Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) |
Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
:I was just going to start a new discussion, when I noticed this discussion (I have disabled user name mention notifications, but don't mind occasional user talk page messages). Thanks anyway. I concur there's no consensus for expansion. Quick recap: I first identified the problem in June when I noticed some weird text in the policy. I didn't edit Wikipedia after June, but when I returned, I consulted archives and found no justification for the text. [[User:Politrukki|Politrukki]] ([[User talk:Politrukki|talk]]) 14:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
:I was just going to start a new discussion, when I noticed this discussion (I have disabled user name mention notifications, but don't mind occasional user talk page messages). Thanks anyway. I concur there's no consensus for expansion. Quick recap: I first identified the problem in June when I noticed some weird text in the policy. I didn't edit Wikipedia after June, but when I returned, I consulted archives and found no justification for the text. [[User:Politrukki|Politrukki]] ([[User talk:Politrukki|talk]]) 14:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
:I agree that the added text needs more discussion before it can be added. It is too far inline with the highly contentious essay MANDY. There are points to it that are fair (like UNDUE), but it should not be worded as to effectively make MANDY policy. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
:I agree that the added text needs more discussion before it can be added. It is too far inline with the highly contentious essay MANDY. There are points to it that are fair (like UNDUE), but it should not be worded as to effectively make MANDY policy. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
:It’s useful to keep in mind that “If one fails to deny an accusation, a denial is noticeably absent and is a cause for inference, the most common inference being that the accusation is true.” See {{cite journal | last=Bilmes | first=Jack | title=The concept of preference in conversation analysis | journal=[[Language in Society]] | publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] (CUP) | volume=17 | issue=2 | year=1988 | issn=0047-4045 | doi=10.1017/s0047404500012744 | pages=167}}.[[User:Anythingyouwant| Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
:It’s useful to keep in mind that “If one fails to deny an accusation, a denial is noticeably absent and is a cause for inference, the most common inference being that the accusation is true.” See {{cite journal | last=Bilmes | first=Jack | title=The concept of preference in conversation analysis | journal=[[Language in Society]] | publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] (CUP) | volume=17 | issue=2 | year=1988 | issn=0047-4045 | doi=10.1017/s0047404500012744 | pages=167}}. Also, there is a journalistic standard of including denials. See "[https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp SPJ Code of Ethics]", [[Society of Professional Journalists]]: "Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing." Retrieved 25 Sep 2022.[[User:Anythingyouwant| Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
||
==Request for comment== |
==Request for comment== |
Revision as of 15:44, 7 October 2022
Biography Project‑class | |||||||
|
BLP issues summary
|
---|
|
"Wikipedia:DENIALS" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:DENIALS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#Wikipedia:DENIALS until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
- The redirect discussion has been closed as “keep”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
History of the denial part of this policy
FWIW, I did some research regarding the "denial sentence". Here's what I found.... but I'll say up front this strikes me as FYI/background info. Bottom line? We have never had a discussion about how we should deal with denials.
- The "denial sentence" first appeared in June 2013. Before that, the Public Figures subsection was not substatively changed for at least six months. [1]
- On June 27 2013, user:JackofOz added the first version of the "denials" sentence. [2] with an edit summary giving no indication of any discussion. (As a side note, I looked at Jack's contribs from the time and could not tell what prompted this tweak. It's not in the talk pages.... there was no discussion about anything from March 2013 to Dec 2014.[3])
- The Public Figures subsection remained essentially stable through Sept 17 2020 [4].
- In Oct 2020 user:Valjean attempted to expand on the "denial sentence" (including a link to WP:MANDY) but was repeatedly reverted. [5]
- On Feb 11, 2021 user:Ritchie333 changed the "denial sentence" to what it says today. [6] Ritchie also linked to WP:MANDY but the link to the MANDY essay was reverted. [7]. Again there was no talk page discussion, the edit summary sheds no light, and I can't tell from Ritchie's contribs what inspired this tweak.
- I don't have a strong feeling about the redirect being debated, but since I did this research I figured I might as well document it. There you go.
- NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your research. You missed at least one edit by Valjean (formerly known as BullRangifer) on 15 November 2019, which was immediately reverted by Ryk72. I don't think edits before 2019 have much relevance. Politrukki (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Adding to the sentence history: one "Oct 2020" revert was by PackMecEng, Politrukki on 5 October 2022 reverted more but Newimpartial on 6 October 2022 re-inserted. I do not see that there was consensus for the added clause. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- The version in place from February, 2021 to October, 2022 is clearly the stable version and deemed to have WP:SILENTCONSENSUS. The new version, as amended October 5, clearly does not have consensus, silent or otherwise. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's absurd to claim that content that has repeatedly been reverted is "stable". Moreover, you're misreading the essay; silent consensus means that consensus is assumed until a disagreement rises. Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy,
"An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted."
If silent consensus is your only argument, I'm afraid it's not enough. Core policies should never be substantially changed without clear and unambiguous consensus. What kind of problem are you trying to resolve here?I oppose the proposed addition per WP:CREEP. It's already established in the lead that BLP material must strictly adhere to NPOV. Any reasonable person understands that, for example, if we use 100 words to describe an allegation, a denial shouldn't take 500 words. So I don't understand what's the purpose of the proposal. Politrukki (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- It's absurd to claim that content that has repeatedly been reverted is "stable". Moreover, you're misreading the essay; silent consensus means that consensus is assumed until a disagreement rises. Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy,
- I was just going to start a new discussion, when I noticed this discussion (I have disabled user name mention notifications, but don't mind occasional user talk page messages). Thanks anyway. I concur there's no consensus for expansion. Quick recap: I first identified the problem in June when I noticed some weird text in the policy. I didn't edit Wikipedia after June, but when I returned, I consulted archives and found no justification for the text. Politrukki (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the added text needs more discussion before it can be added. It is too far inline with the highly contentious essay MANDY. There are points to it that are fair (like UNDUE), but it should not be worded as to effectively make MANDY policy. --Masem (t) 15:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- It’s useful to keep in mind that “If one fails to deny an accusation, a denial is noticeably absent and is a cause for inference, the most common inference being that the accusation is true.” See Bilmes, Jack (1988). "The concept of preference in conversation analysis". Language in Society. 17 (2). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 167. doi:10.1017/s0047404500012744. ISSN 0047-4045.. Also, there is a journalistic standard of including denials. See "SPJ Code of Ethics", Society of Professional Journalists: "Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing." Retrieved 25 Sep 2022. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Request for comment
There is an ongoing dispute whether content constitutes a violation of BLP at Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault#Edit dif 1104699210. Your input is appreciated. Cheers! Thinker78 (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
RfC: A TikToker, ... , other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?
Some of other related policies for current requested RfC discussion: WP:BLP, WP:SUSPECT, WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.
Requesting inputs about WP policies regarding, WP:BLP protocols and naming of the accused in relation to mentions of allegations and counter allegations in the given article, against a female victim of sexual assault, her associates and also other accused.
Requesting well studied, carefully thought inputs @ RfC: A TikToker, associates, other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?
Thanks and warm regards
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Addition proposal for Tone section
Avoid using words like deniers, skeptics, and doubters. Explicitly describe the subject's opinion.
- He is a climate change doubter.
- He disagrees with the scientific consensus that climate change is primarily driven by human activity.
- She is an inflation skeptic.
- She rejects the mainstream financial knowledge that lower interest rates cause higher inflation.
- She denies Uyghur genocide.
- She disagrees with the idea that Chinese government's treatment of Uyghurs can be classified as genocide.
