Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

RfC on whether BDP should apply automatically or only after editorial consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To start out with the easy part, there is overwhelming consensus against the current wording or anything weaker than it. The community strongly supports the position that WP:BLP should, by default, extend to deceased people for a certain amount of time after their deaths, with the main point of contention being how to implement this. Two rival proposals were made: Option 2, which restores the pre-2021 BDP wording (presuming applicability for roughly 6-24 months); or option 3, which places a global default limit on how long BDP applies and then allows local extensions. By the numbers, almost the exact same number of editors supported option 2 or at least one of the three variants of option 3. There was also an almost equal number of unique supporters for option 2 vs. the three 3s. To find a consensus from this, I break the RfC down into two questions, essentially one of reverting a change and one of making a new one:

1. Should the 2021 changes be reverted? Numerically, over half of participants supported option 2, which would explicitly do this. In addition, most support of option 3 was not framed as an objection to option 2's wording; rather, option 3 proponents perceived it as a better implementation of the same general concept (namely, that BDP should apply for some period of time after death). Therefore I find consensus that the pre-2021 wording was preferable.
2. Is option 3 an improvement on the pre-2021 wording? On this I find no consensus. It is possible that, were option 2 the status quo and this RfC were framed purely as an attempt to improve its implementation, there might have been consensus. But with, as noted above, an almost perfectly even split and arguments of roughly equal strength, it is impossible to find any consensus here. The question might be worth revisiting at some point in the future.

In other words, the net effect is a return to the wording represented by option 2. I thank all participants for their comments. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

---

Should the wording of WP:BDP (the "Recently dead or probably dead" section) be

1. ... the policy can extend based on editorial consensus [emphasis mine] for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions only apply to contentious or questionable material...
2. ... the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material...
3. ... the policy would extend for [six months/one year/two years] beyond the date of death. Such an extension would apply in particular to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. After [six months/one year/two years], the policy may be extended further based upon editorial consensus.

Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 19:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Note. To be clear, if consensus is for option 3, only one of the three durations would be added. I used the slash instead of writing three separate options for the sake of brevity (and to allow Legobot to transclude properly) Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 19:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Notified: centralized discussion. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 18:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Note Rephrased choice 3 to fix ambiguity. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 18:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Background

BLP and, by extension, BDP is one of the most frequently cited, watchlisted, and read policies on enwiki. Despite this, comparatively little attention was given to the rewording at the time. The sentences in BDP in question were changed in April 2021, possibly due to an ANI discussion.

The current wording has been used before, such as at this RfC on 2023 Nashville shooting. However, it is possible many users, including sysops, are acting using the prior wording of BDP. 1

Various discussions, including, but not necessarily limited to, WT:BLP#Small but significant change in BDP wording from about 2 years ago, WT:Biographies of living persons/Archive 48#Is WP:BLP applicable to recently dead people? Not clear, and WT:Biographies of living persons/Archive 52#BDP is useless, have taken place on what wording should be used. Despite the multiple discussions, none were formally closed to support either maintaining the current status quo or a change. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 19:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

!Voting

• 2. BLP and its subsections is expressly not subject to local consensus; it applies everywhere. I think the intent behind #1 may have been to emphasize that the duration was subject to consensus which is more defensible, but the wording and emphasis are ambiguous and unnecessary per WP:CREEP. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Can you quote the line in BLP where it expressly rejects "local consensus" (a term that unforunately seems to have a variety of meanings, and which I could not find in the policy just now)?

  Can you explain how editors can reliably differentiate between "a local consensus that WP:BLP does not apply because the person has been dead for 18 months" and "a non-local consensus" for the same thing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: it's in a different policy: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. VQuakr (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, @VQuakr. So BLP itself does not expressly reject local consensus itself; it merely operates under the usual rules for determining what the consensus is.

  What's your definition of a 'local consensus'? (In case it's helpful, the canonical example is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers cannot ban infoboxes from all articles about classical composers.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well no that's not correct, BLP is unusual in that it is based on the WMF BLP resolution that states [The BLP resolution] may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project. It's not "my" definition. I linked the policy above. VQuakr (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people applies to all projects, but it also doesn't apply to dead people. Extending the same procedures to recently deceased people is a local invention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• 2 (aka returning to the pre-2021 form). Those that have been on WP know the type of content that an article on a recently-deceased person that can occur in the short time after death, and hence why BDP was developed to automatically assume to apply BLP to the recently deceased. How long -- that's always been something normally left to local consensus with the exceptional interjection of admining, and doesn't need any further spelling out in the BDP policy, just that six months has always been treated as the short end, and two years the long end. --Masem (t) 00:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Per the discussion, I am also open to Option 3 as to be clear that BDP is automatic for at least 6 months. Masem (t) 15:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

