No further edits should be made to this discussion. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. Of course, further discussion/consensus can (and probably will) help address these points and/or alter wording. In that regard, the opposing arguments raise points that censoring a reliably-verifiable deadname in order to respect a long-deceased person's wishes can obstruct the cold-hearted, neutral treatment of a subject, while always completely hiding a dead person's deadname (if not their notable or preferred name) makes it more difficult to fully research the subject as a whole and/or seems atypical practice for biographies. Opposition also seems to object to the advocacy/respect/subject-wishes-related arguments ( what Wikipedia is not / NOT), reasoning that Wikipedia's content isn't typically the place for affirming/denying/adhering to personal attributes/wishes of historical subjects but rather for reporting on them / providing objective, factual, historical context/reference to facilitate research and a more comprehensive understanding of the subject at hand. Several comments argued that a variance on the proposed change would be far more preferable (and obviously could be the subject of a subsequent RFC), but consensus doesn't clearly support that version (yet). In opposition, arguments were made that elevating a V/RS-verifiable fact to selectively only be included if it meets a higher standard (e.g., applying GNG to the discussion of the deadname itself) creates a special class of fact not otherwise seen for, e.g., routine name changes, and the harm-reduction/privacy elements of the BLP aren't necessarily overriding in-context to the point of needing to effectively codify them in guidelines pertaining to long-dead people as well. Furthermore, it's argued not all facts need to be included indiscriminately, and just because a fact is true doesn't necessarily make it worthy of inclusion in context. Therefore, applying similar standards for living people to long-dead ones would make sense, as it follows the best-practice requirements for content in an article. In this context (and historically for BLP), someone dying shouldn't necessarily change substantial elements of an article's content radically (i.e., BLP is a stronger standard of verifiability and includes a harm-reduction element for living people). Those supporting it gave rationales similar to the original rfc (June 2023), which predominantly focused on living/recently-deceased people and the biographies of living persons policy (BLP) the core elements of the general notability guideline (GNG) and how it pertains to article subjects (and relevant content) the policies of verifiability (V) through reliable sourcing (RS) and whether an incidental, verifiable fact is important in the context of its weight within the article's context (UNDUE), and general privacy/harassment concerns for living people. Generally speaking, there is no clear consensus on the change.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |