Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55

Additional example

I recently added the following extra example to the public figures section, because in my opinion the section does not properly cover this particular edge case right now:

Example: A celebrity is charged with and convicted of a crime. If the incident is not well-documented in third-party reliable sources (i.e. not just court documents), leave it out. If it is well-documented in reliable sources, directly state that the celebrity committed the crime. Words that imply doubt like "alleged" and "accused of" should be used if and only if that doubt is also present in the post-conviction sourcing.

Masem immediately reverted it, with the edit summary Bad example; we must always stay on the side of presumed innocent until guilty. But I think this reversion makes no sense: the phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty", and "proven guilty" in this context literally refers to a criminal conviction. So if anything, this edit summary argues for my example rather than against it.

I don't want to edit war over this, however, so I'm coming to the talk page to hopefully demonstrate consensus is not behind this reversion. Loki (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If it's restored, leave out charged with, it's redundant. Schazjmd (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
The emphasis on how this is written makes the "innocent til guilty" aspect secondary to pushing news about a conviction. Also, not all convictions even if well reported are appropriate to include: for example, some people get into DUIs that popular media covers, and while this may force them to lose their license, typically do not impact their lives to an encyclopedic point. (Of course, there are repeat offends and those known to have gotten into a lot of DUI issues which would be appropriate to document this way). The idea is there, but I feel this needs rephrasing to make the reporting of conviction only appropriate if it has a series effect on the person's life or career. --Masem (t) 18:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
@Blueboar: Yes, "convicted" is the operative word here.
@Schazjmd: Yeah, that's fair. I think my phrasing flows better but yours is clearer and that's probably more important.
@Masem: So, it seems like you're trying to make editorial decisions here past the judgement of the sources. That's simply not how Wikipedia works. We follow the sources, and if reliable sources say Public Figure X's DUI was notable, then so do we. Loki (talk) 03:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
No, we are more selective, as per BLP's mantra of do no harm. There is zero need to say a celeb was convicted of a DUI once even if it was widely reported if that had zero impact on their long-term career. That's the point of why we need to think in more summary/10-year mode than being a news source.
As soon as a conviction - or even a widely reported allegation - has a significant impact on a person's career, that's a good reason to post. For example, nothing came of the allegations made towards Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but because a few of his shows were suspended until he was cleared, it's discussed briefly. Masem (t) 03:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I disagree that that is the standard: the standard with BLP is to follow the sources, just like anywhere else. But I'd rather not go into this tangent right now with you in particular, as I'm aware from other discussions that you have a consistent position against negative information in BLPs which I'm certainly not going to be able to talk you out of here. Loki (talk) 17:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I think that this is a debate over what qualifies as well-documented, which is not really relevant to this proposal. Arguing that something lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage, for instance (the policy / source-based way to make the argument you are making with regards to something lacking lasting impact), is an argument that it is insufficiently well-documented. But I would strenuously oppose any argument that we can exclude text without regard for whether it is well-documented or not - the arguments you are raising are just different thresholds and aspects of that. If you're worried this proposal would cause problems, it could say "well-documented and WP:DUE", which would implicitly incorporate every aspect of DUE - I think that it's unnecessary but I also definitely don't think it would hurt, and it never hurts to make "this does not override core content policy" unambiguous, since I feel we've had problems in that regard with overly strongly-worded policies and guidelines in the past. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    With as many entertainment-covering works out there, the lives of celebrities are put through a microscope, and what may be incidental as an event to most people can be put through the ringer for them - eg events like DUIs, public intoxication, etc. You could probably argue that if the event like this is "well documented" only by entertainment sources, which are known to gossip-monger, that really isn't well documented then. (This falling in line with WP:NOT#GOSSIP). It would be different if the same event was covered by the usual high quality sources like NYTimes, BBC, etc.
    I would tend agree that you could add WP:DUE, but right now, DUE is lacking awareness of the long-tail factor of events. That is, while something may appear DUE to be included due to immediate coverage after an event, in time that it may be more obvious it was UNDUE due to lack of any followup. DUE should be considering the weight of coverage of sources with the added dimension of time, to make sure that viewpoints/aspects with enduring coverage are the ones to be included. (And I have been meaning to make a proposal at DUE to discuss this but haven't had time to put the language together for that). In terms of this application for the BLP language, that would mean that events at the cusp of seeming important due to widespread immediate coverage should be held off until the enduring factor can be figured out. If its just that DUI that only gossip rags focused on and no one talked about it a week later, probably best to leave it out. Masem (t) 12:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • This proposal seems a tad simplistic. What if the crime was committed by a juvenile? What if the crime resulted in a conviction, but the conviction was later overturned on appeal or because of a pardon, or an exoneration years later? Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
    All the examples are simplistic. I don't think the juvenile case is really exceptional if covered significantly in reliable sources. In the case of a conviction overturned by appeal (or other sorts of exoneration), we should mention that, but that's covered by if and only if that doubt is also present in the post-conviction sourcing. Loki (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • In the case of crimes committed by juveniles, I would normally expect it to not be well-documented in third-party sourcing. If it is, then we would normally include it - second-guessing the sourcing on that would fall under WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The question of what qualifies as "well-documented" for BLP purposes (or any purposes) is another question, but completely excluding something that is well-documented in third-party sourcing from an article is an uphill climb, so arguments for exclusion always have to hinge at least partially on "it's not well-documented enough." That said, as I mentioned above, I would suggest that the proposed addition read well-documented and WP:DUE rather than just well-documented; I think they're equivalent (or implicit), but DUEness is much more well-defined and makes it clear what sort of arguments ought to be used for exclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 22:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Sometimes no examples are better than simplistic examples. I don’t think Wikipedia should have the same exact rules for juveniles as for adults, and we ought to limit this example to adults, or just say that juveniles should get at least this much deference. See Wikipedia:Minors and persons judged incompetent. This would be better: “An adult living person is charged with and convicted of a felony. If the incident is not documented in third-party reliable sources (i.e. not just court documents), leave it out. Otherwise, state that the person committed the crime, and also describe any pardon, ongoing appeal, or exoneration. Words that imply doubt like ‘alleged’ and ‘accused of’ should be used if and only if that doubt is also present in the post-conviction sourcing.” I’d be more inclined to put this in the section on people accused of crime, not the public figures section. Anyway, if an adult has clearly been convicted of murder per court records, for example, then I’m not sure I see why that should ever be omitted in a BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Direction on when to add "sir"

I'm sure this has been discussed and decided but I can't find it. Anyone know where a guideline/discussion exists around when to add the title "sir" in front of someone's name? Carl A. Anderson is an example where there's a "sir" that doesn't look right to me. Elton John is another example (that looks right). Novellasyes (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Novellasyes MOS:SIR should have something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Thank you! That's exactly what I needed. Novellasyes (talk) 17:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Crimes committed by low profile individuals

WP:BLPCRIME says that, for low profile individuals, we should not include material "that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." At Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual defines low profile individual as "someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event."

I'm confused, because in many (if not most) articles on recent crimes, we have a situation where police have accused a low-profile individual of committing the crime, and this accusation has been covered by multiple RS. Consider the 2021 London, Ontario truck attack: the alleged perpetrator (Nathaniel Veltman) has not been convicted and is not a public figure, but his arrest and trial are mentioned in the article. And this seems like relevant information. As long as we clearly attribute allegations, and cover them in a neutral way, why should articles - that are actually about a crime - not mention who the police have charged and arrested with committing that crime?VR talk 22:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:WIALPI was started in the wake of 2008 U.S. presidential political campaign focusing on a number of relatively unimportant people who just happened to be associated with a political figure in one way or another. Since that time, reporting has changed, and people accused of crimes are named more in RS'es than they were then. Our overall rules have been "do no harm" and "Follow what the RS'es say" typically erring on the side of the former. The Star Wars Kid fiasco was a seminal instance where Jimbo ruled by fiat in a specific case, and that started us down the road of "follow what RS'es say... unless someone might be hurt by that, and then don't." If you're perceiving this to be a ready opportunity for misunderstanding and differences of opinion... congratulations, and welcome to Wikipedia's BLP world. Jclemens (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
Common sense still should prevail. For example, in the 2020 Twitter account hijacking, some of the perps that the FBI were investigating and had taken to trial were minors, and while there's names out there, they are not routinely reported because of their minor status.
I would think that if in a serious crime (like said truck attack) where an individual has been determined to the suspect and charges have been placed, it would be reasonable to mention that name as long as RSes are routinely mentioning it, but not before the charges have been given. Our writing should still be clear that they haven't been proven guilty of it (including writing the event with that name as if they had done it). Masem (t) 00:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Jclemens and Masem for your input. Should we then modify the wording of the policy text to reflect that if charges have been placed, and this has been attested by multiple RS, then it can be mentioned in the article? BTW, the article I had in mind was 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault, where the victim has named an associate of hers as the masterminding the assault, and police have arrested and charged said individual (among several others) with assault, but users are still uncomfortable to mention him as he may not be a public figure. Yet, I feel that when the main topic of an article is a crime, then the police laying charges of that crime on an individual is a very critical detail that must be mentioned in the article.VR talk 01:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The wording is actually fine, as long as the text of the article is written appropriately as to not suggest the person committed said crime. Masem (t) 02:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm a bit late here, but I want to clarify something stated above and often causing confusion. The policy does not only talk about guilt ("committed said crime"). It also includes those "accused of having committed". What I would point out is that the policy does not say "we should not include". It actually says "editors must seriously consider not including". This places the burden where it should be, which is on those wanting to include the name to demonstrate it's relevant, proportionate, reliable and reliably sourced, worded appropriately, etc. -- zzuuzz (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:DENIALS" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:DENIALS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#Wikipedia:DENIALS until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The redirect discussion has been closed as “keep”. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

History of the denial part of this policy

FWIW, I did some research regarding the "denial sentence". Here's what I found.... but I'll say up front this strikes me as FYI/background info. Bottom line? We have never had a discussion about how we should deal with denials.