• 4 BDP should be deprecated as a policy and extra protections relevant to living human persons should be terminated essentially at time of death, to be replaced by standard editorial/content guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Why? —Bagumba (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• 2 since post-death sensitivity concerns can be presumed to be at their peak just after death and to decline thereafter. Assuming BLP doesn't apply in such cases while we wait for consensus to develop (which could take months) nullifies the policy during the time it's most needed. I would prefer a flat "it applies for 6 months and longer by consensus" (option 5?), but 2 is the best option on the menu. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, I think I phrased option 3 poorly. To be clear, option 3 would mean "the policy automatically extends for six months beyond the date of death. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. After six months, the policy may be extended further based upon editorial consensus." @Mgp28, Sideswipe9th, and Doug Weller: since they expressed similar ideas. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 18:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

• 2, which I think is the form with long-term broad consensus. Post the announcement of death, for any public figure, the article goes through big changes based on the availability of obituaries, gets frequent vandalism, and has an enormous spike in hits, just at the time when relatives and friends are likely to be most sensitive. This period should definitely always fall under the umbrella of BLP protection. How long this lasts is the matter that needs discussion and consensus forming, but there should be a minimum window that does not require repeated discussion. ETA: For what it is worth, I have been active as an admin in the area of enforcing BLP on articles about the recently dead, but had managed to entirely miss the 2021 change in the wording; such a change to a critical policy should probably be included in the admin newsletter to make sure we're all singing from the same hymn sheet. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2, and although I prefer 2 years, I agree entirely with User:Espresso Addict above including their last sentence (except I think my involvement has never involved my Admin status). Doug Weller talk 09:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2, obviously.—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  3, now that it's been edited, as second choice. I'd generally prefer a longer period over a shorter one.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

• 2, for reasons described by Firefangledfeathers and Espresso Addict. Many people visit a page shortly after the person's death so that is the worst time to have free-for-all edit warring. I like the idea of a default application for 6 months after death, giving time for any potential consensus to prolong it. Mgp28 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

  If the objective of option 3 is that the policy extends automatically for 6 months, then can be extended up to a maximum of 2 years based on consensus on that page's talk page, I would support that. But at the moment the text for option 3 is a bit long / overly complicated so still marginally prefer option 2 from the options provided. Mgp28 (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

• 2 This is a common sense way of keeping articles on high profile articles from turning into a free for all after a recent death. Nemov (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 Of the options provided, 2 is the most sensical way to handle this. A fair number of the deaths we cover on enwiki occur in contentious circumstances (ie subject was killed, or was a mass killer), and an automatic extension of BLP to cover recent deaths ensures that we handle those circumstances with the utmost of care. But I do also like Firefangledfeathers a flat "it applies for 6 months and longer by consensus", as that would seem to both encompass what the scope of the policy point was prior to the unannounced change, and address the confusion that lead to the 2021 change. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• 3 for a default period of 6 months. Let's say Jane Doe is a BLP subject. One day, the BBC or CNN or whoever reports her death. Previously, some fairly unreliable tabloid had written a piece on Jane Doe's ostensible scandals. Under BLP, we don't add it. Now, however, User:XYZ adds the piece, defending it upon the grounds that BLP no longer applies. A week later, the press releases a correction stating Doe is alive and well. Someone tries to remove the piece, but XYZ reverts, saying "gain consensus on talk". It takes the other party 24 hours to see the message and start a discussion. Another week passes and the discussion is closed in favor of removing the paragraph. We've now had blp issues up for 15 days, despite her being alive and well. And this is just one of several potential issues I see. Six months is long enough for the waters to settle and specific enough that new editors aren't left scratching their heads wondering what an "indeterminate period" is. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 18:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • @Novo Tape: That is an elaborate fiction, but a fiction nonetheless. 1) Why would WP:BRD not apply to this situation? 2) When was the last time a high quality reliable source reported that someone was dead, then retracted it one week later? (I've seen it go as long as one day in recent memory, and even there the reporting in high quality reliable sources was that "we can't verify this".) 3) When would we ever allow a citation to a tabloid that doesn't meet the standards at WP:RS, which apply regardless of BLP? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
• 3a. Which is to say, the intent of 3 (to have it start at six months and then possibly be extendable) but with this wording: The only exception would be for people who have died within the last six months. This period may be extended by editorial consensus to one year, or two years at the outside. I think the current wording of option 3 is very unclear and tries to do too much, even after the fix. Loki (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• 3. It should auto extend for some period of time. 6 months ok, 1 year better. After a person dies is often when we need BLP the most because of the typical increase in editing, esp from inexperienced editors. I'm not paying much attention to the wording (eg whether options 3, 3a, or 5 mentioned above). Second choice is 2. Levivich (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

  One of the things BLP provides is WP:BLPREMOVE, which should continue to be available after someone's death (when editing frequency will likely increase). I'm flexible about how long after, I would support 3 with any time period. Levivich (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• 3 for two years. I think being conservative about this policy is best. (This should be taken to express support for a shorter period if consensus for #3 for some period develops.) Valereee (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
• 3 but impose the two-year limit from option 2, and split the initial difference at 1 year. It's longer, but it gives specific rationales, and they matter. Otherwise, I support option 2, since it is better to have a limit but some rationale inclarity than to authorize rationales to result in forever extensions determined by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC); revised 21:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  What I dislike about "3" is that there is no mandatory ending point. I don't want Elvis Presley under BLP rules, even if some people still feel strongly about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

  Good point; I had not thought of that kind of scenario, and have revised my position.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

  I can see extremely rare (perhaps in IAR territory but give that we are talking BLO, I don't think we should resort to this) where BDP should extend beyond two years, such as a person who had some aspect of their life covered only by tabloids and other nonRS (say, a private person accused of being trans, even though no RS discusses it), such that we'd still not talk about that well after death. What we would not want us with the expiry of BDP, that suddenly that topic can be added because something like BLPSOS no longer applies. For most, two years at max is definitely fair, but we need to consider some expeditionary cases. Masem (t) 15:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  "Hard cases make bad law." We have WP:IAR for a reason. If after two years there are nothing but garbage tabloid sources, they don't qualify as RS, so the claim can be "challenged" and removed for lack of RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• 3a Mandating an extension of BLP in the months immediately after the subject's death ensures appropriate sensitivity in the writing style and referencing, but editing tapers by six months once most of the obituaries revealing additional information about the subject's life and death have been published. I agree with @WhatamIdoing that the proposal should have a mandatory end point. If sloppy edits are emerging many months after the subject's death, then page protections and edit warnings should be implemented like any other article, rather than continuing to wield BLP. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 07:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• 1 My interpretation of BDP (I wasn't around in 2021) has always been that 6, 12, and 24 months were all on the "outside", and that the rule mostly existed to stop bikeshedding over admin sanctions when the blood wasn't dry yet. I still think this is the most logical application of BDP; the power law indicates that the vast majority of new attention after a subject's death will be in the first few weeks after. Speaking of the power law, most BDP's are not particularly contentious (that's why they aren't usually protected), and the exceptions can be dealt with on an ad-hoc basis. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 or 3 Certainly it should not require a new consensus to re-apply a sensible conservative approach to writing about people who have only just recently died. If (3), clearly endpoint of 1 year sounds good to me. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
• 1. Why include the vague "would apply particularly to..." in option 2? I'm particularly against option 3, which leaves the door open for indefinitely excluding well documented information. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2 seems stable and flexible enough. I don't think we should automatically treat instances of "Joe Bloggs died of natural causes at the age of 87" as being identical to "Joe Bloggs died of a drug overdose at the age of 27". -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 04:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• 1 - no change. I think the wording of "based on editorial consensus" is good. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
• At least 2, neutral on 3 Basically, not 1. The change that any protection beyond the actual day of death was now based on editorial consensus was made without consensus (see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 55 § Small but significant change in BDP wording from about 2 years ago). It would be bad to have policy changes effectively snuck in and stay due to mere WP:SILENCE, i.e. "caught you not looking", but especially counter to WP:PROPOSAL:

  Most commonly, a new policy or guideline documents existing practices, rather than proposing a change to what experienced editors already choose to do.

  The existing practice is to not require that a new consensus be established at every bio upon death, and doing so creates a bureaucratic mess.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• 2: the policy should apply automatically. I'm in favour of BDP lasting for quite a while, particularly for cases like "Killing of ..." articles, where BLP violations are potentially extremely sensitive to families, friends and the community of the deceased. I wouldn't like to put a number on it across the board though.
  The death of a person shouldn't be an opportunity to violate privacy and immediately become slapdash about gossip, speculation and unsourced content. (Yes, we have other policies against this, but BLP elevates the urgency of removing unsourced and contentious content.) — Bilorv (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Bilorv: isn't 3 the "apply automatically" option? (2, the old text, says "can apply" not "does apply" after death.) Levivich (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  No, it's "can extend for an indeterminate period". 3 requires a specific length of time for all scenarios. The point is that anyone can invoke BDP without prior local consensus as justification for making an edit. — Bilorv (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

  Ah I understand your point about fixed time periods. I guess I just don't read "can extend" as meaning "extends automatically." Actually, I'd say that "can extend" means doesn't extend automatically, in the same way that "I can extend my vacation for an indeterminate period" doesn't mean that the extension is automatic or guaranteed, just possible. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

• 4 per Jclemens; once someone ceases to be living they cease to be in-scope of BLP. The clue is in the name. Second choice would be 2, a short extension such as 6 months that does not extend. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

