Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Privacy re: DOB

The subject of an article I watch objected to having their (properly sourced) DOB listed. I have restored it with just the year, per WP:DOB on this page, but what happens if the subject still objects? Jdcooper (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi' IMO and my interpretation of BLP - you are adding this one https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?cite=6Uveb%2FGgJ76vUBR1nuHXJA&scan=1 you should not be scouring the internet for obscure sources to add a not well known dob or even year of birth to a wiki biography - BLP in question is Claudia Webbe Govindaharihari (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That source violates WP:BLPPRIMARY, "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth" Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

DOB of living persons should not be given as it aids identity theft. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC).

Thanks for your help Galobtter, I didn't realise it constituted a primary source. User:Govindaharihari, I was asking for clarification on a wikipedia guideline. I did not originally add that source myself, I was not "scouring the internet" for anything. I don't see why you felt the need to write a passive-aggressive comment on my talk page, seeing as we have had no contact whatsoever prior to this. Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That is absurd privacy theater. Are identities of NBA players being stolen just because ESPN has their DOB listed? --bender235 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Bender235, certainly you cannot think that all of our BLP subjects have the financial resources of wealthy NBA players, who have lawyers, accountants and agents to help protect them against identity theft. Many BLP subjects are in a far weaker situation regarding identity theft. If omitting the full DOB helps alleviate their privacy concerns, then that is a good reason to leave it out if the coverage in secondary sources is not extensive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Cullen, if we can find a reliable source for someone's birthday, so can identity thief Joe Shmoe. Deleting a sourced DOB from Wikipedia when it is still publicly accessible at the source is mere privacy theater. --bender235 (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

To some extent I agree with you, and yet you could make exactly the same argument about a Social Security Number, and we certainly would never post that in an article under any circumstances even if we did find it somewhere. EEng 21:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, out of interest and for future reference, if the source is a secondary source and the subject complains, what is the procedure in that case? Jdcooper (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In my experience you need to be sure there is very strong, policy-based consensus for inclusion. Remove the information while it is in dispute. Use the article talk page to review the sources carefully, and discuss any discrepancies or contradictions between sources. Once the discussion is far enough along and there's a strong proposal for inclusion, take it to WP:BLPN for review. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. It is debatable whether FreeBMD is "obscure" or a BLPPRIMARY source. Also, this person is a politician, a public figure and an activist. Their notability is by choice.

RfC: Privacy and WP:DOB

The privacy policy WP:DOB needs to be modified. In particular, the sentence "[i]f the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth [...] err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it" needs to be modified or removed. First of all, the last part is redudant since per WP:BLPRS we do not include any information that is not backed by reliable sources anyways (regardless of whether it is birth dates, college degrees, or the persons membership in the Communist party).

But more importantly, why does it matter if "the subject" complains? As far as I know this is the only instance where we give subjects final editorial approval of article content. On the basis of privacy of all reasons? As User:David Gerard put it (when he first deleted WP:DOB in 2006 after it was added unilaterally without prior discussion) this is “ridiculous paranoia,” since if someone's DOB is published in say Who's Who or Library of Congress authority files, then what is the point of deleting the information from Wikipedia? What layer of privacy does it add? I understand that part in WP:DOB on "phone numbers, addresses, account numbers," but date of birth is different.

In short: date of birth is an essential part of every biography, in Wikipedia and elsewhere (for a good reason, encyclopedic articles open with DOB). I don't see why our general WP:BLP policies shouldn't apply; that is, if the information is unsourced we delete it, but if there is a publicly accessible reliable source, we keep it. Subject's privacy concerns notwithstanding, because if we can find reliable sources on somebody's DOB so can everyone else. --bender235 (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note: A previous discussion of this matter can be found at: WT:Biographies of living persons/Archive 37 § “Privacy” of birthdates that are published in reliable sources? Rebbing 20:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• How is the date of birth "essential" to a biography? In most instances, it seems to me one of the least meaningful, least useful facts that we may choose to include in an article, just after the subject's eye color and right before the names of her childhood pets.

As for your proposal, I oppose. Even if, as you suggest, a person loses all legitimate privacy or dignitary interests in his birth date once it has been reported anywhere—in the case that spurred this RFC, the only proffered source is a well-written candidate profile on a newly-minted blog—our interest in publishing it is equally trivial.

How about removing the subject's right to object but clarifying that "widely published in reliable sources" means what it says? Perhaps something like:

Wikipedia only includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely extensively published by multiple reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. In either case, the source or sources must be cited in the article.

Rebbing 21:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

How is the date of birth "essential" to a biography? It places the persons life precisely in the historical timeline. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

How is such precision meaningful or useful? What difference does it make to the reader that Mr. Wales was born August 7, 1966, rather than October 10, 1966, or January 30, 1966? Rebbing 00:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, Mrs. Whales may care I suppose.

-EEng

Accuracy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. I will ask again: What does our reader gain by knowing that Mr. Whales was born on August 7, 1966, that he would not have gotten by learning only that he was born in 1966? Rebbing 03:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Well for one thing they'd know his astrological sign? And when to celebrate his birthday. It tells you whether the person is old enough, or too old, to qualify for various public offices. And it is absolutely standard common practice to include DOB (if known) when writing biographies of any professional quality.

Sorry you didn't like my answer to your question. I'm not here to give lessons in history or the importance of accuracy. If you need them, I suggest staying far away from all articles under general sanctions until you are more familiar with the Wikipedia's policies. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, if you're gonna be all high and mighty you should probably pay more attention to the distinction between accuracy and precision. EEng 03:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:FOC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 15:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Well, FOC you, too! EEng 16:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstood my question. I wasn't suggesting that the accuracy of what we do publish is unimportant. Rather, I am asking if any Wikipedia reader would understand Mr. Wales' biography differently had it been that he came into this world on any other date in 1966. I am arguing that, in most cases, the date of birth of a stranger is as meaningless as the precise number of hairs on his head. Conversely, if, as you argue, our reader benefited appreciably from our "plac[ing] the person[']s life precisely in the historical timeline" by including the full dates of birth of our biographical subjects, why stop at that? Why not include the time of birth as well?

