MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 7d) to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 35. |
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 7d) to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 35. |
||
Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
:::::::There was an occasion earlier this year where the removal of the name of a child who had suffered a potentially embarrassing medical problem was strongly opposed by the editor who added it, which was only resolved after a BLPN discussion. A specific provision in BLP relating to minors would have helped in that situation. <font color="navy">[[User:January|January]]</font> <small>(<font color="navy">[[User talk:January|talk]]</font>)</small> 18:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC) |
:::::::There was an occasion earlier this year where the removal of the name of a child who had suffered a potentially embarrassing medical problem was strongly opposed by the editor who added it, which was only resolved after a BLPN discussion. A specific provision in BLP relating to minors would have helped in that situation. <font color="navy">[[User:January|January]]</font> <small>(<font color="navy">[[User talk:January|talk]]</font>)</small> 18:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
== proposing commercial endorsement in present tense as possibly contentious and ads as not sole source == |
|||
I propose to edit this policy to note that, because use of a person's likeness in advertising generally requires the person's consent under their right of publicity and therefore their endorsing something commercial may be contentious, a statement about a person's commercial endorsement of a product, company, nonprofit, or famous person should be in a past tense unless the source supporting a present tense is very recent, perhaps no more than a few weeks since publication. I include famous persons since they often essentially are commercially famous; for instance, a smiling photo of me combined with one of Woody Allen would bother me, for example, since he married his daughter and his decision offends me a lot. |
|||
I also propose mentioning that ads alone are not generally a source. |
|||
This proposal is approximate. In the section Presumption in Favor of Privacy, I would add a subsection as the last subsection, as follows: |
|||
<nowiki>===Endorsements===</nowiki> |
|||
If a person has commercially endorsed a product (including a good or a service), a business, a nonprofit, or a famous person, and the information is reliably sourced, it should be reported only in the past tense, as the person may have a legal right of publicity limiting use of their likeness in advertising or for trade and the endorsement may no longer be true. The use of a present tense should be limited to a few weeks after the publication date of the latest reliably sourced report on point. If the publication date is uncertain, the past tense is required. |
|||
An advertisement or advertising campaign by itself should not be considered as the necessary reliable source, although it may be cited along with another source. That is mainly because the advertisement is a primary source and the person's actual opinion about the product may not be accurately represented by the ad. Consumer or industry news media about the advertising are more reliable as sourcing about the fact of the endorsement, although not about the endorser's personal opinion, for which another source may be needed. |
|||
I'll wait a week for any comments. [[User:Nick Levinson|Nick Levinson]] ([[User talk:Nick Levinson|talk]]) 20:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC) (Extended the topic/section heading, added to the explanation, and clarified the proposal: 21:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)) |
|||
:So if Joe Famous is currently, to the best of our knowledge, still getting paid to endorse a product, but the source at hand is two months old, you want us to write "Joe Famous ''used to'' endorse Foo Crunchies", because at some point in the future, he might (or might not) stop endorsing it? |
|||
:We can't do that: it's unverifiable. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 16:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Maybe I'm missing something, but can't we just say: "In 2011, Joe Famous endorsed Wheaties cereal"? That's specific, verifiable, and doesn't imply anything about whether he ''continues'' to endorse the cereal. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' <sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 16:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::That only works if you know that he began the endorsement in 2011. Otherwise, you probably want [[present tense]] with a time qualifier: As of 2011, Joe Famous is the spokesactor for Foo Crunchies". This kind of problem is why we have the {{tl|As of}} template. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree that the "as of" is the way to do it. There are lots of places on WP where this needs to be added. (and, eventually, followed up.) '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 04:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::"As of" and variations are fine with or without the template (almost evry statement is subject to outdating). I use such formulations often. A reason for limiting a current statement about ads to a few weeks is that many endorsement ads run for only a few weeks or less. [[User:Nick Levinson|Nick Levinson]] ([[User talk:Nick Levinson|talk]]) 16:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I recall from a forgotten source that [[Michael Jackson]] did a TV commercial for [[Pepsi]] even though he never drank it either in or out of the ad. If we were editing the article about him while he was alive, I wonder whether paraphrasing that he endorsed the product into that he liked the product wouldn't have violated the [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons|BLP]] policy because of contentiousness. I understand he was paid $15 million to perform in the ad; I wonder whether, once he performed and was paid and the ads had stopped running, he was still endorsing the product. That's a case where a past tense or "as of" or a similar formulation is needed even without a source saying that he stopped endorsing the product. [[User:Nick Levinson|Nick Levinson]] ([[User talk:Nick Levinson|talk]]) 15:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I'm not convinced that "hired to perform in an advertisement" is the same as "endorsed". It sounds to me like Jackson never endorsed the product. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 23:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::You raise a good distinction, but it probably would not be hard to find a reliable source for that ad camaign that says he endorsed it, especially since he did more than perform in it, he starred in it, making himself a major reason to buy the product, and it probably worked. So we'd likely miss the distinction while editing, and if we thought to make it contrary to the sourcing that would likely constitute original research, whereas not reporting it might fail the test of due weight (especially, if, say, that's the time when his head caught on fire and he was forever traumatized, affecting his career). [[User:Nick Levinson|Nick Levinson]] ([[User talk:Nick Levinson|talk]]) 22:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Help with Senator Bob Corker's article == |
|||
Hi, I work for Sen. [[Bob Corker]]'s campaign and for the past several months I have been working on improving his biographical article with help from volunteer editors. My conflict of interest has led me to focus my efforts on reaching out to other editors to review my suggestions. Right now, I'd like to ask for editors to review two requests I've placed on the article's talk page. In the [[Talk:Bob_Corker#Senate_campaigns_-_two_requests|first request]] I've suggested two revisions for the "Senate campaign" sections of the article. The [[Talk:Bob_Corker#Blind_trust_-_small_addition|second request]] offers a small addition for the "Blind trust" section. I hope that an editor here can review and implement these two requests for me. Thanks. [[User:Mark from tn|Mark from tn]] ([[User talk:Mark from tn|talk]]) 19:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Welcome to Wikipedia. |
|||
:If you haven't found the help you need, then you might try [[WP:Conflict of interest/noticeboard]] or the talk pages of any of the [[WP:WikiProjects]] listed at the top of the article's talk page ([[Talk:Bob Corker]]). [[WP:WikiProject Conservatism]] might be the most active of the four. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Project categories == |
== Project categories == |
Revision as of 06:39, 30 September 2012
BLP issues summary
|
---|
|
Misuse of primary sources
I suggest that the section "Misuse of primary sources" is amended to exclude prohibitions on the usage of judgements and press releases of international courts, such as the ECHR the ICC, and the international criminal tribunals such as the ICTY, ICTR, ECCC and and the SCSL. The reason for this is that unlike crimes tried under domestic law courts in the English speaking world, there may be little detailed reporting in the English speaking press of the procedures and judgements, and so other than the official press releases and judgements other English sources may not be readily and timely available with the details that Wikipedia articles require to be usefully informative. Also unlike domestic trials only crimes of the utmost severity are tried in these courts. They are either government breaches of treaty obligations (ECHR) where the defendant may be an individual, or individuals accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and the like, they do not try cases of the sort that were the mainstay of the now defunct News of the World and its competitors. It is a disservice to the readers of Wikiepdia to forbid editors the use of ICTY press releases such as this. -- PBS (talk)
In some US states they execute people for committing a murder. So once executed the person is no longer living so this restriction does not apply. Yet we have people convicted in the International Courts for mass murder, but as they are not executed and may live for many more years. Take for example the article List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions. Often if the court cases themselves are not used, the only sources for the detailed information that is likely to be available to Wikiepdia editors would be foreign language sources from the Balkans, or unreliable dedicated web news sources. Is it better to have court documents in English or foreign sources for the details of the convictions for the perpetrators, or for the details of those convicted of these heinous crimes to be remove removed from Wikipedia unless another source can be found.
What about the press briefings at http://www.icty.org/ do they fall under "or other public documents"? If they do then it seems odd that we can quote extracts about the Bosnian Genocide Case from court press briefings (because that is about a state) but not about crimes committed by a living ex-servant of that state, unless details in the press briefings published by the ICTY can be found in a news source that repeats that news briefing. -- PBS (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- The press provides a filter against indiscriminate quoting of any random piece of trivial testimony. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- What about judgements, they do not contain "random piece of trivial testimony"? -- International courts are not run under the adversarial system used in common law (and not the magisterial system used in much of continental Europe) but a hybrid of the two.
- Also "[t]he press provides a filter" good in theory but take for example http://www.icty.org/ there is a news item listed there Mile Mrkšić transferred to Portugal to serve sentence 17 August 2012 Yet a Google search on ["Mile Mrkšić" Portugal] in the first 30 items returned, striking out foreign sources, twitter and youtube one is left with just one source http://jurist.org/faq/ are we going to ignore ICTY press releases? -- PBS (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think the best we can say here is that we've had serious problems with misuse of trial transcripts in the past, and the result is a total ban, even for good uses (e.g., getting an accurate quotation). This ban, while occasionally inconvenient, doesn't have the potential for silliness that the next sentence does, with its insistence that any public record that contains potentially personal information, even if being cited for something unrelated, may not be used for any purpose. So, for example, any public record that contains the address for any multinational corporation may not be used in any article for any purpose, even non-BLP uses, because it is (1) a public record and (2) it contains a business address, and this policy bans any and all use of any source that meets those two criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- The business address issue doesn't mean that any record containing the address of a multinational could not be used. The policy says: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." The address of a multinational would not be part of someone's personal details. But if it's ambiguous, we could simply remove "business addresses" because it's not intended to be an exhaustive list of the kind of thing that counts as "personal details." SlimVirgin (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Digging around in the history of the article I see that the section has its genocis in the Revision as of 16:41, 17 May 2006. However that was for non-public figures. The assumption there and elsewhere is that we have lots of sources (there seems to be a general assumption that this is only about court cases in English speaking countries working under the adversarial tradition), has there been any other discussion about usage of press release by International Criminal Tribunals and whether this type of blanket prohibition includes those? In the case of many criminal borough before the courts for genocide and crimes against humanity it is only their infamy of being found guilty major crimes that make them notable in English speaking countries, and often the details of the specific "minor crimes" such as "persecution" (a crime against humanity) are not reported if the word genocide is mentioned in the judgement, or where and when they will be detained is not determined at time of sentencing and when it is announced, the English speaking news circus has moved on and it is not reported in the English speaking press. If no other English speaking source than the International courts websites are available should the fact that a criminal has been sent to Coventry to serve his or her sentence be left to an editor who reads Rurtainian to mention it with the inclusion such a Rurtainian source? Which serves this Encyclopaedia better a Rurtainian source (which may or may not be reliable) or a press release by an international tribunal? -- PBS (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
- I have now converted this to an RfC in the hope that it will gain more editorial comment. -- PBS (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - If a trial is notable enough for Wikipedia then it will have coverage in the major world newspapers. If the only source is court documents, then the case is non-notable. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 23:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- You have assumed that the trial is the subject of the article ("If a trial is notable"). The question also applies to cases in which the trial does not qualify for a separate article (=="notable"), but describing the trial as part of an article about a person is very much WP:DUE, even if it has received relatively little coverage (so far) in the press. For example, representing a client at one of these major courts is a high point in an attorney's career, and it ought to be mentioned in a BLP about the attorney, even if the news media doesn't much care. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - I can't believe this conversation is happening again, only three weeks after a RfC which decided to keep things as they were. As others have said here, if the facts aren't of interest to the reliable news sources, they're not of interest to Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
- That RFC was about a completely different sentence and is therefore irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- What about press releases by international tribunals? For example which reliable news source has covered this? It is well known that Governments release bad new on busy news days in the hope that it will be buried. If mundane news is released by one of the intentional tribunals (for example the prison transfer date of a convicted prisoner) on a busy news day then it may well not be reported in the press. -- PBS (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- That RFC was about a completely different sentence and is therefore irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose as contravening the intent of WP:BLP which is designed to protect the living people mentioned. The requirement for reliable secondary sources is a valid one, and ought not be trifled with. Collect (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose for no other reason than WP:BLP is about protecting living people from potentially misleading or damaging information, we should always err to the side of "don't include". I would be opposed to any slackening of the current standards. If something isn't being reported at all in any reliable media, and all we have are un-analyzed court documents, then WP:UNDUE comes into play. Also, I don't think that "English-speaking press" is relevent at all. If a trial is reported in the French press, that's always been fine for Wikipedia. The language of the source is irrelevent. --Jayron32 15:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- What about press releases by international tribunals? In the case of people convicted of genocide, how an a press release form an international tribunal which found them guilty of genocide contain "misleading or damaging information"? -- PBS (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Press releases and press briefings are self-published, which are restricted under other provisions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
- What about press releases by international tribunals? In the case of people convicted of genocide, how an a press release form an international tribunal which found them guilty of genocide contain "misleading or damaging information"? -- PBS (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Question All the responses assume that the court documents involve contentious and negative matter. What if it is non-contentious and positive? Are we going to "protect" living people from positive, non-contentious claims, like "Alice Expert served as an expert witness in Some Case or Another at the Big Court" or "Bob Lawyer filed a brief with Big Court that was quoted favorably in the final judgement"?
You'd all accept that kind of non-contentious statement if it was cited to the BLP's personal website. Why not accept it from an WP:Independent and truly authoritative source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)- If it is not contentious, then it is not contentious, so the entire discussion is moot. If it is "being challanged or likely to be challenged", then by definition it is contentious, so get a better source. Also, it isn't our business to decide what is or is not "positive" and "negative". We can't know one way or another whether reporting here that Alice served as an expert witness, or Bob was the lead counsel in a case, is a positive or negative thing for them. The same claims get made about birthdates, or marriage licenses, or other publicly availible records. We don't include unanalyzed public records, not because they aren't public, but because they haven't been vetted. It isn't our business to vet things. We leave that to others. It isn't our position to decide if a piece of contentious information is contentious because it is positive or negative. If it is being contended, we need a proper source. Period. --Jayron32 19:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- WP:Contentious and WP:Likely to be challenged are not identical.
Imagine that you have two sources: One is Bob's personal website, in which he says "The highlight of my entire professional life was having the judge at Big Court quote favorably quote a large section from my amicus brief." The other is the court judgment in which the court says "To quote Bob Lawyer's amicus brief, 'Blah blah blah'". Which of these sources would you pick to support a claim that "Bob Lawyer filed a brief with Big Court that was quoted favorably in the final judgement"? The personal website or the independent source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Neither. One is self published, and one hasn't been subject to any vetting as we expect of good secondary sources. Which would you prefer, a punch to the face or a kick to the groin? I would rather the article doesn't mention the factoid at all if we don't have a proper source, which is where someone has analyzed and vetted the raw data and told us what it means. --Jayron32 22:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- To use that sort of argument I think shows a lack of knowledge of what self-published is intended to mean. Your definition of self published would exclude the use of almost everything. For example The Times is a newspaper where nearly all its content consists of material produced by its staff. We do not call that information produced by its staff self-published. In this case International Tribunals are fall outside the meaning of self-published for that and another reason: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic", or would you argue that that international courts are not experts in their field? -- PBS (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, that sort of argument shows a clear knowledge of what self-published actually means in the real world. Wiktionary gives this definition: "The publishing of books and other media by the authors or creators of those works, rather than by established, third-party publishers" (emphasis added). The Times is an "established, third-party publisher". A court of law is not generally considered an "established, third-party publisher".
Now it's true that some people have a very special definition of SPS that they like to use on the English Wikipedia, which amounts to "doesn't have enough lawyers involved". So according to this novel definition, Coca-Cola, Inc., when it writes and publishes its own website or a press release, is "not self-published", but a small business, when it does exactly the same thing, is somehow "self-published". Most of us reject that strange conception, though, and go back to the basic idea of self-publication, which is when someone (1) writes something, (2) publishes what they wrote, and (3) publishing stuff isn't their primary line of work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC) - And the problem with invoking WP:SPS's expert exemption is that BLP has no expert exemption. Self-published sources, if written and published by anyone except the BLP subject himself, are prohibited, with zero exceptions: "Never use self-published sources... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." There is no "expert exemption" that could be applied to the courts here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- If the Times is publishing something written by a member of its staff its relationship with that member of staff is not third party but the same party. What we mean by self published is by an a person or individual with no editorial or little oversight. Using your definition, then the this page is reliable and this page is not simply because the first page is by a company who's business is publishing. International tribunals have editorial oversight for things such as press releases, and judgements are by their nature reliable. WhatamIdoing you definition of self-published would exclude all UN statements, almost all government statements, and a host of other sources that are accepted as reliable sources in large swaths of Wikipedia articles. -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, that's one definition of self-published, although I believe that both of your examples are self-published, because traditional publishers like Thompson aren't traditionally in the business of publishing stuff about themselves. Your application of the definition to newspapers is wrong, though: the person who wrote the article is not the person who decides whether the article will run in the paper. All advertisements, press releases, etc. are self-published: the people who decided what it should say are the same people who decide whether or not it will be made public. But it's not the definition found in the dictionary, and it's not defined that way in our policies. Most of us, when we want to point out "little or no editorial oversight" actually say "little or no editorial oversight". That might be true at a traditional publisher, and it might not be true at a self-publisher. As for international tribunes, I have no idea what their editorial oversight looks like. Until proven otherwise, I'd put them in the same category as university press offices, which is "bad". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Your response to my last posting shows that you did not understand what I wrote (most probably because my writing style is not always the clearest) -- the example I gave of the two websites was to prove a point about editorial oversight -- I come to praise Caesar, not to bury him [sic]. As to the press offices of an International tribunal do you know of any request for a change in one of their statements? Because unlike a university, these press-releases are about criminal charges of the highest severity, and it beggars belief that such releases are not vetted carefully before release -- PBS (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, that's one definition of self-published, although I believe that both of your examples are self-published, because traditional publishers like Thompson aren't traditionally in the business of publishing stuff about themselves. Your application of the definition to newspapers is wrong, though: the person who wrote the article is not the person who decides whether the article will run in the paper. All advertisements, press releases, etc. are self-published: the people who decided what it should say are the same people who decide whether or not it will be made public. But it's not the definition found in the dictionary, and it's not defined that way in our policies. Most of us, when we want to point out "little or no editorial oversight" actually say "little or no editorial oversight". That might be true at a traditional publisher, and it might not be true at a self-publisher. As for international tribunes, I have no idea what their editorial oversight looks like. Until proven otherwise, I'd put them in the same category as university press offices, which is "bad". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- If the Times is publishing something written by a member of its staff its relationship with that member of staff is not third party but the same party. What we mean by self published is by an a person or individual with no editorial or little oversight. Using your definition, then the this page is reliable and this page is not simply because the first page is by a company who's business is publishing. International tribunals have editorial oversight for things such as press releases, and judgements are by their nature reliable. WhatamIdoing you definition of self-published would exclude all UN statements, almost all government statements, and a host of other sources that are accepted as reliable sources in large swaths of Wikipedia articles. -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, that sort of argument shows a clear knowledge of what self-published actually means in the real world. Wiktionary gives this definition: "The publishing of books and other media by the authors or creators of those works, rather than by established, third-party publishers" (emphasis added). The Times is an "established, third-party publisher". A court of law is not generally considered an "established, third-party publisher".
- To use that sort of argument I think shows a lack of knowledge of what self-published is intended to mean. Your definition of self published would exclude the use of almost everything. For example The Times is a newspaper where nearly all its content consists of material produced by its staff. We do not call that information produced by its staff self-published. In this case International Tribunals are fall outside the meaning of self-published for that and another reason: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic", or would you argue that that international courts are not experts in their field? -- PBS (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- WP:Contentious and WP:Likely to be challenged are not identical.
- If it is not contentious, then it is not contentious, so the entire discussion is moot. If it is "being challanged or likely to be challenged", then by definition it is contentious, so get a better source. Also, it isn't our business to decide what is or is not "positive" and "negative". We can't know one way or another whether reporting here that Alice served as an expert witness, or Bob was the lead counsel in a case, is a positive or negative thing for them. The same claims get made about birthdates, or marriage licenses, or other publicly availible records. We don't include unanalyzed public records, not because they aren't public, but because they haven't been vetted. It isn't our business to vet things. We leave that to others. It isn't our position to decide if a piece of contentious information is contentious because it is positive or negative. If it is being contended, we need a proper source. Period. --Jayron32 19:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Something can be challenged not because it is contentious but because the fact that is challenged is not common knowledge and therefore should contain a citation. For example if an article says someone was convicted of genocide then as it is such a heinous crime, I would always demand a citation. Do you know if Radislav Krstić was found guilty of genocide or aiding and abetting genocide? I can find lots of sources that say he was convicted of genocide but in fact that conviction was overturned on appeal. Do you really think that reading press releases from the ICTY is original research and that they have to be vetted by an intermediary? -- PBS (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Philip, could you give an example from a real article of information from an international court that we wouldn't be able to add because of this policy? It would be helpful to see the kind of thing you have in mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
- See the example I gave near the top of this section about "Mile Mrkšić" recent move to Portugal. -- PBS (talk) 09:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Would you mind giving a real example from a real article? Something you would not be able to add to Article X because of this part of the policy, but which you want to add. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- See Mile Mrkšić it is a real example! But also have a look at List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions that article and many it links to would have to be gutted if this policy section was to be followed to the letter. -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- How is it that someone who is in the news that much doesn't have a single news source in any language which reports the results of the court case? If someone is so unnotable that not a single news source reports the results of a court case they are involved in, why do we have an article at Wikipedia about it? I find it vanishingly hard to believe that any person who meets Wikipedia standards for having an article in the first place would be so invisible that a major court case would be ignored by literally every reliable newspaper in the world. It looks like we're inventing fantastic scenarios that have no connection to reality. If it isn't important enough for a single reliable secondary source such as a newspaper, journal, TV news report, or literally any other source in the world to have cared to include even a rudimentary story about it, why is it in Wikipedia at all? That sounds like WP:UNDUE attention to something, doesn't it? --Jayron32 23:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
- See my comment above about Ruritainian. Do you honestly believe that a news report in Rurtanian makes a better source for verification on English Wikipedia than an ICTR news briefing? If so why? -- PBS (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment; I'm interested to see what examples PBS can provide, but for now I'm leaning towards supporting this. I haven't made up my mind, but it seems prima facie absurd to permit government sources regarding its people while not allowing international court press releases about people before it. This would theoretically permit us to prop up Chinese propaganda bullshit about Liu Xiaobo or the Dalai Lama as fact while preventing us from reporting on the conviction and appeal of Radislav Krstić. We're fortunate that the above cases have sufficient media coverage that even under current policy we don't have to do that, but it seems an odd double standard to allow one party with an obvious vested interest in itself to be used as a source for living people while preventing what's supposed to be a neutral judiciary from doing the same. And frankly, if someone is convicted of aiding and abetting genocide and sentenced to 35 years in prison, they have much larger problems than a Wikipedia article saying as much (I know that's not really an argument for policy, but I think it helps to keep our sense of perspective sometimes). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 23:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- The policy does allow the use of primary sources where they are merely augmenting secondary sources: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."
- That is, where an issue has already been discussed by secondary sources (to establish notability), we can expand that coverage using primary sources, so long as we're circumspect and cautious. The example given above of someone being convicted (reported by secondary sources), and the conviction overturned on appeal (reported only by a press release from an international court) would be an example of an appropriate use of a primary source – so long as secondary sources had already discussed the conviction. But it would be unusual for reporters to report the conviction and not the successful appeal; there are international news agency that keep an eye on these cases.