  The clue is in the name: So rename it. Or move WP:BDP. That's not a reason for outright deletion of policy text that's existed for over a decade.—Bagumba (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• 3a, but change "The only exception would be for..." to "The only exception is for..." I find Option 2's "can extend" wording confusing, as it provides no indication of when it does extend. The wording should be clear that the policy does apply, not that can or would, if some unclear condition is met.--Trystan (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
• Note: A closure request has been left at Wikipedia:Closure requests.—Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• 3 for two years, including because of the clarity in the word "would." The word "can" could be read as implying it could not, so the most direct word seems most clear. This option also seems to help encourage the development of well-sourced, enduring encyclopedic content about contentious and sensitive issues, and to reflect the spirit of BLP, NOT, and NPOV policies. Beccaynr (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
• 3, specifically the 6 month option. Consensus should be left to be the ultimate governor since there are way too many exceptions. I would support a clause which states that pending discussion on whether BDP applies, BDP is to be enforced until consensus says so. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
• 3. I think 6 months is enough to cover the post-death spike in edits. Once someone dies a lot of changes happen and by the time a discussion is held to enforce BDP it's too late. Also fine with 2, but the problem with that is admining disputes over people edit warring to enforce BLP. Galobtter (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• 3 largely for the reasons clearly enunciated by SMcCandlish. Chetsford (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Should this be listed at VPP and CENT? --Masem (t) 12:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

VPP yes. CENT says listing of ongoing discussions, specifically those which have potentially wide-ranging impacts, which this definitely would have, so yeah. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

It's already listed at VPP. I'll add it to CENT. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 18:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

VQuakr and I had a long side conversation about this, and it seems that there have been concerns that "by editorial consensus" will be (mis)interpreted. The process that (I think) we want looks like this:

• BLP rules (most relevantly, the exemption from 3RR for poorly sourced content, e.g,. about the cause of death) automatically apply for at least six months, but for no longer than 24 months.
• At some point in that policy-authorized range – either implicitly/silently/tacitly or by a normal, ordinary talk-page discussion – editors reach a consensus that the normal Wikipedia:Editing policy rules (e.g., against edit warring) apply to the article and that the special BLP rules are no longer relevant/needed/wanted.
  • NB: A normal, ordinary talk-page discussion does not constitute a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
  • NB: Choosing a date within a policy-authorized range does not constitute "violating" the policy. It constitutes complying with the policy.

What we don't want looks like:

• Editors, using ordinary processes (e.g., a consensus-oriented discussion on the talk page), decide that it's okay to move back to normal editing rules.
• Someone starts yelling at them about BLP still applying because "an indeterminate period" means "I get to pick any amount of time I want, and you don't get any say in the matter. Also, you don't get to know which set of rules I'm going to apply to you until after you have made an edit I disagree with. It's BLP today, because I don't like your edits, but it'll be normal EP rules tomorrow, when I want to make some edits that you might disagree with".

The old wording doesn't achieve the first, because it's unclear about applying automatically. It says that it "can be extended", which means that it does not always do so. (Consider: "I can improve that article, but I won't.") If editors (e.g., Masem and Sideswipe9th) want it to be automatic, then it shouldn't say that it "can" apply; it should say that it "does" apply.

None of the options above solve the lack-of-clarity issue. A single, invariable time period (e.g., "a year and a day") would accomplish that. Setting a minimum and requiring explicit agreement in a talk-page discussion for any extensions would also accomplish that.

Overall, my conclusion is that it needs to be re-written almost from scratch to provide clarity to editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

+1 to everything WhatamIdoing said. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:21, 11 December 2023 (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.

The WP:BLPSELFPUB policy is far too strict

Relevant context: an edit I submitted to the Louis Rossman article was reverted. I could not find any secondary sources that contained any relevant information, and the 3rd party (the NY State Department of Taxation and Finance) claims were supported with documents sent by and recordings of converstaions with various NY State-affiliated entities. These documents and recordings were released by Louis Rossman but are not available directly from NY State. Louis Rossman's struggles with NY State are arguably an important part of his history, and the article is incomplete without that information:

I suggest that the following rule:

 it does not involve claims about third parties;

have the following footnote added:

 The release of documents written by or written to a third party does not constitute a claim about a third party.

Additionally, I would like the following rule removed:

 the article is not based primarily on such sources.

If the source meets all of the other quality standards (including, importantly, the 'there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity' rule), then this rule adds nothing and reduces the amount of content that can be included in Wikipedia. Pandapip1 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Reading the edit summary of the edit that reverted your addition, I see no mention of BLPSELFPUB. I do however see a mention of WP:UNDUE, and yeah that content would be undue as primary sources do not contribute towards due weight. In my opinion, changing BLPSELFPUB would not have prevented the content you added from being reverted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. I'm relatively new.

It appears that you're right about WP:UNDUE being the reason for the revert (although I will be disputing that, since there is no published alternate viewpoint). However, my edit, it appears, would also violate BLPSELFPUB as it currently stands.

I don't care about reinstating the edit nearly as much as improving this rule, since it currently seems extraordinarily flawed. Let's pretend that my edit was also reverted for BLPSELFPUB. What do you think of my suggested changes to the rule? Pandapip1 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea. The footnote would not cover common situations where an article subject self-publishes a press release alleging another article subject wronged them in some manner. It doesn't matter if that second article subject is another individual person, or an organisation or some other body, it is still a claim about a third party. It certainly would not assist with the content you tried to add to Rossman's article, because Rossman was making claims about a third party (in this case, the New York state government) made in relation to his own business and non-profit organisation.

