UseTheCommandLine (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
:::::The recent disputes were aired on [[WP:RSN]] and they focused on information about persons confirmed dead - specifically Black Panther Huey Newton, dead for 24 years, and producer Bert Schneider, dead 1 year 4 months. Two editors referenced this specific paragraph, claiming that "recent" meant 115 years. The wanted [[WP:BLP]] to be applicable to anyone, even if confirmed dead, who had not been dead at least 115 years. I do believe some clarification of the paragraph is necessary. [[User:Apostle12|Apostle12]] ([[User talk:Apostle12|talk]]) 08:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC) |
:::::The recent disputes were aired on [[WP:RSN]] and they focused on information about persons confirmed dead - specifically Black Panther Huey Newton, dead for 24 years, and producer Bert Schneider, dead 1 year 4 months. Two editors referenced this specific paragraph, claiming that "recent" meant 115 years. The wanted [[WP:BLP]] to be applicable to anyone, even if confirmed dead, who had not been dead at least 115 years. I do believe some clarification of the paragraph is necessary. [[User:Apostle12|Apostle12]] ([[User talk:Apostle12|talk]]) 08:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::You are mischaracterising my position. Perhaps provide links to the (multiple, extensive) disputes, if anyone is actually interested in reading the backstory, which I tend to doubt. -- [[User:UseTheCommandLine|UseTheCommandLine]] ([[User talk:UseTheCommandLine|talk]]) 08:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:53, 15 February 2013
BLP issues summary
|
---|
|
WP:BLPPRIMARY needs help
Past discussion Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_32#Regulation too blunt in "Misuse of primary sources" section? resonates strongly with me, but what bothers me most is that WP:BLPPRIMARY gives no rationale for its dicates:
- Exercise caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. 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.
Why should one not use these sources? What is the reason? Rules without justification are not good rules, and they don't encourage others to follow them. (Full disclosure, I think WP:PRIMARY is extremely misguided and does far more harm than good. So I look at WP:BLPPRIMARY with deep deep skepticism). Can anyone justify? jhawkinson (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Proposed change to "Recently dead or probably dead" paragraph
Until yesterday, the Recently dead or probably dead section read as follows:
- Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning the dead. However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, or notable suicides, is covered by this policy. Contentious or questionable material that affects living people or about the recently dead should be treated in the same way as material about living people. Anyone born within the last 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. People born over 115 years ago are presumed dead unless listed at oldest people.
The way this section is written led to quite a bit of confusion, with at least one editor claiming that "recent" must apply to anyone born during the past 115 years. This prompted a discussion on the WP:BLPN under "Huey Newton article - definition of 'recently dead'."
Based on this discussion, I rewrote the paragraph so it would be more clear, with "recent" defined in keeping with yesterday's discussion. The new section read as follows:
- Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend one year beyond the date of death. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide. In the absence of confirmation of death, anyone born longer than 115 years ago is presumed dead unless listed at oldest people.
This edit was recognized as good faith, but reverted pending discussion here. I do think this paragraph needs a rewrite to prevent misunderstandings, so am inviting comment.
Thanks. Apostle12 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I reverted Apostle's edit because they defined recently dead as one year; before, recently dead was not defined (except the link to Recent deaths). Apostle's "definition" was apparently based on User:Yworo's comment at BLPN that it is one year, but I have no idea where that comes from. I don't necessarily object to defining recently dead, but I think that's a significant enough change from the previous/current policy to require discussion. At this point, I personally have no opinion on how long it should be or if it should even be defined at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I understand why you reverted; no problem. I chose "one year" mostly because it was in keeping with the comments made by various editors, including User:Yworo. It could just as easily be "six months" or "two years." If we want to avoid seeming dogmatic we could say "six months to two years, depending on circumstances." However, if we leave it as it is some editors are going to insist that "recent" means anything within the past 115 years, especially for contentious material.