- I'd be interested in seeing an example where there is no secondary source involvement, but where the use of a primary source might nevertheless be appropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Is a press briefings by the ICTY a primary secondary source? -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Considering that newspaper articles on current/recent-past events are primary sources (see the essay WP:PRIMARYNEWS; not a policy or guideline, but linked to from the core WP:NOR policy), I would be surprised if a press briefing weren't primary. However, WP:BLPPRIMARY does not ban all primary sources. Press briefings would not be "court records" outlawed by WP:BLPPRIMARY; I guess they are not recorded by the court clerk? Best I can see, primary sources are acceptable if they do not have the common problems with such sources: reliability, a filter for notability, and understandability to the lay person. Court judgments don't pass the last two criteria; ICTY press briefings do pass all three. However, WP:NOR does have the strong statement: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources" and that is not just BLP policy. Your idea would require modifying this statement. I am, as of now, neutral on that. The alternative, that of modifying the definition of "primary" and "secondary" sources to exclude press briefings, I would oppose as opening a can of worms unrelated to the specific issue. Churn and change (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- "Considering that newspaper articles on current/recent-past events are primary sources" is not a view that most people hold. For example Organisations such as the BBC have a specific editorial policy of a neutral POV similar to Wikipedia's which is hardly the actions of an organisation that considers itself a produced of primary sources. -- PBS (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- POV has nothing to do with whether the source is primary, secondary, or tertiary. WP:Secondary is not another way to spell good. You can write a biased secondary source or a neutral primary source. Most newspaper stories are primary sources: they are eyewitness news, initial reports, etc. Putting something in a newspaper doesn't turn it into a secondary source. If writing "I saw Joe Politician give a speech at City Hall yesterday" on your personal blog would be a primary source, then printing it up on a broadsheet is still a primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I said your point of view on this is a minority one. An historical newspaper report may be considered a primary source, but newspaper articles published before an event becomes history is not. For example Hansard is a primary source for a Chancellor's Budget speech in the House of Commons, a newspaper article on a recent Budget is not a primary source. Or do you make a distinction between a report in The Times and The Economist? If so what about the Economist and the journal, Oxford Economic Papers? Where does primary finish and secondary start for you? Most editors take the view as expressed in WP:PSTS "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event." Newspaper reports of the events in Parliament are second-hand accounts one step removed from the event. -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that most editors take the view expressed in PSTS. My view comes straight from that policy, which says, in the lengthy and important footnote, "Further examples of primary sources include… editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews. ... For definitions of primary sources: "Primary sources were…created during the time period being studied…" "Primary sources may include newspaper articles... interviews,... reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents."". So I think that the consensus is pretty plain that created-at-the-time newspaper articles are (generally) primary sources under Wikipedia's policies. PSTS doesn't even admit the possibility of a newspaper article being a secondary source.
- If you want to know what the real world believes, rather than the nuance-free definition in NOR, then this is going to be far more useful to you. A factual account of a recent (relative to publication date) in a newspaper is always a primary source. But an analytical account in a newspaper could be used as a secondary source. So a report on the Chancellor's budget speech is a primary source if the newspaper article is a simple factual account, and it is a secondary source if the newspaper article is analyzing the speech.
- NB that the publication itself does not matter. An eyewitness factual account is a primary source no matter whether you publish it in a blog, a newspaper, a scholarly journal, or a billboard. It is a primary source no matter how many editors or lawyers are involved in approving it. Similarly, an in-depth analysis is generally taken as a secondary source, no matter where it is published or how many editors or lawyers were consulted. The nature of the periodical and the presence of editorial oversight doesn't affect the PSTS status. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- The first two links you give are to descriptions of historical primary sources. The first explicitly says "Finding Historical Primary Sources" and the second give the example "Use Subject Headings for your topic and words like '-diaries', '-personal narratives' (i.e. Spain--History--Civil War, 1936-1939--Personal narratives)". No one disputes that once a newspaper report move from contemporary into historical its worth is primarily as an historical primary source, but that is not true of newspapers reporting current affairs. In Britain there is a thirty year rule on the release of many government documents and that is because roughly speaking 25 to 30 years need to pass before current affairs become history (and subjects suitable for historical analysis). I think your definition of what is an eye witness report is simplistic and I deliberately chose the Budget speech in Parliament as a specific example because AFAICT your definition would take two articles from two different broadsheet newspapers and categorise one that started "Yesterday I sat in the public gallery to hear the Chancellor say ..." and another that started "Yesterday the in his Budget speech the Chancellor said ...", but were otherwise identical, as primary and secondary sources. That would be a nonsense. The primary source is the Budget speech in Hansard or the Parliamentary Channel, the reporting of it is a secondary source which may or may not include parts of the primary source in the form of quotations or voice extracts. In this section the judgement at the end of an international trial on a genocide is a primary source, and the press release about the judgement is a secondary source. I do not think that either should be excluded from biographies of living persons, providing that their use follows that of the rest of the relevant policies. -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- The text immediately following "Yesterday, I heard him say..." is always primary source material, but beyond that it depends on what the author says. If the rest of the source merely relates the facts ("The speech had three main points, which were..."), then it's a primary source. If it analyzes it ("His first point was a calculated political attack, which will offend the moderates but drive the party stalwarts to the polls..."), then it's a secondary source. Sources can be mixtures, with some parts primary and some parts secondary.
- The grammatical person ("I heard him say" vs "he said") is irrelevant. What matters is what the author is doing with the material. If he's simply repeating someone else's work, it's primary. If he's building on someone else's work, it's secondary.
- I haven't seen any sources that claim regular who-what-when-where newspaper articles, no matter how recent, are secondary sources, and I have looked. If you can find something that says a typical newspaper article (e.g., "Firefighters responded to a blaze last night at 123 Main Street" or "The city council voted last night to require smoke detectors in new homes") are secondary, then do please share your sources. But I'm betting you won't, because nobody's found any yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that a statement such as "The [Budget] speech had three main points" makes the newspaper article a secondary source (unless the primary source explicitly states it contains three main points). I put in a Google search for [newspaper secondary source or primary source] and the first article returned was Primary and secondary sources - Ithaca College Library "Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that discuss or evaluate someone else's original research" and "You can't always determine if something is primary or secondary just because of the source it is found in. Articles in newspapers and magazines are usually considered secondary sources. However, if a story in a newspaper about the Iraq war is an eyewitness account, that would be a primary source." The second one in the list was "Primary Sources at Yale". It also makes the same point "A serial is a publication, such as a magazine, newspaper, or scholarly journal, that is published in ongoing installments. Like books, serials can function both as primary sources and secondary sources depending on how one approaches them. Age is an important factor in determining whether a serial publication is primarily a primary or a secondary source". The problem is that nearly all the definitions in this area are talking about historical use of newspapers, not use in articles about current affairs, which distorts their definitions in favour of seeing newspaper articles as primary sources (as the Yale quote makes clear). As those were the first two articles returned by my Google search, I am not sure why you have had so much problem finding sources that show that newspapers articles about current events are usually not primary sources. But fun as this to discuss newspaper articles it is drifting off topic and to get us back on topic I do not think that an ICTR press release about an ICTR judgement is a primary source and I think that the wording in this policy should be altered so that the use of ICTR press release as a soruce are not explicitly prohibited by this policy.-- PBS (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Why haven't I found a source that says newspaper articles are usually not primary? Because the sources you provide only say that newspaper articles can be secondary, not that the majority of them actually are. The majority of newspaper articles are short, unsigned factual reports with no analysis or interpretation: It rained yesterday. Bob was arrested. Chris opened a new business. And to quote your link to Yale, a defining characteristic of primary sources is that they "are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring", which is the major goal of news reporting. So I believe that if you sat down with a newspaper and counted stories, you would find that a majority of the ink was spilled for primary source material.
