Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Would a non-human personality like Neuro-sama or Hatsune Miku fall under WP:BLP?

As the title says. If not, would they fall under a specific WP:SNG, such as WP:NENTERTAINER? guninvalid (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

No. And No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

VTubers yes, vocaloid mascots no. —Alalch E. 20:57, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

To elaborate on what Alach said: a VTuber tied to a specific human performer falls under the WP:BLP protections of the performer in roughly the same capacity that any character performed by a specific actor would. E.g. we can't use self-published sources to say that the English performance of Jotaro Kujo is bad because that's a BLP claim about Matt Mercer even if he's not named specifically.

But fictional characters don't get BLP protections by themselves because they're not living people. BLP protections exist for two reasons: the possibility of real-world harm to specific living people, and legal liability for libel. Fictional characters can't suffer damages and can't sue us so there's no reason to protect them. Loki (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

VTubers have human performers (or in the case of the AI-driven Neuro-sama, a programmer/creator) so BLP protections would apply to them similar to other entertainers.

Entirely fictional characters like Hatsune Miku don't get BLP protections for themselves, but related content that is about identifiable people related to the character might just like any other BLP case (e.g. making claims about the CEO of the company behind Hatsune Miku, about the voice actress sampled, etc.). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Clarification requested for WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME

Hello editors. An edit of mine on Brandon Carlo was recently reverted for including the name of the subject's wife, as well as the years in which his two children were born. Both of these pieces of information are reliably sourced and broadly available, but the names of his children (which are also easily available online) were not included, and neither his wife nor his children are independently notable. I have never run into this problem before with BLPs, but the rules as written could be interpreted in my favor or in the other editor's. In the interest of not sparking a pointless edit war, I would like some clarification on how to proceed from the larger community regarding (1) the inclusion of a BLP's non-notable spouse's name, and (2) non-name information on a BLP's child(ren). Thank you. — GhostRiver 21:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

In general, names of living persons who are not themselves notable should be kept off of articles, see WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLP1E. This is in large part to preserve a person's privacy. As an example, I am a private individual, and I would prefer to be left alone. If one of the people in my life became notable for doing a thing, I would not want my name on the article and potentially causing me harassment.

Additionally, birthdays and birthyears in particular are almost never worth putting in an article unless the person is exceptionally notable, as this can make it easier for persons to commit identity fraud. guninvalid (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

If that's the case, guninvalid, people are not fairly reading the very policy you cite (WP:BLPNAME): "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." Names of most non-notable minor children must be excluded per the accompanying footnote. To me, there's no policy-based reason to immediately revert the addition of a reliably reported spouse's name, but there is a policy-based reason for a disgruntled party to start a talk page discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

We can include her name per policy, we don't have to. I can read relevant to a reader's complete understanding to indicate "meh, no reason to incldue", local consensus could go either way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, in this particular case I'm seeing a variety of news sources that name Carlo's wife. If the article actually had content on his hockey career between 2022 and 2024, I imagine that the story of her giving birth to their child during a playoff series would be another place where she should be named. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 03:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and restored the wife's name given the coverage mentioned above. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Jessintime. This might have been an interesting discussion if the name had only come up on Brandon's social media feeds, for instance, but that's not the case, and to me this isn't a particularly close call. The name is freely, easily, and reliably available via a large number of sources. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Question re: use of court documents

WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I understand the reason for this in general, but am wondering if it should be quite as blanket a statement as it is, or if it should instead include an exception for statements that a living person makes about themself (e.g., in court testimony or a deposition) – and possibly also if the person has their lawyer(s) make a statement about them in written motions – assuming that the WP content meets the conditions of WP:BLPSELFPUB and is WP:DUE. Seems to me that someone making a statement about themself under oath is at least as reliable as that person posting the same thing on their website. I recognize that if secondary RSs aren't publishing this information, it often won't be DUE, but I'm inclined to think that that should be assessed on a case by case basis. Most recently, I've encountered this in several legal cases challenging Trump administration actions (e.g., in court cases involving immigrants who are challenging potentially illegal detention/deportation, the immigrants' lawyers are providing some background about them in the court filings; a DOGE employee described her role in a court deposition). So far, I've removed these citations when I see them (along with any info that can't be sourced to an acceptable RS), but it's making me wonder about the blanket prohibition. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I do not think we should make this proposed exception. People are compelled to make statements in court cases either in an attempt to build their own case or in response to questioning or discovery. Based on court documents alone, we have no way to assess whether a statement that a person makes about themselves is something they would want public or something they they felt they had to include for a legal reason in the case. – notwally (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Definitely should not be using non-ruling or non-order court filings for any type of validation per this.. Anything not written by judges on the case should be consider one side's version of the truth. If RSes make a point about a factor raised in such documents, or, like in the case of SCOTUS petitions, the questions asked by the case are normally consider part of the facts of the case, then maybe the ruling can be used but RSes should be used first and foremost. Masem (t) 19:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Court orders should not be used to make claims about living people either. I do not believe the self-published opinions of judges are reliable enough for BLP purposes, and the same problems exist when using them as relying on court transcripts and other court records. – notwally (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I can understand looking at it from the perspective of: the person may be making statements about things that they otherwise wouldn't make public. But I'll note that the documents are public and news media sometimes mine them in writing articles, and we often add that info to articles, using the news articles as citations. Admittedly, there are many legal cases that the news media have no interest in, but in the three situations that led me to wonder about this issue, the news media are paying attention. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