- The sentence that is particularly confusing in the policy as written reads as follows: "However, material about dead people that has implications for their living relatives and friends, particularly in the case of recent deaths, or notable suicides, is covered by this policy." The problem is that "implications for their living relatives and friends" has no expiration date, so this would extend the policy to the end of even their lifetimes - perhaps even longer than 115 years. During our discussion yesterday the consensus was that six months, a year, even two years at the outside would demonstrate respect and consideration for surviving relatives and friends and give everyone time to grieve their losses. As I see it, this is the spirit of the "recent" exception to this policy. Apostle12 (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- While I'm mindful of the dangers of instruction creep, I think some guidance on "recent" would be helpful, I've seen proposed interpretations range from weeks to decades, and in my view, at least some narrowing of that might be valuable, whether by reference to a target figure ("a year"), a range ("a few months to a couple years"), or what have you. In general. I would also argue for some flexibility as well, some care in how we word things might be due less restraint than, say, a photograph of the subject's corpse (and yes, in fact, we've had discussions about someone, with still-living relatives, who is argued as notable for being a dead body in a particular location.) --j⚛e deckertalk 18:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- With Apostle's clarification, I think we have two issues. The first is how we define recently dead, and the other is even if a subject is not recently dead, what do we do with edits that affect "living relatives and friends", which, arguably, is unrelated to when the subject died. And, as long as I'm wikilawyering this, what counts as a "relative" and what counts as a "friend"?--Bbb23 (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- While I'm mindful of the dangers of instruction creep, I think some guidance on "recent" would be helpful, I've seen proposed interpretations range from weeks to decades, and in my view, at least some narrowing of that might be valuable, whether by reference to a target figure ("a year"), a range ("a few months to a couple years"), or what have you. In general. I would also argue for some flexibility as well, some care in how we word things might be due less restraint than, say, a photograph of the subject's corpse (and yes, in fact, we've had discussions about someone, with still-living relatives, who is argued as notable for being a dead body in a particular location.) --j⚛e deckertalk 18:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Some of the comments express reluctance to nail down a specific, arbitrary time period, while others have expressed the concern that the lack of a time period has caused some to claim the policy has wildly long time periods. Perhaps instead of nailing down a specific time period, just nail down a limit such that the policy may extend under reasonable circumstances for up to but no more than, say, a year. Gamaliel (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that there's value in nailing down a particular timeframe. For the vast majority of dead people, a week is probably plenty long enough. However, for certain kinds of topics (related to particularly horrifying matters), the need for sensitivity to living relatives might extend for decades. Common sense is needed -- not an arbitrary rule. --Orlady (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- So, there's the rub: Not defining the time period at all leads to vastly different interpretations--"a week" to "decades" depending on our knowledge of the sensitivity of living relatives and friends (Orlady,above).
- I kind of like what Gamaliel said: "Perhaps instead of nailing down a specific time period, just nail down a limit such that the policy may extend under reasonable circumstances for up to but no more than, say, a year." This would allow "common sense" to rule, while to some extent defining common sense (since sense isn't really that common). Apostle12 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The whole paragraph should be removed. We should not be concerned with how "recently" a person is deceased. We should solely be concerned with "implications for…living relatives and friends", if any. This is a determination that should rest in the hands of WP:Consensus, with recourse to our dispute resolution processes, if necessary. They would include WP:3O and WP:RFC. Key among the ingredients determining the outcome of such disputes should be the persuasiveness of the involved participants. The strongest argument should be the reliably sourced argument. It could be argued in such discussions that recentness of death is a significant factor. But our policies don't have to say that. I think doing so constitutes misplaced emphasis. Bus stop (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately trying to establish consensus in the manner suggested would lead to endless discussion. For example, could the Kennedy assassination be discussed at all under such broad outlines given the unending "implications for relatives and friends"? Apostle12 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- This shouldn't result in "endless discussion". The focus of discussion should be on the nature of the information, the quality of the sourcing, and the potential for implications to living persons. A key point should be whether the information is actually about dead persons, or whether it is about persons who are still alive. It appears to me that the recent disputes alluded to here have focused on information about living persons that is added to articles about people who are dead. In such instances, WP:BLP is clearly applicable, because it applies to information about living persons on any Wikipedia page.
- In many instances, like the example of the Kennedy assassination, if the information is well enough sourced for inclusion in Wikipedia, it will have been published widely enough that its inclusion in Wikipedia should not adversely affect the sensibilities of the survivors, although balance is still important. --Orlady (talk) 19:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately trying to establish consensus in the manner suggested would lead to endless discussion. For example, could the Kennedy assassination be discussed at all under such broad outlines given the unending "implications for relatives and friends"? Apostle12 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- The recent disputes were aired on WP:RSN and they focused on information about persons confirmed dead - specifically Black Panther Huey Newton, dead for 24 years, and producer Bert Schneider, dead 1 year 4 months. Two editors referenced this specific paragraph, claiming that "recent" meant 115 years. The wanted WP:BLP to be applicable to anyone, even if confirmed dead, who had not been dead at least 115 years. I do believe some clarification of the paragraph is necessary. Apostle12 (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- You are mischaracterising my position. Perhaps provide links to the (multiple, extensive) disputes, if anyone is actually interested in reading the backstory, which I tend to doubt. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)