Wikipedia talk:Libel

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Definition

[edit]

We point people here from the WP:OS page as a way of establishing whether content requires oversight. We don't actually then help with that decision - this page then redirects again to the defamation article for a definition. We clearly need a better definition than pointing to a 12,000 word article, which is in article space and not WP space nonetheless. As a starter to get people's thoughts, I propose we add the following. We could also add some examples of libelous content.

Wikipedia treats libel (otherwise known as defamation) as any content which cannot be demonstrated to be true (via in-line citation to a reliable source), and which is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation. Content which is found to be defamatory should be escalated for suppression. Content that is merely "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" does not satisfy this criteria, and is instead a candidate for revision deletion.

Best, Darren-M talk 22:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, though it might be worth also notifying WT:OS about this discussion for their thoughts. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GeneralNotability, good shout - done. Darren-M talk 23:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a discussion on IRC, amending to:

Any content which cannot be demonstrated to be true (via in-line citation to a reliable source), and which is reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation, is likely to be libel (otherwise known as defamation). Such content should be reported for suppression immediately. Content that is merely "grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive" does not satisfy this criteria, and is instead a candidate for revision deletion.

Darren-M talk 23:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict: I'll post my objection which does not exactly apply to the revised proposal. No! Wikipedia does not, indeed cannot, give medical advice or legal advice. We have no opinion on the definition of "libel", and anyone wanting to know whether supporting certain content would be safe from litigation needs to consult their lawyer. The point of WP:LIBEL is to state the obvious: any libel will be deleted, using the "I know it when I see it" and cautionary principles. Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq, the concern that this stems from is that there's no bar for an editor to decide whether to report for revdel or for suppression without reading through a 12,000 word article to decide what defamation is. That seems unhelpful. I'm not precious on the wording, but I think we clearly need to provide more guidance than we currently do. Darren-M talk 23:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Define truth :) I'm also not so sure about defining as libel things which don't have an inline citation, or in fact trying to define it at all to any extent. I also don't think that we should be attempting to re-define the oversight and rev-deletion policies here. For instance, the instructions above don't agree with the relevant policies. Libel is regularly - like really really regularly - just rev-deleted, and this is often the right thing to do for several reasons. Regarding guidance, e-mail is probably just the most straightforward way for most people looking at this page to reach people who can make the relevant decisions. This Libel policy is actually one of my favourites as it is because it doesn't go into definitions and clauses and criteria and caveats, etc. It is a straightforward statement of intent, and I hope it remains so. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zzuuzz, yes, but this page does not define libel/defamation and refers editors to a very long page. That isn't terribly helpful to people who have no idea what defamation means. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This goes to Johnuniq's point of "I know it when I see it", which especially applies to people looking up this page. Perhaps we should remove the link? Not so helpful perhaps, but let's not try and replicate with another definition. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Zzuuzz, Nick has suggested swapping 'true' for 'verifiable', which I would have no concerns with. I'm not quite awake enough to respond to the rest of your comment but will do so tomorrow! Best, Darren-M talk 23:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a straightforward statement of intent, and I hope it remains so. I don't think Darren-M wants to turn this page into something that has a dozen clauses and two dozen caveats, what I get from chatting to Darren is that they're looking to provide users with a bit more guidance on what to report. I know and like I know it when I see it but I've got 15 years of experience in deleting, new users coming here for the first time don't, and could do with a bit more guidance and probably a bit more encouragement to report stuff to the appropriate venues. Nick (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair points. I've really said all I'm going to say on the subject, and won't stand in the way of progress. However I think the more elaborate this policy gets, the more things are going to get twisted ... when you start trying to define libel, or the concept of truth, or even mandatory inline referencing, not to mention directing people to either OS or OTRS or revdel or CSD, etc. I think many people will arrive at this policy simply because they think they are being libeled, and they want to know what our stand is and the single point of contact to e-mail. I don't think oversight is really best placed, as a single point of contact, for the queries this might generate, however if they want to take it on then good luck to them. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, this is an accurate summary, and saves me typing anything else of my own up. Cheers! Darren-M talk 22:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External Link: Gillick note

[edit]

I’ve deleted the addendum in the External links section attached to the BBC guidance on Libel, which stated "Note that Victoria Gillick actually lost her libel case, the reverse of what this claims", with a 2000 newspaper article as source. While true, its certainly not the whole truth: She won her appeal in 2002, which what the BBC guidance (written in 2004) reflects.
There’s a certain irony in the fact that a misleading comment has been sitting here on a legal policy page for the last 9 years, despite the discussion at the time telling the full story.
The BBC advice is clear enough, and (I suggest) if anyone really wants to know the ins and outs of the Gillick case (over and above the general point that a person is libelled if a publication "Generally lowers them in the eyes of right thinking members of society") they can always read our article(s) on the subject. Swanny18 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defamation that is true?

