Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓

Skip to table of contents

↓

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

Shortcuts: WT:LIVING WT:BLP

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

	This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biographies of living persons page.
	Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith Avoid personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

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

Contents 1 Proposed changes to "Privacy of names" section 2 People who may be dead 3 Protection of an article for BLP's rumored to be dead or in grave situations 4 "The late X" or "X (deceased)" 5 Can we put back the material that was removed? 6 titilate

[edit] Proposed changes to "Privacy of names" section

The following proposed change to the wording of the "Privacy of names" section still hasn't received a full discussion after being auto-archived, so I am relisting it again. Please do comment on it. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a stronger presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if the names have already appeared in the media, where:

• they are not relatively notable in their own right; for instance, because:
  • they are only named in third-party published sources because they are related to or associated with notable individuals;
  • they are only named in a few third-party published sources;
  • although they are widely named in third-party published sources, such sources only have trivial content on them (e.g., minor accidents, criminal offences and public outbursts); or
• they are not directly involved in the article's topic; or
• they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy.

Examples

• Gossip Magazine has reported that actor John Doe and his wife Jane have a three-year-old daughter named Booboo Happy Flower. In spite of the entertainment value of the name, this does not make the child notable in her own right. She is only in the media because she is related to Doe and for the novelty of her name. The fact that her name has appeared in one or more celebrity magazines, newspapers or websites may be an instance of self-promotion or scandal-mongering, and does not make her notable. Thus, her name does not belong in an article on John Doe.
• Actor John Doe has lent his name to a campaign for tough criminal sentences for heroin addicts. Newspapers have reported that his adult son was arrested for possession of heroin. In spite of the irony of the public allegation the son is not notable in his own right, and his privacy should still be protected.
• Following the arrest of John Doe's son, Doe publicly recants his previous stand and now promotes treatment for heroin addicts. The son's arrest may now be included in the article about John Doe, although his name should still not be mentioned, even if it has been widely reported in the media, as he has still not become notable in his own right.

In all cases where names are redacted, editors are encouraged to explain why this has been done on the article's talk page.

This idea seems basically OK to me, but I wonder if we couldn't simplify the list of criteria when presumption is stronger to "when such individuals are not in themselves sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article". That seems to me easier to balance in practice against the "adding value" criterion. (Also it says "There is a stronger presumption against... [when]" without clearly saying first that there is a general presumption against.) Rd232 ^talk 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have two comments:

• I am not sure if the test for whether a relatively non-notable person should be named in an article should depend on whether that person is notable enough for an article on him or her. That seems to be too high a standard. It may be appropriate to mention a person in an article even if it is not appropriate to create a whole article about that person.
• I agree that the guideline shouldn't refer to a "stronger presumption" without first talking about a general presumption.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, "they are not relatively notable in their own right" is basically another way of saying "they are not notable enough for an article", no? But the latter concept is something WP is much more familiar with. We're basically proposing a trade-off which balances the value of mentioning the names versus privacy, with a presumption in favour of privacy if the person named is not notable enough for their own article - a presumption which can be overturned if the value is high enough. The value needn't be sky-high, but it needs to be there. Basically, the default should be a sort of "notability is not inherited" - don't mention names unless there's a particular reason, for example if the relationship with the person is described in some non-trivial way, rather than the fact of it just being mentioned. I mean, that's basically what your proposal is anyway, I'm just suggesting a clarification, I think. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I assume that there are no objections to the proposed change to the guideline (taking Rd232's comment into account) if no other editors comment on it by the time this section gets automatically archived? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] People who may be dead

Where do we draw the line at whether a biography falls under the purview of BLP? Does it apply to anyone born since 1887 who we don't know is dead? How about, say, Amelia Earhart or Richey James Edwards, who were both declared dead in absentia? It's a hypothetical question that I would like to see answered (of course, I'm of the school of thought that believes that the ethical standards of BLP should apply to the dead too). Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 17:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My view is that if a court of law has declared a person dead, there is no good reason for Wikipedia to go on assuming they may be alive. As things now stand, BLP does not apply to deceased persons. Do a search of the talk page archives if you want to read the previous discussions on the subject. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In more general answer to Sceptre's question, I believe we assume people are alive unless it is either unreasonable to do so (especially for people known to be born a long time ago) or we have a reliable source that says they're not. For example in the case of a stub bio without a birth-year and any info suggesting a person is dead, we assume they're alive. Perhaps, though, Sceptre is more interested in the specific case of people declared dead where there's some doubt about whether the declaration is right? For BLP purposes I'd say that if there's a reasonable doubt, we should apply BLP standards (which after all are basically general WP standards, applied more rigorously and cautiously). Disembrangler (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that BLP should only apply to persons declared dead by a court of law if (and only if) there is some reasonable doubt as to the declaration backed up by a reliable secondary source. There is no warrant for editors to go around doubting court decisions without any basis, or on the basis of original research. That would be tantamount to giving a licence to every editor who subjectively believes that Elvis is alive to apply the BLP guideline to his article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was implied that "reasonable doubt" in such a case would require a reasonably reliably source. Disembrangler (talk) 20:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, so long as we're all clear that some reliable source is required to overturn a legal finding of death. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say, when in doubt, treat it as a BLP. As Disembrangler said, BLP is just a stricter standard of normal content policies, there's no loss by being overly cautious. Mr.Z-man 20:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there is no reason for doubt if a court has declared someone to be dead, unless there is some reliable secondary source pointing to the existence of doubt. It shouldn't be a case of a particular editor saying, "Well, I don't agree with the court's decision," without any sufficient basis for that view. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 20:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of an article for BLP's rumored to be dead or in grave situations

When the news was starting to spread that he was in the hospital, Michael Jackson was fully protected with the rationale "Jackson reportedly taken to hospital with heart attack - make sure that the page doesn't get swamped". Especially with high profile individuals in the midst of controversy or in such a situation, should we require that a BLP be protected until there are reliable claims available about the situation? ViperSnake151  Talk  00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Require" is probably the wrong word. "Allow to protect preemptively" is probably a better formulation. In the case of deaths, it's better if we're later to report the event rather than early.   Will Beback  talk  00:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur absolutely. Not everyone is as sanguine as Samuel Clemens when their death is prematurely reported. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)c

I admit to an assumption of a stereotype, the propensity of persons of a certain age to vandalize, but I think that such articles should be protected to two levels above the highest degree now possible.