I'm not asking you for a history lesson, and I understand Wikipedia's policies just fine. What I am asking you to do is to support the position you have taken and to answer my reasoned objections. You have done nothing but assert bare conclusions, dodge my questions, and respond with belittling insults. Rebbing 03:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

You want an example to your specific question. My responses are that because this is an encyclopedia we strive for accuracy, as supported by ArbCom and this very policy. It's a standard part of any biography as well. In that light, I see no reason to give examples where the exact date is notable or otherwise consequential, but as I indicated, history has plenty of examples in portents around a birth date, or inheritance. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Arguable, the DOB is a "completeness" issue, not an accuracy issue. (If we include the DOB , we want assurance it is the right DOB, that's the accuracy part). And because we're an encyclopedia, we are not bound to "completeness". Comprehensiveness, yes, but not completeness. --Masem (t) 15:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Focus on content yourself, Ronz. You belittle me while refusing to engage in meaningful debate, and, when I politely protest, you retort that I should focus on content‽

Since your reply yet again fails to engage with my objections, even the simplest (why is the full date of birth vital, yet the time of birth is insignificant?), I reluctantly accept your intellectual forfeit, but I humbly concede that you would win a pissing contest. Rebbing 16:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Do I need to turn the hose on you two? EEng 16:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Why does it matter, if they ask? Because believe it or not, not everyone wants all their details to be written about by people on the internet. I see no reason to change the rule. We treat people we write about respectfully too -- now, must we prevent/remove a very well sourced DOB, no, but if a person, especially a rather low profile person) has expressed a problem and the sourcing is weak or obscure than it's common decency to do so (I also don't agree with the other change proposed in Rebbing's comments but that's another proposal they can make elsewhere). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: We care about complaints from the subject in part because of the legal issues. While US law has become clearer this year, it has been extremely unclear in the past. See Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc.. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Hoang sounded more in contract law than anything relevant to this discussion; and the law was settled before that cases was decided. Notice how the Ninth Circuit's disposition is marked "not for publication"? In the Ninth Circuit, that designation, similarly to the usage in other American courts, indicates that the decision did not "establish[], alter[], modif[y], or clarif[y]" the law, "call[] attention to a rule of law that appears to have been generally overlooked," "criticize[] existing law," or "involve[] a legal or factual issue of unique interest or substantial public importance." Ninth Circuit Rule 36-2(a–d). In other words, it was a mundane ruling dictated by existing precedent. Rebbing 04:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz: I think we have to distinguish between "publishing someone's birthday" and "referring to a third party's publication of someone's birthday". If you don't agree with having your DOB out in public, don't report it to LOC or Who's Who. But if you agreed to have it published there, you cannot oppose to have it published on Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if we know that a person agreed to publication of their birth date, then latter objections of wanting the information removed for privacy reasons would probably not hold weight. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rebbing: "Even if, as you suggest, a person loses all legitimate privacy or dignitary interests in his birth date once it has been reported anywhere." Why are you trying make it sound like my intention is to degrade someone's dignity? My only point is that if you (as the subject) agreed to have your DOB published in Who's Who or some other collection of biographies, you cannot legitimately oppose having your DOB on Wikipedia.

Also, regarding your suggestion: what are "widely" and/or "extensively" supposed to qualify on "published reliable source"? The number of publications, or the range and size of a source's audience? Is it not enough that WP:RS requires "reliable" sources, now they are supposed to be "popular" ones too? Please explain. And just out of curiosity: what is Library of Congress (or any other nation's authority files for that matter); popular enough to meet this criterion? --bender235 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Having one's DOB published in Who's Who, or in news coverage, etc. is not a matter of agreeing or giving permission in most jurisdictions. It's a public record.

Also the "popularity" of sources thing is not new at BLP. For years some editors have been removing sourced content "because it's a tabloid". It doesn't matter whether that source is a major and reliable newspaper or newsmedia outlet, or how well-researched the article is. They don't like the style, so it's out. In the case of some major UK newspapers, they are accepted as a reliable source for everything else but BLP.

Thank you for your reply, bender235. I didn't mean to malign your intention. What I mean is that, in my view, BLPPRIVACY isn't strictly about protecting against identity theft and the like; many people would understandably feel somewhat violated were strangers to dig up their birth dates and publish them on one of the world's fifth-most-popular website. On Wikipedia, subjects' sentiments and preferences are usually eclipsed by the encyclopedia's greater interests in neutrality, dissemination of information, editorial consistency, and the like—and rightly so—but, where subjects' feelings are most likely to be offended and our editorial interests are at a minimum, we sometimes defer. See MOS:GENDERID (a subject's subjective gender identity takes precedence over sourcing, and we are to defer to a transgender subject's wishes when choosing pronouns to describe his life before gender transition).

It is definitely not enough that sources be reliable. The reliability of sourcing is independent from the availability of sourcing, and the whole point of BLPPRIVACY is not to ensure that we only publish accurate birth dates; rather, it exists to limit us to publishing only birth dates that are already widely available. If a subject lists her birth date on her Twitter profile, or it's been recently published by several reputable news sources, disclosure is a foregone conclusion, and our listing it can cause little harm. But, if finding a birth date takes effort—say, more than two minutes with Google—our including it greatly expands the set of people who can find it.

Library of Congress records—widely available or not—are primary sources and may not be used for this purpose. This would be true even without BLPPRIVACY. See WP:BLPPRIMARY (primary sources that include the dates of birth of living people may not be cited for any purpose). Rebbing 23:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rebbing: "Library of Congress records—widely available or not—are primary sources" – that is blatantly wrong. LOC files (example) even give you the source (!) in which they found DOB or other biographical information, which makes them demonstratively secondary sources. Anyhow: what is the point of BLPPRIMARY in the first place? A person's autobiography is clearly a primary source; are we not allowed to use it as source for birthdate and such?