The "denial sentence" first appeared in June 2013. Before that, the Public Figures subsection was not substatively changed for at least six months. [1]
On June 27 2013, user:JackofOz added the first version of the "denials" sentence. [2] with an edit summary giving no indication of any discussion. (As a side note, I looked at Jack's contribs from the time and could not tell what prompted this tweak. It's not in the talk pages.... there was no discussion about anything from March 2013 to Dec 2014.[3])
The Public Figures subsection remained essentially stable through Sept 17 2020 [4].
In Oct 2020 user:Valjean attempted to expand on the "denial sentence" (including a link to WP:MANDY) but was repeatedly reverted. [5]
On Feb 11, 2021 user:Ritchie333 changed the "denial sentence" to what it says today. [6] Ritchie also linked to WP:MANDY but the link to the MANDY essay was reverted. [7]. Again there was no talk page discussion, the edit summary sheds no light, and I can't tell from Ritchie's contribs what inspired this tweak.
I don't have a strong feeling about the redirect being debated, but since I did this research I figured I might as well document it. There you go.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your research. You missed at least one edit by Valjean (formerly known as BullRangifer) on 15 November 2019, which was immediately reverted by Ryk72. I don't think edits before 2019 have much relevance. Politrukki (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding to the sentence history: one "Oct 2020" revert was by PackMecEng, Politrukki on 5 October 2022 reverted more but Newimpartial on 6 October 2022 re-inserted. I do not see that there was consensus for the added clause. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The version in place from February, 2021 to October, 2022 is clearly the stable version and deemed to have WP:SILENTCONSENSUS. The new version, as amended October 5, clearly does not have consensus, silent or otherwise. Newimpartial (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
It's absurd to claim that content that has repeatedly been reverted is "stable". Moreover, you're misreading the essay; silent consensus means that consensus is assumed until a disagreement rises. Per WP:EDITCONSENSUS policy, "An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." If silent consensus is your only argument, I'm afraid it's not enough. Core policies should never be substantially changed without clear and unambiguous consensus. What kind of problem are you trying to resolve here?
I oppose the proposed addition per WP:CREEP. It's already established in the lead that BLP material must strictly adhere to NPOV. Any reasonable person understands that, for example, if we use 100 words to describe an allegation, a denial shouldn't take 500 words. So I don't understand what's the purpose of the proposal. Politrukki (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Text that has been stable for a prolonged period is deemed to have consensus. I recognize that you (and Masem) dispute this text, but that doesn't change the fact that it was stable and uncontested for more than 18 months. If you feel that this passage is now disputed and should be removed pending discussion, then that dispute includes the sentence that you left in place as well as that which you removed, since the text you prefer takes on an entirely different signification without the text you removed. Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree. If we want to remedy the fact that much of the content of this guideline section was added without prior discussion and survives only on implicit consensus, we should either leave the stable content in during discussion or remove everything that doesn't have prior discussion-based consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I was just going to start a new discussion, when I noticed this discussion (I have disabled user name mention notifications, but don't mind occasional user talk page messages). Thanks anyway. I concur there's no consensus for expansion. Quick recap: I first identified the problem in June when I noticed some weird text in the policy. I didn't edit Wikipedia after June, but when I returned, I consulted archives and found no justification for the text. Politrukki (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the added text needs more discussion before it can be added. It is too far inline with the highly contentious essay MANDY. There are points to it that are fair (like UNDUE), but it should not be worded as to effectively make MANDY policy. --Masem (t) 15:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Masem, this content was added in 2020; it has been stable since February 2021. By all means it can be discussed, but it is the stable version and should remain in place while this is discussed. The removal of this passage changes the meaning of the rest of the paragraph, which is no longer the STATUSQUO without this addition. Newimpartial (talk) 17:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
It’s useful to keep in mind that “If one fails to deny an accusation, a denial is noticeably absent and is a cause for inference, the most common inference being that the accusation is true.” See Bilmes, Jack (1988). "The concept of preference in conversation analysis". Language in Society. 17 (2). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 167. doi:10.1017/s0047404500012744. ISSN 0047-4045.. Also, there is a journalistic standard of including denials. See "SPJ Code of Ethics", Society of Professional Journalists: "Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations of wrongdoing." Retrieved 25 Sep 2022. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Journalistic standards requiring a WP:FALSEBALANCE are a significant problem with modern journalism, not something to be emulated. They differ from encyclopedic standards of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. It is worth reminding editors of this point. I agree with the inclusion of the extra material. It does not say to omit the denials; it merely reminds editors that we have other requirements that are relevant to the prominence and detail that we give to these denials that should also be followed. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree it does not say to omit the denials. But I’m not sure everyone else agrees with you and me. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Including a sentence or even part of a sentence to state someone denied an allegation levied at them is no was a FALSEBALANCE, that's staying neutral per this policy and NPOV. What we don't want to do is to go so far into why they denied the allegation in a manner not covered by RSes, eg we don't want to use SPS to give that denial coverage that is unduly self-serving, for example.
And also, this points that being an encyclopedia, we should be careful about including allegations or such claims that do not have both wide coverage and a significant impact on the person they are directed at, or wait for the long-term view of the topic to resolve itself. Some allegations merit diddly-squat at the end of the day, and thus we should not include those even if they had wide coverage to start. But if we're going to be so reactive to include such allegations, we have every responsibility like journalism to simply express briefly any denials. Masem (t) 21:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I understand that this is your view, but I have not seen any evidence to date that the engwiki community broadly accepts this view. Newimpartial (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I also agree the MANDY sentence fragment should be removed immediately. Per NewsAndEventsGuy's excellent analysis above, there was no consensus to move any content from that essay to this policy in the first place. Per WP:TALKFIRST, all substantive changes to policy should achieve consensus before implementation. Even in cases of a user being BOLD at a Policy or Guideline page, the editor who adds disputed content is "strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards" once other editors "give a substantive reason for challenging [the addition]". Either way, the onus is clearly on the editor seeking to alter a policy to achieve consensus before addition, so it needs to go until such consensus is achieved. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no MANDY sentence fragment. MANDY would suggest adding "of course they would say that" to denials. The added text does no such thing. It merely reminds editors not to violate WP:NPOV, a core policy, in striking a false balance of prominence in coverage of denials. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that there are some who take the concept of “false balance” too far… who will argue a that including even a single sentence saying “X has denied these allegations” is “false balance”. We need to make it clear that this is not the case. If someone has publicly denied an accusation, we should report that denial - even in cases where “that is what they would say”. Blueboar (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
That's one problem. The other problem is the editors on the opposite side of the coin, who will take a case of a person tried and convicted of a crime and spend twice as many sentences detailing the subject's excuses and denials as on the actual crime and its conviction, and then when pressed on the issue point to this text as overruling NPOV. That's why the text in question says to include the denial (in both versions under discussion) but to maintain a balance in its coverage. If you think we should have text that even the most tendentious and pov-pushing editor cannot possibly misconstrue, then that's just not a realistic hope. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
That any overt reference to MANDY was removed by other editors is neither here nor there. The sentence fragment "while also adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance." still contains the inherent misrepresentation of WP:FALSEBALANCE given in the MANDY essay—the only bonafide policy the essay cites. The FALSEBALANCE subsection of NPOV relates solely to "Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories" such as "the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones", and how these "should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." None of this in any way correlates to the BLP policy. This interpretation of FALSEBALANCE should never have been added to this policy at all, much less without prior consensus. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely we have to have something in policy be able to point to those that want to give unduly self-serving coverage to the denials of those accused, particularly, when that coverage is only from non-RS (like SPS). But we have a contingent for experienced editors that champion the essay MANDY that as Blueboar points tend to want to wipe even a single sentence or phrase of denial from articles because "it's obvious they would say that". Starting with false balance is a problem here because it is not a false balance to include a brief rebuttal.
I still stand that there's a much larger issue around the broader trend of editors treating controversial BLPs and groups as a laundry list of every negative thing they can link to an RS without actual consideration of writing an article that will make sense in the 10+ year period. If we were not so much focused on every short term accusation or negative facet, we wouldn't have to be so worried as to writing the denials to those. But that's a question beyond this scope. Masem (t) 00:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Your obsession with wiping out all traces of MANDY is noted, but irrelevant. This clause is not about MANDY. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
If someone has publicly denied an accusation, we should report that denial - if it is WP:DUE based on coverage in WP:RSes. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV are more central policies than BLP, so even BLP cannot override them - we can strongly encourage the inclusion of denials, but we cannot mandate them in situations where their inclusion would violate WP:V, WP:RS or WP:DUE, which is how some people have (incorrectly) interpreted the relevant text. It's important to update them to make that clear - ultimately, inclusion is based on the sourcing and due weight; there is no policy of "it is a denial, so we must include it no matter what WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:DUE say." --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Who besides Newimpartial now thinks there is consensus for the addition? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I think there's implicit + some affirmed support for the "while also" clause. Unless we naturally attract new voices, I don't think a change is warranted without an RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. I haven't state it here yet, but I support continued inclusion of the clause. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • At the very least, it is important to make it clear that the inclusion of a denial is still subject to WP:RS and WP:DUE; inclusion is ultimately decided based on coverage in sources, not based on "it is a denial, therefore it is included no matter what." It is flatly impossible for us to mandate the inclusions of denials when doing so goes against WP:DUE, and it is important that this page be worded in a way that makes it clear that no mandate exists (and, by extension, that you must do at least some work to establish that a denial is sourced to a WP:RS and is WP:DUE before including it - as policy non-negotiably requires for all inclusions that are challenged or likely to be challenged.) I feel that the stable version is better at it than the one with your proposed removal, but I don't think it goes far enough - I would replace while also with provided this can be done while, since ultimately WP:DUE is central and is a hard prerequisite for including anything. --Aquillion (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    If we are going to require that denials require adherence to RS and DUE (NPOV in general), then we need to make sure that the inclusions of accusations also adhere to the same principles of RS and DUE. We are far too eager as an editing community to find one or two sources that make an accusation shortly after an event, and rush to include it on WP on the basis it meets RS and DUE. But that's what NPOV overall says to approach this as. We should have far better weight of sources, as well as enough time from an event, before such inclusions should be made, to make sure the accusation has merit and likely impact. At that point it is far more likely to be able to find the denial in RSes as well once it has reached that scale. But presently we have editors looking to find any fault reported in an RS to include in BLP, without waiting for a big picture to develop. And on those accusations that go nowhere, I would not expect to find RSes covering the denial.
