Resolving conflicts between WP:BLPPRIMARY & WP:BLPEDIT/
TL:DR - Suggesting amending WP:BLPEDIT to create an exception to WP:BLPPRIMARY's prohibition against public/vital records, court documents & other government instruments as sources of assertions about living persons when submitted as the justification for an edit or request for edit by the subject of an article.
ISSUE: Making news in the Slate & BBC articles, the subject of an article (Emily St. John Mandel) submitted a request to edit their article in the talk page indicating that they were no longer married & supported the edit request with a case # verifiable on the NY Court System website - A primary source specifically banned by WP:BLPPRIMARY.
The request was denied under WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NOR grounds. Setting aside the WP:NOR grounds, and that the subject followed proper requests for edits instead of correcting their own article, the rejection on WP:BLPPRIMARY grounds is correct by any plain reading of the Policy.
However, we have a direct conflict between Wikipedia:FAQ/Article Subjects "If it contains minor "hard fact" errors, such as an incorrect date, a mistake in spelling or grammar, or a dead link, then please correct those errors.", WP:BLPEDIT that states "Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern.", the 2nd paragraph of WP:BLP - "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." and WP:BLPPRIMARY's instruction "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." because the subject of the article submitted only a court decree, the purpose of which is to specify that a (hard) fact about them had changed.
A situation where Wikipedia is intentionally keeping factual errors in an article because of policies intended to make sure articles are accurate and free of factual errors.
SUGGESTION: Create an exception to WP:BLPPRIMARY's prohibition against court documents as sources when used by the subject of an article to request changes to objective facts such as marital status, legal name, citizenship, etc. - Either by amending WP:BLPEDIT or WP:BLPPRIMARY. Pharniel (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment You state above "when submitted as the justification for an edit or request for edit by the subject of an article." On the specific Emily St. John Mandel case, I don't see a reason in the edit request to think it was by the subject of the article. Also, if I understand it correctly, this [1] would be the url for the primary source, is that correct? If so, it may very well mean "People with those names were divorced in 2022", but it is far from clear to me (not American or lawyer) that it means that, though I'm willing in this case to assume that these are the droids we are looking for. If their names were John and Mary Jones, I may not be willing to assume that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. I see and have to remove BLPPRIMARY material that has the potential to cause harm far, far more often than I see instances where it might—if used correctly, a big caveat—help a subject. Opening a loophole would create far more problems than it would solve. Moreover, unfortunately the only problem that needed solving here was that the initial responding editor gave the IP editor the wrong guidance, claiming a third-party source was required. It never was; the subject always could have just posted the info on social media or her own website. Editors misunderstanding policy is not something a policy change would fix. Finally, though a divorce court record cannot be cited in an article, I agree with the discussants over on the talk page of the entry in question who suggested that after reading it, it would have been a reasonable basis to remove the marriage information since it indicated that was not accurate. Again, no loopholes in BLPPRIMARY required. Innisfree987 (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Strongly oppose; I endorse Innisfree987's reasoning on the risks this change would pose to BLPs. First, you can just state someone was divorced based on a tweet or other self-published source. Second, if a BLP subject tells us on the talk page that they're divorced, and gives court records as proof: we can include the fact that they're divorced in the article, without citing it to anything (WP:MINREF); if editors come to a consensus that a fact is verifiable, it can be included despite not actually being verified (yet)! Removing the marriage information pending more recent sources is also acceptable. But linking to court records would be inappropriate here, since they might contain information that is accusatory in nature, whether accepted or rejected by the court. DFlhb (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. Public records are far too subject to context qualification and legal interpretation - both of which are NOR - to make a general exception to that rule such as is proposed here. If a fact is important enough to need correcting, then a normal secondary source will eventually appear. — TransporterMan (TALK) 21:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Support. While I see and understand the arguments of those opposed to this, I see no issue with allowing this. In fact, I think it could also cause a more positive reception to Wikipedia elsewhere, as the discussion on various media outlets of this incident led to some bad press for Wikipedia. If the exception is crafted relatively narrowly, I think it is fine, especially since usual editors would still have the discretion over whether to add, or subtract, information from a biography on here. That wouldn't change if this exception was implemented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyday01 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment I feel like the most prudent action would have been 1. just remove information on marital history, and 2. ask the subject to tweet (or blog, interview, etc.) about the new information. If they aren't comfortable with (2), just leave it out! Better to have no information than incorrect information, and marital status is usually an unimportant biographical detail. Ovinus (talk) 03:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Since it happens frequently that the someone wants to make unsourced (or, as in this case, invalidly sourced) changes to routine biographical data, ideally there should be a template to use on such reverts that points to a user-friendly guide walking them through what people are routinely allowed and not allowed to do. Otherwise it might not occur to most people that, even if the specific edit they propose doesn't fly, they can still ask for removal of the current inaccurate material if it's unsourced, or ask that an as-of date be attributed to possibly-outdated information; or that they can self-publish routine biographical information (for example, can they opt-out of privacy protections policies such as the non-publication of obscure birthdates?) if they have a verifiable social media account. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Support in principle. The BLP rules are (or should be) about protecting the subject from suffering excessive harm caused by Wikipedia. If the subject of an article themeslves have requested a modification, then that must be sufficient to demonstrate that that modification is aligned with their interest and would not be harmful - or even reduce the amount of harm being caused. In the Mandel case, the modification was also verifiable (because court records). The remaining policy barrier is whether a specific case is OR, but I would prefer to leave that to editors' judgement about whether the sources are sufficiently obvious and not needing interpretation to not be OR, and whether the OR hazard overwhelms the BLP subject's interest in accurate information or vice versa. That's a general dilemma in editing and I'm happy with the OR rules as they are, even though they might well have still prevented the edit being made in the Mandel case. Though, I'm not a huge fan of the specific proposed alteration as being too legalistic and adding further regulations that'll inevitably fail in some future case; I'd much rather it more generally talked explicitly about the interests of the BLP subject and not inflexibly applying the letter of BLP rules ('revert anything insufficiently sourced in a BLP') against their spirit ('don't cause harm to real, living people beyond what's encyclopaedically necessary'). Polyphemus Goode (talk) 09:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
No, and especially not through a non-RfC started without a specific modification proposal. The potential damage of misinterpretation of primary sources when describing a living person on Wikipedia outweighs, by far, the potential benefit of adding new content to an article. If something is outdated, you can remove it requesting an up-to-date citation for the present tense, and it may not be restored without such a citation (WP:BURDEN, WP:BLPRESTORE). The policy toolkit is already there and just needs to be used properly. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: we have a sort-of mechanism for verifying that individuals are who they say they are in some circumstances, OTRS, but I am not convinced the proposal here takes into account impersonation sufficiently. Our current rules—verifiability, not truth—are designed so that whether the IP making an edit request is Britney Spears or someone pretending to be Britney Spears, our outcome will be the same. Without confidence in an identity verification system, we cannot instate rules that give different outcomes to an IP that claims to be the subject of the article and one that doesn't.For the genuine subject of an article, WP:ABOUTSELF is not a high threshold to pass: a social media post will suffice, and if the individual wants the information public then this shouldn't be a big issue for them. However, we can have serious BLP risks in including true information—using the example of a divorce, the subject may not have told their parents yet; or they may have a PR team not ready for stories that could break as a result of us bringing it to journalists' attention; or publicising legal documents may highlight to stalkers another vector to gain sensitive information about the individual. We need to know from the individual themselves that it is okay to publicise on Wikipedia that they are divorced: a tweet or a newspaper/magazine interview does this, but a random IP comment does not. — Bilorv (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, primarily per Bilorv. We should, firstly, pretty well never give any individual particular authority over what does or does not appear in an article, and that includes even that article's subject. That also raises the issue that we do not have a very good way to verify that we even are speaking to the actual subject. But the outcome of a proposed edit should never, for any reason, depend upon who proposed it. If the individual wants to publish it on a social media account or website that verifiably belongs to them, then the article can be updated citing that as the source. If, on the other hand, it hasn't been made public yet, we shouldn't be trawling through court records for stuff like that. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose with a caveat - I agree with the other arguments that this change would be superfluous and unnecessary since they could just post the information to social media and that could be used as a sufficient source. However, I do want to raise an issue. The current rules for using the subject as a self-published source states that they can only be used if they do not involve claims about third parties. Something like a marriage or divorce technically involves a claim about a third party. Additionally, the ‘loophole’ for posting to social media for a self-published source may be hard to find if you aren’t a regular wikipedia editor, just trying to figure out how to correct a page about yourself. Should we possibly highlight that specifically somewhere? EliotWL (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, but clarify the policy differently. We can't normally verify that any request is by the subject. Instead, the following should be added to clarify WP:BLPPRIMARY, which would have resolved the Mandel issue: "However, statements by living people about themselves can be used as sources under certain circumstances, see WP:ABOUTSELF." Sandstein 12:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose. We already have established processes for dealing with these situations through the usual use of WP:RS supplemented via WP:BLPSELFPUB where necessary. Given the many complications, infeasabilities, and abrogations of basic community consensus on sourcing, verification, and neutrality that would be implicit in either allowing editors to go crawling through vital records to make assertions in cases of BLP disputes or trying to determine which talk page contributors claiming to be the subject of an article are genuine, I think the proposed solution here would be a case of the cure being much worse than the disease. The occasional incidental biographical detail (such as a marriage being dissolved) taking a little time to be vetted is a pretty minor ill compared to the can of worms that could potentially be opened by weakening our RS standards for BLPs in the manner proposed. SnowRise let's rap01:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Clarification on 'material'
