Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Race/Ethnicity - Self Identification

Regarding the line :

Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.

I believe this initially read "religious beliefs, sexual orientation, race or ethnicity", is there a reason that race/ethnicity were removed? Can I put it back? It seems these two attributes are subject to similar difficulties that religious beliefs and sexual orientation are. NickCT (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Add "nationality" to catch a few more problems then <g>.

Categories about a person's beliefs or orientation of any sort should rely specifically on self-identification by the person, and not on surmise by any other source, and then only if such beliefs or orientation are relevant to the person' notability.

Trying to make it even less susceptible to wiki-cavilling. Collect (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion about it, Nick. The consensus was that religious beliefs and sexual orientation were different from race and ethnicity. Approximately, it is not appropriate for me to describe Stevie Wonder as a bisexual Hindu, since he has never indicated that he is either of those things. But I do not need a quote from him saying "I am black" in order suggest that he might be. --FormerIP (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Stevie Wonder, in fact, does self-identify as "black." This requirement is not a horrible hurdle for Wikipedia to handle - and those cases where the person does not self-identify as (say) Croatian are where this would actually be properly enforced. Collect (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Does he identify as black? I suppose it is probable, but a citation may be required. But the reason we do not require evidence of his self-identification, whereas we do where his sexuality or religion are concerned, ought to be obvious. --FormerIP (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Issues about nationality, etc. litter the BLP/N board - thus should be included. The more we are strict about contentious claims, the fewer the problems we shall see in the future. Collect (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

@FormerIP - re "There was extensive discussion about it" - I took a look at this. I presume this was the most recent discussion on this topic. Funny, I'd actually participated in this discussion and completely forgot. I'm really surprised RL0919 closed this RfC as he did. I did a quick tally and counted 21 for including ethnicity and 13 against. It seemed like consensus was reasonably strong for the measure. Admittedly though there were some canvassing allegations I didn't read too deeply into.

@Collect re "Add "nationality"" - Agreed.

It seems so obvious to me that things like religion, sexual persuasion, ethnicity, race, and nationality are fundamentally similar, in that they all contain an element of subjectivity. There is no agreed upon yardstick by which any of these things can be measured. NickCT (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A requirement for "self-identification" for "ethnicity" is probably uncalled for. Reliable sources can probably tell us what someone's "ethnicity" is. Ditto for "nationality". In fact ditto for "race". The two core attributes of identity that lend themselves well to requirements for "self-identification are "religion" and "sexual orientation", and I do not think that those two attributes should be considered together (although they already are). Separate discussions should be held for "religion" and "sexual orientation". Bundling the two together only muddles the reasoning put forth by the various editors participating, making the comparison of arguments unnecessarily complex, and the one-size-fits-all solutions that we come up with in policy language actually fit none of these attributes as well as they could. Living subjects of biographies do not necessarily enunciate statements of "self-identification". This should not always prevent us from Categorizing in ways that seem appropriate in keeping with that which is suggested by good quality sources and concerning attributes that involve less sensitivity than others. But again I think the bundling together of a multitude of attributes for consideration as a group is not a good idea. I object to the suggestion, immediately above, that we include "ethnicity" and "race" in an already too-diverse group of qualities considered together. Separate discussions can be initiated for these attributes if editors feel that these qualities need further scrutiny vis-a-vis our policies. But lumping them together with relatively unrelated attributes/qualities is I think a way to come up with policy that is not appropriate for any of the included considerations. In my opinion the black-and-white requirement for self-identification probably needs to be adjusted to allow for a multitude of good-quality reliable sources to suffice to substitute for "self-identification", especially as concerns less sensitive considerations. Subjects of biographies do not necessarily enunciate "self-identification" and we should not necessarily require it. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

@Bus stop - re "self-identification probably needs to be adjusted to allow for a multitude of good-quality reliable sources to suffice to substitute for "self-identification" - Well I can agree with that at least. If you can give a reasonable number of good quality sources saying "Joe is African-American", and there are no credible sources, which oppose the statement, and no real debate about the issue, I don't think you actually need to show Joe has "self-identified" in order to support saying that "Joe is African-American".

re "Bundling the two together only muddles the reasoning" & "one-size-fits-all solutions that we come up with in policy language actually fit none of these attributes as well" - I couldn't disagree more. The reasoning for bundling is that all these attributes are inherently linked in that they are all inherently subjective. That's why they should all be put together.

Finally Bus, it might be worth noting that you are pretty heavily involved in doing ethnic classifications on WP. You might want to recuse yourself from a conversation about whether what you are doing is right. Obviously someone heavily involved in a particular practice, is unlikely to support a policy which restricts that practice. NickCT (talk) 15:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I see this as trickier and more nuanced than others. In the UK, where the topic is probably a lot less sensitive than in some places, the clear rule is that ethnic self-identification is the 'official' way it is done. There are a number of reasons for this, one being of course that external appearance is not sufficient in itself, another that people's ethnic backgrounds are often very mixed. But we should not underestimate the sensitivity that can surround somebody's parentage, for example. The guiding rule in WP that we regard such things as private unless the subject chooses to make it otherwise has to be right. For example, a comedian might choose to base some of her jokes around the fact that she has an Iranian background. But we should be very cautious about what may be a journalist's careless assumptions based on skin colour or known background, so unless it is clear that the ethnicity is as described by the subject or at least that they are comfortable with the description, it really should not be in. Self-identification should be implicit in practice and the idea that we can 'objectively' classify others on external information is wrong. --AJHingston (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that nationality should be treated like religion. Nationality is purely a matter of law. For example, all American citizens are American nationals whether they like it or not. It is not actually possible to be an American citizen without being an American national. (It's possible to be an American national without being an American citizen, but not the other way around.) We don't really need someone to say "I see myself as being an American national": either the person is, or s/he isn't, and what determines the person's nationality is the applicable laws, not anything the person says about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) Unfortunately, nationality is not just a "matter of law" - if you read the various noticeboards (especially BLP/N), the issue as to what nationality should be given in a biography is often complicated - especially where the boundaries of nations are altered over time - for instance is a person who was born in Germany when Germany included part of what is now Poland, Polish or German? Is a person who was born in the Palestine Mandate now Israeli or Jordanian depending on where the current lines are? Or Palestinian? In short, "nationality" is frequently not just a simple matter of law, and denizens of the BLP board know it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is sometimes complicated. Which is precisely why a blanket rule about it would be daft. --FormerIP (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

180 degrees wrong - the purpose of rules is to prevent future disputes - and such a rule would do so. Saying that a rule is bad because it will prevent disputes is strange logic at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it is a matter of law. It's sometimes a matter of extremely complicated law, and you shouldn't just guess (e.g., "he was born in Germany, so I say he's a German national"), but it's a matter of law, not of self-identification. A person can repeat "I'm a national of ____" until he turns blue in the face, but that does not actually make him be a national of that country—nor does saying "I'm not a national of ____" make him quit being a national of that country (to the occasional distress of tax evaders and draft dodgers).