[edit]

Our article on defamation notes that, "In several countries, including South Korea, a true statement can also be considered defamation." However, Wikipedia should not remove such "defamation" if it is true, verifiable, and in conformity with the BLP policy. (t · c) buidhe 12:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funding of German Neonazis

[edit]

An Austrian quality newspaper reports that Conru's HD Foundation has donated 1.3 million Euros to a Neonazi influencer named Ahrens, reported by the latter and recorded by investigative journalists. Here's the full info that I wanted to update the entry with. You should be able to find English-language sources on that aspect to be sure.

"The Human Diversity Foundation (HDF) is reported to have donated 1.3 million Euros to a neofascist influencer in Germany who claims to try to reenact a Hitler-style party around race.[2] Once confronted by Austrian and German journalists, Conru claimed having been deceived and to be stopping his support."[2]

[2] = https://www.derstandard.at/story/3000000240766/hitlers-ss-als-vorbild-undercover-videos-enthuellen-plaene-von-ex-afd-einfluesterer

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MinTrouble (talk • contribs) 05:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy document?

[edit]

I emailed WMF legal for advice on this article and they suggested that this actually was not a policy document 'strictly speaking' and hoped that might be addressed in a future edit. Any thoughts on how to address that? Superb Owl (talk) 15:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. The answer, as of the current version, would be to change the 'legal policy' description at the top to remove the reference to the Wikimedia Foundation. Personally, I'd removed the whole 'text=' sentence. I'll not do that today, but allow some time for responses. Some context: the content was added in Special:Diff/277929695 by User:Ipatrol, citing WP:OA in the edit summary. Foundation policies are listed at foundation:Category:Policies. Office Actions are indeed covered by Foundation policies (there's also a resolution about BLPs), however this policy does not form part of Office policies. That's not to say Jimmy or the Foundation wouldn't agree with the policy, but it's not part of their official policies. 'strictly speaking'. Side note: this policy predates both the Wikimedia Foundation and Jimmy's famous comment about aggressively removing content. ​ -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
cc @ZLEA Cinaroot (talk) 08:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused as to what not a policy document 'strictly speaking' is supposed to mean. - ZLEA TǀC 16:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WMF has official policies; foundation:Policy:Main. This page is not one of them. That's how I interpret 'strictly speaking'. Referring to my comment above, I since removed the suggestion that it was one of their policies. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just now seeing that this discussion ended in February before I was pinged here. Cinaroot, what was your reason for pinging me? This page is still policy with legal considerations, even if not WMF policy. - ZLEA TǀC 16:15, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might have misunderstood the conversation. From what I understand, Wikipedia takes defamatory statements very seriously in Biographies of living people (BLPs), but outside of that, things can feel more like a grey area. It’s often difficult to judge what counts as defamatory, especially since free speech protections come into play and if articles are sourced with reliable sources. Cinaroot (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Libel against companies may be a gray area from a BLP policy perspective, but US libel laws apply to defamation against both individual people and companies. Simply put, if something is a gray area in Wikipedia policy but not US law, then we should not consider it a gray area. - ZLEA TǀC 01:59, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivoice on companies involved (but not convicted) in genocide

[edit]

Does WP:LIBEL prevent alleging involvement in Wikivoice of companies that are documented (by WP:RS and WP:V sources), but not convicted of, facilitating a genocide? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Added an RfC because we have not received any contributions to this discussion in over two weeks and could use more opinions. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. On my talk page, there was a discussion about the role of WP:LIBEL related to genocide allegations in Wikivoice against companies not convicted of genocide, which then went to another place, and it was finally decided the discussion be moved here.

For context, per Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 12#RfC on first sentence we can refer to the Gaza genocide as "the" genocide in other articles assuming WP:LIBEL does not apply.

