Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Revert of recent changes

WP:RVDEADNAME

Hi @Notwally, you have reverted with the edit summary This information is not repeated in the linked MOS guideline, which actually refers back to this section of the BLP policy. The reason you'll not find the previous text repeated at MOS:GENDERID is because the previous text was a misleading paraphrase of the MOS page: it did not mention that the MOS:GENDERID guideline specifically covers only pre-notability former names. The extra information on how to deal with vandalism is off-topic for this policy page. Additionally, MOS:GENDERID does not point back to this section, it points back to the preceding section. The previous text was a recent addition, that had the effect of significantly expanding a prohibition found in a guideline and promoting the expansion to a policy. If this was a simple misunderstanding, I invite you to self-revert. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Your edit summary when you removed that information was "one short sentence linking to the relevant guideline instead of a paragraph attempting to reproduce it here" [1]. Now you are claiming that wasn't true and that the real reason is that it is misleading? I am not sure how that is a valid argument, considering that the text says "Sometimes vandals come to Wikipedia to intentionally deadname transgender people in violation of our guidelines." So it not only links to the WP:DEADNAME guideline, but also explicitly limits itself to deadnaming in violation of our guidelines. Are you claiming that deadnaming people in violations of our policies should not be reverted? – notwally (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

1) No, "attempting" was indicative that the attempt failed to reproduce the guideline. I am clarifying here that it instead introduced text that is misleading.

2) The previous text is ambiguous and could easily be read as stating that use of former names violates our guidelines.

3) The previous text is mostly advice on procedures for dealing with vandalism, which applies far more generally (even more generally than this whole policy page).

It would be fine to revert to the status quo before this section was introduced, but since the MOS guideline is relevant to the topic of privacy of names, I thought a pared down summary would be appropriate:

If a living person was not notable under a former name, there is likely to be a privacy interest against using that former name on any page (see, for example, guidelines on gender identity).

Suggestions for improvements welcome. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It does not appear that the text in this policy was attempting to reproduce the guideline at all. It is about reverting edits that violate the WP:DEADNAME policy. What parts of it do you think are contained in the MOS guideline? I also disagree that the text, which both links to the DEADNAME guideline and explicitly says "in violation of our guidelines", is ambiguous. I believe your suggested content is far more likely to be misleading because the DEADNAME guidelines are not about a "likely privacy interest" about "a former name", they are about a definite privacy interest creating an absolute prohibition on using the non-notable deadnames for transgender and non-binary people. Are there other discussions that prohibit the use of former names outside of the context of WP:DEADNAME in the manner that your suggested text implies? – notwally (talk)

I don't think anyone has argued against them being reverted, though I have other gripes with this section: For one, WP:DEADNAME is a manual of style and not a general guideline, which in my opinion makes it strange to have being referred from here in such context. Secondly, revdel can't be used for hiding deadnames; Only oversight is empowered to hide them due to them being non-public personally identifiable information, which is already handled by WP:BLPPRIVACY. _→AzaToth 22:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS

This edit was made, but it is not clear if there is consensus for it. The editor does not understand BLP and used that sentence they wrote to then demand that links to content they disagree with be removed, which happened and then they doubled down when questioned. Polygnotus (talk) 00:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, the edit does have consensus, as I noted when I reverted your revert (my edit summary for that revert has a list of editors / comment timestamps who approved the change; I actually forgot to include one editor in that list). Several people who participated in the discussion said that the first change I proposed would be an improvement, no one objected to it, and after an experienced editor (WhatamIdoing) said "FOO, would you please make that change? Nobody likes the existing wording," I made the edit. I do understand BLP, and I don't understand why you're bringing links to the AfD discussion here, as they're irrelevant to whether I got consensus for the change before I actually edited the policy. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: You used the term person themself in the comment on the AfD six hours after you inserted that same wording into BLP policy. Are you concerned that this could give the appearance that you were trying to gain an upper hand in a dispute with another editor? jps (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

ජපස, I introduced two potential changes on January 12. There was no opposition to the first of my proposals, but the discussion quickly focused on the second, about which there was more disagreement, including disagreement about what some phrases in the existing policies mean and other wording problems in existing policies. The AfD discussion wasn't opened until Jan. 16. Do you think I made my Jan. 12 proposal in anticipation that I'd want to use it in an as-yet-nonexistent discussion? One person supported my first proposed change on Jan. 12, then we were all caught up in the broader discussion, and on Jan. 19 I again asked people about my first proposal, since I hadn't seen anyone object to it, and since a few possible wordings had been proposed. A couple of editors agreed with the change, I was waiting to see if anyone else wanted to say something, when a very experienced editor asked me to make the change. So I changed it. She asked me at 20:37 on 20 January, and I made the change at 21:24, 20 January. My edit summary said "making it clearer that this applies even if the person isn't the subject of the article, per Talk page agreement in 'Modifying the first sentence of BLPSPS'" So no, I'm not concerned that it gives the appearance that I was "trying to gain an upper hand in a dispute with another editor," because anyone who looks at all of the relevant evidence can see that that's not what happened. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

That you refuse to admit that the sequence of events has the appearance of impropriety makes me very uncomfortable. People have been banned for less. jps (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

You didn't ask me if whether I agreed that it could give that appearance (of course it could give that appearance to someone who didn't understand the timeline). You asked "Are you concerned that this could give the appearance that you were trying to gain an upper hand in a dispute with another editor?" (emphasis on "concerned" added). And I said no, I'm not concerned about that. Maybe I should be concerned, but right now, I'm not. If you think I should be banned over this, then you should take it up on an appropriate Noticeboard. But expect me to point out the actual timeline, and expect me to point out the many denigrating comments about Kedar in that AfD discussion. Because that context is very relevant to my choices here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the reason you aren't concerned about using wording you added to policy in a dispute in which you are involved is that you feel justified in behaving this way to make sure that what you think are denigrating comments are addressed in the way you want them addressed?

Do you think it is okay to change policy and then quote that very same policy with the changes you implemented in a dispute just because you think you are right in that dispute? jps (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Again: I changed the wording of the policy because there was consensus right here on WT:BLP that the wording/intention of BLPSPS would be clearer if "the subject of the article" were replaced by "person themself." Can you accept that it was a consensus change? As for my use in the AfD discussion, I couldn't possibly have known when I made that consensus edit to the BLPSPS wording (21:24, 20 January), over a day later the same policy would become relevant in an exchange elsewhere (03:42, 22 January).

Re: your first question, I'm not sure what behavior you're referring to by "behaving this way." I'd appreciate your clarifying that, thanks. But whatever you're referring to, I doubt that my reasoning is about what I "feel justified" in doing, much less that it would be about "mak[ing] sure that what you think are denigrating comments are addressed in the way you want them addressed." If I were trying to do the latter, I never would have sought guidance from other editors about how to deal with denigrating comments in that discussion. And if you think that the only comment I was concerned about there was the one where I asked another editor to delete a link, you're mistaken, and if you think that the sole change I would have wished for was the deletion of a link, you're mistaken about that too. Do you really think that simply asking someone to make a change is the way I'd go about it if my aim were to "make sure" that denigrating comments are addressed as I wish? I quoted a policy, noted that it applies, and asked someone to make a change. I consider that a reasonable way to respond when another editor does something that concerns me.

As for your second question, I think it's OK to change the wording of a policy after getting consensus that the change makes the policy clearer, and I think it's OK to quote a policy when the policy is relevant. FactOrOpinion (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

BTW, I hope that the actual timestamps of my two relevant edits makes clear that your initial claim "You used the term person themself in the comment on the AfD six hours after you inserted that same wording into BLP policy" is mistaken; it was about 30 hours later. FactOrOpinion (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: Changing a policy and then quoting it soon after looks bad. Real bad. I do understand BLP If that would be the case then you would be intentionally misrepresenting it. So I prefer to believe that you do not understand BLP, and that seems far far more likely based on your behaviour. According to you I made a BLP violation here so please report me to WP:AN. Or stop bothering me and retract your false claims. Polygnotus (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If that would be the case then you would be intentionally misrepresenting it. How so?

I haven't ever reported anyone to WP:AN. I'm not sure why you'd propose that I do that instead of simply working it out. I certainly prefer to work it out.