- Although it is possible for a press release to contain secondary material, I believe that most are primary, and I expect that a court in particular likely makes an effort to avoid the analysis or interpretation that is characteristic of a secondary source. Which isn't to say that I believe the ought to be unusable, only that I believe that they are included in the current, ham-fisted ban-'em-all statement in this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I think that a statement such as "The [Budget] speech had three main points" makes the newspaper article a secondary source (unless the primary source explicitly states it contains three main points). I put in a Google search for [newspaper secondary source or primary source] and the first article returned was Primary and secondary sources - Ithaca College Library "Secondary source materials can be articles in newspapers or popular magazines, book or movie reviews, or articles found in scholarly journals that discuss or evaluate someone else's original research" and "You can't always determine if something is primary or secondary just because of the source it is found in. Articles in newspapers and magazines are usually considered secondary sources. However, if a story in a newspaper about the Iraq war is an eyewitness account, that would be a primary source." The second one in the list was "Primary Sources at Yale". It also makes the same point "A serial is a publication, such as a magazine, newspaper, or scholarly journal, that is published in ongoing installments. Like books, serials can function both as primary sources and secondary sources depending on how one approaches them. Age is an important factor in determining whether a serial publication is primarily a primary or a secondary source". The problem is that nearly all the definitions in this area are talking about historical use of newspapers, not use in articles about current affairs, which distorts their definitions in favour of seeing newspaper articles as primary sources (as the Yale quote makes clear). As those were the first two articles returned by my Google search, I am not sure why you have had so much problem finding sources that show that newspapers articles about current events are usually not primary sources. But fun as this to discuss newspaper articles it is drifting off topic and to get us back on topic I do not think that an ICTR press release about an ICTR judgement is a primary source and I think that the wording in this policy should be altered so that the use of ICTR press release as a soruce are not explicitly prohibited by this policy.-- PBS (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- The first two links you give are to descriptions of historical primary sources. The first explicitly says "Finding Historical Primary Sources" and the second give the example "Use Subject Headings for your topic and words like '-diaries', '-personal narratives' (i.e. Spain--History--Civil War, 1936-1939--Personal narratives)". No one disputes that once a newspaper report move from contemporary into historical its worth is primarily as an historical primary source, but that is not true of newspapers reporting current affairs. In Britain there is a thirty year rule on the release of many government documents and that is because roughly speaking 25 to 30 years need to pass before current affairs become history (and subjects suitable for historical analysis). I think your definition of what is an eye witness report is simplistic and I deliberately chose the Budget speech in Parliament as a specific example because AFAICT your definition would take two articles from two different broadsheet newspapers and categorise one that started "Yesterday I sat in the public gallery to hear the Chancellor say ..." and another that started "Yesterday the in his Budget speech the Chancellor said ...", but were otherwise identical, as primary and secondary sources. That would be a nonsense. The primary source is the Budget speech in Hansard or the Parliamentary Channel, the reporting of it is a secondary source which may or may not include parts of the primary source in the form of quotations or voice extracts. In this section the judgement at the end of an international trial on a genocide is a primary source, and the press release about the judgement is a secondary source. I do not think that either should be excluded from biographies of living persons, providing that their use follows that of the rest of the relevant policies. -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- As I said your point of view on this is a minority one. An historical newspaper report may be considered a primary source, but newspaper articles published before an event becomes history is not. For example Hansard is a primary source for a Chancellor's Budget speech in the House of Commons, a newspaper article on a recent Budget is not a primary source. Or do you make a distinction between a report in The Times and The Economist? If so what about the Economist and the journal, Oxford Economic Papers? Where does primary finish and secondary start for you? Most editors take the view as expressed in WP:PSTS "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, generally at least one step removed from an event." Newspaper reports of the events in Parliament are second-hand accounts one step removed from the event. -- PBS (talk) 12:45, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- POV has nothing to do with whether the source is primary, secondary, or tertiary. WP:Secondary is not another way to spell good. You can write a biased secondary source or a neutral primary source. Most newspaper stories are primary sources: they are eyewitness news, initial reports, etc. Putting something in a newspaper doesn't turn it into a secondary source. If writing "I saw Joe Politician give a speech at City Hall yesterday" on your personal blog would be a primary source, then printing it up on a broadsheet is still a primary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Is a press briefings by the ICTY a primary secondary source? -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am not suggesting modifying NOR, I am suggesting that the current wording of WP:BLPPRIMARY was written for preventing salacious and titillating trivia about living people from being exacted from court documents and used in Wikipedia articles, because the sources where it is usually found (such as British red tops) are dismissed as unreliable and so excluded. That is reasonable. Bomber Harris said of the policy of area bombardment for want of a rapier a bludgeon was used. The words currently in WP:BLPPRIMARY is a bludgeon, it excludes sources that the primary content polices do not, and it is damaging to the project to do so (because the details of the finding of internal courts on issues like genocide are notable). I think that many people arguing here defending a bludgeon instead of trying to create a rapier to tackle a specific problem are doing Wikipedia no favours. -- PBS (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose court judgments How do we decide what is relevant or not relevant in these mammoth court publications? We will have to indulge in WP:OR to pick and choose. If something isn't being reported in the secondary sources, then it just isn't relevant. It may be relevant to you or me based on beliefs and sphere of activity, but it lacks the general relevance required for an encyclopedia. And why the reference to English news media coverage? We are not limited to that. Secondary sources include foreign newspapers and magazines, books, political and sociological journals and what not. Such sources may not have immediate coverage of the case unlike the court documents, but we are not a newspaper. We can afford the time it takes for experts, scholars and other authorities to analyze, filter and summarize the information correctly. Churn and change (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is true for all primary sources. It is not OR to summarise a primary source, it is OR to produced "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources". -- PBS (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- It is OR to "analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source" (WP:NOR policy). How does one "summarize" these big judgments, running into several pages, without "evaluating" what is worthy of inclusion? Yes, it is true of all primary sources, and that is why WP asks for secondary sources. The WP:NOR policy explicitly says WP articles are based on secondary sources, and, to a lesser extent, tertiary sources. And there is the specific policy: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources" (emphasis in original). What you are asking for is either to weaken this, or change the definition of "primary source." I oppose the second. I may support the first depending on what extra you want to add; I would oppose an article based on just court judgments; we are not lawyers, judges, or law clerks. Churn and change (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- You quoted the same clause that I did! The answer to your question is that is an issue for editorial judgement and if necessary discussion on the talk page as to whether a fair summary has been included in the article, the same is true when summarising secondary sources. You then quote another section from WP NOR, about basing entire articles on primary sources that is not under debate here. What is being debated here is the limitations imposed on source usage in the section "Misuse of primary sources". -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- But to summmarize primary sources requires subject expertise and far more of evaluation than in summarizing secondary sources. That is one of the reasons we don't prefer primary sources except when backing secondary sources. Summarizing a court judgment requires understanding and parsing legal language, something lawyers and judges themselves often disagree on. Your proposal will just lead to interminable arguments on whether the summary was fair, neutral and correct. The WP:NOR issue arises because I presumed your subjects are cited in just these primary sources—judgments and press releases. An article on them would therefore be based on just primary sources, and would require a WP:NOR exception. If you are saying there are secondary sources on them on other issues, I do have to ask how come we are missing secondary sources just for the trials? Churn and change (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- You write "That is one of the reasons we don't prefer primary sources except when backing secondary sources" the prohibition on the use of unpublished primary sources is to do with OR not to do with the difficulty of whether they can be summarised. We have the bizarre situation that an international judgement can be cited for a point of law, or the findings against a state (see for example Bosnian Genocide Case), but not for the length of of a named criminal's conviction or sentence. The issue is not because "[the] subjects are cited in just these primary sources", it is that some of the details that are lacking in reliable secondary sources, for example the date on which a prisoner is transferred to serve his or her sentence, or some of the specific charges on which a person was found not guilty, etc -- PBS (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- But to summmarize primary sources requires subject expertise and far more of evaluation than in summarizing secondary sources. That is one of the reasons we don't prefer primary sources except when backing secondary sources. Summarizing a court judgment requires understanding and parsing legal language, something lawyers and judges themselves often disagree on. Your proposal will just lead to interminable arguments on whether the summary was fair, neutral and correct. The WP:NOR issue arises because I presumed your subjects are cited in just these primary sources—judgments and press releases. An article on them would therefore be based on just primary sources, and would require a WP:NOR exception. If you are saying there are secondary sources on them on other issues, I do have to ask how come we are missing secondary sources just for the trials? Churn and change (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- You quoted the same clause that I did! The answer to your question is that is an issue for editorial judgement and if necessary discussion on the talk page as to whether a fair summary has been included in the article, the same is true when summarising secondary sources. You then quote another section from WP NOR, about basing entire articles on primary sources that is not under debate here. What is being debated here is the limitations imposed on source usage in the section "Misuse of primary sources". -- PBS (talk) 09:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand why you lumped court judgments and press releases together. The second should be discussed separately. Churn and change (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
