Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pawsplay (talk | contribs) at 07:41, 14 December 2017 (→Deadnaming and previous names of trans persons: deadnaming is violence, not merely information). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Should we refer to living former politicians as statesmen?

Consensus is to use "statesman" or "stateswoman" on a case-by-case basis depending on how reliable sources describe the person. Sandstein 11:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am currently in a dispute with a couple of editors over whether or not the following living persons should be referred to as a "statesman" instead of "politician" in the lead section:

I have found during my time at Wikipedia that living politicians, regardless of whether they are respected, are not usually referred to as statesmen (e.g. Merkel and Obama). In December 2016, I launched an RFC over whether Ronald Reagan should be referred to as a statesman in his lead section. The consensus was (to quote Cunard) to refer to Ronald Reagan as "an American politician", not "an American statesman". Editors supported "politician" per WP:COMMONTERM and WP:NPOV since "statesman" is a subjective term, while "politician" is an objective term. As articles subject to WP:BLP are held to arguably higher scrutiny than articles of dead politicians, should editors take caution over whether to refer to living politicians as statesmen (especially if unsourced)? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 20:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GUIDELINE, Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Besides, this is not even a proposal, it is merely a question.--Nevé–selbert 18:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally avoid using the term "statesman" both in Wikipedia and in real life, as I find it to be a rather annoying euphemism for "politician". I find the term politician to be far more accurate for anyone holding positions of authority, either by appointment or election. I have opposed using the term "statesman" in every previous discussion that I was involved in. By the way, we don't even have an article about the term "statesman". Dimadick (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh god. This again. I continue to believe that wikt:statesman is an appropriately neutral term, but I have no strong feelings on that matter. The "WP:COMMONTERM" argument was then and continues to be nonsense. WP:COMMONTERM refers explicitly to article titles, and not to opening paragraphs. AlexEng(TALK) 19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a neutral term (and Wiktionary is not a source). The word has a lot of implications, which Wikipedia cannot project in its own voice. Sources on historical figures may agree in the aggregate to use such a term for a particular someone, but for a living person it's unlikely to be anything but partisan punditry.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the ping. This is something that should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but it should not be based upon whether or not an editor "likes" the page subject. "Politician" is not inherently a pejorative title, but rather, a name for a career based upon seeking and serving in elective (or sometimes appointed) office. "Statesman" is often used as a superlative by supporters of politicians (and, I suppose, by POV-pushers who support those politicians), but it really just means someone who is primarily noted for promoting international cooperation. So encyclopedia editors need to keep the, um, politics out of such an editorial decision. The default choice for individuals who have served in elective office should be "politician". "Statesman" should be reserved only for those individuals who are primarily notable for international diplomacy, and who are less notable for their service in elective office. Offhand, I would say that makes Reagan a "politician" for our purposes, and Dag Hammarskjöld a "statesman" (although, interestingly, his page does not use the term in the lead sentence, but rather in a quotation at the end of the lead). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, of course, the case-by-case basis must be emphasized. If we treat your definition as a line in the sand or anything close to that, we thus exclude Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, who no rational person can deny their right to the title of statesman, even as their work can be considered to be more domestic than international. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 22:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not, in fact, mean what I said as a line in the sand, and we agree that this very much comes down to case-by-case analysis, and I would even add WP:IAR to that. It's worth pointing out, however, that just as many editors would regard Roosevelt as a statesman, there are editors who would insist on the same for Reagan. Once we go down that road, it gets difficult to draw the line. Like some other editors responding to this thread, I think that "statesman" needs to be used cautiously; indeed, nothing would be particularly wrong with saying that Lincoln and Roosevelt were politicians, and for each of them, there are better ways than either politician or statesman to sum them up in the lead. I do think that what I said is useful as a guide, and that is how I intended it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would initially like to point out that using a script to insert the label "politician" for people like Clarkson, Michaëlle Jean, Powell, and Schultz, who served in Western systems and never sought elected office, is a misuse of the term "politician" and an abuse of WP scripting capacity. And Gorbachev is widely described as, and even used as a paradigmatic example of, a statesman (including in the Reagan RfC). Each case should be judged on it's merits, and nobody should be using scripts to impose nonexistent BLP terminology "rules".