As for the removal, again this is a bad idea. We already have an issue with overly promotional articles on individuals, where the promotional nature is often solely sourced to self-published sources. The current rule allows for us to clean up those articles, and keep them where reliable, independent, secondary sources about that person exist, or delete them where they don't because they are not notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What about my footnote wouldn't cover my edit? NY State sent documents showing that they dropped both fines. I expressed Louis Rossman's view by stating his opinions and included factual information that NY State sent.

I agree that the footnote could use additional expansion. But as someone unfamilliar with the process, I would assume that larger changes are harder to make, and didn't want to propose sweeping changes that would take ages to implement. Would you recommend I expand the footnote?

Overly promotional articles can be fixed / removed using other existing rules, such as the notability rule and the 'there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity' rule. Is the ability to fast-track article removals for overly promotional articles a reasonable by disallowing a significant amount of legitimate content really a good tradeoff? I'd say no; if you disagree, I'd like to know why. Pandapip1 (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You're not going to have a lot of success changing this policy because your edit was (correctly) reverted on other grounds. You're trying to fix a problem that isn't actually a problem as far as the rest of the Wikipedia community sees it. MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Pandapip1 (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It would not be feasible to remove "the article is not based primarily on such sources" without also doing an RfC or similar consensus discussion at WP:V also, since it's part of the version in V as well. I.e., this would be a substantive change to two policies at once (plus a guideline, RS). See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Merge WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:BLPSELFPUB to WP:ABOUTSELF for ongoing efforts to merge all three of these into a single policy location in V. Also, any proposals for substantive changes like the above "release of documents" stuff should be postponed until after that merge is complete, or it will simply cloud the proceeding and impede getting consensus on anything at all. (Yes, I know it was posted before that; I mean to head off more such proposed changes to this section in the interim.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• No, both of these are bad suggestions. Clearly documents written by or to a third party can have implications for third parties (consider eg. if the head of the KKK wrote a letter to a political candidate endorsing them; any reference at all to that letter would require a secondary source.) And the second suggestion is totally unworkable - there are very, very good reasons why we don't want an article to rely entirely on such sources. Articles are required to be based primarily on WP:INDEPENDENT sources, for one, and a BLPSELFPUB source is never independent. The severity of that lack of independence, coupled with the high risk of people trying to improperly write articles based primarily on BLPSELFPUB sources for obscure figures who have few other sources available, is more than enough reason to make that restriction particularly severe in this context and spell it out explicitly, but it's ultimately a stronger version of policy that applies everywhere (ie. it would be inappropriate to base an article heavily on sources that aren't independent from the subject even if the sources are RSes and not just usable under BLPSELFPUB.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Footnote to BLPSELFPUB point 2

Point 2 to WP:BLPSELFPUB currently reads: it does not involve claims about third parties^[d]. Footnote d reads For allegations of crime or misconduct that involve multiple parties, or the conduct of one party towards another, a denial would not constitute a "claim about third parties". If a self-published denial does additionally make claims about third parties, those additional claims do fall under this criteria, and do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

I think the final sentence of the footnote should be trimmed to just: If a self-published denial does additionally make claims about third parties, those additional claims do fall under this criteria, i.e. removing , and do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia..

The reason for this is that this is completely redundant to the rest of the criteria in cases where self-published sources are the only place these claims are made, but is irrelevant and potentially incorrect where those same claims are reported in third-party sources (the inclusion or exclusion of which are dealt with by other policies). As an example of where this matters, consider a situation where living person A accuses living person B of a crime, person B denies this and makes counter-claims against person A. If a reliable source reports both sets of claims, but we only have a self-published source for the (detail of the) denial by person B then the denial is covered by BLPSELFPUB but that denial being self-published is irrelevant to whether the claims against a third party merit inclusion, and this policy should not speak to whether they are or are not. Slightly separately in some cases it might be appropriate for a self-published source to be used to verify that claims against a third party were made as part of a denial (but obviously not details of what those claims are). Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

BLP/V/OR dispute about pronunciation keys in lead sentences

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: WT:Manual of Style/Lead section#Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Pronunciation – What began as seemingly a style question about a particular handful of articles has turned into a broad sourcing and OR debate, most especially as it pertains to pronunciations of individuals' surnames, with some particular BLP argumentation. This could really use input from BLP regulars not just MoS regulars.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Propose WP:NOGLAMOR

Just throwing this out there to see if the cat licks it up;

I've been through a bunch of BLP's where folks have basically uploaded publicity photos or "glamor" photography for their BLP's. Seems to me that if WP:MUG tells us to not use images that are falsely disparaging, we probably should also avoid images which are falsely glamorous. I'm not sure if we already have a policy on this, but if we do, I can't find it.

I propose after the WP:MUG paragraph we add a WP:NOGLAMOR paragraph reading something like this :

Images of living persons should not be used to present a person in an overly glamorous light. High quality candid images should be presented over publicity photography or other staged photos in which a subject's appearance may be unusually well-groomed.