Or stop bothering me and retract your false claims. I don't even know what false claims you're referring to. If you think I've made a false claim, please quote it, and explain why it's false. If you're right, I'll gladly retract it. But I might disagree that it's false. Either way, we're not going to be able to resolve that unless you make clear what claims of mine you're referring to. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

(If you reported that to AN, then they'd tell you that you were on the wrong page. Problems like that, if believed to be behavioral in nature, get reported to WP:ANI, not to WP:AN. Perhaps this should be taken as evidence that all of us make innocent mistakes, and therefore should respond with grace when someone else does?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This policy discussion has actually been going on for weeks, starting with Wikipedia talk:Verifiability § Self-published claims about other living persons on 6 January and then continuing at #Modifying the first sentence of BLPSPS on 12 January. The edit in Special:Diff/1270708140 was supported by editors in the latter discussion, including me. From the comments FactOrOpinion has posted in these discussions, I believe she has a strong understanding of the WP:BLP policy as it applies to article space. Project space works a little bit differently: linking to a self-published YouTube video to discuss it is not a WP:BLP violation, but making a factual claim about a living person (even in project space) that is not verifiable to a reliable source is a violation. — Newslinger talk 03:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, you believe that because you have not seen their behaviour elsewhere. And of course sources were provided. making a factual claim about a living person (even in project space) that is not verifiable to a reliable source is a violation. That is not true. Barack Obama invented the letter B. Jimbo Wales can travel through time, but only forwards. Taylor Swift has sneezed multiple times in a row. Polygnotus (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If you stated "Barack Obama invented the letter B" in a serious manner, and not as an example as can be seen in the context of your comment, then it would be a WP:BLP violation, as WP:BLP extends the verifiability policy to non-article space for claims about living people. I doubt anyone would petition to have it removed since it is not a negative claim, but it is a violation. — Newslinger talk 03:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I am dead serious: Barack Obama used to be called Arack Oama but then he invented the letter B and added it to his name. Polygnotus (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on the context of the discussion, you are clearly saying that as a example. Even if you were serious, that kind of WP:BLP violation would not be something I would normally bother to respond to. — Newslinger talk 03:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

What would you respond to? Polygnotus (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_291#c-Vishaltelangre-2020-03-16T18:59:00.000Z-Newslinger-2020-03-16T18:01:00.000Z for an example of a WP:BLP violation in project space that I did respond to. — Newslinger talk 03:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Statements that are potentially defamatory might be ripe for consideration as BLP violations. But otherwise, this stuff seems silly. Shouldn't defamatory be in the standard? jps (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Not all WP:BLP violations in talk page comments need to be removed. Comments that meet the WP:RD2 criterion ("Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material") and other defamatory content about living people should certainly be removed. On the other hand, minor WP:BLP violations can simply be replied to by any interested editor. — Newslinger talk 03:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger: But goodfaith Wikipedians have a lot of leeway in discussions when talking about sources and BLP subjects... right? Because if you don't add that part people with a very incomplete and strict and rigid interpretation of the rules can object to thousands of comments and falsely claim all those people somehow did something bad when they did not. Right? If I discuss a conman on a talkpage, or a grifter or worse, a politician then I should be able to speak freely and openly, within normal parameters (you know, no 4 letter words and all that). It is very important that goodfaith Wikipedians have the ability to mention when someone is lying, misrepresenting the facts, or when a form of pseudoscience is bullshit. I do not have a reliable source that states that dowsing is bullshit. But dowsing is bullshit, and I am and should be allowed to say that. And that should be mentioned in the rules, because otherwise people will abuse/misuse them. Polygnotus (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course WP:BLP violations have different levels of severity, and minor violations in talk page comments generally do not warrant any kind of action other than a rebuttal from interested editors. A report for "thousands" of minor WP:BLP infractions that do not convincingly establish a pattern of misconduct would be expected to be dismissed as vexatious. The claim "dowsing is bullshit" does not concern a living person, so it is not relevant to WP:BLP. — Newslinger talk 04:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Newslinger: That is not what I am asking. Polygnotus (talk) 04:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Could you give an example of a claim about a living person that you believe you "should be allowed to say"? — Newslinger talk 04:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but can you answer what I wrote above please? It is important. I don't know the name of a living person who still uses dowsing who has a Wikipedia article, but one probably exists. Polygnotus (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I've already responded to your comment, so it's unclear what you are asking for. — Newslinger talk 04:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Polygnotus, if you edit your comment after someone has already responded to it (e.g. Special:Diff/1271240020), please indicate in the comment that you have edited it, per WP:TALK#REVISE. Otherwise, the discussion becomes more difficult to follow. WP:BLP does apply to living people who practice dowsing and other forms of pseudoscience, just as it applies to all other living people. I would need a clearer example if you want a clearer answer. — Newslinger talk 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion continued at User talk:Newslinger § Leeway. — Newslinger talk 04:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

And no one else is invited! Polygnotus (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it makes sense to discuss this in the abstract when I was responding in a very specific context. That context is a very contentious AfD discussion. Another editor opened a thread at the BLPN because of their concerns about degrading comments made in the AfD discussion. (Several of us have expressed concerns about BLPVIOs in that BLPN discussion; Polygnotus is the only editor who participated in the discussion and said that there were none.) The self-published YouTube video that I objected to is contentious. The WP claims based on that video were contentious. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you please stop it? Thank you. You are being very annoying. Polygnotus (talk) 04:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Stop what? FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I demand that this be removed as a BLP violation as it is a negative claim about Barack Obama. jps (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The B is one of the worst letters. Arack Oama should be ashamed. Polygnotus (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If this is how you interpret BLP policy, it is absolutely ripe for WP:POINTy gaming. How do you decide if it is a serious manner or not? If I demand that you remove the comment, would you do it as an admin action? And if Polygnotus then asked for a review at WP:AN, do you think the consensus would be in support of you? jps (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If you asked me to remove a minor WP:BLP violation in a talk page comment, I would decline and advise you to respond to it with your own rebuttal. — Newslinger talk 03:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

you have not seen their behaviour elsewhere You know, I invited you earlier to take your concerns about my behavior to my talk page. You didn't take me up on it, instead responding "Can I please go back to ignoring you now?" But instead of ignoring me, you started this whole to-do here. Your choices in all of this baffle me. FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

making a factual claim about a living person (even in project space) that is not verifiable to a reliable source is a violation. If I say that my friend grew up in California, that is a factual claim about a living person that is not verifiable to a reliable source. Is that therefore a BLP violation? jps (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Since you are not independent of your friend, your claim about your friend would not be prohibited by the "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people" clause in WP:SPS. Assuming that WP:BLPSPS and WP:SPS are consistent, which is something we are trying to work out in these policy discussions, your claim would not be a WP:BLPSPS violation. If your friend is non-notable, other editors would most likely give you the benefit of the doubt and consider you a reliable source for this particular claim about your friend outside of article space. — Newslinger talk 06:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised that the statement that "making a factual claim...that is not verifiable to a reliable source is a violation" has drawn such responses. In the mainspace, this would be an indisputable violation of of Wikipedia:Verifiability. It is disheartening to have editors react to statements like this as if having facts come from sources instead of editors' own speculations were some extraordinary thing that they can't reasonably be expected to do under normal circumstances. Sticking to what's verifiable is something experienced editors should do by default, without needing to be reminded. Y'all are better than that. I know you are better than that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• The edit seems to clearly have consensus. All the personal attacks need to stop. This whole conversation needs to be brought to ANI if it continues in the same manner as above. – notwally (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  If any of my comments are coming across as attacks, please let me know. That's certainly not my intent. FactOrOpinion (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would say the edit had support… but when only 4 or 5 editors are involved in discussing a change to an important policy like BLP, I am not sure we have enough support to claim a consensus. Blueboar (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Several editors said that they thought the change was an improvement, no one expressed any concerns about it, and @WhatamIdoing, who is way more experienced than I am, asked me to make the change. I don't understand what I did wrong here. Was I supposed to have sought out input from editors elsewhere before making the change? FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  A handful of editors is not enough for such an important change to policy. WhatamIdoing shouldn't have asked that. See WP:RFC. Note that creating a neutral RFC is not easy. Polygnotus (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  So here is my take as someone who was involved in the discussion: The change DID have support (indeed, I was the only editor in the discussion who expressed any concern about it, and I didn’t strongly object.)

  Given that discussion, I think it was appropriate to do a WP:BOLD edit. This is allowed, even in policy.

  However, while there was discussion and support, I don’t think support of 4 or 5 people is enough to claim that it had consensus. At most it had a very weak consensus.

  So … it is also appropriate to challenge the BOLD change and ask for a broader RFC… which will help determine if there is a broader consensus. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  It sounds like you're saying that consensus can't occur unless there are a large enough number of participants, or that in the absence of a large number, it can only be a weak consensus at best. Am I understanding right? If so, that's never been my understanding of consensus. I've always interpreted consensus in relation to the people who've chosen to participate in the discussion (e.g., if 5 out of 5 people agree, there's consensus, even though 5 is not a huge number).

  I certainly didn't understand you to have expressed concern about simply changing "subject of the article" to "person themself." (My understanding of your context concern was that it also existed about the previous wording.) I wish you'd said something when I double-checked with people here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  When anyone clicks on "edit source" for a policy page, there's a huge notice at the top that says "While you may be bold in making minor changes to this page, consider discussing any substantive changes first on the page's talk page." We did discuss it on the talk page first. Neither that notice nor the WP:PGCHANGE explanation to which it links suggest that RfCs are necessary before substantive changes. Not a single person in the discussion suggested a need for an RfC, and several very experienced editors participated in the discussion. If substantive changes generally require RfCs, there are many editors in breach of that, as can be seen by looking at all of the substantive changes made to the wording in the absence of an RfC. Your comment about the challenge of creating a neutral RfC made me laugh, as I've invested a huge amount of time in trying to craft a good RfC about the explanation of "self-published" in WP:SPS, seeking out input in order to improve it before I post it.