By contrast, saying "I follow <name of religion>" does make him have that religion, and "I do not believe in <name of religion>" makes him not have that religion. That's why we want self-identification for religion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that views on this will skewed if the editor is from the US, because things there are often atypical. It is generally helpful to mentally keep citizenship and nationality in separate compartments. Citizenship is a legal status which can be objectively determined by the law of a state. A person may hold citizenship of several countries (though that may not be recognised by all of them), or none, and although it can often be assumed or inferred, RS may well be necessary and actually the best and most reliable source in cases of doubt is likely to be the subject even though we may be relying on a secondary source to relay it. But national identification may not be the same at all. It may be narrower - for example, UK citizens would not normally describe themselves in that way except to foreigners and indeed we do not even have a word for it; we may say British (though it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the two are not synonymous) but might legitimately give Scottish or Iranian whatever as nationality, even if not living there, nor would we think that identification necessarily attached to place of birth (which is simply the place your mother happened to be at the time). But nationality may also be wider than citizenship. As for trying to explain the traditional French approach to the question, or the question of what it means to be German (even today let alone historically) or from the Balkans, and indeed very many parts of the world is not something I can go into here. And because nationality and ethnicity may be connected the question of birth parentage may feature. In most cases, the descriptor for a person will be straightforward and not contentious, but we cannot necessarily know that. Even if the use of original sources were allowed, to say simply, I know the right answer because I have seen your birth certificate / knew your mother at the time / etc might not be enough. It comes back to my point above, that in practice we generally lack reliable evidence without self-identification. --AJHingston (talk) 10:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that 'A German national' always means a German citizen, although 'of German nationality' might be debatable. But I agree that we need to extend our policy to include race and ethnicity. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I think AJHingston has inadvertently found the problem: Nationality and national identification are not the same things. If you want to make a statement about the BLP's national identification, you should be looking for a self-identifying statement, e.g., "I consider myself to be Scottish".

For nationality, which is a completely separate thing, what matters is what the court of law says, e.g., you are an Danish national and you are therefore subject to their laws whether you like it or not. If you are legally a Danish national, then saying "I consider myself to be Scottish" does not make the smallest difference in matters like whether you are subject to military conscription under their laws. Actually being a Scottish national would exempt you, but self-identifying as Scottish does not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It is complicated, as the nationality article acknowledges. These things vary with place and time, and in UK law British citizenship and British nationality are not the same thing. Usages vary. To take a simple example, of somebody born in the USA who settles in London. In the course of time she might qualify for, and take out, UK citizenship. She might (because UK law has no problem with that), retain her US citizenship as well. Whether she has dual citizenship or not she might then continue to call herself American, or British, or even English. In another country, especially where dual citizenship is not permitted, things might be different. Historically in Europe, and in some cases today, national identification, which might be legally recognised, is not necessarily the same as citizenship at all. Nationality may be clear, unambiguous, and easily attested from sources. The problem comes about where it is not, and editors make assumptions or insist on imposing their own label in conflict with what the subject might prefer. Use of uncontentious labels such as 'citizen' if supported by RS are one thing. It is quite another to attach lables of nationality if the person is living in Gibralter, or Northern Ireland or Kosovo, and full of ambiguity elsewhere, without knowing how the subject considers themself. --AJHingston (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you've conflated nationality with national identification again. Nationality is a matter of law. You either are a Danish national, or you aren't. What you "call yourself" or "consider yourself" has nothing to do with it.

I agree that figuring out someone's legal nationality can be messy. Citizenship, BTW, can be equally messy: just ask the ethnic Russians living in Latvia and Estonia. We should not be guessing at people's nationality or their citizenship or their national self-identification. We should be following the reliable sources, not assuming that a person living in Glasgow is Scottish.

But we also shouldn't be requiring the very high bar of self-identification for purely legal matters. If a court of law says that you're a Danish national, then you are, and a press conference on the courthouse steps to say that you consider yourself to be Scottish instead doesn't change anything. In that instance, the article should report your nationality as Danish (whether you like it or not) and your national self-identification as Scottish (whether the court likes it or not).

This is, BTW, exactly parallel to how we handle another contentious legal matter: if the court says that you're a duly convicted murderer, then we report that you are, indeed, a convicted murderer, no matter how many press releases you send out saying that you feel you're innocent. Criminal convictions, like nationality and citizenship, are matters of law, not matters of self-identification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is an example of instruction creep. Furthermore there is in fact no benefit to considering more than one attribute simultaneously—each attribute should be considered separately. The bundling of attributes merely hobbles the utility of any resulting language in policy that might be arrived at. Editors should reach conclusions based on discussion of the single attribute under consideration. In fact sexual orientation should be decoupled from religion to reach more fine-tuned policy language to which disputants might refer. This proposal is suggesting that more attributes concerning identity be bundled together under the same heading that is unfortunately already doing double-duty. This is to the detriment of future disputes. We have to be cognizant of the double-edged sword that policy is. Poorly written policy hobbles article writing. If we are contemplating and arguing about wording in policy relevant to a given attribute of identity, we should be discussing that attribute only. It may be that self-identity may be deemed very important as concerns one attribute but that concerning another attribute it may be felt by a variety of editors that good quality reliable sources are sufficient. Our wording matters as disputants are going to look to that wording. But we can't get the wording right if we are discussing disparate attributes at once. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the argument above demonstrates the problems in having a set of rules when interpretation can vary so much anyway. It's clearly difficult to convey the idiocy of having edit wars over whether someone can validly be described as Scottish or Basque for example. Or in saying that these labels can be allowed under ethnicity or race but not nationality. From the US that must be difficult to grasp, but Europe is different. The point made above that self identification would normally be necessary in order to verify these things must be the key, and where secondary sources conflict with what the subject themselves say the subject is normally more reliable (because secondary sources are not usually in a position to know). Trying to make universal rules does not help, any more than it would be satisfactory to say that the mother's skin colour or the subject's place of birth is an objective test that overrides what the subject says about him or herself. --AJHingston (talk) 22:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, you cannot actually be a Basque national at this time. You can only be a person who wishes to be a Basque national, were the Basque Country ever to become an actual nation at some point in the future. Consequently, no living people should be identified as having Basque nationality. They may have Basque ethnicity, and they may be a member of the Basque nationalism movement, and they may live in the Basque Country, but they cannot actually be Basque nationals, even if they say "We're Basque nationals" until they're all blue in the face. The Basque nation does not actually exist, so they cannot be subject to its laws. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Really, please do not try to take WP down this line, because it will get the community into endless POV squabbles. To go back to the UK, which is an area I feel most comfortable debating, the complexities are illustrated by a BBC feedback questionnaire I filled in last week which asked me to give my nationality (along with age and sex). It offered British, English, Scottish, Welsh amongst others. We are not comfortable with the idea that these are ethnic identities (because of our mixed heritage) and have learnt to regard and describe the parts of the United Kingdom as constituent nations even though not everyone likes the idea (and without prejudice as to whether they should be self governing or separate sovereign states). I understand why that seems strange or wrong to some (just as it is very difficult to explain to many French people the particular status of the Channel Islands for example) but it is the way it is. There are so many and varied situations around the world that for WP to try to make rules about these things just could not work. --AJHingston (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

