Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

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 Wikipedia: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.
• Wikipedia 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, wikipedia 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, wikipedia 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 think we agree more than it appears. I don't think that claims in pubished material are more reliable because of magic. I think that (just as you said) they are more reliable because a reputable publishing house will vet claims. Some publishing houses won't, or will simply do work for hire. But it is hard to judge which blogs have this apparatus and which ones don't. Some of them check facts about their field of interest, but not necessarily comments on living people. Brad Delong can be trusted to produce honest, factually accurate and helpful economic information on his blog. but he has probably still called George Bush a shithead there. I'm not suggesting that we will start citing random outbursts (although it would kind of be funny.... "Biographers are divided over the legacy of the Bush presidency and Mr. Bush himself, but J. Bradford Delong, a former Treasury undersecretary and member of the NBER called him a "shithead"".  :) But the fact remains that the only person who checks what he puts up there is him. And if he puts up something damaging or incorrect, he pays a significantly lower reputational price in doing so than if he forwarded a similar claim in a published journal or newspaper column. That of course doesn't mean that what is produced in newspapers is inherently factual. It just means that a reasonably claim can be made that fact checking has occurred along the line AND that more than one person was involved in producing the claim. If that publication house falls down on the job (like those idiots who published James Frey's book as non-fiction) then we should bring it up here or on RS/N and see if its other claims are reliable. Protonk (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Protonk, I followed you here from the Jetsunma page, I hope you don't mind. Yes. I'm working on a thesis and my thesis advisor does allow data from blogs but only as raw data for original research (on the same level of human research, questionaires, where one gathers individual opinions), regardless of who writes the blog.

It's not the medium, it's the process prior to publication that's important. Online resources like ProQuest are published online but they are they're universally accepted because they come from professional journals that go through a process of peer review and fact-checking.

The current academic standard is to treat blogs as raw data for original research. Longchenpa (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that at all. I think we are talking along the same lines. the process is very important. the reason there is a blanket ban in BLP on blogs (that aren't attached to reliable publications or aren't otherwise excepted by WP:SPS) is because the overwhelming majority of blogs don't have that fact checking process. The medium doesn't really matter. Most blogs are basically the same things as 'zines--whether the data is transmitted electronically or not is immaterial.

This becomes a contentious issue because blogging as a method of communication has been picked up by individuals who are otherwise reputable. We traditionally view self publication as a resort for those who can't get regular publication but people with research and books under their belts are picking it up because the medium has some considerable advantages for communication and transmission of ideas over books or scholarly journals. that is a significant shift. But it isn't one that lends the same fact checking apparatus to blogs that exists in traditional publications. without that structure (and without editorial control) it would be difficult to justify the use of blogs in BLP's on a widespread basis, regardless of the fact that the 'source' of the information is otherwise reliable on their field of expertise. Protonk (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, you don't address the fact that, according to Longchenpa, "the current academic standard" is that blogs may be used for "raw data". If a blog says Joe Blow was born in 1978, "the current academic standard" is that may be treated as a fact (in the absence of contradictory evidence). Why? Because it is like asking a subject what the ages of her siblings are in a human research questionnaire. I think there should be some more argument offered for why Wikipedia should deviate from the reliability standards employed in academia.Bdell555 (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Protonk got my point exactly. We are in agreement. There is a shift since even allowing blogs as raw data is new, but it is original research. And even as original research data, blogs don't have the same standing as more traditional quantitative analysis, interviews, and surveys. Longchenpa (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't need to. We aren't a publisher of original research. If I'm doing fieldwork in anthropology, I may use personal communications from informants as data for my research. I may perform formal or informal surveys. I may correspond with other researchers and include the results of that correspondence. None of that has to do with how wikipedia should treat sources. We are not in the business of collecting raw data and presenting our interpretation of it to our readers. Thus the comment above that blogs may be used for research is interesting but not germane. And for what it is worth, Proquest is a database of newspapers and other sources (like Lexis). It isn't so much the source as the means of retrieval. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

If a Wiki user is using "Joe Blow was born in 1978" to draw some sort of conclusion about "anthropology", yes, that's original research. But that's not the issue here. No one is talking about presenting an "interpretation" of anything to Wiki readers. Personal communications with informants are also a red herring, because there is no personal communication when a researcher gleans a fact from a blog. The point is, when the data is "raw", evidently an academic can glean it from a blog as well as a newspaper. This is not to say that blogs are infallible about claims of that sort, but rather to suggest that the Wiki community can judge situations on a case by case basis instead of the blanket prohibition you evidently prefer. See the example I provided below. As you'd have it, there's no question: Jefferson Flanders' blog would not reliable. I'm saying that question is, and ought to be, open to further examination as opposed to summary judgment.Bdell555 (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Look, man, I don't know what to tell you. I thought this was laid out pretty well. YOU asked if the comment above about blogs being used for research purposes meant that wikipedians could use them for the same purpose and I told you. No. The reason Longchenpa said he could use blogs as a resource has to do with WHAT he is doing. He is gathering data and is going to present a statement supporter by that data. He's not going to cite a blog as an authority on a research question or present conclusions gathered in the blog as a fact to the scholarly community. He's going to use it (just as he would use a conversation or an informal survey) to gather data and he's going to draw conclusions from that data. That has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. In his case the research being presented to the community stems from his reputation. An academic can say "I talked about this with researcher X" because he/she has gone through a long and rigorous schooling process and can be trusted to convey that information accurately even though no record of the original conversation remains. wikipedia editors can't claim that exemption due to status. The use of academics in certain professions (see how far citing a blog gets you as a physicist) doesn't have anything to do with how or why we would cite blogs.

The use of blogs for 'obviously factual claims' is another matter entirely. I don't think an exception is needed for that because I don't think it is necessary. Non contentious biographical material for a notable subject will probably not only be available on a blog (especially one not run by the subject).

Also, I don't really appreciate the direction this is going. Current policy makes the blanket decision about blogs for BLP. Don't personify things to make it out as though I'm the only obstacle between blog sourcing and wikipedia. I'm just a guy arguing about it. and I don't "obviously" prefer one side. I think that we make large tradeoffs in banning an entire medium. If we can make another policy that results in fewer tradeoffs and presents more benefits then I'm happy to entertain it. For my money, the current policy is ok. We have the obvious negative impact of not being able to cite perfectly reasonable sources. but we avoid this EXACT argument at every BLP. We don't have to make case by case distinctions on biographies under the current system. We just say: "self published and not written by the subject? Remove it". It is a simple rule and sometimes there are hidden benefits from simplicity. It won't always be the rule. Good blogs with fact checking staff and editorial control will appears (or maybe they won't, and something else will appear). But right now the purpose of a blog is to be FREE from the trappings of traditional media, to speak to the reader directly. Given that it is those trappings that we rely on to support claims cited in BLP's, we can't abandon the prohibition just yet. Protonk (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You again say that academics would not cite a blog with respect to a "question" or "present conclusions gathered in the blog". That's a straw man, because nobody suggesting a review of the blanket prohibition is calling for that. Are you seriously claiming that there isn't any data in Wikipedia? I don't understand how my arguments should be construed as taking exception to you personally as opposed to your arguments. The "simple rule" doesn't allow for nuance; I don't see why "avoiding an argument" about what's baby and what's bathwater is so important to the project that they both have to be thrown out.Bdell555 (talk) 00:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not avoiding an argument. THIS is part of the argument. If you want to change the policy you've got to have these sort of arguments. As for the straw man accusation, I'm perfectly willing to drop the 'academic citing a blog' issue. You brought it up. When I talk about comments about me personally I'm referring to the assumptions that you are making in the above comments about my positions. you are assuming that I'm inflexible on the subject or that I'm arguing out of some blinkered devotion. I'm not. I've said that this is a change that will eventually happen on wikipedia, but the people asserting the change need to show that it will be a good one.

The burden is on you to show that the impact from allowing blog citations in BLP's will be net positive. The burden is on you to show that NPOV won't be harmed. That we will have a relatively easy to interpret standard for which blogs are allowed. That we will have the same level of accuracy in our articles as we do now. You need to show that some immediate harm ("the baby") is being done to the project by not allowing blogs to be sources in BLPs. If you come on in and declare "hey, why don't we just remove a large component of BLP" and insist that opposition is dogmatic, then you aren't going to get very far.

so again, if you want to introduce some sort of new standard for citing self published sources in BLP's, I'm all ears. Lets hear it and see if it will improve the project. Protonk (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you are "avoiding an argument". I was rather taking issue with your contention that a blanket prohibition is preferable over a case-by-case approach because the former will preclude an "argument" over the merits of a particular case. I did bring up the "academic citing a blog" issue but you then raised an "academic presenting conclusions gathered in a blog" issue which is a mischaracterization of the issue I raised. If you are not "inflexible", where, exactly, are you willing to flex? "No way, jose" doesn't strike me as "flexible". Are you willing to flex with respect to a blog authored by a scholar or expert that is demonstrably being followed by a scholarly or expert community such that it is being "vetted" or fact checked? If someone goes to a BLP and deletes all the negative material, that harms NPOV. Yet you seem to think that that doesn't require justification, because the "burden of proof" only lies on people adding material. Is that right? I'll keep the proposal simple then: no "new standard" is required here. We simple apply existing reliability standards to the "messenger" without discriminating with respect to the "medium" and without discriminating between BLPs and other articles (how can the exact same material "harm NPOV" if a person happens to be living and not "harm NPOV" if the person happens to be dead?).Bdell555 (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bdel555, I see I'll have to clarify what I meant. Blogs are not only not fact-checked, not only not peer reviewed, not only biased, but according to current academics standards, blogs are only used for original research, and even then they need to be included in a mix of more traditional research methods (online surveys for original research have really taken off, however). A researcher uses different types of sources. The published, fact-checked, and mainstream sources from professional journals (and journalism for current events) is what you use for an encyclopedia, and they are also what the researcher reads and uses to develop their approach to a topic. These are at the top of the hierarchy of data. Original research then goes beyond an encyclopedia. They aim to be, well, original. Fresh. To go where no researcher has gone before. So the researcher will argue with the established articles (not something an encyclopedia does), and develop new sources of data (do an ethnography for example) to support their new argument. The sources of data used to support arguments fall in a hierarchy as well. Even for original research, blogs are at the bottom of the hierarchy. Maybe that'll change in the future as more and more publishing is done on the internet, but it's not wise for Wikipedia to lead the way. Not if we want to maintain our credibility. Longchenpa (talk) 00:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have a couple of graduate degrees myself and think it is rather more situational. Scholar.google.com, for example, will pop up the Holocaust denying Journal of Historical Review and just because it shows up there and circulates in print doesn't mean it wouldn't raise eyebrows if I cited it in a thesis. The "bias", etc etc of blogs varies. Sources at the "top of the hierarchy" can be unreliable and those at the bottom can be reliable. The "hierarchy" is not applied blindly, in my academic experience. Again, I'm not proposing that "established articles" be "argued with". Deletionism isn't the only way "to maintain our credibility"; - too much of it, in fact, undermines our credibility.Bdell555 (talk) 00:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Good, then you're aware that it would more than raise eyebrows to cite a blog in your lit review. Longchenpa (talk) 01:21, 8 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 a 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)

I am the "blogging professor" cited in the real world situation. The standards for assessing truth claims should be the same for all authors (print or Web). Credentials alone are not enough, as "professional historians" are not above tweaking the facts to fit their thesis.

As to the specific case in question, my reporting of David Oshinsky's comments about Alger Hiss is corroborated by the transcript of his remarks: "The ground is far less contested in the historical community with the vast majority of modern American historians today and particularly those specializing in domestic Cold War accepting Chambers’s overall version of events." You can find the transcript through NYU (in PDF format) here: http://www.nyu.edu/library/bobst/research/tam/hiss_david_oshinsky.pdf

Jefferson Flanders (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Alger Hiss has been dead for over 20 years. This discussion belongs at WP:V, not here. --agr (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The point in question is not Alger Hiss per se but whether I (in my blog) accurately reported Prof. Oshinsky's remarks. The transcript of the recorded session shows that I did.

Jefferson Flanders (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you were new to Wikipedia or I would not have been so curt. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Whether you accurately reported Prof. Oshinsky's remarks and whether, if so, those remarks belong in Wikipedia are questions not related to this policy and the discussion of those questions belongs somewhere else, most likely on Talk:Alger Hiss, the page for discussing changes to the article about the late Mr. Hiss. I would suggest you read our policy Wikipedia:Verifiability which applies to all Wikipedia articles and which might help you understand some of the issues involved in using remarks from a transcript, accurate or not. --agr (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think our guest has been around long enough for you to so summarily conclude that he does not "understand", Arnold. What I've provided here is an EXAMPLE of something that must be considered likely to arise in a BLP situation if it has actually arisen in a very close situation (my sources say Hiss has been dead less than 12 years, so I don't know where you get "more than 20"). I might add that ArbCom had no reservations at all about making a sweeping BLP policy decision(Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Special_enforcement_on_biographies_of_living_persons) in the context of a case about "footnoted quotes" to the article of a person who's been dead longer than Hiss.Bdell555 (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Hiss died November 15, 1996. That still means he is not covered by BLP, the subject of this talk page. I made no conclusion about Mr. Flanders' understanding, I merely suggested he read Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability, which is where the restriction on the use of blogs comes from. The material removed from the Hiss article does not pass muster for ANY Wikipedia article, whether the subject is dead or alive. As V says at the top "This page in a nutshell: Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." If you want to change that policy, propose it at that talk page.--agr (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Further Reading Blog Link Proposal

I propose that Blog Links be allowed in "Further Reading" [1] 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 [2] [3] [4]
• Con [5]

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: [6].) --agr (talk) 12:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As Agr mentioned, the BLP policy per se only applies to living people but it's generally accepted as far as I know that the death of an individual doesn't mean we should suddenly start inserting things we wouldn't have if they were living. Libel law in various countries does extend to the recently deceased but libel isn't our primary concern with BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Potentially Libellous Situations

See User:Pernambuco Boy --Father Goose (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

---

Not only words but also images can be libel, thus leaving Wikipeadia on the hook for untold damages. Therefore it might be a good idea, only for BLP violations, to let all users (not just admins) delete images without discussion that offend BLP policy. As it is now, a libellous image would sit around for an indefinate time until an administator got around to deleting it. (I assume the deletion would be permanent as images are not backed up)

However, allowing all users to delete images in situations such as this would be a better, proactive way to deal with pixellated, as opposed to print, libel. Pernambuco Boy (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply tag the image for speedy deletion, remove it from any articles if needed, and report it to administrators for urgent review at WP:AN/I if the deletion lags significantly? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Because in the precious time wasted Wikipedia might be sued. Time is money. Pernambuco Boy (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's the cost of having an encyclopedia where people can't just wantonly go around deleting BLP images whenever they feel like it, than I'm willing to pay it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to see the court system where an entire lawsuit can be filed and decided in the timespan between a BLP-vio image being discovered and deleted. I would be surprised if any such image lasted for more than 24 hours after being tagged. And images are backed up. Allowing anyone, even admins to delete things in a way that can't be undone would be a bad thing. Mr.Z-man 02:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal issues are not, and should not be our primary concern. If our policy does need to be changed because of legal issues, this should be on the advisement of the WMF lawyer, not some random wikipedian Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

agree with this, BLP applies to all article content including images anyway. Gnangarra 00:57, 17 August 2008 (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.

unreferenced biographical articles

There is a page for articles lacking sources (Category:Articles lacking sources) and there is a page for living people (Category:Living people). Is there a page for articles about living people that are lacking sources? A lot of these biographical articles are stubs that may not meet the notability guidline either. Should these articles be put up for deletion? Or just marked as being unsourced?   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 08:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Need Assistance Please

User:Waccolon is stating that he is Willie Colon and continues to add unsourced info to the article. I lack the patience, finesse, experience, to tell him exactly whats going on with that. Can someone talk to him please? Thanks! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 10:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Privacy of personal information: Radio call signs

There are a number of articles such as Steven L. Herman that list the persons amateur radio call signs and there is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Person# Amateur radio call sign about adding a field in the infobox. I think that this falls into the same category as phone numbers and email addresses. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest it does not. Amateur Radio Licensee information (at least in the United States) is publicly and freely available from http://www.qrz.com/callsign , http://hamcall.net/call , or http://www.arrl.org/fcc/fcclook.php3. One can choose to publish an email address or a phone number. One's Ham call, and attendant licensing data (such as name, address, etc.), are a matter of searchable public record. (I would agree that just because you can find any licensed amateur's address of record, that does not give a prima facie justification to using that in an article, though.) LaughingVulcan 01:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree that ham radio call signs aren't a significant privacy issue. However, they will rarely be encyclopedic information. GRBerry 01:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Unverifi(ed/able) claims about COI editing

I have started a deletion nomination for {{Notable Wikipedian}} at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 August 28, and one of the reasons is that I believe that it violates the BLP policy by making claims about living persons that cannot be verified in most cases (except perhaps by demanding that editors reveal and provide off-wiki proof of their real-world identities, see WP:OUTING).

However, a number of long-time editors are supporting retention of the template, which leads me to wonder whether I over-interpreting this policy and its relevance to claims about real-life identities made on article talk pages. Most of the comments that address the BLP issue (two do not mention it) call for higher standards of verification, but seem to offer no specific adivce on how to achieve this. Am I reading too much into the policy? Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Without Privacy, there is no Dignity

I propose that all BLPs be removed. This would send out a powerful global message that Wikipedia respects the right to privacy as an ethical principle and a fundamental tenet of international law and the law of nation states.

Historically, encyclopaedias did not write articles on living people. Once a slanderous comment has been posted, it can no more be taken back than any other gossip or slander.Orthorhombic (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose that your proposal be rejected as impractical and contrary to Wikipedia's goals. Besides, if we follow the notability guidelines properly, then no figure will ever be contained in Wikipedia whose life has not already become public.--erachima talk 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) A less extreme proposal than this one (in the sense that it suggested the removal of a less than 100% of all BLPs) was proposed here a few months ago, and it was rejected as too extreme. Without commenting on the merits of the proposal itself, I think it's safe to say that it will not gain consensus. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, I was pretty skeptical of the claim that at one point encyclopaedias didn't contain biographies of the living. Nonetheless, the 1768 printing of Britannica does not appear to contain any BLPs, though there are quite a few in the 1911 printing. I won't search the intervening additions, today anyhow. WilyD 20:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No. If you don't want to be written about in an encyclopedia, then don't do things that draw attention to you and get articles in RS written about you that can be used to write an article here. Those that don't have a choice in the matter are usually NOT#NEWS candidates. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Privacy does not exist for Notable figures, in the sense that you mean. Notability, by its' very definition within Wikipedia, means that the subject has already been noted in reliable secondary sources (plural.) Thus, not private. Indeed, this may be the philosopher's stone in applying the WP:N standard in general: Where notability is already shown in reliable secondary sources is when the subject can have an article - living person, dead person, animal, vegetable, or mineral. At that point, the person is no longer a private citizen alone, but also a public figure.

I further disagree because Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. A BLP article can (and should and does change) with regards to BLPs when the publicly available information about the person referenced changes. Therefore, what has been historically done with paper encyclopedias is a guideline, but not the sole arbiter, of what Wikipedia ought to do.

Personally, I also feel that your interpretation of the ethics of privacy and that there are, "international laws," which protect privacy is inaccurate. And further you misunderstand the tools available at Wikipedia, in which libel and slander (more properly defamation,) can be permanently deleted from public view. LaughingVulcan 00:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support a standard to require 2 references for negative information in all cases, to be conservative to protect privacy and human dignity while ensuring notability. Zulu Papa 5 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Diasgree. There is no reason that negative information should have a higher standard than positive information. Preserving and perpetuating information does no additional harm to the individual that is not already done by the original source. While I would say we should be more diligent in vetting the sources of negative information as reliable, and take far more care in acknowledging retractions of such items, the higher standard would be a disservice to the audience of the encyclopedia. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Mug shots

I started a thread here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mug_shots. Would anyone mind giving input? Thankyou. My proposal isn't nearly as drastic as the proposition directly above. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 03:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

delete it, don't merge it

I am seeing a common problem with unsourced or badly sourced bios of marginal or non-notable people, is that instead of deletion, they're being merged/redirected, with all the problematic content being kept, unaltered. As I argued here, I strongly feel, that if an editor merges/redirects an article, they have to take responsibility for the content they're adding to the target article. I object to notion of moving problem material in hopes somebody else will fix it. I think some improved guidline wording is needed here, to clarify what should be done in merge/redirect of BLPs. --Rob (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that as a problem. We don't delete for resolvable content problems. If something was moved or redirected, it was because they weren't notable in and of themselves, but are notable in the context of something else, and that the article on that something else is more improved by having information on that someone. While the content problem is still there, its good that the information was retained rather than deleted. At that point, all that has to be done is o deal with the issue. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, that such merging defeats the whole purpose of our BLP policy. We have rules to stop certain types of material. By simply moving material to another location, where it's equally accessible (since the person's name redirects there automatically), there's exactly the same degree of harm. And finally, yah, we do now, delete "resolvable" problems with BLPs. We don't let BLP problems sit forever in hopes of fixes. We don't just tag "citation needed" anymore. Or that was the idea of this policy. If we are going to treat BLP problems like all other problems (e.g. we'll fix it one day, eventually), then we should scrap this policy. --Rob (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, there are currently about 20.000 BLPs with "citation needed" tags. I agree that this may be a problem. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Don't the rules exists to keep out unsourced negative material? The rules shouldn't exist to preclude negative material that is well sourced and notable. The reason for the merge/redirect is to address WP:UNDUE issues. The merge and redirect puts the individual into the context of a larger event, thus giving it due weight. And then what do we do about the people who are notable only for well-sourced negative information, are clearly notable because of it, and have no sourced, notable, positive contributions to society? Sometimes we just need to call a spade a spade. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 15:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

BLP rules apply to all content. If information about a person is placed under the name of, say, an organization, the same standard applies to unsourced controversial or negative information and minor negative events. DGG (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

BLPs for dead people?

The talk page on Robert Park (football coach) has a BLP notice at the top. Seeing that he died nearly fifty years ago, is it really necessary to have this notice there? Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it was just a mistake by the person who added the biography wikiproject tag to the talk page. I have corrected it to living=no. Davewild (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Chinese gymnast pages

There has been a lot of ongoing drama at the articles for several Chinese athletes, notably Jiang Yuyuan, Yang Yilin, and He Kexin. Over the last few days in particular there have been several new SPAs and IP users adding POV material and OR, and angrily deleting other material from the articles when they are reverted. I'd appreciate some extra eyes on these articles to help cut down on problems and ensure that BLP issues are neutralized quickly. Thanks. DanielEng (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Indexing

I'd like to add a couple lines to the "Talk page" section of this policy, as follows:

In some situations, it may be necessary to use potentially BLP-violating language on a talkpage, in order to have a proper discussion on whether or not the language is violating BLP or not. In such cases, it may be wise to add the {{NOINDEX}} template to the page to keep it off the search engines while the discussion is taking place. Then once the discussion is completed, the section may be courtesy-deleted. This is not a carte blanche to allow BLP violations on talkpages, but it does provide a mechanism to allow for legitimate good faith discussion.

Any thoughts? --Elonka 22:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's a good idea, maybe with a more specific clause indicating that the BLP stuff under discussion is sourced to something that might or might not be reliable for our purposes, but isn't simply made up out of thin air or from a preposterously unreliable source. IronDuke 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

BLP tag on article re: deceased person

Without going into much explanation as the background isn't essential, this began as a removal of material under the rationale that the source linke was dead, although the dead link itself had already been replaced by an archive link. An editor placed a BLP tag on the talk page for Paul Watkins (Manson Family) here stating that he is not alive but people mentioned in this article are still alive and its a very controversial subject. It was removed and the editor returned the tag here, stating charles manson is alive dont paint yourswelf as anti BLP and vindictive. This entire situation is quite bizarre and nothing I've come across on Wikipedia before. I would appreciate comments regarding this. LaVidaLoca (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the flag and left a note. It is very odd. I'm not sure why that user reacted in the way that they did. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! LaVidaLoca (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The BLP policy still applies to the material about people that are still living. Whether or not the tag is on the talk page is not particularly relevant - but all editors should understand that the policy still applies to all material that is about living people. GRBerry 16:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Requests from subject of article on the article's talk page

Is it OK for the subject of an article to put a comment on their article's talk page asking for changes? Maybe we could address this in the policy.

I know it says you can fix obvious errors yourself... but editing my own article just seems, well, unclean. I wouldn't do it. Putting the request on the talk page seems more natural.

Another idea would be to allow/encourage a section on the talk page called something like "comments by subject," if there's anything they want to dispute.

What do folks think? Asbruckman (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, subjects can use the talk page to suggest comments. It is indeed actively encouraged. (See the second bullet point of Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject)#Before you e-mail. GRBerry 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool--thanks. Maybe it could be mentioned a bit more prominently.... Asbruckman (talk) 17:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

External links

There is a discussion of the BLP-related rules concerning external links at Wikipedia talk:External links#ELs must be in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies. The issue is that the current language appears to exclude virtually all external links. Please give your thoughts there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Following discussion there, and eidtor added this text to the guideline: This guideline does not limit convenience links to reliable sources in biographies of living people. Does anyone object to adding comparable language to this policy? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. There are convenience links and there are convenience links. WP:V and WP:RS are quite direct on what do we use as sources, and we need also t be mindful of copyvios and other such. Not needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate the problem from scratch, the existing text is meaningless.

• External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality, and in full compliance with this and other policies and with the external links guideline.

How do we expect external sites to comply with the BLP policy and with other Wikipedia policies? Do we expect external sites to avoid original research, and for all of their content to be verifiable and neutral? No, we don't, but that is what this language calls for. Jossi's point about copyvios is a red herring - we have another policy page which covers that issue. The problem with this language in this policy is that it sets an impossible standard for external links. For example, newspapres engage in original research, autobiographies tend to contain unverifiable information, and personal blogs tend to be non-neutral. According to the letter of this policy, we can't link to any of those. Of course that's absurd because we link to all of those. I suggest that we change the language to reflect what we're really trying to avoid, which is linking to external attack pages. Something like:

• External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality. Links should not be made to unverifiable attacks on BLP subjects.

That's the aim of the provision and that is what we're trying to avoid, so let's say what we mean. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. As I said at WT:EL:

No, Not only that. We exclude links to blogs (and personal pages) written by non-experts, links to material that carries controversial material that would not be acceptable as a source for the article, etc, etc, etc. Basically as BLP is to V (a higher threshold for inclusion), ELs in BLPs have to be of much higher quality than for non-BLPs. Simple. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

unverifiable attacks? What kind of formulation is that? No, per WP:BEANS ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

<< External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links -- May be a way to clarify this while respecting the intent of the original formulation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect an underlying issue here is the interpretation of the statement that "External links […] must be […] in full compliance with this and other policies". There are two ways to read that: the way Will seems to have read it, which is that the content of the linked sites must comply with Wikipedia policies, and the way I would've understood it before Will pointed out the alternative interpretation, which is to merely restate that the inclusion of the link itself must not violate WP:EL or other policies. I would naturally assume the latter interpretation to be the intended one, and suggest that the wording be clarified, but it would be nice if the folks who originally came up with the current wording could clarify exactly what they meant it to say. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically, if my memory serves me well, this was to avoid linking to sites that will violate the spirit of this policy. So, as we have lower standards for ELs than for sources in other articles, that would not apply for BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Read the section WP:BLP#Sources, which states: "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

After some research, I found that the clause about complying with Wikipedia policies was added here: [7] It followed this discussion: Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 14#The matter of external links. Getting back to the present, I think Ilmari Karonen is correct. We don't mean that the websites have to comply with Wikipedia policies, only the addition of links to them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that was a later discussion. This issue comes up from time to time and that was one of them. Go further back in the history. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting discussion, though, and worth reading to avoid rehashing the same arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

What I don't see in that discussion is a consensus for the language now in the policy. I think that Ilmaris suggestion may be the simplest way of fixing this. Some thing to the effect of:

• External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality. Linking to external sites must comply with this and other policies.