  That said, if you have an objection to the change in the BLPSPS wording, the discussion about it above is still open, and I invite you to say what your objection is. If you think an RfC is necessary, you're free to open one. (I'm not going to, as I'm more focused on getting my WP:SPS RfC in shape to open.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  Bit offtopic but... Your comment about the challenge of creating a neutral RfC made me laugh, as I've invested a huge amount of time in trying to craft a good RfC about the explanation of "self-published" in WP:SPS, seeking out input in order to improve it before I post it. What, if anything, do you think can be improved on the WP:RFC page? Personally I feel that it explains the technical side of creating an RFC well enough, but not the pitfalls and dangers. I think it sets (some) people up for failure because they see an easy 7-step procedure and then they get suprised by loads of negative feedback. Polygnotus (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  • The problems FOO's been dealing with have everything to do with asking a neutral question that will produce a useful response, which is not what WP:RFC is about.
  • See (and join, if you want) this discussion for evidence that not everyone agrees with you about RFCs involve "an easy 7-step procedure".

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Project space works a little bit differently: linking to a self-published YouTube video to discuss it is not a WP:BLP violation, but making a factual claim about a living person (even in project space) that is not verifiable to a reliable source is a violation.

Newslinger, I'd appreciate more guidance. Wouldn't the issue of whether the use of a self-published YouTube video is/isn't a BLP violation depend on the content of the video and the content of the editor's statement(s) about it? In this particular case, I'd say that both the video content and the editor's statements are contentious. Both addressed 2 identified living persons, one of whom is the subject of the AfD discussion, and the other of whom is his mother. Some editors would likely disagree with me about whether the video and editor's statements are contentious, but for argument's sake, let's say that both are. Even if the video were considered a reliable source, wouldn't BLPSPS preclude its use for contentious content even outside of mainspace? Or perhaps my question is: can a self-published source be a reliable source for contentious BLP statements, given the BLPSPS constraint?

BLP says "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts" and that "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." That text links to a couple of ArbCom decisions, one of which says in part "The policy on biographies of living persons requires that editors act with a high degree of sensitivity and consider the possibility of harm to the subject when adding information about a living person to any Wikipedia page. This requirement is consistent with the Wikimedia Foundation's guidance that human dignity be taken into account when adding information about living persons to Wikimedia projects," and "All living people who are subjects of Wikipedia content are entitled to the protections of the biographies of living persons policy." I think a lot of the editors in that AfD discussion weren't taking the possibility of harm seriously enough. If I've misunderstood, and more leeway is allowed in using SPSs for contentious statements outside of mainspace, I sure wish the policy would make that clear. Because as a not-that-experienced (though clearly not new) editor, everything in the current policy makes it sound like it's not OK. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Your problem is that reality is fuzzy and your interpretation of the rules is black and white. So you can never map one onto the other. BLPSPS would preclude using it as sources of material in the article, but not for use on a talkpage.

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. (emphasis mine)

Note also that a reliable source was provided (although not required). Polygnotus (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Your claim "your interpretation of the rules is black and white" is false. You've now made false claims about me on more than one page. Please stop. It's tiresome to deal with, and it's counterproductive.

I'm uncertain how to interpret what you just said. A few possibilities:

1) In WP:BLP, the word "material" is only used to describe content added to mainspace, and if someone makes an edit anywhere else, the content of the edit is not "material."

2) The word "material" means different things in different places in WP:BLP, but in the BLPSPS section, it only refers to content added to mainspace.

3) Something else.

If it's 1 or 2, please specify which. If it's 3, please clarify what you mean.

If it's 1, that's clearly a misinterpretation, just look at the uses/meanings of the word "material" throughout the policy (e.g., "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page ...," "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity...").

If it's 2, maybe you're right or maybe you're wrong. Given that the use of "material" clearly isn't limited to that in the policy as a whole, then whether your'e right or wrong, someone is misinterpreting the intent, and it would be good to make the wording clearer.

If it's 3, I'll respond after you clarify what you're trying to say. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It is weird, the answer to your comment is the thing you respond to, which you object to. So out of those options I guess its 4?

Trying to plug loopholes in policy isn't the solution to our problems. Heck, one could argue its a rather pointless distraction. Words on a policy page will never fully be able to capture reality as a whole. While we can make improvements to policy, people will never understand it if they focus on the exact meaning of every word. I have told a religious friend his focus on exact quotes and his attempts to exactly live as the book tells him to means he is missing the forest for the trees. I hope I am making sense to you. PaGs are not mathematical formulas, they are living breathing documents, written in blood, and every PaG I've read is imperfect and incomplete, and if I spend 10 minutes I can find all sorts of loopholes. We aren't here to write PaGs. The goal is to write an encyclopedia. Am I making sense to you? Polygnotus (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If you understand what I am saying, and join me in this new reality where PaGs are window dressing then we can use common sense to decide what the rules are and should be. Can you explain why you think that people are not allowed to say that they believe that a person is incapable of writing a book, without referring to PaGs? For example, do you think someone in that persons family will read it and feel unhappy? (this is my best guess, please correct me if I am wrong.) Or do you think it is an insult to say that someone is not able to write a book? People who are unable to write a book are not lesser than those who can, right? Polygnotus (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

You would appear to be casting aspersion of ableism... And continuing to bludgeon this topic beyond all reason. Stop or this is going to end up at ANI with you in the docket. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: That is a very creative interpretation, and clearly incorrect. I was trying to understand FOO, and help them, but that is called "bludgeoning" (despite WP:BLUDGEON disagreeing), and if I ignore them because I don't like the way they act I get accused that I haven't really engaged with what they say. OK, it is your problem now. You fix it. Good luck! Polygnotus (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If you don't understand that "People who are unable to write a book are not lesser than those who can, right?" is casting an aspersion of ableism then we probably need to have a competence discussion... If you're telling the truth then in good faith you should not be making edits on topics connected to disability and I would expect you to cease doing so. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

(Preface: I wrote a response that turned out to be really long, so I'm splitting it in two parts. This part is more general; the second part addresses your questions.)

Polygnotus, it was initially frustrating to me that you answered 4, when I was actively trying to understand what you meant. I've reread our exchange, I've looked again at the BLP policy, and I think your actual view is 2 and it should have been obvious enough that I didn't need to ask. If I've understood right, I can see how you'd interpret it in way 2, especially given the previous wording, "the subject of the article."

I accept that you think "Trying to plug loopholes in policy isn't the solution to our problems," and may be "a rather pointless distraction," but I see it as a partial solution (definitely not a complete solution), perhaps because I'm a less experienced editor (so the process of learning what the policies are and what they mean is fresher in my mind, and I'm sensitive to the fact that other new editors are in a similar position), and because I am sensitive to the amount of time and energy that can be taken up in discussions when people disagree about what a policy means. I think it can be worth investing energy in making policies clearer. I do recognize that policies cannot be perfect (for varied reasons, including the one you mentioned earlier, that reality is fuzzy, but also including things like words often have more than one meaning, in which case we're faced with the task of figuring out which meaning is intended when). But they can be improved. I'm also personally interested the how humans go about making sense of language / communicating effectively, so the wording of policies interests me for that reason too.

In this specific case, I think the intended meaning of the word "material" is ambiguous. You're interpreting it as "material in the article," and I'm interpreting it as "material in any page." I'm not sure if you're interpreting it as you do primarily because of the previous wording about "the subject of the article," and/or if there's some other reason (e.g., this is what you think consensus practice is). I'm interpreting it the way I do because in parts of the policy, "material" explicitly refers to content about living persons added to any Wikipedia page. I think it would be good to clarify this, and at some point I'll probably try to find out from people what meaning is intended and then try to improve the wording. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Re: "Can you explain why you think that people are not allowed to say that they believe that a person is incapable of writing a book, without referring to PaGs?", people can certainly say this without referring to PaGs, but that doesn't mean that I can't object to it, or that I won't refer to a PaG in explaining my objection. As I noted above, I'm interpreting "material" in the broad sense. WP:BLP says "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies ..." In the case of this particular AfD, the article's subject is vulnerable to being characterized in a degrading way, and in a way that may not correspond to reality, and where the writings attributed to him are entirely dismissed. And because of that, I cited policy because I felt like it was the strongest tool I had for trying to counter what I saw as hurtful statements from other editors.

A couple of main possibilities:

1) It's impossible for him to communicate. Nothing that appears under his name was actually written by him; it's all the result of being cued by a facilitator, who is actually the author. Attributing that material to him pretends that someone else's voice is his. In some sense that takes away who he actually is and that he should be valued for who he is.

2) It's possible for him to communicate, and for quite a while he's communicated a lot that's really meaningful and impacts others. He is the author of the works that appear under his name. Although someone else is present in videos of him (e.g., because it helps him focus, or calms him when being videotaped), that person is not the author of his writing. Attributing his writing to someone else takes away his voice, and it takes away who he actually is and that he should be valued for who he is.

Because he's non-speaking and uses a tablet, and because there's a history with FC of the facilitator cuing (whether intentionally or not), in this specific case it's hard to know whether it's situation 1 vs. 2. Several editors in the AfD took view 1. They insisted that this was the only possibility, literally saying it's "impossible" for it to be view 2, comparing view 2 to fringe belief in things like communicating with the dead, and therefore the article "violates WP:FRINGE." They generally weren't arguing the last sentence of 1, looking out for this vulnerable person's well-being. They were focused on the first three sentences. I found that really degrading, and I believe it to be a real BLP violation. I think that insisting on view 1 is different from saying "we don't whether it's 1 vs. 2." I think it's different than saying "it's important to look out for this person in our discussion." Because I believed it to be a serious BLP violation, I cited that policy in some of my responses.