Apart from this: even if BLPPRIMARY applied (which it clearly does not), a birthdate is not comparable to private phone numbers, bank account numbers, or home addresses. Mixing these things is fallacious. --bender235 (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

bender235: I'm pretty sure LoC records are not "secondary sources" in the sense Wikipedia means: yes, they are based on other sources (much as a indictment—a primary source for our purposes—might rely on affidavits, police reports, and the like), but LoC records do not contain "the author's own thinking based on primary sources"; they do not reflect "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis"; they do not contain "analytic or evaluative claims"; they are a canonical example of a meticulously-checked collection of raw data. Perhaps they count as tertiary sources?

I don't see a self-disclosure exception in BLPPRIMARY, but I would argue that a typical autobiography is a secondary source with respect to its subject's life, since, unlike, e.g., a financial disclosure, it contains its "author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" of his own life. Obviously, the facts for which it would be considered a reliable secondary source are significantly limited.

BLPPRIMARY enumerates full birth dates alongside private phone numbers, bank account numbers, and home addresses; fallacious or not, the policy plainly lumps them together. Rebbing 00:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Rebbing: You're twisting the definition of what characterizes a source as "secondary" in a absurd and almost comical way. But regardless, LOC authority files are clearly not primary sources; which means BLPPRIMARY does not apply to them. Which leaves only WP:DOB, and the merits of that statute shall be debated here. --bender235 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. The date of birth of probably every person in the English speaking world is likely to be found in publicly available official registers somewhere or other, albeit after some effort. That does not mean that we have to make it any easier for an identity thief to find that information. I suggest that a BLP should contain, at most, the year of birth, and even then remove it on request of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC).

I think removing the birth year is going a bit too far. Where someone's life fits into the timeline of world events is perhaps the single densest piece of data you can know about someone. EEng 00:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

So for making an identity thief's life a little harder (who if he's really determined could find the necessary information anyways), we decrease the value of Wikipedia for everyone else. Great idea! --bender235 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should make an "identity thief's life a little harder". There are reasons why the month and year are valuable to a reader—but why is a day of the month of any conceivable value to a reader? I think that Wikipedia is more easily machine-analyzable than the vastness of the Internet. Bus stop (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not a neutrally worded RfC. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC).

[Touché]

• Comment. Ok, so we've got one person arguing that we don't need to include DOB in biographies "because Wikipedia is about comprehensiveness, not completeness". Another person is arguing that we can't use Library of Congress, or other public records, for DOB "because it's a primary source" (which in BLPPRIMARY has gone far beyond the scope and intent of WP:PRIMARY - "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia 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."). This is a good example of why BLP is an intractable mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.159.70 (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support the proposal to make this change to WP:DOB. 209.197.159.70 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. In all cases we should just include the month and year of birth, if the date of birth is available in a reasonable number of sources. The day is the problem. Bus stop (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

In the case waaay back at the top of this discussion I think the subject was objecting to the inclusion of just month and year. I did not see an exact date included in a quick skim of the article history. I think we should include the day. It's silly not to when every other major biography resource does so routinely. That just makes Wikipedia less-useful and second rate. 209.197.159.70 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the subject's desires in this matter are just about irrelevant but we should not include the day because Wikipedia is probably easily machine-readable and the day of the month is the component least useful to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok I have spent waay more time lurking this discussion than I intended to, so this will probably be my last comment. But it is worth pointing out that machine-readability is a swiftly-changing standard. Probably any decently-written and organized website is machine-readable at this point, and the ones that aren't soon will be. Certainly other major biographical resources online such as IMDB, Britannica, Who's Who, etc. would be machine-readable. On the other point, aside from simple factual "completeness", which is important, a lot of readers would want to know the DOB of a notable person they are interested in. For just one example, they might want to know if they shared the same birthday. This really isn't a controversial item to include. Just how many professional-quality biographies of notable people do you come across that do not include the subject's DOB, when known? 209.197.159.70 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. You say "I have spent waay more time lurking this discussion than I intended to". OK. Don't let me cause you to waste any more of your time. We are weighing conflicting interests. No one is arguing that there is absolutely no value in the day of birth. But including that information is less useful to the reader than the month or year, and that piece of information could be used in identity theft. As for machine-readability, Wikipedia is only one website and it has a predictable formula, thus facilitating machine-readability. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

My last, last comment. Sorry, was waiting for that bot to take care of it. Did not know the signing thing would work for anon-IP. Have not done anything here except read articles in a long time. I try not to get involved in this stuff, but got sucked into this one. Was surfing and an evil link lead me to the discussion... I don't think machine-readability is a central issue here and when every other online biography of a notable person includes their DOB and the Wikipedia article doesn't, that just makes the biographies on Wikipedia an inferior resource. 209.197.159.70 (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think machine readability is a central issue either, but it is a contributing factor. I think the central issue is that the day of the month is less important to the reader than the month and the year of birth. The exact date of birth including the day of the month facilitates identity theft and the omission of the day is a way that Wikipedia can prevent itself from being used in identity theft. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This is what I mean by "sucked in", it's insidious. But I do not think identity theft is a serious consideration here either. We are talking about notable people, who's DOB and other biographical data is readily available from many other sources. Including the ones cited and used for the articles on Wikipedia. Not including it here just makes the biographies on Wikipedia inferior to those other resources. This really is my last comment. I am leaving. Good luck, best wishes. Afk. 209.197.159.70 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is "readily available from many other sources". But even identity thieves are lazy. Security isn't a simple yes, you're secure/no, you're not secure thing. As you put impediments in place you increase security. And there is always a downside to putting impediments in place. We are weighing conflicting interests. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