All of this is OR anyway. All of the above. This is really simple: follow what the sources say. If they conflict, then report both of them (or a multitude of them). There's nothing that's actually new here. As for self identification itself: again, there's nothing new here. Report what the person says about themselves (if reliable), and what others say about them (if reliable), and allow the reader to decide. Why you folks want to continually reinvent the wheel is beyond me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite. But the fact that this keeps coming up demonstrates the difficulties that it seems to pose in practice. Most of the time the only reliable source will be the individual, not least because there is rarely an objective test. I am not sure that talk of OR is always helpful because the information will usually be drawn from secondary sources, and the danger lies in editors using that in a way that assigns the person to a category automatically. What some newspaper journalist says is not really an RS if it disagrees with the subject unless there is some explanation at least. But sometimes the information will be implicit, sourced and otherwise uncontroversial and is important to the biography, so making a rule that it can only ever be included if the individual concerned can be proved to have made a positive statement on the matter seems unnecessary. Let's just avoid letting editors say that self-identification is invalid because they know better, or assigning these things on the basis of skin colour, place of birth or whatever because of a set of rules that are actually subjective. If there is a difference in the sources, common sense should cover it - it would be silly to insist that if the subject calls themselves Welsh and other RS British the second label must appear as well, but it might be appropriate to mention that they had lived in England for many years, or had a Scottish mother etc. --AJHingston (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP1E

I think we should just get rid of BLP1E. A majority of our biographies are about people who are notable for one event, if you stretch the definition of event enough. How many pointless AfDs have we had on high-profile individuals getting world-wide coverage in thousands of news outlets on the grounds of BLP1E? Gigs (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think getting rid of it is the right approach - I think it probably needs some reworking. As an example take Chesley Sullenberger - before January 15th, 2009 he was not a notable man and none of the sources in our article pre-date that moment. However because of one event, the media organisations began to note all the prior events that had shaped his life and as they did so those events became notable - not notable enough for those events to deserve an article of their own but notable enough that BLP1E ceased to apply - his entire life was now notable, independent of what he did that day. However if someone like Michelle McGee is simply interviewed a few times because they had an affair with a celebrity and all the detail of the interview is about the affair then BLP1E keeps it in check and ensures that they don't get an article. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The legitimate purpose of the rule is to protect private individuals who get caught up in news stories from getting articles about them (instead of the event). It is arguable that preventing celebrity gossip articles (per Stuart) is also a benefit of the rule. Unfortunately, some people who would prefer a narrower scoped Wikipedia try to use BLP1E plus the related NOTNEWSPAPER to argue for deletion of nearly anything they don't personally like (but easily passes GNG). As Gigs notes, nearly all notable people came to prominence because of one event and thus if someone wants to stretch reality they can argue all coverage of said person is directly/indirectly related to one event. Of course it doesn't always work, but it is a viable option for people wanting to get rid of minor-moderately notable individual's pages. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that many editors "use BLP1E", as you say, as a tool to support deletion. Many editors think it provides easy criteria for deletion because they think it gives multiple conditions, any one of which may justify deleting an article. Rather than realizing that in fact it provides three separate hurdles to deletion. That is, it is misinterpreted by a form of the conjunction fallacy, mistaking the AND for an OR. The following rewrite of BLP1E would say the same thing, but make the meaning much more explicit:

Subjects notable only for one event

Further information: Wikipedia:Notability (people) § People notable for only one event

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions are met:

• If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
• If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
• It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of WP:BIO1E when compared to WP:BLP1E. Firstly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people. Secondly, WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals.

In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.

I suspect that if BLP1E were rewritten this way, and was better understood, there would be support for removing the second condition, 'likely to remain low profile', which would make it equivalent to WP:BIO1E, which would be tantamount to deleting BLP1E. If I'm wrong, at the very least this would promote a proper understanding of the rule. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Right now, BLP1E says, "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.... (unless) the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented..." Dennis is correct in asserting that this is being interpreted in different ways because it is in prose form, and by putting it as criteria in bullet form it will clarify that BLP1E requires all criteria to be met to justify a deletion.

The situations which Stuart and ThaddeusB describe happen regularly and a lot of energy is expended in discussion over this, and I think it is more because the policy is ambiguous and less because of different evaluations of the facts of each case. I think people vote for delete if any one of the criteria is met, and I think the intent is that all criteria should be met.

I do not propose to change the criteria or have a discussion about what is right or wrong, but I do propose to clarify whether it is the case that all the existing criteria should be met or whether just some of the criteria should be met. A bullet list like proposed above settles that unambiguously. As Dennis says, some people interpret "and" as "or". How would everyone feel about the revision Dennis proposes? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to change BLP1E

Replace the existing BLP1E explanation with the one proposed by Dennis. The new version contains the same content as the old version, except that the prose is converted to bullet points and it is made clear that articles must meet all criteria to be deleted.

This is not a vote, but rather a poll to collect ideas about motivation for support and opposition.

• Support for reasons stated above. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per me. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support although I'd like to see more on the phrase and is likely to remain. It is often worth having articles on "one hit wonders" if they are in a field (sports/music/athletics/etc) where people might wonder, "did this person do anything else?" A redirect to the main article doesn't answer that question, it only says that the person was involved in the known event. My baliwick, it could be argued that a world series of poker bracelet winner is "likely to remain" a one hit wonder. But the articles are beneficial because it highlights that fact. If the article were merely a redirect, then the reader doesn't know if the person did anything else or if we simply haven't written an article.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
  • How about changing the word "likely" to "expected" or "likely and expected". This differentiates between the person who stumbled into his 15 minutes of fame by being at the right place a the right time, vs the person whom one might expect to be notable again. WSOP Bracelet winners are likely not to going to win another bracelet, but there is an expectation that they might.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 21:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

  Remember, there is, and will remain, the exception for sports bios, "subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports)". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support in general; but we do need to get rid of the speculation as well (because a lot of BLP1E discussions descend into editors arguing over whether someone will be notable...). Maybe: If that person is otherwise a low-profile individual outside of the event, and holds no further notability. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment A person who is "low profile" is not the prblem for BLP1E - the idea is that if the event is notable, it can have an article, but the individual connected with that event is unlikely to have more in his or her BLP than the event itself. Thus this proposal seems to go a bit afield of the reasoning behind the limit entirely.

  A person whose notability is entirely associated with a single "major event" may be mentioned in an article on that event, but should not have a separate biographical article.

Would seem the simplest wording directly supporting actual Wikipedia practice. Collect (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that this is intended as a small-scope change. Keeping the current meaning, and only rewording it so that there is less confusion. It's very difficult to even discuss substantive changes in the rule if there is not broad agreement on the current meaning. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Even so; it's worth considering. I think Collect's suggestion is elegant and concise --Errant ^(chat!) 16:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, I saw a good rephrasing of the statement at WP:VPP#Remove prognostication from WP:BLP1E, to conform with WP:1E and WP:CRYSTAL. Errant proposed this:
  • In situations where a person receives coverage from reliable sources in the context of a single event and, outside that event, they remain a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them
• That nicely avoids the issue of "they might become notable later!" that tends to crop up in such debates. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this sentence "It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981." needs some work. Nathan ^T 14:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that it is not an accurate reflection of the current policy text, or do you think that the current policy text needs some work? Gigs (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think its awkwardly written and could stand to be improved. Nathan ^T 15:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I had the same double take FWIW. I think it is because the "not" is in an awkward place. It might be better to leave that sentence as a separate exception as currently exists. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's awkward, but I wanted to keep as much of the original wording as possible to avoid any change in policy. Because a list of 3 bullet points makes the policy unmistakably clear. If you leave the third one as a separate condition, you introduce some of the confusion that led to the conjunction fallacy. See Conjunction fallacy#Debiasing. If we really wanted to make it crystal clear, it would be 4 points: adding that they are still alive.

