Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Shortcuts:
WT:LIVING
WT:BLP
Warning To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons page.
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II.
Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

Contents

[edit] policy presumes "hurt" or "distress" impossible in afterlife

This BLP policy assumes, without argument, that the day after the subject of the article dies, the article can revert to "normal" (?) standards of neutrality, sourcing, and notability because although such standards could lead to an article that "distresses" the subject unless diluted and/or modified by a BLP policy, a subject who has "passed away" would no longer be distressed. That's a contentious metaphysical assumption! If "hurt" is to be construed as to the physical body, I would call attention to the "sticks and stones may break my bones..." argument. There are, of course, no "tears in heaven", but what if the subject went to hell? The eternally damned surely have enough problems dealing with fire and brimstone never mind an unflattering Wiki bio! Where's the sense of compassionate mission here? Mortals are being discriminated against in favour of immortals, as well, since apparently the unvarnished truth can eventually come out with respect to the former class but never for the latter.Bdell555 (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I take this as a signal that serious discussion has ended here. --agr (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It's harder for a dead person to start a defamation lawsuit or submit an OTRS ticket complaining about negative or wrong material in their articles. Celarnor Talk to me 22:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
True, but their surviving relatives tend to pick up the slack. - Jredmond (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Defamation doesn't work that way. Common law has long held that defamation is an injury to the reputation of a group or individual, and that the reputation dies along with the group or individual. The relatives would have to go a different route and show that some kind of harm was being done to them as relatives of that person/group via an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, and that's much harder to accomplish. Celarnor Talk to me 22:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If we really believe that "Do No Harm" is what matters then yes saying bad things about recently deceased people can hurt their family members. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with JoshuaZ. I thought there was something in place to cover this for X# of years (???). Faith (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm sure we all agree that BLP problems can still occur in articles about the recently deceased, regardless of what happens in the afterlife. (FWIW, I happen to believe the afterlife is unverifiable.) But when BLP issues arise in such articles, they tend to concern survivors and others involved in the life of the recently deceased person. So while it's technically true that BLP no longer "applies" to the subject of the article, the policy still has implications, as it does on all Wikipedia pages. Looking for loopholes in BLP is a pointless exercise. szyslak (t) 22:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just use common sense here and evaluate articles of the recently deceased with a view to what harm they might do to the deceased, their friends and relatives, and our reputation for verifiable, neutral articles based on reliable sources... if we do that, it will be obvious when we should extend BLP like provisions to other articles. ++Lar: t/c 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't necessarily follow that BLP subjects (or the family of recently deceased BLP subjects) don't have problems with verifiable, neutral articles based on reliable sources. (See the Giovanni di Stefano AfD). Any harm caused by a NPOV article following sourcing policy is done by the sources and/or the actions of the subject themselves in the off-wiki world. We should follow policy with all of our articles, not just BLPs; that renders most of this kind of special treatment unnecessary. I guess I just don't understand why a verifiable, neutral article on a deceased person should be held to any less of a standard than an article on a living person. Their becoming deceased probably doesn't have any effect on the article other than a mention of their death, removal from the living persons category, etc. Celarnor Talk to me 04:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course every article should follow policy. BLP does not deny this. BLP says that for articles about living persons, the writer(s) must exert extra care to follow the content policies. Doesn't mean you can have no care for them elsewhere, it just means you must have more care when it comes to BLPs/BLP material. An example: Uncited material that is not BLP-related may be tagged with a "needs citation" tag when found, and one may wait a bit to see if a citation can be found. If one cannot/is not found within a reasonable time frame, the material should be removed. If, on the other hand, the material was BLP-related, and controversial, bam, it should be removed without question. Less uncited controversial information does not hurt -- Jimbo Wales even said something like "zero information is preferable to misleading or false information". The legitimacy of a revert war (remove unsourced controversial or especially negative BLP material, someone else adds it in, remove again citing BLP, etc. each readdition not having any citations) in the case of BLP is more open to debate than in other cases where such a war is usually considered entirely destructive. In this case it may have a degree of beneficiality, although it is by no means a permanent solution or substitute for good dispute resolution: it's just that one can be more lenient (not totally permitting of course, just a little more lenient) toward the behavior (on the side of the removals, not the readditions -- one would ideally come down harder on those). In other words, the approach to non-conforming material is especially stringent with BLPs, not that it is or should be weak everywhere else. There's a difference between "weak", "strong", and "really strong". Enforceent of content policy must be "strong" at least, and must be at least "really strong" when it comes to BLPs. I could be wrong, though, but that seems to make the most sense. mike4ty4 (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
"enforcement must be at least 'really strong' when it comes to BLPs" misses the issue. The issue is whether POSITIVE or flattering material should be subject to a different standard than NEGATIVE material. Whatever happened to neutrality?Bdell555 (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Legal threats happened. People generally aren't going to file suit against the Foundation for positive material. Celarnor Talk to me 21:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Has there ever actually been a court case? No, and there likely never will be, because WP:OFFICE has apparently caved every time, not just with respect to "illegal" material, but "questionable" material people have complained about. Are we here to build an enyclopedia or to advance the interests of the Foundation?Bdell555 (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The person I was responding to seemed to be suggesting BLP was "unnecessary", I was countering that. Note who I responded to. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
First off, not everyone believes in an afterlife. Second off, those that do do not necessarily believe something written about them on Wikipedia (an entity in this life) will have an effect on it. Third off, Wikipedia has a great deal of people whose beliefs vary considerably on this so it wouldn't really work. Better to just leave it out. mike4ty4 (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
So you have no qualms about a Wiki article flipping from a favourable/positive POV of the subject to NPOV on the mere contingency of someone dying?Bdell555 (talk)
It should have been NPOV (Neutral point of view) before they died. To me, if it becomes NPOV that's good. If it's not NPOV now, then it should be made NPOV. Especially if the person is still alive. If they're dead it should still be made NPOV. Although perhaps there isn't quite as much of a rush. You say "on the mere contingency of someone dying", but that doesn't change that it became NPOV, and that it should have been NPOV beforehand. Favorable POV is not neutral either. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If NPOV is "good enough", then why does WP:BLP exist? Why not instead appeal to WP:NPOV and say, "this article is not neutral, it portrays the subject from a negative / unfavourable / non-neutral POV?" Fact is, articles CANNOT be made NPOV as you request because WP:BLP gets cited against neutralizing efforts by those who want an article that is favourable to the subject.Bdell555 (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Because "favorable" is not equal to "NPOV". Wikipedia requires NPOV. BLP exists because NPOV is especially important in the cases it applies to. What don't you get about that? What makes you think that "favorable POV" equals NPOV (calling favorable-POV-pushers' efforts "neutralizing" suggests you are equating "favorable POV" and "NPOV", which is not the case.)? mike4ty4 (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The "wrong version"