And I don't think it is worth making Wikipedia an inferior resource for biographies of notable people for all readers, when it makes little or no real, actual difference to the supposed and hypothetical risk of identity theft. We are talking about people who are notable enough to have public biographies written about them. Anyone who wants to try to steal their identity is just going to go on to the next Google Search entry to find it, and the would-be thief is probably not going to get very far in their attempts at fraud. It is harder to fake being someone who is famous than someone who is unknown, and there are plenty of people who still put their birthday info on their profiles. Peace. Out. 209.197.159.70 (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is it important to know the day of the month on which someone was born—for astrological reasons? Any other reasons? To sing happy birthday on the right day? Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Because it is a biography. Because it is a completely standard and expected thing to include in a biography of a person. Because it is a fact about the person, and most serious biographers would consider it relevant information and would include it (if known). Because in most human cultures birthdays are considered notable to some degree. Because it is needed to calculate a person's exact age. Because of the reasons I listed elsewhere in this discussion, like being able to compare birthdates and to determine eligibility for certain age-restricted things. For age-related records and records-keeping and comparisons. This is verging on an existential-type debate. Why is it important to know anything? We don't really need to know anything not essential for survival. Wikipedia exists to provide information. If you accept the basic reasons for Wikipedia to exist, and its mission, then you accept that this place is about providing facts and information. And it is more accurate to provide a full, proper date of birth. And since every other publicly-available biography of the person is likely to include this information (if known), and since BLP rules already require that any such information be sourced extensively, it's not going to be that hard to find the information elsewhere. So that makes the identity-theft rationale pretty weak. And not including it would make the biographies on Wikipedia inferior to and less useful than other biographical resources for readers, students and researchers. Deliberately, on purpose. Which undermines the whole point, purpose, rationale and mission of Wikipedia. And I don't believe in astrology, but some people do, and it is a field of study and endeavor and a matter of interest for many people. Including debunkers. And isn't it lovely that we can now sing 'Happy Birthday To You' without risking copyright infringement? It's been good debating you. Good luck and have a nice day! 209.197.159.70 (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)— 209.197.159.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As I've said, we are weighing competing aims. Believe it or not I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say "Why is it important to know anything?" Information is important. Period. I wholeheartedly agree that "this place is about providing facts and information." What I find dubious is that "not including it would make the biographies on Wikipedia inferior to and less useful than other biographical resources". That would only slightly be true. Just as we would not give out the subject's address or social security number or phone number, if we knew it—so too should we stop short of giving out their exact date of birth. Have an excellent day. Bus stop (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: Although I am inclined to oppose the suppression of birth dates with the above rationales, and find the arguments for inclusion persuasive, I am very sympathetic toward privacy concerns. I will note, however, that while authoring an entire biographic article—which will be published soon, pending input on a very related issue (permanent link)—I have found the process of meticulously researching and documenting a subject's life from publicly available data scattered across the Internet to be largely indistinguishable from that which is involved in doxing. The main differences are in in intent, the editorial discretion to omit minor data that are not worth reporting (such as the names and ages of the subject's non-notable children), and the absence of strictly private information. Worse than doxing in terms of exposure, however, is that we publish the information, summarized and compiled with sources to verify all of it, as an "official" entry on an encyclopedia that is currently the fifth most trafficked website on Earth (according to Alexa), all while largely remaining pseudo-anonymous and quietly tinkering away to grow the documentation further.
  If privacy concerns are what really matters here, then I am confident that the details we regularly provide in the biographies, such as residence and number of children and spouse and childhood and so on, are much more serious a threat when it comes to identity theft, social engineering, or malice of any kind than is the date of birth. At what point does public interest or its so-called "right to know" of publicly accessible (and usually not that hard to find) information that has encyclopedic value about a notable public figure—like a date of birth, unlike a Social Security number or email address—override their right to privacy and to be forgotten?
  We aren't actively suppressing entire biographic articles on the basis of privacy since notability thresholds are met, despite how I suspect many subjects would like their articles suppressed and salted down the memory hole and despite how much of that information is far more valuable to someone seeking to impersonate or locate a subject, so it is obvious that privacy is not our primary concern. Why is it here, regarding data that is frankly far less concerning than most of the information we already routinely include about a subject's personal life and history? Many of us would probably want any article about ourselves immediately nuked and would consider it functionally a dox starter pack if we were in a such a position. The moment a non-stub Wikipedia biography exists of a person, it specifying their date of birth is likely the least of their concerns.
  More basically: If the general notability thresholds are met, what justification is there to argue that the date of birth is more sensitive and private than, say, the subject's full name, or current city of residence, or the name(s) of their non-notable but widely reported spouse(s), or their non-notable family history, or their non-notable children's names and ages (which somehow do still get included with regularity), all of which are routinely added to biographies of living persons? Why is the threshold for noteworthiness higher for the date of birth, but not all those other juicy data for any extortionist or doxer to use? Because of hypothetic identity theft? If I were the subject, I would be more concerned about being hunted down by some stalker who wanted to ruin my life based on something in the article. That seems like a more realistic threat to notable subjects than identity theft. That doesn't require a date of birth. It does require knowing some of the information for which we haven't carved out a special policy-based clause, though. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Images

I have posted a question about image size for BLP infobox portraits. Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Images for more info. Thanks - wolf 00:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2018

Dear Wiki, I am writing to request for the edit of a major verifiable character assassination clause '... until being dismissed for plagiarism". I have never been dismissed on any breach of professional ethics. If anything I have, out of ethics or other priorities, resigned from a lucrative academic position or declined an offered of a coveted academic fellowship at places like the LSE in UK.

You may verify that I have never been dismissed from LSE with Professor Mary Kaldor at LSE <redacted> or Professor Tim Allen at <redacted>, professor of government and head of international development department at LSE, who knew me and my work first-hand.

My detractors have even set up webpages attacking, among other things, my authenticity of my PhD from the University of Wisconsin at Madison (1998) while the Burmese language newspapers - which cheer-lead the genocide of Rohingya and whip up Islamophobia among the Buddhist majority - run slanderous Burmese language articles on the front pages, declaring me "national traitor" and "enemy of the state" while the military was engaged in ethnic cleansing of Rohingyas in the fall of 2017.

Because of my uncompromising activism against my own country's genocide against Rohingya muslims - I am a Buddhist, not Muslim - I have been subjected to relentless and nasty character assassination attempts and trolls on line. I did not set up this page as "ZARNI (activist)". This was set up by those whose intent was to destroy my credibility and integrity by pigeonholing me as "activist" - and nothing else. I am a writer, political commentator, scholar, grassroots organizer, human rights advocate - not simply "Rohingya campaigner".