"do you think someone in that persons family will read it and feel unhappy?" Maybe, and "unhappy" isn't the only possible negative feeling. Or maybe some other autistic person will read it and feel frustrated/angry/distressed/...

"do you think it is an insult to say that someone is not able to write a book?" Not necessarily. Lots of people can't write books. But I found it insulting for people to insist that it was "impossible" in this case.

"People who are unable to write a book are not lesser than those who can, right?" Right.

FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, if an editor links a self-published YouTube video to make claims about another living person who is unaffiliated with the video's creator, that would be a WP:BLP violation, even if the claims were not contentious. In contrast, outside of article space, it is generally acceptable to link to a self-published YouTube video to reference information within the video that is unrelated to living people, to provide details about the video's creator, or to make claims about living people who are affiliated with the video's creator – even if the video does contain other claims that would be WP:BLP violations. It is also usually acceptable to link to a YouTube video to inquire about its reliability or suitability in a article, even if that video ends up being unacceptable. None of the examples cited in this entire discussion would grant an editor permission to edit disruptively; my comments here are made in the context of WP:BLP as a content policy applied to all of Wikipedia generally. — Newslinger talk 09:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It isn't the main topic of this discussion, but I'd like to know what the basis is for including claims about living people who are affiliated with the video's creator, and parallels in other media, as a potentially acceptable use of a self-published source. Personally, the use of self-published sources to provide unoriginal adulation for those "affiliated" with the author/creator is a source of consistent annoyance to me in Talk page discussions. Do people really find grounds in policy why this should be acceptable? Newimpartial (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe your answer can be found in the part of the policy that talks about a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I find this answer intriguing but also puzzling. When I read that passage, I take the key phrase to be "reputable organization", and I find the examples comforting. But I don't see any reference in Newslinger's comment that would lead me to expect that the YouTube video in question was posted by a "reputable organization", nor are authors of the kind of SPS I had in mind in my earlier comment "reputable" in the domain of fawning commentary that I find irritating. Newimpartial (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, this case involved a YouTube video self-published by a researcher, where the entire video consisted of the researcher discussing the WP article's subject and his mother (using embedded video clips of them), both of whom are living and neither of whom are affiliated with the researcher. An editor linked to the video in the AfD discussion and made claims about the mother and son using the video as evidence. I believed that to be a BLPSPS violation and said so, but both ජපස and Polygnotus told me that I was wrong, it wasn't a BLP violation. I did already understand the rest of your response (e.g., it can be OK to use a video for info about the video's creator, as that falls under BLPSELFPUB). The heart of my question is whether the BLPSPS policy applies outside of mainspace, as Polygnotus seems to think that it only applies in mainspace (e.g., they said "BLPSPS would preclude using it as sources of material in the article, but not for use on a talkpage"). I'm not sure how ජපස is thinking about this / what led him to tell me I was wrong. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Concerns re recent change to BLPSPS

So, while they don’t rise to the level of objection, I do have concerns about the recent change. The old language said: “Never use … unless written or published by the subject of the article”… which implied that there was a restriction not only on what BLPSPS material we can use, but also on where we could use that BLPSPS material (ie only in the article about that self-publisher). The change to “Never use… unless written or published by the person themself” keeps the what restriction - but removes that where restriction (implying that we could use BLPSPS material in any article). For example… X says something about Y… The old language implied we could only mention it in the article about X himself. Now, we can state it in the article about Y (or even in an article about Z). Is that the intent? If so, I am not at all sure I agree. Blueboar (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Yup, we already have a problem with people sourcing the opinions of people to selfpublished sources on articles about subjects those people have an opinion on. If the decision to include that opinion is valid, then another source would probably have reported on it. If not, its just the opinion of some random. Polygnotus (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

No, Blueboar, that's not the intent, and "implying that we could use BLPSPS material in any article" is a misinterpretation. I don't think of BLPSPS as an adjective that can be used to modify material, but as a shorthand for a a constraint. The constraint is: a third-party self-published source cannot be used as a source for content about a living person, period. (There's a disagreement above about non-third-party SPSs, but let's ignore that for the time being, as there is no agreement about that situation.) On the other hand, a self-published source might be used as a source for content about the source's author, as long as it meets the conditions in BLPSELFPUB. Because in that situation, it's "written or published by the person themself."

The BLP policy says "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts." In other words, it applies no matter where the statement about the living person is made. But the previous BLPSPS wording, "Never use self-published sources … unless written or published by the subject of the article," made it sound like it was OK to use third-party self-published material as a source about person A as long as person A wasn't the subject of the article (e.g., it would be OK on an article whose subject is a corporation, it would be OK on an article whose subject is person B, it would be OK in non-mainspace). The sole intent of the change was to make it clear that unless the use of a self-published source falls under BLPSELFPUB, that SPS simply can't be used as a source for content about a living person, no matter where that content appears. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

made it sound like it was OK to use third-party self-published material as a source about person A as long as person A wasn't the subject of the article That is not how people interpret that. Polygnotus (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

No offense, but "people" do not all interpret things in the same way. The goal was to make the text clearer for the diverse people who read it and cite it. For example, as Masem noted in his response: "Support at least the change to "the person themself", since I've seen editors try to game at the bounds of SPSBLP. SPSBLP needs to apply everywhere." Of course many editors already understood that, including all of us participating in the discussion above. But multiple experienced editors wouldn't agree to change the wording if they didn't think that the change was an improvement. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If the intent is to say “don’t use them. ever. period, end of discussion” - then we should say THAT.

I interpreted the change as allowing more use rather than less use (and if I can misinterpret the intent behind the change, others will too). Blueboar (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

If you look back at the first sentence of my second proposal, it does what you're asking: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as third-party sources of material about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." If you think that's better, changing it to that is totally fine with me. But I know that some people dislike the use of "third-party" or at least have concerns about whether/how it's undestood (see notwally's comments and WhatamIdoing's request here). FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Poly, that might not be how people interpret that, but it is what it literally said. The phrase "unless written or published by the subject of the article" literally means that you can use a self-published source written by Bob Blogger in the article Bob Blogger, but not in any other article at all (e.g., if the article is Big Business, Inc., where Bob works, because then the subject of the article is the company rather than Bob).

Also, this implies that in the article Bob Blogger, you could add anything self-published by Bob, including things self-published by Bob about other BLPs, which we don't want. Bob's blog post on "50 people I dislike" is "written and published by the subject of the article" and therefore permitted here.

A literal interpretation of a policy should represent what we actually mean. This one didn't. That's why it needs to bechanged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

While I had felt that I understood the intention of this provision previously, I clearly didn't understand its plain sense. To me, the status quo (ante) language can be interpreted as saying that self-published statmements by a living person (X) about another living person (Y) can be included in the article about X but nowhere else. My understanding had always been that self-published statements by X about Y could never be included anywhere (unless repeated in independent RS), but statements by X about themselves could appear - perhaps those are the ones that should only appear in the article about X? But that doesn't seem to be what the status quo text actually says? Newimpartial (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

And my understanding — which seems to be the understanding of editors who are much more experienced than I am — is that if person X self-publishes a statement about person Y, and if X and Y have a third-party relationship, then X's self-published statement cannot be used period, not on X's article and not anywhere else. So I was aiming for language that would make that clearer. There is a disagreement about situation where X and Y do have a non-third-party relationship. One editor says that it's impossible for two people to have a non-third-party relationship. A few editors say that it's possible (e.g., X and Y are married), and in that case X's self-published statement about Y can be used if it's about the nature of the non-third-party relationship (e.g., it's about the marriage and about the two of them, such as "Y and I celebrated our 10th anniversary last Sunday"). There's also a situation where an entity that isn't a natural person, such as a corporation, self-publishes a statement about a person with whom they have a non-third-party relationship, such as a corporation noting on its website that it just hired Z as its new director. So in the discussion about all of this, WhatamIdoing introduced the idea of ABOUTUS (us = the married couple, or us = the corporation and its new director) versus ABOUTOTHERS (which is not allowed). But these non-third-party situations are still being discussed above. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

BLPSPS does not say “never use” it says “Never use… unless”.

My reading of the change is that the “unless” is now broader in scope than it was. That may not be the intent, but it is how I interpret it. Blueboar (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Both WP:SPS and WP:RS/SPS say:

"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."

BLPSPS currently says:

"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," and until a few days ago, it said "subject of the article" instead of "person themself".