    We need a far better balance on both the type of accusations we cover and when denials of those are to included. We are presently only focusing on the back end when the front end so needs remedy. Masem (t) 19:09, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    Just to be clear, denials are subject to WP:RS and WP:DUE / WP:NPOV. They always have been and always will be; those are core policies that apply to all content, non-negotiably. If you've been restoring denials without a WP:RS or with the full belief that they are WP:UNDUE then you've been violating core policy and need to stop immediately. Obviously this also applies to accusations (especially when it comes to accusations, where the requirements are even more strict since they are BLP-sensitive). No article content is exempt from WP:V or WP:NPOV; nor is any consensus or policy permitted to create such exemptions, including on this page. If the current wording of this page has misled you into believing that a denial can be restored after being challenged without a WP:RS, or that it can be included completely without regard for WP:DUE weight, then that's a sign that we need to make the language more precise to avoid that sort of confusion. But regardless of the wording on this page, WP:RS and WP:DUE will always take priority; denials, like any other content, can only be included when compliant with WP:V and WP:NPOV. That is, has always been, and will always be the case; it is not something that discussions here can change. WP:V and WP:NPOV are Wikipedia:Core content policies and strictly supersede BLP in any cases where they contradict. --Aquillion (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
    Never said anything about adding denials, but instead tempering how quickly accusations against BLP get loaded onto pages just because one or two RS make such a claim. The solution to this aggression addition of accusations is not allowing equal inclusion of denials, but to slow down the additions of accusations. Masem (t) 19:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:PUBLICFIGURE already requires multiple third-party WP:RSes documenting a BLP-sensitive allegation or incident, and WP:BLPRS sets pretty strict sourcing standards, so if people are doing it with just one RS or with low-quality RSes then you already know what policies to point to and what noticeboards to go to if there's a continued dispute. But once it's past that point (ie. we have multiple high-quality RSes that pass BLP) it comes down to editorial judgment, which has to be made on a case-by-case basis - there are too many context-specific aspects to judging if and when something is WP:DUE. At that point, though, it's not generally an RS issue anymore; the requirements of RS have been satisfied. As PUBLICFIGURE says, If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. BLP is strict, but it is also deliberately constrained to well-defined rules, especially when covering public figures (who we often do have to cover extensive negative material about.) --Aquillion (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
DUE is also extremely subjective and in practice in such situations will be a popularity contest among editors, while the BLP policy is based in part on legal concerns; therefore I strenuously oppose any watering down of the text. Crossroads -talk- 06:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC) clarified Crossroads -talk- 15:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
It is my view that the whole passage should go to RfC. The options could be the version without the bit certain editors are contesting, the version with that bit, and no text at all on denials. Newimpartial (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The key points to me are that it needs to reference WP:RS, needs to reference WP:DUE, and needs to make it unambiguous that inclusion still depends on passing the requirements of those policies; people are interpreting it as allowing challenged material to remain without an WP:RS or without further regard to WP:NPOV, which is unacceptable. Something like If reliable sources report that the subject has denied such allegations, that should be reported too, provided this can be done while adhering to appropriate due weight and without giving them false balance. This makes it clear that WP:BLP is still subordinate to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
BLP is purposely stronger than those core content policies since it has potential legal ramifications. Parts of it still are bounded by those policies, but this is purposely stricter to make sure BLP articles are appropriately written. Masem (t) 19:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
No, that is entirely incorrect. BLP is an elaboration on those policies and is strictly subordinate to them; when they directly contradict, BLP has no force, and WP:V / WP:NPOV override it utterly, without exception. Nothing can override the core principles of WP:V or WP:NPOV, fullstop. They are non-negotiable, since they are foundational to our mission; WP:BLP, while very important, is not. This is laid out unambiguously in Wikipedia:Core content policies, with a clarity that leaves no room whatsoever for any good-faith disagreement - it states that The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. @Masem: - this is extremely important, so please acknowledge that you understand, and accept, that core content policy supercedes WP:BLP (though in an ideal world they shouldn't contradict, of course.) The core content policies are non-negotiable, fullstop, since they define our fundamental mission as an encyclopedia; while BLP is important (and serves to underline several of them), it is not one of them. It is listed on that page merely as one of the "other" content policies, not one of the central, core ones. It is clearly established on that page that other policies, like BLP, it cannot override core content policy; and this has been policy and practice on Wikipedia almost since its inception. --Aquillion (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Core content policies is an essay that is not backed by any consensus. You present not superseded as if it were a bedrock of Wikipedia; this lacks a policy basis. Wikipedia's actual treatment of policies is shown in WP:PG (policy, not essay). The lead is far less strident than you imply, and says Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense. Your argument seems to be the main argument against inclusionism of denials, but lacks solid policy grounding. The inclusionist argument can rely on the WMF's dignity resolution, and IMO more. DFlhb (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This is backwards. The BLP policy is the special case scenario. The core content policies are the general case scenario. The BLP policy is how we apply the core content policies to BLP content. General rules never override special rules where special rules are applicable. That's why they are special rules. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia:Core content policies specifically say otherwise. This was established a long, long time ago and has always been the case - we cannot override core content policies. Special-case rules can help us navigate within them but cannot directly contradict them. We can say, for instance, "all denials are inherently WP:DUE", and that would be valid (although we might argue over that point), since saying that is at least notionally compatible with WP:DUE and, through that, WP:NPOV. But you can't say "you can include a denial, after it's been contested, without citing a source that meets WP:V", because straying from the need for such sources goes against our core mission. The core content policy page is completely unambiguous about that - there is no room to misread it. --Aquillion (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
If it is UNDUE to mention that a person denies an allegation, then it should be UNDUE to mention the allegation in the first place. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Why are you yoking the sources of the one to the sources of the other (since the sources are the basis of WP:DUE? What you just wrote would require that BLP content include unreliable sourced denials or exclude massively sourced "accusations" unless a denial can be found - is that really what you meant? Newimpartial (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Ultimately, what determines WP:DUE weight and WP:NPOV as a whole is sourcing. Only sources can make something due or undue; you cannot declare something axiomatically due without regard for the sources. That's non-negotiable, since it's fundamental to how Wikipedia works and is established by core content policy - we reflect the sources, we don't dig through WP:OR or the like to find things the sources don't cover. And the sourcing has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If (for example) an allegation about someone has massive sustained coverage across the entire spectrum of reliable sources and is central to the subject's notability, and the only source for a denial is a post on Reddit, then we are required to include the allegation and it would be utterly inappropriate to include the denial. An important caveat is that most things are somewhere between those extremes - we have a lot of leeway about what to include or exclude, most of the time; few things are so overwhelmingly central to a topic as to be absolutely required for inclusion, and few denials are so utterly poorly sourced that they unequivocally fail WP:DUE or WP:RS. If you are confident that any accusation with sufficient sourcing to establish that it is WP:DUE will also have the sourcing to establish that any denials are DUE, then you should be fine just relying on our existing core content policies; whenever you want to include a denial, just present the relevant sources and you're good. But you cannot make it a hard requirement to include something with total disregard for WP:V or WP:DUE; that contravenes core policy, which cannot be done even by consensus. If your desire is to make it so what we must always include denials, without exception and without any regard for the sources, then your only option is to start another website, because that is not and will never be compatible with Wikipedia's core content policies. --Aquillion (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I think you are incorrectly thinking there is a conflict. Wp:V isn't an issue so long as we can cite a source that is reliable for the claim. If the person denies it on their personal blog that is likely a sufficient source for that claim. Including three denial isn't a violation of NPOV since even a SPS can be a RS in this context. Thus the only issue is neutrality. If the accusation is due then the fact that they denied it is also due. It wouldn't be given equal weight nor should it be treated as truth, only that the denial had been made. So no conflict with V or NPOV. Springee (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Springee, no matter how badly you or other editors may want it to be the case, there simply is no consensus that the inclusion of denials that are never documented in independent sources is ever WP:DUE. However, I would thank you for articulating your minority position (If the accusation is due then the fact that they denied it is also due even if it can only be sourced to a personal blog) with such transparency and candor. Newimpartial (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Please don't confuse what you want to be true with what is supported by policy. Springee (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. Please don't.
I'll also add that the desire to turn well-sourced descriptive adjectives into "accusations" in an attempt to mandate the assertion of self-published denials is also not supported by policy, no matter how much certain editors wish it were so. Newimpartial (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
You not liking it is not the same as policy not supporting it. Springee (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
If there is a basis in WP policy for treating well-sourced descriptive adjectives as "accusations", that basis has never been shared with me on any Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
You seem to be conflating issues here. This is a discussion about accusations made against a person. "Senator X is accused of hitting his wife" cited to a number of reliable sources. We certainly can and should include that the Senator denied the accusation even if it only comes from his own press release. That the senator is accused isn't a "descriptive adjective", it's a statement that he is accused of. No one is denying the accusation exists, but the senator is denying the facts made in the accusation. You seem to be thinking of labels such as "X is a violent activist". Where violent is a contentious label. Even in that case it may be important to include a denial but that might be harder to find a specific 1:1 denial of such a label. Springee (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
You keep making stetemtents that you happen to believe, but which have no basis in WP policy. Newimpartial (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I've shown they are policy compliant. You are deciding they aren't because you don't like it. Sorry, that isn't how policy works. Please stick with policy based arguments. Springee (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

What is your basis in policy for We certainly can and should include that the Senator denied the accusation even if it only comes from his own press release? For You seem to be thinking of labels such as "X is a violent activist". Where violent is a contentious label. Even in that case it may be important to include a denial? Or for If the person denies it on their personal blog that is likely a sufficient source for that claim? You haven't shown any basis in WP policy for these claims - they appear to represent only your personal beliefs on these matters. Sorry, that isn't how policy works. Newimpartial (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

"Our fundamental mission" is itself subject to the relevant actual real-world laws, so no, I do not support the contention that BLP is utterly subject to other content policies. In theory, a group of Wikipedia editors could decide that a crappy source is good enough for a highly derogatory claim about someone they personally dislike, and that the denial is UNDUE; there is no way to objectively prove them wrong as if a critical mass of editors agree, the pixels on a screen in content policies can't do a thing about it. For legal reasons, however, such carte blanche cannot be permitted, and if the problem was bad enough, it is very likely the WMF would get involved with an office action. Crossroads -talk- 06:09, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We already accept self-published sources by a subject of an article, so the argument that a denial needs to have secondary coverage seems based on nothing. Beyond that, Im a little concerned that people are opposed to including a denial of wrongdoing by a subject of one of our articles. If the sources are emphatic about the guilt notwithstanding the denial then that will be reflected, along with the denial. Also, these bit about implicit consensus is missing the important part. Once challenged, that implicit consensus vanishes, and unless it was ever an explicit consensus you cant just maintain the status quo as the standard from which a new explicit consensus must be formed to change. nableezy - 03:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

As I have said previously, there is simply no basis in policy for including denials without independent sourcing, much less a requirement to do so. Denials should certainly be included when it is WP:DUE to do so based on the available, quality sources.
I recognize the point about IMPLICITCONSENSUS and have acknowledged it above. However, it is the whole sentence that would have to be removed pending a new consensus emerging (If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too, while also adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance) since there is clearly at present no consensus for If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too without the rest of the sentence. Newimpartial (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
All too often in these matters, DUE amounts to 'when Wikipedia editors like the source or the person' and UNDUE is the opposite. UNDUE is far, far too subjective to base a policy with legal ramifications on. Crossroads -talk- 06:13, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that legal ramifications couid result from excluding poorly-sourced denials from WP articles? If so, that's a bold move. Newimpartial (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
We already call self-published sources by the subject of an article reliable for information about themselves. This argument that it then is not reliable for a denial they make about themselves makes no sense to me. Why is anybody even against this? I dont get it, why are you against including that somebody has denied a serious claim of wrongdoing against them? nableezy - 14:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has disagreed with you on self-sourced denials being reliably sourced. Most of this conversation has been about whether or not they're due. It's not even particularly about inclusion vs. exclusion. I've seen people make false-balance-style arguments that article coverage of denials should be equal in length to coverage of allegations. I can't think of many other parts of policy that say a specific kind of content needs to be included, and if we're going to keep such a statement, I think it's a good place for an NPOV reminder. I can conceive of cases where I'd think the appropriate weight given to a denial is zero, but I can't remember encountering any in the wild. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Yeah: it isn't a question whether a self-sourced denial is ABOUTSELF reliable; the question is whether these are always WP:DUE to include. The stable text of this policy for over 18 months stated that they weren't automatically DUE but rather that they are subject to WP:NPOV and specifically WP:FALSEBALANCE considerations. Clearly several editors want to litigate this in a direction that would endorse the blanket inclusion of denials.
I will point out, although it hasn't been part of the "speaking out loud" in this discussion, that some editors have tried to use this section as grounds to include BLP disavowals of labels they don't like, no matter how widespread the use of the term is and no matter how weak the sourcing for the disavowal. Now my own view is that a BLP subject (or their publicist) can't turn just any statment made about them into an "accusation" - and provide a pretext for this passage to be invoked - just by issuing a denial. However, any reshaping of this policy so that it can be used to support something like a journalistic "right to response" is likely to be weaponized by editors who want to rewrite FRINGE BLPs so that they reflect the BLP subject's perspective more than those of the reliable sources - a phenomenon we already see again and again and again (witness the edit history of Graham Linehan for a case in point). Newimpartial (talk) 15:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Re my question Who besides Newimpartial now thinks there is consensus for the addition? I've seen none so far. Re Aquillion's claim WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV are more central policies than BLP, so even BLP cannot override them er, Aquillion's false belief that WP:RS is a policy convinces me that Aquillion's claims shouldn't be believed without checking. Re Aquillion's claim WP:V and WP:NPOV are Wikipedia:Core content policies and strictly supersede BLP in any cases where they contradict. -- although this is irrelevant since there's no contradiction, I did check. WP:NPOV says "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." i.e. it's the principles that can't be superseded not the policy -- and if it was interpreted as "the policy cannot be superseded" then that would mean it can't be superseded by WP:NOR or WP:V which doesn't appear to be what's claimed. Re Springee's refutation of Aquillion: I agree with the example that a denial on a personal blog might be acceptable on the subject's BLP, and if that's a minority view then WP:BLP is a minority view. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
So given that there is no consensus to be seen, what do you think about the three-option RfC I suggested above? Newimpartial (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Your proposal includes an option for no text at all on denials which is a complete non-starter. Now that would be sneaking the MANDY essay back in; the whole point of that essay is claiming that including denials is optional even when well-sourced. Crossroads -talk- 15:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Then all the more reason to have an RfC to produce a consensus text on denials. At the moment, there appears to be NOCON. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
In a three-option RfC: If the option to accept the sentence fails, does that mean the WP:DENIAL shortcut will be removed despite the "keep"? For the option to accept the added phrase, is there objection to reverting your re-insertion before starting the RfC? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
We are essentially workshopping at this point, but I was envisaging three options: the stable February 2021-October 2022 version (with the phrase you don't like), the pre-2020 version (without the phrase you don't like), and no paragraph at all.
And just so that we're clear, the reason for including the third option is so that it can be considered explicitly; otherwise that could result - even if nobody intended that - in the event of a non-consensus close if the RfC were only to consider the first two options.
I have no opinion at this point on the DENIALS redirect; I'd rather consider that issue after this proposed RfC. Newimpartial (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
My mention of a "WP:DENIAL shortcut" was incorrect and irrelevant, I apologize for it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
This is exposing the biggest problem around UNDUE in that there are editors out there that take it mean that we must wear blinders to any information that doesn't exist in RSes, and only thnk about how to summarize situations from the majority viewpoints that RS publish. While we should absolutely be striving to use mostly RSes in articles, and should not be looking at fringe viewpoints only covered by sources that will never be reliable, UNDUE should not make us blind and deaf to what exists beyond RSes, even if those sources aren't RSes. For example should I look at an issue like abortion in the US after Roe was overturned, and focus only on the RSes discussing it, I would ear find that the anti-abortion stance appears as a minority viewpoint given how harsh the media and commentators support pro abortion rights and criticize those on the other side. But we know that within the US the issue is really closer to 50-50 simply based on a political makeup, and it would be wrong to overweigh pro abortion or underweigh anti abortion.
Now when it comes to accusations and their denials, it is absolutely wrong to take the stance that the viewpoint if the person accused is trivial or fringe - they have a clear vested interest in the matter, even if it is a many-vs-one aspect. Just because their denial is not reported in RSes doesn't mean we should ignore it. When we are documenting any controversy, we should aim to include statements of position from both or all sides irrespective of the weight of sources. And then if further commentary is DUE then we can apply RS and weight of sources to add more. Eg if X accuses Y of domestic abuse, with myrtle sources covering X's stance but no one covering Y even though Y denied it on Twitter, am we should write something like "X has accused Y of abuse, which Y has denied. X has stated that (list if what Y did)".
and of course, this all still comes around to the need to think about ling term pictures of articles before we start adding content related to accusations. Just because an accusation has been reported in multiple sources does not require us to report it... DUE is not mandatory (as that would be incompatible with many parts if NOT), as well as against BLP. (PUBLICFIGURE is also not mandatory) Unfortunately we have too many editors that rush to include any breaking news as soon as it comes out, and thus makes it hard to temper DUE inclusion of accusations. Masem (t) 15:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Denials would be less of an issue if we used more discretionary judgement on when to report on accusations. Sources reporting accusations really need to be at the highest level of reliability, avoiding gossip rags and “gotcha” journalism. Always ask whether the accusation itself is DUE. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    There I agree. Newimpartial (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
    In the general sense I agree too, but I think we could benefit from the addition of something in the current DUE language that rather recent coverage as well as a burst of coverage without a long tail should be diminished in value when considering whether to include by DUE or not particularly with BLP involved, along with source quality. This would create a better buffer on inclusion of accusations that should diminish the implied need to include denials. Masem (t) 21:14, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Newimpartial You still intend an RfC, eh? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, if anyone wants to amend the status quo, yes. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The amendment to the status quo was done on 11 February 2021 as explained earlier, with edit summary = "Public figures: Mandy". Newimpartial re-inserted after it was removed and later expressed a view that the whole passage should go to RfC, but now isn't proposing one. Even Newimpartial admits there is no consensus for it, and nobody has claimed one, in this thread. So I expect that eventually WP:ONUS will prevail and the tolerance for this addition's existence will end, but acknowledge discussion about alternatives may not be over yet. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
PG, if you want to change the policy, hold an RfC. If your issue is that prior changes didn't have enough consensus behind them, let's not exacerbate that problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Peter, you have offered no evidence that there is now any more consensus supporting the status quo of 2020 than there is suporting the 2021-22 status quo. If your intention is to claim NOCON, that status applies to the whole paragraph, not only to the portion of it that you don't like. Many editors, including myself, have explicitly objected to the paragraph version without the phrase to which you take umbrance. Newimpartial (talk) 16:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I’d like to see accusations in passive voice strongly discouraged. I encountered this, for example, at the Giorgia Meloni BLP (“she has been accused….”). No matter who the BLP subject is, passive voice for accusations is lousy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Discussion has died down, nobody has claimed there is consensus, and among the flaws is the fact that people could be encouraged to suppress denials which are in fact legitimate. I reverted the bold edits here and here and here so that the sentence is the status quo ante: "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported." Alas, Firefangledfeathers four minutes later re-inserted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
A bold edit that aside from this discussion, seems to have been stable since March 2021 (over a year and a half) kinda stops being a bold edit. I agree with what Firefangledfeathers and Newimpartial have said above today, as well as what other editors have said previously about denials always having been subject to RS, and NPOV. If you wish to remove that sentence, make an RfC about it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
That would require that I accept that it was stable, that I accept it was no longer a bold edit, that I accept that WP:ONUS doesn't say "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.", that I accept that my objection has something to do with denying that denials are subject to RS. I can do none of those things. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure that WP:V, and by extension ONUS applies to the project space, when discussing content that is original to Wikipedia. If you're citing a real world example within the project space, yeah that would be subject to V, but the sentence on due weight and false balance isn't really citable to anywhere else.
As for accepting that it was stable, between 13 March 2021 when the link to MANDY was removed, and the removal of the remainder of the paragraph on 5 October 2022 (a period of 1 year and 7 months), there was a grand total of 6 edits to the public figures section:
None of these 6 edits touched the paragraph that you seek to remove. Content that isn't edited for 19 months is pretty much within the definition of stable. If you wish to dispute this, fine. But I think you'll need a time machine if you want to prove that this content was not stable for that period. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Peter, regardless of the things that you refuse to accept (the last of which I find completely impenetrable), you do have to accept that there is no consensus to restore the 2020 status quo version of the passage. WP:ONUS is not a license to pick a multi-year-old version of a policy page, boldly claim that no subsequent changes to a certain paragraph have consensus, and insist that said version of said paragraph be restored. If you want your version back, you need an RfC: otherwise the only options are the 2021-22 status quo or no paragraph at all, because your version of the text does not now have consensus as many editors have pointed out. Newimpartial (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Saying it was my version could make someone think I was responsible for the 2021 version, I wasn't. The statement about what I'd be unable to accept was in response to "make an RfC", I won't. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Whatever, Peter. WP policy doesn't really care what you will or won't accept. Newimpartial (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Which policy do you mean? Politrukki (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there is any policy saying, pay attention to what one editor will or won't accept in determining consensus (or in establishing what is or isn't stable content, for that matter). Newimpartial (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
The above is a good case study of why one should watch policy pages like a hawk; once something gets entrenched in there, it's much more difficult to remove. If it had been reverted in early 2021 none of this would have been an issue. Crossroads -talk- 21:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, if you don't like it, instead of pining for a TARDIS or DeLorean to go and change history, why don't you launch an RfC and seek to change the policy? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