AP Stylebook 55th edition suggests using this approach. Madame Necker (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose, and suggest you retract this since it failed to get consensus at WT:MOS/WTW[8] and was universally opposed there. Andre🚐 19:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Strongly Oppose. Not being able to clarify "doubters", "skeptics" and "deniers" is in-fact not following NPOV at all- tons of RS in media use this, we even has an article about Climate change denial. To not being able to use these words, even if they are cited, falls under euphemisms in MoS/Words to Watch, why shouldn't the articles on WP being able to Wikipedia:Call a spade a spade? I'm perfectly sure that there would be unanimous consensus here agianst this purposal, as it's politically motivated. VickKiang (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
Additional example
I recently added the following extra example to the public figures section, because in my opinion the section does not properly cover this particular edge case right now:
Example: A celebrity is charged with and convicted of a crime. If the incident is not well-documented in third-party reliable sources (i.e. not just court documents), leave it out. If it is well-documented in reliable sources, directly state that the celebrity committed the crime. Words that imply doubt like "alleged" and "accused of" should be used if and only if that doubt is also present in the post-conviction sourcing.
Masem immediately reverted it, with the edit summary Bad example; we must always stay on the side of presumed innocent until guilty
. But I think this reversion makes no sense: the phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty", and "proven guilty" in this context literally refers to a criminal conviction. So if anything, this edit summary argues for my example rather than against it.
I don't want to edit war over this, however, so I'm coming to the talk page to hopefully demonstrate consensus is not behind this reversion. Loki (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- The key here is “and convicted”, or am I missing something? Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- If it's restored, leave out
charged with
, it's redundant. Schazjmd (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC) - The emphasis on how this is written makes the "innocent til guilty" aspect secondary to pushing news about a conviction. Also, not all convictions even if well reported are appropriate to include: for example, some people get into DUIs that popular media covers, and while this may force them to lose their license, typically do not impact their lives to an encyclopedic point. (Of course, there are repeat offends and those known to have gotten into a lot of DUI issues which would be appropriate to document this way). The idea is there, but I feel this needs rephrasing to make the reporting of conviction only appropriate if it has a series effect on the person's life or career. --Masem (t) 18:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Blueboar: Yes, "convicted" is the operative word here.
- @Schazjmd: Yeah, that's fair. I think my phrasing flows better but yours is clearer and that's probably more important.
- @Masem: So, it seems like you're trying to make editorial decisions here past the judgement of the sources. That's simply not how Wikipedia works. We follow the sources, and if reliable sources say Public Figure X's DUI was notable, then so do we. Loki (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- No, we are more selective, as per BLP's mantra of do no harm. There is zero need to say a celeb was convicted of a DUI once even if it was widely reported if that had zero impact on their long-term career. That's the point of why we need to think in more summary/10-year mode than being a news source.
- As soon as a conviction - or even a widely reported allegation - has a significant impact on a person's career, that's a good reason to post. For example, nothing came of the allegations made towards Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but because a few of his shows were suspended until he was cleared, it's discussed briefly. Masem (t) 03:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree that that is the standard: the standard with BLP is to follow the sources, just like anywhere else. But I'd rather not go into this tangent right now with you in particular, as I'm aware from other discussions that you have a consistent position against negative information in BLPs which I'm certainly not going to be able to talk you out of here. Loki (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think that this is a debate over what qualifies as
well-documented
, which is not really relevant to this proposal. Arguing that something lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage, for instance (the policy / source-based way to make the argument you are making with regards to something lacking lasting impact), is an argument that it is insufficiently well-documented. But I would strenuously oppose any argument that we can exclude text without regard for whether it is well-documented or not - the arguments you are raising are just different thresholds and aspects of that. If you're worried this proposal would cause problems, it could say "well-documented and WP:DUE", which would implicitly incorporate every aspect of DUE - I think that it's unnecessary but I also definitely don't think it would hurt, and it never hurts to make "this does not override core content policy" unambiguous, since I feel we've had problems in that regard with overly strongly-worded policies and guidelines in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)- With as many entertainment-covering works out there, the lives of celebrities are put through a microscope, and what may be incidental as an event to most people can be put through the ringer for them - eg events like DUIs, public intoxication, etc. You could probably argue that if the event like this is "well documented" only by entertainment sources, which are known to gossip-monger, that really isn't well documented then. (This falling in line with WP:NOT#GOSSIP). It would be different if the same event was covered by the usual high quality sources like NYTimes, BBC, etc.