Notice that BLPSPS removed the phrase "third-party" that's in WP:SPS and WP:RS/SPS. Instead, it says "unless written or published by the person themself [previously:subject of the article]." But the constraints are supposed to be identical in all three policies. The intent of the change was not to broaden or narrow the scope of the policy, but simply to make the intended scope clearer. But whether Ellen Editor interprets the new wording as broadening vs. not changing vs. narrowing the previous scope depends on what Ellen's interpretation of the previous wording was, and what her interpretation of the new wording is. The intent was not to change the scope, but you say that you interpret it as broadening the scope. That means that either the wording of the previous policy wasn't clear enough (so you thought it was narrower than it was actually intended to be) or the wording of the current policy isn't clear enough (so you think it's broader than it's actually intended to be) or both. But the goal is to come up with wording that makes the policy as clear as possible. If you have suggestions for better wording, I encourage you to say. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the policy is not clear (and that this was the case in both the “status quo” version and the new version). Fixing it will take more than a tweak to language… it will probably require a complete re-write of the entire section… to lay out what is (and isn’t) appropriate in different situations and to do so in an organized structure. There is a lot of nuance to using SPS… in any situation, but especially in BLPs. I like the idea of breaking it into the subsections: ABOUTSELF, ABOUTGROUP/ABOUTUS, and ABOUTOTHERS.

But rather than jump right to proposing language, I would start by creating an outline of the structure and key points of the re-write… do an RFC on that (to see if the community agrees with this structure and points - and to find out if it has other points to add)… then we can move to crafting language for each subsection (with RFCs to approve that language).

This won’t be a quick process … but the end result will be a much clearer policy that has broad consensus no one can question for a while. Blueboar (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's how it works in practice.

Imagine that Bob blogs that he works for Big Business, Inc., and has a co-worker, Sue, who is a lawyer. An editor wants to write two sentences:

• As of 2025, Bob works for Big Business, Inc.^{[Bob's blog]}
• Sue is a lawyer.^{[Bob's blog]}

Comparison of rules

	Claim about Bob	Claim about Sue
In the article about Bob	Y old + new This sentence about Bob is both "published by the subject of the article [Bob]" and "published by the person themself [Bob]", so it can be used under both old and new wording.	Y old + N new This sentence about Sue is "published by the subject of the article [Bob]" but not "published by the person themself [Sue]", so it could be put into the article about Bob under the old wording but not under the new wording.
In any other article, e.g., Widget	N old + Y new This sentence about Bob is not "published by the subject of the article [which is widgets]", but it is "published by the person themself [Bob]", so it can't be used under the old rules but could be used under the new wording (assuming editors thought it was relevant, etc. to mention Bob in that article).	N old + new This sentence about Sue is not "published by the subject of the article [which is widgets]" and also not "published by the person themself [Sue]", so it can't be used under either wording.

If you dislike this wording, please articulate a specific objection. Specific objections likely sound something like one of these two:

• No, I think we should be able to use Bob's personal blog post to talk about Sue in the article Bob.
• Actually, I don't want editors to have the option of citing Bob's blog post in any article except Bob itself, no matter how relevant and appropriate it might actually seem.

If your response is more like "Ugh, no personal blog posts from Bob to talk about Sue in any article, thank you very much", then you support this change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

WAID… Could you do a similar breakdown for an attributed statement… say we want to write: “According to Bob, the Chairman of Big Widget, Sue is his company’s lawyer”. Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

It is exactly the same. The use of in-text attribution does not change the author of the self-published source that is being cited. — Newslinger talk 08:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Newslinger is correct: It is exactly the same. It's possible that we would like to have a difference, but we don't have any such difference at this time.

I assume in this scenario that Bob is not the CEO (though it's a fair assumption, since he usually is the CEO in my examples) and that this is not any sort of official statement from the business. It's just one employee saying something like "Hey, it's my first day at my new job at Big Business, Inc! I met Sue Solicitor, who's one of the lawyers. She really helped me...".

According to the "a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs" line, we could use a [corporate] self-published statement to say either "Sue works for Big Business, Inc.^{[their website]}" or "According to Big Business, Inc., Sue works for them^{[their website]}". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

This is where things get complex. Bob has self-published an account of their time working with Alice. In it they have made a clear statement about Alice. Alice has also self-published a description of her time working with Bob.

• "Alice is xxxx" (sourced to Bob) - clear BLPVIO. SPS used to source a statement about Alice, who is not the author of the SPS.
• "Alice is xxx" (sourced to Alice) - clearly ok, if not overly self-serving.
• "Bob belives that Alice is XXX" (sourced to Alice) - clear BLPVIO, as this is Alice making a claim about Bob's beliefs in a SPS not written by Bob.
• "Bob belives that Alice is XXX" (sourced to Bob) - not so clear. This is Bob describing his own beliefs about Alice in an SPS that Bob wrote. Bob is allowed to ascribe beliefs to themself. I have never been able to figure out if the community supports this or not, but it is extensively used in practise.

Some see the last option as a problem, but it has been used heavily in BLPs, especially in regard to fringe subjects, as a means of incoporating criticism from self published sites. - Bilby (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Bilby, a question re: the last one being heavily used in BLPs: is this in the context of your example, where Bob and Alice know each other and have each written about the other? Or is it more the following situation:

Bob and Alice don't know each other. Alice advocates fringe theory F. Alice has not written about Bob. Bob has a self-published blog, and he wrote a post about Alice's belief in F and also about why F is a fringe theory.

a) "Alice is a fringe-theorist" (sourced to Bob) - clear BLPVIO. SPS used to source a statement about Alice, who is not the author of the SPS.

b) "Bob says that Alice is a fringe-theorist" (sourced to Bob, text appears in Bob's article)

c) "Bob says that Alice is a fringe-theorist" (sourced to Bob, text appears in Alice's article)

d) "Bob says that F is a fringe theory" (sourced to Bob, text appears in Bob's article) - clearly OK

e) "Bob says that F is a fringe theory" (sourced to Bob, text appears in Alice's article)

I'd say that (b) and (c) are BLPVIOs. Even though it's a statement about Bob's beliefs, it's contrary to point 2 of BLPSELFPUB, "it does not involve claims about third parties." On the other hand, Blueboar thinks (b) is sometimes OK, since it's in Bob's article, but that one has to consider other things, such as whether the content is DUE. If consensus practice is that (b) and/or (c) is OK, then I think the wording of the policy should be adjusted to reflect that. But that may involve an RfC to check whether that really is the consensus.

On the other hand, I think (e) is probably OK, or at least that it's a gray area rather than clear-cut. It's not a statement about Alice, even though the reason it's appearing in Alice's article is because she advocates F. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Suggested addition to "#Public figures" section

I think an addition to this section would be helpful and informative, and who better than Delaware Superior Court Judge Craig A. Karsnitz to explain it:

A key difference between "#Public figures" and "#People who are relatively unknown" is illustrated by the standard for defamation used by courts. Public figures face a higher burden of proof and are less protected than those who are "relatively unknown". Our BLP policy operates in a similar manner by treating them differently. An example is the public figure Carter Page, where the judge

... rejected Page's attack on the other three news articles for similar reasons. Not only were they accurate, but Page became a 'limited public figure' with a higher burden of proof after he 'injected himself' into a 'public controversy' over 'Trump's connections to Russia,' Karsnitz said.

Moreover, the publisher is shielded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from liability stemming from any statements in the seven articles written by HuffPost contributors, the judge found.

This is important information for editors and other readers, and the real life example is on point. Let's discuss this and see if this or a modified version would be good. I suggest this because many editors and readers do not understand our policy in this regard. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Probably not a lot of value there and not a fan on naming people with specific niche examples. Do you have an example where the current wording has caused a problem? PackMecEng (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

People frequently show ignorance of the reasons BLP treats people differently. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Tattwamayananda

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swami Tattwamayananda. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC).

Elon Musk: Infobox officeholder or Infobox person?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elon Musk § RfC: Should we use the officeholder infobox?. Some1 (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Conflict between written definition of "non-public" and actual practice

Originally titled Remove "non-public" from "relatively unknown, non-public figures". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I recently requested the deletion of an article on myself. The community kindly obliged that request. A number of commenters cited WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, which I appreciate the sentiment behind, but I don't think was actually correct as the policy is currently written. It says Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete (boldfaced emphasis added). By my reading of the infopage WP:LOWPROFILE, I am probably not a non-public figure, since I have voluntarily been the subject of media coverage several times as an adult.

And yet, I think the AfD reached the right result. Including the requirement of "non-public" in the policy creates a higher bar than there should be. A person like me, who might technically be a public figure but is still dreadfully obscure, should still have the right to request deletion of their BLP. Agreeing to do interviews sometimes isn't the same thing as consenting to be famous. The obvious concern here is that we shouldn't allow a well-known person to have their article deleted at will. But fortunately, BLPREQUESTDELETE already has language to handle that, with its "relatively unknown" requirement. Furthermore, the policy just gives AfD the option, so a request can always be declined if keeping the article is obviously in the encyclopedia's best interest.

Most people in my position won't happen to be Wikipedians who can advocate for themselves effectively and are liked by many of their AfD's participants. We should be consistent: If my article could be deleted even though I'm probably (if just barely) a public figure, that's the standard we should apply across the board. We should not treat strangers any worse than we treat our colleagues. Thus I propose we remove "non-public" but keep "relatively unknown".