So can you support this as an interim improvement? Changes in wording are needed, I agree, but that will run into more resistance because it risks changing the meaning. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support the changes. Regarding Collect's comments, I disagree. Once we have a BLP on someone, we can and should fill it with other biographical information that might not be directly related to what made them notable. If we didn't, they wouldn't be biographies, they'd just be news summaries. I always viewed this policy as a protection for low profile individuals from having their entire life documented in public because of one, limited, event. Gigs (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to press the issue ;) but if they have no other notability, other than the one event, then the point is to preclude creating an article. Unless I read it wrongly Collect's version is just a far more concise version of what we have - and makes no comment of what goes into a biography if it is judged creatable :) --Errant ^(chat!) 16:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noting what I had hoped was obvious. My version affects nothing other than conciseness of statement that I can tell. Collect (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support changing to bullets poinst to help avoid confusion and make it easier to discuss future changes to the rule. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Single Non-recurring Event

I think I see a minor tweak to several of the proposals above. We keep talking about notability based upon a single event. A person comes out of nowhere and wins a notable tournament/event---say Professional Golfer. Even if they never compete again, they are still worth having an article on because that will be a question people ask--did the person ever win anything else? Redirecting to the main article doesn't answer that because people will be left asking, "Did they win again or do we need an article on them?"

My take on BLP1E is that it is really intended for the person who played a pivotal role in a specific news story/crime/event that is unlikely to garner coverage ever again because their initial rise to fame was related to events surrounding them and not to who they were. People who have worked towards achieving the notability and are now known for succeeding are a different category. The golfer may never again make the cut at a tournament, but it is impossible to say that they are unlikely to win another one as that is the reason they keep playing. Thus, I think that by changing "single event" to "single non-recurring event" we address a major problem with BLP1E.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 17:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E already directs you to Wikipedia:Notability (sports) for the set of exceptions that are used for sports, so bringing up sports isn't helpful. If you want to talk about substantive changes in BLP1E, the key is what distinguishes it from WP:1E: one, they're alive, and two, they're low profile. The common thread in the definition of low-profile is that they didn't seek attention. They were minding they're own business. If they seek attention, then they're not low-profile. A low profile person who was unlucky enough to be a witness to three notorious crimes doesn't suddenly become a celebrity; they're still trying to mind their own business. The single event isn't the crux; it's the person's behavior.

Much of the current policy is wordy distraction. For example, the whole bit about extraordinary people and events, like John Hinckley, Jr., is already covered in WP:1E. All you have to say is that Hinckely wasn't minding his own business, but obviously sought attention, and therefore BLP1E doesn't apply, so you revert to WP:1E.

The part about guessing if they're "likely to remain low-profile" disappears if you simply ask for facts to back up the arguments that they are likely to be low profile or not. Did they get caught up in a big event, then sign a book deal? Seeking attention, WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, fall back on WP:1E. Signing the book deal isn't a prediction about the future, it's a verifiable fact. Any argument about whether a previously low-profile person is seeking to become a high-profile person rests on verifiable facts about the present, not speculation about the future. That's why it can be removed: remain focused solely on the issues described in WP:LOWPROFILE and you have no need to discuss what you think they're going to do. Only discuss what they've done which might qualify or disqualify them from WP:LOWPROFILE, and thus WP:BLP1E. And, to repeat, if disqualified from BLP1E, you fall back on WP:1E.

So you reduce the whole confusing thing to only two questions: Alive? Low-profile?

And my belief is that the best way to get there from here is to first make the present policy clear enough that everyone realizes what's wrong with it and how to fix it. Or if the present policy becomes well understood, and everyone is happy with it, so be it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Dennis hits the nail on the head here. The intent of the policy is (or should be) to protect individuals who accidentally get caught up in events and do not attempt to "cash in" on their new found fame. Most argument tends to focus on the "one event" aspect, leading people to arguing for deletion of all kinds of people to whom the policy should not apply. The policy should not be used to deny people articles because one event isn't good enough to be notable, but rather protect people who would rather fade into obscurity. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll suggest starting an RfC and involving the larger community on this. And if it is about notability, I'll also suggest starting the RfC on the BIO talk page. Wifione ^Message 03:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean there should be an RfC to reformat the current policy into bullet points, as in the quotebox above? Or an RfC for a more substantive rewrite of BLP1E? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:LOWPROFILE is a lowprofile essay. It is not a guideline nor a policy; and has been edited by relatively few people. The problem with the essay is that it seems to equate profile with activity of a person and their marketting endeavors. According to the article, I'm high profile because I want to be hired to do balloon gigs and have tried to get media attention. But I'm not high profile because my star hasn't risen high enough to get noticed. Sometimes poeple are high profile despite their desire to be otherwise---hell some hollywood stars would be just as happy if the circus forgot about them and let them film their shows and go home to a "normal" family. Yes, we have atheletics, but that doesn't cover every competition---only athletic ones. Consider the WSOP---is a World Series of Poker Bracelet winner covered by that? Some would say yes others would say no. Ok, if you argue that the WSOP Bracelet winner is covered, then are the 8000 players who anted up 10 grand also included? According to the guidelines, they have competed at the highest level of the "sport"? Most people at WP:POKER would argue that simply forking over 10K to play in the main event does NOT qualify you for an article, but winning a bracelet event does because those are the most covetted (non-monetary) prizes in Poker. Once you win one, you join an elite club and can never partiicpate in another tourney without your having won one being mentioned... whether you want the fame or not.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Relevant Essays

Mostly by me, addressing these same sorts of issues:

• WP:WIALPI
• WP:WI1E

  Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

So, backing up to the start, the reason I suggested an outright "repeal" of BLP1E is that we have a section right above it in WP:NPF that deals with low profile individuals. If we can all agree that the reason BLP1E exists is to protect low profile individuals, then we should just get rid of it and possibly tweak the NPF section a little (or not). Gigs (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done