Any thoughts? NickCT (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Kind of having a "meh" reaction to this. We have WP:MUG because of potential harm to the subject, but that doesn't really apply to pics that are "particularly flattering" or whatever. Such new rule we don't seem to really need might also end up ruling out the only available pics of various people.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: - Well yeah. I guess if a publicity shot is the only available image, using it might make sense. I feel like the current wording, or maybe "High quality candid images should be given preference over publicity photography..." makes that clear.

And regarding, not needing it; I guess that depends on whether you think the publicity photos are a problem. I think presenting people in a falsely dispariging light is probably just as bad as a falsely flattering one. Though I know most BLP folks care more about "protecting" than accuracy.

Thanks for your feeback. NickCT (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Conflicting birth dates with possible unreliable source - should the subjects WP:ABOUTSELF social media post be used?

When we have conflicting dates of birth, but are unsure of the reliability of a source, is it safe to use the subjects social media for verifiability? WP:DOB says it can be used if it is from a verified account, but also states if independent reliable sources differ on a date, it should be noted. I've noticed this on several pages, but the one I am currently involved in is Michael Jai White. In all interviews, and on their social media, the age is consistent with a 1967 birthday. However, the AP posted about the person being born in 1964. I consider it to be trivia with little to no fact checking, and the subject to be the most reliable source for their date of birth, but wanted to gain consensus either way. A previous RfC was completed in 2021 regarding using social media posts to confirm birthdates, which consensus was found in favor if it was verified. A second RfC with a similar issue to verifiability seemed to be geared towards if there wasn't a primary source to confirm the date of birth and were differing published dates, what to do. However, that one did not seem to address the issue of what to do when the subject mentioned their birthday in a WP:ABOUTSELF or WP:BLPSELFPUB manner. Pinging @Daniel Quinlan who opened the talk page discussion back up for consensus.

Awshort (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

When you say the AP "posted," what does that mean exactly? I would find it relevant whether it was, say, an article about the subject as opposed to a "born on this day" feature or the like. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dumuzid, sorry, I tried to be as descriptive as possible. I included links now that I have a bit more time to clarify the prior talk discussions, and the RS so far in support of both dates.

Talk:Michael_Jai_White#Birth_year,

Talk:Michael_Jai_White#Birth_date_discussion_redux

Sources that state 1964, pulled from the first talk page discussion:

[1][2] As well the birthday lists from Cleveland.com[3][4]

Published sources supporting 1967:

(Taken from first talk page as well)

:*B.E.T. Weekend Magazine - Page 6 (1999): Michael Jai White, who was HBO's Tyson and the superhero Spawn, is sizzling hot. This month, the 32-year-old martial artist is a serviceman with Morgan Freeman on NBC's Port Chicago Mutiny.

:*Today's Black Woman - Volume 4 - Page 95 (February 1998): people last remember Michael Jai White as the actor who played Mike Tyson in HBO's biopic. ... I didn't realize it until I started going to comic book conventions all around the country to promote the movie," says the 29-year-old former martial artist. What White found was a cult following.

CTPost [[5]]

Born in Brooklyn, N.Y., in 1967, White...

More up to date sources which, along with WP:CALC, confirm a 1967 birth date.

:Black Belt Magazine (Feb 2002. page 52)

Now 32, he continues to thirst for more martial arts knowledge.

:[Men's Journal], from Sep 26, 2023Men's Journal spoke with White about the new movie, balancing his filmmaking responsibilities with his fitness, casting UFC fighters, and how he's maintained his incredible high-flying physique at 55 years old.

:[Men's Health], published Sep 26, 23

The 55-year-old admitted that early in his training days, he spent more time than he should've focused on exercises like bench presses in an attempt to build an imposing, chest-forward physique.

Self published social media post on 50th birthday weekend, published Nov 13, 2017 -

[[6]] {tq|Celebrated my 50th birthday and the 20th anniversary of Spawn over the weekend in New York City. Good times.}}

Two other users agreed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request/Archive_155, a request for the yearbook from the years they went to high school to determine DOB, that the social media should be sufficient per WP:BLPSELFPUB. Personal note, WP:DOB states Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth., which I believe trying to determine someone's birth date from the year they graduated more than qualifies as original research.

@Redrose64 I agree in most cases, especially with older celebrities trying to get cast in younger character roles and vice versa for younger celebrities (Mila Kunis comes to mind when she was cast on That 70"s Show by omitting how old she actually was). In this instance, though, I feel the published sources as well as the self published source is more believable than a 'Todays Birthdays!' section on a few newspapers.