I know when an article is locked due to edit warring we get stuck on a version where there is no real consensus but it's left there. It's usually no big deal in most cases but there should be a consistent approach in regards to blp issues. If an article is locked due to edit warring over potential blp issues shouldn't the content be left out until the issue is resolved. It is pretty dumb to have an article stuck with a potentially violating inclusion in it. This does not mean that content can't be put back in once the issue is resolved though. It is just better and reflects more competence to show a consistent approach on these matters. Also, you might ask: What if an editor is just using blp as an excuse to edit war with an incredibly unreasonable argument. Sure that could happen but the involved admin can use his/her judgement on that and make a decision accordingly. MrMurph101 (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the current policy makes BLP violations one of the few things that admins are supposed to eliminate when blocking pages "at random" during edit wars. (I tried proposing that such blocks not be placed randomly in general, but it seems the community prefers to allow chance to play a role in building our encyclopedia, so the proposal was blisteringly shot down.)--Kotniski (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP/blocking change

Current policy treats BLP vandalism no differently than vandalism of other articles, with the exception that 3RR is waived for reverting BLP vandalism. I propose that the default response to BLP vandalism be changed from warning from levels 1 to 4, then blocking for a short time, rewarning, blocking for longer time, etc to the following:

IPs who blatantly vandalize a BLP will be blocked after the first act of vandalism without warning. This would include things like continuous insertions of the word "penis" in BLPs, blanking to "he's gay", "Kelly is his biggest fan", etc.
Registered accounts who do such actions would receive a {{Defwarn}} (or 4im) followed for an indef block for the second BLP vandal edit.