There seemed to be plenty of support, and no clear opposition. Some editors above obviously wanted to go further, and nothing precludes that. I support the idea of drastically pruning back, and in a sense eliminating, BLP1E, and I support an RfC to bring that about. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I made a grammatical change for subject/verb agreement. I must say the new wording seems awkward, but because I haven't been involved in the ongoing discussion, I suppose my opinion doesn't count for much at this juncture.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The footnote was promoted into the main text. I didn't like the way it made it sound like our subject notability guidelines override BLP policy; they don't. I changed it. Gigs (talk) 13:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Just like that? Wikipedia:Notability (sports) was thrown out the window because one editor didn't like it? Any interest in finding a little consensus first? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines don't override policies. You can restore the former wording if you want, but I think the consensus is already with me here. Gigs (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In general policies take precedence over guidelines. But in this specific case, the policy BLP1E used to say that WP:ATH could take precedence. That was the whole point of bringing it up, rather than ignoring it. Why would policies enumerate every related guideline (or essay), only to then say they don't really count? I think the change should be reverted until some consensus appears, and an explanation as to why WP:ATH even exists if BLP1E is the last word. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Subject specific notability guidelines are on thin ice as it is. Most of them allow us to have articles that fail verifiability standards, fail the general notability guideline, or violate other policies. As you can tell from my earlier comments, I'm no fan of BLP1E, and favor it's removal entirely in favor of wording more focused on the "low profile" aspect rather than the "one event" aspect. Even considering that, I think it's a dangerous position to take if we allow a subject notability guideline to override our BLP policy. Gigs (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Elsewhere Dennis had described to me the precedent for describing exceptions to GNG within specific subjects. I do not yet have an opinion on this, but I can see that the precedent exists. For example, most recipients of the United States Military Medal of Honor are otherwise not notable except for having received the award, yet the precedent is that anyone getting this award is inherently notable. See Category:Recipients_of_the_Medal_of_Honor for hundreds of articles created on this basis. I would be interested in collecting examples of other factors which make an article's subject notable even when it fails GNG or BLP. I think lots of these exist, and I would like to see them all in one place. I think without knowing the scope of the precedent is it hard to describe how this discussion should go. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The concept of the Medal of Honor is that it is for a notable deed - thus the recipient is notable for both the deed and the medal - or "two events" as a result. Collect (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:MILPEOPLE doesn't justify itself with this argument. You could just as easily argue that almost any single event is really two events. First the event, second the recognition or media coverage or fallout from the event. In today's media environment, the news circus that surrounds private individuals who get caught up in a big story can easily be called an "event" if you want to call it that. And then there's cases where there is zero coverage, and even zero published sources, for the act of valor itself, other than the citation for the award. You could still call that two events, but doing so requires a bit of stretching the definition of WP:V. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

@Collect; perhaps, if there is independent coverage of the two things. But if coverage ties solely to the receiving of the medal then, no, that would be one event. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not denying there is precedent. I just think it's wrong and we shouldn't encourage it even more here with wording that makes it sound like it's consensus that these guidelines (often developed by small, interested, groups) can override our community wide core policies. It's far more than a few hundred. It's probably over half the articles on footballers and sports people, and most of the articles on tenured professors that fail the GNG requirement of ongoing and in-depth coverage. Gigs (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing and nobody is "inherently notable", no matter what enthusiastic editors say about the subjects that they favor. It must be possible to find a published reliable source for absolutely every single subject, without exception. (You don't have to list any such sources, but it must be possible for a sufficiently determined and resourceful person to do so.) See WP:NRVE and WP:WHYN for why we have this rule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

On a lofty plane, this is true. But in seeking consensus in the real world, guidelines like WP:ATH or essays like WP:MILPEOPLE have, functionally, a higher status than guideline or essay. BLP1E is not a well-written or well-defined policy, and it's very difficult to apply. Editors continually disagree on the definition of "one event" and "low-profile individual", and whether those apply to a particular case. The kind of bright lines that divide notable from non-notable in WP:ATH and so on are thus extremely valuable. So even though in principle it sounds good to say "nothing and nobody is inherently notable", a measure of flexibility is required. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E was recently invoked in an AFD discussion of multiple American Idol finalists placing in the top 13 of this AI season. The discussion earlier touched upon sporting events where one notable event can be enough - this in my opinion should also extend to shows like American Idol. Note that by "Shows like American Idol" I mean the scope and attention that show gets, not that every reality show should automatically qualify for notability. AI finalists become a focus of several nights worth of televised content and a summer tour, and most contestants placing in the top 12/13 will likely forever be recognizable, at least locally. I support a RfC on this, and urge specific wording that after participation in a sufficiently large event, BLP1E should at least not be the sole basis for deletion criteria. - Kenneaal (talk) 10:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The key point about BLP1E, though, is to judge whether anything outside of that coverage is worth recording. Generally other aspects of their life are not especially notable, and of no long term encyclopaedic interest (in much the same way neither of our lives are of general interest :)). That it might receive some scrutiny during their notable period is, I think, somewhat misdirecting. The thing worth recording it all in association with their notable event - perhaps with some background judged suitable context. We can do all of that in event articles, there is little requirement for a biography. Where a biography becomes useful is where two or more events in a persons life are worth recording, and they don't link up naturally in a single event article. At that point a biography makes sense for the reader because it acts as a link and a summary of those multiple "events". I've not dug too much into athlete articles, but I suspect they would be better served as a list, with names redirected, in the case where they only win one award (or something). Although given the inoffensive nature of their notability I am not surprised that process has passed scrutiny so far (and, frankly, it is not something I would complain about myself, if the athletics Wikiproject is happy to go that route). The problem I see is a growing number of biographies of people who could better be dealt with in the event article. Having a biography invites trivia about their private lives and sits as a magnet for a BLP nightmare - especially in contentious areas. My constant example is Amanda Knox; the article at the moment isn't too bad, but it sits ready for any future retrospectives, digging into her latter career, to expand lots of un-useful trivia. On the other hand all of the current content is directly related to the event that made her infamous in the media - and really should be dealt with in an event article. I feel we tend to hold a far too low standard to the "one event" policy - in that we should almost always write event articles, and only write biographies when there really is no other sensible solution (this is much better for the reader, also). --Errant ^(chat!) 20:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I concur with ErrantX here. In these cases it is usually the event, not the person, that is notable. Having a BLP article either means two articles (or more, if there are several people involved) when it would be much more helpful to users to cover the event in a single article and redirect to there, or else a BLP article that is really about the event. The other point, which will I suspect become more of an issue as time goes by, is that there is an implicit obligation in an encyclopedic biographical entry to give a fair and balanced account of the subject without inappropriate intrusion into private matters, and the subject is fully entitled to object if it does not. A WP article that is about some incident that they had a part in 20 or more years ago (say) is most unlikely to achieve that. --AJHingston (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Good points being raised, with more elaboration than what was seen in the AFD discussion. In the specific case of AI, perhaps a section of the season article should instead then be dedicated to short biographies of the finalists, so that proper redirects can be made from the contestant name to a short stub in the main article about them? Might be something to raise as a standard with the wikiproject that handles AI articles? - Kenneaal (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Getting out of the mud here

So to back up a little, this is the statement I find controversial:

"In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event."

