Comment

I don't think we need a policy on "Dirty laundry". If it is well accepted as fact, then there is no reason to exclude it. Having a policy against dirty laundry will simply give people an excuse to delete information that they don't like about someone in order to make them look more favorable. (Another example: Shrub being arrested for DUI). --snoyes 18:16 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Every man has is Foibles. As John Adams said, "Every man is cracked". Do we want our dirty laundry aired.?

If Wagner wrote Judiasm in Music so he did put it in article. Martin Luther committed adultery. The entry should read, Martin had extra marital affiars or in proper Victorian English, "sexual pecadilloes". (I like this way the best because It doesn't hit them over the head with a baseball bat, neither does it hide it, but gives respect to the individual and acknowledgement of weaknesses.)WHEELER 16:18, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Snoyes that we should not have a policy against dirty laundry. However, it is important to keep it in balance with (possibly) more important aspects of the involved individuals. This IMHO is the only real thing a policy on this should shape. --ssd 15:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

I am seeking consensus on presentation of history that is uncomplimentary to the subject. I am hoping this can be addressed in a broad guideline, whether the subject is a corporation, a person, a religion, or a nation. I would also recognize the ambiguity of "uncomplimentary." What one political party views as horrifying, the other may view as its core philosophy.

Background is that I added a series of articles regarding L'Oréal, the corporate headquarters of which were used for meetings of collaborators, who owned the company and hired many other collaborators, through the 1990s and beyond. This drew personal insults ("anti-French") and unannounced deletions of large sections of text, in part on the grounds that the material was "not related" to the topic. I responded with a similar level of hostility, probably more so than I should have. In any event, I am now seeking a guideline to follow. Is the story of a corporation's cooperation with the Nazis appropriate for the wikipedia article on the corporation, on the Nazis, both, neither? I am now (cautiously) looking to deal with the boycott of Nestlé products, and one of my former jousting partners is also looking at that article.

Part of the philosophical issue is that it is possible to view the negative information (and I would argue any information) as not being "about" the core topic of the article. In what articles would it be appropriate to post facts about the acts of some American military members in Abu Ghraib? There are so many connections - an Abu Ghraib article, a human rights article, an Iraqi War II article, maybe one on Donald Rumsfeld? Maybe on GWB? What if someone wants to compare/contrast the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the Abu Ghraib scandal?

I did review the wikipedia guidelines I could find, but I'm still feeling very much "at sea" in knowing what philosophical anchor points assist in knowing what's "related" and what's "not related." The Nestlé boycott information is "about" babies, the Nestle corp, death, health, milk, Switzerland, all kinds of things. Are there any lines drawn anywhere on this point? twestgard

Collaboration with the Nazis certainly deserves mention on the L'Oreal page, as well as IBM and others. Perhaps it should also be placed on a list of corporations that collaborated with the Nazis? Anyways, you should drop me a line if you need help with pov-warriors trying to censor embarassing history.-- Revolutionary Left | Che y Marijuana 15:40, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Is there such a list? If not, one ought to be created. It's no real secret that Kodak made gas for the KZ-camps, nor that both Ferdinand Porsche and Hugo Boss with their respective companies aided the nazis in designing and producing tanks and uniforms, respectively. Thus, such listings would only be informative, IMHO. Choosing to leave them out so as not to hurt any feelings would be A) blatantly biased towards the corporations in question, B) foolish, as it doesen't make the current companies nazis, and C) the same as not to mention Christian Terrorism or Islamist terrorism - so as not to hurt their feelings. --TVPR 18:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Based on the above, plus a lot of my own thoughts, I have created a page on how to draft Wikipedia articles that include uncomplimentary history, which I hope will be used, edited, and improved. --Twestgard

Just a little note: I was involved in the l'Oréal quarrel, and I was certainly not try to censor history. However, I thought that the additions were very clumsy, initially lacked any reference (this was fixed later, kudos to Twestgard), lacked background information, and should have been centralized instead of being copied into many articles. I was also concerned that some of the sources, from some extracts that I read, were more concerned about sensationalism than about historical precision. It therefore removed some materials from some of the pages (but it was still available on other pages). Then, some tempers flew high.

I agree with Twestgard's proposed policy, and have added some other provisions. David.Monniaux 05:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Uncomplimentary history

Who needs an article on uncomplimentary history?