I feel that such changes would serve to increase the awareness that BLPs are a critical issue at en.wiki as well as reducing the amount of BLP vandalism. MBisanz talk 07:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is already well within admin discretion to block without warning when vandalism is particularly egregious or damaging a subject. Though, I do not object to codifying it. 1 != 2 13:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
While it is within admin discretion to block without warning in cases of egregious BLP vandalism, inserting "Kelly is his biggest fan" or "penis" into an article is not an instance of that (it is vandalism of a BLP article, but not BLP vandalism per se), and a block without warning is unjustified and quite WP:BITEy. (Let's keep in mind that not everyone is aware of this policy or Wikipedia's heightened sensitivity toward BLPs.) –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps change "blatantly" to "maliciously" or "disparagingly", and I would support such a response. I think warnings generally are of little value for malicious vandals, who probably don't read them, until after they're blocked. --Rob (talk) 17:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe treating IPs the same as registered account, ie. both get a defwarn on the first act and a block on the second? Then malicious and bltant could be folded together, because reinserting profanity or nonsense in an article after being warned, should be blockable. Also, my motivation for codifying it would be that right now if random editor files an AIV saying "User:Joey has twice been warned and inserted nonsense in George Bish" the AIV response, per its own rules would be that the editor has failed to warn up to level four, or that joey hasn't done it since his second warning, etc. I, like Until tend to block sooner on BLP vandalism, but codifying it would be good for making that an institutional norm. MBisanz talk 19:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think {{defwarn}} would be appropriate for all cases (e.g. inserting "Kelly is his biggest fan" or "penis" into an article is immature and an act of vandalism, but it is not really defamation). However, I would agree that blocking for BLP vandalism after a single warning is appropriate when that vandalism is blatant and malicious or defamatory (that is, when the editor can't claim ignorance of WP:BLP as an excuse). My main concern was to ensure that regular (i.e. non-defamatory) vandalism on BLP articles (such as inserting "w00t!") be dealt with as it has been in the past. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that warnings are not useful for things like adding "This guy eats dick", the person already knows it is wrong, and if they don't already you won't convince them. 1 != 2 19:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I guess I can agree to the malicious/defamatory wording, since it would at least enshrine in policy that BLPs are things of the utmost importance. MBisanz talk 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I see no point in codifying this. There is nothing anywhere in any policy that says that someone will be blocked, nevermind something so blatantly hostile against newbies. It's pure instruction creep. Administrators and other editors should use their discretion like they do already - policy and common sense has this completely covered. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the above. Common sense has taken care just fine of this in the past, IMHO. If it's blatantly obvious that someone's a vandal, there's no need to warn him, whether our rules say so or not. --Conti|✉ 00:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Try telling that to some of the admins at the noticeboard. Any time I've reported vandalism some admin declines to take action due to insufficient warning. We shouldn't be wasting valuable encyclopedia-building time (and violating WP:DENY) by repeatedly warning obvious vandals - they should just get blocked without further ceremony. Any change to the wording of policy which emphasizes this would be highly desirable.--Kotniski (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you have some examples of blatant vandals not being blocked? --Conti|✉ 12:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's approach to vandalism is often criticized as too gradual, but that debate belongs at Wikipedia:Vandalism, not here. The problem with BLPs is not blatant vandalism, but inappropriate edits, often made in good faith, that a reader might assume are well founded ("X's name came up in connection with the Kennedy assassination inquiry, but no evidence was ever found," vs. "X is a dick head"). This is not the place to change vandalism policy.--agr (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So since this impacts BLP, Blocking, and Vandalism policy, would e centralized discussion be more appropriate? MBisanz talk 19:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess so. In fact, I think a centralized policy would be more appropriate - no point having three or more separate policy pages on closely related topics whose scopes are inevitably going to overlap to a considerable extent (and which could all do with significant trimming in any case).--Kotniski (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Blah, I'll add it to my to-do list then. MBisanz talk 07:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be more at place in the vandalism policy than within BLP policy. There are some BLPites that wouldn't object to an edit count requirement before people could edit articles within that scope, so I don't think it would be very appropriate or fair to have such a discussion within that policy. Still, I have to disagree with specialized policy for individual article types. If vandalism is getting too out of hand, then maybe we need to have less warnings and faster blocking with all articles, not just with BLPs. Celarnor Talk to me 05:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jim's sentiment