History of WP:DENIALS part deux

There are a lot of missing facts here. The addition of the "while also adhering" phrase is clearly disputed, and there was never any consensus for it. Per WP:ONUS (policy), The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The previous version was clearly the status quo:

  • The denials sentence was added in 2013. There was literally an RfC here in February 2014 about the inclusion of denials, and though it was never properly closed, there was almost unanimous consensus for it: [8]. Therefore, there was affirmative consensus for its inclusion, not WP:SILENTCONSENSUS (which is essay, not policy).
  • The section in its entirety was upheld by some in related discussions over the following few years [9], [10] ("The wording in WP:PUBLICFIGURE is longstanding and has served us reasonably well thus far"), and was repeatedly scrutinized [11], with the denials sentence kept perfectly intact. It was also plainly treated as consensus (see WhatamIdoing's Jan 15th reply and Nomoskedasticity's June 8th reply for example).
  • Over the years, attempted changes to that phrase have been consistently reverted [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. It was explicitly treated as the "status quo" [18].

Some argue that the only status quo versions are the disputed 2021-2022 addition, and the pre-2013 version. That's absurd, and is clear Wikilawyering. The base sentence fragment has been undisputed since 2013, for almost 10 years. The idea that the whole paragraph would need to be removed, since the disputed addition changes its meaning, is also bogus; changes in meaning are precisely why the addition requires consensus.

Some editors act as if WP:STATUSQUO WP:SILENTCONSENSUS, and WP:STABLE are binding policies; wrong, they are essays, and cannot be used to resolve disputes without consensus. WP:SILENT is also clear that silent consensus is nullified if the addition is ever disputed.

