When should an "accusation" be placed into any BLP?

[collect]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... accusation

presents that very question. Should an accusation where the accuser presents the accusation of criminal acts publicly but not to any "fact-finder", investigator or court in itself notable in a BLP?

[Ming]

On one level (beyond legal culpability) it's more of a problem with dead people, who after all cannot defend their reputations. The whole George Bell (bishop) (T-H-L) mess was enabled almost entirely by him being dead for nearly four decades when the allegations were made, making it next to impossible to do any real investigation of them. The C of E foundered around for two more decades before finally, in the last week or so, issuing a statement saying, "so sorry we botched this, but we just can't substantiate the accusations." It caused a huge furor, because, dragging on and on, it was besmirching the reputation of someone who was hugely admired while offering nothing to justify the stain. And now, of course, there is a huge section in his article titled "Child abuse allegations", fairly inviting the passerby to doubt his virtue.

Allegations of whatever kind shouldn't be included in any article until they are are substantiated to some degree, unless the allegations themselves become a notable issue. Even then, simply appearing in the news one day shouldn't be enough to preserve them for posterity.

[Auggie]

When it's Jimmy's BLP. Or Katherine Maher. Accuse away. Information wants to be free.

[collect]

On one level (beyond legal culpability) it's more of a problem with dead people, who after all cannot defend their reputations. The whole George Bell (bishop) (T-H-L) mess was enabled almost entirely by him being dead for nearly four decades when the allegations were made, making it next to impossible to do any real investigation of them. The C of E foundered around for two more decades before finally, in the last week or so, issuing a statement saying, "so sorry we botched this, but we just can't substantiate the accusations." It caused a huge furor, because, dragging on and on, it was besmirching the reputation of someone who was hugely admired while offering nothing to justify the stain. And now, of course, there is a huge section in his article titled "Child abuse allegations", fairly inviting the passerby to doubt his virtue.

Allegations of whatever kind shouldn't be included in any article until they are are substantiated to some degree, unless the allegations themselves become a notable issue. Even then, simply appearing in the news one day shouldn't be enough to preserve them for posterity.

Um ...

So accusations of Pope Pius XII having raped twenty-three boys (say) would be "fair game" in the "New Wikipedia system"? Neat-O!

[Poetlister]

Under the Wikipedia rules, if a reliable source says that accusations have been made, then prima facie this can be mentioned even in a BLP. Of course, it would have to be made clear that these are accusations, not criminal charges. It may be possible to have them removed under WP:WEIGHT.

This may well just go to show how bad and stupid the rules are.

[Dysklyver]

But what about the WP:BLPCRIME (T-H-L) policy/guideline.

Surely this should be expanded to include public figures?

[The Garbage Scow]

When it's been reported in multiple mainstream news outlets, I think it's fine to include "accusations", assuming they're not ridiculous.

Frequently, the accusations are disproven or come to nothing, so doing so is often in the interests of the subject anyway. And when people read all over, for example, that someone was accused (or even tried and convicted) of something, and the Wikipedia article discludes it, they assume Wikipedia is whitewashing it. Which is usually true (See also Dale Bozzio (T-H-L)).

[Poetlister]

If it's a really high profile person, it wil be so widely reported that it would be impossible to exclude. THat's the sad fact of modern news reporting. Conversely, if someone isn't a public figure, accusations will rarely get sufficient coverage to become notable.

[Ming]

When it's been reported in multiple mainstream news outlets, I think it's fine to include "accusations", assuming they're not ridiculous.

Ming would not agree. This is all back to WP:NOTNEWS and one of the reasons for it: that accusations are cheap, and often never get substantiated. If they are made, and widely reported, and do not make an impact beyond that, they should be allowed to be forgotten.

[Midsize Jake]

It's a tricky issue to be sure, but to me at least, the problem is more on the tail-end of the public-attention curve, not the front end. If someone is getting serious media coverage over an unproven criminal accusation of some kind, you can certainly make the argument that it would be unfair to deny Wikipedia the opportunity to include and/or reflect that coverage. The reason it is fair, though, is that there's never any assurance that Wikipedia will redact the related content in a timely manner if the accusation isn't proven or is shown to be false.