This article published in N. America's reputable TRICYCLE touched on the issue of slanderous, below-the-belt attacks on me as a human rights activist.

https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/voices-inside-rohingya-refugee-camps/

I would like to permanently removed that nasty clause from the Wiki entry. Thanking you in advance.

Sincerely,

Maung Zarni

UK: <redacted> & <redacted> M zarni (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume this is relation to the Zarni (activist) article. I have removed the unreferenced plagiarism statement from the article. For future reference the articles' talk page is probably the best place to make these requests. Greyjoy ^talk 09:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable source question

Hi all. Do we find academia.edu to be an acceptable source for citations in biographies of living persons? My gut says it's way too close to self-published but I'm occasionally wrong. Please ping me if you respond as I will not be following this page. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you give a link? Google scholar is one of the best publicly accessible source for citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC).

The intersection of BLPSPS and PSCI

It is about time to resolve this.

• WP:BLPSPS is important policy.
• WP:PSCI is important policy.

We have some tension between these, when a living person holds FRINGE views, especially on scientific matters.

Per WP:PARITY there are certain blogs that we use regularly to address PSCI issues.

This was tested most recently at two RfCs where the intersection of these policies was explicitly explored: here and a similar one here.

I propose that we add to this section of BLP, ~something~ along the following lines.

However, when a living person espouses pseudoscientific or fringe views, the WP:PSCI policy and WP:FRINGE guideline come into play with respect to those views. Content about such views may be sourced to third party SPS per WP:PARITY; such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person. The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases.

We need to bring the written policy into line with community practice.

This is not an RfC but rather an initial discussion to prepare one, which should be broadcast widely. So please don't !vote at this time. Jytdog (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC) (clarify as this is being miscontrued to mean SPS by the subject which is absolutely not what this is about Jytdog (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC))

I would support that addition to the policy page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Since I also sometimes clash with other editors (including some with extensive experience) on these topics, I also think that clarification is a good idea. Noting: WP:BLPFRINGE is also closely related and should also be reviewed as necessary. —PaleoNeonate – 19:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No. We don't sacrifice BLP just because someone espouses fringe views. The simple rule is that we cannot use a self published source as a source of material about a living person. We can, per WP:PARITY, use an SPS (if it is a reliable source) to critique fringe claims, but that doesn't give us permission to ascribe views to someone using SPS, as doing so would involve using it to source claims about a living person, as opposed to critiquing views that they hold.

In the David Wolfe example linked to above, what we did was agree to rewrite the text so that it was compliant with BLPSPS, per Jytdog's proposed wording. We didn't agree to the original wording, which was not compliant with BLPSPS because it used an SPS to ascribe views to a living person. - Bilby (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

In the RfC about Wolfe, we accepted a Forbes' contributor piece as a source - a SPS. That is the issue here. I will be dealing with this last-straw misrepresentation elsewhere this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The wording you proposed at the RfC was "He (Wolfe) advocates that people with cancer treat it with dietary supplements, and according to Kavin Senapathy he "demonizes life-saving vaccines and cancer treatments"." The SPS (by Senapathy) was used as a source of Senapathy's views, not to ascribe a belief directly to Wolfe. That was fine, and I supported that wording, as it was compliant with BLP because the first half used a non-SPS for the claim that Wolfe advocates the use of dietary supplements. I am ok with that per below. - Bilby (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

diff prior to the RfC at Wolfe: That would be a no again. We can't use the Forbes piece.. I will not respond further here unless it is to rebut yet further misrepresentations. Jytdog (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That was for different text that was not compliant with BLP, not the RFC text. I explained why here. Let's not revisit that discussion. - Bilby (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

diff prior to the RfC at Wolfe: We can't use the Forbes piece.. I will not respond further to you here unless it is to rebut yet further misrepresentations. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, as I should have said "we cannot use the Forbes piece the way it is being used". Sorry. However, a) I agreed to the text proposed in the RFC, using the Forbes piece, when it was used in a way that was compliant with BLP. And b), I explained why it couldn't be used as you proposed prior to the RFC here. - Bilby (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No. And please stop cluttering this thread. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

We absolutely should not be allowing an SPS to be used to say someone else's view is fringe. That claim needs to come from demonstration in non-SPS RS, otherwise, you basically open the door for random criticism. The case of a view being fringe must be asserted by RSes. --Masem (t) 19:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Masem this is very specifically about the intersection of PSCI and BLP. It is not about anything random. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

My point is that say X is the BLP who we consider has a fringe view. We cannot use a SPS claim by Y to say X has fringe views. (But this would also extent to any criticism about BLP X, regardless) I do agree on the OP that we can use SPS by X to succinctly describe what X's views are if they are not otherwise covered in the RSes that discuss why X's view is fringe. --Masem (t) 19:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No, you have it completely backwards and your interpretation would make WP wide open to big swaths of self-sourced content by FRINGE advocates. No way. I am sorry but you are not dealing with PSCI which is policy. Please do review WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE. Please. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with what you have quoted as a requested addition above. I should be clear that I absolutely agree on the cavaet in th\at - that RSes (not SPS) have said that X has fringe views must be present first before we are able to succinctly describe in factual manner their stance, if we cannot otherwise draw that from RSes. --Masem (t) 20:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You are twisting it and I appreciate that you are doing that here, in this early discussion; I have corrected it above to avoid wasting time this way further. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

As a point of information: Science Based Medicine is not an ordinary self-published source. It has an editorial board and fact-checking. David Gorski has a blog where he writes trenchant criticism of quacks, we typically do not cite that. He also writes at SBM, and we often do cite that. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

To clarify what I mean, I'm ok with saying:

"Person X believes Y. (Non SPS) Y is a discredited view. (SPS)" - this is fine per WP:PARITY.

I'm also ok with:

"Person Z argues that Person X believes Y. (SPS by person Z)" - this is what we've used elsewhere, and is ascribing a belief to the author of the SPS, which is fine.

What we can't do is:

"Person X believes Y (SPS)", as doing so is not compliant with BLP policy.