Arguing that the addition cannot be removed without an RfC is also nonsense, and clearly contradicts WP:ONUS (policy). WP:POLICY (itself a policy) states that the purpose of policies and guidelines is to state what most Wikipedians agree upon. WP:CONSENSUS (also a policy) states that Bold changes are rarely welcome on policy pages. Improvements to policy are best made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others. That was not followed here. To support a clearly-disputed statement in a policy (not an article), which was added with zero consensus, against previous affirmative consensus, and to place the onus for seeking consensus on those who dispute it, contradicts multiple policies and is not acceptable. I'll note that an RFC to reinstate the disputed passage is not currently called for. DFlhb (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Please stop WIKILAWYERING. Almost two years of a stable version with implicit consensus don't go up in smoke just because YOUDONTLIKEIT, and the idea that a 2014 discussion that was never formally closed is now binding over the next 8 years of editing and discussion on Talk is either extremely poorly considered or tendentious - and I have no need to venture an opinion as to which. What matters is what policy text has consensus right now, and your assertion that this was determined in 2014 and that subsequent EDITCONSENSUS and Talk discussion have no standing is complete balderdash, I'm sorry to say. Newimpartial (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:IDONTLIKEIT refers to arguments that cite no policy, or don't explain why it applies. I cite policies extensively, and why they apply. I never claimed a past consensus is binding; I said there is no consensus for the addition, and no consensus to remove the original sentence fragment; no more, no less. You claim that something I haven't said is "tendentious"; fine.
"Talk discussions" do have standing, but there is no consensus here for the change. You misinterpret WP:EDITCONSENSUS, which says: "the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement". As has been pointed out above, a silent consensus dissipates if several editors dispute the addition. If it were otherwise, then all 2-year old content on Wikipedia would need affirmative consensus to alter, and that's not how it's done.
As you say, what matters is what text has consensus right now.
  • There was consensus for the original phrase. There was never consensus to remove or change it; there is still not one now. Focusing on it is a red-herring.
  • The addition was WP:BOLD, and was later disputed by several editors. WP:ONUS (policy) says the onus for seeking consensus of a reinstatement is on those who favor it. As of now, there is still no such consensus.
Policy is extremely clear here, and I'll note that you haven't addressed a single one of my policy-based arguments (as opposed to things I never said). DFlhb (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh, please. WP:ONUS states that The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The sentence fragment you insist on including is disputed content, absent the additional phrase that was added in early 2021. Unless you are going to argue that ONUS doesn't apply to policy pages, you have to recognize that there isn't now a basis in policy for inserting your preferred version.
It doesn't matter that there was once consensus for the sentence fragment - once there is no longer consensus for it, WP:ONUS dictates to exclude it; it doesn't say "pick your preferred past version and recert to that". Policy does not require consensus to remove the disputed fragment; once it no longer has consensus, it should be removed. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
You are significantly muddling the waters. I am not "insist[ing] on including" or "inserting" anything, and you are not removing anything; the reverse is happening. You make the same misconception in your reinstatement edit summary. Your exact argument applies to you, not me.
It is not "my preferred" version. It was endorsed by a past RfC. It can be overriden by a new RfC, of which there is currently none. From my reading, no one here has disputed the fragment's inclusion except you. The addition is disputed, and directly contradicts the RfC, which favored inclusionism. You allude to WP:CCC, but it, too, backs me up: "in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion."
The strong encouragement to follow 0RR/1RR for policy changes, combined with ONUS and the fact that the addition contradicted an RfC, mean that this revert was likely inappropriate in the first place, especially since it misstated the presence of a consensus (silent consensus no longer applied after that revert, ONUS did; and that silent consensus went against explicit consensus). I urge you to undo your latest revert. DFlhb (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
So, I assume thet the RfC you mention on this issue was this one. If so, I would point out that the RfC addresses a hypothetical, Assume for the sake of argument that we have material in a biography that mentions criticism of a living person..., and cannot reasonably be construed as endorsing any particular policy language. It also, of course, was not closed, and seems to have been a sideline for editors engaged in particular disputes around the articles for certain living or recently deceased people. The idea that that RfC expresses a consensus that is still in force and that mandates the inclusion of the sentence fragment in question seems deucedly peculiar.
There is indeed a strong encouragement not to edit war to bring about policy changes, and the status quo here is the 2021-2022 policy text. You can either have that policy text (as status quo) or you can have nothing at all (per ONUS to remove disputed content); what you can't do is cherry pick a disputed pre-2021 text and say "this is the consensus version" based on a 2014 RfC that wasn't about the policy language at dispute. Which is why I keep saying to those interested in changing the status quo, "let's work out an RfC". Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:RFC: "Neither 'closing' nor 'summarizing' are required." It not being closed has no bearing on consensus.
The RfC overwhelmingly (and explicitly) supported including denials from self-published sources, and non-notable/undue denials that were never covered by a WP:RS. That directly contradicts the disputed addition. Contradicting past affirmative consensus (RfC, no less) requires new affirmative consensus. Not met.
I feel you are significantly misstating the situation: there was a bold change, against consensus. It was disputed (and still is, with most editors against). There is no "time limit" beyond which implicit consensus turns into explicit consensus, so it can't overturn the RfC.
You also seem to misread WP:QUO, it's an essay, which suggests an option to avoid edit wars (don't touch the content until the discussion ends). It clearly doesn't mean the disputed content gets to stay forever. Since this discussion is heavily leaning against inclusion (with 4 in favor and 8 against), there's no need to keep the addition any further, as would be appropriate if this discussion was 50/50. I've also provided substantive policy-based reasons for going back to the (actual) status quo (my argument on false balance's applicability).
User:Firefangledfeathers's reinstatement relied on his assumption that there was no prior consensus. Perfectly reasonable, but I've now shown otherwise. Given the way this discussion is going, why keep it? We don't even agree on the wording! It's hard to call it a status quo by any common sense definition. DFlhb (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:ONUS as written does not and can not apply here. ONUS is part of WP:V, which explicitly applies only to the mainspace. Not only is this a policy page in project namespace, our policies are not based around reliable sources. They are content original to Wikipedia, and so cannot be verifiable in the way that article content can be. If you want to say that the spirit of ONUS' last sentence; The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, then by all means say it. But please do not overstate that as policy that must be followed in this circumstance.
The version that is currently in place is the version of the policy that has been "live" for 1 year and 7 months. Whether or not you disagree with the current version doesn't really matter. It is the version of policy, that any editor checking the policy at any point during that time period will have seen and been familiar with. As such it is also the version that presumably will have been referred to in editorial disputes on biography articles.
Some editors here are seeking to change away from that version, to an earlier version. And by and large that's fine, with the exception that the change towards the earlier version is disputed. Now if we were discussing this in March/April 2021, I would agree that it should be for the editors seeking to change the policy by including the disputed section to workshop and launch and RfC seeking consensus for that addition. However a significant amount of time has passed, where that text was not challenged or removed. Accordingly, it is not unreasonable to see this as the inverse situation where editors are seeking to change the policy by excluding the disputed section, and so it should be on them to workshop and launch an RfC seeking consensus for that exclusion.
Were it not for a change in policy that has otherwise been stable for a significant period of time, I probably would say "Fine, I'll launch an RfC seeking consensus for inclusion". However because this is policy, and because even the temporary exclusion of the disputed sentence (in the event of the RfC finding consensus for including it) would result in a policy change that many editors would otherwise be unfamiliar with, I have to say that in order to keep disruption to a minimum, the current version of the text should stay until an RfC finds consensus for it to be removed.
Ultimately though, and I say this with some sense of irony due to what I've just said earlier in this reply, editors here are arguing over which version of m:The Wrong Version of the policy to keep while a consensus process happens to figure out the right version. So does it really matter which version is in place while an RfC is held on whether or not to include it? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate your in-depth argument, but it seems silly on its face that a removal should require an RfC when the addition didn't require one, especially since we have, by my count, a preliminary consensus of 8-to-4 for removal.
This also significantly blurs the line between implicit and explicit consensus. Per WP:CON there is no longer any implicit consensus, since the addition was disputed. Even if there were still an implicit consensus, it can't overrule an explicit consensus, let alone an RfC. I explain above why the addition directly contradicts the RfC results; to keep it would violate WP:PGCHANGE ("It is, naturally, bad practice to recommend a rejected practice on a policy or guideline page"). Further, the addition clearly failed WP:TALKFIRST; an RfC can only be "overturned" by another RfC, and that ball is in your camp.
All the policies I cite in this comment are content policies, which explicitly apply to all of Wikipedia, including this page. I also think WP:ONUS's applicability is more nuanced, but I'll stick to concision. I'll also note that the insistance on keeping the contested addition is unwarranted, since the "denials" phrase never applied to adjectives in the first place, only accusations. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, the effort to override the RFC-approved version and to require a new RFC to remove text that only some present editors support, and that only got in there because some of us (myself included) weren't paying enough attention in Spring 2021, is a textbook case of WP:WIKILAWYERING. Crossroads -talk- 22:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, as I explain below, restoring the pre-March 2021 version represents a substantive change in policy away from a version that has been stable for almost 2 years, as it would represent a significant change in practice for how denials are treated in biographies.
I agree that how this was added in March 2021 was bad. It should have been discussed, and it could have been reverted at that time. However that didn't happen, and as a result that WP:PGBOLD addition has become our stable version via the passage of time. Any editor who has looked at or referred to the policy over the last two years will have seen that sentence.
Ultimately though, conservative handling of policy aside, why are we expending so many words over m:The Wrong Version? Why not just have the RfC to seek a consensus to exclude the section and be done with it as has been repeatedly suggested? Best/worst case (perspective dependent), you will only need to wait for roughly thirty days for a potential consensus to exclude that section, and then the problem will be solved. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Because unfortunately the way the Wikipedia system works, the "status quo" plays a major role in the outcome in the case of a "no consensus" closure, which are common. Personally, I think such closures should be deprecated - the whole point of an RFC is that there's an intractable dispute that needs a definite outcome one way or the other, and "no consensus" is rarely helpful. Crossroads -talk- 23:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Crossroads, there is no "RfC-approved version". The RfC was about a hypothetical, and did not engage with the policy text. Newimpartial (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
In terms of whether or not to exclude the section, I have a rough head count of 6 in favour, 7 against, 1 no strong feelings either way, and 4 I can't classify. And even within that rough head count, there's a fair bit of nuance beyond a straight "A, B, C are in favour of inclusion, and D, E, F are in favour of exclusion". So I don't really think you can draw a consensus from that either way.
With regards to IMPLICITCONSENSUS, how you interpret the text depends on where you're deciding the starting point to be. Using the flowchart there as an illustrative example, there seems to be two versions that can be fed into "previous consensus". Either the version that has stood since 13 March 2021, or the version immediately prior to that.
If you use the version from 13 March, then the content that was removed would be treated as "make an edit", the restoration of it is answering yes to "was the article edited further", and everything since has been the path on disagree and "seek a compromise". However, if you use the version prior to that, then the 13 March 2021 edit would be treated as "make an edit", and the first removal of it on 5 October 2022 is answering yes to "was the article edited further", and as before everything since has been the path on disagree and "seek a compromise".
What IMPLICITCONSENUS alone seems unable to handle is the situation we find ourselves in, where there was a significant lag time between the content being added, and it being removed. WP:BRD is better set up to handle this type of discussion, though it too suffers from the problem of identifying which edit should be considered bold, and which the revert.
With regards to the February 2014 RfC, I do not see it as the trump card being put forth. Had that discussion been referred to and used to revert the March 2021 change, even a month or so after the addition, I would agree largely agree that those editors in favour of keeping the content should launch an RfC seeking inclusion. But that did not happen, and the content was not challenged until almost 2 years later. That is a pretty strong, even if silent, indicator that consensus had changed.
However having said all of that, this is a policy page, the policy as it is currently written has been the live version for well over a year, and even a temporary removal of the content while an RfC is undertaken would result in a substantive change to how denials are treated on biographies compared to current practice. Yes the March 2021 change was also a substantive change, however it has also been the live policy for a substantial period of time. When it comes down to deciding which substantive change should take precedence, I have to side with the version that has been most recent stable live version. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I stand by my count of detractors and supporters, which I triple-checked (and which doesn't count me). I'll also note that you dispute the application of WP:ONUS, yet reference WP:STABLE, an essay, in multiple comment.
That is a pretty strong, even if silent, indicator that consensus had changed. You think? Even this discussion shows no consensus!
Your arguments about which change is the one to analyse, or that stability on a policy page represents consensus, is also a red-herring. It's still trying to replace an RfC with an implicit consensus, which would be unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. I'll note that the previous version was far more stable; edits that were very similar to the current proposal have been consistently reverted as recently as 2020 [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. The fact that one edit slipped through does not represent any consensus. DFlhb (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Your argument might be coherent except for the minor detail that the RfC was not about the text of the policy. Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Despite your claim, the RfC explicitly endorsed including self-published denials, and denials that are not widely covered by WP:RS. The addition directly contradicts that RfC consensus. The "RfC version" is simply the one that doesn't conflict with said RfC. DFlhb (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Newimpartial, third time, restores their preferred version. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The stable version, you mean. Newimpartial (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
WP:STABLE itself says a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. DFlhb (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I believe Peter was simply trying to reflect onto me my use of the term "preferred version". The difference is that his preferred version (and yours) precedes February 2021. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
I think the RfC version should be restored per ONUS. It's understandable that such a change may go unnoticed and it's clear no discussion supported the change. Springee (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
And yet WP:PGBOLD quite clearly states Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
You are misreading it. It clearly explains that changes should not be reverted just because there was no discussion, with no substantive edit summary. That doesn't remotely apply here; it's meant to codify that WP:BOLD applies to policies and guidelines too, and that undiscussed changes are not in-and-of-themselves inappropriate. DFlhb (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Springee, there is no RfC version. The RfC was not about the policy text - it addressed a hypothetical case. Newimpartial (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Newimpartial: And what about the multitude of other talk page discussions @DFlhb: listed above, all of which discussed the original sentence of "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." DFlhb was 100% correct in their reading of Wiki policy above. This sentence was introduced nearly a decade ago not only as a result an RfC, but multiple talk page discussions here. There was no such discussion for the addition, and it has been disputed by multiple editors. The path forward is clear: an RfC is needed for the addition. Per policy, the disputed content should be removed. All this talk of implied consensus and status quo is unnecessary, and the edit warring is blatantly disruptive. Either initiate an RfC for inclusion, or it's ArbCom time. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Homeostasis07, I'm not sure what metaphysics you subscribe to, but it seems improbable that policy text could be added as a result of an RfC that took place in the following year. Newimpartial (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
It still appears that you are failing to understand ONUS and for what ever reason you are concerned that you can't otherwise get consensus to support your view. Springee (talk) 00:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Started an RfC below, because enough is enough of this. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Probably the best way to resolve this. DFlhb (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Figured it was either this or an ANI... eventually progressing to ArbCom. Why not try some diplomacy? ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break/discussion of proposed change

FYI, the new essay Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies does not apply has just been published today (November 8, 2022).

Given the above, let's specifically discuss the proposed change without tangents about ONUS or QUO. This is necessary anyway before any RfC is warranted.

As of this message, there is currently neither consensus for a change; nor on what that change should be. Its current wording is problematic: it misrepresents WP:FALSEBALANCE, as the basis for some denials being unwarranted; but FALSEBALANCE explicitly targets scholarly and scientific POVs, not allegations of crime (see User:Homeostasis07's comment above). It is also distinct from WP:DUEness.

As proposed, the change is likely to discourage inclusion of some denials altogether. That's also problematic, since scholars find that the absence of denials commonly prejudices people into believing accusations are true (see User:Anythingyouwant's comment above for references). Current policy already requires we include enough details for any substantial accusation; readers can make up their own minds on whether to believe any denial (many won't).

I'll note that including denials is just about respecting basic human dignity; even WP:RS can be overtly sensationalistic, and there is deep past consensus on the need to be careful when including some accusations. Some editors in this page's archives specifically call out the risk when it comes to alleged dating impriorieties (Gamergate) and sexual allegations (which can have strong racist undertones). It's meant to protect victims (of defamation or harassment), not abusers. Trying to soften this policy seems misguided, and may increase the WMF's legal liability.