So my problem with it:

1. BLP1E is about when we might decide not have an article on someone who is indeed otherwise notable per our guidelines. The fact that a subject specific notability guideline (SNG) supports their notability isn't a coherent point. BLP1E is only applied to notable people in the first place.
2. It elevates guidelines, and in particular guidelines that are often primarily developed by a small group of people interested in a particular topic area to the status of taking precedent over core policy. Gigs (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the exception is supposed to cover very specific cases. For example, if a previously unheard-of athlete wins a gold medal at this year's Olympics, we can create an article about them, even though winning that gold medal is the only thing they will be notable for. It would obviously be absurd to deny them an article and instead create a section in 2012 Summer Olympics, even though that's what BLP1E would have us do. Hence the need for an exemption. FormerIP (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it really that absurd? If we have a standalone biography on the otherwise obscure gold medalist, their entire life is fair game. In fact, in order to write a good biography, we'll have to dig pretty deep into the private life of someone who isn't high profile. Otherwise the article will just say "Joe Blow won a Gold medal in 2012 for Skiing", and that's not a biography at all. Loose notability standards are fundamentally incompatible with strong BLP standards. Gigs (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I know I'm late to this party but

I remember mentioning this somewhere else but I don't think any discussion developed on it. I think that BLP1E (and probably also BIO1E) should be divided up into "BLP1E active" and "BLP1E passive". In other words, is the event something that you "did" or was it something "done to you"? "1E active" should make a stronger case for inclusion then "1E passive". Example, if some nut job goes to the top of a building and shoots a bunch of people, he gets an article even if that's the only notable thing he did in his life. The people he shoots in most cases won't get separate articles. This would (almost) eliminate any doubt (or wikilawyering) on whether or not we should have articles on John Hinckley, Jr. or Mark David Chapman while still protecting otherwise non-notable shmoes who blunder in to a big event. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hinckley and Chapman have bios because they are (for better or worse) significant historical/cultural figures and there is enough material about them so that their articles (presumably) are do not just duplicate material we already include elsewhere. I don't think varying those basic criteria would be a good thing. "1E active" would just mean changing the rules to allow duplicative articles about assorted criminals, publicity-seekers, bass-players and reality show contestants. FormerIP (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

BLP deletions

I've been looking around at the history of discussions about defaulting to delete in BLP AfDs. See User:SlimVirgin/BLP deletion. In the course of writing that up, I saw that an important section about this was removed from BLP in May 2008, and I can't find any discussion about it. It said:

AFD based deletion

When closing an AfD about living persons whose notability is ambiguous, the closing administrator should take into account whether the subject of the article being deleted has asked that it be deleted. The degree of weight given to such a request is left to their discretion.

Removed here on 7 May 2008 by Kotniski, referencing the talk page. Discussion should be in Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 19, but I can't find it.

Does anyone know the history of this removal? And would there be objections to me restoring it (with some tweaking)? It is de facto policy that admins take the subject's wishes into account, though there is no consensus regarding the weight they should place on those wishes. It seems odd not to mention this in the written policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the original discussion was archived to a non-standard archive page. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. Specifically, the discussion on that page is here, but it doesn't show any consensus to remove that section, which had been in the policy for some time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BIODEL goes far enough, in my view. I don't think we can adopt a passage that has been absent for four years without consensus to do so. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot of editors disagree but I would have no problem with that provided that it's only applied to marginally notable "shmoes" (perhaps this should be called "shmoetability") and not the "supernotable" (ie "A list celebrities"). it should also be under the condition that the BLP subject identifies himself through OTRS to prevent pranksters and trolls from impersonating a BLP subject to get an article deleted. Alternatively, if a BLP subject's wishes are known through, lets say a "blog" previously known to be his then that can be taken into account. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) WP:BIODEL (part of the deletion policy) actually goes further. It says:

Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete.

So that reverts the "no consensus = keep" default at AfDs to "no consensus = delete," where the person is relatively unknown, but notable enough for a bio. There's no reason to have text about that in the deletion policy, but have it removed from the BLP policy without discussion. So I think we do need to restore something here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest: "Where a BLP subject of borderline notability requests deletion, the AfD may be closed as delete, unless there is consensus to keep. That is, where there is no consensus, the default position is to delete."

If it has been deleted without discussion, and is supported by existing policy, clearly it should be restored - or preferably updated to match what WP:BIODEL says. If we are going to amend this, we'll need to discuss this further. I'd caution against doing this in the middle of a contentious AfD, where this policy is very much involved though - this is likely to confuse the issue further. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

We can wait until this AfD is closed, but someone should make sure the closing admin knows this is already policy. Changing to "borderline notability" is just using the more common term. "Relatively unknown" isn't used as much, and "non-public figure" risks making people think we're referring to the U.S. legal use of the term. Most Wikipedians know where the parameters of "borderline notability" tend to lie. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy to see this default-delete approach. Actually, perhaps because I've spent too much time with WP:COIN on my watchlist, I'd be happy to see default-delete or default-merge for any living person for whom there is no consensus that the person is notable (=qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

• I disagree with default delete, because if we're doing BLP articles right (NPOV, RS, etc.), then there is no harm to keeping a BLP. On the other hand, if there's a 1E issue, then the proper outcome isn't delete anyways--it's redirection, and if we're afraid of leaving content in history, then it should have been suppressed or revdel'ed regardless of whether the article is kept or deleted. Please don't think I'm being "soft on BLP" here--quite the opposite, I think that we need to take a more aggressive approach at the content level, not the article level. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't like "default delete" either. An AFD that closes as "no consensus" should default to "keep", BLP or not. However, deletion should be an option in "no consensus" cases where the subject is only of marginal notability and is requesting deletion. I will also go as far as to say that a closing admin in such cases should give the most weight to "keep" and "delete" !votes that address the issue of "notability" (or BLP1E or other inclusion guideline) and very little weight to !votes that only address the subject's deletion request ie "delete because the subject is requesting it so let's do the right thing" or "keep because the subject is a whiny bitch who objects to sourced but embarrassing facts posted about him/her". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
  • The difficulty of positively identifying a subject on the Internet has always made me leery of the idea of assigning any weight whatsoever to a supposed subject's request for deletion. Everything we do on OTRS is essentially AGF'ing that the subject is who they claim to be, and working to address as many of their concerns as are legitimate policy issues. The testimony of an anonymous internet account that an article should or should not be part of Wikipedia is inconsistent with our normal sourcing expectations. Really--why do we even need or want the testimony of article subjects (or their dopplegangers...) about whether they should have an article or not? Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    • I've been involved in several such cases, and it's honestly never been a problem. (In one case, an editor wrote to the subject's university e-mail as given on her university webpage to verify it was them.) We have this in deletion policy, and it should be in here as well to tie in with that. The text proposed by SlimVirgin above works for me. --JN466 08:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
      • My point is that it should not be in deletion policy. The proper response to an error is to correct it, not propagate it. Jclemens (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Our BLPs can and often necessarily do "harm". Not to rehash that old argument, but yes even if we are doing our job right, we might be publishing negative information that may harm people. Gigs (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
        • Why not? It seems perfectly compatible with the presumption in favour of privacy, which is one of the fundamental tenets of BLP policy. JN466 20:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
          • "x is compatible with y" is a weak argument for x. "x necessarily follows from y" is stronger. But it's hardly the case that "no consensus defaults to delete" necessarily follows from "presumption of privacy", particularly when presumption of privacy is rebuttable. Allowing LPs to dictate whether there is an article is too close to allowing LPs to dictate the content of an article (and in practice the one often bleeds into the other); another fundamental tenet here is NPOV. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that we insist on being viewed as an encyclopaedia, not a social-networking site or search engine that gathers information about people without their consent, or after they have withdrawn their consent. (How would you feel if Facebook were to erect a page in your honour, without your knowledge, complete with lists of your friends and family and any other published snippet they could find about you, then refuse to take it down on the grounds that you have no right to dictate content?)

