Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:45, 21 January 2010

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

• WT:LIVING
• WT:BLP

To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the Misplaced Pages: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. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58Auto-archiving period: 14 days

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. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58Auto-archiving period: 14 days

unreferenced BLP bot

There was consensus here a bit ago about a bot notifying users who's articles were unreferenced BLP's. I wrote the bot, and before I go for approval, Id like some final input. See the discussion here Thanks. Tim1357 (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

User:LaraBot was created several months ago and has been doing this. Lara ☁ 15:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This bot creates a full list of articles, it appears LauraBot only does newly created ones. Tim1357 (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

See my posting on your talk page, Tim. Your bot seems to have a problem in correctly identifying the original authors of some articles. --Anthony.bradbury 22:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have raised a complaint about User:DASHBot over at Misplaced Pages talk:Bots. —Lowellian (reply) 01:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

discussion on drawn images on BLPs prompted by those at Geoffrey Boycott

Discussion has arisen at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Cricket regarding the images drawn at Geoffrey Boycott in the absence on valid alternative photographs. Opinions sought there please! SGGH 15:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to reply here, as this is a bigger issue than just in relation to cricket, though you may copy my comments there or wherever if you wish. No offense intended to the artist, but a poorly-done drawing on a BLP is much worse than no image at all. It can draw ridicule to the BLP subject, to Misplaced Pages, and even to the artist. Drawings (and other artwork) are really only acceptable on long-dead subjects for whom no photograph could possibly exist, such as George Washington. The question we need to ask is: "Is this the best reprsentative image of the subject that could exist?" Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • There was also very recent discussion of this on the WT:NFC policy talk page. It came to much the same conclusions as Starblind above. Jheald (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

From a BLP perspective, I think the only issue is the neutrality of the drawing. Even a photograph can portray a person in a bad light. We had a discussion a while back on the use of mug shots in BLPs. The drawing on the Geoffrey Boycott appears neutral enough to me but I don't have any idea what the person looks like. Whether it is a good enough likeness to use seems to be a question that ought to be discussed on the article talk page and decided by consensus there. I don't see a need to clarify BLP policy here.--agr (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, we were looking for that discussion Jheald linked to. SGGH 19:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

BLPSPS and user-generated images of living persons

I've added the following line to WP:BLPSPS to address a loophole in BLP:

However, images of living persons that have been generated by Misplaced Pages contributors or other sources may be used to illustrate articles, provided that they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Misplaced Pages's copyright policy and subject to the considerations set out in Images above.

Under a literal reading of WP:BLPSPS, self-published sources such as Misplaced Pages contributors, Flickr or other similar sources would be excluded from use as sources for images. However, it's been Misplaced Pages's policy from the start to encourage the use of user-generated images, whether of buildings, places or living persons. We have literally thousands of such images across Misplaced Pages (I've taken a number myself). I've therefore added the line above to clarify BLP on this point to ensure that it matches the situation in practice. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable statement of our longtime practice.--TS 01:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked it slightly to link to Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#User-created images rather than Misplaced Pages:Copyrights, since the former is a more useful link than the latter on this particular issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to my good friends here, they do not constitute a consensus and they should not be editing policy pages without it. --GoRight (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus already exists, since the change reflects what is currently standard practice and has been since Misplaced Pages was established. If you want to change Misplaced Pages's standard practice, you need to get consensus for that. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It is consensus as it's been the established practice for years and tens of thousands of contributions. It's up to you to show support that your novel interpretation should be accepted. --NeilN 02:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, perhaps that is so. But should it be so? Would it be acceptable for someone to take an image of someone who is an imposter for the purposes of denigrating a particular subject, upload it to Flickr, and include that on a BLP? --GoRight (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We'll cross that bridge when we come to it. --TS 02:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a different issue entirely. It's got nothing to do with whether a source is self-published or not, as any commercially published image could potentially have the same (extremely unlikely) issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Not so. This is precisely why we are asked to defer to neutral WP:RS with a reputation for fact checking. --GoRight (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) To answer your question, no, it wouldn't be as it is deliberately inserting incorrect facts. What in the policy makes you think it would be? --NeilN 02:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the purpose of WP:BLPSPS then anyway, if not to forestall exactly this type of thing ... whether through false statements by one's political enemies or through image manipulation or falsification? --GoRight (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the issues you raise exist for non SPS also. For BLP images, we need to be sure we have the right person, and to avoid unflattering images (e.g. 3AM arrest photo of a celebrity would not be desirable). But we do want to encourage editors to contribute photos in general, since public domain images are so hard to get. Crum375 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I do understand why user generated photos are being sought. And for things other than BLPs perhaps that even makes sense. I guess it still could make sense for BLPs too but we should have some safeguards, IMHO, to aid editors in keeping such material out and such a policy should err on the side that excludes controversial (within the wikipedia community) material. So if multiple editors contest the inclusion, for example as was the case for Monckton, a super majority should be required to include it. Otherwise someone's detractors could come to wikipedia and seek to include such material AND prevail as long as they manage to maintain a majority (and yes I know that it should be all about consensus, but in some cases it just doesn't work that way). --GoRight (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is consensus of editors that an image is false, or excessively unflattering, then it should not be used, regardless of source. Crum375 (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