Many disputes over how best to draft Wikipedia articles arise from the inclusion of history that is uncomplimentary to the subject of the article, or is viewed by someone as being uncomplimentary, although others view it as being neutral or even good. There have been many examples of such disputes involving Nazi history and Judaism, but also involving people with an interest in (pardon my terms here, folks, all the options are all offensive to someone) mainland China and Taiwan, and also in articles discussing aspects of Israel in reference to Palestinians and other Arabs and/or Muslims. There are, and will continue to be, examples of others arising in Wikipedia on an ongoing basis.

These debates are deeply meaningful and important. They allow the opportunity for partisans to air their views, and also can improve the overall quality of the Wikipedia articles over which the debates are waged. However, because each side holds their views so close to their identity, the debates can spill over into regrettable and unproductive activities that also hurt articles and Wikipedia overall - name-calling and vandalism. Because the belief that Wikipedia can function includes the belief that people can find routes through these disagreements, it follows logically that anyone who strays from this path is not being true to the trust in Wikipedia's concept that we Wikipedians take as fundamental when choosing to participate in Wikipedia.

Thus, all of us need an article on uncomplimentary history, because all of us benefit when these debates go well, and all of us suffer when they do not.

How to proceed when faced with uncomplimentary history

How to diagnose uncomplimentary history

The symptoms of dealing with uncomplimentary history are (1) a feeling of anger, combined with (2) thought that the article is not NPOV. Just temporarily, step away from reacting to the debate, and hold off from making your NPOV argument, until you make sure you have all your other Wikipedia guidelines in place. This is not a retreat from your position. Wikipedia's processes are effective in creating NPOV articles. You will promote your position in the public arena if Wikipedia includes information on your topic that is more neutrally presented than the other sources that currently exist. You can fairly use Wikipedia articles to state, factually, that your position is one of the perspectives that exist. Most debates suffer from a lack of sources that present both sides factually. Consider the following suggestions for success, then come back to the specific debate.

Maintain Wikipedia standards, no matter what the other side is doing

Two wrongs don't make a right. Many of the standard guidelines for Wikipedia are at their most useful when applied to an article which includes statements that you find objectionable. For example, avoid name-calling, no matter how attractive or well-justified the accusation may be. If you have been called names, avoid calling the name-caller a "name-caller." Skip these activities entirely - it's a distraction that won't help your cause. Also, avoid mass deletions of text you view as wrong - the outcome is just a series of "take it out" - "put it back" - "take it out again" that goes nowhere. Seek consensus for changes, both because it's the Wikipedia thing to do, and also because it's the best way to get your changes to stay in the article. If you and/or the other side have been "misbehaving," the best cure is to come back immediately to the Wikipedia way of doing things.

Maintain a Sense of Scope

Remember — if a particular issue or dispute seems crucial and important in your group, religious affiliation or country, most Wikipedia readers and editors will see it with more distance. Do not assume that some editor with a different point of view on the facts, or the importance that they should bear in the article, necessarily does so because they hold opposite ideological views, or are biased because of their country or religion. (For example: if you edit from a pro-Israel point of view, do not assume that whoever disagrees with your edits is pro-Muslim, anti-Zionist or antisemite.)

Also, remember most Wikipedia readers probably need information that is more general than the quarrels that you are part of. While some facts may seem obvious to you (because you are very familiar with the quarrel), many readers may not know about them. Try to keep your focus on writing for disinterested readers who are outside the debate.

Use NPOV arguments to raise factual verifiability

The best approach is to push facts, and verifiability. A "fact" is something that is "verifiable," that is, the accuracy of the assertion can be checked by looking at something other than Wikipedia. The greater the ability to check facts outside of Wikipedia, the better the article is. Where you see something that is "not right" in your view, try to push for an inclusion of the source. For example, suppose someone changes the Henry Ford article to include the sentence, "Henry Ford was a Nazi." While this sentence might be true, it is not much of a fact because has a very low degree of verifiability — in particular because the meaning of this sentence is not well-defined (Does it mean Ford was a member of the NSDAP? A supporter? A sympathizer? Somebody who espoused some of their ideas?). Where do you look to prove it true or false? Someone who found that sentence to be objectionable would want to push for more verifiable assertions.