- I would tend agree that you could add WP:DUE, but right now, DUE is lacking awareness of the long-tail factor of events. That is, while something may appear DUE to be included due to immediate coverage after an event, in time that it may be more obvious it was UNDUE due to lack of any followup. DUE should be considering the weight of coverage of sources with the added dimension of time, to make sure that viewpoints/aspects with enduring coverage are the ones to be included. (And I have been meaning to make a proposal at DUE to discuss this but haven't had time to put the language together for that). In terms of this application for the BLP language, that would mean that events at the cusp of seeming important due to widespread immediate coverage should be held off until the enduring factor can be figured out. If its just that DUI that only gossip rags focused on and no one talked about it a week later, probably best to leave it out. Masem (t) 12:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- This proposal seems a tad simplistic. What if the crime was committed by a juvenile? What if the crime resulted in a conviction, but the conviction was later overturned on appeal or because of a pardon, or an exoneration years later? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- All the examples are simplistic. I don't think the juvenile case is really exceptional if covered significantly in reliable sources. In the case of a conviction overturned by appeal (or other sorts of exoneration), we should mention that, but that's covered by
if and only if that doubt is also present in the post-conviction sourcing
. Loki (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- All the examples are simplistic. I don't think the juvenile case is really exceptional if covered significantly in reliable sources. In the case of a conviction overturned by appeal (or other sorts of exoneration), we should mention that, but that's covered by
- In the case of crimes committed by juveniles, I would normally expect it to not be well-documented in third-party sourcing. If it is, then we would normally include it - second-guessing the sourcing on that would fall under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The question of what qualifies as "well-documented" for BLP purposes (or any purposes) is another question, but completely excluding something that is well-documented in third-party sourcing from an article is an uphill climb, so arguments for exclusion always have to hinge at least partially on "it's not well-documented enough." That said, as I mentioned above, I would suggest that the proposed addition read
well-documented and WP:DUE
rather than just well-documented; I think they're equivalent (or implicit), but DUEness is much more well-defined and makes it clear what sort of arguments ought to be used for exclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
- In the case of crimes committed by juveniles, I would normally expect it to not be well-documented in third-party sourcing. If it is, then we would normally include it - second-guessing the sourcing on that would fall under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The question of what qualifies as "well-documented" for BLP purposes (or any purposes) is another question, but completely excluding something that is well-documented in third-party sourcing from an article is an uphill climb, so arguments for exclusion always have to hinge at least partially on "it's not well-documented enough." That said, as I mentioned above, I would suggest that the proposed addition read
- Sometimes no examples are better than simplistic examples. I don’t think Wikipedia should have the same exact rules for juveniles as for adults, and we ought to limit this example to adults, or just say that juveniles should get at least this much deference. See Wikipedia:Minors and persons judged incompetent. This would be better: “An adult living person is charged with and convicted of a felony. If the incident is not documented in third-party reliable sources (i.e. not just court documents), leave it out. Otherwise, state that the person committed the crime, and also describe any pardon, ongoing appeal, or exoneration. Words that imply doubt like ‘alleged’ and ‘accused of’ should be used if and only if that doubt is also present in the post-conviction sourcing.” I’d be more inclined to put this in the section on people accused of crime, not the public figures section. Anyway, if an adult has clearly been convicted of murder per court records, for example, then I’m not sure I see why that should ever be omitted in a BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Direction on when to add "sir"
I'm sure this has been discussed and decided but I can't find it. Anyone know where a guideline/discussion exists around when to add the title "sir" in front of someone's name? Carl A. Anderson is an example where there's a "sir" that doesn't look right to me. Elton John is another example (that looks right). Novellasyes (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
- @Novellasyes MOS:SIR should have something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)