But therein lies the problem. Sometimes people's critics come to wikipedia to disparage them and even if they merely represent a simple majority and not a true consensus, they can force the disparaging material into an article. Consensus in this case is insufficient as a safeguard from a BLP perspective. At least IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is a choice between two portraits, where one seems to be more flattering, then by our BLP goal of "do no harm" we need to choose the more flattering one. If the only available photo is obviously intended to disparage the person, then it may need to be left out. If an editor feels any living person is being improperly disparaged for any reason, they should post a complaint on BLPN. Crum375 (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I know of at least one case where a BLP was created and an image uploaded deliberately to disparage the subject of the article, so this is by no means something that doesn't happen. The image and the article got speedily deleted, but I can try and dig out the links if that would be helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 10:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't WP:MUG already cover that issue? The wording could perhaps be tweaked if you feel it is not sufficiently clear already. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this policy is that it is very bloated and that leads to inconsistencies. People can point to one part to justify their actions, and others can point to another part to justify their actions. Rather than pin down specifics in policy like this, it should be possible to use broader guiding principles, common sense, and treating BLP articles with the highest of standards and care. In the case I am referring to, it was a local councillor who had presumably annoyed someone, and who had their photo taken in such a way that it presented them in an unflattering light. I think there was also some context that made it clear that the person uploading the photo had done so with less than pure intentions. WP:MUG seems only to address police photos, not clearly unflattering photos taken without the permission of the subject, and added only to attack the subject. In such cases, context is everything. Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've strengthened the first sentence of WP:MUG as follows: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or denigratory light." Police mugshots are mentioned as an issue of particular concern, but WP:MUG clearly isn't meant to refer exclusively to such images. An image may still have a negative impact - think of Jimmy Carter being attacked by a rabbit - but if it's germane to the topic of the article, i.e. not simply being used to attack the subject, that should be acceptable. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I strengthened the language in WP:MUG a bit more to address the concerns raised and to ensure BLP WP articles do no harm. Free free to improve. Crum375 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also added a note to NOR#Original images about required compliance with WP:MUG. Crum375 (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reasonable to me! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 21:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've re-added "out of context" since that's a very important point. Your wording would have prevented any unflattering image being used under any circumstances. That's clearly not going to work, since there will inevitably be occasions when an unflattering image may be relevant to the topic of an article - think of Bernie Madoff doing the "perp walk", for instance, or Hugh Grant's police photograph. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Grant 's police photo was inserted at one point but was removed on BLP grounds. The same goes for Maddoff's so called perp walk photo, that is also not in the BLP anymore. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Internet memes