WT:V has hosted the question[1][2][3] of whether it is redundant or overweighted to retain Jimbo's quote about removing text aggressively in both policies WP:V and WP:BLP. I believe a consensus is forming favoring nonredundancy in policy and rejecting overstatement as tending to encourage hyperdeletion; but others believe repetition is practically necessary. Technically the quote applies to "all information", suggesting the argument that it should be retained there and deleted here; it also has a special BLP emphasis, suggesting it be retained here and deleted there. In whichever place it would be deleted, it would be ensured that the remaining text paraphrase the quote more professionally; and in both policies there is some argument that that has already happened. However, coming here I note that the placement of this quote is (a) not really contextualized or transitioned, but rather having the appearance of being pasted in as boilerplate, and (b) much better paraphrased in the surrounding policy than it is at WP:V. This, plus the lack of any recent controversy about the meaning of this section (WP:GRAPEVINE), suggests that it might finesse the debate at WP:V by simply cutting the Jimboquote paragraph here. It seems to add nothing here and is already policy at WP:V. What does this slate of editors think? JJB 13:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this illustrates just how much CREEP and redundant BLP really is as a copy of notability and verifiability. If people really are getting confused and think that we need some kind of separate copy of verfiability within BLP articles, then we probably need to start cutting down on that extra policycruft. Everything, not just articles about living people, needs the same kind of standards for verifiable material, and I think that quote puts that well. Nothing is lost, since V applies to BLP anyway, obviously. Editors just have to remember that there's more policy touching articles about living people than just the single page on BLP. Celarnor Talk to me 05:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion from Wikipedia:BLP subject response

The idea suggested of BLP subject response failed as drafted, due to serious BLP problems of its own. (See above page for discussion.) However one idea that came up seemed to get a measure of positive reception and be viable, and I would like to copy it here for consideration:

"The viewpoint of the subject of an article or section is always to be considered a significant viewpoint for the purposes of neutral point of view policy, in the context of biographical material on them."
"A web page that verifiably contains the subject's own views on encyclopedic factual matters may always be linked and cited for the purposes of this, provided this would not breach Wikipedia:No personal attacks and particularly, the section on external links."

The advantage here is, then we're back in normal sane balanced territory. If the bio-subject can post up their view on the factual matters in the article for us somewhere on the net, and makes it comply with the minimal standard of NPA/external links (which we can help with) and verify (OTRS?) their authorship, then editors would then be under a duty to always consider it as a significant viewpoint for NPOV.

This guarantees the bio-subject's view is available for the article, in a balanced integrated manner, where a view is expressed by reliable sources that they feel needs a rebuttal. It also avoids the problems of always giving a platform to "whatever they might say", since what it adds to BLP isn't a platform, but simply the assurance that the subject's view on a matter is considered a "significant view" for NPOV purposes, in the context of their own biography, which few would argue with. How we use that, what we draw from their words, is then left completely down to a normal encyclopedic approach.

Detail: - if the subject is prepared to write a view that meets NPA, BLP and EL, and it's verifiably their (publicly accessible) writing, then there is benefit in saying the article should take note of it as one of the significant views. Note it is not said what weight that view gets, because that will vary tremendously. But that the subjects view in a BLP article is by default significant, is I think reasonable. Even if the subject were a fraudster or murderer, to note that "X says Y" where the statement doesnt attack others or breach policies, is probably reasonable. It at least provides a route to resolve it.
If they write a statement that presents their stance but does not attack others, that we can fairly link to, then we can use that to represent their view with whatever weight is appropriate. I'm inclined to say in any BLP matter where an aspect or event in someone's life is at issue, their view probably is a significant one to represent for neutrality, so I have no issue with formalizing this as our way to handle the problem.

FT2 (Talk | email) 00:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh... I don't like it. Self-published is self-published. If a BLP subject can provide links to an interview in a reliable magazine, or a published biography or autobiography that is one thing, but otherwise this as stated above is the exact opposite of WP:RS and WP:V in a bad way. We don't allow people to put their own biographies on Wikipedia, and we shouldn't allow them to take an end around by publishing their bios on their own blog first...--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That is the opposite of what I have seen which is the subject usually having a strong conflict of interest. I would say that the viewpoint of the subject of an article or section is very unlikely to be neutral at all. That is why we require independent sources short of direct quotes and non controversial material. 1 != 2 00:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it. It helps with keeping the article in a more neutral state by incorporating how an individual has responded to a possible bias on our part within the text of the article itself. It also isn't quite the same as inserting or removing text by the subject on an article about themselves; the rest of the article can remain untouched by the subject by allowing this; i.e, rather than removing statements about a subject, it can simply be included that "(subject) has disagreed with this statement, publishing on their blog that (whatever)." Celarnor Talk to me 05:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BLP Articles: Legal Name vs. Most Recognizable Name

Editors are obliged to keep BLP information as close to truth as possible, insofar as can be determined by verifiable reliable sources. However, WP:Naming conventions (people) requires BLP article have "The name that is most generally recognisable" (sic). Should that be true even if the most generally recognizable name is not the BLP subject's legal name? Are we editors under no obligation to name BLP articles in conformity with the subject's legal name, bowing instead to what the general public finds to be the most recognizable? Can we likewise be sloppy with other article facts? Can we repeat popular misconceptions about a BLP article subject (e.g., stating that Obama is a Muslim if 51+% of Americans mistakenly believe it)? Surely not.