(This is an unusual policy in that it appears in two separate places, here and at WP:BIODELETE, part of WP:DEL. I will leave a cross-link at WT:DEL, as well as at WP:BLPN and the closed AfD's talk.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I think of public figures as folks that are famous, such as politicians and celebrities. Some googling reveals one definition of public figure to be A famous person whose life and behavior are the focus of intense public interest and scrutiny. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not the way the term is used in Wikipedia policy. WP:NPF links to WP:LOWPROFILE, which uses a much broader definition. If the intended definition here is "famous person", then it's still not necessary, because we already require "relatively unknown". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Novem. Also, WP:LOWPROFILE doesn't say someone who has been the subject of media coverage several times as an adult is high profile and media attention is only one of several ways to distinguish high and low profile on that page. I don't think any change is needed here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 When I encounter LOWPROFILE in the context of BLP1E, it is definitely interpreted as "giving any interviews = not low-profile". This is used to argue that a person noted for one event no longer needs to meet SUSTAINED if they've given interviews on the event, which is a separate problem. JoelleJay (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Just because one has been reported on the media doesn't make them no long non-public. I'd consider a public figure one that generally has a role that requires them to be a public face or that they have actively seek public attention. Masem (t) 04:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

If that's the definition intended here—as you and NL and Barkeep all seem to feel—then this page should stop linking to LOWPROFILE, which says Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

That definition is then put in context by the rest of LOWPROFILE. If anything needs changing it's that sentence in LOWPROFILE. It could be changed to better reflect the rest of the page. For instance it notes that someone can tried and failed to be high profile and still be low profile. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• The term non-public probably comes from the libel law world, and even if not that means it's important to have it in there. I'd prefer editing LOWPROFILE instead. SportingFlyer T·C 05:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I've interpreted WP:BLPREQUEST and WP:BIODELETE in that way. The essay Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual does seem to cast a wider net. Others above note that it's a legal term. After a brief scan of legal sites, they do not seem to cast such a broad net:

Public Figures vs. Private Figures: Which one are you?

"Private figures are those ordinary individuals who have not sought out the public spotlight or thrust themselves into the discussion of highly public and contentious issues."

Defamation of a Public Figure vs. Private Figure

"While there is no set list of jobs or professions that would qualify as a public figure, generally speaking politicians, celebrities, and other professions that place someone in the public eye are considered public figures. A private figure is the opposite: someone who has not sought out the spotlight or public attention."

Defamation of a Public Figure vs. Private Figure Explained

"Public figures are celebrities or high-profile individuals who have voluntarily thrust themselves into the public spotlight. On the other hand, private figures are everyday citizens who have not voluntarily sought publicity."

US law seems to make a distinction between "general" and "limited purpose" public figures:

Defamation and Privacy Law in The United States of America

"The Court later expanded the category of defamation plaintiffs required to prove “actual malice” to non-governmental “public figures,” including persons with the power to command the public’s attention to rebut false charges (general public figures) and those who had voluntarily become involved in a public controversy to influence its outcome (limited purpose public figures)."

Defamation

"Limited-purpose public figures "have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved.""

I doubt that outside of Wikipedia giving a single interview or speaking at a single event would make someone into a public figure. Several sources explicitly mention that part of being a public figure is having the media access to rebut negative characterizations.[2][3] And so for example, the essay might apply to this person who has spoken on behalf of "deaf and hard of hearing people", but that person almost certainly does not have any kind of access to the media that would allow them to rebut negative characterizations, even to the extent that say Beth S. Benedict does. Actual lawyers edit Wikipedia, so I'll bow out and hope that one of them will offer more clarity, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we should just amend the first criterion at WP:LOWPROFILE so it only applies if the person is the primary or a major focus of the interview/article. A low profile subject matter experts giving a quotation or some background information that isn't a major focus of the article even a few times shouldn't make them high profile in and of itself for Wikipedia's purposes. If they do so repeatedly to the extent that they're some sort of public intellectual or a known commentator in the field that's different. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

It is ironic that giving an interview could be considered more public, whereas using a unique alias on social media cannot be linked here for risk of violating WP:OUTING. I think the wording of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE could be more explicit, but the wording of WP:LOWPROFILE shouldn't inversely define a broad standard of "public figure". ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Simply having one's name and associated personal details that are nominally associated with the format, being published in publicly available records, is not what makes a person high profile. As the above common definitions say, being a high profile figure is one where they have voluntarily thrust themselves into the limelight.

So simply being interviewed for a publication doesn't make that person high profile. and in terms of OUTING, we're talking information that is not normally associated with the format, eg, most people go by a pseudonym on social media, and maybe very different ones on different platforms, but things like real names or how those pseudonyms are connected are not part of the standard details published in social media, so that's where OUTING comes into play. Masem (t) 14:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I think we should just amend the first criterion at WP:LOWPROFILE so it only applies if the person is the primary or a major focus of the interview/article. ← I would support that. For now I'll add an {{under discussion}} and a note on the essay's talkpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the ambiguous public-figure language. But I think there's a broader problem here, which is that BLPREQUESTDELETE has somehow come to be both a procedural rule for the closing admin (i.e., what it literally says) and also a reason for a !voter to support deletion in a borderline case. These two things really ought to be disentangled; we shouldn't expect the right wording for one to line up with the right wording for another. My view is that the procedural rule (the admin can delete when there's no consensus) should apply anytime the subject has requested deletion, whereas the actual standard for deletion should be set somewhere else, like when "notability is ambiguous". But wherever we draw the lines, there shouldn't be a gap between what the policy says and what it means. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that could also solve the problem of this policy being essentially duplicative of BIODEL. I could see leaving BIODEL as is, and replacing BLPREQUESTDELETE with something that reflects current practice. I would suggest something like

BLP subjects may request deletion of their articles through Articles for deletion. In general, if a BLP subject does not clearly pass the general notability guideline (GNG), such a request should be granted; exceptions should be justified by clear arguments as to why deletion would harm the encyclopedia. Even when that does not apply, editors should seriously consider honoring a request for deletion, especially if the subject is not a public official or well-known figure. Per the deletion policy, if there is no consensus to keep or delete after an article's subject requests deletion, an administrator may close as delete.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me—I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds, right but I'd suggest a caveat (perhaps through a footnote) that this doesn't mean we wouldn't redirect/mention them in other articles as appropriate (e.g. an Olympian might be noted in an article about that country's Olympic team for a given Olympics even if they don't qualify for standalone article).Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ @Barkeep49: Not to argue with a "yes", but I just had a long drive back from Philly to think about this, and came up with an alternate wording that says roughly the same thing but maybe a bit more clearly (and a bit more wordily). I'm still happy with the first but I'll present this for your consideration:

BLP subjects may request deletion of their articles through Articles for deletion. Editors should seriously consider honoring such requests; factors weighing in favor of deletion include the person being relatively unknown (i.e. not someone famous or a public official), a history of failure to promptly address BLP violations in the article, real-world harms identified by the subject, and the subject being only minimally notable. If the subject does not clearly pass the general notability guideline (GNG), a request should almost always be granted; exceptions should only be made based on clear and convincing arguments that deletion would cause exceptional harm. Per the deletion policy, if there is no consensus to keep or delete after an article's subject requests deletion, an administrator may close as delete.

With either the first or second wording, this could be added, probably as a brief second paragraph that the current last sentence would also be moved to:

Deletion under this section does not prevent a person from being mentioned in other articles, nor prevent a redirect being created from their name to somewhere they are mentioned, although this policy's privacy section may apply in some cases.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I like the revised wording better but would suggest changing a history of failure to promptly address BLP violations in the article to the history of the article for two reasons - an article that is constantly having to be OS'ed should be citable as a reason to delete when accompanied by a subject's request even if those suppression happen quickly and article subjects often think things are BLP violations that aren't and this doesn't cue an article subject to die on that particular hill (which might distract and detract from the request). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I see your point, but everything else in the list is framed in terms of a potential reason to delete. Can you think of a way to describe what you're saying with that framing? a history of BLP violations or other problematic editing comes to mind but doesn't seem great. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

As I noted part of my thinking is that "a history of BLP violations" I think will lead article subjects astray but if you want to put an adjective "problematic article history" is fine. I think problematic is a bit of a fad word and if I were phrasing I'd have gone with a "troublesome article history" but either gets at my point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

"problematic article history" works fine for me. Huh, Troublesome Gulch, one of my favorite place names, is a redlink. Not notable, but I wonder if it could redirect somewhere. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

"clear and convincing arguments that deletion would cause exceptional harm" is maybe a bit too high a bar: there are situations (e.g., new state legislators who meet NPOL but are iffy on the GNG) where I could see most people readily opposing deletion even if "exceptional harm" is kind of a stretch. But I'd happily support either version, though if this requires an RfC, there might be an argument for keeping things vague/flexible for now (à la the first version) rather than hard-wiring specific factors into policy. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not married to defining a standard for exceptions; it's already established that for any policy provision exceptions exist. My goal in including that language was to avoid people deciding that "I worked hard on this article" or "It would mean turning a bluelink black in some list" are sufficient reasons to override "Generally". But the change from "generally" to "almost always" between the first and second versions might be enough to accomplish that on its own; that makes it clear to any closer that an exception should not be made for a routine objection like those. So maybe the exceptions clause is unnecessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd support a change that gives BLP subjects more control over whether they appear on Wikipedia if they're not widely-known figures, including the "clearly pass GNG" standard. But that aspect could solve itself if we improved our notability requirements for biographies so those borderline cases are removed anyway. Keeping minor biographies about randos places a massive maintenance burden on us, probably more than anything else on the site. I'm hesitant to say we should have biographies where it's necessary to compile disparate sources about different things the person did rather than sources about the person themself. But WP:NBIO says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability, which defies the usual standard that we can't synthesize notability. An encyclopedia doesn't need an article about John Doe who taught at a university for a few years, wrote a book that sold a thousand copies, and started a small online business just because each of these got mentioned in a few different sources. Even if an independent secondary source about his new business mentions his academic career and his book, it's still a stretch to say this guy should have an article. Likewise, we might consider reversing "WP:BLP2E", as simply doing two (or three, or four) unrelated insignificant things shouldn't make someone notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. What a strange sentence. This goes against my understanding of notability and WP:GNG. Is this even followed? Perhaps I will start a talk page discussion about it. Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, bullet 1. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Is this not just a clarification of how WP:GNG applies to people because of how people are inherently less likely to be a primary focus of a reliable source at similar levels of notability than things such as events or published works? By contrast, businesses can very easily be mentioned in reliable sources, so WP:CORPDEPTH pushes the guidelines in the other direction.