- Because the wording of WP:BLPPRIMARY lumps them together. -- PBS (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Where? Is a press release a court document? I would say not. It is clearly not a trial transcript. Churn and change (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- If International court press releases are not covered by "other court records," (which it can be argued they are) they are certainly covered by "or other public documents". -- PBS (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- That is too broad a read on that phrase, actually (aren't some public documents, by this expansive definition, secondary sources?) And even if it were, we could add an exclusion for press releases. Churn and change (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then how do you define/scope: "Do not use ... other public documents, to support assertions about a living person"? AFAICT you are synthesising a interpretation that the second sentence is only referring to primary sources by the juxtaposition of the two sentences, but it does not have to be read that way and if it is to do so then it should be made explicit. BTW above did you not argue that press -- PBS (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, a few days ago, I did think they were primary sources. But now I am not so sure. I agree that is a plausible interpretation. Anyway, I have summarized my current stance at the very end of the thread. Churn and change (talk) 17:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Then how do you define/scope: "Do not use ... other public documents, to support assertions about a living person"? AFAICT you are synthesising a interpretation that the second sentence is only referring to primary sources by the juxtaposition of the two sentences, but it does not have to be read that way and if it is to do so then it should be made explicit. BTW above did you not argue that press -- PBS (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- That is too broad a read on that phrase, actually (aren't some public documents, by this expansive definition, secondary sources?) And even if it were, we could add an exclusion for press releases. Churn and change (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- If International court press releases are not covered by "other court records," (which it can be argued they are) they are certainly covered by "or other public documents". -- PBS (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- Where? Is a press release a court document? I would say not. It is clearly not a trial transcript. Churn and change (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Because the wording of WP:BLPPRIMARY lumps them together. -- PBS (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose These sources can still be cited, provided that secondary sources exist to support the use of the cited content. Allowing a special case for court documents seems like precisely the sort of misuse we want to avoid. aprock (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose with a caveat If there are simply no secondary sources, we have the issue Churn and Change raises above regarding notability/signficance; if there are secondary sources, I'd wikilawyer that the policy already permits those briefings so long as they are not the basis for supporting the material ("to support assertions about a living person" being the operative clause.). Providing a more accessible (read, English rather than non-English) confirmation of information already solidly sourced by non-English reliable sources seems a plausible and relatively harmless use case. --j⚛e deckertalk 22:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- How do you come to such a reading of WP:BLPPRIMARY It seems to me that the sentence "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." does not allow such wriggle room. -- PBS (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. What I'm suggesting is that if other sources, included in the article, sufficiently support the statements they verify and establish the significance of the content, then the content is already "supported", and that any additional use of such transcripts would not be done in order "to support assertions about a living person", that instead they would be present more as a matter of aiding the understanding of readers who only speak English, rather than the establishment of documentation toward verifiability notability or signficance. We add sources for different reasons, I'm suggesting a limited reading of "to support assertions about". --j⚛e deckertalk 20:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- How do you come to such a reading of WP:BLPPRIMARY It seems to me that the sentence "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." does not allow such wriggle room. -- PBS (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- I support PBS's general idea I think our current wording is too black and white. I understand and agree with the underlying concept that we should not be "digging up dirt" in primary sources, or using obscure public records to publish information on low profile individuals that is not otherwise widely published. Our current wording goes way too far in prohibiting specific classes of primary sources. Our policies should rarely, if ever, present such absolute language. Gigs (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
- Suggestion Add a sentence in guidelines stating press releases from international courts should be treated like news articles in reliable newspapers and magazines. We use such articles throughout WP, whatever policy might say about their primary/secondary status (they are considered reliable anyway, and the problem of interpretation, summarizing and so on don't exist, so whether they are primary matters not much except for things like eyewitness accounts of a reporter). I am not sure whether press releases from a bureaucracy really are considered primary sources right now (PBS said so, and I accepted it for a while, but I guess PBS is saying others would read the policy that way). But since real editing on WP isn't based on these legalistic readings of policy and guidelines, I suggest explicitly linking these PRs to news articles. As for court judgments, I want to see one. Churn and change (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comment At the moment the current wording of this section can be read to prohibit the use of both judgements and press releases by international courts. For articles about the genocide tribunals this is being ignored (see for example List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions), so either those articles should be gutted (removing text and the citations to the documentation international tribunals) or the citations to the documentation international tribunals should be removed (leaving much of the text without sources), or this policy should be altered to accommodate judgements and press releases by international courts, or we can just ignore this policy and leave things as they are. Which is it to be? -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I rather arbitrarily picked reference 72: Borislav Herak's reduction in sentencing. Amnesty International did pick up on it, though not the exact new term: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,AMNESTY,,BIH,,3ae6aa0814,0.html. An AP source picked up on it: [1] This source, Case Western Reserve's journal War Crimes Prosecution Watch picked up on it. They quote the BIRN Justice Report which is a secondary source, and one assumes reliable at least in this case. Maybe I got lucky with my random check. That last journal looks like a very good resource for sourcing this stuff. From the description at the top: "War Crimes Prosecution Watch is a bi-weekly e-newsletter that compiles official documents and articles from major news sources detailing and analyzing salient issues pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes throughout the world." It is issued by the Law Department of a major university. Since it is a compilation with no summary or evaluation it is probably technically a primary source, but the vetting involved makes it very useful. In some cases, as in the random example I checked, it is linking to a secondary source for the information. Churn and change (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. Press releases by "International Courts" should be treated as press releases by any NGO, and rulings by "International Courts" should be treated as rulings, even more subject to misinterpretation than rulings in English by courts in English-speaking jurisdictions, as the translation into English might not be "official". There may be some exceptions; if a reliable source mentions that someone is convicted and sentenced, it seems possible that an official report from the court could be used for the length of the sentence. The specific example immediately above, as to to a reduction in sentence, probably could be referenced to an official primary source, if unambiguous. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I do not understand your opposition to a blanket ban and then a suggestion that the current wording be ignored with ("There may be...").--PBS (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- All
animalsNGOs are equal, but someanimalsNOGs are more equal than others: Press releases from the UN and the EU are little different than those from government organisations, and are not of a similar level of reliability to those released by a small charity. A distinction has to be made in the type of NGO or one ends up in a looking glass world where: a press release from Lambeth Palace (from an established government organisation) is more reliable than that from the Church of Scotland (disestablished in 1929 and therefore an NGO). - As to accuracy of translation, this is not a major issue as the articles are not a legal dissertation or brief (therefore judgements published by international courts in English are reliable sources even if the authoritative source is in a different language such as French). Besides the rulings of international courts such as the World Court are in English as an official and an authoritative language and are binding on English speaking nations. What is you opinion of the judgements of tribunals such as the ICTY and the ICTR where English is not only an official language but is also authoritative so there is no misinterpretation/mistranslation (this is also true for the ICC where the the authoritative version of the judgment [was] in English in the [first trial] case, with the French translation to follow a number of weeks late)? -- PBS (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
proposing more caution for children and incompetents
I propose to edit this policy to suggest that content about minors and about people adjudged incompetent should be edited with even greater care for contentiousness than content about competent adults. By definition, for many matters, minors and people adjudged incompetent who purport to consent to something cannot consent validly, whether purported consent was addressed to Wikimedia, an editor, or someone else entirely.
This proposal is approximate. In the section Presumption in Favor of Privacy, I would add a subsection after the subsection Public Figures, as follows:
===Minors and persons judged incompetent===
If a person is below the age of minority in their nation or locality or has been adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be incompetent, editing requires even greater care and privacy requires even greater protection than they do for competent adults.