  We say no, this analogy does not apply to us, because we are an encyclopaedia that must safeguard its objectivity and neutrality. Fine. But then we ought to behave like one, and not publish tabloidesque lists of random factoids about people who are basically unknown outside their local area, or who were catapulted into the public eye because of one event. The whole BLP problem is that we want to have it both ways. We want the power without the responsibility.

  It is a very minor safeguard to say that (a) if a BLP subject is borderline notable, and (b) if they request deletion, and (c) if there is no consensus to keep, then (d) the closing admin should default to delete. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with adding information to this page concordant with WP:BIODEL, though I don't believe that it should go so far as to say "defaults to delete". Rather, any wording here should match the other wording, which is that on borderline-notable BLP articles, an admin has discretion ("may") close non-consensus debates as delete, not that they have to. As always, it would be up to the admin to weigh how much those requests had to balance out the relative level of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I created the BIODEL section (nee shortcut) separately, and wrote part of that policy primarily to ensure that the deletion policy on such borderline or non-notable BLPs was noticed by our administrators handling AfDs. I'll be more than pleased to see the policy replicated in some manner or the other here to ensure higher visibility. I'll clearly prefer the default-delete option than the default-keep or may or may not delete option. Wifione ^Message 18:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with SlimVirgin above. JN466 10:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Till then, I've added the direct link to WP:BIODEL in this policy. Wifione ^Message 07:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the words from the deletion policy, and created a separate section for BLP deletions. [1] If we want to change or expand on those words in this policy (and I think we ought to discuss the difficulty of using the American idea of a "public figure"), we can think about that after the current deletion review. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• I completely disagree with this proposal. We should only very marginally take into account the opinions of the subject. If we did more than that, then it would jeopardize our ability to write a neutral encyclopedia. If the issue is that people are adding in negative information and it doesn't have strong sourcing, then the response is to block the people doing that and to remove the information, not to delete the article. I do agree that notability based on negative information requires far stronger sourcing than positive information does and we have to make sure not to fall foul of WP:1E. However, if the information in the article is positive or otherwise neutral and the subject is asking for deletion, I do not believe we should follow that request at all, because I do not believe harm can come from this info, unless a very strong case is made by the subject. If it's just that the subject doesn't want info on them in control by others, then i'm afraid that is out of their hands, because the info we use is things already in news circulation, so has little to do with us and more to do with the info they already released to others. Silverseren^C 17:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
  • As I said above, if we're doing BLPs right, the subject's wishes should not matter. If we're using high-quality secondary sources, they don't ever vanish from reality, so the social networking comparison made above is particularly inapt. We should be collecting data using RS to meet V, sufficient RS assure N, and that's about the extent of it: no preferences from the subject needed or wanted. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
• SV, note that your reversion of my edits has the perverse effect of making it easier for people who have marginal yet extant notability but no involvement in a major event to be deleted than flash-in-the-pan BLP1Es. That can't be right: people who have labored to become famous without great success should have less presumption of privacy than non-public figures thrust into the spotlight with one single event. Jclemens (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I think the issue of whether to avoid the term public person is one we should discuss in detail, but after this deletion review has closed. I think we should avoid it, because it means that a minor academic, say, who gets involved in some local public issue (opposing the building of a pub), risks being classified as a public person by Wikipedia because he has, in some sense, sought out the limelight. In my view, we should think only in terms of WP's concepts of notability and borderline notability, which are fuzzy, but at least we have a sense of where the parameters lie. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:BIODELETE

Nikkimaria, can you explain your reverts? [2]

WP:BIODELETE has been policy since Nov 2008 (in the deletion policy), and also here (removed without discussion and no one noticed). Wifione added a link to BIODELETE a few days ago, and I've just added the words from the deletion policy without changing them - which you've now removed twice.

If you want BIODELETE not to be policy, you would have to argue that. But given that it is policy, can you say why want to stop it from being added here, given that it's about BLPs? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No eventualism

I have created a new essay at WP:ADAM. (Eyes welcome.) Based on a current discussion thread on the WikiEN-l mailing list (titled "More stringent notability requirements for biographical articles"), my essay tries to argue a point that David Gerard and several other contributors made on the list, i.e. that WP:Eventualism does not apply to biographies, which have to be rounded and fair at all times. I believe that this is a point that needs to be made more strongly in this policy, and propose we add a couple of sentences in the Writing style section at the beginning of the policy. If editors think this is a useful idea, we can sit down and draft something. JN466 10:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The BLP page needs a comprehensive rewrite, as much for clarity and sense as anything else. It is not surprising that nobody has stepped up to do this. I entirely agree that the principles reflected there should be the cornerstone. Sooner or later I believe that WP will need to trumpet something equivalent to the UK's Advertising Standards Authority famous slogan Legal, decent, honest and truthful at least in relation to BLPs. The fundamentals of policy are already in place, but there is still a way to go in stressing to editors that unless they can meet the standards WP demands they should refrain from making a contribution. And if users and subjects were reasssured that they were entitled to object if those standards were not met it could be largely self-reinforcing. --AJHingston (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Also see comments at Wikipedia_talk:ADAM#I.27d_always_thought_this_was_already_the_case. JN466 11:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

My essay at Wikipedia:TWOPRONGS may also be relevant to the current discussion, but approaching it from a different angle. Gigs (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; it's complementary. --JN466 13:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit

I've made a bold edit: [3].

Discuss. --JN466 13:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Everything but the last sentence is OK with me. I don't think our biographies should focus on what they are most notable for. Our biographies should be biographies, which includes plenty of things not relevant to their notability. For an example, check out this encyclopedia article on Lincoln. It's a biography, which includes many things not relevant to his notable activities. Gigs (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but does it include information on his favorite pizza topping, or his third grade girlfriend's cat's name? One still needs to be able to make editorial decisions; just being true and verifiable doesn't mean it is appropriate. --Jayron32 02:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

BLP in respect to criminal investigations and legal procedings

I suspect this has been covered in great depth before, but we've had a couple of recent controversies involving suspicious deaths in the United Kingdom and I'm wondering if we shouldn't re-examine the BLP guidelines in respect to criminal investigations of this nature. The first involves an unfortunate incident that occurred at DYK on 21 March when the death of an actress was included as a main page factoid (see here for the discussion on that) and the second on Friday (30 March) when Wikipedia received a request from a UK law enforcement agency to remove information from an article about a recent ongoing investigation (see here). The DYK was removed following discussion and the latter article was adjusted accordingly. We have rules briefly covering criminal investigations at WP:BLPCRIME and one or two other places, but the fact we've been asked to remove details of such a case could set a precedent for other similar requests. Therefore I feel this is something we need to address, perhaps putting together rules that stipulate more clearly how exactly we cover issues like this one. Lots of murder investigations seem to end up as articles, many within days of the event and while inquiries are still ongoing, and I guess I'm actually surprised something like this doesn't happen more often. I'm by no means an expert in this area, so have no firm ideas on what we could do, but I can see there are issues that need to be examined. Therefore Im bringing it here to gauge opinion and hopefully reach some kind of resolution. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that this should appear immediately after 'No eventualism'. There are two issues here which cries of 'no censorship' really fail to answer. The first is that these are evolving stories in which those who are in the fullest position to know the truth are unable or unwilling to disclose it. We have had some extremely unfortunate examples of trial by media in the UK in recent years which have caused very real harm and distress to innocent people, and the defence that alleged facts, allegations and speculations are published elsewhere will not do for Wikipedia which is meant to be an encyclopedia. Secondly, the risk of predudicing a trial is not one that we can dismiss, and by the very nature of it we cannot know where the danger lies. Anyone who has any experience of the legal process knows that there will be often be information that cannot be publicly disclosed, often in the interests of the defendant rather than prosecution, and if the legal authorities ask for all or part of an article to be removed the chances are that they are right. THis is less a matter of making new policies than operating existing ones. --AJHingston (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