An example case: in the World Central Kitchen aid convoy attack, the drone used was produced by Elbit Systems according to WP:V and WP:RS sources. Can we say Elbit Systems provided a drone used in the Gaza genocide? Alternatively, can we say Elbit Systems provided a drones used during the Gaza genocide? Or can we not in any way imply genocide involvement?

Does WP:LIBEL prevent alleging involvement in Wikivoice of companies that are documented (by WP:RS and WP:V sources), but not convicted of, facilitating a genocide?

  1. We cannot in any way imply a company is connected with the Gaza genocide if they have not been convicted.
  2. We can say a company provided military aid during the Gaza genocide if documented, but cannot go any further than this.
  3. We can imply a company provided military aid facilitating the Gaza genocide if sufficient external sources explicitly make this connection.
  4. We can imply a company provided military aid facilitating the Gaza genocide if they are documented providing military aid during the genocide.

Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For context, this issue arose when Alexandraaaacs1989 added “and genocide” to List of companies involved in the Gaza war, which is outside the scope of the list and obviously a huge libel problem as many of the sources only discuss the companies’ involvement in the war. Involvement in genocide is a very serious accusation to make, and one that we must avoid to the extent required by US defamation laws (as the WMF’s servers are located in the US) as it places both the WMF and potentially individual editors in danger of legal action (not a legal threat per WP:NOTLEGAL). - ZLEA TǀC 17:12, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well for full context, it said "supplying arms to Israel during the Gaza war and genocide." Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the question to be A/B/C vote form, I assume you vote A but don't want to change this for you just in case, so I encourage you to reword your comment accordingly to cast your vote for A. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a good place to have this discussion, but it only started two or three days ago and until you have exhausted all roads to achieve consensus about the topic, an Rfc is very premature (and very costly in terms of editor time); see WP:RFCBEFORE. I have removed the Rfc header for now; please continue to discuss. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If we get sufficient comments on this talk page in the short term it's fine you removed the RfC, but if we make little progress in the next few days in terms of gaining feedback from additional editors, I will re-add the RfC. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope you would try the approaches listed in the bullet points at WP:RFCBEFORE before you do. Notifying WikiProjects is a great start; so is notifying previous discussants in earlier versions of the conversation. If it does come to starting another Rfc, please respect the process and read up on how to write a brief, neutral statement for the Rfc question that appears at the top. Great questions are ones that are phrased as a yes/no question, or have a very few enumerated options, like a multiple-choice test question: "Choose from A, B, or C." Open-ended questions, such as "What are some interpretations of XYZ topic..." tend to be not so good and are less likely to lead to a solution. See the Good questions–Bad questions sidebar at WP:RFCBRIEF. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded it to be A/B/C question format and notified Talk:Gaza genocide, thanks for the suggestions. Feel free to cast a vote accordingly! Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vote (D), secondary (C), tertiary (B), because if it is a fact documented by reliable sources that a company is supplying weapons used in "the" genocide (per Wikivoice), then we should report these facts directly. WP:LIBEL in my view is not applicable because we are basing our statements on external sources, and thus we are not the ones alleging genocidal involvement—others are, and we are simply noting what they said based on well-established Wiki policy. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any company that is not actively trying to discourage the usage of its products and/or services could be considered as a facilitator for the Gaza genocide. If the said company products and/or services are being used to promote, instigate, facilitate and engage in the Gaza conflict, they are simply involved in the Gaza genocide. Indirect support constitute a form of aiding and abetting or complicity. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 07:47, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not up to Wikipedia to decide. If a court of law rules that a company is indeed facilitating a genocide, then we can say that here. Otherwise it would be libel to make that claim in wikivoice. - ZLEA TǀC 15:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I consider this, I would like to thank Mathglot and that it was not pushed against. A general discussion can solve problems just as easily as an RFC. Many editors use this to begin a discussion, not necessarily a bad thing, but many times, premature or unnecessary. I may need some clarification: The opening sentence mentions "allegations in Wikivoice". Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation states, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that genocide is an evil action but may state that genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil. Bold added for emphasis -- Otr500 (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a conflation here between opinions and facts. If a company is providing arms to Israel that it is using during its genocide, then it is a fact that the company is facilitating genocide—end of story. The only question is how, or whether at all, to allege this fact in Wikivoice due to WP:LIBEL concerns. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are an author or analyst writing about Gaza for a book or journal, that is certainly an argument you could make and publish. And you can make it here, on the Talk page. But there are restrictions to what we can add to an article, as Wikipedia editors merely report what independent, reliable, secondary sources say; we don't draw conclusions based on the logic of a situation. In particular, you can add that assertion to an article either: a) if it is backed by WP:RSOPINION and you provide WP:INTEXT attribution (i.e., you name a particular author in the body whose opinion it is and cite it; e.g.; "John Doe said that Acme Co.is facilitating genocide"[37]), or, b) in Wikipedia's voice, if it is the verifiable view of the majority of reliable sources who have written about it, along with inline citations but without requiring WP:INTEXT attribution. It is always possible to cherry pick a few sources on one side or the other of a contentious issue like this one, but What do most reliable sources say on this point, is their a clear majority view in one direction, or is opinion divided? Mathglot (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for explaining in a kind and patient way. I'm on my phone as I write this so please excuse my absence of hyperlink use/formatting in my reply. I would like to preface my next paragraph by saying I read and understand the entirety of your reply.
    But... I think it's important to note there are cases other than the two you mentioned (a: opinion attributed, or b: cited source for claim). This third kind (we'll call c) of case is where there are implications embedded in how a sentence is worded in Wikivoice when the sentence's primary purpose is to make a different claim. For example, "the Gaza genocide is" is supported by Wikivoice without inline citations, even though these four words imply the statement "there is a genocide in Gaza". This is an important distinction, and this third category is the type of claim I am focusing on by raising this issue. Not sentences saying "Elbit Systems facilitated genocide by giving weapons to Israel." What I'm realizing I should have made clearer is how I'm focusing on more ambiguous cases, such as putting Elbit Systems in a template category called "companies supporting the genocide" e.g. in the Gaza genocide navigational template I created; such as saying "Elbit Systems has shipped arms to Israel during the Gaza war and genocide" (partially implying in Wikivoice involvement in genocide without citations due to summary of sources, vis WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY); saying in an article overview of companies involved in the genocide something like "multiple companies have provided military aid to Israel during the genocide, including companies X, Y, and Z" (or possibly stronger wording as needed in Wikivoice if vote option d is supported), etc.
    Have I better explained where I'm coming from? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the actual issue here is whether such claims, even if well sourced, are libel if made in wikivoice. - ZLEA TǀC 15:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes this too Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well-sourced is not enough for Wikivoice; it would have to be the clear majority view. If there is doubt on that point (not among Wikipedia editors, but among the sources) then the safe solution is in-text attribution. You could even do a kind of hybrid: let's say some neutral media watchdog think tanks have actually evaluated this very question and wrote about it; then you could make a quotation about what the majority view is as an in text attribution to the think tanks. E.g., "The independent media analyst group SmartFolks Corp. wrote in its 32 Octember report that 'The majority of independent sources believe that Acme facilitated genocide', however Genius Inc. found that that was 'the view among a minority of reliable sources' ". That way, you have simply made an attributed quotation, and the libel question goes away. Mathglot (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your contributions to the discussion, but I feel like you haven't interacted in your responses to the more ambiguous cases relating to WP:LIBEL. Can you please react to specific voting cases above I created? Namely, it's not clear whether "Elbit Systems provided arms to Israel during the Gaza war and genocide" is permitted, as this was the sentence that started this original dispute. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vote (D) or (C). However, we have to word things very carefully and matter-of-fact so Wikipedia as a whole is not sued out of business by these extremely powerful companies. Listing well-documented military support is fine, but we cannot explicitly write "Google's leaders are enthusiastic genocide-enablers" or similar. David A (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I !vote for C. I respect the logic of D, but it does raise some possible WP:OR concerns. A and B would be unnecessarily restrictive in my view; I think we can go as far as C with appropriate language and attribution. WillowCity(talk) 14:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vote (D) or (C) but would like the statement to be more specific than "military aid". There's a difference between clothing for soldiers and providing weapons and both are "military aid". The statement should be as specific as sources allow. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:06, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The standard of sourcing for (b) is easily met - it simply requires the presence of a reliable source; (c) is correct too but leaves open the question of what “sufficient external sources” means - in my view it would have to be the majority of independent RSs, not just the presence of a single source; (d) would be synth: it’s saying we can go beyond the sources because we know better.
Note: I think the same rules apply here to countries as well as companies, I.e to how we describe the complicity of countries such as the UK, eg in info boxes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]