | Articles should stick to covering people who are actually notable. | Article should not report on every person who participates in campaign, only those who are also otherwise notable. | ||
| Crime perpetrators | Articles should not make suggestions, subtle or overt, that people are guilty or suspected of crimes unless and until facts (convictions, indictments, investigations, etc.) are actually reported in reliable sources. | Article should not insinuate that Rick Santorum or Dan Savage are guilty of crimes or other unsavory behavior. | ||
| Privacy of names | "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it..." | Article should not report on every person who participates in campaign, only those who are also otherwise notable. | ||
Policies end here. Below this point on the BLP page, other questions are discussed (maintenance, not applicable to deceased people, relationship between subject/article/Wikipedia, etc.). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Application of specific BLP policies to this article
editI suggest discussion of each policy (and how this article allegedly violates / would allegedly violate it) in its particular section. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done, even overdone. It is abundantly clear to any reader that Wikipedia does not approve of the campaign, much less desire to participate in it. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. A well-sourced description of an attack does not equal an attack. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. The threshold for inclusion of material in this article is very high due to its very contentiousness. Only the strong survive. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. See above. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. There was some concern about this page's placement in search engine results for santorum, but AFAIK this has been assuaged by the fact that we have a strongly neutral article that can't be confused with participatory involvement. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. No such sources are used anywhere; the only possible question is one of linking to the official site (see below). ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Question needs deciding. On the one hand, an external link to spreadingsantorum.com sends readers to a self-published source of allegations and commentary regarding Rick Santorum. On the other hand, it is the official site of the campaign (which is the actual subject of this article). It would be an obvious and clear-cut "no" if it were proposed to add the link to Rick Santorum. Instead it is proposed to add it to this article, where it would be extremely pertinent, and in keeping with WP:ELOFFICIAL.
My own view is that having an article about the campaign and then not linking to the single most important part of the campaign is itself a POV violation. "We'll tell you about this sordid mess, but we won't make it slightly easier for you to investigate it yourself, despite the fact that we do it for Stormfront, David Duke, and others." ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Article scrupulously avoids making more hay than was already there. Well-documented facts are reported, nothing more. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. Rick Santorum is a public figure, as to some extent is Dan Savage. Contentious information is exhaustively sourced. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. See "Public figures" above. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. See "Public figures" above. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Done. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 21:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)