Awshort (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Awshort -- no problem at all, and sorry for making you go to those lengths! As I suspected, some of those links (all those supporting 1964) seem to be of the "birthday list" variety. I tend to slightly disfavor those myself, as I think there's good reason to think that they are not always subject to the same sort of fact-checking as a proper article might be. That being the case, I would personally absolutely say 1967 should be the year used, though I am of course mindful of Redrose64's very apt point. A good weekend to all! Dumuzid (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Dumuzid, did you read through the talk page discussion, especially the latter parts of Talk:Michael Jai White § Birth year and those links. It's not just the AP date that is bringing doubt to his interviews and social media, it's also the 1982 high school graduation date. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Celebs are notorious for faking their own DOB if they think that it would help their careers, knocking off a year or several from their apparent ages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Awshort, I've responded on Talk:Michael Jai White and I'm still hopeful we can come to some sort of consensus there. I don't think there's a need to keep adding forums (BLPN and now here) for this discussion when the discussion on the article talk page has been productive and civil. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on 'third-party sources'

"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

What's a 'third-party source' here on Wikipedia? If someone could give a couple of examples that would clear things up.

Thank you. Cmsmith93 (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Third-party would be a source that is not the person themselves or something very closely related to them (for example, their spouse or their agent). Ideally that third-party should be a recognized reliable sources. Masem (t) 18:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be sensible here to just elminate any doubt and use our consistent wording of independent sources including with the link to what that means. Or at very least link the "third-party sources" wording to the same page. Any time we are using WP-internal jargon with a particular WP:P&G meaning behind it, we should use it consistently to avoid confusion (and wikilawyering).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've added the link (twice, because editors often click through to a specific section). However, you should not be completely surprised if an editor wanders along later and removes it because it's "just an essay". We have a couple (as in "about two") editors who believe that policies should only like to other policies and guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on no-indexing marginal BLPs

I’ve raised this before at the Village Pump but it got no significant comments either way, perhaps because it’s a lot to unpack. That said, I thought I’d broach the subject here to see if there is any sense of whether it would be worthwhile to begin the process of exploring the contours of such a proposal, or if anyone is interested in engaging in a detailed discussion on this.

Specifically, I’m interested in exploring a proposal to allow the subjects of BLPs -- with objective exceptions (i.e., current elected officeholders, FA-class BLPs, BLPs on the Most Popular list, etc.) -- to request courtesy no-indexing. The subject of a marginal BLP, in other words, could email info-en-q@, and the no-index tag would be applied to the article (sans the 90-day expiry). The advantages to this, I believe, are:

• It would create a calmer and more collegial editing atmosphere. In closing RfCs, I notice, in many cases, disputes at BLPs arise over some group of editors wanting to push the most salacious content about an individual into the lead, knowing it will be pulled for Knowledge Graph snippets, Siri responses, etc. This would remove that as an incentive.
• It would be consistent with the WMF’s privacy resolution.

This would not prevent anyone from accessing a WP BLP, they would just (in some cases) need to come to WP and look it up instead of us shoving it in their face.

I'm not presenting this as an RfC at this time as I'd prefer to get some feedback about whether this is even in the galaxy of possibilities at this point. Chetsford (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Even as a formerly professional privacy activist, I'm having a hard time seeing a point to this. Anyone notable enough to have their own article here is already enough of a public figure that what we might have to say about them is already public knowledge in other sources (or we couldn't be saying it anyway per the BLP policy). This isn't really a privacy question at all, but a matter of negative or otherwise unwanted publicity, which is quite a different thing. What I think would probably happen is that unmistakably notable people who are caught up in widely-reported scandals, criminal charges, etc. (but who are not "current elected officeholders" – which wouldn't even include Donald Trump, BTW – or whatever artificial line you'd want to draw), would avail themselves of this process for whitewashing purposes. I can even imagine who would be first in line to do it, such as a certain Indian guru who has absconded to somewhere in South America, ducking charges brought in India and France, and who has a legion of followers always trying to whitewash his article here, especially since our article on him has top placement on Google. This would immediately be abused as simply a tool for promotion-by-supression-of-unflattering-coverage. "FA-class BLPs" isn't a sensible criterion; how well a couple of editors have researched and written an article about which they individually care very intently has nothing at all to do with the public notoriety level of a figure. I don't see "Most Popular" list as being relevant, either. Some "15 minutes of fame" person might hit that list for a while due to Internet memes or something, but be far less of a public figure a year later. On the other hand, no-indexing that was requested internally by editors, not by the subject or representatives thereof, might be something to consider in cases of weakly sourced stubs. Then again, if the quality is iffy enough to warrant no-indexing, then it's probably iffy enough to warrant deletion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks, SMcCandlish. That makes sense and I appreciate the feedback. I could see extending it to exclude "current and former elected officials" or even persons convicted of heinous crimes - I don't actually have any specific criteria in mind and if there's any sense this might be supported I imagine those would have to be identified through some laborious process.
    My bigger concern is persons who qualify for BLPs under our, frankly, sweeping subject-specific notability guidelines. For instance, an otherwise private person who has become the editor-in-chief of a Q1 journal can be punished under WP:NACADEMIC criterion 8 with a permanent WP article that becomes the single most enduringly accessible record of their life but may be cobbled together from a bunch of random snippets of text that may not represent a very holistic view. To try to rectify the situation, their only real option is spending the next six months trying to familiarize themselves with our frequently inscrutable guidelines. I feel in those cases, little would be lost in the grand scheme of things if their BLP were just no-indexed; still accessible, just not pushed to the number one search result.
    Anyway, that was longer than I intended it to be! Thanks again for the feedback.Chetsford (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