I'll wait a week for any comments. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- Can you give me an example of how this would affect editing in practice? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
- In an article about a school, someone added from a major newspaper that a certain named child had had difficulties and the context suggested a disability or misbehavior. Although the newspaper is a reliable source and it published the name and might even have had a parent's support for doing so, it was a child's name, neither the child nor the child's family was notable (and notability would only sometimes matter), and the claim of either disability or misbehavior might be held against the child, who may be unable to defend adequately against it or acknowledge it meaningfully, as an adult can. I deleted the child's name from the article (it can still be found via the article history, so I don't want to be more specific here). Had the person been an adult, it probably would have been legitimate to report what the source said, but I don't think so for a child. In some cases, such as that of a young child (I think 8 years old) who killed an even younger child in circumstances not suggesting an accident, giving rise to a debate about what to do in such cases regarding criminal justice, if a conviction resulted, naming the child might be appropriate. But in the case in which I deleted a child's name, no independent agency made such an adjudication. The important topical content could be given without identifying the specific child, although I'm not sure that matters; I might have deleted the name even if the content had thereby become meaningless.
- A newspaper, in an editorial, wrote about a hearing concerning schools. Adults and at least one 15-year-old spoke. The minor got a central fact about the schools very wrong. The newspaper said, "[w]e'll spare her the embarassment that would come with publishing her name." N.Y. Daily News, as accessed today. Apparently, it's likelier the newspaper would have published the name had it been an adult's.
- Nick Levinson (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
- In your opinion, are WP:DUE and People who are relatively unknown inadequate to protect against unnecessary mention of a child's name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- They are inadequate, because the two statuses, childhood and incompetence, should require extra care and the two provisions don't. They're a start, but the issue should be specifically mentioned. In the case where I deleted the child's name that had been given in the major source, with all other facts the same, had it involved an adult at an adult-level institution, reporting the name in Wikipedia might have been easier to justify. We're discussing here the marginal cases, not those where we'd never or always report the name regardless of age. These two statuses, especially childhod, are reatively easy to consider and apply if we remind editors of them. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, you removed it. Good. Did anyone fuss at you about it, or did they let the removal stand?
- Policy pages aren't magic. WP:Nobody reads the directions. We put something on a page if not having it here promotes disputes. If there's no dispute when you do the right thing, then we don't actually need a rule here about it. Remember: writing down a rule about this is not going to stop someone from adding a kid's name in the first place, because 99% of our editors aren't ever going to read your rule. The only practical value in the policy is giving you some official support when you remove the kid's name. If you don't actually need that support—if nobody fusses at you when you remove the kid's name—then there's no benefit to adding it to the page (and some inevitable costs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- They are inadequate, because the two statuses, childhood and incompetence, should require extra care and the two provisions don't. They're a start, but the issue should be specifically mentioned. In the case where I deleted the child's name that had been given in the major source, with all other facts the same, had it involved an adult at an adult-level institution, reporting the name in Wikipedia might have been easier to justify. We're discussing here the marginal cases, not those where we'd never or always report the name regardless of age. These two statuses, especially childhod, are reatively easy to consider and apply if we remind editors of them. Nick Levinson (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- In your opinion, are WP:DUE and People who are relatively unknown inadequate to protect against unnecessary mention of a child's name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- No dispute arose and that was a while ago, so it's stable. My concern arose because in another case someone put a photo of children up in a context that could look like an endorsement. I raised an unrelated question that led to another editor deleting the image from all of Wikimedia for the different reason. I'm still concerned that the image or one like it will be reintroduced, I'd like some authority on which to rely if a similar problem exists with a new image, and it's helpful to have that authority before it's needed in a dispute. I assume similar concerns should affect other editors.
- I agree policies are not read by most editors. Wikimedia likely has a lot of legal and other exposure that is ameliorated only by some editors being attentive to likely problems. I still see editors angry at deletions for copyright reasons, and that's had a lot more publicity. But we need to educate editors. All that's being debated is whether a particular matter should be in a policy/guideline.
- Nick Levinson (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- There was an occasion earlier this year where the removal of the name of a child who had suffered a potentially embarrassing medical problem was strongly opposed by the editor who added it, which was only resolved after a BLPN discussion. A specific provision in BLP relating to minors would have helped in that situation. January (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Project categories
A month ago, we had a conversation that is now filed at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 35#WikiProjects_again. This is about WP:WikiProjects and the banners they add to articles that they track and support. Specifically, it is about the WikiProject-specific categories that are placed by the WikiProject banners.
Before we get any further, you need to know the following facts:
- A WP:WikiProject is a group of people who want to work together. It is not a subject area. We have dozens of WikiProjects that do not have a subject area (like WP:WikiProject Good articles), although the biggest ones (Biographies, Military History, United States, etc.) tend to be focused on a subject area.
- Like any other individual or group of editors, a group of editors that decides to call themselves a "WikiProject" gets to decide which articles it's going to work on. This is documented in the official community-approved guideline at WP:PROJGUIDE#OWN. It's also common sense: short of a WP:TOPICBAN, you can't stop them working on what they want, and, in practice, you can't force them to work on what they don't want.
- WikiProjects tag and assess pages to make about a dozen important bots and Toolserver activities work, including those for the WP:1.0 team and those that report disputes involving the pages, like the Article alerts bot. All of these bots require the talk page to contain administrative WP:Categories (not content categories) that the bot associates with the WikiProject.
- LGBT studies is an academic area, similar to Women's studies or Black studies or Jewish studies. Professors who study LGBT issues sometimes study people and groups that are not LGBT, just like professors in women's studies might research famously misogynistic men, and professors in black studies might research famous racists, and professors in Jewish studies might research Nazi war criminals.
- The actor Tom Cruise is one such person: His repeated lawsuits for character defamation against people who've lied about his sexual orientation have attracted scholarly attention in that field. The article about this actor is of interest to WP:WikiProject LGBT studies (who better to help resolve any disputes about Tom Cruise#Lawsuits than people who are familiar with LGBT scholarly works?). It was also the site of the latest dispute over whether WikiProjects that work on potentially mis-understandable subjects (sexuality, religion, ethnicity) should be permitted to support any BLP articles and/or any BLP articles unless the subject is a member (so no Nazi war criminals for any Jewish-related WikiProjects, no men for WikiProject Women's studies, no straight people for WikiProject LGBT studies, etc.).
The RFC at Talk:Tom Cruise closed with an affirmation of the right of any group of editors to tag and track any article they want. Again. Every single time we've had this question, whether it involves WikiProject LGBT studies or WikiProject United States or any other WikiProject, we've come to the same conclusion. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people came to the same conclusion: while we should do our best to phrase the WikiProject banners in ways that make their purpose clear ("This page is of interest to this group" rather than "This BLP is definitely gay"), it was ultimately not appropriate to prohibit any WikiProject from tagging any page that they were supporting.
All of that is background. The problem is that a few editors interpret WP:BLPCAT as prohibiting any "sensitive" WikiProject from tagging articles. WikiProject banners add administrative categories to the talk page of the articles they're placed on, and it's remotely possible that some reader would find the talk page, read the wall-o-text of categories at the bottom, and idiotically conclude that the presence of a "Category:WikiProject ____ studies with comments" means "This person is definitely, provably _____, even though the article said the opposite".
I don't want to re-fight the question. We've been there and done that a dozen times, and the answer is always the same. What I want to do is to change BLPCAT (perhaps a footnote?) so that well-intentioned editors won't keep making the same mistake and wasting so many hours of editor time that could be put to a more productive use.
I'd previously suggested specifying that BLPCAT applied to content categories in articles, but I'm open to anything. What do you think we could do, that would solve this problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've added the word "content" to that section as an obvious first step, because we're never going to meet these requirements for things like Category:Wikipedia articles with possible conflicts of interest.