If the proposed wording is for the first two I'm fine with it. If it is to allow the third, then no. - Bilby (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit of #1 there and this is consistent with "such sources may only be used to generate content about the views, not the person". —PaleoNeonate – 20:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Why not shorter, "But see also, Neutral point of view (PSCI), WP:FRINGE and WP:PARITY, when discussing relevant ideas of living persons and balancing views. When discussing ideas, these may allow the occasional and limited use of qualified self-published sources by others." Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be fine with something like that. Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not in favor of the proposal as it seems vague and too much open to interpretation. Possibly it can be expressed in a clearer form. It is essential to recognize self-published sources cannot be used to establish notability, but, if notability is established otherwise, may provide information for use in an article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC).

WP:Notability? Notability has to do with whether you have an article, not what is in an article. Do you mean WP:UNDUE? This would not change WP:UNDUE (or Notability) at all, if something is undue or someone is unnotable, it will still be undue, and they will still be unnotable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me state a concern. I have reread the discussion in question and PSCI, and as long as we are talking specifically "fringe theories and pseudosciences" - things that there is general sourcing that say that the BLP's views fall within that, there's no issues. But too often, editors use the points of PSCI towards fringe views, which are not the same as fringe theories or psuedoscience. (Fringe views fall more under UNDUE, not PSCI). The language as written, applied to a BLP with a seemingly fringe view, would mean that we should include any random SPS that considers the BLP's view as "fringe". That's a problem. As long as that we make it clear this only applies to fringe theories and psuedoscience where there is sufficent RSes to affirm that the science is fringy/PSCI, then the language is otherwise fine. --Masem (t) 23:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Masem thanks for taking the time to work through this. This is not intended to allow "any random SPS" - the proposal above specifically addresses that with The SPS used should be chosen with care; there are several that the community uses in such cases. This is oftenScience-Based Medicine (SBM) as Guy mentioned above (and used in the Greger RfC cited in the OP); there are other responsible debunkers out there like Gorski (an editor of SBM). The SPS from Forbes discussed in the Wolfe RfC, this one, is more or less professional and suitable for WP. There are lots of other SPS about Wolfe like this one and say this one that I didn't bring to the table, and no one should. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

All I want to make sure, and this ties in and agrees with points below, is that we are talking a "fringe" view or theory or psci that has clear RSes that establish it as fringe before allowing SPS to counter the details of the fringe view. Without the establishment of the idea being fringe by RSes, that opens far too many doors for misuse. I know this isn't a problem if the issue is strictly limitied to fringe theories or psci, I'm just concerned that it could be taken to mean beyond that. --Masem (t) 16:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

As noted by both Doug Weller and Johnuniq and others in this thread, quite often there are not standard RS that directly address this stuff; mainstream refs are busy discussing mainstream things. Please especially see Doug's remark. Again the language is already widely practiced by very experienced editors; the goal here is to catch up the writing. This needs to be done carefully - hence this preparation. This notion that "there must be clear RSes that establish it as fringe" is distraction and misses the heart of the problem - namely that quite often there are no standard RS that address this stuff. WP:PARITY exists for good reason. I would not have brought this, if there was not an actual problem here. We would not have this as a practice already, if people were not already doing this, ratified by RfCs.Jytdog (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I do not think any exception should be made in BLP for fringe views, any statement or action made by a living person should be sourced to BLP compliant sources, regardless of the fringeness of that statement or action. There is really no difference between talking about a person and talking about there work or views (eg. "he is an anti-vaxer" vs "He has published books claiming that vaccines don't work and cause autism") Both of these are similar negative material about a living person, so they should both be sourced to the same kind of high-quality sources. If there is a reason to be carful about sources in BLPs, doesn't that reason still apply when fringe topics are involved? Maybe saying "He says vaccines don't work(citing BLP RS), but vaccines do work(citing SPS)" would not be a BLP issue, but I cant think of a situation when a SPS would be the only source to debunk a bogus claim like this.

In short, we should not use SPS to attribute fringe views to someone anymore than we could use SPS for other claims about a person, and I don't know why we would need to use an SPS to debunk the fringe view once a BLP RS has established that the person holds fringe views. Tornado chaser (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Except editors do not agree with your peculiar claim that talking about scientific ideas and talking about people are the same thing, partly because Wikipedia bases its ethos on the evident fact that talking about ideas and talking about people are not the same thing. In fact, consensus has at least twice shown, you don't have consensus for your view of this policy, and consensus is opposed to your claim about ideas and people:here and here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you misread my comment, I thing BLP should fully apply (no SPS) when attributing fringe views to a person, but SPS could be used to say such a view is false once BLP RS have establisher that the person holds that view. (I agree with User:Bilby in his comment below about "chocolate levitation"). Tornado chaser (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Now I see where this debate has been heading. It appears to have its origin in [1]. I agree with the comment of Tornado chaser above and oppose the proposal. All sources fringe, SPS or not, must be consistent with WP:BLP. Self-published sources should never be used as a source for any material that could be considered contentious.Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC).