That makes it clear that the act of linking is what had to comply with policy, not the links themselves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The act of linking? That is simply wikilawyering. Sorry, Will. What is the consequence of "the act of linking" if not to link to a site? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Writing policy isn't wikilawyering. The existing text is ambiguous and has been used as a justification for deleting legitimate links. Can you propose something better? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I did: External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or that are not fully compliant with our guideline on external links ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's probably good enough. Thanks. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of Fraud from a third party site

On the article, Grand Orient of the United States there is an external page that is being quoted that accuses the founders of this Grand Orient of making fraudulent claims. I believe that repeating this in Wikipedia is a violation of WP:BLP but I think that the alternative argument will be that the allegations are out there and that they should be reported. Which is right? JASpencer (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

When the allegations get picked up by a reliable source they may be valid. Whilst it's all blogs and personal websites, they are defintely out. For future reference, we have a noticeboard specifically for raising these kind of issues: the biographies of living persons noticeboard. CIreland (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you. Do you think I should move this question to there, or is it already covered? JASpencer (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

John M. Perzel

I am looking for a second opinion regarding a portion of the following edit to John M. Perzel. Just reading the reference, I don't see that the attorney general has specifcally stated that he is investigating Speaker Perzel. He is investigating a contract that the Speaker was involved in. Because the subject is a controversial figure (at least in PA), I would like to get outside input as to whether this is appropriate for the article. Montco (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Writing style - Third party sources vs. Secondary sources

In this section Third party sources leads nowere, shouldn't it be Secondary sources? any objection changing this? Nsaa (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Did the update. Nsaa (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates of birth of living people

The person who hacked into Sarah Palin's email reportedly used date of birth as one piece of information to get into her account, and used Wikipedia as one of his/her information sources. Should we get rid of dates of birth of all living people, rather than merely doing so on request? Andjam (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's an interesting suggestion. I'm going to say that I would oppose this, but that is only because I know that the real reason her password was broken was because she chose a poor security question and yahoo just resets your password rather than emailing you a new one. For some public figures, (like palin) it would be absurd for us to withhold already publicly available information (Palin's birthday, address, full name, etc, are already on election filings in alaska and washington) on that basis. For example, I could tell you (probably) Bill Clinton's birthday, home town, mother's maiden name, and high school all from 1-2 clicks from his wikipedia page. But I don't think we should remove that information. For Non-public figures the issue is a little more cloudy. My short answer is: no, if we show a birthdate it should either be from a reliable, independent source or a self published source by the subject herself. The longer answer is: maybe. In some cases we might benefit from a discussion about listing a birth month and year for non-public figures unless the actual birthdate is available publicly (like a court filing or magazine article). Protonk (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a court filing is an acceptable source for a birth date and I think this is already covered by policy "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people". If your only source for the birth date is a court filing, I find it hard to say it's 'widely published. In a similar vein, using primary sources in BLPs should be done with care and they should usually only be used to back up secondary sources. Again I believe this is already covered by policy "Exert great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details — such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses — or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them. Where primary-source material has first been presented by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to turn to open records to augment the secondary source, subject to the no original research policy". However I don't think Sarah Palin is likely to be the sort of person who's birthdate is not widely published, but I could be wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

W. Brett Wilson

This biography is about a living person. It has a section personal about the wedding, divorce and children's names. In genealogy, this would be putting online information about living people, and is usually not done. Here the article is about the notable person W. Brett Wilson. Is it ok to add kids names in this case?SriMesh | talk 01:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are discussing the particular case you will probably get a better reponse by posting to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard which gets a lot quicker response than posting here, which is for discussing changes to the policy itself. Davewild (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:Update

See WP:Update for the September changes to all the Category:Wikipedia content policy pages (including this one) and also the most generally-used style guidelines (called, unsurprisingly, Category:General style guidelines). If anyone wants to take on the job of updating monthly content policy at WP:Update, please reply at WT:Update. Obviously, since this page is in WP-space, anyone can make any edit at any time, but it would be nice to get a core of "regular" updaters. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Nigella Lawson

The article has a perpetual to and fro of edits between those who want to use her Honourific title "The Honourable" Which she is entitled to as the daughter of a peer, and those who point out that as she herself is not known to ever use it, the article should also not use it. Are BLP articles required to follow the usage that the subject is known to prefer or does it not matter? Roger (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes it "should not be included in the text inline". --Rob (talk) 07:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

CFD Discussion

Could people here please have a look at the CFD for the Cat:Living People? Thanks! Fram (talk) 07:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Help please with a BLP:NFP

So I'm new to Wikipedia (as my log will show) and am wondering about how to go about proposing an article for a living person? William A. Mobley, who isn't of top-tier notability, has been involved in some important elements of the beginning of the Internet era--he was CEO of a couple companies that were influential then--and been interviewed a couple of times?

My apologies if this is the wrong talk page to ask this question.

ATLongino (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Responded at user's talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And well answered. Thanks! ATLongino (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Titillating sources

Could we insert something either into BLP policy or an appropriate guideline asking people to be on the lookout for information in sources that was probably put there for the gratuitous or titillating value rather than because it was judged to be relevant to the subject's accomplishments? Looking quickly, I see no statement that discusses the dubious value of outing people's past lives, secret lives, connection to violent or disturbing incidents, sexual behavior or perceived behavior, or change of gender, just to take the obvious examples ... I don't see a statement in WP:BLP (although I see support for the sentiment at WP:BLPN), or WP:N or any of the guidelines or proposals in the notability infobox. Newspapers are awash with this stuff, and I keep hearing "but it's in my source, it must be notable". I think one thing that trips people up is, especially in style guidelines pages, we often side with the journalists against the academics, because many journalists have to write for a wider audience than academics, and journalists often have more distance from their sources and their peers than academics do. I think the generally journalistic tone of well-written Wikipedia articles may be confusing people into thinking that journalists' predilection for lurid and titillating details of personal lives are also okay, but WP:BLP seems to me to flatly reject this. Examples on request. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to this in theory. what wording would you propose, and where? Protonk (talk) 17:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph that sort of talks about this. Protonk (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases and attributions to anonymous sources. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

In practice, hard and fast rules have a hard time dealing with this. In many cases, "lurid personal details" an encyclopaedic and necessary to tell someone's story. No serious biographer would ever write a biography of Darryl Strawberry without discussing his drug problems; it's probably impossible to do so reasonably. We could never discuss Pierre Sévigny with any pretense of seriousness without discussing his having slept with a prostitute; it's an important, central part of his story, tittalating or not. For the purposes of tittalation is never something we'll agree upon - do other serious, reputable biographers consider it an important detail? If so, we probably should too. If not, maybe not. WilyD 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That reminds the that Robert Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson includes a few pages devoted to...a discussion of how Johnson would name his member and show it to people in his office at the United States Senate(It's in Master of the Senate). I wonder if that is in the WP article. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't see anything. But if he did this to Franco and it started a war with Spain, you'd have to discuss it, titallating or not. WilyD 17:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Depending on your attention span on this, a few threads that pick up various pieces can be found at Wikipedia:BLPN#Porn actors' birth names, Talk:Anderson Cooper#Discussion, the whole talk page of Jan Morris, and WT:LGBT#Preparing for future discussion at WT:BLP. Instead of suggesting language, I'd rather stay neutral (at least, on the subject of the best addition to policy or guidelines) for as long as I can and see what direction consensus is developing, then try to suggest language that fits that consensus. Roughly speaking, there are two threads: 1. the idea in the popular press that certain people are "shameless" and entitled to a lower standard of privacy ... people who transition gender, gay people, etc. ... with the result that more details show up in reliable sources than would show up for other people, and 2. the recognition that gossip sells newspapers, but we don't have any newspapers to sell here. Two women kissing is hot, a past secret life of some kind is titillating, a connection as a victim or perpetrator of some violent but non-notable incident in the past is lurid, and stuff like this shows up in "reliable sources" all the time, but I believe there's support in Wikipedia for stopping to ask the question, "Why was this piece of information inserted into this newspaper article? Was it because it actually adds something to the reader's understanding of this person, or was it because it was of a "gossipy" nature?" - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

My question is (and I'm sorry if it comes back to wording), in what way is the current wording of the policy inadequate in this respect? My thought is that it is adequate (especially if the above excerpt is considered in conjunction with WP:NPF) but that just because BLP has wide consensus doesn't mean that behavior is constrained. In other words, I don't think a discussion here will prevent editors from inserting "thus and such person is probably gay" should that appear in some widely circulated source. Maybe we need some wording to explain what "encyclopedic" means here? Like "try the 100 year test. If this would be appropriate to include in a biography of the subject 100 years from now, it is probably fit for Wikipedia. If not, then exercise caution in including it--Wikipedia does not depend upon publishing information first or publishing titillating information." Or something like that. Problem is (as I see it), we still come down to a subjective judgment which allows someone to say "nuh-uh, this is so encyclopedic". Thoughts? Protonk (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The only part of this that has urgency for me is a short section on transgender pronouns at WP:MOS; there seems to be rough agreement at WT:MOS that whatever the answer is, it's a policy answer and not a style guidelines answer, so as part of the general push to tighten the style guidelines, we will probably remove it; but we don't want to leave the people who relied on that paragraph hanging on this issue. So let's start there. A person writes 2 books that are not considered particularly notable, and after that, they have gender-reassignment surgery, and they're quoted in interviews saying that their gender is and always was male, and their name is now Frank. They would prefer not to be known as or called by the previous name. They write a third book, widely considered notable. All 3 books are reissued listing their new name on the cover (a practice that is common nowadays, if the books are selling well enough to warrant a reprinting); you can find pretty much everything that is notable about this person at Amazon.com and on Google by searching under the new name. An editor inserts the old name in the article; they claim that since there are both older and recent sources out there that list the old name, it's fair game, and since Wikipedia is required to be neutral, and some people believe this person "really was" female while others believe the person "was always" male, Wikipedia is required to present both points of view, including the previous name. Who's right? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wrote something that's trying to turn into an essay at User:Dank55/Essays#Privacy on the subject. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 16:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC) [Changed link and rewrote essay. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)]

• Dan, I know this is going to sound, really, really, really awful, but I think that the best policy (in re:gendered pronouns and names) is to adopt one very similar to WP:ENGVAR. In tackling issues of gender identity, we can't argue consistently from one side across all cases or even with all editors. Was the person always a woman mentally and just became one biologically? Do we dictate that gendered terms swap at the moment of sex change? Do we (in cases where this is possible) assume the gender from birth to be the gender we use? This isn't an easy debate and we aren't the only ones having it. Just for literal MOS advice, I would adopt the terminology used by a preponderance of sources on that article and not require article to article conformity. I really think (except in the case of seriously inaccurate or confused sourcing) is the best way to make a clear set of rules without getting into a medical and philosophical debate.
• For the BLP issues with "titillating" copy. I don't know. Part of the job of selecting sourcing and editing articles is being proud of the sources you select and being proud of the article work you create. In the realm of BLP, I still feel it is within policy to remove material that is added for the purpose of gaining attention or because of some salient difference between the subject and society at large. It is most certainly presently policy to do so for non-public figures. I would do it on site and without comment. The notion of a "public figure" isn't strictly defined but it certainly isn't defined to mean "someone who does something outside social norms". For example, Thomas Beatie is a redirect and for good reason. I think that both the "gossip" language and the "NPF" language could be strengthened without too many negative effects. I'll try to think of some alternate wording. Protonk (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're on the wrong track, I just think it's complicated because there are a lot of very difficult cases to consider. For the case of someone who did nothing that Wikipedians might consider "notable" before their gender reassignment surgery, I have come around to a position very close to the position that most transsexuals take, regardless of whether there's a "reliable source" out there that represents someone boosting their newspaper's circulation by writing about the person's troubles; see my essay linked just above this message. For someone who made clearly notable accomplishments before gender transition, and who furthermore says they're comfortable with the previous name, the things you're talking about are important considerations, to me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to disentangle the MOS issue from the BLP issue (as much as can be done). I think that the BLP issue (pages being made for otherwise non-notable people who have change genders) is solvable by the current wording or a slight strengthening of the current wording. I think that it is fair to say that this community can be expected to delete articles like that (where the only salient point is the gender reassignment and it is probably only covered in RS for the reasons you not above). Maybe I'm wrong about that. For the MOS issue, I think that article by article consensus is the right way to go and that the MOS should avoid a process of standardization across articles. Protonk (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

OK... I'm going to make a case in different terms...

Identifying a transsexual person by their name prior to transition is highly disrespectful. In terms of their gender, the only view to take is that of the general academic/scientific consensus, bing that a transsexual persons gender identity is immutable (proven by the failure of psychotherapy as an adequate treatment), and as such has been present since birth, even if it was not initially expressed. Luckily, this consensus ties nicely to a basic fact - people are who they are now, and are to be identified as who they are (a fairly fundamental issue when writing about a person really) - as such, to use the current pronoun to refer to them, whether now or in the past, would be a correct and neutral point of view on ho they are.

Furthermore, when it comes to the subject of an article, say, a journalist/author or a scientist, then the notable elements of that person for encyclopedic purposes are that persons achievements/actions/deeds. As such, if information such as a persons transsexual status is not relevant to those deeds/actions/achievements, and the subject of the article not overy notable for being a transsexual person (regardless of the number of sources that would support the fact that she/he is - google hits does not equal notability.... see for example the phrase "and the".), then such information on the subjects private life, especially if presented in such a way as to throw the subject's current identity into question, need not be in the article. If there is cause for it to be in the article, it should be added respectfully and not to the detriment of the person's identity (current).

When it comes to such a subjects previous name, they should not be referred to by it, for it is not who they are by nature of it being a previous name and identity... it's not who they are, and to do so would be needlessly disrespectful. The previous name a person has held is not in itself a notable aspect of that person, and as such should only be included whetre there is a reason to do so. Where it is included in an article, it must be mentioned, rather than being used to identify the person whome it no longer identifies. EG - "jane bloggs (born Joe Blogs/also known as Joe Bloggs)" would be wrong - especially in the lead of an article per WP:UNDUE, but "Jane Bloggs (previously known as Joe Bloggs prior to transition in...) would be more acceptable. Note that if there is cause to mention the previous name, then cause to mention the fact of transition is there by default.

As I see it, There is no reason that wikipedia shouldn't treat transsexualism (a medical condition) any less sensitively than the medical history of anybody else, or indeed, transsexual people any less sensitively than any other peson. Wikipedia doesn't have a policy on repspecting people I know, but it's not in the habit of disrespecting people for no good reason, or if there are perfectly acceptable ways of getting across all important/notable/significant facts related to them without showing undue weight to those issues that aren't particularly notable in and of themselves. If we don't consider a person notable enough to have an article soley because they are transsexual, then we shouldn't be making a big deal of it in articles on transsexual people unless they are particularly notable for that fact - and even then, being an aspect of their private lives and medical case notes, it should be dealt with in the least sensationalistic/titilating way possible, without undue weight. Crimsone (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that http://www.wpath.org/documents/Med%20Nec%20on%202008%20Letterhead.pdf (a statement written by WPATH, the leading international medical authority on how to treat transgender patients) made O'Donnabhain_v._Commissioner obsolete?

Here is an example of Wendy Carlos's thoughts on the matter:

• http://www.wendycarlos.com/pruri.html
• http://www.wendycarlos.com/ouch.html
• http://www.wendycarlos.com/faqs.html

--Sonjaaa (talk) 09:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly suggest we separate the questions of tiltilating sources which is a BLP issue from the issue of transgendered pronouns which is a much more a MOS issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  Actually, no. When it comes to the use of pronouns when referring to transsexual people (which is not the same as transgender pronouns) it is very much an issue with titilating sources, and especially relevant to basic human dignity. It's also an issue in terms of unnessecary divulgence of a subjects medical history, and giving undue weight to that (often irrelevant) personal information about the subjects private life as a matter of course. That's very much a BLP issue. Likewise, the unnessecary use of a transsexual person'r former name is an issue of basic human dignity, as is giving such a name undue weight in the article. Actually identifying a transsexual person by their previous name or insinuating that they can be identified by that name is positively abhorrent in terms of human dignity - they aren't that person any more, and quite possibly never were in anything but name alone. That too, is a BLP issue. Crimsone (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok. I see why there might be a BLP issue. But let's split this up: what we call them is a MOS issue. In general for almost any organization or individual we call them what they self-identify as. Moreover, for transexuals that's as I understand the generally accepted reference method. So that's easy to deal with. The other issues of transexuals are more problematic because in a variety of circumstances transexuals have engaged in notable behavior both before and after surgery or change in self-identification. In those cases, mentioning the history is relevant information to the readers. As to calling using the prior name at all to be "abhorrent" frankly I think that's a POV talking. Whether the individual was that person and what is in a name are deeply philosophical issues that we should be trying to avoid. If someone was a notable individual and changed their name prior to notability because they really disliked it and didn't like being reminded of it that wouldn't be substantially different in the overall issue; the degree is all that is different. I suspect that this is going to vary on a case by case basis. For example, if someone is a GLBT activist then it is hard to see how the person's history as a transgendered individual cannot be mentioned. If the person is say a chemist or a mathematician then it wouldn't be as relevant. In general, this should probably be decided on a case by case basis. But use of terms like "abhorrent" probably isn't helpful for generally deciding what to do. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

    Use of the word "abhorrent" in this case is actually quite apt. You will note that I said that there is no problem with mentioning a transsexual persons previous name if it is available and nessecary to do so. However, calling them/identifying them by that nameis different - it is a mischaracterisation of who they are, and further still, is a needless mischracterisation liable to cause pain, distress, or discomfort. To cause pain, distress, or discomfort where it need not be caused is indeed abhorrent. In terms of the names of transsexuals, this is widely recognised - even by the UK government in the form of the seperate process that exists for Criminal Records Bureau disclosers, designed to ensure that a transsexual persons previous name does not appear in the report to an employer. Some might even go as far as to say that even the basic and fundamental mischaracterisation is so. The only variability in the issue on a case by case basis lies in whether there is a need to use the former name. If it does need to be mentioned, then the subject of the article need not be referred to by it, but rather, it need merely be said that the subject of the article used to hold it.

    In terms of the suggestion that the transsexuality of an LGBT rights activist who is transsexual is of great importance in an argument, I would have to put it to you, should all wikipedians that smoke and edit the tobacco smoking article have to declare themselves smokers? Ones identification and/or medical history is not always (and often isn't!) of great relevance to what one does. Just as I would expect a smoker to be able to edit Tobacco smoking from a NPOV, so should a LGBT activist be able to campaign without letting his/her gender identity or sexual orientation get in the way. It's a common misconception to think that it is so. Crimsone (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Softened wording on the use of some blogs as sources in BLPs

I've added some qualification to the "no blogs" rule in BLPs, to reflect existing practice. I've also modified the verifiability policy to reflect this practice. Please see my rationale on the verifiability talk page.

Your change is a result of our discussion at BLP/N [8] and does not reflect what is being said. I've reverted it. SPS continues to "never" be an acceptable source for information that is "about a living person." Mishlai (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The status quo wording has been there for some time so it should not be lightly changed. It's not strictly true though.Wikidemon (talk) 02:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What is strictly true, then? Cool Hand Luke 14:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're discussing a gray area over at BLP/N, so if you have any thoughts or links on interpretations of WP:BLP that expand upon the text being not strictly true, that might be helpful to our discussion. I guess my question is more like "What isn't strictly true?" Mishlai (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Pseudonyms

This has been discussed before but the page guidelines seem to have moved on a bit since then. What do you think we should do in the following case: Someone is well known under a pseudonym but has tried to keep their real name private.

1. The person is sufficiently notable to have a WP page under their pseudonym. Do we always include the real name?
2. Someone who doesn't like the subject has outed their real name on celebrity gossip website. Do we include the real name?
3. A WP editor has a photocopy of a legal document (a contract, copyright declaration etc.) proving the real name. Do we include the real name?
4. The photocopy of the legal doc is published on the scandal site. Do we include the real name?
5. The subject is charged and brought to court for something they did under their pseudonym and their real name is revealed in court. Do we reveal the real name then?
6. They are found not guilty. Does that change things?
7. The real name is outed on a television scandal show. Do we include the real name?
8. The real name is outed on a serious documentary on the BBC. Do we include the real name?
9. The subject is hiding behind the pseudonym because they are whistleblower who has uncovered illegal behaviour by influential people. Do we include the real name?
10. The subject is a shock jock stirring up trouble for others. Do we include the real name?
11. The subject is dead and historical research has revealed the name. Do we include the real name?
12. The subject is famous enough under their real name to have a WP page under that name though the fame is for completely unconnected fields? Do we link the two names then?
13. The subject is famous under their real name for opinions completely contradictory to their pseudonymous opinions. Do we link the names then?
15. Anything else?

Filceolaire (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

For me the Presumption in favour of privacy means that we have a bias against including the real name. I would !vote against including the real name except for case 13. In that case their own actions have made the connection notable. In the other cases their real name is only interesting to people who want to harass and stalk them. Why would we include it. It does not tell us anything interesting about them. If they don't want it public then we shouldn't include it. Filceolaire (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also say "include" under 11 (dead; has no presumption); and 12 (both notable; the connection is then notable). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP for a soon prominent person.

I'm having a hard time understanding some of the verbage in the BLP article, as to what's appropriate as a source/third party reference for creating a BLP. I'd like to create a BLP for a former cheerleader for a NFL team, who has been and is currently a beauty pageant winner and participant. She won her state championship, and will represent her state at Miss USA next year. There is a website for the state that she won in, and it has a biography for her. Can this be used as a source??? I would imagine I should leave out information pertaining to a dance studio she co-owns??? The particular state pageant she won is a Wikipedia article, but unlike her suceesors, she does not have her own article. I would like to remedy this. Please advise. TBird100636 (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that you have adequate sources to start with. The site reporting on the pageant is a primary source if it belongs to the pageant organization itself. Secondary sources would be newspaper articles about the pageant etc. Why do you think it is necessary to leave out "information pertaining to a dance studio she co-owns"? Roger (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you'd leave out the dance studio info, either. It is probably a matter of public record, and it fleshes out (you should pardon the expression) her biographical data. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 08:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Who is this person? Which state pageant did she win? When? Roger (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I felt putting in the info about her dance studio would be putting in too much personal information. However, she does have a website for the dance studio, so if it makes the article more verifiable or relevant I will put it in then. To answer your question Roger, she is the recently crowned Miss Rhode Island USA 2009. She was also Miss Teen Rhode Island USA in 2002.TBird100636 (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

How can a 17-year-old girl be a former NFL cheerleader? -- 76.98.14.41 (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about the recently crowned Miss Teen Rhode Island USA 2009, who is 17. I am talking about the recently crowned Miss Rhode Island USA 2009, who is 21, and was also Miss Teen Rhode Island USA 2002. TBird100636 (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-living persons

Under what circumstances would a BLP tag be applicable to a biography of a non-living person? Please see Talk:Anne Pressly. At least two editors are adding the tag. I don't understand the reasoning, but maybe it's just me being dense. --Elliskev 13:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't want to sound crass, but let the body cool. My guess is that if you come back in a week or some it will have become clear to drive-by editors that she is, in fact, deceased, and the tag can stay off without issue. BLP does mean living persons, but we should bear in mind that she died a pretty horrible death very, very recently and that we are still the most public face of that (Actually, the 7th most public face). I don't think you are doing anything wrong by removing the tag, just that it might be easier to do so after a few days to a week. Protonk (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag. Extensive prior community discussions to extend BLP to the recently dead have not gained a community consensus to do so. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My brain cells' community consensus is to apply the same standards everywhere. If this is much ado about talk page banners, might as well add a living=untilrecently option to the "yes/no" template, then maybe everyone will be happy. — CharlotteWebb 19:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. As long as it is clear that BLP would not apply to the deceased. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the BLP tag should apply to articles dealing with people who are still alive mentioned therein -- such as spouses and living children? Or some subset thereof? (As opposed to articles where everyone involved is really dead.) Collect (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My advice is to pick an acceptable standard and apply it to people, horses, ghosts, roads, ships, and pokémon alike. — CharlotteWebb 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There are very few cases where BLP applies to dead people. The only time it would is if there are living people who were in close relation with the particular subject, and thus might be offended by sensitive info. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I would never apply it even so (and that's in accord with at least the US legal position, as I understand it.) Using any exception here is something like that goes on forever. People can get very offended indeed about the honor of the great-grandfathers, and feuds can go on for generations. All information remains subject to the usual rules for sourcing, and that is enough to deal with instances of malice and vandalism.DGG (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Halloween WP:Update

A reminder: WP:Update has monthly updates of the 7 content policy pages. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Workflow and project management proposal

• Workflow management - people say there is no deadline. Given the rate of article creation and the rate at which work is done on sourcing articles (a much more difficult task than marking an article for deletion, as people say), what can be done to manage the various parts of the workflow? Should the workflow be managed better? Is it OK to have the next X years spent dealing (or not dealing) with an ever-increasing and unmanageable backlog? Remember that articles about people make up a significant proportion of the encyclopedia, and a significant proportion of those are articles about living people. I think the current numbers (probably an under-estimate for people and living people, not all of which are tagged) are: 2,612,653 articles (from here), 546,383 "biography" articles (from here), and 313,112 living people [BLPs] (from here). The number of BLPs tagged as unsourced is 779 (from here). What I want to add to these figures is the rate at which new articles are created, and the rate at which new BLPs are created.
• Project management - I don't think there is a central page listing the various BLP areas and essays and proposals. The closest would probably be Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. There is also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (which has useful links), and Category:Living people. What would be useful is a central listing of all the templates and categories relating to living people. The most prominent essay/proposal I can think of is User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem. Whiole looking for that, I also found User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. In the past, I've started specific categories to collect user essays (e.g. here and here). I'm now going to do the same for BLP essays. If anyone knows of, or finds, any more, please add them to Category:User essays on BLP. If people could also help with a central listing of the most relevant BLP pages, that would be good as well - any suggestions for where to record the list?
• Setting up a patrolling process - if anyone could help out with a detailed plan for setting up a way to patrol BLPs - i.e. marked them as checked and leave a record of the date and who did the checking, that would be great. It might sound like flagged revisions, but really I'm thinking of the way things are done at projects like wikisource and the way things are marked at each stage of a process, so it is clear what progress has been made.
• Finding people to do the work - this is the big bit - finding people who are willing to do sustained and quality work over many months, working through 300,000+ articles and delivering a verdict on them. No point in having this work done poorly, as it will simply need to be redone if done poorly. We also need people willing to watch the feed of new articles. I know a lot of this is done already, but we need to manage it better and keep track of the stats.