- How about adding "This policy does not limit the use of administrative categories for WikiProjects, article clean-up, or other normal editor activities." to the end of the section? Does anyone object? Does anyone have a better idea? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
List of notable rape survivors
Hi. Can interested editors weigh in in this discussion of Notables who have been raped? It's an unpleasant topic, but then again, we have a List of suicides article, and I want others' opinions. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Naming of Rape victims
Under English law, any rape case that has been the subject of criminal proceedings grants the victim "Anonymity for life" and as such, any person who names a victim of rape is committing a criminal offence.Markdarrly (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not governed by English law, though editors in Great Britain would certainly need to be aware. Resolute 23:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think it is quite as simple as that. One reason for the protection afforded by English law is to encourage victims to come forward. If somebody has done so under a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, I do not think that Wikipedia can really respond simply with Yah, boo, sucks, can't touch me! --AJHingston (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree entirely with the principle of not naming rape victims. But it will not be adopted via appeal to English law -- it has to be argued out on basis of other Wikipedia policies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the conclusions (in many but not all cases) of the OP, but definately not the rationale. As Nomoskedasticity states, Wikipedia is not governed by UK laws, and furthermore Wikipedia editors are not Wikipedia. However, in most cases WP:BLP would clearly be against naming rape victims gratuitously or without cause or justification, per Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual (yeah, it's an essay. I don't care. It's also right). However, one case which would clearly be against this would be about quoting or citing clear self-identifying statements by rape victims. There are some individual people who publicly self-identify as rape victims, and there are some even some of those for whom their self-identified status as a sexual assault survivor has informed an important part of their notability. For example, how does one tell the story of Cheryl Araujo or Tori Amos or other people who self-identify as survivors of sexual assault, and for whom are very public about that. However, the fact that there are some people who do so self-identify in a public fashion does NOT mean that we can go slapping rape stories onto every person's biography who happens to be a rape victim, nor go about gratuitously naming every victim of every rape noted in Wikipedia. It is a balance to play between being complete where obviously required, and being respectful of the privacy of low-profile individuals when it really isn't. --Jayron32 17:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I hope that in an international encyclopedia we are all respectful of differences of law and culture. And of course individual editors are not Wikipedia; that is the point. If an editor inserts something that is legally protected for good reason in the country relevant to a BLP, and in the case of rape victims that is quite a few, then the community has to answer for a policy that permitted it. Perhaps it could, but not simply by reference to the law of California. After all, what if the boot were on the other foot, and the State of California prohibited something that the community as a whole thought should be permitted? There would be a row and pressure to move to servers elsewhere. As for the whether the person is low profile, I would argue that the higher profile the person, the greater the sensitivity. Obviously, if the person is notable for being a rape victim and has chosen to campaign on that the matter is very different, and they have chosen to forgo their right to privacy. --AJHingston (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- This seems backwards to me. If a high-profile person (e.g., Prime Minister of the UK) is a rape victim, then that's just one thing among thousands of things to be said about this person. But if a low-profile person (e.g., the author of a couple of books) is a rape victim, then rape might be one of only a few things to be said about this person. So in the high-profile case, it could get mentioned briefly and then you're off to more important things, but in the low-profile case, just a brief mention could be a sizable fraction of the entire article. I believe that we should be more concerned about having rape overwhelm the article, and therefore we should be more reticent to mention it in the low-profile case, where it is likely to overwhelm, than in the high-profile case, where it is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Against which, of course, a very notable person's article will have a great many more page views. A more typical example than major politicians, who tend to be a special case, is probably actresses. I just cannot understand why it might be thought that a well known actress would be less unhappy to have a rape referred to in her article than a lesser known one. I know that some editors are inclined to dismiss the feelings and views of the subject of BLPs as irrelevant, but I do not believe that the community as a whole is so dismissive. --AJHingston (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I still believe that it is more acceptable to have a person's status as a crime victim form 2% of an article's contents than to have it form 30% of an article's contents, no matter how often the page is viewed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Against which, of course, a very notable person's article will have a great many more page views. A more typical example than major politicians, who tend to be a special case, is probably actresses. I just cannot understand why it might be thought that a well known actress would be less unhappy to have a rape referred to in her article than a lesser known one. I know that some editors are inclined to dismiss the feelings and views of the subject of BLPs as irrelevant, but I do not believe that the community as a whole is so dismissive. --AJHingston (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- This seems backwards to me. If a high-profile person (e.g., Prime Minister of the UK) is a rape victim, then that's just one thing among thousands of things to be said about this person. But if a low-profile person (e.g., the author of a couple of books) is a rape victim, then rape might be one of only a few things to be said about this person. So in the high-profile case, it could get mentioned briefly and then you're off to more important things, but in the low-profile case, just a brief mention could be a sizable fraction of the entire article. I believe that we should be more concerned about having rape overwhelm the article, and therefore we should be more reticent to mention it in the low-profile case, where it is likely to overwhelm, than in the high-profile case, where it is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- I hope that in an international encyclopedia we are all respectful of differences of law and culture. And of course individual editors are not Wikipedia; that is the point. If an editor inserts something that is legally protected for good reason in the country relevant to a BLP, and in the case of rape victims that is quite a few, then the community has to answer for a policy that permitted it. Perhaps it could, but not simply by reference to the law of California. After all, what if the boot were on the other foot, and the State of California prohibited something that the community as a whole thought should be permitted? There would be a row and pressure to move to servers elsewhere. As for the whether the person is low profile, I would argue that the higher profile the person, the greater the sensitivity. Obviously, if the person is notable for being a rape victim and has chosen to campaign on that the matter is very different, and they have chosen to forgo their right to privacy. --AJHingston (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with the conclusions (in many but not all cases) of the OP, but definately not the rationale. As Nomoskedasticity states, Wikipedia is not governed by UK laws, and furthermore Wikipedia editors are not Wikipedia. However, in most cases WP:BLP would clearly be against naming rape victims gratuitously or without cause or justification, per Wikipedia:Who is a low profile individual (yeah, it's an essay. I don't care. It's also right). However, one case which would clearly be against this would be about quoting or citing clear self-identifying statements by rape victims. There are some individual people who publicly self-identify as rape victims, and there are some even some of those for whom their self-identified status as a sexual assault survivor has informed an important part of their notability. For example, how does one tell the story of Cheryl Araujo or Tori Amos or other people who self-identify as survivors of sexual assault, and for whom are very public about that. However, the fact that there are some people who do so self-identify in a public fashion does NOT mean that we can go slapping rape stories onto every person's biography who happens to be a rape victim, nor go about gratuitously naming every victim of every rape noted in Wikipedia. It is a balance to play between being complete where obviously required, and being respectful of the privacy of low-profile individuals when it really isn't. --Jayron32 17:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I agree entirely with the principle of not naming rape victims. But it will not be adopted via appeal to English law -- it has to be argued out on basis of other Wikipedia policies. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I do not think it is quite as simple as that. One reason for the protection afforded by English law is to encourage victims to come forward. If somebody has done so under a reasonable expectation of confidentiality, I do not think that Wikipedia can really respond simply with Yah, boo, sucks, can't touch me! --AJHingston (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- Same discussion we're having at Talk:Rape#Notable_examples.3F? I suggested unless they have publicly commented on their rape, then no living person should be outed like that. Dream Focus 18:45, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Um, excuse me, but why is this not only under a separate heading from the discussion right above it, but on this page, rather than on that other page that was linked above? There are now two ongoing discussion on this on two different talk pages. Why is this? Can we please consolidate this in one location? Nightscream (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Because they are different topics. One is about the compiling of a list of some notable victims, this is about the identifying of victims at all, particularly in BLP articles. --AJHingston (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
David Marchick
Hello, to whomever might be watching this page: I've recently been engaged by the current employer of David Marchick to address problems with the stub article about him; it currently includes unsourced information, some of it contentious, which is why I've brought the issue here. I have posted a more detailed explanation at Talk:David Marchick and, to help the process along, I've researched and written a new draft I'd like to see replace the current one. It's a bit longer, though not too much, and much better cited. I'd love to get some discussion on the article's Talk page, in hopes of seeing the new draft replace the old. Hope someone here can help. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)