The decision on which internet memes are given their own pages and which are not seems to be totally arbitrary. Why does the Star Wars kid's meme get a page while Afro Ninja and Elizabeth Lambert do not? The answer to that question prompts another: Why are any of these memes worthy of their own pages? It seems to me that the people who care enough to fight articles deletion processes tend to be relatively likeminded people who make decisions on what they believe is cool/funny/notable rather than what is objectively notable, and they are unable to take of their lens and objectively examine whether these pages meet the notability guidelines. Virtually all memes are NOT notable to people outside the socioeconomic/cultural sphere that Misplaced Pages's user-administrators are part of (a sphere that represents only a fraction of the English-speaking population of the world). They do not receive significant coverage (which is the hallmark of WP:NOTABILITY) outside of the self-driven blogs and websites that serve the relatively small internet-obsessed population from which most Misplaced Pages user-administrators are drawn. A smell-test for me is this: If Person X died tomorrow, would it receive significant coverage? I can't think of a single internet meme for which the answer would be "yes." So the BLPs of people who are really just known for internet memes likely never meet the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. They should be compiled on pages like List of Internet phenomena and viral videos, but that should be it.

If Misplaced Pages has aspirations to be taken seriously as a source of information in the future, it cannot continue to allow itself to fall into the trap of allowing the cultural biases of a majority of its administrators to allow pages to be created for memes that receive lots of attention among the administrators and their friends, but are little noted by the rest of the universe.

Apologies if I rambled a bit, but you get the idea. Niremetal (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think your question should be addressed to Misplaced Pages talk:Notability. This page is for discussing changes to our BLP policy. The BLP policy is specific to the special ethical and legal responsibilities associated with articles about living persons. It's not clear to me how internet memes add any dimensions to such issues that are not already covered in the policy, e.g. WP:BLP1E.--agr (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My point is that WP:BLP1E is being ignored. Pages are posted of people notable only for a single internet meme surrounding them, but the rules relating to BLPs are circumvented because the page is ostensibly of "the phenomenon" rather than "the person." The page on the Star Wars Kid is the best example. Niremetal (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Questionable/ unproven deaths

What do we do when a person has schroedingered and we're not sure he's alive or dead? Is it appropriate to apply BLP? 68.83.179.156 (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes, because we should err on the side of caution. — Cheers, JackLee 06:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

New page

As part of ongoing community discussion concerning issues surrounding interpretation of our BLP policy, I have posted Misplaced Pages:BLP examples for discussion. This page contains five examples of situations in which application of the BLP policy could lead to disagreements among good-faith editors. The examples, based on specific articles but intended to be discussed more abstractly, are designed for discussion either on-wiki and also as an aid to discussion of the problem at meet-ups where there is a session scheduled on BLP issues (including in New York this Sunday, January 24). Input is welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced articles

I'm slowly going through the list of unreferenced BLPs from January 2007 and adding reliable sources when available. I have been able to find at least one or two references for most of the articles and the few remaining are prodded (if uncontroversial) or send to AfD (if there is a chance the article could be kept or improved if there were more eyes on it). There are a couple of articles that I've come across that I'm really not sure what to do with - the person appears to be notable, but I can found zero reliable sources to verify the notability and information contained within the article. This may due to a language barrier, or in cases where the individual's profession is not commonly covered in depth by what we consider reliable independent sources. In such cases is it best to just leave the article unsourced and move on? Examples include Giovanni Adamo, Andrea Bruschi, and Michael Castellana. Jezebel'sPonyo 20:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You could try adding a expert required template with the specific topic or nationality to attract attention, the issue imo with uncited bios is that they may either be fake or derogatory, {{Andrea Bruschi]] for example has a link to his webpage and an imbd info page so although a citation is not jumping out we can see the article is more or less correct so do what you can and if there is no harmful content then move on. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rob, that's pretty much what I've been doing (I'm the one who added the "official website" to the Bruschi page). Essentially if there is no contentious or really questionable assertions made I've just been leaving them be if my search for references gives the impression of truth and notability, despite the lack if independent coverage and sources. I just wanted to make sure that I'm in step with other BLP project members as to how to proceed. If nothing else at least the articles have been edited for POV and updated, and are now watchlisted. --Jezebel'sPonyo 20:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I totally agree, I had a bit more of a look at them and prodded Michael Castellana and Giovanni Adamo as not notable, it you have a good look and find nothing then I wouldn't be worried about prodding them, that gives anyone else and the creator a week to establish notability, if not then the article wasn't of much importance or value and it can always be recreated in the future. I found a citation for Andrea Bruschi and have added that, I usually add the search template on the talkpage as you will see here and if I can't find anything then how notable are they? Feel free to ask me to join in with anything you need another pair of eyes as we seem to be working on along similar lines. Off2riorob (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, policy proposal regarding unsourced BLPs