I think we have three choices at the moment: (1) Continuing discussing RHMED's proposal; (2) Continuing discussing wider management strategies (my proposals above); (3) Stop talking and start up a focused and sustained effort to tackle the 779 articles in Category:BLP articles lacking sources (I'm sure some people already work on this category - could someone find them somehow and get their advice on how they approach articles in that category - this is one of the disadvantages of a cateogry versus a list - it is far more difficult to see where the work is being done - if people moved articles from this category to a "done" category, instead of just removing them, it would make things easier). How many people would take how long to clear that backlog of 779 articles? 50 people would take 3 days if they did 5 a day. Is it better to get a list so it is easier to keep track of progress and avoid clashing? Will such an approach scale to the 300,000+ BLP articles. Has anyone tried to assess how many of the 300,000+ BLP articles are OK and how many are not OK? The trouble with only tagging for problems is that the untagged BLPs may be either checked and OK, or unchecked and quality unknown. In other words, a way to tag articles that have been checked is needed. What is the best way to do that in the current system? A new template/category, or a version of the patrolling system (could BLP checkboxes be added to the current patrolling system - and how well-used is the current patrolling system)? Carcharoth (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have recently done a check of forty random (alphabetically consecutive, but including both English-language and non-Engliosh language people) BLP's, and found that ten of those were unsourced (8) or very poorly sourced (2). I have just now checked the BLP's created on 9 October 2008 between 0:00 and 11:29 UTC, and I was pleasantly surprised that most were at first glance sourced adequately (I have obviously not checked those thoroughly). I have added the Cat:living people to 12 articles (which are sourced), the "unsourced BLP" tag to 8 articles, and proposed deletion for one article. This is a pretty good result, I believe, but I have to admit that I have seen newpage backlogs with a lot more problems as well, so I have no idea if this batch was a lucky exception or not. Fram (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that unless you marked the articles in some way, no-one knows that you looked at and checked the articles. That is what I meant about a patrolling process. Some way to click on a BLP and say "I verify that this article meets a certain minimum BLP standard". Anyway, related to the ideas of watching and patrolling BLPs, I found: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLPWatch and Wikipedia:Living People Patrol, neither of which I had heard of before. Those were just 2 of 46 pages I found in the non-article namespaces doing searches for BLP or Living in the titles. I'll list those below. Carcharoth (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Listing relevant BLP pages

I've just been using the new search features, and one of the searches I did was this. This sort of search was possible before, but is a lot easier to do now (type: "intitle:blp prefix:wikipedia:"). I'm going to do a similar one for user space and other search terms. The results so far:

Wikipedia namespace

• Wikipedia:BLP Admin (failed proposal)
• Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion (failed proposal)
• Wikipedia:BLP Summit (never took off)
• Wikipedia:BLP subject response (failed proposal)
• Wikipedia:Zero-sum BLP (essay)
• Wikipedia:BLP deletion process (failed proposal)
• Wikipedia:BLP/A (redirect to user essay)
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-04-21/BLPs (Signpost article)
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-28/BLP, DRV, ARB, IRC (Signpost article)
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-06-04/BLP, revisited (Signpost article)
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/BLP enforcement (Signpost article)
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Ongoing BLP concerns (BLP noticeboard subpage)
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement (BLP policy subpage)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/BLP (WikiProject BLP subpage)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BLP vios on Obama Talkpage (ANI subpage on a BLP topic)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP Admin (MfD for a BLP proposal)
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/BLP Special Enforcement (MfD for a BLP policy subpage)
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/BLP enforcement guidance (Arbitration Committee BLP subpage)

If someone could look through those and work out which are useful and whether they are current documented and linked directly or indirectly from the relevant pages, that would be good. And leave a note here saying what got done. Carcharoth (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User namespace

Using this search (is there an easy way to copy and paste from the search results?):

• User:Amarkov/BLP
• User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem
• User:Filll/BLP Challenge Exercises
• User:Geo Swan/opinions/Haroon Rashid Aswat and BLP
• User:HJensen/HJensen BLP POV
• User:Jerzy/BLP Edits
• User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP
• User:Kingbotk/Logs/110407 Replacing Blp with WPBiography 1
• User:Kingbotk/Logs/221006 Blp replacement
• User:Kingbotk/Logs/Manual Upload/100906 BLP
• User:Kotniski/blp
• User:Lawyer2b-blp
• User:Lawyer2b-blp/monobook.js
• User:Mattinbgn/BLP considerations

• A mere sketchpad to try and organise my own thoughts and not a sustained attempt at a coherent argument, although I, of course, support the general tone. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• User:Messedrocker/BLP with Controversy
• User:Messedrocker/Unreferenced BLPs
• User:Michael Snow/BLP, DRV, ARB, IRC
• User:Nixeagle/BLPs with fact tags
• User:Nixeagle/BLPs with fact tags/2
• User:Nixeagle/problem BLPs
• User:Ral315/BLP enforcement
• User:Ral315/BLPs
• User:RMHED/BLP prod
• User:Ryan Postlethwaite/Admin coaching/J-stan/Tasks/BLP
• User:Sarcasticidealist/Semi-protection of BLPs
• User:Sceptre/blp.js
• User:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock
• User:Vassyana/BLP

Some of these might be useful. I haven't looked at them and don't have time now. Someone might also want to do "in title" and "full text" searches for some combinations of the terms "biography", "biographies", "living", "people" and "persons". Carcharoth (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Other

These one were found doing "intitle:" searches in other namespaces.

• Category:Articles under BLP Special Enforcement Sanctions
• Category:Biography articles of living people
• Category:BLP watched articles
• Category:Criticisms of living persons articles
• Category:Date of birth missing (living people)
• Category:Disputed biographies of living persons
• Category:Living people
• Category:Place of birth missing (living people)
• Category:Possibly living people
• Category:Year of birth missing (living people)
• Template:Afc blp
• Template:Blp
• Template:BLP removal
• Template:BLP Spec Admin
• Template:BLP Spec Article
• Template:BLP Spec Warn
• Template:In the news/Important living people
• Template:Living person
• Template:Living-bio-cats
• User:Ameliorate!/Badcats/Living People
• User:Carcharoth/List of living people compact index
• User:Carnildo/The Living 100 Biography
• User:Doops/Living British princes and princesses
• User:Dsp13/Living people needing categorization by year of birth
• User:Dsp13/People needing categorization as living or by year of death
• User:Gracenotes/Living
• User:Kingbotk/Living persons biography plugin
• User:Kingbotk/Logs/020307 Living people 2 1
• User:Kingbotk/Logs/070407 Possibly living people 1
• User:Madcoverboy/Important living people
• User:Purgatorio/Unacceptable Fair Use (Living People)
• User:Superluser/Reliable Sources for Biographies of Living People
• User:Unschool/The Living Person Tag
• User:Warofdreams/Living Stormont MPs
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLPWatch
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Help
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Special enforcement log
• Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask/Biographies of living persons
• Wikipedia:Deletion of all fair use images of living people
• Wikipedia:Images of living people
• Wikipedia:Living People Patrol
• Wikipedia:Living People Patrol/Development
• Wikipedia:Living People Patrol/Proposal
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-10-22/Living people
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people

Sorry for the massive long lists. Would someone else be able to organise these and sort them into groups of related pages? Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP prod

I created a template in my user space based on the Prod template to try to deal with all the unsourced BLP's per Jimmy's suggestion. This issue really needs to be dealt with, but hopefully in a way that can be agreed on. Is the template reasonable? sugestions for improvements/modifications are welcome. RMHED (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This template seems like a good idea to me. It gives people who want to source the article a chance to respond / fix the problem, while not just ignoring a continuing problem. Nandesuka (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you left a note at WT:PROD? There would need to be a discussion about whether this is an extension of the existing WP:PROD system, or whether it is an extension of the WP:BLP system (merely modelled on the existing PROD system), or both. If it ends up being a separate PROD process, it would need to be made clear that they are separate processes. Otherwise, it is possible that BLP PRODs will overwhelm the existing PROD system. Does anyone have any stats on the number of articles currently nominated and deleted or not through PROD each day? Carcharoth (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

At any given time I see about 3,000 pages in the PROD category, so at 5 days for a PROD, that works out to probably 600-800 per day, not norming for de-PRODs. MBisanz ^talk 21:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I apparently looked at a slow day, today there are 4200 in the PROD category, so it is variable, probably 600-1200 a day. MBisanz ^talk 21:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, something is funky with Category:All articles proposed for deletion. Scratch the above. MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, this will only work if it is clear what a "source" is. Some people accept that information can be sourced through external links (whether in the body of the text or in a links section). Others require explicit inline citations to a references section. The standard being used for BLP PRODs would need to be sorted out and made clear in the documentation. one of the big concerns will be that this is a step along a slippery slope to PRODs of all unsourced articles. Carcharoth (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yes an external link can contain a valid source, as long as it meets the reliable source guideline then no problems. RMHED (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The other big objection will be that this will encourage poor sourcing. So we will probably end up replacing one backlog (of unsourced BLPs) with a backlog of rushed and poorly-sourced BLPs. Carcharoth (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a proposal to create a template (if one does not already exist) for flagging articles with potentially dubious sources. (Perhaps something that can go on to the article talk page, so that people are less likely to edit war over it.) Dealing with poorly-sourced articles and articles with misrepresented sources is a parallel problem to the issue of unsourced articles, and I agree that it's an issue we shouldn't ignore. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

That would still be an improvement. Perhaps you mean it would be too slight to justify the extra overhead. I'll agree with that. — CharlotteWebb 15:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I doubt it would encourage even more unsourced BLP's, I think the opposite would be true. RMHED (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the template is a good idea too. However, there is one thing wrong with it. It is written to imply that all material must be sourced or deleted. This is contrary to our policy. What is important is

• that contentious material about living persons be removed even if it is sourcedunless it is well-sourced
• that sensationalist or titillating claims be included only if they are non-contentious and very well-sourced

Beyond this there is no special burden for sourcing for biographical material. As long as the template is consistent with these provisions of our policy, I support it. The wording needs to be more specific. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Contentious claims are currently allowed if they're sourced (unless someone mentions it on WP:BLPN or something.) I don't think every BLP article should be a whitewash with anything sourced that someone might object to removed, myself, the trick is to strike a balance or agree to a policy. I don't think articles should be entirely one sided. If everything ends up bland or a puff piece it won't be worth us having biographies in this encyclopedia, which is supposed to give the reader an accurate summary of the person. As to the template, I've had a glass of wine lol so I'll look at it later or tomorrow.Sticky Parkin 22:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Reject A poorly thought-out attempt to alter two basic Wikipedia policies. through changing a template. One true basic policy is V, that all material be verifiable. The false policy is that there is a fixed time when this must be done. The other true policy is that contentious biography of living people must be removed if it cannot be promptly sourced. The false policy is that this applies to uncontentious material. (Further a tremendous amount of blp uncontentious material is sourced only to the subjects web page and similar non-independent sources, which are not reliable for contentious material but accepted for t is, and the template does not discriminate.) It is totally wrong to say that the mass of unsourced bio in Wikipedia can be sourced in 5 days, or weeks or months. It should eventually be sourced. the priority of sourcing it depends on the importance of the subject and the contentiousness. At the extreme, the proposed policy is already followed carefully--material asserting truly potentially damaging material about public figures without an adequate source is in fact removed immediately. If the complaint is that this is not done well enough, the answer is to join in doing it, not bother oneself about the less important. Similarly, negative unsourced material about even the less important is generally removed if sources cannot be found, and nobody will object to doing so. As for the uncontentious material, no particular harm is done. The only harm is the general one, hat the encyclopedia as a whole ought to move towards V. I know what will happen if anything of the sort is adopted--editors will challenge articles on people they would like to have removed because hey disapprove of their ideology, even though there is nothing truly contentious there, and we will waste our time defending them rapidly to meet these deadlines, and, much of the time fail--there are insufficient good editors to do them all in a few days. This is not an idle speculation--it has been tried for various figures in parapsychology, or antievolutionist faculty, or people of a different school of thought in psychology. And how will the supporters respond--they will target the other side, or even blps in general. We have seen the evil effects of such deadlines in other fields at AfD--to challenge two dozen articles of a type knowing that not all of them can be defended in time. I recognized the proper concern--and I know how it can meet his goal--by simply starting in to source the articles, and encouraging others to join. and, when he finds something contentious that cannot be sourced, removing it after a suitable opportunity is given to those who might knowhow to source that subject. (I know he proposes this in goos faith and that he intends any of the bad results i speculate on above--but that's how it will be used.) DGG (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is not the answer to this problem. All this would do would be make a bunch of people on both sides mad; editors would be madly going around trying to source BLPs before they got deleted by people like RHMED, which would just result in a crappily-sourced article, which is harder to spot than a completely unsourced one. Then there would be a much more complex problem. I am, of course, assuming that this was proposed in good faith, but it seems like the net effect of this would be to "kill" harmless material that can wait for improvement and sourcing rather than to improve the status of BLPs. There doesn't need a time table for that to happen. Tagging is not the answer to the problem. Rather than wasting time doing this, efforts could be made to actually source these BLPs rather than finding end-runs around policy and consensus to try and get them deleted by creating a system where responding to each and every shenanigan deletion attempt contrary to policy is simply an impossible feat to accomplish. Of course, apart from the practical issues of dumping it on the entire unsourced BLP field, there's also the issue of how this can be abused; DGG brings up more than a few points with regards to that particular subject, and I agree with the gist of most of it. Again, the answer to this isn't "IMPROVE OR DIE IN 5 DAYS" or whatever. This isn't kidnegarten. Non-contenious, non-negative material can wait for a while to have a ref tagged slapped behind it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I suspect there might be a simpler way to do this, and avoid arguing over what can and can't be prodded:
  • (1) Allow all BLPs to be PRODded if there are concerns about the article or its sourcing.
  • (2) Instead of allowing anyone to remove a BLP PROD template, make clear that the PROD template can only be removed if the concerns raised about the article are addressed.
• The downside is that excessive BLP prodding will easily overwhelm efforts to fix things. As someone said elsewhere, what is needed is to identify the BLPs that most urgently need fixing. Really, what is needed is for all BLPs to be put in a "needs checking" category, and then for there to be a sustained and planned 'patrolling' effort. This is not that difficult. If it has been possible to "assess" hundreds of thousands of biography articles, a similar "drive" to deal with BLPs could easily deal with the problem. Patrolled BLPs are either marked as OK (in such a way that they are removed from the patrol queue and marked as checked). What is also needed is a way to make sure all new BLPs are added to the "needs checking queue". A random selection of BLPs could be selected each day, and everyone (and I mean everyone) would work on sourcing them or otherwise cleaning them up. Even better, would be to place a stop on the creation of new BLPs that haven't been checked or sourced. i.e. allow those who patrol newly created articles to tag the newly-created BLPs for immediate attention. This last step would help stop the backlog building up even further. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Certainly some method needs to be introduced to prevent or at the very least identify new BLP's that are unsourced or poorly sourced, otherwise the problem just goes on without end. RMHED (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems this system could be gamed by knowingly citing a concern which is frivolous or otherwise unaddressable. The status quo is to revert edits like that, but this proposal would allow them to be reinstated (probably ad infinitum) regardless of merit. — CharlotteWebb 15:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• I like the template idea. I think that the risk of encouraging the use of poor-quality sources to avoid deletion is of concern, but I don't think it should derail this proposal. Even bad sources will give editors and readers something to look at, to give our readers some idea of the quality of the article content presented. Having thousands of completely unsourced BLPs is a serious problem that this templated will help us to resolve in a timely but not-too-disruptive way. (I believe that this proposal allows a long time for sources to be found – a month or two – to alleviate concerns about flooding the system with nominations to crowd out a POV.) I agree that this template won't be a magic wand that fixes all of our BLP sourcing issues, but it's a step in the right direction, and I don't think it will do harm. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Twenty-eight days. Less than one month. I still think the answer is to identify the problem (tag all BLP articles with a clean-up category), reduce the influx of new BLPs (get new page patrollers to tag all new BLPs and make them a priority for clean-up), and set up a patrol queue for people to systematically work through and identify what needs doing, and finally for people to do what is needed with each article. The worst BLP stuff would still be handled as normal, with immediate clean-up required. Carcharoth (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I think this is a much more sensible, practical solution. This way, we don't lose content and productivity as everyone has to waste time to go get userfied versions of all of the articles that weren't edited in time to save them from the bomb, the new ones get patrolled and cleaned up, and the rest of us get a not-increasing pool of BLPs in need of a little attention. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
      • We already have the Template:BLPsources and its Category though quite a few of the articles in there do have several sources. Maybe a new template and category are required for completely unsourced BLP's. RMHED (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
        • That's a better idea than an end-run around policy via a template. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
          • It would be more convenient to use the BLPsources tag if Friendly was aware of it. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
            • The crucial thing is to not have "fixed" BLPs simply have a tag removed. That leaves no visible record (other than in the page history) that an article has been checked, and you also get "checked" articles looking the same as "untagged" articles. What you need is a system that records, with a date, the last time a BLP was checked and passed as "OK". Then you get every BLP checked at least once, and then start again from the beginning. Remembering that many BLPs can be sent to AfD if they are non-notable people. Carcharoth (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, per DGG above. A severely misguided ideological quest to do policy-making by changing a template. Absolutely not. Nsk92 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose I think your heart is in the right place, but this may accidently cause more deletions of sourceable articles than going to AFD with them, where more eyes can at least catch and fix them. PRODs can add up fast in a very stealthy way. DGG's arguments sum it up best (particularly the WP:DEADLINE issues), so I won't rehash them. I would add that I think the problem isn't too many unsourced BLPs as much as it is too few people willing to take the time to search and source them. I don't know of a template that can fix that. PHARMBOY ^{(moo) (plop)} 23:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• These unsourced BLP's were created in the last hour or so, Jaime Gandara, Stephen paul miller, Cary Kaplan, Shane Battelle and Catriona macleod. The five listed are but a drop in the ocean of unsourced BLP's being created daily. Sure some might get prodded or sent to AfD, all should be templated for BLPsources. The point is, if the flow of unsourced BLP's isn't stopped somehow then the task of sourcing these articles becomes one that can never realistically be completed. RMHED (talk) 01:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Some of these articles cannot realistically be deleted at AfD because of WP:ATHLETE (professional athlete == notable). Just try if you doubt me. VG ☎ 02:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

RHMED, please calm down, "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit right now" - this means WIkipedia is always a work-in-progress. No article is ever done, we always count on new editors contributing. You for example can contribute by looking for sources, this is the real kind of contribution we need, people doing research, not just deleting. And certainly, we cannot delete an article that is compliant with policy. So what if the articles do not have sources yet? As long as we comply with the policy and ensure that no contentious content is not well-sourced, there is all the time in the world for editors to do the research bit by bit and add more sources for the uncontentious stuff you seem to care about. Honestly, I really encourage you to spend more time researching and improving articles now that it is clear that this proposal, however well-intentioned, is a dead issue. Let's all turn to productive activities. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Absolutely not Per DGG. per Celarnor. per Pharmboy. Effort should be made to source not to delete. I don't know RMHED's editing background, but sourcing some subjects can be damn hard. Ideally, and if this were Wikia instead of Wikipedia, no article would be created without adequate sourcing. I agree-- articles should be immediately sourced. If I got nothing else out of college, it was the need for sourcing anything I wrote. But this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. That means a greater number of our editors have no academic training than do. It is better to have an unsourced article that has been created in good faith than to have none in many instances. Many resources have been hidden behind pay walls. Many more are in remote libraries. The solution to the lack of sourcing is not deletion. It is sourcing!. This proposal falls flat on its face. Instead of wasting time dealing with these relentless BLP deletion efforts, we should be finding a way to systematically get at what resources there are. Trust me, they are there. I would suggest that article creators be urged to let us know where they got their information. Some people don't know how to properly cite a source. Others cannot be bothered. The first thing that should happen if an article is found without adequate sourcing is contacting its creator or main contributor. Not the placement of a deletion tag. And I don't mean some scary deletion boiler plate or bitey warning. If any editor cannot source, there should be someone to contact to take care of it. And no deadlines, please. I spent a lot of today rescuing and sourcing an article about an inherently notable subject that had been CSD tagged per BLP. In that amount of time, I could have deleted over 100 articles. It's probably a warn out AFD cliché that is far easier to delete than build articles. Well it's true. It takes a lot more time and effort to source an article than to lay on a deletion template-- or click the delete button. let's not make the process even easier. Dlohcierekim 04:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support in some form. There is no deadline for having articles either, so any article that is deleted can be recreated when sources are found. We should not let tens of thousands of unsourced biographies of living people exist (a very rough random search indicated that about 1 in 4 BLP's is unsourced, or some 75,000 articles), because someday someone will come along and source them, eventually, perhaps. The risk of keeping major problematical articles around is much bigger than the benefit of having this potentially correct but unsourced information. Articles can always be recreated: undoing the damage caused by false claims (the damage to the person involved, and the damage to the reputation of Wikipedia) is much harder to fix. I would change the deadline from 28 days to three months, but that is not the essence of this proposal. The essence is that we have to take our responsabilities much more serious: we are talking about living people, not some abstract entities. The people here who prefer sourcing over deleting shouldbe given some time to source the problem articles (hence three months), but if the problem is not solved by sourcing, it should be solved by deletion, not by waiting forever. Fram (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  All of your examples involve things that can't remain unsourced. Anything that could cause the "damage" you talk about would require sourcing. You're free to remove that right now per BLP. This is to deal with the multitudes of articles with statements like "Person X is an author born in 1972; their works include x,y, and z" that aren't yet sourced. Anything like "Person X received criticism when one of his books allegedly caused someone to commit suicide" naturally requires that it be sourced or be gone. These are entirely separate things, and the two of them should not be confused. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  I don't like the word "contentious". The first statement would be potentially harmful if Person X was actually born in 1979. But you won't know the statement is patently false until you research it, and if you find a source, the article should cite it, otherwise the statement should be removed, regardless of whether the subject is living. — CharlotteWebb 15:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per DGG and others. At first sight, I thought this was a good proposal, but on second thought, I don't think it is. If one sees an unsourced BLP, the correct thing to do is look for sources and add them. If nothing can be found, the BLP can be prodded with the existing prod tag (and explaining the rationale as usual). The only thing the proposed template would change is that editors would not feel obliged to look for sources themselves when prodding a BLP. --Crusio (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Tag everything? Maybe we are looking at the wrong end of the problem. (or maybe I'm crazy) I wouldn't be for a tag that says "this BLP has been looked at" after review, as that seems to endorse the content quality or accuracy. Is there a way to tag EVERY new or unsourced BLP with "This BLP has not had reviewed and may or may not be accurate."? This can be used with or without any of the SOURCE tags. Then it can be removed after any registered user (except the article creator) has looked at it and determined that there is no contentious material that isn't properly sourced. (There may still be some uncontentious material unsourced or primary sourced, but it should be minimal) I know this sounds like a lot of articles (it is) but it would at least let readers know the material should not be solely relied on as it hasn't been reviewed. It would allow (over time) the review of every BLP on Wikipedia, so it serves two purposes: lists what needs review, warns reader that it hasn't been reviewed. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC) (formally Pharmboy)
• oppose per Dugio and Crusio. If one finds such an article one should try to source it not delete it. If one finds an unsourced article that has actually problematic material then you know what to do. A general prod like this would be at best unproductive. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - What is this supposed to accomplish? So we delete thousands of non-controversial unsourced BLPs in the hope that we also hit all the controversial unsourced ones; all we're left with is a gaping hole in our coverage. No one is going to complain, or sue us, or be harmed by non-controversial content, unless its actually incorrect, but that's a different issue than simply unsourced. This is like trying to remove a brain tumor with a chainsaw. Sure its going to be faster and more likely to remove the whole thing, but the end result is worse than what we started with. Crusio has it exactly right, deletion should not always be the first option. Mr.Z-man 03:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I agree that the problem needs addressing but am concerned that a prod is too heavy handed. It would be easy to place a prod without informing the authors of the article (many BLPs are rarely edited) and have the article disappear in a month. The Afd process is a far better way of finding and adding sources to articles because it attracts a bunch of active editors who are eager to source and retain an article. --Regents Park (RegentsPark) 15:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I propose we end this discusion - there is a clear consensus against it. And we have many thoughtful comments. Only two people (me being one) support the proposal if it were modified; no one supports it as is. I think at this point there is enough feedback so that if someone felt strongly about this they could try to formulate a new proposal that addresses everyone's concerns. Until someone does that, I suggest we drop it and move in. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• agree with close. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 18:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
• Other BLP projects - could I point out to those who commented here that there are two BLP projects that could be usefully contributed to or re-invigorated? I mentioned them below, but people commenting up here might not have noticed. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLPWatch seems to be active (see Special:Contributions/BLPWatchBot), while Wikipedia:Living People Patrol doesn't seem to be active but has some good ideas and a list of people who could be contacted. Carcharoth (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There is also WP:BLPFD, if anyone cares. — CharlotteWebb 00:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Quick question

Could someone direct me to the page which ought to be under WP:BIOGRAPHY? Either that, or just tell me if there are any special rules which apply to bios of the dead? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, Wikipedia:BIOGRAPHY and Wikipedia:Biography are different... And anyway, the question stands, and of course I mean something like BLP, something besides the MOS on bios. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no consenus at this time for any special rules governing biographies of dead people. At this time, BLP strictures do not apply to anyone who is dead. Notability for both the living and the dead is governed by WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Amazing, thanks for the answer (: I just couldn't believe that was really so. I come across a lot of content on dead people which very much does not meet BLP, and have been leaving it alone because I don't have the sanction that BLP gives. I've been going through the NPOV disputes cat for BLPs. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a hatnote to direct people in the right direction in future if they get confused by those redirects. Not worth changing the WP:BIOGRAPHY one, as that is very old and has lots of links. The hatnote (there was one at WP:BIO already) should send people to the right place). As for dead people, well, BLP doesn't automatically apply, but it is less the rules that matter than common sense. If something is unsourced and contentious, you can still remove it per WP:V. No need to invoke BLP. It is material about living people that matters, no matter where it appears on Wikipedia (even in the article of a dead person). "Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis in original). Carcharoth (talk) 08:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Privacy of limited public figures

The current BLP policy classifies individual in two catgories: public and non-public figures. This is unsatisfactory in practice because recent debates surrounding such individuals have deadlocked. The dichotomy also doesn't reflect the US jurisprudence, which governs the English Wikipedia. A limited public figure is someone who thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Since this is an intermediate category between public and non-public, the Wikipedia privacy policy should reflect this fact, and allow only background information germane the controversies that the individual in question takes a public stance on, subject to the usual requirements on verifiability and reliable sources. I propose adding the following to the BLP policy.

“ Background information about limited public figures may be included in Wikipedia if the information is reproduced by third-party sources in connection with the individual's public statements or actions. ”

Thoughts? VG ☎ 10:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer something like

“ Background information about limited public figures may be included in Wikipedia only if the information is reproduced by third-party sources in direct connection with the individual's public statements or actions. ”

It's just that bit stronger. I think it important that info that is published simply in order to smear someone isn't included for limited public figures. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 11:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

=====================================
I don't know if this might sound naive or not:

“ Background information about limited public figures may be included in Wikipedia once the information is independently disseminated by at least two outside (of Wikipedia) nationally recognized media outlets (web, print, audio and video) and are deemed complimentary to the individual as a limited public figure. Nothing denigrating nor derogatory should be necessary to elucidate an article about anyone. ”

By restricting inclusions to complimentary information, we can prevent edit wars and disorder among contributors. With my version, we can avoid complaints about dragging a figure "through the mud," as has been happening with this most recent example (that we've been dealing with the past few weeks). --VictorC (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposing Victorcoutin's version. Censoring negative information just because it's negative would severely compromise Wikipedia's credibility. VG ☎ 12:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Vasile and disagree with Victor, in the strongest possible terms! --Orange Mike | Talk 23:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The concept of two outside outlets is almost meaningless. I would propose instead that we use some sort of legal standard. To that end I would suggest that we use the European standard of privacy, as many of the users and editors of WP are, in fact, subject to that law. This would have the advantage of making WP policies uniform in all BLPs instead of having multiple standards. http://www.brookings.edu/testimony/1998/0507technology_litan.aspx and http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PLPR/2003/55.html to indicate that is is not just true of Europe. Adopting such a sensible rule, in accord with an increasing body of criminal and civil law, would protect WP from legal action as well. This is, I trust, of substantial importance to WP, its admins and its foundation.

WP:LIBEL links to several articles, including http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1219/p02s01-usju.htm  : "Lawyers arrived.

"They came armed with a litigation strategy: If information published in the US could be accessed via the Internet in remote international locations, American publishers could be sued overseas for violations of foreign law. And the First Amendment, the crown jewel of the Bill of Rights and pillar of US press freedom, would not apply in such lawsuits.

"Last week, that litigation strategy became an international legal precedent after it was endorsed 7-0 by the High Court of Australia. The Australian court ruled that a Melbourne businessman is entitled to file a local libel lawsuit against Dow Jones, publisher of The Wall Street Journal and Barrons, as a result of information in an article that could be downloaded from Dow Jones's New Jersey web server."

In short, prudence and law coincide. Just because you can "find" information does not mean that you can publish it under law. I suggest this alone is sufficient to establish new WP policy for BLP. Collect (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Fortunately, we are hosted within the confines of a different jurisdiction. The complete lack of Wikimedia's presence in some other country makes it meaningless to do what you describe. The current incarnation of Muhammed makes Wikimedia criminally liable under Sharia law in many countries with high concentration of Muslims, where it is a criminal act to depict the prophet; does it make sense to sacrifice information and content for the sake of such laws that don't apply to our own servers?

That article also says "In November 1986, Saddam Hussein and the Revolutionary Command Council of Iraq authorized life in prison for anyone who "publicly insults" the Iraqi president. In cases where the insult is deemed "flagrant," the penalty is death.". Are you saying that you'll be executed by the authorities here in the states for publishing inflammatory material on a blog about that particular dictator? It doesn't work that way; unless they can find a compatible statute on their own books, other countries won't even extradite you, let alone do your work for you.