At the time this sentence is written, the Henry Ford article does not directly call him a Nazi, but does declare that his company built a factory in Germany in 1938 to assist in building munitions, and does claim that he spoke approvingly of Adolph Hitler's policies. These are more verifiable than merely applying a label of "Nazi." At some point in the future, the Henry Ford article could become even more factually verifiable, perhaps by including direct quotes from Ford himself, and/or by including references to books or newspaper articles describing Ford's life.

Generally speaking, actions are much more verifiable than motivations. While it is often possible to know what someone did or did not do, the reasons why that person did or did not do so are often a matter of speculation — and any statements about them is essentially unverifiable. We can of course draw inferences from that person's statements; but there are many reasons why one should not speak totally one's mind, and one's declarations may not reflect one's personal motivations. This often leads to speculations as to the "real intents" of some historical figure. The problem is even graver with groups — a group does not have a single mind, and thus discussions of motivations should take into account the diversity of opinions that were present.

As a consequence: Wikipedians should be careful before reporting speculations, or vague statements as to historical events. If the statement is vague, try to reformulate it in a precise manner. If the statement is speculative, question whether it should be in the article — unless the speculation is a widely held one, or originates from prominent commentators, it should probably not be mentioned.

Add context and background information

Articles sometimes suffer from what's called "the zealotry of the new convert." You see this when well-intentioned editors add information regarding a very narrow topic, in a way (or to a degree) that tends to obscure the "bigger picture", or to attribute complex historical phenomena to one factor, ignoring others.

Such problems often arise when editors deal with historical periods that they know from one single aspect, while lacking culture about the historical context. For instance, this would be the case of somebody who would edit on the labor movement around Chicago at the end of the 19th century, without knowing the political or social structures of the United States. From the perspective of a Wikipedian who has spent more time or energy in the overall field, such edits are likely to seem unbalanced, or to be obsessed with very specific points of view, or to be lacking essential information to be understandable. Remember that without some information about the context, many historical facts are distorted or even incomprehensible, or give a false picture of the motivations of the people. Some examples:

It is difficult to really describe the group Hamas by just focusing on its paramilitary activities, without explaining that its popularity among Palestinians is largely due to the social services that it runs.
The support or opposition to slavery was certainly a factor in the American Civil War. However, not all political positions or motivations of that era can be reduced strictly to the issue of slavery, while ignoring economical and political factors.

Try to improve the overall article by gathering information surrounding the topic, and including it in the article. For instance, if your article discusses a particular group or person, consider whether the article's text and the sources cited include both general background and narrow topics. Try adding information from general background sources, if the writing is too narrow, or briefly quote or paraphrase some more specific sources, if not many are present. In the above example, add links to biographies of Henry Ford, or histories of the Ford Company, since articles focusing on Ford's Nazi acquaintances are already well-represented.

Put the weight of truth on an outside source whenever possible

On hotly contested issues, put the responsibility for the truth of the assertion on an outside source. Instead of "Person X was a Nazi," substitute a sentence saying "In Book Xxxxx, Historian Xxxxx concluded that Person Xxxxxx was a Nazi." Whether a person was or was not a Nazi is not highly verifiable. Whether such an accusation exists in the book is highly verifiable, because anybody can go to the book and read it. Even for Adolph Hitler, (whose Nazi status is essentially indisputable), verifiable facts make a better article, because they go beyond mere labels to describe actions that support whatever inference the reader may make about this person. Keep in mind that it's then fair game for the other side to put in a line that says "The speeches of Analyst X came to the opposite conclusion." Ultimately, you can make the article into a starting point for the reader to independently research the topic, after being pointed at supporting material on all sides.

Remember — the goal is to prepare an encyclopedia article, not to engage in an advocacy war. One possible consequence of fights of opinions and the rule of quoting sources is that the controversy section or article gets very long, with a lot of quotes, nitpicks about very specific points; ultimately, it completely loses focus, and loses the reader as well. At one point, it makes much sense to summarize the quarrel and give the opposite points of views and who holds them.

Be prudent with outside sources

Note, however, that not all outside sources are created equal. There exist varying degrees of precision and credibility; obviously, as a general rule, the description of a historical event by a noted historian should not be put on an equal footing with a mention of that event in a press article.

Some books and articles are of an editorial nature — that is, they strive to push some point of view, without necessarily trying to give all the elements of the problem. In general, while they may be good starting points to get information about a topic, they make poor sources for facts.

Some books and articles are of a sensationalist nature — that is, they will make broad claims, pretend they were the first to unveil some particular uncomplimentary fact of the past, etc. Editors should be particularly prudent when they use such sources.