• Proposal to prohibit the removal of Proposed deletion tags from unsourced Biographies of living persons and prod all of them in groups over the next 2.5 months.

Please add your input at the proposal page. -- Banjeboi 09:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

How to proceed?

I've come across two articles about the same individual Chris Clark (editor) and Chris Clark (sports reporter). Normally the articles could be merged, however I'm having a hard time determing which article to "keep" and which to redirect, as well as what content should be merged. The crux of my dilemna is that both articles were created in 2007 and have never been sourced. They're both poorly written and don't appear to be very neutral and have only been edited by a handful of editors over the past three years. Any ideas on the best way forward? --Jezebel'sPonyo 19:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest redirecting the poorer article to the better one, IMHO Chris Clark (sports reporter) is the better as it has more prose. I quick glance through the article does not show any obvious things in (editor) that are not in (sports reporter), and one is not an obvious copy of the other. Martin451 (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but Clark is listed on the WTOC-TV article but not the other station. You could check the newer station's web site. The claim is he won an emmy so he's notable enough. It should be possible to find a source for that. Do the best you can.--agr (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

"unsourced or poorly sourced CONTENTIOUS material"

The "contentious" wording was first inserted in May 2006, using the "negative" word instead, it was then changed to "controversial" in October 2006, and it was changed to "contentious" in February 2007.

This is a long standing wording, it affects a lot of material, it has been disputed, and it should be discussed in the talk page instead of edit warring over it like you are doing right now because it doesn't allow you to mass-delete unsourced BLPs that aren't composed exclusively by contentious material. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Do I need to go to WP:RFPP for this silliness to stop? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:POLICY#Content_changes explains very well why this is bad. Someone makes a change to support his position in an active dispute that is still under discussion here. The community discussion has been going on only for 20 hours, and started only 23 hours ago and it's still active. The change to the policy has been disputed and reverted by two editors.

Once again: this change is disputed, take it to the talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there appears to be an edit war in progress I have full protected the page until the matter is sorted out here on talk. No doubt I protected the Wrong Version. ++Lar: t/c 02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and was considering doing this myself. Edit summaries are no substitute for constructive discussion. Rodhullandemu 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You did protect the Wrong Version, and I've reverted back to the version of policy stable for nearly three years. I don't believe we should protect the Wrong Version of policy when policy was changed without prior consensus to advance position in a current dispute. Rd232 02:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

no doubt protecting the "wrong version" helps advance your position, but that's par for the course in this area. R. Baley (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Notwithstanding WP:PREFER, I don't see Rd232 having a horse in this race, and WP:BURDEN applies to impose the duty on those seeking to change the wording of an embedded policy to bring it here for discussion first. Anyone thinking that such changes would sneak under the wire must be naive in the extreme. Rodhullandemu 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support the new wording. Since the original wording was added in 2006, time and time again we have been reminded that Misplaced Pages's system for protecting BLPs is broken. It's time to find some responsibility and get it fixed. Cla68 (talk) 04:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Recent case in point. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

That's both controversial and contentious, although not necessarily negative. That's no reason to support either wording. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the change. No reason has been given except to support the deletion spree. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop immediately.

The next person who edits this through full protection should turn their mop in with it. This has gone FAR enough, and the request is being handled at ArbCom. SirFozzie (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)