I don't think so. The only laws that matter are those of California, where Wikimedia's charter resides, and those of Florida, where its servers are colocated. If someone wants to file a suit under some statute that applies only in a subset of countries not including this one, then they can go right ahead; it doesn't really matter anyway. If they had something strong enough, then they'd file a local suit in the US, which would quickly get thrown out unless it actually had merit. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's not as simple as your stipulated concept of two outside outlets, please note - nationally recognized media outlets, that's what my version refers to. Perhaps that's all you were trying to say. In addition, Wikipedia itself, isn't it subject to the privacy laws of the state of Florida? The company is based in California, but aren't the servers based in Florida? If we are going to start needing to cite privacy laws here, we are going to need a lawyer. I am not qualified to make decisions at this level. I don't know Floridan privacy law. I don't know European privacy law. I don't know Chinese privacy law. Additionally, if we are going by foreign privacy laws, shouldn't we be going by the most restrictive laws in the world then? Should we search for a country that has the most restrictive laws? Perhaps Singapore or Communist China? --VictorC (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Wikimedia has no assets in those countries. There's nothing they can do. Even in a criminal case, someone (not sure who; it would depend on how Wikimedia is organized, something I'm not particularly knowledgeable of) would be extradited if and only if there was a compatible law on the books here, but that simply isn't the case in US. Everything relevant to this discussion is a civil matter under US law, so thats a moot point. The Safe Harbor laws that are mentioned are useful to multinational corporations with assets in both the EU and the US. We don't exist in the EU. It doesn't matter. Why would we go by someone else's standard of privacy? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Granted. But we aren't lawyers, we don't know the law. If we try to be lawyers we're being silly, and it would be pointless. I refuse to try to pretend I know the law. All we can do is try our best to come together and work out something acceptable. --VictorC (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• As incredible as it is, some of us actually do have experience in law, and I assure you, what Collect is putting forth makes zero sense. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually WP has a real nexus in many countries (not any with Sharia law, just to assuage that fear). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation which appears to claim that having offices in foreign countries does not give foreign law any effect as the foreign offices have no authority over WP articles. The Australia case mentioned above did not require that DJ have a server in Australia, and, indeed, the case presumed the article came from a NJ server. Also the Australia case was a civil one. Thus, in Australia, unless WP has another argument other than nexus, the precedent is clear. I submit that where the legal trends are clear (Sharia straw argument notwithstanding) that WP ought reasonably adopt such standards. I would also point out that individual editors are also bound by the laws where they live -- thus a UK editor could easily be sued under UK law regardless of the fiction that the material resides in California (againm see the Australia case). Or WP can take its chances. A few million dollars would actually end it entirely. Collect (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. Even though the Foundation's counsel has already made it quite clear, I just wanted to make sure that you understand, since its fairly obvious from your comments here and below that you don't. What individual editors do is their own business; continuing the more extreme example of above, regardless of Wikipedia policy, you can't blaspheme Muhammed. You can't legally criticize Communist Party leadership in China without suffering legal repercussions, although you could certainly do so here on Wikipedia. Its an editors own responsibility to not be stupid and be aware of the relevant statues in their own countries. Even if they aren't, to get a subpoena for an editor's information, there has to be a compatible statute in the jurisdiction the subpoena is being issued in (i.e, Florida/California), or it won't be issued. Hell, the UK administration shouldn't even have a method of knowing that some material originated from within their borders. So, yeah, theoretically, a UK editor could be sued under UK law regardless of the location of the final product, but I wish them good luck meeting the burden of proof without the cooperation of the Foundation in finding out who the editor is. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

←This discussion seems to have moved firmly into legal territory: the question is how we make sure the BLP policy protects the project and the foundation from legal assault. Since (as has already been said) none of us are lawyers, I think we need to stop thrashing around in the dark, and ask the foundation's legal counsel. I've sent him an email asking him to look at this. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: Mike Godwin replied to my email. His response is below. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

“ The Foundation's official position is that we are subject to American law, including the state and Constitutional law doctrines governing defamation in the United States. The Foundation would oppose any BLP policy that recognized and attempted to adapt to the defamation laws of any other jurisdiction.

We are of course aware that some individuals may attempt to sue is in a foreign jurisdiction and attempt to enforce such a judgment in the United States. We have prepared for that possibility.

Under no circumstances should the BLP policy be altered as a reaction to perceptions of the risk of defamation liability in non-U.S. jurisdictions.

”

This line is here to clarify that the next quote is not from Mike Godwin (only previous one is). VG ☎ 19:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• =====================================
  Collect, you have not presented a version. Please put "your money where your mouth is" or I'll have to start wondering what you're doing in this section. I have a revision (NOT ACCORDING TO AUSTRALIAN LAW NOR BRITISH LAW. I AM NO LAWYER):

“ Background information referring to limited public figures added to Wikipedia must be verifiable. Collaboration is required in an adjacent comment for each entry (or deletion) by at least one other editor. At least two current, nationally recognized, independent, citations verifying the information are necessary. These must be media outlets such as web, print, audio and video which are verifiable and kept up to date. If the information is not deemed complimentary to the individual it must be impartially presented in as clinical a manner as possible. Nothing denigrating nor derogatory is desirable to clarify an article about anyone. ”

By restricting inclusions to clinically, impartially presenting information, we can discourage edit wars and disorder among contributors. The requirement for collaboration will prevent reverts and restores to a great extent. --VictorC (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I like VG's original version. Stifle (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I strongly endorse Theresa Knott's version of the proposed policy. It is very specific, strong, comprehendable, and adds a seriously needed dimension to BLP. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
  • After Careful consideration, I agree fully with Arthur Rubin. Master&Expert (Talk) 21:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I also like the expansion of the BLP policy into three categories of living persons as suggested by VG. A form of triage, as it were, as it provides for limited public figures rather than the all or nothing pigeonholes currently available. And Theresa's addition of the word direct in modifying connection seems more in line with the spirit of BLP. — Becksguy (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral/Ok with the SQ I guess I can't get too fired up about NPF as it is. I agree NPF is far too strong a provision for most biographies, but I'm not sure that classification into divisions is ultimately worth the trouble. I can waffle on LPF just as much as I can on NPF--did Joe the Plumber intend to thrust himself on the public scene to influence events or did he just ask a question outside his home to a presidential candidate? How do we determine that he thrust himself on to the public scene? Anyways, changing BLP to add this little provision will also face a lot of resistance. I'm not saying "it will be hard so don't try", but I am saying that we should work these smaller kinks out before bringing this to a wider audience. Protonk (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support the concept, but approach is seriously flawed - the proposal here is is directed to limiting the WP:WELLKNOWN exception to BLP, not to carving out a new class of exceptions or to broadening BLP in the first place. In theory the threshold for including any material in any article is that it is notable (using that term in the informal sense, not WP:N sense, to mean worthy of inclusion in the article - a standard nobody has agreed on but roughly, relevant to the notability of the subject of the article). So yes, anything about anything should be sourced to reliable sources as relevant to the subject of the article. However, we often include various biographical details about people - where they are born, who their parents are, their nationality, a quote by them, their interactions with people and events, and so on, and do not to a great deal of analysis. The encyclopedia is full of neutral, uncontroversial details about people, either in articles about the people themselves or as random details in non-BLP articles. If the material sits unchallenged for being poorly sourced, scandalous, derogatory, opinion, etc., there is no reason to remove it. The real issue here is information that would violate BLP but for WP:WELLKNOWN - scandals, controversies, allegations, untried cases, acquittals, investigations, suppositions, bad reputations, involvement in disputes, pejorative opinions, name-calling, guilt by association, prurient or embarrassing personal details. The original proposal is the closest to being acceptable, but teasing it apart there are three problems. First, it applies to material that would otherwise be prohibited by BLP, not all "background information". Second, the question is not third party sourcing - it is not sourcing at all. It does not matter how reliable the sourcing is - some information is just not allowable unless there's an exception to BLP. Finally, "public statements or actions" is too limited of a way in which people become limited public figures. In this way our concept of WELLKNOWN is a bit different than the legal standard (the standard itself is quite complex and evolving, and it would be hard to import the concept directly into Wikipedia). I would simply say "notability" rather than public statements or actions. Other attempts to create new procedures (2 reliable sources) or new standards for reliability suffer from WP:CREEP and will create uncertain results - if you introduce new, untested language into a major policy and try to interpret it across the project you might get unexpected and unfortunate results.Wikidemon (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to turn BLP into a more damageing weapon than it already is. The second suggest leaves way to much room for rule lawyering.Geni 18:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• I think VG's statement is the best formulated which would improve Wikipedia.

The modification that the material must be complimentary is completely unacceptable; WP:UNDUE would then clearly require that all such material be excluded, even more so than the current standard for non-public figures. If the modification were that the material be non-controversial, that would place it near the current standards for non-public figures, but still more strict, which seems counter-productive.

Theresa's version seems too subject to Wikilawyering; does the third party source have to actually make the connection, or is it obvious from their placement of the information; or do they state the connection is obvious, without stating they believe it to be true? Too many problems, although clarification is possible.

The requirement that it be in more than one secondary source is interesting, as we can never be sure who used background information from another source. I'd lean against that, but certainly would want enforcement of that requirement to be suspended for at least a week for new information, and a month for old information, after notification on the article, article talk page, relevant Wikiprojects, BLPN, and to the people responsible for adding the material (if such can be determined). I mean, it's a new requirement, and additional secondary sources would normally be removed if they essentially say the same thing. VictorC is attempting to clarify his statements, but (aside from the unacceptable ban on "denigrating nor derogatory"), the new "clarification" is clearly not verifiable. Requiring comments? I don't think that's ever been done before.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

VG's version looks the most sensible at this point with Theresa's version as second preference. Deliberate removal of well-sourced information simply because it is negative is not an acceptable option. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to go with VG's version, with the caveat that in many cases, controversy or issues from someone's past do become connected with their present actions, even if there is no clear link between the two (when one becomes public, one's past is often examined). The main necessity is verifiability from high quality sources, if they've chosen to make information public, we do nothing wrong in citing them. I don't think more than one source should be a requirement, especially if the source in question is of very good quality, but it's of course never a bad idea. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

My concern is that people do not tend to interpret BLP prohibitions narrowly. Many people treat it as expansively as possible as an ironclad rule. This is a little rough, but to frame this properly as a contour of WP:WELLKNOWN how about adding a new paragraph to that section, just below the two examples:

“ In the case of limited public figures, such material should only be included if it is relevant to the notability of the article's subject or to the actions or statements that made the person a limited public figure. Otherwise the material is subject to the stricter limitations described in other sections. ”

The post above was made by User:Wikidemon. VG ☎ 22:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Mike Godwin made the following comment (by email to me, posted here with his permission): "I don't have a strong preference for your limited-purpose public-figure provision as against Theresa's -- either seems fine to me." VG ☎ 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I'm quite familiar with how out of control BLP has gotten. To be clear, I don't support any expansion of it beyond that negative or potentially controversial information regarding a living person must be drawn from a high-quality, reliable source, and must not be given undue weight. Anything beyond that, where the information is well-sourced and verifiable, is a content dispute and should not be handled with the sledgehammer that BLP is, but rather through normal editing and if necessary dispute resolution. So realistically, I support saying "Use decent sources." If reliable sources have decided that some information about a person is relevant, there is no privacy issue—information published in reliable sources is by definition not private. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking admittedly as someone relatively new to this discussion, I can't see what's being added here. I can see the distinction between a NPF and a LPF, but I can't see the difference between the sense of VG's or Theresa's proposed text, and what the WP:NPF section of the policy already says. Have I missed something? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 23:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Under Theresa's wording the connection to the material would need to be closer. In particular, I suspect that the intended distinction is whether Joe the Plumber's tax lien would be close enough to be included. Under VG's wording the answer is yes. Under Theresa's wording the answer is arguably no. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading your response, I've realised my last posting wasn't clear. I wasn't talking about the difference between VG's and Theresa's versions. It's the difference between either of them, and what we already say in the WP:NPF section of the policy. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 01:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

My version (having been asked to provide one) "WP, recognizing the reasonable right of personal privacy under United States law, recommends that in any Biography of a Living Person that any information which is considered defamatory of that person by two or more editors must be readily available from a primary source which has no restrictions on its use, also be available from at least two completely unrelated secondary sources, must be directly relevant to the notability of that person, and shall not be entered into the BLP without specific consensus by the editors working on the article." (abbreviations and acronyms to be filled out as needed) Thus placing inclusion as something requiring consensus, and requiring that any records must be fully public under the law of the place where the records are found. Seems fairly clear? (it took a little time) (I trust this answers what I am doing in this section) Collect (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Clear yes. Good idea not at all. The primary source availibility requirement. This means that any record which is leaked to the press even if it is reported in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and a hundred other reliable secondary sources we'd be unable to stick it in. And that's just for starters. Godwin made clear above we don't need and shouldn't have anything like this. Enough already. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I avoid any use of any foreign law as an argument. And, yes, I feel that material "leaked" to the press is not something which belongs in a BLP, f'rinstance the identity of the "Olympic Bomber" where the newspapers and broadcasters had to pay quite large settlements to Mr. Jewell. By your standards, he would immediately had a BLP id-ing him as a bomber. If we believe the material is not lawfully obtained, it is reasonable for us to wait a bit. We are not a newspaper, are we? Another example. Autopsy photos of Dale Earnhardt were printed. They came from Florida records, and so did not have a presumption of copyright. Ouhgt they be permittedd here even though they were not legally obtained, on the grounds they are, technically, public records? We will harm no article by this, and will harm fewer people. Collect (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For your first example, we have words in the English language that can be used to describe someone who is suspected of a crime but not yet convicted of the same. Moreover, we can and do use them. For your second example, we have standards for images, one of which being that it improves the article in some way. I find it difficult to believe that there would ever be consensus that autopsy photographs improve an article in any meaningful way. This isn't necessary. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I can give more examples -- making your points joyfully moot. What is clear, moreover, is that the Crookes case is highly important to Wikimedia Foundation, and it is likely part of the General Counsel's reasoning. Also the use of an "approval system" under test also makes it problematic as to whether Wikimedia can endorse any solid BLP rules, as they would certainly be used in court cases. A little research shows precisely why this entire discussion is likely very touchy at this point. At least this won;t get to someone mentioning Hitler <g>. I still feel it is better to err in favor of privacy than to err against it. Collect (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean Crookes V. Simone? That's a terrible example on your part. It was dismissed because Yahoo wasn't registered to do business in Canada, and as such, there was no jurisdiction for them, and because of the statute incomparability, the suit couldn't be carried in the US. It's a wonderful illustration of how your examples would actually turn out, but I don't see what that has anything to do with anything from where you're standing. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Crookes v. Yahoo was dismissed on the grounds that no one proved a person in BC read the material -- not because Yahoo was not registered in Canada. I went back to the court decision. The court did not rule on "statute incompatibility." Sorry 'bout that. Collect (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

They didn't need to rule on the compatibility of extra-jurisdictional law, since no one made a motion for the review thereof; it isn't the job of the court to go find out if a suit can be made somewhere else. You seriously don't expect a court to do the job of counsel, do you ("Sorry, it appears you can't try this case here! However, upon review, Defendant is registered to do business in California (US), New Mexico (US), and New York (US); further review of the statutes thereof reveals that your best chance is to try this case in New Mexico! Good luck")? There were a lot of reasons that the case was dismissed; they noted they probably didn't have jurisdiction, that the 'real and substantial connection' test hadn't been met in proving that widespread defamation had occured within their jurisdiction, and a few other things that aren't really relevant to this discussion. All in all, its a poor example for pretty much everything. It was a mess of a case. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And, again, for what its worth, we don't need to ensure that the records are public under copyright law in another jurisdiction. We don't have (meaningful) assets anywhere, and unless there's a compatible statute on the books locally, they can't bring suit locally, as I've said several times. So, no, we don't need to ensure the public-domain nature of something in some other country. Even in some warped world where we did, we'd have to do it for EVERYTHING, not just for BLPs, since copyright law isn't BLP-exclusive. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Supra. Current court cases may well determine otherwise. And current tests by WF may change the legal state of affairs. Collect (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

That's always the case. Fortunately for...pretty much everyone...there is no retroactive punishment or ex post facto law. If something happens that changes the climate with regards to this, then we can adapt to it without suffering for operating under previous policies while precedent was different. There's no point in trying to anticipate those changes and constantly re-aligning our policies before we need to. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Ex post facto" has zilch to do with this. The question here is civil law, not constitutional limits on criminal law. The only real reason to do nothing is because several issues are already in litigation. Collect (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in continuing this discussion, at least until you gain a basic understanding of the ins and outs of the US legal system; retroactive liability has everything to do with this; or, to be more precise, your arguments only hold validity in an environment where civil suits are allowed to take place retroactively; that is, you do x, x becomes actionable in civil court three months later, and someone sues you for your earlier practices of x. For obvious reasons, this isn't allowed in the US. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, there is no Western legal system anywhere where this happens (with the notable exception of a few environmental laws, where companies are held retroactively liable for toxic waste dumps). "No ex post facto laws" doesn't just apply to Congress; its a principle that holds true in tort law as well. Precedent only holds true for suits after the fact. Its a fairly simple concept, really; how are you supposed to know that something is going to be actionable at some future date? The idea that people should be held accountable in the past under current precedent is simply ridiculous.

All we can do is keep ourselves aligned to the current climate. If the current climate changes, then fine. We can adapt then. But since there's no such thing as retroactive liability in this field, so we shouldn't waste all kinds of time dealing with every possible outcome of every possible court case. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your assumptions as to what I know or don't know are an invalid form of argument. The civil action for invasion of privacy already exists in law. Thus changes in how courts treat those actions is not "ex post facto" in any sense of the legal term. As court decisions are made, claims about what is, or is not, actionable changes -- but the underlying laws do not change. Unless, of course, you think that evolving court decisions make something "ex post facto"? And curiously enough, precedent for civil matters does not only hold true for civil matters initiated after the court actions cited -- precendent is for civil actions tried after the court decision cited. All this is moot as WF has interests in current actions. Collect (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, you need to review the concept of retroactive liability. As court decisions are made, precedence changes. Definitions, standards and burdens change with precedent. The climate changes. Tort law changes. New legislatures get elected, the civil code of a given state changes. One of the central tenets of any legal system is that you can't make (most) things retroactively actionable. If what you're trying to get at is "Invasion of privacy is already actionable", certainly, yes; however, you're mistaken if you think that as the details thereof and other things that change with precedent aren't immensely important elements of that don't enjoy the same kind of treatment, even if it isn't hard-coded into federal documents. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. I think this policy will not resolve the struggle over what is, and what is not, relevant to a public figure or a limited public figure. When a person has become a public figure or limited public figure or icon or meme, a wide range of biographical information about that person becomes relevant. It is the only way that the individual's actual self can be compared and contrasted with their public self. What weight to give the information when considering the veracity or authenticity of the individual should be left up to the reader — but the information itself, particularly when already widely reported and/or a matter of public record — needs to be there. I disagree with Victor's "complimentary only" bowdlerization of people's lives, but I also disagree with Vasile's proposed language. It seems to present more points of contention:

• "and allow only background information germane [to] the controversies..." allows people to squabble over what is germane, see the tax lien issue re Joe the Plumber
• "reproduced by third-party sources in connection with the individual's public statements or actions..." allows for the same squabbling; is something "in connection," or is it not? If published in a third-party source, the information is presumably notable in connection with the individual's celebrity, if nothing else — whatever the original impetus for their appearance in the public eye, no matter how much their prominence was initially time- or issue-limited.

I sincerely appreciate Vasile's attempt to resolve this, but don't think the language proposed is the way to go. Material must already have decent sources to appear at all, and "in connection with..." can't conclusively resolve disputes; "connection" is in the eye of the beholder. Thank you, Vasile, for taking this on, and for giving me notice. (I also disagree with Collect, whose proposed sourcing policy is too extreme to be practicable, as JoshuaZ said.) Finally, truth is a defense in all actions for libel and defamation; the possibility of embarrassment should not prevent Wiki from being truly encyclopedic. -- LisaSmall ^T/C 08:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. I really don't think we need to make BLP more of a damaging weapon than it already is. If someone is border-line notable, then the only thing we can do is determine whether or not to keep an article on them via consensus on a case by case basis. Its far too subjective to allow any kind of standards like this to become policy, and will only lead to more problems. We're an encyclopedia, not a PR outlet. It isn't libel if its true; we shouldn't let negativity be any more damning to a BLP than it already is. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 13:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC

"Unlike libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy" http://www.cvc.sunysb.edu/334/ethics/Privacy.html And, IIRC, the issue is "Privacy", no? Collect (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We already have policies for that. Its called "coverage in reliable third-party sources". Its why we don't cite someone's tax records in their biography unless there's already coverage of it. Do you have an example of a case where that wasn't sufficient? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Celarnor cites a point all too often forgotten in the "privacy" discussions: If we have good, reliable, published sources for a piece of information, that piece of information cannot, by definition, be private. It is, at that point, rightly or wrongly, for better or for worse, public knowledge. To speak of information published in reliable third-party sources widely available to the public as being "private" beggars belief, yet I see it happen all the time.

Of course, if we don't have good solid sourcing for a given piece of information, we're dealing either with something unverifiable or the product of original research, and can get rid of it regardless. Given this, there is no need for the "privacy" sections. Information which is genuinely private, that being, not published, is already prohibited. Information which is not private, that being, has already been published in reliable sources, does not need to be prohibited. We are not "invading privacy" by publishing already-published, already-public information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

IOW, had WP been around for the Jewell case, the "widely published information" which was later found libellous would have been fine here? Seems odd -- since WP practice has been to completely delete any articles where real libel might be found. Collect (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I imagine we would have removed it once it was found to be libelous, then covered the libel case. What's wrong with that? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, one would hope we would follow the same standards that any responsible publication would, in referring to alleged crimes and suspects in crimes where there has not been a conviction. Once it became clear that the allegations were false and the suspicion groundless, we would have quickly updated the article with that information (and, indeed, the Richard Jewell article does indeed detail the now-discredited allegations to provide context). It's not libelous to state that someone is suspected of a crime when they really are a suspect, that is, at that point, fact. Stating that someone committed a crime when they are only a suspect, on the other hand, is unethical, but one would hope we would avoid that in all cases. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The papers had to pay. That is what counts. Collect (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Negative, everyone but Cox Enterprises settled out of court; that suit is still pending. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that "settled out of court" meant they paid. YMMV. Collect (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"The papers had to pay" implies that punitive damages were awarded by the court against the media groups involved in those cases. That wasn't true; they settled out of court and chose to pay. There's an important difference between the court saying "Yeah, you screwed up; pay money" and the defendant saying "Yeah, we screwed up; here's some money". Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Celarnor, you miss the point of settling out of court. A more accurate summary would be "We don't admit anything, but we'll give you some money if you piss off." Generally, the whole point in settling is to avoid admitting fault. (IANAL) --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a variety of reasons that a defendant in media would take that route; sometimes, it's purely financial (typically, the general counsel will look at the normal punitive damages awarded in similar cases and try to settle for 60% of that, then move upward until they hit the limit); other times, it could just be them looking out for their images. In those cases, defendants often pay upward of the traditional damages for similar cases; those are the kind that you mention, but are hardly the "point" of settlement. There are also settlements where the defendant would rather end the case at any cost than have a dangerous precedent on the books that could damage their practices in the future; that kind of settlement typically isn't seen in the media industry and is more common in patent suits, but its still out there; the "point" isn't exactly what you describe. The "point" is to maximize benefit and minimize loss if they can, which is extremely subjective. Everyone has different definitions of benefit and loss. The important thing to note here relevant to this discussion is that the Jewell cases haven't (yet; there's still one pending) to set any precedents regarding the dissemination of widely published materials, which is the point that Collect seemed to be making. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

←I asked a question a bit back, which no-one's answered. I think it's important, so I'm asking it again:

Several different versions have been proposed for a new limited public figure section of the policy. Can anyone tell me what any of them add, that the non-public figures section doesn't say already? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposals extend the strong wording of what's already in NPF to limited public figures as well; information included would then be strictly limited to things relevant to their notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, would simply changing that section's title do the job? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) WP:NPF has this clause "... exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability." This is a narrower filter than my proposal for LPFs, which would allow background material already reported by third-part sources even if its not directly relevant to the claims for notability, but only related to some actions or statements they've made, as reported by the sources. Hugh is right in that Theresa Knott's version is less distinguishable from WP:NPF, since we'd have to judge whether the connection was direct or not by ourselves. That would mandate a dose of WP:OR in such articles because Wikipeida editors would be forced by policy to select only certain parts of third-party reports. Frankly WP:NPF is somewhat problematic as it stands because notability is sometimes established simply by looking at the extent of coverage (WP:GNG) rather than Wikipedia editors deciding what are the notable traits/actions/statements. There are some SNGs, e.g. WP:PROF or WP:MUSIC, where certain actions, e.g. winning an award, bestow notability, so WP:NPF is applicable in that context, but often what is relevant to the subject's notability is not easy to decide, and even less so for limited public figures, which may be involved in more than one event (multiple interviews etc.) E.g. is JtP famous because of the question he asked Obama, or because McCain decided to use him as a meme? The opinions of Wikipedians on this issue are obviously divided (prime example of WP:OR), and due to WP:NPF this led to edit warring over what content from WP:RS reports is allowable in the article. A similar problem are the mental health problems of Ashley Todd (currently excluded from the Wikipedia article); no direct connection was made between her mental health problems and her arrest, but multiple sources reported them in connection with her arrest. My proposal is trying to avoid this kind of debate in the future: if some source, while reporting about something a LPF did or said, decided that some aspect of his/her background is relevant, we could simply include it in the Wikipedia and attribute it to the source, assuming the source passes the WP:RS test, and that no WP:UNDUE weight is given to trivia. But centering the discussion around what makes LPFs notable (as the WP:NPF requires) seems to lead to endless debates and edit warring, which my proposal is trying to avoid. VG ☎ 15:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. So how is your proposal different from what we already say about public-figure BLPs? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion which may actually work.

A "Limited Public Figure" is someone who is known for one event or a restricted series of events who is not otherwise notable, and whose curriculum vitae would not otherwise suggest notability. Information posted in articles about such people should be restricted to material of nearly undisputed relevancy to the event or events, and shall not include material about which there is substantial dispute as to relevancy. Collect (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what WP:NPF already says? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How about we keep WP:BLP far, far away from information that is publicly available and can be reliably sourced, and treat disputes over such information as what it is—a content dispute resolvable through normal processes? If there's a dispute over "X is (not) relevant to this article", let's have a discussion, and if necessary dispute resolution. We don't need to hand a sledgehammer to one side. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting for the U.S. election to be over before resuming this discussion. None of the editors that were pro-privacy here have made any pro-privacy edits to Zeituni Onyango, but a few are very busy arguing for the removal of all news references vis-à-vis "death to Israel" embarrassment for Joe the Plumber. I hope to resume a serious discussion of this policy issue with editors that actually care about improving Wikipedia rather that just winning a wiki-battle so they can spin some article to their POV. Also, Newyorkbrad expressed his intention to comment on the BLP in the near future (see his talk page). VG ☎ 10:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that particular issue what prompted this whole discussion? I thought it was just a hypothetical/proposal/whatever. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

← We don't have a guideline for LPPFs, and I really thought (and still think) that we need one. It just happened that JtP was the article that made the problem painfully obvious: protracted edit war with two equally divided camps, full page protection, endless discussion on the talk page, etc. I was a bit naive to think that a policy discussion could succeed in this heated environment, especially since I've notified practically everyone involved. The positions taken by participants above closely follow their position on JtP's tax lien (the majority of them expressed one). If I were to draw some conclusions:

• there's a majority but no consensus that a guideline for LPPFs is needed
• there's no majority position on what the guideline should be
• the Foundation cautioned in strong terms against basing the BLP policy on non-US legislation.