When a woman marries and chooses her husband's last name, that becomes her new legal name. Just because she is more generally recognizable under her maiden name does not mean that her maiden name is her true name. And if we wait until she becomes more generally recognizable under her married name, if ever, aren't we thereby just blowing with the winds of popular culture? All articles, most especially BLP articles, should stick to the facts insofar as they can be verifiably and reliably determined. Our job is to educate the public, not reflect its misconceptions.

The issue came up recently with regard to Jenna Bush. My guess is that with her father leaving office soon, she may never be more generally recognizable as Jenna Hager than she is as Jenna Bush. She may always be Jenna Bush in the public's mind. But her legal first and last name are "Jenna Hager", as is clearly evident in the caption of the photograph here.

I submit that the Jenna Bush article should be renamed to Jenna Hager, and that Jenna Bush simply redirect to Jenna Hager. That way, the public can look up Jenna Bush and find out that her new real name Jenna Hager.

I tried to raise the above issue at WT:Naming conventions (people)#Is "most generally recognisable" in conflict with BLP?, but at least one editor there is waiting for WP:BLP to take the lead, which is why I'm now raising the issue here. That editor cites some prior discussion related to subject preferences (e.g., capitalization of k. d. lang), but nothing that clearly dealt with a BLP subject's legal name. This is a legal issue, not an issue of the subject's preferences. (Yes, it was a matter of preference, but only for the few seconds it took to write the legal name on the wedding certificate. From that point on, it's a legal matter.) Thanks for your attention to this matter. --Art Smart (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Although guidelines sometimes are not clear, we should always consider WP:IAR. Wikipedia is not tabloid to keep popular, over correct articles. So my personal opinion is that guideline about this have to be written in WP:BLP.--Irić Igor -- Ирић Игор -- K♥S (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between the information present in an article and the title of that article. In the very first sentence of a biography, we should state provide the full legal name of the person (assuming that it is available); however, we need not do so in the title. My suggestion would be to avoid imposing any personal/original standards and instead to rely on the judgment of reliable sources: do they primarily refer to "Jenna Bush", to "Jenna Hager", or "Jenna Bush Hager"? –Black Falcon (Talk) 17:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Art Smart, do you actually have a reliable source that says she legally changed her name. Wedding picture captions are often made for "traditional" reasons, not legal fact. The White House spokesperson, shortly after the ceremony, didn't even know if there was a change[1]. You're making a big deal out of this, and yet, all you've done is show "Jenna Hager" is used in one place, but you haven't shown the legal status. You're the one making the point that law trumps usage, yet you don't bother to show a legal change, but instead point to usage only. Also, calling somebody with a non-official name is not equivalent to a lie. Saying Obama is a Muslim, is a lie. Omitting his middle name in his article title isn't. Saying "Jeb Bush" is likewise ok, as long as the body of the article gives the facts of his full legal name. Forcing all article titles to be the legally official name of the subject would be quite harmful, and pointless. --Rob (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed my point entirely. Jenna Bush is simply an example. The question I put to this group is this: Shouldn't WP:BLP include language requiring fidelity between the BLP subject's legal name and the title of the article about them? As for the specific example you cited, I hardly would consider People magazine anywhere near as reliable a source as the official website of the White House. Would you? --Art Smart (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't WP:BLP include language requiring fidelity between the BLP subject's legal name and the title of the article about them? No. As Rob noted above, using a nickname or alternate name is not equivalent to giving false or inaccurate information, as long as we mention the legal name in the body of the article (assuming that the information is available and there are no special circumstances related to privacy or other legal matters). Using the full legal name of a living person may, in various contexts, be undesirable from an editorial standpoint (longer and less recognisable titles) and from the standpoint of privacy. –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I never suggested using full legal names. That is a straw man argument. I am fine with first and last names only, as suggested by WP:Naming conventions (people), provided that they are the legal first and last names. --Art Smart (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
That a name is "legal" does not mean another name is "illegal". Remember that many people do not use either their legal first or last name publicly. Are they breaking the law? Is Wikipedia breaking the law by using the name "Marilyn Manson" instead of "Brian Warner"? szyslak (t) 06:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
No, this isn't necessary. BLP is here to remove negative information that is poorly sourced. Our goal is not bureaucratic accuracy. A name is an identifier, and a legal name is not more identifying than a common name. This logic would have Cher redirect to Cherilyn Sarkisian. That isn't a good idea. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
So BLP allows positive information that is poorly sourced? Honestly, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just want to make sure that I understand with precision your considered opinions. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think this is essentially a non-issue:

  • What is the risk that the president's daughter will sue us because her Wikipedia article is titled "Jenna Bush" and not "Jenna Hager", or vice versa? Even if Jenna Hager is her legal name, that doesn't make Jenna Bush an "illegal" name. (Yes, I know BLP is not just about preventing lawsuits, but I think that point was begging to be raised.)
  • The "legal name" concept varies among cultures and legal systems.
  • A person's "legal name" is not his or her "only correct name". If the first name on my birth certificate is "Benjamin", am I committing an untruth if I call myself "Ben"?
  • The use of the "name that is most generally recognizable" is based on the first principle of WP:Naming conventions, an official policy. A requirement to "use only legal names" would require a policy change both here and at WP:NC.

szyslak (t) 05:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

  • It could easily be solved by moving to Jenna Bush Hager, which a redirect from Jenna Bush, thereby acknowledging her married name, while retaining what made her famous. --Faith (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. An encyclopedia lists people by their legal name. A redirect from plausible search times is obviously in order, perhaps as soft redirects to let people know what's going on. We shouldn't list by what is the most common usage, since that might not be the one that makes the most sense for an encyclopedia. Celarnor Talk to me 06:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I have yet to see an encyclopedia that lists legal names such as Allen Stewart Konigsberg, Maurice Joseph Micklewhite or Marion Morrison. Encyclopedias regularly use common names. WWGB (talk) 06:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actors are a different bird altogether in that they use their stage name as if it were their legal name (e.g., autographs, etc.). That is far different than a married woman who has adopted her husband's surname. For example, Mrs Tony Blair is listed as Blair, her legal name, even though she uses "Cherie Booth QC" professionally. (Cher, IIRC, changed her name legally to Cher, so that's not a good example). --Faith (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Then let's just stick with maiden names all around. Why bother trying to be correct on a BLP subject? --Art Smart (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We require reliable sources for information stated in an article. We don't require such sources for editorial decisions we make. Should this person have an article at all? That doesn't depend on whether we can find a story in the mass media asserting that the person meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Should the bio subject's religion, or her cerebral palsy, or his brief youthful stint as a minor-league baseball player be mentioned in the introductory section, or relegated to the body of the article, or omitted entirely? We figure out which presentation of the information will best serve our readers. Titling an article Bill Clinton rather than William Clinton or William Jefferson Clinton is the same type of decision. For the convenience of our readers, we put the article at the title where the greatest number of them will look for it. That's far different from making a false assertion about Barack Obama's religion. JamesMLane t c 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Time and again, I feel like my point is being entirely missed. I am not asking about whether or not to use the middle name, and I am not asking about the use of nicknames (e.g., Bill) instead of given names (e.g., William). What I am asking about is last names of women who get married but do not keep their maiden name. Period. In each and every case, the public is more familiar with the maiden name, and therefore under existing guidelines (i.e., "generally recognizable"), we should never change the name of the article. Is that what we really want? Do we really want article names left over from what the public is used to, or do we want to take advantage of the malleability of Wikipedia to adapt to new realities? Do we want to keep reflecting public misconceptions and ignorance, or do we want to educate by redirecting to articles with the new last names? That is all that I am asking, so everyone, please cease with the straw man arguments, even those made in good faith. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Now that your concern is clarified (and thank you for that, Arthur), I'm more bemused than ever. Why on earth would we do such a thing? I know some folks still keep to this dying custom in some countries, but unless the rest of the world changes the way the subjects are referred to, I see no reason to go moving articles in violation of "name that is most generally recognizable"! I'd recommend creation of a redirect for those persons for whom we have reliable sources attesting to the name change; but this is not 1908, and I don't think we need to worry about it that much.--Orange Mike | Talk 14:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC) (kept his own name when he married, as did his wife)
Yes, my wife and I also kept our original last names, too. But that was our choice, and I would never project my values onto the subjects of BLP articles. So let me get this straight. We must try for as much accuracy in BLP articles as possible, excepting only for the name of the article itself? It bemuses me that the very thing that is most important to get right seems to be treated as the very least important. --Art Smart (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

←I don't think this is a BLP issue, but a styleguide issue, and I believe that it is probably more properly addressed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). Unless I'm misunderstanding something, and we're proposing a separate standard for living subjects. :) (Would we move Cicero to Marcus Tullius Cicero even though the man is firmly dead? Presuming we move Dr. Demento to Barret Eugene Hansen, would we then move it back when he died?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Self published