Wikipedia purports to be an encyclopedia. It should not be a source or target for unconfirmed or scantily referenced information.

When an incident such as the deaths of Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett or the alleged infidelity of Mark Sanford the relevant articles should be protected and the {{current}} template should be edited to inform users that information about the incident is not yet verifiable and is not yet to the point that it is valid as a subject for analysis.

The talk pages should be left open for editing. Give the vandals and the trolls an outlet.

JimCubb (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. Wikipedia is not an outlet for vandals and trolls. We don't cater to them. Period. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Will Beback. Actually, I'd go with "have it become an expectation that" such articles would be fully protected and handled appropriately by interested admins. Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary or desirable to word it that strongly. The vast majority of dead people with articles pass on with virtually no comment or controversy. It's only when someone famous (as opposed to merely notable) dies that we have a problem with incessant editing. Powers ^T 12:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever we do, we should use the terms "high profile" and "major impact" within this. I think it should be placed within the protection policy as an additional criteria for full protection:

An article that is the subject of a high-profile occurrence (such as a major scandal, incident, event, or the rumored death of its subject) can be temporarily full-protected in the occurrence's early stages in order to protect it from potential vandalism and the introduction of unverifiable or unreliable or unsourced citations, especially in cases when the article will potentially be viewed by a large number of users, or the article is a biography of a (presumed) living person ("presumed", used as the incident may be rumors of the subject's death). The encyclopedic impact of the event on its subject and how high-profile the subject is should be factored in when deciding if an article should be full-protected under this doctrine. Articles protected under this doctrine should be clearly marked with a template indicating the situation. Once a sufficient amount of reliable information has been obtained, the protection of the article may be reduced to semi-protection.

Feel free to tweak. This would also be accompanied by a special {{Current}} template:

The subject of this article is currently involved in a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses. In order to prevent the introduction of inappropriate or unverifiable information about this event into the article, it has been temporarily protected from editing. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus or is uncontroversal.

Nice? ViperSnake151  Talk  13:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. I just want to note for the record that while I fully support the ability for anyone to edit an article, this revised guidance would simply head off the inevitable "he's dead"/"not confirmed; take it to talk"/"I heard he died"/"Not yet; see talk" back-and-forth as everyone and his brother comes to Wikipedia to see if they can be the one to flip the proverbial switch on the article. Allowing anyone to edit is one thing; going through this whole rigmarole every time a famous person dies is another thing entirely. Powers ^T 13:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, completely appropriate template. Good work. Jclemens (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "The late X" or "X (deceased)"

Sorry if I can't find anywhere this has been discussed previously, but I think in general the above forms should be avoided as in most cases it will be apparent whether X is alive or not. Is there any support for adding these to this guideline as deprecated usages? Rodhullandemu 18:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can we put back the material that was removed?

What do you guys think of this? There are some downsides to keeping policy text on a separate page and transcluding it in. - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:VPP#Removing text from a policy page and then transcluding. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Material now reinstated (possibly with a change, which I'll go stick in the Update). Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• (Dank beat me here) The minor changes are the result of merging the two slightly divergent texts (that once were identical). Numbered instead of bullets. Wiki-links to policy. Caution paragraph at the bottom, with example (from WP:COP).
• Sadly transclusion of subpages is not frequently used, despite the support for <onlyinclude> in the software. Therefore, to avoid textual drift, put all our eggs in one basket, and watch that basket here!
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't put the addition of the links into WP:Update, since they're the pages people would expect given the terms. I'll be happy to add more detail to the Update on this if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 00:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that the example was merged from Wikipedia:Categorization of people. I'm often looking back through histories for precedent, and knowing where to look is useful to me, so it might be useful to somebody else.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never included information at WP:Update other than how the page has changed, that I can remember. I'd prefer not to start, that would open the door to a whole new set of things to argue about (the relative importance of the commentary). I see the point that someone might revert thinking the language is "brand new" when in fact it's been around for a while, on another page, but if that happens, we can always point them to this thread so they'll know. Glad to have another informed experienced editor chipping in. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] titilate

In, out, in, out, shake it all about. To titilate or not to titilate. In the context it is very fitting, there are press reports that are designed to titilate and these reports are citable but not worthy of insertion in an encyclopedia. (Off2riorob (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

Yes. There is no reason for us to have a problem with being the world's number one site for finding out the date of some famous person's death; but we should not be where people turn to find out what random sex rumors have circulated about somebody. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As was said in the edit summaries, "titilate" in this context serves grammatically to limit the sorts of original claims forbidden. Removing the word clarifies that ANY original claims, titilating or not, are not proper for Wikipedia inclusion. I believe that to be correct, but wouldn't mind if "titilating" or similar wording was kept in as an example. Jclemens (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. WP:NOR clearly indicates that "original claims" are against the rules. This sentence about "titillating" claims refers to sourced claims, not original claims. Apparently you are the first person to not get that. If I am wrong about that and it is unclear to many people, it should be made more clear. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)