For almost any political or historical point of view, it is possible to find some group, however obscure, supporting it. Thus, the fact that you have an outside source does not imply that this source is legitimate. While, of course, we should mention minority opinions, we should certainly not give false importance to the opinion of fringe groups; nor should we ignore the expertise of reputable historians.

Isolate debates to a subheading that describes the debate

The fact that opposing views exist on a particular point is usually only a part of the article's topic, no matter how important it may be to you and your opponent(s). When possible, separate the disputed aspect into a subheading with an introductory paragraph that describes, in the most neutral possible terms, what the debate is about. Within the subheading, each perspective can have a paragraph or subsubheading that states their position. Remember, NPOV requires that even these position paragraphs be limited to verifiable statements like "The Constitution of Group X states, '(quote)'." or "The catechism of Group X describes a fundamental principle of their belief to be ..." Even in the paragraph describing a position, statements that claim "Truth" will not inform a reader outside the debate, but will only drag you into time-wasting disputes that ultimately do not promote your position, or significantly affect the opposition.

Also consider whether a separate article would help to reduce conflict (see below).

Consider creating a new article

Some disputes can be made pointless (and thus avoided entirely) through the creation of a new article, especially when the dispute is a question of balance. While uncomplimentary history about a particular subject is part of its history and should not be Bowdlerized, including the full story may take up so much space that it unfairly overbalances the rest of the article, thereby making it non-NPOV in a fashion. For example, the Nestlé article, in all fairness, needs to include reference to the Nestlé boycott. However, there is a debate at the time of writing as to whether the boycott material may overbalance the rest of the material. One view is that creation of a separate article on the boycott eliminates the "overbalancing" perspective, as long as the article on the corporation includes a clear reference and link to the boycott article.

A new article is a good option when your topic affects many Wikipedia articles. If your topic is one story, it is undesirable that the full story, links and reference be copied in extenso in all the related articles. Instead, put a short but clear summary in the articles describing all significant parties involved and point to a central article, or section of an article, where the issue is discussed. (Additionally, this has the benefit that there is a single point to edit in case of inaccuracies in the details instead of having to fix several articles.)

There is a difference for religious leaders

Some religious leaders claim to be saints or is claimed so by his followers. This is part of their "marketing strategy". In that case the dirty laundry is very important and should be mentioned. See talk:guru. Andries 09:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that there is a difference for religious leaders - the point remains the same, whether the person who has dirty laundry is selling soap, salvation, or sincerity (business, religion, or politics). The descriptions of how to deal with these kinds of debates remain valid. You get two people who disagree on what NPOV is, under the circumstances, and it can devolve into stupid BS like namecalling. The point here is that it gives those two people a common reference point and techniques to take their enthusiasm and manifest it in ways that help, rather than hurt, Wikipedia. The above options describe ways that you can "mention" dirty laundry about the parenting skills of George W. Bush or the sexual habits of Bill Clinton, not to mention various religious leaders, without ending up in a deletion war. The conflict that led to the suggestions above was about Eugene Schueller, who both founded one of the world's largest and most successful companies, and also used some of his profits to help Hitler invade France. Schueller eventually died, Hitler lost of course, and you probably have some of the company's products in your house. How do you balance those aspects out? It's not a simple equation, but it is one that the above suggestions sorted out. It wouldn't really have been different if (instead of a corporation) we had been arguing about the morally-flawed founder of a religion that nevertheless has sincere adherents. 24.148.89.191 19:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, Andries has the right of it. Immoral behavior is more relevant to someone claiming to be a moral leader. Corporate executives might get placed in the role of being role models, but odds are they never made the promise to anyone "I'll show you how to live a good and virtuous life." When people's weaknesses and mistakes run exactly counter to what they are claiming to offer to the world, it become the world's business. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't dirty laundry basically the very thing that most people are interested in? That and gruesome deaths under tragic circumstances. --~!Wetman

I think dirty laundry must be mentioned in case people claim to be saints or are seen as saints by their followers i.e. religious leaders. For those kind of people, their private lives are important for the public, in the same way that the private life of Muhammad and Jesus is interesting for the public. Andries 08:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Wikipedia article on using verifiability in articles