I would also venture that the term "statesman" or "stateswoman" has a fairly value-free meaning associated with the practice of "statescraft", having to do especially with the practical exercise of public roles in foreign policy, which is why (rather than any PEACOCKery) the term is found in these articles and not those of other politicians (q.v.).

Finally, I would point out to SMcCandlish and others that all of the examples given by the OP are changes made to articles on living but retired statesmen and stateswomen. I recognize that it could be inappropriate for WP to move too quickly to recognize statecraft of active politicians, but I also believe that there is no reason to wait til death to use the title. Reagan dying before Gorbachev did not make him more of a statesman than the latter. Case by case, please.Newimpartial (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, if I may note the following.
  1. Regarding Canadian governors-general, I agree that in retrospect referring to them as politicians is suboptimal. Therefore, I personally propose we replace the term "statesman" with vicegerent or "public servant" for the governors-general you have mentioned. For Colin Powell and his predecessors, the term "diplomat" should be used instead. Unless you can provide me with secondary sources referring to these figures as statesmen, I remain of the opinion that they should not be referred to as statesman as long as they live, as presumably their eventual obituaries will settle the matter once and for all.
  2. Your argument that the term has a fairly value-free meaning is dubious. Take the Oxford definition that a statesman is "a skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure". I would argue that the term "statecraft" is just as subjective as "statesman" in that it refers to the "skilful management of state affairs". Powell is controversial for his rationalising of the Iraq War, and whether one can consider him a "statesman" is a debate that is best left for history, i.e. after the obituaries are written.
  3. Reagan dying before Gorbachev did not make him more of a statesman than the latter. Bit of a red herring. There was an RFC over whether Reagan should be referred to as a statesman and the consensus reached was negative. There has not been a similar discussion for Gorbachev. I would note that his lede on the Russian Wikipedia translates as "a Soviet and Russian state, political and public figure." Gorbachev is not regarded as highly in Russia as he is among the West, and that's putting it nicely.
"Waiting til death to use the title" is a reductive way of interpreting the purpose of this discussion. As I have said before, if you can provide me with reliable sources confirming that these living figures have been widely referred to as statesmen, I have no problem. The thing is, the key component of what makes WP:BLP tick is neutrality and, as it has been noted by others on this page, the term "statesman" can easily be interpreted as a peacock term. That is the source of contention, especially in regards to WP:BLP.--Nevé–selbert 22:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly may, but I would then like to point out that the first definition of "Statesman" in the American Heritage Dictionary is "A man who is a leader in national or international affairs", and the second definition in Collins is "(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a person active and influential in the formulation of high government policy, such as a cabinet member". So in fact there is a fairly value-free meaning established for statesman in reliable (dictionary) sources, in addition to the quasi-honorific. The same, by the way, is true of other terms such as "leader", which carry both normative and descriptive meanings, and WP does not shy away from using them.
As far as the sources go, it is certain that most of those you autocorrected, as are mentioned above, are typically referred to in reliable sources as "statesmen" or "stateswomen" - indeed, Gorbachev, for example, is seldom referred to as anything else, at least in English-language sources. Finally, my point about Gorbachev's longevity was that you are using BLP arguments but piggybacking your whole intervention - including this RfC - on the Reagan RfC which was about a specific dead leader and was therefore not subject to BLP in any way. Your whole argument in that sense strikes me as artificial and disingenuous, and I am happy to observe that the developing consensus appears to be in favor of case-by-case treatment. Newimpartial (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that the term has a fairly value-free meaning is contentious and potentially WP:OR. You claim that it is certain that most of those you autocorrected are typically referred to as statesmen, yet you provide no evidence to back that claim up. Your assertion that Gorbachev is seldom referred to as anything else other than statesman is also unfounded. In Google Books, "Gorbachev" AND "Soviet politician" renders about 2,470 results versus "Gorbachev" AND "Soviet statesman" with about 1,670. I am not "piggybacking" on anything at all, your choice of language is inane. I am only using said discussion as an example precedent, for it is up to fellow editors whether they would like to it into account or not. Again, as long as there are reliable sources that are cited confirming that these living persons are considered statesmen, I have no problem. If my argument strikes you as "disingenuous" and "artificial", you have clearly not been bothered to read what I say. I cannot but help feeling that you are being deliberately rude in an effort to illustrate a WP:POINT.--Nevé–selbert 14:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now, Neve, please WP:AGF. I have read everything you have said about this - even cases where I neither reverted nor commented - and you did not use the Reagan RfC as an "example", you clearly used it as a precedent (those are not the same thing). You used this discussion of a particular dead leader's legacy even though you were citing BLP as the governing policy, and BLP did not apply to the Reagan RfC - this illustrates the extent to which the discussion of Reagan was a discussion of Reagan, and not a general discussion of the ways "statesman" is to be used which is how you repeatedly interpreted it in your edit summaries and comments. Do I really have to go back and quote you to yourself?