"Significant coverage" is already defined at WP:SIGCOV as: addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. and could have been used at WP:BASIC if it was trying to say that "substantial [coverage]" = SIGCOV.

The following line at BASIC says trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability and the accompanying footnote seem to be basically saying the same thing as how SIGCOV defines significant coverage. To me this is saying something like a person don't necessarily need to have a biography, book chapter, academic paper, longform article, etc. written about them to be notable as long as non-trivial (i.e. SIGCOV) exists in multiple sources. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

BASIC is invoked at AfD solely to get around the requirement that any single source contains SIGCOV. So while the consensus at GNG has long been that a given source must contain IRS SIGCOV to count toward GNG, [it is argued that] we only need a couple IRS sources that are each more than a directory listing to achieve BASIC. JoelleJay (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Proposed rewrite of BLPREQUESTDELETE

I'm fine sending this to an RfC if needed, but so far there's been no opposition, so first I'll take a stab at getting this done by regular consensus.

The following was drafted above in consultation with Barkeep49 and Extraordinary Writ. The goal is not to make any major change in how BLP deletion requests work in practice, but rather to update the policy to reflect current practice, since the current policy wording is actually just about closing instructions for admins and duplicates WP:BIODEL.

BLP subjects may request deletion of their articles through Articles for deletion. Editors should seriously consider honoring such requests; factors weighing in favor of deletion include the person being relatively unknown (i.e. not someone famous or a public official), a problematic article history, real-world harms identified by the subject, and the subject being only minimally notable. If the subject does not clearly pass the general notability guideline (GNG), a request should almost always be granted. Per the deletion policy, if there is no consensus to keep or delete after an article's subject requests deletion, an administrator may close as delete.

Deletion under this section does not prevent a person from being mentioned in other articles, nor prevent a redirect from being created from their name to somewhere they are mentioned, although this policy's privacy section may apply in some cases.

References

Would anyone object to this change? Does anyone have proposed wording improvements? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Ideally the subject should have to jump through as few hoops as possible, and we have to assume that they won't even know what AfD is. We might want to make it clear that any expression of not wanting an article on them, whether onwiki or offwiki, should be enough to invoke BLPREQUESTDELETE. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

• through Articles for deletion could plausibly be read to mean a BLP subject blocked from editing Wikipedia does not have a way to request deletion, which I think is not the intended the meaning.
• a problematic article history, real-world harms identified by the subject, could plausibly be read to cover edit-warring by the subject or editors familiar with the subject attempting to remove negative coverage if they are primarily known for something negative, which again I think is not the intended meaning

I support the clarification in general, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Re #1, definitely could change it to by opening an Articles for deletion discussion or requesting that a member of the Volunteer Response Team do so. Re #2, if you look above you'll see I originally had a history of failure to promptly address BLP violations in the article, but Barkeep had concerns about that. I don't have strong feelings on how the clause should be worded, just that there should be something in there about the history of the article. For a lot of BLP subjects (myself included, when I briefly was one), the question of how promptly and consistently the article is kept clear of violations is the biggest concern. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

For #1, yes I think that would resolve the concern. For #2, I'm not sure about the best way to phrase that. Maybe something like "a history of unresolved errors in the article". "Harm" seems subjective enough to provoke rather resolve an argument at AfD. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Rjjiii: I'm not necessarily opposed to that wording, but I worry it might be too narrow for a kind of orthogonal reason to why Barkeep felt "BLP violations" was too narrow. Some of the worst things that can wind up in articles aren't per se errors, but misrepresentations or NPOV violations. I even have a kind of silly essay, "Wikipedia is a lambskin condom" about how we're much better at catching big errors than little ones. So if there's an article on John Doe, where for a year everyone fails to remove the sentence "John Doe was arrested for rape in 1990", where that's technically true but omits the part where he was let go the next day based on a case of mistaken identity... I mean, that's not an error, and may even be sourced to a highly reliable source, but that would still be a better case for our Mr. Doe being upset over his article, than someone like me who was, by the end, mostly upset over a fairly small nuance being missed in my article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I held off replying while other folks were discussing below, but am now circling back to this. Maybe "issues" are better than "errors". Even with the potential for confusion, I think the proposed changes are an improvement over the current page. When it comes to the John Doe example above, there are several different possibilities that could be broken down as:

1. Doe was let go based on mistaken identity, WP:RS reported it, but the Wikipedia article does not use material from those sources.
2. Doe was let go based on mistaken identity, no news coverage exists, WP:PRIMARY source documents do show he was not charged, but the Wikipedia article does not use the material from those sources.
3. Doe was let go based on mistaken identity, WP:RS misrepresent the situation, the WP:PRIMARY documents contradict the news coverage, but the Wikipedia article uses only the published news articles.
4. Doe says he was let go based on mistaken identity, no sources show he was convicted, Doe has no sources showing he was let go, and the Wikipedia article only covers the conviction.

Imo, all of those situations are a reason to delete the article. In any of the 4 situations, a more public person would be able to put out a statement that WP:RS would either print, summarize, or comment on. For example, Benji Madden had multiple newspapers print their rebuttal to even being present at a party where a girl alleged SA from not connected to Madden in any way. I think the proposed wording could cover all four scenarios.

Folks like Graham Hancock^[4] and Larry Sanger^[5] would describe their biographies here as having a problematic history, but I don't think either person would have any shot at getting the articles deleted. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This may not be as significant a change to practice, but it is an extremely significant change to the guideline. The current wording of the guideline does not make the decision of whether to honor such requests part of the discussion of whether the subject is notable. Rather it expects such discussions to focus on determining whether the subject is notable, as usual for all AfD discussions. The way it differs from other deletions is not in the discussion phase but in the discretion of the closing admin to close as delete in borderline or no-consensus cases.

I'm worried that the new wording encourages all participants to automatically agree with BLPREQUESTDELETE cases, regardless of notability. The guidance that it should only be for borderline cases has now been buried in the fine print of things that participants might want to think about, rather than being front and center. This leaves the system much more open for abuse by people who are clearly notable but in a negative way and who wish to hide their misdeeds from public view. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I get what you're saying but do want to point out that it explicitly excludes people who are clearly notable and so Wikipedians looking and examing that feels appropriate to me and not as likely to lead to the negative outcome you're suggesting? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm late to the discussion (as usual), but here's a slightly different take on whether or not a BLPREQUESTDELETE can be done - If the article is deleted, is it likely to be independently re-created? To give an facetious example, if somebody deleted Donald Trump and every admin and experienced editor spontaneously thought that was okay, any number of editors you've never heard of would quickly bootstrap the article back up again. Or, to give a real-world example tangentially related to BLP, I seem to recall the article UEFA Euro 2016 riots had at least one duplicate article on the same topic, created around the same time by different editors, that was merged. Or an WP:A10 speedy might be example of something that is well-known enough to be independently created.

By contrast, we're not going to get random new editors re-creating Tamzin's BLP, because she's well-known enough in the Wikipedia community that anyone aware of her is also aware of the BLP and deletion policies, but no so well-known that somebody who doesn't know those policies would have the idea of re-creating it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Elsewhere, Tamzin mentioned that BLPs, after the initial creation, have a risk of deteriorating by well-meaning editors acting in good faith. Consider Murder of Zara Aleena, which I created but didn't stick on my watchlist. I just looked at it now and my jaw dropped at what I read, being completely incompatible with our BLP and neutrality policies. So there is a very real risk that if you create an article, somebody else will make it worse. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

• I just saw this, and it generally looks good. I have a question about the parentheses i.e. not someone famous or a public official may need some work. Famous is in the eye of the beholder, and while I do agree with the public official, I would like to add current or former before elected or appointed official to alleviate any confusion that BLPREQUESTDELETE does not apply to a current or former elected official that passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

In rereading, I am concerned with the blanket language in the same way that David Eppstein does. My suggestion is to move some of the language around:

BLP subjects may request deletion of their articles through Articles for deletion or requesting that a member of the Volunteer Response Team do so. Unless the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline (GNG) or is currently or was an elected or appointed official, editors should seriously consider honoring such requests. Factors weighing in favor of deletion include a problematic article history, real-world harms identified by the subject, and the subject being only minimally notable or notable for only one event. Per the deletion policy, if there is no consensus to keep or delete after an article's subject requests deletion, an administrator may close as delete.