When a person has published books and papers in journals or through publishing houses which are not paid (but rather pay the author or offer no remuneration), is that considered self-published? Would such sources not be considered reliable for claims of what the subject of the biography thinks and believes? I am in a situation where such sources are being rejected because authored by the subject of the bio, even though they are attributed to the subject and his published works. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the article so we could take a look? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. Here is the section where it's currently being discussed [2]. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking a look at this, I would tend to agree with you more. The article is about the writer and his research/theories. It appears any mention of his writing is duly noted that it is his writing, the article isn't claiming to present it as fact. Furthermore, I don't see how the claims listed are "contentious" or "self-serving". Sheldrake's writings of course might not be useable within any scientific article, but for his article I think they are OK. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks that is what I needed. I don't edit bios much, so I'm not really sure of myself. It's like a whole seperate section of rules for bios. Thanks for your time (: ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The question is whether Sheldrake is a WP:RS for claims made outside the field he was trained in (Biochemistry), did scientific work in (Plant physiology) and has notability for (Parapsychology), in Developmental biology and the History and Philosophy of science, fields in which he would surely be a WP:QS, and in which WP:SELFANDQUEST would surely apply, where he makes "self-serving" and at times "controversial" claims, including claims to the coattails of numerous "third parties". HrafnTalkStalk 02:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't appear to be the question. In an article about a person, we can say a person believes the world is flat, if in fact the person has clearly maintained that. Whether he is a reliable source on earth flatness or not isn't a consideration. The article is about the person, not earth flatness. 2005 (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Then why have WP:SELFANDQUEST at all, if you can mention anything that the subject of an article states that they believe? Your "world is flat" analogy doesn't appear to be applicable as it doesn't violate any of WP:SELFANDQUEST's restrictions (the closest would be "contentious" -- but it is more absurd than contentious). HrafnTalkStalk 03:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not unduly self-serving to state an hypothesis. The article is about what the subject believes, and therefore the claims are directly related to the subject. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
It is most certainly self-serving to claim that your work "builds on" a laundry list of other "theorists", and that your work is in some way in the tradition of Darwin (when it has nothing to do with 'natural selection' or the 'origin of species'), to claim that mainstream science has "failed to explain how an organism emerges from an egg" when their is a whole field devoted to that study (how do they keep getting research grants if they "failed to explain" anything?), and to claim "biological anomalies" to necessitate your work when nobody else thinks that such anomalies exist. The article on Sheldrake is chock full of self-serving claims. 11:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it. I just went through the article in its entirety, and see that it is actuall quite critical of him and in no place gives any undue emphasis or scientific credibility to any of his theories/claims. Reiterating some comments above, if someone says Jesus was a Martian on vacation in Galilee, and they were famous for that, then we would put it here. To be fair, the article is not written in a way to ever suggest legitimacy to his theories, and even where ever appropriate there are sources about the community discrediting them. I'm not sure what the goal is of removing Kendrake's writings, it's not a science-fact article and we aren't dealing with facts of science, just one man's thoughts (why he is notable enough to have an article in the first place). Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"[I]f someone says Jesus was a Martian on vacation in Galilee, and they were famous for that" is it also all right to mention their claims that John the Baptist and Thomas Aquinas' teachings support this view, and that the gospels don't explain what Pontius Pilate was doing in Judea, so that we need the Jesus-as-Martian-on-vacation theory to fill in the hole? Just checking. HrafnTalkStalk 14:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Quite simply, yes, assuming it is made clear that this is simply what the subject believes/wrote. In an article that on a person, this is quite obvious. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay then, it would seem therefore that WP:SELFANDQUEST is meaningless, and WP:NPOV#Attributing and substantiating biased statements already covers everything important. So why do we have the former policy? HrafnTalkStalk 05:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you are misunderstanding what "contentious" is in that section for. It isn't for absolute truth, it is for truth relevant to the claim being made - the relevant claim here is "person X believes Y". This is only contentious in the sense of that policy section if other reliable sources are claiming "person X does not believe Y" (or "person X believes Ỹ"). GRBerry 20:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diacritics in tennis biographies' article titles