As far as the Google Books search is concerned, considering that Gorbachev was clearly both a statesman and a politician, and that the results for both terms can appear in the same text, what you have actually done is verify that both terms are in use by most sources, as indeed the WP article itself uses both (in spite of your silly "disputed" tag - disputed by exactly one person). In another case you take particular issue with, Colin Powell, the term "statesman" is so preponderant over politician that it dominates at least two published (non-contributory) encyclopedia entries on the subject, as well as being the title of one of the major books about the subject (and not a PEACOCK piece). If you look for yourself, you will see that the term "statesman" is supported by reliable sources in all of these cases, and it is not my job to find them all, since you are the one who scripted away consensus terms in favour of often-inappropriate ideosyncratic terms of your own devising.Newimpartial (talk) 15:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not attempt to use the Reagan RfC as a precedent in terms of the outcome of this discussion, that is a false charge. I merely presented the RFC as a precedent in terms of whether one can consider the term "statesman" as neutral or not. There is no need to quote me, for I remember what I said. You state that Gorbachev was clearly a statesman and politician. I don't dispute that, the only thing I take issue with is whether the former term is used more often to refer to him, and as the Google Books results indicate the latter is used just as often if not more. The {{disputed}} tag was intended to alert readers to my concern (especially so as there was no inline citation corroborating Gorbachev's being a statesman). You have still not provided any sources in particular confirming that Powell is indeed regarded as a statesman, and as the term is clearly contentious as this discussion has shown, the term ought to be supported by an inline citation for said living person. Regarding consensus, can you point to me any discussions at the talkpages of said articles where there was a consensus that these individuals be referred to as statesmen? If you can I would be very interested. I am perplexed as to how "diplomat" and "politician" are often-inappropriate ideosyncratic terms of my own devising . I also find it strange how many Canadian governors-general have been referred to as statesmen. The Australian GGs referred to as such in their lede include only Paul Hasluck and Richard Casey, Baron Casey and of New Zealand there is only Arthur Porritt, Baron Porritt (all dead persons). I don't mean to come across as confrontational, but I would just like to see some consistency over the issue of calling BLP politicians as statesman. Obama in my view passes the duck test for a statesman (such a contrast to Trump), yet he is referred to as an American politician in his lede. If Clark and Giscard can be referred to as statesman without WP:INCITE, why not Obama too? There is an inconsistency here that should be addressed one way or another.--Nevé–selbert 00:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Describe governors general as "public servants"? You give the impression they're bureaucrats who sit in a dingy Gatineau office taking orders from the deputy-assistant to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. These are representatives of the head of state, who frequently represent the country abroad, that we're talking about here.--₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case-by-case. Statesman should generally be avoided because it can be used to gloss over someone's true legacy, yet sometimes it fits better than politician. Opposed to living/dead dichotomy, because NPOV problems with the term is more widespread and relevant for dead politicians, who are often unduly praised for political reasons (notably nationalism). Uglemat (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Politician by default. In most cases I have seen it used, "statesman" is a fluffy term used to avoid any imagined negative correlation with "politician". Per Tryptofish, if an individual is primarily known for international diplomacy (those politicians that later served as UN officials may be a good example) "statesman" might be appropriate, though even in such cases, I think "diplomat" should be the preferred term. Vanamonde (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case-by-case Reagan didn't do jack after his presidency, and neither did Ford, or Bush the Lesser. I think you get to be a statesman if you actually do stuff that are, you know, statesman-like. Bush the Elder, Clinton and of course Carter certainly qualify for the descriptive. The status of having been president does not - and should not - instantly qualify any politican as a statesman. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on the person, per the reliable sources. The definitions of statesman imply someone is making a decision/judgement, that a person is a statesman. Wikipedia Editors don't make the decision, the sources do.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case-by-case. It might be justified if reliable sources use the term. Otherwise, politician is fine. However, in certain cases, statemsan is better when the position is not a political one (e.g. Governor Generals are netutral and non-partisan). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Case-by-case Only some former Canadian governors general were politicians. All, as representatives of the Canadian head of state, were statesmen or stateswomen. A secretary of state, on the other hand, is neither a head of state nor representative of one. Whether or not a former secretary of state could be considered a statesman would depend on his activities and achievements. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:23, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree completely on the part "A secretary of state ... is neither a ... nor representative of one." The very job description of Secretary of State is to represent the United States (and, by extension, its leadership) in diplomatic contexts. That's the very essence of what a statesman/stateswoman is. And only some secretaries of state have been politicians. The position, of course, is an appointment, not elected, and as with Canadian governors-general, not all secretaries of state have been career politicians. Hilary Clinton, of course, was a politician having been a senator (and later seeking the presidency itself), but Kissinger as far as I'm aware never sought nor held elected office, for example. 136.159.160.7 (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes in answer to the original question, should editors take caution over whether to refer to living politicians as statesmen (especially if unsourced)? "Statesman" is not a neutral term, so it should be used with care on a case-by-case basis. Phlar (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If and only if they will be given a state funeral. That is not entirely unpredictable, but in the meantime, if and only if reliable sources call them statesmen. or stateswomen. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about mentioning a persons criminal status (BLP CRIME)