On its merits, the idea that the current wording justifies denials for well-sourced adjectives (not allegations) is also false, and extensively addressed by existing policies and consensus. The current wording also specifically applies to such allegations. DFlhb (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

regardless of anything else, I have inline tagged that line with"under discussion", such that more can get involved and provide input particularly if there is an RFC. This bett eliminate the edit warring going on from both camps. --Masem (t) 23:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that, Masem. It's amazing how many editors invoke WP:QUO in favor of their version but don't quite manage to read even the entire first paragraph in that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree that the current version misrepresents FALSEBALANCE, as it's used in practice. You state that FALSEBALANCE explicitly targets scholarly and scientific POVs, however in practice it is applied to all reliable sources, be they scholarship or not. While scholarly sources are preferred, we also heavily base our articles on WP:NEWSORG content, which I think we can all agree can be biased. Were we not to apply FALSEBALANCE to such content, then we would include all manner of non-mainstream POV content in articles that are based on non-scholarly sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully, you are entirely misreading me; my argument is not about sources. I'm claiming that WP:FALSEBALANCE specifically applies to scientific or scholarly viewpoints (broadly interpreted). That section in its entirety, the included BBC quote, and all the listed example are explicit on this. FALSEBALANCE applies to treatment of pseudoscience, not to allegations in BLPs. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I said this elsewhere but our wording at DUE omits the weight of expects or those with authoritative or central knowledge, stressing sheer proportion of sources. It is never a false balance to include a statement from a known leading expert in a field that may be contrary to everyone else, we just make sure it is attributed, and if it reflects a personal stance, avoid unduly self-serving information. A false balance would be trying to include an army of armchair "experts" on a topic they have no established recognition in. Or if there is enough RS sourcing on this viewpoint, to be very clear it is attribute and established as a minor viewpoint as to not give it equal weight to the majority POVs. Masem (t) 00:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
No, I don't think I am. How do we, as editors, determine the mainstream point of view on a subject, any subject, without sources? How do we ensure that our articles are written neutrally, without reading and assessing sources? How do we ensure that our non-scientific and non-scholarly content, like the vast number of biographies, are neutral in their content?
FALSEBALANCE is a lens through which we assess the sources and determine how to write our content. This can be articles based primarily or exclusively on scholarly research, and it can equally be articles that are primarily or exclusively based on NEWSORG content. If we do not apply FALSEBALANCE to Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Again, no. Whether an article is sourced entirely to NEWSORGS is irrelevant, we shouldn't promote a false equivalence between flat-earth and proper science. That's all "false balance" means, not just on Wikipedia (again, it's very explicit) but in the scientific literature. You may be using the term coloquially, but we're referring to a specific Wikipedia policy here. The term you're looking for is dueness.
WP:FALSEBALANCE is very well-worded to address pseudoscience, but highly disturbing when applied to BLP accusations: we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it (the rest of the sentence, predictably, talks about scholarship). DFlhb (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, and the equivalent of false balance would be saying "he didn't do it", not simply reporting a denial that journalistic sources typically include. FALSEBALANCE, DUE, and so on are all based on sources; saying that X denies it when the media typically includes denials is inherently DUE; the false balance if anything is removing the denial based on an argument that Wikipedia is like a 1960s court case. Crossroads -talk- 00:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I totally agree; I just see a reference to FALSEBALANCE as an explicit encouragement to sometimes exclude denials, and I don't think that's appropriate. DFlhb (talk) 01:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
If we are being neutral and impartial (as NPOV demands), when there is a conflict that has not yet been resolved by any authority to that (such as a judge in a legal case, or the scientific community on a scientific topic) we should not be taking sides and present the fundamental conflict stating what both/each side has stated. Now, that's not saying like we need to apply formal debate-like space rules for each side; if one side is clearly better supported by RSes, we can absolutely go into more detail about that side of it, while only allotting a sentence to the other. For example "John Smith is considered racist by many journalists, though he has denied it. <extended paragraph citing incidents journalists assert lend to that racist association". That is absolutely within the framework of NPOV, BLP, and DUE, not giving any false balance (treating Smith as innocent) nor equal weight. --Masem (t) 03:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Back up to the topic: I don't see how WP:FALSEBALANCE should not apply in all instances where there is consensus reality (settled facts in court, strong documentation about events, scholarly consensus) even though some BLP subject wants to dispute the characterization of their actions or whether reliably documented events actually happened. There is nothing in the relevant section of WP:BLP to exclude such instances, and editors make "right of reply"-style arguments for the inclusion of marginally sourced or self-published denials in such cases literally constantly, even with the current language about denials. The kinds of changes you are promoting, DHIfb, will only strengthen the hand of such FRINGE POV advocates whether you expect that outcome of not. Newimpartial (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll first note my distinction between contentious labels, and allegations of misconduct; I think we agree on the former, and I maintain that they're not covered by the denials sentence, so I'll solely focus on the latter.
The denial phrase is in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is about allegations, so the denial phrase wouldn't apply when courts have ruled. I'll note that FALSEBALANCE doesn't cover court judgments, under my analysis above.
Strong documentation about events, and scholarly consensus, outside of BLPs, should obviously follow WP:FALSEBALANCE (its wording is clear). But for BLPs, I question what "strong documentation" would mean, or what possible "scholarly consensus" could apply (e.g. calling Pinochet a dictator is a label, not an allegation; and he's dead, not BLP).
If you gave examples of strong docs or scholarly consensus, that would apply to BLPs, and would be about allegations (rather than labels), I'll address them; I can't think of any such cases. That's why I don't think FALSEBALANCE (again, referring actual text of that Wikipedia policy, not the colloquial term) applies here. DFlhb (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but I'll stick to the Graham Linehan example. We have the scholarly source I cited stating that This online transphobia has been spearheaded by former comedy writer Graham Linehan.[25] We have multiple good sources noting that he has engaged in anti-transgender campaigns/activism; even his allies at The Telegraph refer to him as a vocal critic of transgenderism. So the RS consensus that Linehan has been actively engaged against trans people / trans rights is rather strong. But Linehan and sympathetic editors repeatedly propose that his comments proposing that he is not anti-trans ought to be platformed in the article. Presenting both the consensus view and Linehan's own view as attributed statements on an equal footing would strike me as a perfect example of WP:FALSEBALANCE (one of these perspectives is FRINGE) - as would, to give another example, platforming Linehan's self-published statements when he was banned from Twitter for violating its policies against hateful conduct. Newimpartial (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know anything about the specific situation, but I'm not sure that "Everyone says he's guilty, but he denies it" is really putting these contrasting claims "on equal footing". We do not accept that logic in all subjects ("Everyone says he's gay, but he denies it" would never be accepted in any article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that if the denial is included, it's hard to give a good impression of the balance of sources. So for example, which of these is the best phrasing for Richard B Spencer:
  • Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978)[1] is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist[2][3][4]
  • Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978)[1] is often accused of being an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist[2][3][4], but he denies it[5]
  • According to expert on the radical far-right Tamir Bar-On[1], New York Magazine[2], Vanity Fair[3], the Associated Press[4], Slate[5], CNN[6], Tablet[7], the Evening Standard[8], the Christian Science Monitor[9], Katherine Mangen writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education[10] and the New York Times[11], Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978)[12] is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist. However, he denies it[13].
Do you see the issue here? If the denial is included, in order for it to receive proper weight relative to the other sources, all the other sources must be mentioned to give a good idea of exactly how much in the minority Spencer is with his denial. But that's hugely unwieldy in this situation. Simply not mentioning the denial is the best representation of the sourcing here. Loki (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Let's be clear: your first point is about WP:LABEL, which tells us to attribute rather than use Wikivoice no matter how many WP:RS use a label; not about WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Your first example is in theory not compliant with policies & guidelines, and the RFC's option 3 wouldn't change the Wikivoice issue at all. Your second and third examples are very much strawmen, which would never be used in practice. "Often accused" is casual language, not encyclopedic, and is a vast understatement. And listing every attribution is never, ever done. The only reason your first example doesn't violate MOS:LABEL, is because he openly admits to being a white supremacist; that's the only way we can use Wikivoice there. If he didn't admit it, what it would say, is: "(unanimously?) classified as a neo-Nazi and white supremacist by scholars", or something to that effect. There are ways to obey MOS:LABEL without whitewashing, and we can stop attributing (and start using Wikivoice) with no problem once he's dead. If you concede that we should attribute (if he hadn't admitted it), I'll enthusiastically concede that a denial wouldn't be appropriate for Spencer's neonazism (and emphatically not in the lead), even if he hadn't admitted anything. I can see how adding dueness to the denials phrase would address this, but I'd rather it be addressed in a far more direct way, by clarifying WP:PUBLICFIGURE to say that denials aren't warranted when the scholarly consensus is clear, for example. Even with "dueness" added to the denials sentence, you'll still have people chiming in on talk pages, arguing that "it's due!"
The problem with adding dueness so we can skip denials based on extreme examples like Spencer, is the same problem that lawyers, humanists, and philosophers have all pointed out for centuries: "the law isn't meant to protect the guilty, but the innocent". That's what BLP guideliens are for, too. I've seen several BLPs (not of fascists or transphobes) where labels that were only used by a few WP:RS were stated in Wikivoice. That's both a potential legal problem for Wikipedia (which isn't clearly protected by Section 230), makes for a worse encyclopedia, and victimizes people needlessly. If just a few WP:RS use a label, a denial is fine. Is scholarship uses that label, the denial might be due somewhere in the body within a very specific context; but wouldn't be due in the lead. Don't you think this clarification of WP:PUBLICFIGURE would be more productive? DFlhb (talk) 19:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
If the Spencer lede said "He is known for his white supremacist and antisemitic and pro-Nazi activities" there would be less of a problem. Wikipedia editors do not constitute a tribunal to judge living people.Assigning labels in our voice exceeds our mission and often leads to mischief. We can make the point very well without labels.--agr (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I looked into it deeper, and it seems that I was wrong, and (unsurprisingly) he "denied" being a Nazi. I think the wording you propose would be fine then, under WP:LABEL, and I agree that it wouldn't whitewash things. DFlhb (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think WP:FALSEBALANCE or False balance are applicable to what negative labels we attach to people. I think editors have fallen into a trap of thinking the phrase "false balance" means exactly that and is applicable for wherever you might think the balance is incorrect. But the Wikipedia policy, as others have pointed out, is very much geared towards facts that can be addressed by the hierarchy of scholarship that determines what is accepted mainstream view. This generally works very well and doesn't lead to significant disputes between well established errors. The Wikipedia article is about journalism giving both sides to a well known controversy where one side clearly should be emphasised as mainstream and the other fringe, and has some overlap with our policy. Think about it, it isn't generally a problem in journalism to label someone while also give incorrect weight to the other labels. Journalists are typically very opinionated about which label is correct and likely wouldn't give the time of day to the other side.
As others have noted, a label accusing someone of a crime automatically gives weight to the judgement of the courts, even if the accused claims innocence. We don't, I think, have a problem with stating someone is a murderer while also noting whether they accepted their guilt or not.
The issue with negative labels, such as anti-vaccinationists, white nationalists, anti-semites or in the example some editors are disputing and citing, is anti-trans (or even more provocatively is transphobic) are not dealt with by an authority like the court. These labels typically come from the newspapers, and for those sources we don't have an established hierarchy of authority, reliability and impartiality like we do in science and medicine. We have a very crude concept of whether a newspaper is generally reliable or not, which ignores whether the piece we are citing is standard news reporting or is in fact an opinion piece by a columnist or even is a guest piece by someone outside of the staff. And we know that newspapers are generally biased along political and social lines, with very few news sources (e.g. BBC) having any kind of requirement for neutrality.
On an issue like trans rights, both sides apply labels to the other side and it is difficult to determine which label Wikipedia should lead with or use uncontested. I've seen some arguments on the page Newimpartial links that even do original-research on whether a label is appropriate. Which smells a bit like someone saying John Smith can't possibly be "racist" because "race" is a discredited concept in science.
The presence of these conflicting MANDY/NOTMANDY essays demonstrates that Wikipedia does not have a firm idea of how to handle negative labels. The current policy text deals with "allegations" which covers all sorts of things, some of which may be easier to resolve. We need to think specifically about negative labels and I suggest we have a sentence dealing with that separately from our advice on allegations. But please, drop the links to WP:FALSEBALANCE or False balance, as they aren't at all relevant. -- Colin°Talk 10:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, thanks for the example. I took a while to reply because I wanted to read all the Graham Linehan talk page archives, and give deep thought to this whole BLP issue. I was indeed wrong on the denials phrase. I again apologize for the length, it's important I break down other policies too.