Deletion under this section does not prevent a person from being mentioned in other articles, nor prevent a redirect from being created from their name to somewhere they are mentioned, although this policy's privacy section may apply in some cases.

References

--Enos733 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE - Should statements only mentioned by an article subject during promotional tours with no third party sources be included in articles?

I've ran across articles over the years that have an author, actor, or otherwise public person making somewhat controversial statements about either a specific person or an anonymous third party while promoting a book or new project, and have wondered if we have a clear answer on if they are allowable or not when the only person speaking on it are that individual.

A few examples-

• Bodyguard for a well known celebrity writes a tell-all book, states in multiple interviews that the celebrity would routinely host parties that involved sex trafficking and drug use.
• Actor writes a book and states during interviews that they quit their well known role due to harassment from the rest of the cast for their sexual orientation, which led to long term harassment from people associated with the cast.
• Actress goes on a podcast to promote her new film and states that one of the producers on an older film of hers had her blacklisted in Hollywood due to her denying their sexual advances.

In all of the above scenarios, the end result being that secondary sources don't mention the allegations and it receives no outside coverage other than the interview, including not being in the book they are promoting.

Where on the policy spectrum would this land? My personal opinion is that it wouldn't be WP:DUE to include if it never gets covered by a secondary source, and it would fail WP:BLPSELFPUB in the fact that it is making a claim about a third party while also using the allegation in a self-serving manner to promote their new work.

One of the latest (real) examples I can think of was regarding a memoir by a politician's ex-wife which alleged he was a heavy drug user, corrupt and took bribes regularly, and had several same sex affairs. During the lead up to the book release the author appeared in several interviews stating the above. However, other than her interviews, there was zero coverage for the allegations. It came off as gossip thay secondary sources didn't care about, and was excluded from the article.

Awshort (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, BLPSELFPUB only allows material if

it does not involve claims about third parties

The WP:SPS policy also 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.

—Bagumba (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Technically, most interviews don't fall under BLPSELFPUB, as the interviewee is seldom the person who publishes the interview. The interview might or might not be self-published by the interviewer. I do think that we should treat interview responses as if they're BLPSELFPUB by the interviewee, and I'd support adding a line to that affect somewhere in WP:BLP. I'd be more inclined to add it to the BLPSELFPUB section than the PUBLICFIGURE section. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This is an area where we need clarification… my feeling is that DUE WEIGHT is an important factor in determining when and how to cite SPS claims about other people.

When an SPS makes a comment/allegation about someone else, I think it is UNDUE for us to mention it - UNLESS the allegation has been reported on (or commented upon) by reliable, independent secondary sources (which we can cite).

However, WHEN this is the case, I think it should be allowable to ALSO cite the original SPS source - to verify that the secondary sources are accurately representing what the SPS actually says.

In other words… we need to first establish that the comment/allegation is DUE by citing independent (non-SPS) sources… and, once that is established, then we can cite the SPS to support those (non-SPS) sources. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

That is similar to how we handle primary documents with BLPPRIMARY, in the 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, which will sometimes have someone listing what a secondary source said while also providing the court document to anyone interested. The situation itself tends to pop up often whem Person A makes a statement about Person/Group B on a podcast or YouTube interview, and it is added by an editor later to the article as a statement of fact since the sourced video/podcast has been cited before. Top of the head example would be VladTV interviews where a quote about a seperate person (not interviewee) is made, which are then picked up by blogs or gossip sites.

Awshort (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I think too much of this depends on the specific situations and allegations. – notwally (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Gene Hackman - cause of death in infobox?

Hello all, as a recently dead individual can I please ask for input on the matter under discussion at Talk:Gene Hackman#Cause of death necessity?. It is being debated whether Hackman's cause of death - natural causes, but unusual circumstances and the subject of numerous secondary sources - should be listed in the Template:Infobox person infobox. Thanks! U-Mos (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 sentence preceding Pigsonthewing's addition ("Self-published blogs in this context refers to personal and group blogs.") was added in 2008 along with a mention on the talk page. I see it as an indication that being in a group doesn't cause any exemption, so removing it might slightly help for this problem but revive another problem. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 14 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)

I can clarify that that is not my meaning. I think that FactOrOpinion and Notwally have perceived what I perceived, that the word "It" is most easily understood as pointing to self-published blogs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

I see what you mean now, but in that case the current text:

"Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards

can be read as:

"Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. "Self-published blogs" does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards

Are you arguing to the contrary, that "Self-published blogs [includes] a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards [on their blog]" and so such cases cannot be used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

You make it look as if you're quoting, but that's not what's there. If you won't discuss your actual addition, which I continue to oppose, I'm hopeful that it won't get consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

This:

"Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards

is a direct quote, cut-and-pasted from the current page. It is complete, apart form the last two words "for example", which I omitted as they are not relevant to the point I was making.

The "actual addition" added:

It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example.

immediately after:

"Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.

those, too, are both direct quotes, cut and-pasted from the diff which you cite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Now that, instead of what you wrongly claimed earlier was the current text, you're quoting the actual addition: to me it looks as if the "for example" that you omitted suggests that granting of awards is an example of a self-published blog post. But in fact if, say, pulitzer.org announces an award, the announcement is not a blog post. I'll pause arguing with you for a bit while we see whether others have more to say. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

If the only goal here is to make this bit of text clearer, I think notwally's suggested modification above does it.

If you want my more extended take:

As I noted above, all of this depends on how people assess what "self-published" means, and there isn't agreement about that (long discussion linked above). On top of that, there's a possible conflict between BLPSPS and BLPSELFPUB, in the sense that BLPSPS says "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," whereas BLPSELFPUB/ABOUTSELF seems to allow SPS statements about another living person if one's relationship with them is not third-party (that is, element #2 doesn't exclude this; for example, it suggests that it would be acceptable to use a self-published statement from one band member about another, or to use a self-published statement by an organization about someone it employs). This too, is contested, long discussion here.

Why am I noting this? Because the question of how to clarify this particular bit of info is intertwined with other disagreements about what these texts mean (e.g., whether we even consider publications from organizations about employees, awardees, etc. to be self-published in the first place). FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

My only goal here is to get rid of the addition. If somebody wants to propose new wording elsewhere and seek consensus, I believe that's appropriate in a new thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

There isn't consensus to get rid of it. The rest of us all think it's appropriate to have something of this sort in the text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

While the wording could be improved, I'm not sure why that would mean the addition should be completely removed as Peter Gulutzan is suggesting. – notwally (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Include or exclude the suspect's name in the article

 You are invited to join the discussion at RFC: Name of alleged killer. Some1 (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no such page. Presumably what you actually mean is Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf § RFC: Name of alleged killer. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. There's also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 18#Karmelo Anthony for anyone who's interested. Some1 (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Some1 is there any possible way this policy can be rewritten so it quits wasting valuable editor time? It's clear some editors don't understand the policy and it's being misused. Nemov (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Editors will need to propose specific changes to BLPCRIME and attain a consensus for those changes. But given that editors are interpreting the current text of BLPCRIME in numerous and somewhat contradictory ways (as evidenced by these suspect naming RfCs e.g., the ongoing Killing of Austin Metcalf one; Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German/Archive 1 § RfC: Suspect's name which found no consensus to include the name, Talk:2022 University of Idaho killings/Archive 1 § RfC: Suspect's Name which found strong consensus to include the suspect's name), I doubt editors will be able to agree on any proposed changes, which means a rewrite of BLPCRIME is highly unlikely. Some1 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 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)

If there isn't an essay on this already, then perhaps someone would write one at Wikipedia:Why you don't get to add the juicy bits directly from the divorce filings. The main points, naturally enough, will be the risk of misidentification (is that birth certificate or census record actually for that person?), the risk of unfair bias, serious errors, and material omissions (lawyers like to say that the other guy's conduct shocks the conscience, but that doesn't mean that their claim is true), and good old WP:DUE.

That last point is the big one: If it's worth including in an encyclopedic(!) summary(!), then you will be able to find it in another source. If you can't find it in another source, then it's not worth including. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

While I agree with your conclusion, that we shouldn't use legal documents as sources, your reasoning for why not to include them is veering close to circular. We shouldn't use them in an encyclopedia because to do so would be unencyclopedic? Surely we can make a stronger argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Some of this was addressed in the Topic just above this one, Question re: use of court documents (which was limited to what someone might say about themself in testimony/deposition, or what they might have their lawyer say about them in a filing). In addition to the question of whether the content is DUE (probably not, if no secondary source thinks it worth noting), people raised the issue of the potential for the content of court documents to be compelled (things that a person otherwise wouldn't choose to share). A concern about self-serving content can also be at play: the parties in a legal case are trying to win the case and are framing their arguments, evidence, etc. to make their case, and the outcomes of legal cases can have huge consequences (e.g., imprisonment, custody, large settlements), so there may be a significant motivation to make self-serving statements. The kind of bias in court documents filed by either party seems a bit different from bias in an opinion column or an advocacy group's publications. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)