The consensus is against including the proposed text.

Cunard (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

regarding the proposal above, Should this policy include a sentence with the title

  • BLPCRIMECLARIFY: "Do not refer to a person or subject of an article as a criminal without making it immediately apparent that they are a convicted criminal and that that status is the result of a judicial conviction" Edaham (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Support As the proposing editor I'd like policy to enable editors to speedily correct the usage of the standalone use of the term "criminal" to avoid an unintentionally accusatory tone. Edaham (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with qualifications - you can say they were indicted for perpetrating a criminal act, and if found guilty, they can be described as a convicted criminal. Atsme📞📧 04:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unnecessary WP:CREEP and in conflict with WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are several versions of "criminal". Accused, suspected, admitted, known, convicted, identified. A great many known criminals are never brought before a court, much less convicted. As long as these phrases don't originate at Wikipedia but prevail in reliable sources, that's good enough for me. Any policy that separates Wikipedia from reliable sources is a bad thing. Dougmcdonell (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as being overly specific. There are many ambiguous descriptors which could and should be either avoided or clarified by context. A potentially relevant essay (not policy or guideline) appears at Wikipedia:Ambiguous words. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Some people who commit crimes are never convicted (or never charged) because, for example, they flee the jurisdiction, or they cut a deal with the prosecutors to inform on a worse criminal in exchange for immunity for their criminal acts. bd2412 T 01:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The example you give below of a BLP starting with "X is an Australian-born criminal" should never happen, but adding "convicted" would be just as bad. SarahSV (talk) 01:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    SlimVirgin In that case it would be just as bad, yes. That's why we agreed that the term be removed entirely. I supported this. In other cases where someone is notable for being a convicted felon and is almost always referred to as such by reliable sources, saying felon without any qualification is worse than saying convicted felon - however per the discussion below, this is not really about specific wording and the underlying issues is: how do we make policy at BLPCRME more robustly uphold the removal of potentially libelous or defamatory terminology? This has actually already been addressed. The policy at BLPCRIME has been adjusted and I'm satisfied with both the wording and the level of specificity with which it addresses the issue. I see no further need to continue the RfC per this amendment and welcome its closure on the grounds of its having been addressed. Edaham (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks for the explanation, Edaham. SarahSV (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So an article should not start with, say "Charles Milles Manson was an American criminal and cult leader"? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been mentioned, enforcing terminology through policy is not the intent here, it is to avoid a defamatory tone and have policy better uphold the removal of defamatory text, making it necessary to work harder (but not make it impossible) to support its inclusion if an editor feels that it is important to put it into the article. CM is recently deceased and I support what the policy now reads, which is that effort should be taken to ensure the veracity of the criminal's status. I would possibly further amend the policy to state that having taken such effort, verification of the status - I.e. Mentioning the when where and why of the conviction(s) or any other valid material which supports the use of what ever term implying criminal activity - should be included in the body of the article and not just in citations. This has been done in abundance in the article you are using as an example Edaham (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    An article should not start with, say "Charles Milles Manson was an American criminal and cult leader". It's uninformative and it's juvenile. If someone is a career criminal, mafioso or yakuza, say so. If someone is primarily notable due to the commission of crimes, mention those crimes. "Charles Milles Manson was an American cult leader and convicted mass murderer" is vastly more informative. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.'
  • Oppose - per above. Unworkable and is instruction creep. Stickee (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP, as above. Prefer Do not refer to a person or subject of an article as a criminal., or explicit addition of "criminal" to WTW (though, WTW not being exhaustive, I would regard it as implicitly there already), with reasoning as per Sangdeboeuf below. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 17:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

