| Revision as of 00:27, 30 January 2015 editChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers457,369 edits →Accusations and accusations as opinions in BLPs: fix← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:39, 30 January 2015 edit undoRotary Engine (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers11,495 edits →Accusations and accusations as opinions in BLPs: - respond ChrisGualtieriNext edit → | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| For the sake of the example let's state that the source in question is from a reputable publisher, but lacks an example or a case. It is just a trivial "X is a bigot" and nothing more. | For the sake of the example let's state that the source in question is from a reputable publisher, but lacks an example or a case. It is just a trivial "X is a bigot" and nothing more. | ||
| Certainly, most editors would look at first example and remove it as an attack. The second will almost certainly remain because the existence of the opinion is verifiable even if the contentious claim is not. Essentially, signing off that it is okay because the source says X is a bigot. Is it still a BLP issue? If it is not allowable, what policy specifically prohibits it? ] (]) 00:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC) | Certainly, most editors would look at first example and remove it as an attack. The second will almost certainly remain because the existence of the opinion is verifiable even if the contentious claim is not. Essentially, signing off that it is okay because the source says X is a bigot. Is it still a BLP issue? If it is not allowable, what policy specifically prohibits it? ] (]) 00:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| : An interesting question. I think that an accusation of a wrongdoing is (nearly) always an opinion. Misplaced Pages's core content policy, ] (at ]), requires that opinions not be stated as facts, which the "X is a" form would do. This is especially so where the wrongdoing relates to an internal thought process, such as in this example. The "Y accuses" positions the accusation as an attributed opinion, and is more clearly compliant. | |||
| : Additionally, I think it's worth noting that (IMHO) the purpose of the biographies of living persons policy (]) is not to protect living persons (although this is a pleasing side effect); but to protect Misplaced Pages from slandering or libeling living persons (and the consequences thereof). The "Y accuses" form, in conjunction with requiring a supporting reliable source, makes it clear that it is not Misplaced Pages making the accusation. | |||
| : Hope this helps in some small way. I am interested in the ongoing discussion, and any other alternate thoughts. - ] <sup>]</sup> 01:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:39, 30 January 2015
 | This is not the place to post information about living people. See creating an article for information on how to start a new article. |
| Skip to table of contents |
| BLP issues summary |
|---|
|
 | 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. |
|
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: 7 days  |
 | See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biographies of living persons page. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 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: 7 days |
Accusations and accusations as opinions in BLPs
I am not aware of any policies covering the distinction between verifiability of criticism existence and the veracity of the criticism itself. There is very little difference in an accusation of a wrongdoing and an opinion which makes an accusation of wrongdoing. As of right now, these two statements typically are treated entirely different:
- X is a bigot.(source calling X a bigot)
- Y accuses X of being a bigot.(source calling X a bigot)
For the sake of the example let's state that the source in question is from a reputable publisher, but lacks an example or a case. It is just a trivial "X is a bigot" and nothing more. Certainly, most editors would look at first example and remove it as an attack. The second will almost certainly remain because the existence of the opinion is verifiable even if the contentious claim is not. Essentially, signing off that it is okay because the source says X is a bigot. Is it still a BLP issue? If it is not allowable, what policy specifically prohibits it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- An interesting question. I think that an accusation of a wrongdoing is (nearly) always an opinion. Misplaced Pages's core content policy, WP:NPOV (at WP:YESPOV), requires that opinions not be stated as facts, which the "X is a" form would do. This is especially so where the wrongdoing relates to an internal thought process, such as in this example. The "Y accuses" positions the accusation as an attributed opinion, and is more clearly compliant.
- Additionally, I think it's worth noting that (IMHO) the purpose of the biographies of living persons policy (WP:BLP) is not to protect living persons (although this is a pleasing side effect); but to protect Misplaced Pages from slandering or libeling living persons (and the consequences thereof). The "Y accuses" form, in conjunction with requiring a supporting reliable source, makes it clear that it is not Misplaced Pages making the accusation.
- Hope this helps in some small way. I am interested in the ongoing discussion, and any other alternate thoughts. - Ryk72 01:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)