What? The case you think it has an origin in [2] is entirely different, that case was including a statement by the the subject himself (and it was included), not someone else. Nothing here changes anything about statements of the subject, which will continue to be addressed using NPOV, Undue, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• The whole point of WP:PSCI is that reliable sources would rather bang their heads on a wall than spend time investigating whether yet another nonsensical claim is nonsense. An encyclopedia should not mislead readers with glowing accounts of how someone believes A, B and C without clarification that A, B and C are pseudoscientific claims with no basis in reason. Per WP:PARITY, it is often necessary to rely on an expert's statement (even if self published) rather than mislead readers. Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • User:Johnuniq is absolutely right. Many fringe archaeological claims are never dealt with in academic publications. We're in danger of stripping some of our articles discussing people with fringe beliefs of any evidence that those beliefs are contradicted by members of the relevant professional community. I'm sure that's not what anyone here wants. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
    • This is true, but we need that distinction between discussing the belief that someone holds, and ascribing a belief to them. What we don't want is a situation where a self published source says, for example, "Doug believes that eating chocolate can cause you to levitate". If we don't have a reliable source, we can't claim that Doug holds this belief. But if we establish that Doug does hold that belief, we can use an SPS to point out that believing in chocolate-based levitation is nonsensical. Even with fringe beliefs, it seems too much of a risk to allow an SPS to ascribe those beliefs to people. That's my main concern with this proposed change - we need to ensure that it keeps the distinction between claiming that someone holds a belief and critiquing the belief once we establish that they hold it. - Bilby (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm familiar with only one RfC that tested this (this one), and it shouldn't have been closed the way it was. Core content policies can't be overridden by local consensus. The problem, as I recall, was that editors were allowing biomedical claims to be made without MEDRS sources. Then, having allowed them, they countered them with a self-published source. Would it not make more sense to disallow those claims in BLPs, rather than try to fix them with an SPS? SarahSV ^(talk) 17:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
        • It was closed appropriately. NPOV is also a core policy. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, im a bit confused by what exactly you are proposing. Do you just want to use WP:PARITY to allow the use of SPS to explain why a view is fringe once BLP RS have established the the subject of the article holds a particular view? Or do you want to allow SPS to be the source for the fact that the person holds a given view in the first place? Tornado chaser (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The two RfCs offered as having tested this idea are here and here. In the latter (David Wolfe (entrepreneur) (permalink), what appears to be a group blog is used to introduce a fringe claim (note 27). Note 24 is also an SPS, as is 28; the latter is used to introduce a fringe claim. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Related point re what self-published means

Something I've been meaning to bring up for a while is a confusion that sometimes arises when we talk about "self-published" sources. The problem isn't what the term self-published means, but rather the following distinction:

• Something self-published by person X, as a potential source for any random thing (WP:SELFPUBLISH), versus
• Something self-published by person X, as a potential source for a statement about person X (WP:SELFPUB).

Now and then in a discussion different people will be talking about different ones of these two without realizing it. We even have two confusingly named shortcuts (above) for them. Just something to keep in mind. EEng 05:23, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The debate here seems to be about the policy WP:SELFPUBLISH which advises Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. This seems to fit the case of the Brian Martin BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC).Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 29 July 2018 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing this out, I belive this debate is about WP:SELFPUBLISH (not SELFEPUB). Tornado chaser (talk)

Yes the discussion here is about resolving the tension in the writing of two policies - BLP and NPOV, specifically WP:BLPSPS (with respect to WP:SELFPUBLISH) and WP:PSCI as implemented via WP:PARITY. Yes. As I noted above, there have been two RfCs now (and I can probably find others) where this tension has already been resolved by the community in practice; the discussion is about bringing the writing of BLPSPS in line with that practice. Written policy expresses consensus, and consensus is a living thing that develops. The writing needs to catch up. Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUBLISH says "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer."

WP:PARITY says "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals." This is so we can say chocolate dosen't make you levitate even if there are no research papers on the subject, not so we can say "John says chocolate makes you levitate" without a BLP RS. WP:PARITY also says "Of course, for any viewpoint described in an article, only reliable sources should be used; Wikipedia's verifiability and biographies of living persons policies are not suspended simply because the topic is a fringe theory." There is no conflict here, these policies make clear that BLP fully applies when we attribute fringe views to a person, but that we may then use SPS to critique that view, NOT that we can ever use third party SPS to attribute any views to a person.

What is being proposed is not resolving a conflict, rather it is making major changes to WP:BLP based on 2 local RfCs that established ROUGH consensus in favor of what MIGHT have been MARGINAL BLP vios (both cases it was presented as the bloggers opinion when the subjects' views were already established by other sources, and one specified that it was a CLOSE CALL based on INTERPRETATION of BLP, not overriding it)

What is the point of allowing third party SPS to attribute fringe views to someone? If we are just talking about critiquing views that BLP RS establish that the person holds, policy clearly already allows this, and the change is not needed. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

You are not dealing with PSCI nor the reason that PARITY exists (mainstream refs are busy talking about mainstream things) nor with the fact that this is already widely practiced. The only goal here is to craft language expressing this. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought I addressed this, PARITY allows us to use SPS to debunk a bogus (psudo)scientific claim of fact, BLP does not deal with scientific fact so there is no conflict here, what BLP currently prohibits is using an SPS as the source for the fact that someone says something, but once we have a source for that PARITY allows us to use SPS to say that the persons statement is fringe/wrong/unsupported by evidence. Tornado chaser (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

This is about addressing views of living people.Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog, It seems to me that your proposal could be interpreted as allowing either A or B, or maybe C but it is not clear which, could you clarify?

A "Person X says chocolate can make you levitate.(BLP RS) But chocolate levitation is nonsense.(SPS)"

B "Person X says chocolate can make you levitate.(SPS)"

C something other than A or B

Tornado chaser (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Go look for sources about Ben Swann and vaccines. (really - go look) You will not find any mainstream sources discussing his views on vaccines. You will find a) him talking about "the CDC whistleblower" and the like (there is no question about that he has done this stuff); b) anti-vax sites cheering on Swann c) david gorski describing and debunking it. So the content is something like "Benn Swann has promoted conspiracy theories that vaccines are harmful; the scientific consensus is that vaccines are not harmful" (sourced to SBM and gorski). This is exactly the sort of thing where this is necessary. There is no question that he actually promotes this view. Jytdog (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems you'r supporting B, and I now understand your reasoning, however, this seems like the place to use a primary source to establish what his views are(you yourself said "You will find a) him talking about "the CDC whistleblower" and the like (there is no question about that he has done this stuff);" and than use SBM to debunk it (option A in my comment above) I still think B unnecessarily weakens BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

The only reason I can see B being needed is if we want to talk about someones views but don't have any primaryWP:SELFPUB sources and also don't have any BLP RS, but ONLY have third party SPS, in this case, wouldn't the fact that the person held such views fail WP:V (and notability)?

The conflict between deadnaming and ABOUTSELF, versus VERIFIABILTY and previous RfCs

Over at WT:MOS, Yndajas has raised an off-topic thread about deadnaming of the transgendered. Said party has been pointed to this page about 5 times but continues re-discuss the matter on a page where the issue is not going to be resolved, so I'm opening this discussion for them. (I suppose WT:V or WP:VPPRO could also have worked, but this seemed the most narrowly tailored policy-not-guideline talk page).