  • I have concerns that the terminology or label "Criminal" has been used in BLPs] from time to time and have sought to amend it based on policy, but found that policy was not explicit enough to support an immediate correction. I'm concerned that simply calling someone a criminal without using the term "convicted" along side it constitutes a form of accusation or an implication of that person's inherent disposal toward criminal behavior rather than a indication that they have committed a specific crime. Edaham (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposed wording "Do not refer to a person or subject of an article as a criminal without making it immediately apparent..." suggests that we should ever label a living subject as a "criminal". The term convicted criminal could mean anything from jaywalking to serial rape/murder, and so is unduly vague. There's a moralizing/opprobious ring to it regardless of the seriousness of the actual crime, and so verges on propaganda or character assassination (compare with convict, ex-con, etc.). Nor does a conviction by itself imply actual guilt – wrongful convictions do happen, especially in countries with weak legal protections for citizens (see Show trial).

    Even in the case of career criminals, a more specific term such as mobster or crime boss is a better choice, since it gives the reader some context. Rather than calling someone a convicted criminal, we should describe the crimes and any relevant judicial action, as in "X is a former widget maker from North Anytown, who was convicted in Year Y for the crime of Z", etc. In other words, show, don't tell. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You'll have to explain the basis on which you think this is creep, or in conflict with NPOV. NPOV already contains info on innocent until proven otherwise. This proposal only asks that if it is absolutely necessary to mention the criminal status of a living subject in an article, that it be made clear that it was the result of a judicial proceeding against the person and not a claim. I'm happy to pull up articles and edit them on a case by case basis, but I think that it would be good to have a policy which supports clarification. What I would like is for the policy to advise that it can be acceptable to refer as a criminal for some reason, but not to refer to a person generally as a criminal as it accuses them of criminal intent outside the scope of their conviction.
    I don't necessarily suggest promoting the term "convicted criminal", or any specific wording. What I do suggest, per BLP crime, is that people's criminal status not be referred to without making it quickly clear as to why they are being referred to as such. I agree with you that the most specific term is preferable, i.e. mob boss, gangster, bank robber and so on - if they are unanimously referred to as such by reliable sources.
    Strongly suggest reading the quoted talk page discussion which I included in the collapsed text above. If you've fully understood this distinction and still think it's not something which could be included in either BLP or possibly WTW, then I'm happy to continue editing case-by-case per BRD Edaham (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NPOV, we should avoid "expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd". Criminal seems unduly vague and is often used disparagingly, as is convicted criminal. I have read the earlier discussion, and as I stated at Talk:Peter Hore, I disagree that there is any great distinction between criminal and convicted criminal, as far as impartial tone is concerned. As for establishing some kind of guidance, I do think that criminal should be added to WTW under contentious labels to be avoided, just like terrorist, extremist, etc. I think the suggested BLP wording will only muddy the waters. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:21, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    well then we are actually kind of in agreement, in that a) I argued alongside you for the removal of the word criminal from that particular article (after a brief disagreement, in which I was trying to first qualify the term to correct an accusatory tone), and b) that we both think policy should make it easier to resolve contentions of that nature quickly in the future. As to the exact working we cannot conflict with NOTCENSORED but I'm happy to consider alternative. It should be kept in mind that my primary aim is to aid the quick removal or alteration of potentially libelous or defamatory material, and not to limit editors to a particular form of phrase. Edaham (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment in the previous discussion, that if approved this new requirement should apply only to LIVING persons. People who died before they could be brought to trial, but have been identified by law enforcement as perpetrators citing strong evidence, can be called "criminal" but not "convicted criminal". --MelanieN (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the page relating to living (and recently deceased) persons. But I don't see how to justify labeling any recently deceased person a "criminal", no matter what the evidence. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP applies to the recently deceased. A dead suspect is still only a suspect until the authorities make their determination. Unliving living suspects, there likely won't be a trial, but there will be an final statement made by authorities. And we should follow that as we would if they were still living. --MASEM (t) 04:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Convictions

EEng, re: your revert, the recent situation at the Minneapolis article was caused by the editor not searching for the names of the accused. It sounds obvious, but people might find what seem to be current sources using other search terms. SarahSV (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure that addition is entirely necessary. It's fairly at-odds to the above discussions which are against adding instruction creep to policies. Stickee (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonyms, stage names, nicknames, hypocorisms, and common names

Some recent changes have been made at WP:Manual of Style/Biographies regarding pseudonyms, stage names, nicknames, hypocorisms, and common names. If anyone wants to support, challenge, or simply discuss the changes, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#Substantive revision of "Pseudonyms, stage names, nicknames, hypocorisms, and common names". A permalink for the matter is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Thomas

A discussion is presently ongoing on Michelle Thomas in regards to the sourcing of her DOB/DOD. Input would be most appreciated. Rusted AutoParts 07:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deadnaming and previous names of trans persons

I would like to propose BLP make some more explicit guidance on mentioning the previous names of trans persons. Deadnaming is overwhelmingly a harmful practice to be avoided. I think the privacy expectations of BLP need to be balanced in a more explicit way with NPOV and the goal of exhaustively covering encyclopedic topics. My initial suggestion is as follows:

  • Previous names of living persons should generally not be included in the lede or in info boxes. Instead, previous names should be listed in the sections related to their notability. For instance, an author would have their previous name published on their previous works, and so their Works should include a written under the name XYZ or similar statement for clarity. A famous athlete who won medals or set records under a previous name should say as XYZ prefacing their list of achievements. Their previous name, if notable, should have a redirect to the article with their current, correct name.
  • In cases where it is not reasonable to avoid deadnaming the subject because of their great notability, properly sourced and respectful statements may be included in the introductory sentence of an article. An example would be someone whose notability includes widespread recognition by the general public and prominence before and after their transition. For instance, the article on Caitlyn Jenner must take into account that many readers are looking for information based on their familiarity with her previous name. By contrast, notable (but not publicly famous) authors will be easily identified by properly documenting their published works. It is not necessary to mention previous names for a less famous person, provided their achievements are properly documented. Their previous names may also be mentioned in relation to properly sourced material related to their personal lives, activism, etc. where it is relevant.