Let's hope some progress will become possible in the future, especially since a majority of editors agreed that a clarification would be beneficial. VG ☎ 18:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Support concept of "expansion of the BLP policy into three categories of living persons...provides for limited public figures." I'm in the middle of such a dispute where there are growing number of WP:RS news articles documenting that a high profile person's father's controversial past is relevant to his current job and politics. But partisans who don't want to see either person embarrassed - or the info spread more widely through media that consult wikipedia - keep reverting any mention of it on new "policy" grounds every time. I keep piling up the WP:RS before seeking third opinions, mediation or whatever. But it would help to make it clear that embarrassing info about limited public persons can't be kept out if relevant to the person who is helping make them famous. This also would be relevant to the fact that the father's long-standing wikipedia page was recently deleted twice, even though he's now getting a lot more publicity than before! (Which is now being buzzed about on various blogs as evidence that wikipedia is a biased source that suppresses info.) There are lots of such cases, I'm sure, where limited public figures end up having an important role. Carol Moore 21:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

A note on marital status

The wording of this note is very poor. It seems to be missing an "if" or "when." I am also concerned about the inclusion of "intention to marry" in this blanket statement. It seems to me there should be some requirement for current notability. If Jane was briefly engaged to Joe 30 years ago and she now become notorious for some ill deed, it's not clear to me why Joes' name belongs in the article. --agr (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the following potentially libelous

here's a situation I'm wondering about.

Person A publishes an article in which they quote a statement from Person B, the negative statement is about a conversation Person B had with Person C. The statement made by person B can be construed negatively about Person C. We know that Person A's publisher contacted Person B to ensure that Person B said what they said. We also know that they did not contact Person C to verify their side of the conversation.

Is the statement from Person B appropriate in an article about Person C or does it violate the living people policies?

My thought is that possibly not, since Person C is living, the statement is negative and possibly damaging and we know that the publisher did not contact Person C to verify that the conversation between them and Person B took place.

Thanks.

This is a sourced statement of Person B's opinion of Person C. Whether it is reliably sourced depends on the reputation of Person A's publisher; are we talking about some blog? Weekly World News? If not, we should not second-guess A's publisher's judgment; but if C denies that B said it, that's relevant commentary.

The real question is: would we include B's opinion of C, if he had published it through the most reliable source in the world? Lots of people have opinions on Bush; but we keep most of them out of his article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't speaking of opinion. Here's a more appropriate analogy. In an article, Mary claims that she told her boss John that Robert (a coworker) had sexually harassed her and that John did nothing about it. The article does not mention any response from John, nor mention that the author contacted John to ensure that the conversation took place. Is this appropriate for an article about John? My thinking would be only if the author of the article mentions that they contacted John to verify the conversation. It's slightly different than the case of one person stating their opinion about another.TheRingess (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are advocating that we ignore what Mary is reliably reported to have said, on the basis of an argument from silence. This is suppressing a POV on the basis of original research - or rather original speculation - about what a reporter did not do. For all we know, John was on vacation - or growled "No comment" and hung up.

There may well be other reasons not to include the statement: neutrality, irrelevance, WP:FRINGE (if Mary claims Robert showed her he was a Martian, say), but this is not one.

If we do include it, we must make clear that it is Mary's position, of course. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Category

BLP says: Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met:

• The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;

I want to know what self-identifying means. If I am give interviews in which I talk about my relationships with men and women, is that enough to allow identification as bisexual? Or does the word have to be used? If I, a woman novelist, say "All my relationships have been with women", without using the l-word, can the category "lesbian writers" be applied? In short: do I have to use the very word or is enough to have identified my orientation publicly? JenAW (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Complex question. In sexuality, it's quite common that a person will have specific types of relationship, but may or may not identify with the matching label. Thus there are men who have sex with men, but do not "identify" as gay or bi -- in fact they may very strongly reject that label. There are people who have one partner or even none, and yet identify as polyamorous (inclined to multiple long term parallel relationships). There are myriad teenagers who have had no partners or intimate relationships at all, and yet will readily identify with a sexuality they have never physically explored - straight, gay, whatever. So it cannot be assumed a person "identifies as X" because they have had a relationship of the expected type (or vice versa). It's possible, and in some cases likely, but be aware it's not necessarily so, and some people will reject the presumption - very strongly, and as being grossly mistaken. Even a woman who says she only has relationships with other women, may feel offended at being categorized as a lesbian in some cases, even if that is in fact a neutral description of her relational orientation.

Where that leaves us is, be cautious, and be prepared to check and not assume. As with many encyclopedic matters, we're a bit caught between what's verifiably so, and what people subjectively feel. Do we go by what the subject says, what reliable sources say, or by whether a dictionary definition is met? Tricky call. Generally the more evidence there is that this is a genuine lifestyle choice, the more likely the label will be sensible; if it's not, then it may not be.

One major trap to avoid in this area: "ownership" issues, whereby (for example) a bi activist might look for anyone who's had one partner at least of each gender and feels that "makes them" bi (the same can happen for any issue - sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, even clothing .....). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

BLP and foreign privacy standards

Over the weekend, an issue came up in the article for Serious (TV series) regarding publication of minors' last name. In that case, it was clear that the privacy of their names should be honored under BLP and WP:V; the British standards for publication were not an issue in that discussion, other than them being the first matter brought up in the discussion.

An item was just posted at WP:BLP/N about the Richardson family murders. In that case, the name of a minor was published, but subsequent publication ceased in the Canadian press after she was charged, in accordance with Canada's Youth Criminal Justice Act. This one is murkier: sources are still available that show her name in its original, pre-charges context. [9] However, inclusion in the Wikipedia article is after the fact of the charges.

I didn't find anything in BLP that immediately addressed this issue. Is there general guidance for these types of issues, or does this need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the circumstances and types of verifiable sources? —C.Fred (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you asking as a matter of law, or of decency? If the first, you should ask the Foundation's lawyer; but I doubt we are subject to Canadian law. If this is a decency question, what is the case to omit? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the foreign law is, in and of itself, sufficient reason to omit information. However, I do think it's the kind of thing where we stop and think "okay, here's a liberal democracy with constitutionally-protected freedom of speech saying, that in the interests of decency towards a living person, something cannot legally be published. That sounds like pretty strong evidence that we shouldn't, from a human decency standpoint, publish it either." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is governed by US and Florida law - so privacy laws in other jurisdictions do not apply to wikipedia (although they may theoretically apply to users editing in those jurisdictions). So, this is not a legal issue, but rather a matter of how we apply our "do no harm" principle. A blanket rule that said "we will always respect foreign privacy laws" would be no good: Iranian Law might prevent publishing details about financial scandals concerning Iranian politicians - we would hardly wish to bind ourselves, would we? I'd suggest the following rule of thumb:

Whilst Wikipedia is legally limited only by the laws of Florida and the United States of America, given that Wikipedia is "published" globally, thought should always be given to privacy laws in other jurisdictions, where the effect of ignoring such laws may do harm to living persons. a) Whilst Wikipedia does not wish to self-censor information otherwise widely available, there should be a presumption that we would respect legal principles designed to protect minors, victims and other vulnerable people. b) In other cases, it will be necessary to weigh the importance of the information to the reader's understanding of the subject against any possible harm to the subject.

The second clause means that we DO include information about the pending fraud case against a French politician, regardless of French law, whilst if the detail excluded is basically trivial (a date of birth, an address) we should probably not publish.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Privacy of limited public figures" supra contains some salient discussion. Collect (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If a minor's name has not been widely distributed and it does not add much to the article we don't need to include it (I'm personally divided on whether we should given WP:NOTCENSOR ) but if a name has been widely reported then there's really no good argument to not put the name here. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's worth noting that any proper article on this topic violates Canadian rules. Canadian newspapers can cover the story, only because they divide the facts into separate articles. Some articles report who the victims are, but conceal the girl is their daughter, and don't give any clue of motive (implying a stranger killing). Some mention the girl being a daughter of the victims, but give no clue who the victims are (preventing a full discussion of the victims' background). I'm fine with removal of the girl's first name and picture, but let's all be clear here: this article is not and should not conform to Canadian standards. I don't want anybody to use the case in future as a precedent of us following the Canadian standards. If you wish to follow Canadian standards, deletion is the only option (which was rejected at DRV). --Rob (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Scott MacDonald's proposal above makes considerable sense. Protecting the privacy of minors, victims, and other vulnerable people when there is little to no benefit to the reader's understanding of the article is entirely sensible, wise, and in line with online privacy laws. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Strengthening the concept of "conservatively written"

The political "silly season" is supposed to be behind us. Alas, we have an unending supply of editwarriors. One way of reducing the problem would be to establish:

BLP guidelines should be associated not just with the single biography article, but with all articles whose existence is clearly a result of the biography.

BLP guidelines should apply to dead people whose current notableness is related to the notability of a living person (extension of the suggestion above).

Contentious material (specifically material added to provide a negative view of a living person or their views) whether or not it has "reliable sources" should have to meet a higher standard. That is, it must be chosen in a manner which would be clearly relevant in the distant future. To maintain such material in an article should require a very strong consensus, not just a marginal one. If this means WP reads like a dry tome at times, fine. Better that than be the National Enquirer of the Web.

Once consensus has been reached on disallowing such material, that fact should be noted on the article Talk page as a procedural effort to prevent the topic being raised ad nauseam. And hopefully reducing editwars substantially. Collect (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A policy that inherently tends to suppress critical material more than other material would seem to run counter to WP:NPOV. BLP guidelines already provide strong protections against unfounded criticism, libel, etc, and provides strong requirements on the sourcing for all material, not just critical material. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The BLP policy is weak and weakly enforced. For too many people it's just about sourcing. NPOV, as it is currently applied, means that "Criticism" and "Controversy" sections are a common sight and that we prefer the latest tabloid muckraking over the long-term historical view. Anything with even the merest whiff of the promotional is crushed mercilessly and blocks handed out liberally (this is as it should be) but you can pretty much push a negative slant with impunity; if anyone objects then it's obviously "suppression" and/or "censorship" (or, my favorites, "removal of sourced info" or "deletionism").

Collect is basically correct but the problem will not be solved here nor will it be solved quickly. I think the core of it is the ascendancy of verifiability over NPOV and the tendency for us to be reflective of journalism rather than scholarship. CIreland (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming for the sake of argument that your assessment is unconditionally accurate, nevertheless Collect's suggestion re: "contentious material" would make it a trivial matter to exclude critical material and thus compromise the underlying purpose of NPOV. Additionally, the scope of scholarship is vastly narrower than the scope of journalism. A great many notable topics, which are not the subject of any scholarship whatever, could not be discussed at all without relying on journalism. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You're completely right about the relative scope of journalism and scholarship and I have no problem with (most) journalism based sources. The problem is that journalism has a clear tendency to favour negative material (colloquially: dirt sells) and whilst we can and should use journalism as sources, we do not have to reflect that tendency. At the moment there seems to be an argument I see in a lot debates that goes something like "The news media has given this aspect of the topic a certain weight and we should mirror that". This argument assumes that because news reporting is factual it is also fair when, in fact, the news media are far prone to recentism than even we are.

I don't necessarily endorse the measures Collect proposes but I do endorse his/her diagnosis of part of the problem: That we too often fail to take a long-term/historical perspective. CIreland (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that policy expressly states in at least a few places that treatment of subtopics pertaining to a topic should mirror the weight given in the sources. If we were to do otherwise, in absence of any more authoritative source or guide which undermines the treatment given in journalistic sources, wouldn't we simply be engaged in our own original analysis of published thought? And is there any indication Wikipedia editors are qualified to engage in such analysis and then proffer it to readers? I thought a central point of Verifiability + NPOV was that we leave analysis to professional journalists and academics, since we essentially have no credentials, and since Wikipedia is intended not to be a platform for original thought?

A commenter in another thread put it in a particular perspective which I found compelling: scholarly discussion is obviously superior to journalism, but until and unless the article topic receives attention in scholarly circles, journalism on the subject tends to be the best available source and should be reflected more or less at face value (within the existing bounds of policy, of course).

For my part, I became interested in editing Wikipedia when I stumbled upon a few articles that were using Wikipedia as a platform not just for shameless promotion, but also to spread actual lies. It occurred to me that people who are personally invested in a particular subject will always have a much stronger incentive to work on its Wikipedia entry than any disinterested party. Because of this, I believe the editor attention paid towards subjects in general slants towards the positive, and given that there is no real way to change that, the goals of NPOV demand that the bar for critical material be no higher than the bar for "positive" material. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I basically agree: That is what policy says. I am saying that policy is wrong because it is predicated on the assumption that the sources give a neutral treatment to the subject. If the subject is an individual in the news, the journalistic sources almost never give a neutral treatment; this is particularly the case for politicians. As a result we have, for example, a bunch of "Criticism of...." attack subarticles but no "Praise of......" counterpoints. NPOV based on weighting in sources works well for, say, Aristotle or Roman Empire or Electromagnetism, it is malfunctioning for BLPs. CIreland (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your agreement. Right now what I call "campaign pamphleteering" rules too many articles. The current BLP does not address the problem, and I would hope my proposal would cut down on the obvious acrimony engendered by the current system. All anyone needs to do is look at the number of edits on contentious articles to see why the change in policy is warranted. Collect (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that the suggestion to take a long-term perspective is good, and likely true on both sides. There seems to be an equivalent shout of "HARM!" when something which is of long-term relevancy, even core items such as names of those involved, are discarded in favor of short-term considerations (which, generally, are often illusory anyway, if information has already been published in reliable secondary sources, there is no "privacy" to protect in any case). I'm generally in favor of combatting recentism and keeping out trivia and garbage while leaving in long-term relevant information, but I think the idea should be wider than just BLPs and not only focus on "Keep out anything that might hurt someone's feewings!" We've already done more than enough of that, it's time to also consider that sometimes, material that might upset someone might nonetheless be appropriate for an article and need to remain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hence the proposed reliance on a strong consensus for contentious material. Right now, where there is a close stasis, the editwarriors turn out in force, especially on contentious material which, according to the BLP, should require more than just "last one to edit" as a standard. Now -- that appears to be the standard. I would trust that a strong consensus more often than not would reach a sage decision, and by being a strong consensus would stop any prospect of editwars. Collect (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem with "strong consensus" is that opinion trumps policy and the concept refers merely to a multitude of user accounts, which themselves have no accountability tied to them, and a guarantee of neither the intelligence or credentials of a single user, nor that any single user operates only a single account rather than numerous accounts. Thus it is a democracy of fictitious persons without respect to policy, as any user account may make a "vote" against policy, yet have it counted irrespective of fitness simply due to a vote-counting tendency. Typing a bunch of words, even nonsense, is taken as evidence of thoughtfulness when really it is only evidence of dedication. All in all, your suggestion amounts to requiring a higher bar for inclusion of critical material in an environment in which the majority of persons editing an article have a favorable opinion of the subject. Even in an environment of even parity there would be no real rationale for an aversion to criticism. It's a bad suggestion. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 04:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your iterated input. "Opinion trumps policy" is not true. No consensus can have, for example, material contrary to law on WP. In fact, there are a huge number of exceptions to your dicta. And where policy would say "strong consensus" that would be enforceable easily. The main purpose, moreover, is to stop editwars and stop people iterating their positions at length in order to achieve results by assertion and not by any other reasoning. Thank you again for re-adding your position. Collect (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say policy says opinion trumps policy. That would be an oxymoron. I am stating my opinion that in actual practice, opinion trumps policy. And please note that you've stated your own opinions and assertions repeatedly, sometimes elaborating, sometimes not. Case in point, you close your above comment by re-iterating the effect you say your policy would have. Again, I'll state my opinion that your suggestion would have the effect of requiring a higher standard for inclusion of critical material, despite (my opinion) that the majority of people working on a given article usually have a favorable opinion of the article subject -- in turn, causing the articles to be overwhelmingly positive rather than neutral. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Waylon Jennings is alive

How do you have Waylon jennings as no longer with us? How could he have passed away in 2002, as Wikipedia states... when it was just in the news that he lost his arm to cancer recently (2008)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.123.241 (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Waylon Jennings is still dead. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone help, please

There is a weird, slightly annoying edit war brewing on Rich Rodriguez. Rodriguez has long talked about being a native of Grant Town, West Virginia... however, a recent interview with a University of Michigan alumni magazine he spoke about being born in Chicago. The Chicago claim is reiterated in Michigan's official game program and the author of the interview (a New York times bestselling author named John U. Bacon) responded to corrections by saying he spoke to Rodriguez' parents and they both confirmed the story he gave. We have a direct conflict between third party sources (a lot of which are simple profiles that probably used Wikipedia as a source) against official information. Can anyone help? -MichiganCharms (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Importance level? Many people speak of a "hometown" other than the town they were actually born in. Not exactly high level stuff. Grant Town has a population of just over six hundred, and (I suspect) does not have a major hospital (nearest one is in Fairmont). Collect (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"Being a native of ..." and "being born in .." are very different things. If he was indeed born in a Chicago hospital because there wasn't one in Grant Town, he would still be a "native of Grant Town" if that's where his family home was. Spoken interviews aren't a particularly reliable source, anyway ... if someone asks me where I was born, I'll answer "Tokyo", "Tachikawa", "Iruma", or "Johnson Air Force Base". It all depends on how familiar I think the listener is with Japanese geography and American military history. I expect most "small-town-engulfed-in-the-ambiguous-mass-named-Chicago"-born people do the same thing.—Kww(talk) 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion of this matter on the Rodriguez talk page, but that hardly equates to an edit war. In any event, the article's talk page is the proper place to seek consensus on content, not here. Cmichael (talk) 03:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests to remove public information

A question that sometimes comes up at BLP goes a bit like this: Some information is public and available from reliable sources, and it's also of a kind that would quite usually be appropriately included in an article for quality - not anything especially unusual at all. However the person it applies to asks that we not include it anyway, basically because it isn't in that many sources and for whatever personal reasons they'd like it excluded.

The closest I could find to a communal view on this (apart from the very general WP:NOT#CENSORED) was the proposal rejection at Wikipedia:Obscure public information, based on which I added this:

A 2008 proposal covering requests for removal of encyclopedic information available in reliable sources but not "readily available", where the information was of a kind that would usually be included in an article, was rejected by the community.

The issue needs a mention in BLP, and lacking any better consensus this looks like the most applicable we have. Subject to improved drafting, should we note this? It's not that uncommon a question. Thoughts?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:44, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The proposed inclusion is unhelpful for a variety of reasons; it is unclear, community consensus is always a moving target, editorial judgement and individual case characteristics are critical for this decision. On the whole, let's just label this as instruction creep and move on. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Tricky grey areas should generally not be codified in single sentences. Let people handle these on a case by case basis, don't imply there's some sort of "correct precedent". WilyD 12:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There was a case discussed here a few months ago of a former adult entertainer/porn actress who asked that the information identifying her as such be removed because it may "harm her future prospects and/or cause social embarrasment". IIRC the consensus reached was to reject her request as the information that she was an adult entertainer was widely published and in fact some of her films are still available. ( I can't remember when the topic was current but looking through the recent archives will turn it up. Roger (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

An adult female model who posed in low end nude venues under at least 3 different stage names had her business manager/publicist ask us to delete the entry/article even tho the information is widely available elsewhere on the net and the reason given was that the model was now working as a nude model for a higher class magazine (Maxim) and she thought it would improve here ability to get higher paying nude modeling jobs. Request rejected. For a different current case in the news see http://news.google.com/news?&rls=en&q=%22Crystal%20Gunns%22 It will be interesting see how we handle this. Some sources are now claiming she is still currently employed as a nude model while also employed working with children. Will she be fired? Stay tuned for real world drama. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, although the community (quite appropriately) rejected the Maxim model's request, a single self-appointed administrator overruled the community and deleted the article without consensus support. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 13:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Help in clarifying a BLP/RS/NPOV issue

Hello.

User:Wikidemon and I, among others, are having a spirited debate as to whether or not using the self-published blog of Martin Kramer, the externally published blog of Ron Kampeas, and a letter to the editor by Thomas Lippman, are acceptable sources to allow the article on Rashid Khalidi to say that the above three state that Khalidi misrepresented the facts when he (Khalidi) denied being an official of the PLO. The debate starts at Talk:Rashid Khalidi#Explanation of recent edits and is rather involved with point-by-point discussions of specific phrases. We all would appreciate it if some clarity could be demonstrated as to whether or not the sources brought are sufficient, as we are trying to balance BLP and NPOV on either side of the discussion, and our respective discussions have devolved into repeating the same assertions of the others' incorrect application of policy, so fresh voices would be welcome.

Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 03:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at any of the sources or claims; I can tell you that in general this sort of issue is best handled by saying who claims what and if needed what other sources claim about the reliability of those sources; in other words give the data to the reader and let the reader decide. In general. In the case of a blog entry defaming a living person, you need a reliable source repeating the claim and/or affirming the reliabilty of the blog in claims like this. In general blogs can not be used to defame living people. In general. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Need Template for Unsourced Lists of People

I see a lot of political articles that list 3-10 or more people as being adherents to various ideologies without sourcing. Depending on my mood, sometimes I just delete them; other I times like to give them a warning with a template, instead of putting a Fact tag by every individual on longer lists. I need a better template than {BLPunsourced} which I just put on Separatist_feminism#Noteworthy_separatist_feminists. One that says something like "Sources about statements on these living individuals needed". Anyone want to help? Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree: the BLP templates assume a severe problem that applies to the whole article, whereas what you are describing is more often found in just one section and might not need such an aggressive statement as "must be removed immediately". I've encountered the same situation in sections for declining a British honour, and being a notable resident of Belgravia, Chiswick or Hounslow. Some might say this is pretty mild stuff but it could be the "thin end of the wedge". As I see it, the primary problem is to alert readers, whereas warning editors is a secondary issue. On this basis, here is the warning I have used:

Does this help? - Pointillist (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Good start!! I think it needs to be a bit stronger since some people would be mad to find themselves stuck on a list of people who are socialists or anarco-capitalists, not to mention porn stars or neoNazis or whatever. So playing with your box a little:

CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will try to learn how to use parameters so the stronger messages can be achieved starting from a milder basic message. - Pointillist (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Current legal cases

Note: this discussion is based on the recent Peter Tobin dispute summarized at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Summary_of_discussion (archive)

Some articles come under the idea of sub judice, where information that is both factual and verifiable may prejudice a court case. How, in general, should Wikipedia approach these cases? If we publish the information, innocent people may be convicted and guilty people may go free (since their defense could point to our article as part of an appeal). However, if we do not publish the information this would be allowing non-US laws to influence our content. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The legal and jurisdictional issue is a red herring. It's relevant for editors from the state in question (and also for the Foundation when the state is the US) but in terms of article content and policy etc. arguing about whether we should respect the judicial decisions of another country is missing (deliberately, sometimes, maybe) the point. The issue in terms of general content policy is purely ethical: it is unethical to prejudice a trial. No ifs, no buts, no "I am not a lawyer", no "it's not in my country", it is simply wrong. The tricky part is determining whether a particular article on Wikipedia plausibly could prejudice a court case; to decide that we may have to rely on the opinions of those more closely connected to the real world issue. CIreland (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So you would agree with the idea that we should stubbify BLP articles on request? Who do you think should we accept such request from and who should make the decision, a community discussion or a OTRS-based system? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But who's request? Let's say someone in Zimbabwe (who's concept of SJ is based on UK law) is up on trial and the Zimbabwe police contact us and say "please pull this article as it breaches SJ" - are we going to pull it? or are we going to say "no way man, your system is bent!" - Let's take another example - the Shannon Mathews article has lots of material about the defendant that could show them in a bad light - shouldn't we pull that? Where do we stop? Are we going to honour requests from some legal systems and not others? Is it the offence and the possible sentence that triggers the process? Once we go down this road I don't see anything but confusion and strife. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand Cameron, if we publish this material, with our high world-wide profile we may cause miscarriages of justice or give guilty people a way to appeal their sentences. Do you think such consequences are something me should ignore? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea - within the UK, the BBC has an equally high profile than us and they don't pull this of material (for example, the case that kicked this off, all of the previous convictions are still there on the BBC news site) - and I would guess they give the matter quite a bit of consideration as well. If it was this easy to trigger those miscarriages then we'd have seen some by now - the only cases I can find are where high profile local media sources have been involved. I cannot find any examples of people making a successful claim using overseas internet sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The BBC did not pull old stories from their site, but they did not link to them or refer to them in their reporting of the current case. Is that an approach you think we could adopt? Tim Vickers (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we'd do that - if you search the bbc site for the name, the articles pop straight up - I don't see how we would be able to cover up such material without removal - because of the ways that we have individual articles on subjects not a series of articles over time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Where there is actualy a court order (Baby P is the obvious case) the BBC does remove the name from their site.Geni 02:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with CIreland. This is a point I raised on the AN thread ... there is strong moral consideration, independent of anything else. Morally, I don't think our pedia's aims are noble enough for us to be frivolous with state justice and punishment. This to me argues that we should play on the side of caution, recognizing that our pedia is open access and that editors cannot be trusted or empowered with such responsibility. Realistically, I don't see that we are likely to be that effective at derailing or misdirecting the course of justice, but given the stakes and how little there is to lose a big hammer is prolly ok here. This is not very specific, I'm afraid, but is an important statement of principle. Legally, though I'm no lawyer, the bottom line umbrella protection is that all non-cited material related to a "sub judice" case (though necessarily the history of a defendant or witness) should be banned in principle. We probably do need some way of identifying and marking articles related to sub judice cases, at least for, even if for no other reason at all, encouraging more serious editors to monitor how they are edited. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So we stub any BLP article where there are previous convictions or other information that could sway a jury? because I don't see how we can (unless some of us are on the jury) make those determinations on a case by case basis. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All non-cited material should be removed from BLPs anyway, the question here is if we should remove entirely factual and verifiable material. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. I think we should ignore all such requests, and just make sure BLPs adhere closely to our policy. If we get a request from the legal team of a BLP, and they explain that our article is causing problems for the subject, we should always err on the side of caution in favour of the BLP, but we should do that regardless of any court cases.

One of the things that made me uneasy about the case that triggered this discussion is that it was the police who requested that the WP article be taken down i.e. the prosecution. Not the court, not the BLP subject, not the subject's lawyers. And it was just an informal request to an admin, not a formal request to the Foundation, so was it really that problematic anyway?

If we wouldn't act on a request like that from Iran or China, we shouldn't do it with one from Scotland. In any event, I think it would be extraordinarily easy to find a jury in Scotland of non-Wikipedia readers. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know if it was someone working for the individual prosecutor or Procurator Fiscal who sent the e-mail (they are not the police, which is what was stated!)... that would be kinda strange and worrying. That aside, refusing to distinguish between say Scotland, and Iran or China, isn't very reasonable as in Scotland, the court cases are generally thought to proceed with the good-faith intent of determining fact and law (just don't mention Lockerbie!), and if nothing else it is at least an English-speaking country with juries expected to act without prejudice, so there is actually a chance wikipedia's articles could have an effect. Matters concerning trials are morally more significant than normal BLP issues because during the trials a bunch of potentially fickle and impressionable people are charged and empowered with determining, based on things asserted to be facts, whether someone's life should be ruined or not. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with your last point. My worry is simply that we're not competent to judge which facts a jury should or should not have put before them (because, let's face it, we're also a bunch of potentially fickle and impressionable people, and I include myself in that, of course). So we should have a really good BLP policy, and then we should stick to it, always willing to err on the side of caution in favour of the BLP. But to have the authorities of any given country (e.g. police or prosecution) ask us to remove material, and not the BLP or his legal team — that worries me a great deal. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It is of equal concern if guilty people were to use our articles to escape justice (where the authorities could complain) or if innocent people were to be convicted (where their legal team might complain). I think if we heed complaints from one, we would have to give equal weight to the other. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We should bear in mind when saying "removal of content", we're talking about removal for a few weeks, not permanent removal. I also don't see why we should treat with more scepticism requests from the "authorities" compared with requests from article subjects. CIreland (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't. A request for deletion of an obviously notable BLP is sent to AfD. Usually they are deleted, but they are often not. Protonk (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Protonk but SV, above, was suggesting we should (unless I have misinterpreted her). Also, AfD is appropriate if we are seeking to permanently delete, when in fact we are only really talking about temporary changes - the long-term content of the article should, in theory, be unaffected. CIreland (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My point is that we should always be willing to listen to complaints from the person who feels they're being harmed. I'm less certain that we should listen to complaints from the government of a country, or its representatives, saying they are being harmed in some way by information in a Wikipedia BLP, information that is widely available in reliable sources, so far as I know. That's why I compare Scotland to Iran or China or anywhere else. If reliable sources publish something, I don't like the idea of governments asking us to remove it for any reason. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a provision for "temporary deletion". If there is, I think that AfD is an appropriate forum--I'm sure we can word the nomination in such a fashion as to make that clear. Insofar as I've misinterpreted your other claims, I'm sorry. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Cameron is right. The legal issue is a red herring. If and when a legal request is sent to the foundation and the foundation chooses to make some response on whatever grounds they choose, then it is a legal issue. When those of us who are not Mike Godwin work on it, it is an editorial issue. In that case our policies on content and conduct (which are already crystal clear on this matter) should prevail. It is inappropriate for editors to make these decisions based on some kinship felt with that legal system (I'm sure China has some takedown requests for us so that they can link to us again) or from some perceived moral authority. Protonk (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

As a US-based website we cannot legally be prevented from publishing.

But just as with copyright, the question we should be asking is not "Can we get away with it?" Rather, as a community, the question we need to ask is "What is the right thing to do?" The bottom line is that people deserve a fair trial. That is the BLP issue here. People on trial should have their fate decided on the basis of the evidence that has been presented in Court, that both the prosecution and defence have had a chance to present and to respond to. Cases should not be decided by issues that have not been cross-examined.

That is not going to be such an issue with U.S. trials, because speculation, inference and commentary are so widespread in the media that (i) Wikipedia is a drop in the ocean, and (ii) the trial system is adjusted to that media environment, and people in the system know how to adapt to reduce its worst effects.

On the other hand, U.S.-based editors need to realise that in other countries, things may be very different. In some counties, once somebody has been charged, there will be no inference speculation or commentary in the media - only strictly direct reporting of what has been produced in court. And some issues - eg past convictions - may be deliberately excluded, even from the court proceedings. In such a case, there is a possibility that a factual WP article could prejudice a fair trial, by giving credible information (or hearsay, or speculation, or random anon edits) that the jury may find compelling, without either the defence or the prosecution having been able to put their point of view. If we are warned that there may be a serious risk of that, it is a responsibility we need to consider very seriously. Jheald (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering we failed to effectively resolve this issue even in the very specific and real setting of the Peter Tobin case, I don't think we'll be able to reach rapid consensus on a general principle. It may be most appropriate to consider these articles on a case-by-case basis, with some guidance from a guideline or essay discussing the issues involved. Dcoetzee 23:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

While I believe that we can't be held responsible for prejudicing a jury, you also have to consider this if requests come to clear out material per sub judice--the nature of the legal system in the country in question. Zimbabwe, for instance, has the same rules--but unless I'm very wrong here, the perception is that their justice system isn't as fair as the UK or Canada (if only because of politically motivated trials). So while I support stubbing articles in principle when sub judice issues are involved, we should give substantially less weight to requests from countries where the justice system isn't perceived as fair or democratic. Blueboy96 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the concern? That a current or prospective jury member is going to read the Wikipedia article? That's what voir dire is for. Conveniently, the question about whether we republish damaging information about living people that could prejudice a jury against them overlaps neatly with the existing BLP policy about "doing no harm", particularly to individuals who are not WP:WELLKNOWN. Prior convictions or other negative material would not normally be discussed on Wikipedia unless it is cited to strong secondary sources, of sufficient number and weight relative to the importance of the subject to establish WP:WEIGHT concerns. Thus, anything we reprint here is likely all over the web already and readily accessible via google. Court cases often work in alternate realities where very relevant, notable information is withheld from the jury over (very legitimate) concerns about the decisionmakign process. That is fine, but that essentially requires the court to withhold the truth from the jury, by sequestering them, demanding that they not read the news, filtering out those who have, and in rare cases placing "gag orders" restricting the press and parties from talking about the case. While it's certainly legitimate to keep twelve jurors (plus alternates, depending on the trial) in the dark so that a trial may proceed fairly, there is a much higher threshold before rewriting history to withhold the truth from the six billion people outside of the jury. I agree we and the Foundation should look at these requests one case at a time, but I would be very skeptical about them. Wikidemon (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that the voir dire juror interview is very much a U.S. thing -- it doesn't happen in English or Scots courts. Jheald (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That could be a workable solution - per WP:V Wikipedia should reflect the viewpoint of the majority of reliable sources that deal with a case. However, how do you deal with historical sources using this principle? The BBC, for example, reported on prior convictions before the new case, but removed them from current reports. Should we follow the lead of the old reports, or the new ones? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

We have no problem with citeing older sources. I've used sources dateing back to 1901.Geni 03:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We cannot do this, The Zimbabwe hypothetical makes the problem clear. To distinguish between Scotland and Zimbabwe would be the essence of introducting our POV about these countries into the matter. Moreover, the moral claim is extremely weak given that many countries such as the United States and most European countries function just fine without any sub judice restrictions. The probability that we will create an actual problem is miniscule and all the more so when the information in our articles are easily accessible elsewhere anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that here we have been asked to hold off on information because it might potentially unfairly weight a juror against the defendant. That's very different from being asked to suppress something because a state like Singapore or Zimbabwe wants it suppressed for the state's own ends. Note also that most European trials are not before juries. Jheald (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not happy with the summary that the logical extension of "we can't be forced to do it" is "we can get away with not doing it". Stating that we shouldn't feel compelled to do something doesn't translate to recalcitrance in the face of some demonstrated need. IMO, we need to be very honest about what we are doing here, and stating the lack of compulsion is part of that. We are contemplating changing (or allowing change) to content on wikipedia at the requests of governments who do not have legal jurisdiction over wikipedia. We are doing so even though the foundation has expressed indifference over responding to the issue at that level. In doing so, we have to somehow justify not deleting the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 at the request of the chinese government while deleting something at the behest of the Scottish government. Keep in mind that the Chinese government is just as capable of making a good faith claim that we should change content as the Scottish government is. Or take out Chinese and substitute any government who may ask.
• More to the point, the attempt at claiming a moral imperative here is not convincing. If a judge in Scotland throws a trial out because there is information on the internets about the subject, it is the judge who will (and should) look foolish--not us. It is the judge who will have miscarried justice, not us. We can't help the fact that it is 2008, that information may be picked up on Wikipedia, one of its many mirrors, or even sources totally unrelated to Wikipedia. In order to claim some moral imperative for making a change like this you would have to convince me that Wikipedia's unwillingness to alter content upon request directly (or substantively) resulted in some unjust act--without the intermediate effect of unreasonable people. Protonk (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The basic principle here is that we are an encyclopedia devoted to accurate NPOV presentation of sourced material, in accord with verifiability; we do not aim at truth. We rely only on other published material, we do not report or interpret. Much less do we judge. The BLP prohibition are aimed at ensuring even more than for other articles this NPOV and nonjudgmental presentation of matters affecting living people, especially in critical situations. Our job is to do the articles right. What the world does with them is not our concern. There is an exception: "do not harm," which in general means we will not make minor negative matters more prominent than they would be otherwise--this limitation is necessary because of the extent that WP is noticeable. This does not apply when we properly cover widespread public reports from good news sources, while it does were we to further disseminate irresponsible tabloid gossip, Additionally, we consequently apply do not harm most stringently in matters involving children.

that's the principles here. How do they apply? Each jurisdiction has its own rules for how court proceedings are to be conducted and what is admissible, and how the objectivity of juries and other hearing bodies is to be ensured. Sometimes this involves news blackouts before or during the trial. Such limitations can obviously apply only to media within their jurisdiction. As legal requirements they would only apply to us if matters of US law applicable in Florida, and then the legal advice of the WMG is relevant and binding. Otherwise, its our judgment. By the standards of most people not accustomed to the UK restrictions, trying to prevent a jury from knowing about the prior convictions in this case would seem a quixotic enterprise, bound to fail, and the contribution that WP could make to such knowledge would be insignificant. It may not be seen this way in the UK. Do we then let each community limit us in reporting according to local mores and regulations? By tradition, other language WPs do sometimes try to observe the customs of their primary area, but for the English WP we are cosmopolitan and more bound than any other WP to adopt a global view. Considering the possibilities for censorship, I think we need to hold to that position. If court orders are isued, then it is a matter for the WMF. If not, they wisely choose to leave it in our hands. I think there is only one consistent way of proceeding compatible with NPOV: to follow our own rules, regardless of the requests of local authorities. Those requests can be seen as dictates, and our objectivity is then at their mercy. In particular, no one administrator has any business making exceptions to this. As a consensus of our very cosmopolitan nature, there is no time of the day or night where some attempt at consensus can not be asked. In the absence of such consensus, or in a situation so extreme as to make such consensus totally predictable, such actions are unequivocally wrong and amount to the imposition of private standards on the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Posting this after conflicting with DGG, but that post reminds me of the difficulties between worldwide communities and local concepts of obscenity or decency. Good points. Now, on with the original post...

Those are some excellent points, Protonk; JoshuaZ's concerns above bring up a similar question: if we're not going to treat all government requests equally, how do we justify that in a way that doesn't introduce a serious systemic bias? My initial gut reaction was that we should follow the lead of reliable sources. Tim's pointed out that the BBC has omitted the convictions from new reports, without editing old reports... but given we only have the one article to work with, I'm not sure if we can follow an equivalent method very easily.

If this information is already readily available from a single Google search, are we simply fooling ourselves to think we're an important factor in this equation?

On the whole, I'm very nervous about giving outside groups the authority to decide our content, but I can see that there are some compelling issues here. One potentially useful question we haven't covered so much: assuming we agree to blank articles in these circumstances, what prompts that blanking? Request from the subject? Request from a participating attorney? Request from the court hearing the case? Our own initiative? Foundation decision? What constitutes a risk/problem of this sort, and who gets to decide? How do we set up a reasonable framework to keep ourselves from falling down a slippery slope? I worry that today we're blanking an article to avoid prejudicing a trial, and tomorrow we'll be blanking John McCain and Barack Obama to avoid prejudicing voters during an election. (yeah, I know that election's passed, but you catch the drift) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

But we already have a perfectly functional way to deal with requests to change content equally. We tell them to go to hell and ensure that our content decisions are made in accordance with our content guidelines. This has the advantage of already being policy. I don't mean to be glib, but that's a simple solution that doesn't endanger our core principles or force us to decide which government requests to honor. Protonk (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I should say that I don't mean requests for OVERSIGHT or requests to delete marginal BLPs or courtesy blank non-articles. There are human beings out there and this is just a website. But when people ask for an article to be deleted (As was discussed above), the right answer is to send it to AfD--the community seems to be pretty good at weighing subject requests against the article itself. Protonk (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That's the way I'm leaning, actually. :) I suppose you could say my question above has two potential goals, either of which I think I'd be happy to see realized: (1) it becomes clear that there's consensus regarding specific circumstances in which we should swiftly remove otherwise sourced and valid content to avoid undesirably impacting ongoing legal proceedings, and we move on from there, or (2) it becomes clear there is no objective way to describe such circumstances and responses in a way that would reliably fix the problem (and, therefore, that we'd risk damaging the encyclopedia for no real benefit). Obviously this is an area where we should be careful, but I don't think blanking an article and running away from it should necessarily be called "careful." – Luna Santin (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We cannot and should not be held responsible for information already existing in the public sphere. If the legal authorities in Scotland are afraid of already published information, which had already existed in the public sphere before this trial started, might taint the jury, it is their responsibility to deal with it, not ours. The jury can be sequestered, or enjoined from accessing any media, or any number of things, but at any given time there are likely thousands of ongoing criminal trials, and a number of them may involve people who had Wikipedia articles before said trial existed. It is not our responsibility to take these articles down because some judge feels the information that existed before his trial started may or may not influence his trial. Doing so is both impractical as a general policy, and unneccessary as we are not an arm of the government, and we are not responsible for these matters. It is a Scottish legal system problem, let the Scottish legal system figure out how to deal with this case. There should be no general policy dealing with these issues; and there should be no specific action in this case. The article should be restored, and treated under the standard protections of WP:BLP and nothing else... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have served on a jury in a felony case in the U.S. The jury was instructed not to read any press accounts about the crime or the accused. I suggest that this is what the judge in Scotland (or China, or Iran, or North Korea, or Zimbabwe) should do rather than demanding that NPOV, well referenced facts about the crime or the accused be "temporarily" removed from Wikipedia. We should ourselves, on an ongoing basis, keep every article NPOV and well referenced, and in compliance with WP:BLP. Can the judge remove all information about the accused, the victim and the crime from Google News Archive, from Google Books, from Proquest, and from Newspaperarchive.com, which are the typical sources for the Wikipedia article? I do not think that is possible. Instead, any judge should be able to instruct the jury not to visit the crime scene to do his own Crime Scene Investigation, not to do his own interviews of witnesses, not to talk to people about the trial, and not to read about the trial, the crime, or the accused. Has there ever, in the history of Wikipedia, been a case where a conviction was overturned on appeal because there was well sourced information related to it in Wikipedia? Has there ever been a case where a conviction was overturned because of biased press reports, which are a far bigger problem? We should not take one word out of any article on the supposition that someone MIGHT read the truth and it MIGHT influence his vote on someone's guilt or innocence. I submit that information in Wikipedia articles should only be suppressed when it is unavoidable as an office action in response to a formal process delivered to the Wikimedia Foundation. It is an issue for Mike Godwin and the Foundation, not for us, and not for those seeking some advantage for the defense or the prosecution in some case, at whatever cost to intellectual freedom of an encyclopedia. I see no logical, moral or legal basis for a "courtesy coverup" in which BBC articles about previous convictions are kept out of an article. Mike Godwin is welcome to weigh in with his views as the Foundation's attorney. I agree with Jayron32. Edison (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this discussion already over? - take the Tobin case that kicked this off - that is now being edited according to the law in scotland on reporting - and the talkpage tells you that will be enforced. It's a complete joke - if I add sourced material to that article - what policy or guideline am I breaching - none, but I will still be blocked --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This [10] may be pertinent. "Update: Mike Godwin replied to my email. His response is below. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 17:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC) "The Foundation's official position is that we are subject to American law, including the state and Constitutional law doctrines governing defamation in the United States. The Foundation would oppose any BLP policy that recognized and attempted to adapt to the defamation laws of any other jurisdiction. We are of course aware that some individuals may attempt to sue is in a foreign jurisdiction and attempt to enforce such a judgment in the United States. We have prepared for that possibility.

"Under no circumstances should the BLP policy be altered as a reaction to perceptions of the risk of defamation liability in non-U.S. jurisdictions."

Which rather strongly implies that BLP policies are not to use any consideration other than US and Florida law, and theat there should be no BLP policy trying to address any other laws concerning defamation. Collect (talk)

This isn't about defamation. And it is not about us being forced to do anything. This is about us trying to do the right thing, and to not prejudice an individual from getting a fair trial. Jheald (talk) 12:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well get blanking them - I can point you in the direction of over a 100 cases - when do you want to get started? or do you want to make the case for *this* being a special case? and how do you plan to write it into BLP policy --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

100 articles about cases currently between charge and trial, in jurisdictions with sub judice rules, where we have been specifically advised that historical material in our article might be prejudicial? Are you sure? Jheald (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So we are now getting somewhere - so it requires that a) the country asking has SJ laws and b) that a direct request is made? is that your position? --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

In a country without sub judice rules, the WP article is likely to be a drop in the ocean compared to other media discussion which is already available. But in a country with sub judice rules, the effect of a WP article may be much more significant. Secondly, most trials won't be particularly sensitive to material that might be in an article. But this one is, and we have specifically been told that. Jheald (talk) 13:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I normally support removing material that might harm a BLP, but I feel this case is absurd. Here is an article about this person elsewhere, but our version has been reduced to a stub at the request of a Scottish police officer? It's pointless censorship given how easy it is to find the information elsewhere; even the BBC refers to some of it. [11] WP really shouldn't facilitate nanny statism — it's the opposite of everything I thought we stood for. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 13:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the BBC link outlining his previous crimes is the second link on google - the BBC being far more significant and trustworthy in a uk context than us. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that the BBC article was published immediately after the verdict in the Angelina Kluk case. The BBC did not publish it when the Kluk case was ongoing, nor when this case was ongoing.

The old version of our article is well written, well sourced, direct and powerful. And that's exactly what makes it so potentially prejudical to a jury which is supposed to be studying the facts of this case and only this case. Jheald (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading Edison's perspective as a juror, I find myself agreeing with him for the most part. We absolutely cannot be held responsible for prejudicing a trial, but measures such as what AlisonW took should only be used as a last resort. The question now, as I see it, is whether extraordinary circumstances existed that deleting and stubbing was the only way to go. Could measures have been taken within the ordinary sphere of things? Blueboy96 13:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It is still unclear to me if we need to keep the Tobin information unpublished, why details of his history still remain in the articles Angelika Kluk murder case.

I am also curious why it is the Scottish police who contacted us. In the U.S., wouldn't that be done by the District Attorney? Can someone explain the Scottish chain of command? Kingturtle (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There is not a scottish police force as such - there are a number of forces that cover different geographical areas - one of those forces would have contacted us. What's confusing to me is that an earlier version of the tale was that the police had contacted us before contacting the court - in a later version, they contacted us on behalf of the court. So what's actually gone on here is as clear as mud. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The Scottish equivalent of the DA is usually a regional procurator fiscal, but for the more "serious" crimes I think generally it is the Lord Advocate or a deputy who prosecutes, either an advocate-depute or the Solicitor General for Scotland. Frank Mulholland is the prosecutor in this case, and he is the Solicitor General. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think I made my position on the issue fairly clear in the big scrum on AN, but just in case we've got new eyes on this page: We should not be in the business of censoring well-cited content on notable individuals just because it is inconvenient to someone else that the facts be known. Standard BLP restrictions should be in place, of course, but here we have a notable criminal who was unquestionably convicted of serious crimes, which were extensively reported throughout the British press. If someone can not find information on him in his article here, they'll just keep looking until they find the facts somewhere else - such as one of the other WP articles that discus his criminal past, or the news reports on which his article here was based (in The Times, The Scotsman, The Mirror, The BBC, etc. ... none of which have seen fit to remove their past articles on Tobin from their various archives). It's probably too late for us to do the right thing in the case of Mr. Tobin's article, but at a minimum we should set out policy to politely decline such requests in the future. If the Scottish police don't want jury members reading our articles, then that's their affair and not ours, and they can take all the necessary steps to block jurors' access to our pages without needing to involve us one way or the other. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I should also add that if a case ends up being dismissed because a juror was looking at information that he was instructed not to look at during the course of a trial, then the moral weight of the dismissal falls on the juror, not on us. We're supposed to be in the business of writing an encyclopedia, not protecting people from themselves. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why we're even contemplating this. So long as the article is in line with our own policies, I don't see that we have any duty to do anything further. After all, our article should only be repeating information that is already available from reliable independent sources. It's a regurgitation, not original research. We have no onus to try and keep jurors from partaking of independent research. That's the responsibility of the courts and, more importantly, of the jurors themeslves. I mean, really, if the jurors don't take their own responsibility as jurors seriously enough to not do independent research, there's nothing Wikipedia can do about that. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Policies such as NPOV and NOR are apply to direct statements in articles. They don't apply to editorial decisions made about article content. Saying that it's a POV to listen to Scotland but not to China is like saying that it's a POV to decide that the Weekly World News is a less reliable source than the New York Times--in some literal sense it's a point of view, but it's not what the rules about POVs refer to.

The point is that we should exclude information because it's the right thing to do. Deciding that something is the right thing to do inherently involves human judgment, and can't be reduced to rules. You actually have to argue that China is less trustworthy than Scotland, without being able to point to a rule which distinguishes those cases. For some reason, this scares people who thinks that acceptable behavior is completely outlined by rules and nothing else. But it must be done.

I mean, really, if the jurors don't take their own responsibility as jurors seriously enough to not do independent research, there's nothing Wikipedia can do about that.

Yes, there is. We can stop being an enabler for bad jurors. Just because the jurors, by being bad, are partly responsible doesn't mean we aren't partly responsible too. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Does this logic apply to all articles on Wikipedia? Because the simple truth is that almost all information can be used for "bad" purposes. We've got an article on cyanide that someone could use to synthesize it and use it to poison someone. Would that make Wikipedia an "enabler" for that activity? Of course not. How people use the information that we provide is not our concern. Our purpose is merely to provide the information in an encyclopedic manner. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The logic does apply to all articles on Wikipedia, including the cyanide article--but then, the logic is "we have to make judgment calls on an individual basis, rather than using a blanket rule". There's no reason to expect that the judgment calls here and there would produce the same result.

And it's not a question of whether something could happen, but of how likely it is to happen. If you were seriously suggesting editing the cyanide article that way I would just reply that I don't think that harm is as likely from the cyanide article as from this one. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And then we can take out articles on all major laws because jurors might pay attention to our articles instead of instructions from judges. Moreover, trying to distinguish between which countries have acceptable forms of censorship and which don't is not at all the same as deciding which sources are reliable and which are not. Reliable sources have clear objective standards that everyone agrees upon. There may be some borderline cases but they aren't that major in general. In contrast, deciding which countries are democratic enough or have a trustworthy enough judicial system allows massive POV injection (including the implicit POV that there is something inherently better about judicial systems with checks and balances and transparency) JoshuaZ (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guidance

Reading carefully through the arguments above I think I'm persuaded that we should not blank articles in response to requests from either the legal team defending an accused, or the prosecuting lawyers. Such requests should be raised on the BLP noticeboard and the article carefully examined for verifiability and NPOV. I do think we need to be very cautions, so stubbifying or deleting biased articles is entirely acceptable - as the policy already states. Overall, I think BLPs on people accused of crimes need to be treated like we treat politicians' biographies during elections, as articles where we need to be extremely careful about what we publish, but not as candidates for automatic deletion. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed in principle, but here we have a situation where persons unknown contatcted Alison who took the cautious step in light of the request of blanking the page, effectively for the duration of the trial. We're still left guessing if this is an aspect of Scots law, and also English law, that requires removal of information to avoid tainting a jury trial. My suggestion would be for Mike Godwin as the Foundation's attorney to investigate this in principle with the relevant authorities, presumably the the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor General for Scotland, to establish if there is a problem and if we should do anything about it beyond taking particular care to achieve high BLP standards in such cases. . . dave souza, talk 17:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)....but Mike was asked and he kicked the question back the the community. Let's assume for a minute that Allison correctly verified the identity of the person asking (I believe she did). Let's also assume that all english common law countries share this SJ principle and that it is within the legal rights of those governments to demand that properly published materials about those cases be taken down within their border (in other words, the Times of London will have to take down a non-libelous article upon receiving a SJ request). Let us further assume that those same governments have the power to restrain future publication of material for the duration of the case. Given that those might all be true (in some varying degrees I believe they are), the question then becomes: what do we do when we receive a good faith request that we take content down from an English common law government? And I'm being perpetually shocked that the unanimous answer from wikipedians isn't "do nothing except ensure that we have the most accurate and fair article possible". Protonk (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

When contacted, he said it was a community matter and nothing to do with the WMF. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Mike passed on it. Ergo, it's our call, and I see no obstacle to pursuing the proposed course, whereby we all stop jumping at shadows, restore the article minus any statements that don't pass BLP, and go back to building an encyclopedia. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

oh and can we make it requirement that if an admin deletes an article and replaces it with a legal notice that they report it somewhere? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The case has closed with Peter Tobin being convicted as charged, the question now is whether the next case of a defendant with previous convictions means that we can or should be requested to blank the article, or delete specific information that is sub judice and could taint a jury. . . dave souza, talk 18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

From my reading of this thread Protonk, SlimVirgin, DGG and some others have the right idea:

1. We should absolutely not censor verifiable material at the request of authorities (what part of WP:NOTCENSORED is unclear?).

2. Although we should try to be ethical, it is not our responsibility to ensure someone gets a fair trial, but the responsibility of the justice system in a particular community. In fact it is unethical of a government to try to offload its responsibility onto others inside (and outside) of its jurisdiction, and we should not countenance such behavior. Granted, the internet creates tricky problems for a justice system, but the justice system must find ways to deal with it. It is fundamentally not our problem, and it is unethical of us to deprive people of information simply because a justice system doesn't want to deal with the issue by adequately screening or educating jurors. Indeed, if there is some non-trivial chance that a murderer will go free because some anonymous strangers somewhere put up a web page, then the idea of "justice" is rather a moot point in that country.

3. It's completely unworkable to have a list of BADSTATES with which we decide to ignore censorship requests (such as China, Zimbabwe), while honoring those from states not on the list. This would fuel nationalistic fires and complicate editing where "good" states have differences.

4. We should keep in mind censorship should be vigorously resisted especially where a "reasonable" case can be made for it -- where the free exchange of information might conceivably do some harm. This is how freedom is attacked in modern democracies, not by canceling elections and jailing the opposition, but by gradually squeezing at the edge cases where freedom is harder to defend, and then, when people get used to a little reasonable censorship for the public good, squeezing some more.

5. We should stick to our BLP policy to remove false and potentially libelous material, but basically give the finger to authorities attempting to suppress accurate information.--Fletcher (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there are credible differences between a request from China to pull all material on a subject, or to make an article conform to their request, and a request to temporarily pull information from an article during a trial. We should deal with this issue sensitively and with wikilove especially to the families of the victims.

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not need to have all information at all times. There is no censorship where the information remains easily available in the history and where the information will be restored promptly.
2. We should do no harm and the release of a guilty child abuser (with recidivism so high with that crime) would do tremendous harm to future victims

   I personally believe that we can balance our encyclopedic goals and do no harm by taking the very minor step of withdrawing information from the article for a few weeks (or at most months)

3. We have a responsibility we wouldn't have had several years ago because Wikipedia is a high profile website that comes up high in search results
4. Finally, we should have more than a stub article - an article that covers the current event and some biographical information about the accused without links to past acts (it is much easier to keep reading on the same page than to search for it or to go through references). However, a notice that past acts have been removed pending the resolution of the current matter seems reasonable.

Yes Wikipedia is not censored but it is also not a soapbox. I fear that it becomes one when we include such information without regard to the potential harmful effects. --Trödel 19:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of what you say is sensible but this - We should do no harm and the release of a guilty child abuser (with recidivism so high with that crime) would do tremendous harm to future victims is just emotional blackmail of the lowest order. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused why you consider it emotional blackmail. I see this as being fully informed of the possible consequences of each decision (and in fact the article that generated this discussion was about a child molester who demonstrates significant recidivism). Whether (release of the accused) is a likely consequence or not I'm not sure - IANA"UK"L. However, I do think it would be irresponsible to not discuss the possible effects of the policy on which we seek consensus. As a person who is generally against setting general rules based on fringe possibilities, I would be happy with a general policy that differed from the an acknowledged exception for child molester cases (if we determine that this particular example is an unlikely outlier compared to the vast majority of articles that this policy would impact). --Trödel 20:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be clear why it is emotional blackmail. Let's say the scottish police came to us and said "We have a trial of someone who evaded their taxes" or "we have a trial of someone who drove on a suspended license" and we would like you to take down info about this person based on SJ. That is emotionally very different from "here is the trial of this child rapist". Of course it is easy to say yes to helping the authorities with child rapists. Who wants to be "pro-child rapist"? This is the same reason internet data collection and anonymity laws in the US are almost always presented from the viewpoint of stopping the spread of child pornography. If you vote against it the attack ads write themselves. What Cameron is saying is that we shouldn't infect this discussion with vague assertions to "do no harm" and then allude to child rape. The implied connection is that malfeasance (or inaction) on our part would directly result in something as horrific as child rape or more generally result in a child rapist being set free. If I'm considering the net benefit and I have that in my mind, what am I going to do? When speaking in terms of developing a general principle it is dishonest (intentionally or not) to appeal to the most extreme possible case. Protonk (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that your example ie we were asked because of taxes and if I made an argument supported by the child rapist then it could well be and emotionally charged argument; however, that is not the case - the article in question was about a child rapist - so it is relevant. I know of no other times wherein an editor removed text from an article as a result of a request by police - the only one where an editor thought that it was prudent to remove the text was where the accused was a child rapist and murderer. So I think our policies are, in general, working just fine - an editor made a hard decision and it can be supported either way and now we should discuss what we should do as a community should this issue come before us again (and "this issue" is what we can define as we reach consensus.