The gist (with various drama elided):

• City of York Council election, 2015 includes lists of (non-notable) candidates.
• One of these is User:Yndajas under their prior name. There is no article about this person (and likely won't be).
• Yndajas wants this name removed from the 2015 article and replaced with Ynda Jas, their current name, but not the name used in the election or in sources about it.
• Yndajas suggested [3] that the table heading "Candidate" was a label of identity of the candidates in the present tense, while "Name on the ballot" would just be historical information.
• So, the table heading was changed (though this makes it inconsistent with other such articles); Yndajas returned to the claim that it's still deadnaming. Cf. WP:ONEHANDGIVES.
• WP:ABOUTSELF policy clearly would permit us to change references to this person's old name to the new one, for present-tense material (e.g., if the subject had their own article, or was in the news again for something post-namechange).
• Three back-to-back community RfCs at Village Pump concluded against the idea of changing names in historical material (e.g. Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics will continue to say "Bruce Jenner" not "Kaitlyn Jenner"):
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#Clarifying/updating WP:BIRTHNAME with respect to MOS:IDENTITY
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive_121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals
• Yndajas nevertheless proposes that the ABOUTSELF principle should be permitted to apply to the historical context, and has supplied self-published proof [4] by Ynda Jas (who presumably really is User:Yndajas – we have no basis for doubt) that they use that name exclusively not the old name; it's clear that Yndajas is offended by use of the old name's use here.
  • However, because the subject is non-notable and just mentioned in passing on WP in one list article, with no further context, there really is no way to tie that back-then name to Ynda Jas today. I.e., Yndajas is basically self-deadnaming by pursuing this debate, which seems a bit WP:POINTy and casts doubt on the emotional-harm claims made by this party (as does their continued maintenance of a website that uses the old name; see below).
• A consequence of making a BLP rule that ABOUTSELF can be retroactively applied is that we would end up with a verifiability problem:
  • If the election list article says "Ynda Jas" this will not be findable in any sources cited for that article and that information in it.
  • This could be resolved-ish with a footnote explaining that Ynda Jas as listed in our article corresponds to whatever name is found in the source. But this is likely to simply be claimed again to be deadnaming, just less obvoius deadnaming.
  • Idea: Maybe WP:OTRS could accept e-mailed proof of a claim (they way it handles proof of copyright permission for images, etc.), but then suppress it from public, non-admin view in the actual article. I don't know if that's ever been suggested before.

I see no obvious way to resolve this, but I do know that WT:MOS can't make up a new change to sourcing policy for bios of living people; it's the wrong venue no matter what the potential outcomes of such a debate might be.

PS: The deadname was incidentally mentioned in the WT:MOS thread in a (good faith) post of the subject's website as evidence [5] (turned out to be their old website [6]); it has the deadname as its domain name. This might need to be WP:OVERSIGHTed, though I already redacted the link, so it's only available in the old diff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

They are not notable. That means that Wikipedia neither cares about nor documents their life events. It is a straight up BLP violation for us to discuss the personal life of a non-notable person mentioned in passing in one of our articles. It is arguably promotional for them to be pushing for this since a major effect of changing the name in the list is to link their new name with their candidacy on Wikipedia resulting in SEO for the new name.

While Wikipedia articles should be written with sensitivity towards living people is also must be written with sensitivity to the factual historic record i.e we do not change history because someone is offended by it. If there were an article about this person it would be appropriate to add a 'changed name to' comment linking to their article (to note why we are linking to a differently named article) because the name change would be part of the record along with their continuing notability. I regret that this person is caused distress by their previous name being listed but evidently all material related to this election everywhere uses the prior name as should we. Jbh ^Talk 18:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC on AfD's about recently dead BLP subjects

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RFC on AfD's about recently dead BLP subjects

Should WP:BLP and WP:CSD be changed in such a manner?

1. Add a clause in WP:BLP deferring the AfD nominations for pages already older than 90 days for at least another 90 days after their deaths. This rule would only apply to pages that have remained in the main space for the aforementioned period, in effect establishing that editors have been accorded ample time to nominate the article before the person's death.
2. Create a WP:CSD category for recently created pages on non-notable subjects that recently died. All other articles on possibly notable subjects can be moved to draft space and required to be fully realized before publication. Perhaps even require submission to WP:AFC.

This RfC was created here, because it is related to admin behaviour, involves at least two separate policies, and this is a highly trafficked discussion page.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Then moved here.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support as OP to both #1 and #2 per my explanation in the closed discussion WP:AN above. A deletion tag on a BLP who has not even been buried is insensitive to the real world. Human dignity, as codified in the April 2009 Wikimedia Board of Trustees resolution is a basic tenet underlying our policies on the biographies of living people. However, I have changed my thinking on this after seeing the comment there by Ad Orientem; they are correct in that pages created in a sensationalized manner are also an issue. I am also guilty of this myself. Which is why I proposed the counter clause in the criterion for speedy deletion to prevent those cases as well, and not give editors free rein to create such pages unchecked.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely not to both. I find the whole notion of a separate deletion process for the recently deceased utterly baffling, and I assure you that in the vanishingly unlikely event this proposal is accepted, you won't find a single admin willing to enforce it. Yes, articles are disproportionately likely to be nominated for deletion when there's a significant change to the topic (in this case, the subject's death), as those are the occasions on which articles are edited more heavily than usual and consequently when they appear in the recent changes feed and come to the attention of uninvolved editors. That's Wikipedia's processes working correctly, not a bug that needs fixing. I find the argument you've made elsewhere, that an AfD notice on a biography is somehow an insult to the article subject, utterly spurious—quite aside from the fact that the person is considerably more likely to take offence if they're alive to read the article, and that consequently your argument would be an argument for a moratorium on the deletion of BLPs altogether—this argument would also mean we couldn't delete an article on any incident in which someone was killed or badly injured. ‑ Iridescent 2 22:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)