Pawsplay (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too confusing for a reader, and too prescriptive for editors. The MoS already gives general guidance on these matters. Stickee (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to call this guidance: The MoS does not specify when and how to present former names, or whether to use the former or present name first. Pawsplay (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone was notable under a previous name, then that name should be included in the article. If a large part of what they were notable for was under that previous name, then it should be included as early in the article as possible. If author Jane Doe wrote a bunch of famous books, and later changed his name to John Doe, then readers who search for the author Jane Doe and get redirected to John Doe should be informed immediately that they are in the right place. The feelings of the subject are secondary to the goal of informing readers. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They may be secondary but they aren't unimportant. BLP lists many criteria based on the feelings of the subject. Pawsplay (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:BIRTHNAME. After contentious debate at WP:VPP, this was the result. Basically, if the person was notable prior to publicly coming out, mentioning the person's birth name is appropriate in the lead. Otherwise, it's not. I'd personally like to see this generalize more, but in practice we generally don't mention deadnames unless the person was notable as that name and it's important for the reader's understanding. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that there's a local consensus "If a transgender person was not notable under a previous name, do not mention that name, in either the lead or body, even if it has been widely published by reliable sources." If this is the case, then it ought to be formally debated and adopted as policy. Personally, I would be against it, because it goes against the basic Wikipedia philosophy of "following the sources". RSs use transgender people's preferred pronouns, so Wikipedia does likewise. But RSs routinely report trans people's previous names (even when they were not well-known while using them), so Wikipedia should follow them as well. It may well be that in the future RSs will stop doing this, at which point Wikipedia should do likewise. But not until then. NPalgan2 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NPalgan2: I suppose it would be case-by-case, but it seems most sources don't mention deadnames (in my experience at least). But even then, it would be an issue of DUE and BLPPRIVACY. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly strongly agree with the notion of avoiding non-notable details about a person (about any topic really) in the lead. This is especially true of details that could be hurtful or offensive in some way.
I am troubled, though, by the suggestion that non-notable details should be excluded from articles altogether. Certainly this has never been Wikipedia policy. Notability largely applies as a consideration regarding whether an article should exist, not what should be in the article. The article contents should be reasonably complete coverage of the topic, including details that are pertinent though not notable in and of themselves. Granted, there are and should be exceptions made for details that could be especially dangerous to be listed for the subject or are considered too wildly sensitive for the subject to be included. I certainly agree with the notion of some limited censoring for these cases but it is a very slippery slope.
If we say that we are going to censor anything that a subject might not like written about them then we are essentially saying that all BLPs are necessarily puff pieces that can only promote the subject. One could argue, for example, that Mark Wahlberg's arrests could be omitted since he was an unknown at the time they happened, and certainly they are a source of serious embarrassment for him, but we do not censor these and we do not debate the notability of those arrests. I do think the issue of deadnaming for the trans community needs to be treated with care, and while I would say avoiding deadnaming for minors is a reasonable guideline, in the case of adults there are many equally or more sensitive details about other people that are normally included as well (e.g. criminal convictions, accusations of impropriety, accusations of extramarital affairs, accusations of homosexuality for individuals who may be closeted, etc.). Again, it is certainly appropriate to say care should be taken regarding sensitive details, but saying simply that outright censorship is the right solution for anything that may be upsetting (even very upsetting) seems a very troubling way to go.
I have suggested before that we take a cue from what mainstream media does. If mainstream media seems to be intentionally avoiding discussing a sensitive detail and the only reliable sources for the detail are tabloids or other sources that, while credible, may be deemed to have low ethical standards, then it is perhaps appropriate to say the mainstream journalists know something we do not and it is best to just follow their lead to err on the side of caution. But if our only reason for censoring is that some WP editors are bothered by certain things, that is a problematic justification.
-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have suggested neither censorship nor removing other uses of the name altogether. My suggestion mainly relates to the lead paragraph, infoboxes, and superfluous mentions. Thus, for instance, Jennell Jaquays would have her previous name mentioned under works. But I don't think that information belongs in the intro. It's disrespectful, hurtful, and unnecessary. Reuters suggests news articles should always use someone's chosen name. Here is a link for some reading: https://www.healthline.com/health/transgender/deadnaming#media

Pawsplay (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons&oldid=815342058"