If news media pick it up, then it's a different issue, and we do still consider privacy interests in those types of situations. I think BLPPRIMARY is only meant to avoid us as editors mining those types of public documents. – notwally (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

It is far better to use news articles from reputable sources reciting court documents to use for any claims (and for nearly all info related to court cases) as first, we are not legal experts so we shouldn't be trying to determine the salient points from a court document but rely on legal experts that can vouch for what's important, and second, if there are BLP claims, a reputable agency will likely try to verify that claim prior to republishing it, or make it clear if the claim is unsubstantiated. Masem (t) 21:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about anything that requires legal expertise. For example, in Mahmoud Khalil's case (he's a legal permanent resident grabbed by ICE in NY and taken to LA, not because he'd broken any laws but because of his pro-Palestinian speech at Columbia U.), one of the documents says that his grandparents were displaced from Palestine to a Syrian refugee camp in the 1948 Nakba. This isn't about his legal argument, just background about him, and I don't see how any news source would be able to confirm it independently. It's very likely something that we'd add to the article if he'd written it in his own blog (it's not self-serving, ...). At any rate, I figured I'd ask about it since I've now encountered this situation several times, but I'm not going to push for the policy to change. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I think, generally speaking, we rely on secondary sources not only for fact-checking and determining what is likely to be true (though that's certainly a major part of it), but also to determine what is substantially significant. If no other source found something significant enough to say "__________ stated, in a court filing, that..." (which requires them to do no fact-checking other than reading said filing), then why should Wikipedia be the first place that appears? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Compelled or not, people routinely provide garden-variety biographical details about themselves in testimony and other proceedings. I frankly see no reason why we would not publish something like a subject's date or place of birth where this is recorded in a court document, so long as it is not a fact at issue in the trial. BD2412 T 01:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Precisely because it may be compelled. The entire point of our WP:ABOUTSELF exemption is that we are assuming that people are fine with this information being on Wikipedia because they are publishing it themselves. That assumption does not apply to court records. As WP:DOB also explains "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" (emphasis added). And given the numerous other problems that come with court records and similar documents... – notwally (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

You could say the same for all content sourced as BLPSELFPUB, which we do not uniformly reject. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, court documents can and do sometimes contain errors (and people can lie under oath), so the statements should be attributed to the documents if they were to be used (e.g. According to the May 3 probable cause affidavit...). I agree with Seraphimblade though that if something from the court documents were important enough to include in a Wikipedia article, that secondary RS would've covered it by now. Some1 (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

If the statements are addressed by reliable sources, then we should be guided by how those sources qualify the statements. Otherwise, the statements should not be used at all if they are about a living person and only sourced to court documents. – notwally (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

About aboutness

These two sentences need to be clarified:

Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person [...] Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

What is "public documents" doing here?

What does "subject to the restrictions of this policy" is supposed to mean?

What kind of "assertions about a living person" are we referring to?

Perhaps it'd be better to explain the reasons why we shouldn't use trial transcripts and other court records instead. As is, we get "you shouldn't use trial transcripts because you shouldn't", and that doesn't work.

Quoting a lawyer to support a claim about what a lawyer says ought to be fine! Selbsportrait (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You may elicit more responses if you re-title the section to make it more informative (e.g., Questions about BLPPRIMARY).

Public documents are documents that are created and/or maintained by a government and can be viewed by any member of the public. For example, in the U.S., this includes birth and death records, property deeds, voter registration info, and many court documents. What "public documents" is doing there: it's noting a class of disallowed primary sources.

"Subject to the restrictions of this policy" means that you shouldn't use primary sources in ways that are disallowed by other parts of the WP:BLP policy, such as "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person," and "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themself." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Addition of an example in WP:BLPSPS

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1236 thread deleting text versus adding "citation needed" was mentioned by Pigsonthewing when adding in WP:BLPSPS: "It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example." I do not think the sentence fits well here because the earlier sentences are about self-published blogs, so "It" apparently means self-published blogs. I support the mention of awards, since I once failed to use pulitzer.org instead of secondary sources. But I oppose the insertion. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the text needs to stay. When a reputable organization states on social media or on their own web site that they have bestowed an award, we should be able to take it as reliable. It is "self-published" by the organization and we don't want misguided editors thinking that disqualifies it. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm the editor who asked that Teahouse question. I agree with the intent of the edit to BLPSPS, but think the wording could be improved, especially eliminating "It" as a subject. My understanding is that the edit is meant to communicate that despite the general prohibition on using self-published sources, it's sometimes acceptable to use them, for example, if the SPS is "a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards." But all of this depends on how people assess what "self-published" means, and there isn't agreement about that (see this RfC). I don't see how to appropriately word the intent of the edit without modifying the first sentence of BLPSPS, so that it says something like "with few exceptions, do not use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themself" (instead of "never use") and following up with something like "the rare exceptions include a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards." FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should add wording that implies there are other unspecified exceptions. Maybe the issue by the OP is the sentence "Self-published blogs in this context refers to personal and group blogs."? I'm not sure what that sentence adds to the policy as the news organizations that have blogs later discussed are not self-published since they are subject to editorial control. Would combing the first several sentences address the concerns raised by Peter Gulutzan and FactOrOpinion? Such as "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themself or published by a reputable organisation about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards. Some news organizations host... – notwally (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

The earlier sentences are not "about self-published blogs"; the preceding text says "self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts".

Unless Peter Gulutzan is arguing that

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

does mean that we cannot cite a reputable organisation self-publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards [as naive editors elsewhere claim, all too often], it is hard to see why they object to the change. Perhaps they could clarify if that is their meaning? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)