    On the flip side, a legion of editors effectively pushing harmful content into a BLP could effectively encourage a subject to request no-index protection, and then deprive the BLP subject of indexing, simply because other editors have not rallied to protect the BLP subject through the usual processes. This could be a double-win for a group of editors that not only seek to add harmful content but also suppress, for example, the visibility of an academic BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

    Excellent point, I hadn't thought of that. Chetsford (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

    Shades of "dead-agenting".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

    If the article were so problematic as to be seen as "punishment" by the subject (presumably not one who is party to some kind of publicly-reported controversy), then why would it not be problematic enough for AfD or some other already-extant action (draftifying, WP:TNT, merge just basic bio details to a section at the journal article and redirect there, etc.)? There's an element of "hard cases make bad law" here: there might be edge cases where we decided it was undesirable for a particular page about a particular subject to be indexed by search engines, for some unusual reason (probably a WP:BLP1E thing, though again a good reason to merge-basics-and-redirect to the event), but setting up an "appeals system" though which the subject could seek no-indexing would open a floodgate of suppression attempts by everyone and their dog. And it wouldn't just be a bunch of wikilawyering but probably actual lawyer lawyering; if WP had a formal mechanism by which to do something like this, then various parties would employ attorneys to try to have courts of various jurisdictions force WP to invoke it for that party in particular.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Chetsford, I've never heard of any academic wishing that there was no Wikipedia article about them. I've heard of some who wish that it said different things (e.g., that it omitted unpleasant facts), but never one who wished to have a basic or positive article deleted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, no articles would be deleted in this proposal. They'd merely have the no-index tag applied. However, that may be the case that no academic wanted an article no-indexed, in which case I don't think we'd lose much with this policy. (Speaking only for myself, I would be absolutely horrified if I were to qualify for a WP article.) Chetsford (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I'm totally with you on that: Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. But search engines are a huge part of our traffic, so hiding it from search engines is not necessarily much different from outright deletion from the POV of the readers. If you look at Donna Strickland (one of the Nobel Prize winners for whom we didn't have a visible article when the prize was announced), about two-thirds of the traffic is likely coming from web search engines. Noindex would make that as invisible to web searchers as deleting it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, that's true. I think I'd be okay with that, though, however I know some would disagree. I'm partly inspired to make this proposal today due to a sense of guilt looking over some of the S-SNG articles I've created. For instance, this poor lady — Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier — maybe she's fine with it, maybe she's not, who knows? But we've removed any choice in the matter from her merely because she's a Fellow of the SPM and received a "major" award that maybe 1,000 people in the U.S. have ever heard of. She's not a criminal or a candidate, the public has no abiding need to have a look at her life forever beyond what she chooses to put in her autobiography on the Ohio State University website. But they get it anyway. Chetsford (talk) 03:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• If we did this, might the Streisand effect bring about increased attention? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  My opinion on this proposed process: I could accept it as a replacement to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, in which we hide articles whose subject has requested deletion, in cases where there was neither consensus for notability (despite the request) nor for non-notability. I don't think we should implement it any more broadly than that, because in many ways noindexing is tantamount to deletion. However, I don't think the subjects of BLPREQUESTDELETEs are likely to be happy with noindexing as a substitute for deletion. @WhatamIdoing:, there have been multiple cases of BLPREQUESTDELETE on seemingly innocuous academic biographies. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment. I have seen several cases of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE of unexceptional BLPs, particularly by academic women, and I usually support them. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC).

David Eppstein - I think you're correct, that BLPREQUESTDELETE subjects would feel this is an inferior solution to full deletion. What if it didn't exist as an automatic process but required the same consensus as AFD? In other words, a BLP who was otherwise not successful at BLPREQUESTDELETE could request a BLPREQUESTNOINDEX under slightly less onerous standards? I could imagine a two-part standard: (a) a non-public figure, (b) of no significant public interest (easily demonstrable by the traffic logs or the relative recency of RS). Whereas, BLPREQUESTDELETE requires the BLP on a non-public figure to actually fail one of our guidelines in some way, BLPREQUESTNOINDEX would allow an otherwise acceptable article to be no-indexed based on the community's subjective consensus that no benefit exists to having it indexed. In the aforementioned example of Box-Steffensmeier, the article would never meet the requirements of BLPREQUESTDELETE but it may meet a no public interest standard (it gets an average of two views daily and hasn't been the subject of newsreporting in years). Similarly, articles could be re-indexed if circumstances changed. Chetsford (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I am opposed to "slightly less onerous standards". We already have a problem with being unable to cover people who otherwise meet our notability standards (maybe not quite as blatantly as Box-Steffensmeier) and have their articles deleted for no reason other than that they asked for it. We also have an occasional problem where someone is more famous than that for something bad and requests their article deleted because they want their wrongdoing covered up. Let's not make both of these problems worse and in the process introduce yet more bureaucracy. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)