Wikipedia talk:BLP
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Wikipedia_talk:BLP".

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.

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

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived. An archive index is available here.

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.

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

I'd prefer something like

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:

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)

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):

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:

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

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)

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 (