There is movement afoot to mangle some tennis-playing living people who happen to have biographies in Wikipedia, well, mangle their names. I recall similar ill-conceived group activity concerning biographies of living persons making a living by playing ice hockey. Is that perchance not at odds with this Wikipedia policy? It says: Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects. I would expect an encyclopedia to abide by that policy in getting the name right. A tennis tournament, a data base on a commercial webpage aimed at the public, a television network -- I can come up with many places in the public sphere, where people's names get mangled, and people put up with it. Should Wikipedia toe that line? Or should it get their names right, if only on human dignity grounds? Is this a Biographies of living persons issue? Can we, should we protect living people who happen to play tennis very well, enough to be the subject of Wikipedians' interested in chronicling competitive tennis? Is it admissible, that some Wikipedians wish to erradicate glyphs not found in the 26-letter English alphabet? What about time-honored precise English book typesetting traditions of rendering words such as "naïve" or "coöperate"? After all, every careful English speaker renders Björk like so, unless technology prevents them, or people-unfriendly policy. If she ever plays a charity tennis match, and makes sufficient scads of money to attract the attention of tennis-chronicling Wikipedians, is she in danger of losing her diacritic, too? Please opine, advise, intervene. Do no harm. --Mareklug talk 18:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Count me a firm supporter of diacritics wherever they may be found - but I don't think it's (just?) a living-persons issue. I wouldn't want Wikipedians to think they can start purloining people's diacritics as they become deceased.--Kotniski (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Good to hear, but it is the living who are the ones being assaulted. Can we stop this using the tool of the "Biographies of living persons" policy? It is unlikely that the Wikipedians in question would afterwards bother deceased tennis legends we might have biographed. --Mareklug talk 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see this as being a BLP issue. This is an issue of whether we should use someone's name or a bastardized version of their name. I firmly support diacritics wherever they're found, but especially so in names; it's their name, its the natural form of it, and ultimately, other than laziness, there's really no reason not to use them. Celarnor Talk to me 20:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
What are you getting at here? Do you have any examples? In my experience, we sometimes use diacriticals when the subject himself does not. (See for example, Amer Delic.) Why does it matter whether this is under WP:BLP or WP:NAME? I can only think of one reason—BLP edits can be excused from the three revert rule. Cool Hand Luke 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I suggest that people comment in the existing thread at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Tennis. It's hard to make this out to be a BLP issue. It's a question of what style rule we should follow in writing their names. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion about the presumption in favor of privacy

I think that we should presume privacy in the case of all people known for only one event—whether they're dead or alive.

For example, if there's no secondary source about a person's birth or death date, I don't think we should include it in an article when that person is only notable for one thing during their life. Such information can be found from reliable sources like social security records, but I think it ought not be included unless a secondary source has found it notable enough to mention.

I wonder if this is what the policy currently says. The "Presumption in favor of privacy" section has clear language about it, but since this is the BLP policy, one might argue that we must only follow this rule in BLPs. Indeed, I think that such a rule is more properly a concern under WP:SYN, since we shouldn't insert original connections into accounts of people notable for only one event.

So I have two questions for everyone:

  1. Does our policy currently require privacy for biographies of the dead as well as the living?
  2. If the answer is yes, could we edit that section to explicitly say that it applies to all biographies? Cool Hand Luke 21:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is a fact non-relevant to notability in BLP permissible when it is used to discredit?

The BLP article on Mae-Wan Ho contained a statement [3] that "Dr Ho is a former vivesectionist involved in burning rabbits eyes." I subsequently modified it [4] to "Dr. Ho's research has involved burning rabbits' corneas in order to test the effectiveness of treatments to prevent or significantly delay corneal ulceration after alkali-injury." but then removed it [5] because I thought that it violated WP:BLP#Criticism and praise. My reasoning was detailed on the talk page. This work is not relevant to Ho's notability because it is only one paper of several hundred research papers she has published, she is only one of several co-authors, and research in corneal therapies is not an area she is notable for (rather, genetic engineering, evolution and AIDS).

The statement has now been re-added [6] with the justification that even though this is one paper, it is "evidence of her hypocracy" "as a promoter of responsible use of science".

This sentence seems to be in violation of WP:BLP#Criticism and praise, in particular "Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability" and "Editors should also be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons."

Have I got that wrong?

Also if you look at the edits by Ttguy and Hrafn on this article since at least May 26, you may get the impression that anything positive that can be said about Mae-Wan Ho needs to be suppressed, in these two editors' opinion. In light of that constant opposition, it will probably be impossible to achieve "strict adherence to our content policies" especially those highlighted in WP:BLP.

Or is that the way WP is supposed to work for biographies of living people who happen to do something some editors don't like? --EPadmirateur (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems like this should normally be reported at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, to get notice. I've left comments on the issue on the article's talk page, and also nominated the article for deletion, due to lack of third-party sourcing. --Rob (talk) 05:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)