By my reading, here's what current policy says:

  • MOS:LABEL is clear that labels should be attributed, not said in Wikivoice.
  • The denials phrase of WP:PUBLICFIGURE would indeed likely recommend we mention that Lineham denied being transphobic (not necessarily in the lead! But at least in the body). I was wrong to state otherwise; and do agree it would be required. But I disagree the RFC's option 3 would change this.
    • Under option 1, it should plainly be included, yes.
    • Under option 3, a denial needs to meet two new criteria: WP:DUE, and WP:FALSEBALANCE. The latter is inapplicable, as I'll explain at the end of this comment in the reply below, so option 2 and option 3 have identical meaning. That means, for option 3, WP:DUE is the only additional criteria that denials have to meet. So let's look at WP:DUE:
      • If WP:RS mention that he denied being transphobic, it's plainly due, so it should still be included.
      • The 2014 RFC found that self-published denials are also due. It seems we were both wrong: option 3 adds a new criteria, that self-published denials met all along per the 2014 RFC. Option 3 does not "overturn" the 2014 RFC, since it's completely perpendicular to it. If you want self-published denials to be undue, what you need is not option 3; you need to get consensus that self-published denials are undue, since, currently, they are.
  • His fringe views on trans people (for example, comparing puberty blockers to eugenics) should be mentioned per WP:BLPFRINGE. When we explain his views, we should follow the wording used by reliable sources, not his own (per common sense and every policy).
  • Whether his arguments that he's not transphobic should be expounded on is covered by WP:DUE and depends on reliable sources. Self-published arguments (rather than a denial) should not be included, per WP:DUE.
  • WP:FALSEBALANCE has strictly nothing to do with any of the above. It is explictly about articles on topics. Linehan is a person, not a topic. WP:PROFRINGE is what you're looking for, and it does tell us that we shouldn't include wording he proposes, that makes him look better, because that would be unduly self-promotional. WP:PUBLICFIGURE is in no way a loophole to that, under any wording.

This comment is purely about trying to interpret what the rules currently mean, not about changing them, so I'd appreciate if everyone else here would double-check my reasoning. I want to make sure I got this right, because if I did, then option 3 was motivated by a misunderstanding all along.

If I understand you goals correctly, your correct next steps would be the RFC on self-published denials being undue. As for me, I still prefer the denials phrase reverted, but that wouldn't affect your goals at all, I'm sorry to say. I believe that the fact you believe otherwise is a result of misinterpretation. DFlhb (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are misreading WP:FALSEBALANCE, the scope of which pertains to topics, not articles about topics as you propose here. The idea that WP:BLP policies belong to one set of articles and other policies like WP:FALSEBALANCE belong to another set of articles is one of the great myths of Wikipedia: none of these policies operate at the article level (few things do, actually, outside of editing restrictions like 0/1RR). Newimpartial (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I wrote my reply in a Word doc, and removed my arguments related to falsebalance for brevity, before posting, and meant to replace it with a very shortened version; that bullet point was not it, and I meant to remove it too. (I'll note you are not addressing 90% of my comment.)
The crux of the paragraphs I removed, which I guess I shouldn't have, hinged on the fact that WP:FALSEBALANCE indeed is about viewpoints on topics. And clarified the difference between mentioning a denial for a label (which has nothing to do with presenting his viewpoint), versus counterarguments to WP:RS coverage (which are arguments, not denials, and therefore were subject to false balance and dueness; but again, they're not denials). The conclusion proposed changing WP:BLPFRINGE or WP:FALSEBALANCE to clarify the obvious: that counterargument to WP:RS coverage aren't due. I'll restate my main thesis, that this RFC won't achieve your hoped-for reduction in people disagreeing on talk pages (as evidence by people disagreeing right here about what option 3 would mean). DFlhb (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Infoboxes on BLP

Forgive me if this has been discussed recently, but I came across this topic via the RfC for Talk:Laurence Olivier and Talk:Maddie Ziegler. Apparently there are some very strong opinions about utilizing infoboxes on WP:BLP articles. It's my understanding there's no policy for when to include and not include an infobox.

The history of this discussion has been contentious and it ended up at ArbCom. ArbCom has urged the community to go make a policy for infoboxes. Since there is no current policy, this topic is being fiercely debated article by article by some of the same editors.

I'm not sure what the answer to this issue is... small articles with little information aren't good candidates for infoboxes. However, articles with a readable prose of 15kb or more are improved with infoboxes. It might not be possible to standardize something like this as apposed to a sport club article infobox, but I thought I'd ask here so perhaps this article by artile conflict can be ended. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Balaram Pokharel

From: Kharpa to Rupnagar to Bhaktapur Balarampo (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of contentious information in an article

Hi. There is a discussion of contentious information in Talk:Tudor Dixon, under the thread "Restoration of contentious info in place of neutral language ". If you have the time and the interest, it would be nice if you share your input there. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Old accusations

I just removed some old rape accusations from the bios of MLB players, and now I am second-guessing myself. Even when Kobe Bryant was alive, the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case was clearly noteworthy, even though it never even went to trial. Are old accusations against public figures fair game, as long as said accusations received significant coverage? DefThree (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd look to whether the accusations have sustained coverage, are they brought up in other otherwise unrelated articles about subject, and did they have an impact on the career/brand/life of the person. If it was a one day story, it really doesn't survive the test of time. Slywriter (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The "messy divorce" example

The above discussion prompted me to read WP:BLPPUBLIC and I'd like to raise the other example listed there for discussion:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

  • Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."

I think the "messy divorce" example should be removed or possibly replaced, because it's not a good example for the issue being discussed. First, we'd never say "messy divorce" because of MOS:LABEL (which is what those words are linked to) and MOS:TONE. That has nothing to do with BLP; we wouldn't use that language for a historical figure either. (Also, all divorces are messy just as all affairs are "torrid"; those are just clichés.) Second, whether we mention the divorce or not is a WP:DUE consideration, not really a WP:BLP one. If someone got divorced, that's not an accusation or an allegation, that's a fact. And if someone's divorce was "messy," that's a characterization (and an unencyclopedic one to boot). So I'm not sure what the allegation is in "messy divorce" that someone might conceivably deny: that it was not a divorce? That it was not messy? Overall, I think this just isn't a good example. The other example (about an alleged affair) seems far more on point. Not sure if we need a second example at all? Thoughts? Levivich (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree this is not a good example for the reasons you mention. Loki (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
It certainly needs reworking… on first reading, I am not sure if the example is trying to say we should omit mentioning the divorce entirely, or just telling us to omit the allegations made by the various parties in the divorce (“She cheated on him”… “He abused her”… etc.) Blueboar (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree this example would never occur in practice, and is useless.
On its face, though, I'd rather we have more than one examples, since no matter what policy changes we decide, their application would be nuanced. In the first RFC, editors pointed out that many editors already misinterpret WP:PUBLICFIGURE; I think there's room to add one or two examples to tackle that, once the workshopped RFC is closed.
We can discuss whether to keep or delete this one now, but I'd suggest we hold off on proposing any new examples until the proposed RFC is closed. DFlhb (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Divorces can be messy, like my parent's divorce. The word is good to use in my opinion. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Birthdates

Some who shall remain nameless seem to have a huge anal-retentive problem with birthdates pretty much overwhelmingly agreed upon by consensus by a myriad of independent sources if they are not actually vetted by a birth certificate and/or the actual anklet from the birthing hospital. Can we all just get along by saying a reasonably documented birthdate *might* be enough in the overwhelming majority of cases, and that it will have a minimal deleterious effect on the well-being of those subjects? Mary McDonnell thanks you, and Kaitlin Olsen thanks you. TashTish (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_50&oldid=1133057581"