The obvious rejoinder might be that there's no assurance that sites like Buzzfeed, Breitbart, or the Huffington Post will redact that content either, but at least with them there's no inherent conceit that the whole world has somehow obtained "consensus" on whether that content should remain or not.

[collect]

It's a tricky issue to be sure, but to me at least, the problem is more on the tail-end of the public-attention curve, not the front end. If someone is getting serious media coverage over an unproven criminal accusation of some kind, you can certainly make the argument that it would be unfair to deny Wikipedia the opportunity to include and/or reflect that coverage. The reason it is fair, though, is that there's never any assurance that Wikipedia will redact the related content in a timely manner if the accusation isn't proven or is shown to be false.

The obvious rejoinder might be that there's no assurance that sites like Buzzfeed, Breitbart, or the Huffington Post will redact that content either, but at least with them there's no inherent conceit that the whole world has somehow obtained "consensus" on whether that content should remain or not.

Buzzfeed seems to have economic problems right now. https://order-order.com/2019/01/24/loss ... 250-staff/ HuffPo is not far behind https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... h-sections

[Zoloft]

It's a tricky issue to be sure, but to me at least, the problem is more on the tail-end of the public-attention curve, not the front end. If someone is getting serious media coverage over an unproven criminal accusation of some kind, you can certainly make the argument that it would be unfair to deny Wikipedia the opportunity to include and/or reflect that coverage. The reason it is fair, though, is that there's never any assurance that Wikipedia will redact the related content in a timely manner if the accusation isn't proven or is shown to be false.

The obvious rejoinder might be that there's no assurance that sites like Buzzfeed, Breitbart, or the Huffington Post will redact that content either, but at least with them there's no inherent conceit that the whole world has somehow obtained "consensus" on whether that content should remain or not.

Buzzfeed seems to have economic problems right now. https://order-order.com/2019/01/24/loss ... 250-staff/ HuffPo is not far behind https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news ... h-sections

What, no Breitbart link? Honestly, I dislike giving the likes of Guido Fawkes and the Washington Examiner any traction.

[mendaliv]

This is a very interesting question, one where the guidance on-wiki was not well-developed the last time I looked.

My thought has usually been that this is a fact-dependent situation. That is, whether to include will hinge in part on the specifics of the accusation and how that accusation has played out (if at all) through the legal system. Jussie Smollett, for example, is a clear case of an accused whose article absolutely should discuss the accusations. The specific reasons why include not only the extensive coverage of the story from multiple angles, but the fact that a grand jury indictment was issued and Smollett was arrested—something that requires probable cause.

In fact, I think that would be a good rule of thumb for people accused of crime, at least in common law nations: When a probable cause determination has been made by a judicial officer (i.e., an arrest warrant has been issued and executed or grand jury indictment has been returned) and WP:GNG would be otherwise met regarding the alleged crime, accusation, and other legal proceedings, then including it in a biographical article, in line with WP:WEIGHT would be proper. I think this could be the case even when there is a verdict of not guilty after a trial, and possibly even in cases where the charges are dismissed prior to trial.

General accusations on platforms like Twitter, even when picked up by mainstream media, should probably not be included in most cases. I think inclusion might be appropriate where there are a large number of accusations and there has been at least one that meets the above rule of thumb (i.e., an indictment). But even when none have been pursued criminally, I think there's a level of shitstorm where editorial discretion should enter in. For Harvey Weinstein, for example, it was appropriate to discuss the accusations against him before any indictments because of how numerous and well-covered they were, and moreover because of #MeToo clearly meriting inclusion elsewhere on-wiki even at that early stage.

[Poetlister]

Indeed, sometimes the fact that someone has been accused and acquitted is the main reason for the person's notability. And what if someone is convicted, and then cleared on appeal? Must the trial and conviction be removed from the article? That could possibly mean that the person ceases to be notable!

[mendaliv]

Indeed. Ernesto Miranda (of Miranda v. Arizona) certainly would merit an article even if he hadn't been convicted upon retrial.

[Poetlister]

Indeed. Ernesto Miranda (of Miranda v. Arizona) certainly would merit an article even if he hadn't been convicted upon retrial.

Exactly. Probably most people involved in cases that go to the Supreme Court who get their names in the case name are notable.