We should not, however, just say "WP:CENSOR says we don't have to do what the policeman asked." I am not arguing that Wikipedia has a legal obligation to do what the policeman asked, I am saying that we should do good, we should be helpful while reporting/editing things. --Trödel 00:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that CENSOR says "we don't have to". The law says we don't have to. CENSOR says there is a moral imperative and a community practice in refusing to do so. "doing good" could mean editing the Tienanmen square article to support the desires of the chinese government. "Doing good" could mean removing verifiable, neutrally reported facts about the war in iraq because the presence of those facts may dampen public enthusiasm for that war. "Doing good" could mean any of those. I'm saying, and have been saying this whole time, that Wikipedia should not honor those requests on the basis of implied need or some sense of civic duty. If, in the future, something like this comes up, the article can be sent to AfD. If in the most implausible case, some government says "Wikipedia article XYZ represents a clear threat to public safety, please remove it" then it could be removed and sent immediately to DRV (I can't think of any possible case where an article on wikipedia that meets BLP/NOT/NOR/V/NPOV would run into that situation). Doing anything more than that shirks our responsibility to build a free and neutral encyclopedia. Protonk (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how you could possibly see any comparable moral/ethical equivalence between deciding how to honor a request to delay the inclusion of information during a trial to permanently editing articles to push a specific point-of-view proposed by the chinese govt, war supports, etc. --Trödel 01:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't. We aren't relying on my moral compass. I could be a child molester. I could be the pope. I could have worked for the FBI under Hoover. Who knows what my mores are? Especially with regard to administrator tools, it is absolutely the wrong thing for me to make a moral judgment before I delete/protect something. What if I support Chinese dissidents? It is the "right thing" for me to delete/remove information that favors the chinese government? Of course not. We have a chauvinistic and anglocentric perspective if we think that doing the bidding of the UK government is clearly correct and doing the bidding of the chinese government is beyond the pale. WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR avoid that concern entirely. We don't do the bidding of either. If a government says "we have rules about exposing our citizens to information and therefore need you to remove information on wikipedia" the answer is always no. What would we do if the UK government sent us a DA-Notice? Protonk (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ahh - so now the request of a democratic govt to prevent the possible release of information that could effect the outcome of a criminal trial is the same as supressing Chinese dissidents.

To see that there is a difference is not anglocentric and chauvinistic but a common-sense judgment that reflects not an individuals specific ethics/morality - but the community's ethics/morality. If individual admins make decisions that you are worried about the community will respond and they will either come in line with the community's standards (i.e. not delete things because of there personal POV) or they will do acts - like overturning consensus, reverting, abusing their admin tools, etc. that will result in them losing there status and possible rights to edit based on those actions and not on their point of view. --Trödel 01:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess I'll be blunt. Policy on this wiki (as it has been for a long, long time) says we should not respond to requests to take down content from individuals or government outside our normal content policies. I see no reason why "but it is a good reason" or "it is from a common law country" present sufficient force of persuasion to overcome that hump. Further, we do this because we DONT have to rely on your opinion about the chinese government. Or mine. Or our opinion about the american government. Or the british. We don't need to make value judgments about countries in order to do policy. We just say "no". Back to my last question, if the UK government is so sensible, what do we say to a DA notice? Protonk (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

DA-Notice - we don't just dismiss it because it came from the UK but we consider the content of the request and compare that to our policies as you advocate'

• Does it ask for the removal of personal information of a undercover agent - then we may comply including oversight since it may not be from a RS - if it is from a RS then we advise the requestor that is widely known and they should get that agent out quickly.
• Is it to remove information critical of the UK govt that was published in a dissident magazine out of reach of the UK legal system - then we tell them no

I think we are closer to agreement that it may at first seem --Trödel 02:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I know you are leaving so we will see this tomorrow. I think that the solution (like I said below) is just to send it to AfD. We receive a message from someone to take down a page that meets our content guideline, we send it to the community. If a community discussion agrees that balancing this external request against our policies results in deletion, great. I have seen about a dozen subject requests for deletion of BLP's. We have deleted (at AfD) about 50% of them: the ones that got deleted were at the margin. The ones that got kept clearly met BLP. Admins are a poor proxy for that, especially in the face of a government request (we are likely to place too much weight on requests/orders from authority figures). Protonk (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Doing the bidding of the govt

I think there is a misunderstanding of what the issue/proposed guidance is.

No one is arguing that we should edit articles based upon Sub Judice just because the UK govt asked. That is ridiculous. We are instead evaluating the effect and reasons for the request and carefully deciding on a prudent course of action.

In other words, we should not reject a request just because it is made by a government official. Just like we should not take an action just because it is made by a government official. We should consider what should be done using our BLP and other policies. --Trödel 01:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why isn't it sufficent to send thos articles to AfD just like we would do for a request to delete a marginal BLP from the subject? Protonk (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• The prudent course of action is simple. We should reject any request to censor Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not censored. Fletcher (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I disagree strongly with Trödel's statement "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and does not need to have all information at all times. There is no censorship where the information remains easily available in the history and where the information will be restored promptly.". I would say that for any encyclopedia, it is extremely important that encyclopedic information be available all the time, and not be removed whenever someone in the world finds it easier to suppress accurate and well referenced encyclopedia content rather than warning jurors against conducting their own independent investigations. Books that get burned because the authorities don't like the content or the authors can be reprinted later, since a library somewhere in the world will likely have a copy, but book burning is still unacceptable. Speakers that are silenced when it is convenient for the authorities, can have their say later when the crisis is past, but this policy is also unacceptable. What part of this is hard to understand? Edison (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

  A question for those familiar with trials in UK, Australia, or Canada: We are told there is no voir dire there, in which prosecution and defense alternately question jurors and reject those they feel will not try the case in an impartial manner. Are the jurors at least questioned by the judge as to whether they have personal knowledge of the case, if they have read about the case, and if they will bring a verdict based only on the testimony and evidence presented in court? Is there any theoretical rule against jurors doing their own reading up on the facts of the case and the life history of the accused, the victim, and the laws related to the case? The Voir dire article is unclear as to this. Edison (talk) 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed guidance (cont)

None of that was sensible. It's not practical to decide which crimes and which jurisdictions are worthy of honoring censorship requests. What if China is trying a political prisoner? We have to decide which states are trustworthy and which not, which laws are just and which not. We can't do that. It's very troubling, and contrary to our mission, to defer to the most restrictive jurisdiction.

Point (1) is nonsense; that we are an encyclopedia means we should include more, not less information, and the fact that old versions can be restored could justify violating any policy. Blank a page? Why not, it can always be undone. Deleting information during a trial is particularly harmful as that is likely a time when the information is most in demand.

Point (2) is false as it presupposes Wikipedia causes the child molester to be released, when in fact it is the state's responsibility to protect the public, not Wikipedia, and the state must design its procedures to account for possible biases introduced by information on the internet. So that's fundamentally a mistaken assumption of causality, in addition to emotional blackmail as Cameron notes.

Point (3) cuts both ways -- as Wikipedia has grown, we're also a bigger target for censorship as more people see a benefit in controlling what appears here, so we have greater need to resist censorship than when we were more obscure.

Point (4) is false - having accurate, verifiable information that conforms to BLP does not make WP a soapbox. WP:NOTSOAPBOX material should of course be removed, but that is not under discussion here. There is also no evidence provided, just assertions, that having accurate, verifiable information here will or ever has harmed justice in any way. Fletcher (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If China asked for a temporary removal of evidence of past convictions - why wouldn't we honor that?

(1) m:Eventualism - the long term value of the information is more important than the current value of having this information.

BTW this is a misreading of eventualism, which says a bad article can improve in the future, not that we should make a good article worse in the present! And I disagree the long term value is more important -- the information is only valuable to readers when they are looking for it, and most likely a lot of people will be looking for it around the time of a trial. Fletcher (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is not the most common use of the term eventualism - but "there is no deadline" to me can also imply that there is no imperative that the information must be in the article right now! --Trödel 00:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a sloppy dodge--not you personally, jimbo made the same remark. This isn't the case of being slow to fix errors or move forward. This is a case where an editing philosophy is being used to justify censorship. By this argument I could say "we can remove the muhammed images because at some point in the future they won't piss muslims off". There is no deadline for that either. Protonk (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There is difference between an indefinite removal pending a future event that may or may not happen, and a limited duration removal with a clearly defined future event that signifies restoration. I don't agree that it is Censorship - it is an editorial decision about the timing of the disclosure based upon moral/ethical standards we hold dear. --Trödel 01:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct. what I'm saying is that there is no difference in removing content at the request of some privileged party summarily. Creating that false distinction marginalizes the actual problem: that CENSOR was written so that there can be no confusion about whether or not Wikipedia is beholden to anything but our core content principles. When we edit articles on behalf of governments (especially when we do so in a manner that restricts who may edit or see them--deletion/protection) that introduces confusion. Protonk (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(2) Read Sub judice - "publicly discussing cases sub judice may constitute interference with due process." - the article is not clear on what that means but release because of interference with due process can happen in the US - see e.g. Miranda rights

(3) Which is why any policy should be carefully crafted to prevent manipulation. Also I think that Wikipedians would reject such manipulations, and appeals to a narrowly constructed policy would be ignored when used as a defense for such manipulations.

(4 - which isn't the same as 4 in my comment above) including information that has potential for harm (when the request is to not include it so for a short time) simply because Wikipedia is not censored, is making a point and promoting a viewpoint --Trödel 20:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding 4- There are clear limits to potential for harm concerns. Gunpowder has much potential for harm as does TNT. However, we have articles on those subjects. Given that most democracies have no notion of sub judice the argument that there is any serious potential for harm on our part is not credible. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree - there are limits - but we should balance between them instead of just blindly deciding "include everything or it is censorship" --Trödel 00:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Correction

Fletcher and Cameron Scott inspired me to look more closely at what the realistic impact would be of a violation of Sub Judice. There are significant cases where convictions have been overturned in the UK because of media reports that "pre-convicted" (my word) the accused. However, in cases of murder or more heinous acts the Guardian reports that the courts have been reluctant to overturn because of media reports (see Justice in the spotlight below). So release was indeed a unlikely possibility that we should not consider in crafting a general rule - and I have removed it from above.

Frankly, the rule seems somewhat archaic - especially to Americans because of our cherished value of Free Speech. However, there are still prosecutions (or more frequently the threat of prosecution) in the UK, Canada, and Australia of the reporter, editor and publisher of such information and it can be a criminal conviction.

It seems reasonable to be vigilant in the application of BLP rules (as we would to any living person's article who is getting current press) to articles for which the subject of the article is currently awaiting trial in those countries that have the concept of Sub Judice. I think everyone agrees on with this.

The conflict comes in how to present factual information about past convictions (public discourse of which could get one convicted of violating Sub Judice in those countries). I see two extremes:

1. Removing the information and not acknowledging such information exists
2. Including all such information

I would hope that there was something else we could do out of respect for the request of reasonable people in the countries where Sub Judice is enforced that would still allow us to uphold our values of neutral presentation of information provided by reliable sources.

Finally, citizens of the countries may want to not edit such articles at all since they bear the risk of prosecution. --Trödel 21:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As a legal matter, sub judice is irrelevant because it does not apply under US and Florida law AFAIK. We do not and should not adopt the censorship policies of more restrictive nations. As an ethical matter, sub judice is irrelevant because it presumes a situation where information is controlled by only a few sources and other records are hard to access. Such a situation does not exist in the internet age, if it ever did exist. There are simply too many sources to reasonably expect to stop the flow of information. Remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable, so if Wikipedia has information about a notable criminal, that information is likely easily accessible somewhere else. Therefore if we cannot reasonably expect to suppress information, the question of whether we should try to do so is moot. But perhaps, one might argue, we should fight a losing battle out of principle, trying to suppress information that can be found elsewhere. But doesn't this undermine the whole concept of our encyclopedia, the idea that on net the public benefits from the spread of knowledge, even if in specific cases (like, say, pipe bomb) spreading knowledge could conceivably have harmful effects? Fletcher (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide an example where a case has been tossed because of electronic media outside of the UK? --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying that it we are legally required. I am saying we should balance the possible effect of the inclusion of the information vs its absence for a short period of time. I am surprised that more editors are not saying - "Hey, what real harm is there in having this stuff gone for a few weeks" - frankly it was gone for 2-3 weeks before anyone but me even noticed (and felt that a comment should be made on the talk page) - and I checked several times during this period - Wikipedia was still a high ranking result for Peter Tobin. Either the page wasn't used that much, or it was and people went on to the next result, those that clicked the talk were either persuaded there is no real harm in the info being gone for a little while or didn't think it was worth arguing over.

That said, I disagree that we should do exactly what AlisonW did. I think we should

1. Carefully consider each situation with a view to how long the information would be missing, how much information is impacted, what are the motivations behind the request
2. Respond only when an official complaint is lodged
3. Keep as much of the article intact as possible - give it added scrutiny for compliance with BLP policy
4. Remove the past convictions, but indicate that information about past criminal convictions if any has been removed as a result of a request under the local courts Sub Judice law
5. Remove speculation about the current crime other than reporting that it happened and the person is on trial for it (std BLP stuff)
6. Report on what is happening in the trial including restoring past convictions if they are presented as evidence
7. Restore past convictions as soon as there is a judgment

I don't think we should

1. Agree to do it without a careful evaluation
2. Remove information just because a country's law forbids that information
3. Permanently remove the information (i.e. oversight)
4. Decide any particular case based solely on offense or local custom

So in the case of Peter Tobin, I would have supported: removal of past conviction info, decided protection based on whether it was continuously readded, updated the article based on current news reports on what the jury was hearing, restore the past conviction info when the conviction was handed down. There would have been a short period when the article was much smaller.

As to example where the case was tossed because of electronic media I don't have one, and have done all the research I intend to on UK law. However, whether Wikipedia is "outside" the UK for the purpose of determining whether the jury or jury pool was influenced is not easily no. It could be considered inside the UK because it is easily accessible there, etc. So I don't think that is a simple answer to the question either. --Trödel 01:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why we should comply with the rules of a particular legal system that we are not required to. We are building an encyclopedia here. Why should we interfere with building an encyclopedia, when we don't have to? I do not see the ethical harm in providing true information to readers. The courts are responsible for properly instructing their jurors. Wikipedia does not run the courts. Wikipedia serves its readers. If I am a reader, I want to know about those past convictions. I want to understand the full story of the criminal's life, not read some stripped down version that tells me just what some judge in another country thinks his jury should be allowed to hear. I am not on the jury so do not need to compartmentalize my judgment of the criminal to a particular act. My context as a reader differs from a juror's context. And 99.99...% of readers are not jurors on a particular case. Wikipedia serves its readers. Why should we deprive them of true information?

You ask what's the harm if it's just temporary? What if the government banned criticism of itself shortly before an election, but allowed it afterwards? Is that not censorship? We would not be involved in this project if we did not believe Wikipedia provides value to readers. If we think certain facts about a person are significant enough to merit removal, they are also significant enough to be of interest to the general reader, and removing them destroys value for readers, no different than vandalism destroys value -- even if it can be reverted later. Fletcher (talk) 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Re the discussions above about China etc. surely this isn't relevant, arguably we only need to worry about about predominantly English language jurisdictions? Sure there are English-language speakers world-wide, but the risk of en.wiki influencing trials trials in predominantly non-english speaking countries is possibly low enough that we can ignore it? And also remember we only have to worry about countries that have trial by jury. Misarxist 12:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting reading

Some things that could inform our decision on how to have a useful policy on Sub Judice. Please feel free to include additional sources --Trödel 21:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• Article on how current technologies are undermining the principle of Sub Judice
• Rules that ABC.net (Australia Broadcasting Corporation - not US ABC) uses to help reporters report on current events without violating Sub Judice
• Guardian article on why Sub Judice is outdated

Articles that examine the impact in cases re Sub Judice

• Treating contempt with contempt British Journalism Review
• Deaf Justice Guardian.uk
• Justice in the Spotlight Guardian.uk

Hiding content depending on reader location

Would it be adequate if Wikipedia had technical means to keep some content from being shown to readers from a certain geographical area? I'm thinking of the New York Times example, where their article on a sub judice case was withheld from UK readers, who instead were shown a message referring to the prohibition of publishing prejudicial information.[12][13] We already have a proof of concept in the form of Wikipedia:Geonotice, and such a solution might be better for the majority of readers than article deletion for all, even if just temporarily. --Para (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a terrible idea. Wikipedia does not need to be proactive in suppressing knowledge. Our goal is the opposite, to spread knowledge. Let the British government install a nationwide firewall and block Wikipedia, or let it sue Wikimedia or sue individual British contributors. If the government must suppress knowledge then let it play its hand. We don't have to do the censors' work for them. We don't have to adopt the British government's view of sub judice, which strikes me as an archaic and dubious concept to begin with. Fletcher (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, I know! We could use that to restrict images that depict nudity or violence to church and school IPs, and restrict images of Muhammad in the Middle East... No. We don't censor, full stop. It sets a horrible precedent. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we could. Why are we not helping our readers access the content they're after, or rather, not access content that they may already have chosen they'd rather not see? People here are quick to call any omission of information we can get away with as censorship, but Wikipedia doesn't have to pretend to be a paper encyclopedia and technically there are more possibilities than just to include something or not. Better words might be a dynamic or personalisable encyclopedia, where all the information is still available if a reader wants it, but it may not be shown by default. According to Internet censorship in the United Kingdom, the government could already block access to illegal content, but instead of attempting to control all online content themselves, they are making the publishers responsible for the work. In the case of Wikipedia, that's us, the community. We could tag all Wikipedia content with keywords describing it, such as "uk sub judice", "nudity", "violence", "muhammad image", etc, that local filtering software could then use. Seeing however as software Wikimedia could recommend to everyone doesn't exist, Javascript solutions like the one used with the geonotice would achieve the same. --Para (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Censorship by location is still censorship. When Turkey blocks Youtube that's censorship even if people outside Turkey can still watch it. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If readers prefer not to see content, they don't have to view that content! It's pretty easy. Just don't click on it. But filtering is not really about helping individuals, who can help themselves. Filtering is an "in" for governments to restrict what their citizens can see. We should not be aiding governments in their goal of suppressing knowledge, which is the exact opposite of our goal to spread knowledge.Fletcher (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Complete non-starter - it's been suggested a number of times and is shot down in flames each time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

UK ISPs have now demonstrated that they can hide content for us and that blocking access is indeed easily possible. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses. --Para (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

So, is there a consensus on new guidance?

I'm only asking as the Tobin affair hasn't gone away. In the (very) near future, he's going to be moved to England to be formally questioned (and charged, no doubt) on at least one high profile murder. Already, UK news outlets are reining in their descriptions of future prosecution interest in case they get into trouble. From my own point of view, I was pleased his wiki page couldn't be used to show he couldn't get a fair trial. However, the circumstances around this case and the many thousands of words written here show that Wikipedia has actually come of age. The internet is seen to be full of cranks and misinformation, but Wikipedia (in a legal sense) is now deemed to be so factual and concise a source of information that it could threaten a murder trial. From what's been written on this talk page, most places in the world don't have this pre-trial restriction; that's fine - every legal system will have it's own checks and balances. But, in cases where pre-trial publicity is a criminal offence, AND where the interest is mainly restricted to the local inhabitants, I think it would be sensible for an Admin from that area to temporarily delete the article. Once the trial is over, the article can be reinstated. This wouldn't be censorship, it wouldn't be government interference, nor would it be running scared in case of defamation. It would seem unfair if the right to read about an ongoing murder trial on the other side of the planet should be more important than the murder trial itself.--ML5 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• The distinction here is that the availability of an article about a famous murderer is our responsibility, while the fairness of an ongoing murder trial on the other side of the planet is not. If the prosecutors in any future Tobin trial are concerned about the jury reading about Mr. Tobin's past, then they already have perfectly adequate measures at their disposal to prevent jurors from reading our article. I see no reason why we should inconvenience every other English-speaking person in the world to spare the Scottish officials the trouble of actually doing their jobs and making use of those measures. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 14:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • For some Wikipedia readers, as well as editors, Scotland might not be "on the other side of the planet" as you suggest. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, British law does not apply in the US nor in Florida. The argument given by Godwin amounts to saying that acknowledgement of any foreign law by WP would open up huge cans of worms (not just wrt "defamation" if one reads the full section of prior discussion). (I had argued for accounting for foreign law up to that point) Collect (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The foundation is not bound by British law, and I did not suggest that, nor did I suggest acknowledging any legal obligation. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is used also in the UK, a democratic country, where laws are made by a parliament representing the people; and so I say - apart from any formal, legal aspects - that we should respect these rules even if we are not formally bound by them. Currently the only response to any such inquiry seems to be, "we don't care for your laws! Sue us in Florida if you can!" This is pathetic. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I have no problem respecting Britain's right to handle their affairs as they see fit. Which is exactly why I don't see the need for us to take an active role in their judicial system, when they're perfectly well-equipped to take care of such things on their own. They don't (and shouldn't) need our help to run their country. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• What's this passive voice? Deemed by who? Who says providing verifiable information to the public threatens justice, and who says we have to agree with them? Fletcher (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"but Wikipedia (in a legal sense) is now deemed to be so factual and concise a source of information that it could threaten a murder trial." - this is an amazing statement to make - by whom? where? Something is only "legal" when it is ruled to be so in a court - that is not the case here. Here we have someone (and it is still unclear *who* beyond a vague use of the word 'police') advancing the *idea* that it could be - the alarmist and misleading statements made here are very troubling. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

First, it would be helpful if original section header was clearer what the issue was - "legal case" just too vague to get everyone who watches the page attention. I just skimmed it but not enough to figure out if there is any consensus.

Second, shouldn't this discussion belong first at a proposed deletion page?? Then Keep or Delete would be clearly marked.

However, in general let me opine: According to User:ML5's view, because the govt can't control juries we all have to silence provision of information. The next step is because we can't stop criminals, we all have to wear ankle monitors at all time to restrict our movements except as allowed by government - as "democratically decided" of course. (And let's not start about "majority rule" really being minority rule.

In Canada, another English speaking country, it is also an illegal "hate crime" to criticize Israel and its supporters "too much" or "too harshly," even with WP:RS, and that law is enforced and people go to jail for it. Should we then stop mentioning WP:RS of real crimes by that state or its supporters? What's next, democratically elected English speaking governments preventing any criticism of their policies? Might as well close wikipedia down so we stop wasting our time on it.... CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wait, wait....your summary of the consensus above is that we delete these articles?!?! Please re-read the thread. Protonk (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I said I was responding to User:ML5's view which is to temporarily delete the article - which is the first post in a section called "So, is there a consensus on new guidance?." I admitted I only skimmed rest. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I know Carol, I was responding to ML5. Sorry for the confusion in indentation. Protonk (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

All of these hypotheticals - Canada, Iran, China, whatever - are straw men. They are simply not analogous to this case. First of all, this request may have been from the government, but it was not helping the government. It was helping the defendant. This request, if anything, would have made it more difficult for the government to obtain a conviction. Furthermore, this request aligns with values that we have articulated previously. We have a BLP policy, but we do not have a "preventing criticism of Israel policy" or a "suppressing political dissent" policy. This discussion is better framed as an analysis of whether we are willing to protect the integrity of living person's trials at the expense of immediate availability of verifiable information, not as whether we are willing to respect the wishes of a foreign government. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Jimbo Wales was brought into this discussion earlier this week. He said he was against deletion, but asks that we come up with a consensus of how to tackle similar events. I have no personal connection to the Tobin case, but I am of a similar age to Vicky Hamilton, was brought up in Scotland seeing her photograph as a missing person and I work beside the church where Angelika Kluk was murdered. Scotland is not a legal backwater and, as I said above, every legal system will have it's own checks and balances. In Scotland, and the rest of the UK, media reports (newspapers, TV, books, etc) are not allowed to report anything which could prejudice a trial. We're used to that and we're not trying to impose that on the rest of the world. As I said above, as Wikipedia becomes a more trusted source for information (this is a good thing), it *COULD* be seen to prejudice a trial (and, no, Wikipedia has NOT been tested in UK courts (yet)). All I am suggesting is that when somebody is charged with a UK crime in a UK court that's only really of UK interest, any article which summarises their past misdemeanours is TEMPORARILY deleted by a UK Admin until the trial is over. Why would an American or Canadian think this is an attack on their freedom of speech, when their unlikely to ever have heard of the case?--ML5 (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

They would think that precisely because it is. If Wikipedia were only supposed to cover topics of interest to a local audience, we wouldn't just have English (language) Wikipedia. We'd have Scottish Wikipedia and Irish Wikipedia and Australian Wikipedia and Canadian Wikipedia, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Instead, we have a comprehensive information source for all English-speakers, with articles on Congolese politicians and Uzbekistani athletes and tiny islands in Micronesia. For every notable subject, there's an interested reader somewhere, and I just can't understand why some people here seem so bound and determined to do those readers a huge disservice for no good reason at all. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, re: protecting integrity of trial, remember governments often try to hide exculpatory evidence of the person's innocence that they don't want to see on wikipedia and that's the other side of the coin.

In any case, the issue is can wikipedia be sued, not should wikipedia help individuals avoid bad publicity.

What is next, no articles about any individual (or corporation or government entity or their employees) who is the subject of a civil suit that might cost them money?? Do you know how many articles there are mentioning such suits? Why open that can of worms??

As for Canada being a straw man, let's test it. I'll start several Name of Big pro-Israel Lobbyist in Canada articles and/or several Name person prosected for criticizing Israel or its Lobbies in Canada articles with solid WP:RS sources and' criticism of Canada's laws and see how fast Canada comes in threatening wikipedia! :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with HB, Wikipedia is a global project and does not cater to parochial custom. Given our NOTNEWS, BLP, and notability rules, we should only have articles on people with some lasting historical import. If the subject article is appropriate for the encyclopedia, that means it has a worldwide audience, and I thank you not to tell me what topics I should and should not be interested in, just because I live across the pond. I want to know what Peter Tobin did, and I want to know it when I am looking for it, not at some later date. I see no argument or evidence why the court system is unable to deal with publicly available information on the internet, nor do I see why any of us should adhere to laws which have no jurisdiction over Wikipedia. Fletcher (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea of respecting the integrity of a trial is just a big, fat red herring. We aren't forcing jurors to visit our website, or printing out copies of the article and mailing it to them. We're just recombining and republishing material that has already been spread hither and yon by newspapers and TV stations. The only way for a juror to find our article is if he or she is actively looking for it... and if that's the case, he or she is going to find the information anyway (probably in the sources we used to write the article in the first place). It's nice to feel all big and proud about our clean hands, but by taking down the article we aren't really accomplishing anything except passing the buck. At least with an article here, we can try and ensure that it's accurate and unbiased - there's no way we can do the same for the rest of the Web. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts that probably echo many above. BLP, NOT#CENSORED, "do no harm" "in the real world", "non-US legal systems not relevant to WMF and policy", and so on - these are all noted and agreed. No need to rehash.

1. In principle, every comment about a person, positive negative or neutral, could be salient to some matter. Even if not legal, we don't know what legitimate encyclopedic fact could be salient to someone's work, home, or any other matter. In most cases this is a low grade issue - most (but not all) personal information in BLP-compliant articles is well known to the subject and others they are involved with and not a surprise. Witness the lack of media reports starting "X was discovered by reading their bigraphy on Wikipedia". Our articles are not often a place "new information emerges from". When WP:BLP is followed, articles related to people tend to be much more a summary of well known, verifiable, well sourced facts.

   • Consideration: Active legal cases are possibly in a separate (more urgent) category, for various reasons.

2. Wikipedia is not a primary source. Everything in a BLP is in principle, "known to the world", and where doubt is raised, it's sifted, reviewed and only the most salient and well sourced content remains. That's also implicit within WP:BLP.

   • Consideration: But those sources (broadsheet or BBC pages or whatever) may not be so well known as Wikipedia, nor so often viewed by interested members of the public.

3. So three questions: would Wikipedia really derail a jury or case so much as to mean we need to wipe the matter off a page? How much and how long would a jury be "influenced"? And is it our job to make that judgement or to overly second-guess it?
   1. I'm not a lawyer to consider those in depth. But personally? If there is a genuine concern, it is probably very rare. To exist, there would need to be information in a "scrubbed" scrutinized BLP, that was very well sourced from a reliable source, but little known, and was capable of being prejudicial but couldn't be taken care of via volt dire. Uncommon. The rest will be on BBC anyway or in the New York Times, and volt dire can readily ask "do you read Wikipedia" as much as "do you read USA Today", and many many members of the public will not have read our page, for any given case. Unconvinced of real court impact.
   2. Even if we only did it during a hearing, that raises questions (not a lawyer again): during a hearing the jury shouldn't be Wikipedia-ing anyway if required not to, and if they want to read they would dig up a lot online probably including the sources we cite. Which they'll hear of in court anyway if salient, with a caution to ignore anything they have read or heard elsewhere as I understand it. Even once the case is over, suppose it's appealled (and it'll take 2 years). Do we blank it for that time too? And to what real likelihood of benefit?
   3. Is it our job? Not legally, and as a project our norms mitigate strongly towards non-censorship. We bend slightly in some cases (borderline notable persons requesting BLP removal), so we might bend slightly in others. But wholesale biasing and removal on the basis that "someone somewhere might read it"... no.

Some thoughts. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In Tobin's case, the jury did not hear of his previous convictions during the trial. That would have been held to prejudice the outcome, which could result in the guilty party being acquitted, severely upsetting the victim's family. . . dave souza, talk 18:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

To recap the point, some would have read about them, googled "tobin", and so on. That gets excluded via volt dire. Although many people read Wikipedia, you'd have to have a special interest or use it to track current news, to be likely to have read that page. If you pull a hundred people off the street and asked them, before a court case opened, if they have read a Wikipedia page on it, it would probably not be hard to form several juries of people who didn't read Wikipedia that much, and hadn't read our article. Guesswork, but we aren't that universal yet, and a number of those who did google it because it was in the news will have likely seen similar information too, given we sourced ours from "reliable sources" accessible to other websites worldwide. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you clarify if that would result in an acquittal, vs. a mistrial? In any case, there's no evidence that there is precedent for rapists and murderers being released because of publicly available information on the internet, so warning that if we don't delete, murderers will go free is itself rather prejudicial to this discussion. Fletcher (talk) 18:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

IANAL, but my understanding is that even though the US uses a version of English law, "volt dire" does not apply anywhere in the UK. We've not changed to English law in 301 years of union, so that can mean differences in Scotland. From memory, there's precedent for a trial being closed because a newspaper revealed previous convictions, dunno whether that was an acquittal or whether there was a possibility of retrial. . . dave souza, talk 19:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

To me this whole thing sounds like a failure of the Scottish judicial system and really is none of our concern. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

From where I sit this is one of the most reasonable things said in this discussion (although I'm sure others also have made the point). The wise heads responsible for the judicial systems in countries that follow this rule of law certainly are aware that others do not. They surely know that the internet exists, and that information that might not be permitted to be released under local law is nevertheless available to many. If they, as a policy matter, wish to err in favor of allowing a potentially guilty person to go free because Wikipedia has an article that may be pertainent to a pending trial, they, as policy makers have to deal with the consequences the result. Our concern should be with rigorously following our policies in these cases WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. I have no problem with protecting the article under circumstances in which experience has shown it is likely to be a target for vandalism/BLP violations, but deletion should not be on the table, except by means of our established processes. 138.162.0.41 (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And Oz. For example, PREJUDICIAL MATERIAL – Article in a country newspaper, the Moree Champion, referring to past criminal conduct of two persons charged with armed robbery and assault. PENALTIES AND COSTS $5,000 plus one-half the costs (Publisher). Other cases are shown with much higher penalties. . dave souza, talk 19:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please provide an example that actually relates to this problem - not examples of media within the jurisdiction cited - so not an example of an newspaper in oz being taken to care by the courts in oz. An example of someone in the US being taken to court by the courts in OZ. Your examples are just a smokescreen for scare tactics. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The example of the NYT is relevant. I'm not using "scare tactics", I'd like legal advice confirming that such pages should not be blanked during a trial, or that only relevant information about previous convictions or allegations should be blanked. That has to come formally through the Foundation, or like AlisonW we have to err on the side of caution. . dave souza, talk 10:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Legal guidance required

• As the New York Times example cited above shows, the legal implications of this can extend to the United States. We're all guessing here, and that's why Mike Godwin and the Foundation need to determine in principle if there's really an issue here, and give guidance on a way forward. It may be that the best outcome is that when cases are sub-judice, we protect the article and take extra care to comply with normal BLP requirements, and at the same time those responsible for the trial take any necessary measures to ensure that jurors are not affected by the information that is on the article. Given the severe penalties available to UK courts in case of contempt of court, we shouldn't just pretend we can ignore the situation, nor should we delete information unnecessarily. . . dave souza, talk 18:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

They did - Mike Goodwin (according to emails received by Alison) went contacted about the matter said that it was a community matter and nothing to do with the WMF and passed it back to us. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Did this advice include the question of legal liability of individual editors as well as of the foundation? If Mike was giving the go-ahead to restore the article, why didn't that happen? For info, research shows that the problem is real:[14] 2.45 England. The serious risk of prejudice attaching to publicity concerning prior criminal convictions has been substantiated by recent empirical research in England. A study of the effects of revealing a prior conviction to a simulated jury produced results indicating that evidence of previous convictions can have a significant prejudicial effect, especially where there is a recent previous conviction for a similar offence.... – see also the US section. . dave souza, talk 19:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that he commented on individual editors, but if an individual editor in one of those jurisdictions wants to edit the article, why would we try to stop them? They can make decisions for themselves. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it didn't happen because there were too many people who didn't bother to read the whole thread (and thus didn't realized that he'd already washed his hands of it) for us to build a consensus on what to do. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The legal liability is unchanged from what it has always been - *you* are legally responsible for all of your edits. If they come after you, you are on your own, that has always been the case. substantiated by recent empirical research in England. please provide the peer research journals in which this occurs. This is just another bogus deadend, please provide an example of where a case has been thrown out 'because of electronic media in a different jurisdiction' - at the moment, people are making those bizarre statements about significant risk by cherry picking bits and bobs of previous examples and mashing them together. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• Good lord. How many times do we need to say that godwin et al. kicked this back to the community? There isn't a legal issue just like there isn't a legal issue in applying British defamation laws to Wikipedia. In that case (though not explicitly in this one) Mike Godwin said it was a mistake for the community to build content guidelines on the basis of the most limiting jurisdictions rather than on the jurisdiction we are currently under: Florida state law and US federal law. If the Brits want to sue some contributor in england (would have to be an IP editor) for adding content to an article about someone involved in a current case, let them be foolish. Let's not be foolish for them. Protonk (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm exceedingly late to this party, but I can't fathom why we would want to assume the mantle of responsibility for a governments legal proceedings. Our collective obligation is 1. to act legally in the jurisdiction where the servers lie, 2. to rigorously adhere to our own policies, especially when dealing with matters of public import. That's it. It is the task of the judge to ensure a trial is fair, and I presume that they issue instruction to potential jurors to avoid news outlets. Regardless, that's not Wikipedia's problem. If editors within the jurisdicition of a particular government have to self-censor to comply with local law, that's fine, but the project as a whole ought not act as an extension of the government. It's good we're having this discussion because this was a blind spot - I never dreamed so many people would think deletion in this situation is a reasonable response. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It would at the very least make sense to have some sort of advisory template at the top of a page in situations where an article subject is subject to sub judice restrictions. I think it would be a positive step for Wikipedia to at least clarify this type of situation to an editor who might otherwise be in danger at putting themself at risk of criminal proceedings. Brilliantine (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Registered editors would be safe. To get to a registered editor the british would have to do deep packet inspection (And look ahead of time or in the recent past) or subpoena wikipedia for the IP address. Hopefully wikipedia would not submit to some subpoena presented from a foreign government. Protonk (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If an English court made an order directing Wikipedia to release the information for the purposes of criminal proceedings, it would be interesting to see what would ensue. If anyone has any precedent, I'd like to hear of it. In any case, it wouldn't do any harm to provide such a template, and it would be a good compromise if Wikipedia assisted people in such a way that they might not break the law of their country, rather than simply protecting people who break it. To be honest I think the NYT has shown the right way to go, even if their type of solution is unlikely on Wikipedia. Brilliantine (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It's not our job or responsibility to try and educate people about the laws of their own country. Are we going to try and figure out all of the different laws that might apply in every country around the world and put a disclaimer at the top of every possible affected page? -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already done this. See Template:Sub judice UK. Since sub judice exists in other Commonwealth countries (Canada, Australia, India etc) this template can easily be adapted to fit those countries. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand the argument. The internet is viewable in england, therefore what is displayed here might want to be (at least socially) viewed as cognizent of the norms and rules there. Just like I wouldn't break italian laws in italy you could say that I shouldn't send information over the web that isn't desired to italy. Analytically, it breaks down. First, this leads to a race to the bottom. The internet is accessible everywhere, so in order to meet this we would need to meet the legal and social mores of any country that could access wikipedia. Second, this voids the choice made by the foundation in picking the US as a site for their servers. The foundation chose to locate in america over england for a specific reason (we assume). To replace our laws with english laws would void that choice unfairly. Third, it doesn't respect how the internet actually works. This is important. We aren't "broadcasting" wikipedia in to english homes. Content on wikipedia is served up following an exchange of requests over various protocols. You have to click on it to get it. We are not an "unwelcome guest" in english homes any more than a porn site would be. Lastly, the entire basis for national identity is that legal decisions made by other countries are not respected outside those boundaries. It is illegal to drink under the age of 21 in the US. That does not make it illegal to drink at the age of 20 in England. I know that is a deliberately simple example, but the basic point is very clear. English law governs the english and no one else. Protonk (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, also non-English parties who are physically in England. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahh yes. Crap. Forgot to add that. :) Protonk (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It also potentially affects anyone physically in the European Union, via the European Arrest Warrant. It's conceivable that an EU resident could be charged with contempt of court in the UK and be extradited there via an EAW. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but if there is a way to assist English editors in their attempts to avoid breaking English law, so much the better. I'm pleased to hear that such a template exists, and to me it seems like a sensible compromise. I'm not saying that I expect the NYT solution to be adopted on Wikipedia, by the way. Brilliantine (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with a template and (as I said above) I'm also fine with just sending an article to AfD when this happens in the future. AfD is the appropriate place for this kind of discussion and they can weight the impact of the outside world versus the standing of the article here effectively where a single admin can not. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I'm actually a bit less sanguine about the template, well-intentioned though it is. Even with the disclaimers, I get nervous about anonymous editors providing legal advice, and I'm concerned that it could needlessly frighten editors away. But that's a discussion for later; we have a bit much on our plate now. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Media coverage of this matter

• Why jury had to be warned to ignore net
• Tobin: Previous murder conviction threatened fair trial. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is bad news. The first link makes us look silly, the second like we can be intimidated by the police. We need to make clear that no, we are not subject to British law, although individual British contributors publish at their own peril. Fletcher (talk) 22:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess. to me it means that the first link looks dumb. the second one just looks like it is from a british source that doesn't assume that we have different norms here about censorship than exist in england. Just like US editors are gobsmacked that there is no voire dire (or whatever) in england, no jury sequestration, and no understanding that the english idea of justice has at its core the idea of keeping the jury from being pressured by outside information. I take for granted that the government can't order wikipedia to get rid of information because I live in the US. If I lived in england I would take for granted that a uk source would be silenced by the government. Therefore it is a matter of course that we took the page down (for them). Not really an embarrasment. Protonk (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, I think the first link makes us look responsible. We did the right thing, and the article quite starkly brings home what the stakes were.

The second one - "following intervention by the police" - is unfortunate, for not recognising that this was a voluntary decision we took; but it's unusual for the media to get everything right, and I'm sure Protonk is absolutely right as to why the journalist wouldn't have thought to question it. Jheald (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It makes us look responsible because they said "wikipedia devoted a special page to the rapist"? Really? Why doesn't their obvious misunderstanding of wikipedia make their depiction of us just look cartoonish? Protonk (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it makes us look responsible because we "took the page down for the duration of the trial". Jheald (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I dont' want to rehash that part of the debate. Coming from the standpoint of an american, it makes the scottish legal system look incapable of handling the 20th century, let alone the 21st. Coming from the point of view of a scot, it probably makes wikipedia look like it is in contempt of court (as the defense ludicrously asserted). We aren't liable to reconcile that debate. Good thing we don't need to. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned by the conflation of 'courts' and 'government' here. I know technically the judiciary is a branch of the government, but to phrase it in such a way as 'silenced by the government' is beyond misleading, as 'government' is generally used to describe the executive in everyday speech.

I'm not concerned. We seem to be waiting for some shadowy figure from the top of the food chain to silence us. That's not going to happen. This is the 21st century. Our father's conception of censorship--the NKVD getting their black pens out and redacting information under the threat of inprisonment--doesn't apply anymore. The CIA has a press office. So do KGB and MI5. The government (or agents of the government) is going to ask nicely first. And the "government" means anyone who can excercise disciplinary power by virtue of being connected to a nation-state. A police officer is a representative of the government because he is allowed to use deadly force or imprison people where I am not. A judge is a representative of the government because he is allowed to demand that assets be rendered to the state or that individuals comply w/ a certain set of rules where I cannot. They are "the government". Protonk (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We're pretty big on our independence of judiciary here (I'm a Brit), and maybe we have a slightly different use of terminology, but the average man on the street wouldn't think of the courts when referring to 'the government'. Then again arguing semantics on this is pretty useless in terms of actual effect. Brilliantine (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, when I say "the state" I just mean a judge can tell you to do something solely by virtue of his being a judge and your being in england. Whether or not he is independent from Downing St. is not important to me. Protonk (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see if anyone has studied the precise status of Wikipedia under English law. Brilliantine (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Such a study would be profoundly uninsteresting, actually. There is no relationship. Just like english law does not constrain my actions (I drive on the right!) unless I am physically in england. Where wikipedia's servers and business is not in england, the same applies to them. Protonk (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)If Wikipedia was viewed as a publisher, things could get interesting. I'm sure you've heard of London as a centre for 'libel tourism'? To be honest, I doubt it'd be viewed this way, but it's something to think about at least. Brilliantine (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I note this section from the second linked story above: "On day two of proceedings, with the jury absent, defence QC Donald Findlay raised concerns about an entry on the website Wikipedia that detailed Tobin's past convictions and points of evidence not yet put to a court. The QC said the material amounted to "the most blatant contempt of court I have seen in my whole life". He asked for the reference to be removed if it was found to be published in the UK and therefore within the court's jurisdiction. Mr Findlay said: "According to my researchers, it is the first thing that you would hit (about Tobin) on a Google search. While that is in existence, I have the gravest concerns it is the skunk in the jury." I presume this is why the court got in touch with AlisonW, via the Scottish police, to ask for the article to be redacted temporarily. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I rather imagine that you are correct; still has it been confirmed that it was a representative of the court itself making contact? I can just as easily see a detective, fearful that a Bad Person might walk free, took the initiative to make the call. Really an entirely reasonable thing to do from his/her perspective. The QC, attempting to represent his client effectively, made exaggerated claims that appeared to find a sympathetic ear with the court. We really were the only ones (IMHO) who erred. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly is going to happen next time?

The debate above seems to have wandered off topic. The question here is, as far as I can tell, this: should material on living people who are involved in criminal trials be redacted from Wikipedia, if the information meets Wikipedia inclusion policies in all other respects? Put another way: if I nominate an article on Person X for deletion, and I cannot justify deleting the article based on normal BLP policy concerns, nor Notability, Verifiability, What Wikipedia is Not, or any other inclusion policy, should the article be deleted temporarily for the sole reason that the person is on trial?--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The majority of editors above seem to prefer not engaging in such deletions. And the Foundation has made clear that this is up to the community. Do other find that to be a fair summary of the consensu? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes. I think that is a fair reading of consensus, although there are some very vocal proponents of the temporary deletions. My personal opinion (just to get my own 2 cents in): I acknowledge the statements above that there is not (yet) a legal issue here, so talking about whether we are not censored may not really be germane yet (although I think it will be in the future). Many have argued that we have a moral responsibility to uphold a person's right to a fair trial. I agree, however, with those above who have placed that responsibility solely on the local criminal justice system. The Internet is a global resource, and Wikipedia is a global website. We can't let one country's laws get in the way of providing the best information we can to the largest number of people. There are other ways to control who has access to Wikipedia, but it is not our responsibility to do so.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 05:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to play devil's advocate for a bit: Why should I as a wikipedia editor and a citizen and resident of South Africa care about the laws of the USA or Florida? Why is Florida and the US "privileged" and all other jurisdictions get told to take a hike? Do we really only "do the right thing" when under duress of the law? If that is the consensus then we should add another item to the list of things that WP is: Wikipedia is Amoral. Roger (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia (the encyclopedia pages) as a reference source, is in essence, non-moral. It is a neutral, encyclopedic, recitation of significant verifiable data of general interest. However, Wikipedia is also edited by individual people, the project as a whole. Those individuals strike their own balance between the non-morality of neutral fact recitation, and their own personal views on the merits and de-merits of making certain recitations more visible to the wider public. This is a moral question, and one that every editor will choose an answer to.

Out of many editors' answers to that question, Wikipedia itself does have a quasi-morality, a reflection of that of its contributors. But this is an epiphenomenon (I think the term is??), a derived or reflected morality due to some other factor, not innate. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The laws of the USA and Florida are the focus because the Wikimedia Foundation's servers are physically located in Florida, and therefore within that jurisdiction. If the site were served out of Switzerland, we would be focused on complying with Swiss law, and not really care about US laws any more than English, Australian, Canadian, etc. laws. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OK then WP is amoral, I think that should be explicitly stated somewhere "official' - it would help reduce a fair proportion of edit warring based on editor's moral opinions. I find it quite surprising that Wikimedia's servers are all located in a single place - very odd for such (a) massive website(s). All it takes to wipeout the whole project is a single unlucky hurricane. Roger (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that that is a fair reading of consensus but an interpretation based on some vocal editors. --Trödel 09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that there are in this discussion more editors advocating that we do not follow such requests than are advocating that we do? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention all the editors NOT in the discussion who would be disgusted by the idea Wikipedia would take down thousands of articles just because and individual or company or government agency was subject to a lawsuit that the article commented on. I'd get disgusted and stop editing if that happened and I think thousands of other editors would too. Especially since we don't really know the identities or possible WP:COIs of most of those who would call for or support any article to be taken down. As I've worried elsewhere, we can't have the tens of thousands of intelligence and police agents of english speaking countries worldwide, or their supporters or family members, influencing what is or is not put on wikipedia! CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It is, in fact, happening again

At least the discussion is. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses. Apparently the organization that keeps the net "safe" for British citizens got a complaint that the album cover for Virgin Killer was child pornography. They filtered web access to wikipedia through a proxy and replaced our page on that image with a fake "404" message. Most editors involved have realized that we shouldn't be scrambling to kowtow to this, but more than a few have decided that this means CENSOR can and should be over-ridden. Protonk (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the time one thanks heaven for all those irresponsible Wiki-knock off sites :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Review in light of reliable sources

Both the Evening Times and The Herald cover it well, and give necessary information for the community to consider this.

On day one of the trial, members of the jury were given clear advice by trial judge Lord Emslie that their ultimate verdict should be based solely on evidence put to the court, and that newspaper and broadcast material during the trial should in no way influence their thoughts.

The Crown also deployed the services of a police officer to monitor any prejudicial material about Tobin that was in circulation, either in published or broadcast form, or on the internet.... the trial was halted on two occasions to discuss matters brought to the attention of the bench.

On day two of proceedings, with the jury absent, defence QC Donald Findlay raised concerns about an entry on the website Wikipedia that detailed Tobin's past convictions and points of evidence not yet put to a court.

The QC said the material amounted to "the most blatant contempt of court I have seen in my whole life". He asked for the reference to be removed if it was found to be published in the UK and therefore within the court's jurisdiction.

Mr Findlay said: "According to my researchers, it is the first thing that you would hit (about Tobin) on a Google search.

"While that is in existence, I have the gravest concerns it is the skunk in the jury."

The Wikipedia entry was later removed following intervention by the police.....

The Digger.. magazine... had referred to Tobin as a paedophile and linked him directly to the murder of Angelika Kluk. Mr Findlay ... said he would have called for the trial to be deserted and started again with a fresh jury if the "potentially dangerous" article had appeared in a broader-based publication. ...

Lord Emslie, while "happy to accept" that there was a prima facie case of contempt, called for a further hearing on the matter following the conclusion of the trial to establish if the publication had caused "substantial risk" to due court process.

The trial was under Scots law, a pluralistic system founded in Civil law (legal system), which has the same sub judice system as many Commonwealth countries with variants of English law. The US legal system is a version of English law, though Louisiana and Quebec have partly codified pluralistic systems comparable to Scots law. Voir dire in the US means that attorneys select or reject jurors who are then sequestered, a system not accepted in Commonwealth countries.

Under Scots law the Wikipedia article was in contempt of court. On the judge's instruction the police were monitoring the internet, and they contacted AlisonW who deleted the page. That was both a morally justifiable action, to avoid the trial being deserted, and if AlisonW is resident in the UK a legally enforceable action to avoid criminal contempt of court, punishable by a fine and costs which could be substantial if found to cause the trial to be deserted. AlisonW may be anonymous, but many editors aren't, and a significant number of admins and former admins have been outed. The issue had been taken up by the court, and if the information hadn't been removed the court could have taken an injunction against WP, a pressure the New York Times bowed to, and could also have contacted UK admins and required them to delete the page. If contacted in such a way, in my opinion I'd have to delete the offending information and protect the page.

The Evening Times reports Mr McKie, of Glasgow-based law firm Levy & McRae, commenting on the issues for Scots law, but until there is a resolution, this situation could readily crop up again. QC Donald Findlay has quite a reputation for spectacular defences in trials. . . dave souza, talk 09:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

David - you have to stop this - every single one of your legal analysis has been so hysterical in tone and seems to be based on some gross misunderstanding of the law in the uk:

• Under Scots law the Wikipedia article was in contempt of court. - no it wasn't - because it's not published in the UK and beyond the jurisdiction of the courts as noted by the defence

• if AlisonW is resident in the UK a legally enforceable action to avoid criminal contempt of court - This is your own fantasy, which doesn't not relate to *any* facts in this matter. You make it sound like Alison was given a court order and threaten with prison. Alison could not be complied to do anything.

• could also have contacted UK admins and required them to delete the page. - more straight forward fantasy.

You really need to quit while you are behind. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point IF the courts accept that it is not published in the UK, though of course contributors to the article are likely to have been UK based. You would not be my source of legal advice should the situation arise. If you're right, then the outcome in a future case would logically be that the article could be left untouched, save for the moral issue which is one that the community could consider. In the event, AlisonW acted on information which we're not privy to, and blanked the page. Given that the issue is on the legal record, a rerun can be anticipated, we can of course decide to ignore it and start from scratch next time. . dave souza, talk 10:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

the *only* issue here is moral, that's it - there is no new legal issue here. The *only* legal issue here is that editors are legally responsible for their own posts and are on their own (which is well established and understood) - the community doesn't exist in that sense. UK editors have a possible risk because of SJ - *but* NONE of those alter the fact that there is no wider legal issue as evidence by the fact that the WMF wasn't interested in the matter. This legal stuff is a complete and utter red herring. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that individual editors have a possible risk, thus if advised like AlisonW of the situation and advised that I would be subject to legal sanctions, my reaction would be to blank the offending information and protect the page. Of course I would not be relying on your advice. . dave souza, talk 11:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are claiming that Alison was threatened with legal sanctions? I'm done - you are either a) trolling or well I just don't know. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No idea what Alison was advised, note the italics in my statement about my reactions if thus advised. . dave souza, talk 12:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

voir dire is unrelated to sequestering a jury. Sequestering is rare in the US. All voir dire ("to speak the truth") is for is to find out if jurors can fairly render a verdict. And sequestering may be done in the UK, which does not guarantee jury trials to all defendants. Collect (talk) 11:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, my error. I've struck that bit. From the WP page, "In the United States, it now generally refers to the process by which prospective jurors are questioned about their backgrounds and potential biases before being chosen to sit on a jury." My understanding is that this procedure is not part of UK procedures, but I'm ready to be corrected. . dave souza, talk 12:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As the US got "voir dire" from British law (expanding it possbily) I suspect the judge still asks each juror whether they can give a fair and impartial verdict (the essence of the procedure). Collect (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If an editor violates the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, they should be dealt with like any other violator of those policies and guidelines. If an admin deletes articles out of process and against consensus, and feels that they could be compelled to do so in the future by their local laws, then that admin should be desysopped. That said, the idea that an individual could face criminal penalties for not taking such an action is beyond ridiculous. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What's upsetting to me in this case is that the Wikipedia article was targeted, above all other online sources, merely because it comes up at the top of a Google listing (the prosecutor was quoted as saying this). If you remove it, then the #2 article, which is likely to discuss the same material, becomes the #1 article. Nothing has changed. I think rather than this situation shedding light on required new policy, it's really shedding light on the futility of controlling global information sources. The legislature needs to take a hard look at sub judice in light of this brave new world. Dcoetzee 20:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A relevant bit from the Evening Times article linked above:

Media law expert David McKie admitted the growth of the internet created a "potential legal minefield" for internet service providers such as Google.

But he insisted one of the key planks of the Scottish legal system was that lay jurors had to be trusted to take their responsibilities seriously. Mr McKie, of Glasgow-based law firm Levy & McRae, said: "Ten years ago, before the internet, jurors could go to the Mitchell Library and dig up background on an accused person.

"That was far more cumbersome and time-consuming than simply pressing a button, but the law is quite clear on contempt of court.

"If we are to accept that jurors look up internet sites after being warned to concentrate solely on the evidence by a judge, that would pre-suppose that they are not responsible jurors and we would go down the slippery slope of not trusting jurors.

"In those circumstances, the whole jury system may well be called into question.

"We know jurors do not inhabit a germ-free' environment, but we must trust them to be fair-minded, to listen to the judge and to determine the case solely on the evidence."

If McKie can understand that this is an issue for the jurors, and not us, then I don't see why so many people here are having so much trouble with it. Jurors who are inclined to behave well are not going to run into a problem with our article, and jurors who are inclined to behave badly are going to be able to do it with or without our help. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

McKie has it absolutely right as far as I'm concerned, and it's possible that the flamboyant defence QC Donald Findlay was being mischievous or pushing it a bit, but my impression is that Alison's action was morally right in the context of the trial, as well as avoiding providing a potentially awkward test case. Looks like any admin coming up against this has to judge their actions on the merits of the information presented to them at the time, and we're not in a position to set out advice in advance in the absence of such information. . dave souza, talk 20:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Any admin who deliberately acts against WP policy should be desysopped. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is still just amateur editor legal advice and pseudo-moralism. We have a policy about how content is handled on wikipedia when external actors ask for it to be rdacted. We have a legal policy that says legal actions and advice are handled by one person: Mike Godwin. It further says that editors shouldn't undertake to make content decisions based on some interpretation of what the law might mean for wikipedia. I can't see how this whole thread (and the AN/I one) can be interpreted as anything other than a restatement that wikipedia isn't censored. Barring some legal intervention from the foundation, I can't see how policy or practice should change. Protonk (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

A sense of perspective

Regarding the proposed guidance above, I don't see how we could reasonably adopt a guidance proposing to delete an article temporarily for the period of a trial. We have to be universal as an encyclopedia, and unaffected by local considerations, the only exception being when it is imposed by the Wikimedia foundation as an office action, which was not the case here. There are years-long trials, especially international tribunals, there are trials involving high profile individuals. It would be a real damage for Wikipedia to delete an article for such reasons, take for example the recent case of O. J. Simpson, or all the Khmer Rouge members judged in the Cambodia Tribunal. It would be unthinkable to delete them, yet if we are coherent, it would be equally morally right. If there is a request from an official to remove information, then it is up to the WMF to decide, and not to local chapters, as they have no 'office' power. Of course, the community can still consider the case, and decide based upon consensus as usual. But such requests, per se, should not influence our editorial judgment. So when an admin is made aware of such a request, it should contact the WMF and the community, but not act unilaterally. If the WMF allows the UK chapter to temporarily block an article from being viewed in the UK, then so be it, but we don't have the ability to do so, and I guess it would be particularly unpopular. Cenarium (Talk) 05:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Mostly agree, but I would very much oppose any sort of local blocking system. People should be able to find out information regardless of what jurisdiction they happen to live in. We should not aid governments in trying to suppress knowledge, which defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia. Fletcher (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• A related issue: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Major UK ISPs reduced to using 2 IP addresses. Cenarium (Talk) 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)