How can this article prejudice a trial. All the information in the article is available all over internet with a simple search. Why should Wikipedia start censoring its articles? Soon we will see other known people/companies/sites who have articles on Wikipedia contacting us and wanting information removed on different grounds. We are setting a dangerous prejudice IF we let this censoring of the article in question go on. Because it is censoring.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And this is a logical fallacy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

A criminal defendant is handicapped with respect to fully responding or explaining material published in the media then republished in Wikipedia. Any information provided to the media, or to us, may offer additional opportunities for police investigators or prosecutors to uncover or present additional incriminating evidence even in cases where the accused is not guilty. Additionally, we are hardly a proper jury, nor are the media. The actual jury pool, or judge (the notion that judges are not influenced by adverse publicity is hokum), meanwhile is on-line, reading about the case, deciding if the defendant is guilty, before they have heard a scrap of admissible evidence. In extreme cases it becomes impossible to seat an unbiased jury, and at best difficult. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators falls square within the purpose of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. When and how to use it and properly explaining it to our users and the public are the issues. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Juries are not allowed to read about the cases they are to decide in. And if some jury members do look online for information on this case anyway then they can find the same information that is found on Wikipedia all over the internet. So censoring the article is not the best option here and this article can/will not influence the jury more/less then the thousands of articles that can be found via a simple Google search. In my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I authored BLPCRIME exactly to ensure that such situations are avoided - where articles (although abiding by our NOR and V policies) unfortunately end up giving the impression that an individual is a criminal or is the guilty party before a judgement has been given. One has to strongly look at the impact the issue can have on the BLP and his family/friends in case there's an article that comes top of the line on the search engines. Do realize that I made BLPCRIME only for low profile individuals. For high profile ones, we simply cannot do anything but document the sources available as laid out in WELLKNOWN. I also feel that in case of validated requests from law enforcement agencies, we should guide them to the Foundation rather than take a call ourselves. Government agencies are well known to attempt to remove material from our project for reasons that are not generally neutral. Wifione ^Message 16:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it unfortunate that the Foundation did not give evidence to the Leveson Inquiry, unlike Google, Facebook and the like. That would have obliged the community to explain and justify its policies and open them up to debate. The idea that somehow Wikipedia can set itself as apart from the behaviour of the tabloid press, or the rest of the media, that the issues are not applicable across the globe, or that WP represents the good guys against some vague establishment conspiracy is very far from the mark. If the community believes that WP should stand for fairness, accuracy, balance, and so forth, it needs to say so clearly and it needs to understand the constraints that places on editors. --AJHingston (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The news media makes its living by being sensationalist. A reference work makes its living by being reliable. We have set ourselves apart from the news media. Waiting for the dust to settle before publishing is not being the "good guy"; it is fulfilling our mission, being a reliable reference work. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Small bit of an outside view. I would agree that articles on active police investigations or criminal proceedings need to be looked at very, very carefully since a lot of damage can be done. Limiting based on the general BLP stance of "no damage to the living person or persons involved" is a little short though. The articles can also slant the other way in building up the suspect. They can also undermine the authorities or, in the cases of murder, tarnish the deceased victim(s). "Waiting for the dust to settle" is a good way of starting - we don't have to break the new, nor do we need to be repeating it as soon as a news outlet breaks something. Noting the coverage should be enough to determine notability, but that would be a call for a general article, not a "here are all of the details, participants, facts, theories, stories, etc" type article. Those can wait for a final resolution. - J Greb (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a Police Gazette - the use of articles, especially any wherein POV editing can occur, is a substantial problem - likely solvable only by barring articles based on newspaper accounts of crimes and the surmises made by newspapers etc. We can wait until all the facts are in before we make fools of oursves (see Duke lacrosse case history), etc. Or else simply decree that sources reporting current events are not "reliable sources" in any crime investigation article. Collect (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC) Collect (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
• There is a relatively simple solution to all of this: add a bit to WP:BLPCRIME which states that cases which are receiving national coverage (nevermind international coverage!) are... I don't want to say "exempt", but something similar (you guys feel free to figure out the actual language). Basically, if there is more than local coverage (especially if there has been for any period of time) then it's reasonable to assume that an article here could exist (in the same way that other current events may have articles here). I understand the point in citing NOTNEWS and talking about "Wikipedia is not a Police Gazette", but it would be cool if our policies could find some middle ground.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
  • The problem is that it is specifically those cases which are most violative of the spirit of WP:BLP. Vide the Duke lacrosse case - which had much national coverage -- most of which turned out to be egregiously wrong in hindsight. The Olympic bomber case in Atlanta -- where the RS coverage was egregously wrong. And on and on. It costs Wikipedia nothing to simply wait until the dust settles before making the same egregious misstatements made in "reliable sources" which are trying to get maximum circulation and ad revenues. Collect (talk) 02:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
    • But, it costs Wikipedia nothing to live with coverage of outside coverage either, until someone here throws a fit about it and we end up creating a "Streisand effect" over the whole thing. The fact that the Atlanta Bomber cases and the Duke Lacross team cases were wrong... I've gotta wonder why you wouldn't want them covered here if your motive is actually protecting the people involved (oh, and by the way, do I really have to point out that it was the police and the District Attorneys in those cases which sought out a good portion of the publicity?) If you want to talk about the spirit of the BLP policy, then it's the cases where people may go and attempt to create an article about a case that is starting in their local county court and receiving a bit of coverage in the local paper that I would be concerned about. By fighting against coverage of the cases where there is significant coverage you're creating enemies out of friends and eroding the impact that the BLP policy as a whole should have. Wikipedia policy is certainly not law, but it's the closest thing that there is to law here, and earning disdain towards policy amongst editors hardly seems productive (especially though partisan tactics). I'm one of your "opponents", but I'm attempting to offer an olive branch for compromise here.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Residence of prison inmates

Not sure where to ask. Is there a standard written anywhere, as to how to identify the residence of a person living in prison? In Conrad Black, I tried changing it to the place of incarceration, and that was reverted. Ultimately, the residence field in the infobox was just removed, which is not a final solution. Not just for this case, there should be some rules on what to use in various situations of incarceration. --Rob (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Crime_perpetrators

Since an accused is not guilty, I'll suggest rename this section to "Persons accused of crime", because "Crime perpetrators" suggest they are perpetrators of crime. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 04:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Extremely sensible suggestion. Done. Wifione ^Message 14:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)