Text moved from main project page

My POV on this: Richard Wagner held contemptible views, and appears to have been an obnoxious person. At the same time, he wrote remarkable music. We should only report facts (when there is consensus) and opinions (where there is controversy). Wagner's views are a matter of record, their obnoxiousness an almost universal opinion about those views. Similiarly with the fact of his composition of his works, and the almost universal opinion that they are great works of music. All of these are significant facts and opinions about Wagner, and thus fitting encylopedia material. Similar reasoning applies to the other cases: just report the facts and opinions.The Anome

Tell it all. Give readers the chance to realize that no one is perfect. You can't make an informed opinion when information is withheld from you. Wikipedian's NPOV will probably show the bad points in a moderate and inoffensive way. User:TomCerul

It's a matter of emphasis. We can certainly talk about the contemptible moral actions of famous people, and should not withhold such information, but this shouldn't occupy most of the article, because these are not the facts we consider most important about these people. Derrick Coetzee 17:44, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We should only include "dirty laundry" if it relates to why is this person is important. If it did not have significant impact, then it is just trivia. For example, did Wagner's views on Judaism influence his contemporaries? Did it inspire later generations? Did it affect his music? There are plenty of anti-semites who do not have Wikipedia entries. Matthew Simoneau 20:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VERY IMPORTANT Don't put it in the intro! Put the dirty laundry stuff farther down in the article the less signifigant it is. If its real important, maybe in the 1st paragraph after the intro, but never in the intro! I can't stand when people do that, its completely unfair. Sam [Spade] 21:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We need to make sure that any "dirty laundry" is presented with proper respect to it's authoritivenes, too. There's a difference between talking about Martin Luther King Jr.'s adultery, which is documented, and most of the checkout line tabloid accusations of most celebs. That being said, I think it is important to cover all of the documented attributes of somebody, good and bad, so a certain amount of dirty laundry, treated respectfully, is a good thing. Unfortunately, such things are more value judgements than quantifiable rules, although concentrating on dirty laundry can be called a NPOV violation. --Wirehead 23:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Richard Wagner was a hit-and-run driver.
Martin Luther King, Jr. used to gas while having dinner with friends.
Sun Myung Moon is a terrible musician.

So what?

Do you want Richard Wagner to teach you how to drive? Do you want Martin Luther King, Jr. to teach you table manners? Do you wan Sun Myung Moon to teach you everything about classical music but you are afraid to ask?

Come on, if they were not the kind of person required by the society to do something right, the thing they had done wrong was not worthy to mention. You may argue Rev. King, a servant of God, was not supposed to fuck other people's woman. OK, possibly true. You may argue Rev. Moon, another servant of God, was not supposed to be caught by a pilice. I think you may have a point. But what about Richard Wagner? He was nothing but a musician. If you don't ask him how to run your business, if you don't ask him how to keep your country's budget under control, if you don't hire him to build a space rocket, why do you care about his racial view?

So what? He was nothing but an entertainer who died over 100 years ago.

People are nuts when they go witch hunt. -- Toytoy 14:43, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Notability and notoriety are a big thing here. Wagner's antisemitism made him a darling of the Third Reich, while King's adultery had no further consequences. One has to be careful and selective with dirty laundry. JFW | T@lk 11:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Food for thought: MLK, Jr.'s adultery might be looked at as notable because it has been exploited as such. i.e., while he was alive, King's enemies tried to smear him as a Communist and an adulterer; now the Communism charge is mostly forgotten but the adultery is still waved about. Both charges, both the one with little factual basis and the one that did have some, were used in the same way. Wouldn't that give them similar notability? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All interesting notable dirty laundry should be mentioned, but its clear that Richard Wagner anti-semitism should be promenently mentioned, as it relates to his fame, but his (hypothetical?) hit-and-run driving should not be given prominence, as it does not. Wirehead is right that one needs a basis beyond tabloids for the dirty laundry. Various early rumors about Clinton which were made up by conservatives is a similar non-tabloid example; although I doubt it currently gets much mention next to the real Lewinsky (sp?) affair. MLK's gas should definitely be include. Whats the point of an encyclopedia anyone can edit if it doesn't tell me that MLK gassed in front of guests. ;) - 134.214.102.33 14:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don'd think someone's dirty laundry is important UNLESS it has something to do with how that person is portrayed.. with MLK the adultey IS incriminating because he manifested himself as a Christian and most of his speeches were strongly based on moral values so the fact he fucked other women demotes his words and extremely hypocritical!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.245.225.66 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]