WP:BLPCRIME / WP:SUSPECT says ...editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. Does the word "material" in this case include the sources' headlines/article titles and/or URLs which contain the suspect's name? If so, should such language be added to clarify the statement? Some1 (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
No, it doesn't include these elements -- we're not going to prevent editors from using perfectly good sources just because the sources name suspects. We can refrain from naming them ourselves; that's sufficient. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be a continuation of a BLPN discussion related to an WP:EVENT article and the use of sources that name a nonpublic figure in the headline. When a headline includes a name of an accused nonpublic figure, this is 'material' that appears in an article and suggests a person is accused of having committed a crime, without a conviction being secured. There appear to be various factors to consider; for example, this particular article may not be notable per the WP:EVENT guideline, and this aspect, combined with the nonpublic figure who is accused, as well as the availability of sources that do not name the accused in the headline, appear to be factors that weigh against using sources that name this person in the headline. Beccaynr (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it includes those elements, assuming the Wikipedia citation follows some of the WP:CITE recommendations. Then if the article is "Sam stole it" then the Wikipedia article is including that title which is material suggesting that Sam stole it. But I see no need to change Wikipedia's language. And if this is indeed a continuation of an earlier discussion, I see no need for a new thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I doubt reliable sources will have headlines such as "Sam stole it" if Sam is still the suspect. What if the source's headline is something neutral like "Trial date set for Sam"? Is that source usable in your view? Some1 (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Background: The topic of the suspect's name being in the sources' article titles/headlines and/or URLs has come up twice just in the past two month: 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio[2] and Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. This broader discussion is more about what "material" means in WP:BLPCRIME and if "material" includes sources' article titles/headlines and/or URLs. Interpretations so far differ in these discussions, so I think adding clarifying language (such as a footnote or even a couple of sentences) to this WP:BLP page could be beneficial. It'll help editors who may encounter similar problems in the future. Some1 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This should've been left to the existing noticeboard thread(s), no need to have discussions ongoing in multiple places.
"must seriously consider not including" is not "editors must not include". To me this means weigh how much coverage there is and how significant the events are. A link that says someone is accused of committing something is inclusion of such material, which may be acceptable. So have an RFC and seriously consider not including the information... My two cents. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The existing noticeboard thread(s) isn't about clarifying what material means in WP:BLPCRIME though, hence this discussion (which is to clarify what 'material' means and if it includes sources' headlines and/or URLs). If it does or doesn't, then I think there should be some sort of clarification (few extra words, a sentence, or a footnote) added to WP:BLPCRIME. Treat this as an WP:RFCBEFORE in the event an RfC might be needed.
My initial post is probably confusing, so let me give an example of what I'm trying to ask. See fictional scenario below:
There's a Wikipedia article titled Washington burglaries. John Doe is the main suspect in these string of burglaries in Washington. There's no consensus at the article whether John Doe's name should be included or not, so his name is left off the article. An editor adds text to the article saying "The suspect's trial is set to begin in May." with a source (let's call this source XYZ and say that it meets WP:RS standards). Source XYZ's article headline is "John Doe set for trial in May" and the URL to that article is "----.com/john-doe-trial-may"
To me, a source added to the article is "material" since it appears in the references section. Potentially even what it links to could be considered material. As I mentioned at the noticeboard, WP:NOTNEWS may come into play. Again, my two cents. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
First, I have to agree that our article on the burglaries probably does not need to mention that the suspect’s trial date has been set (per NOTNEWS), and if we don’t mention that tidbit of news then there is no need to verify it. However, if we DO mention that tidbit of news, then I would say look for a source that does not mention the suspect’s name (or at least does not mention it in the headline). Blueboar (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I know that may seem like a ridiculous question, but we have excellent standards for how to deal with "living persons" or recently deceased people. But, do those standards extend to people who have been dead for 10-20 years? I ask because I am editing a few articles with text that does not adhere to the standards within this article, but should, because the people in the articles lived and died within our generation. Their families are still alive, their children are alive. People who knew them and loved them are still alive. So much of what we need to abide by when writing articles about people who have lived and died within our generation is in this article about biographies of living people. But, who are the living people? People who are alive today or people who have ever been alive? (Yes, I get how nutty that sounds, but I think you get my point.) I think the considerations listed in this article should apply to any subject who has lived and died at least within the generation of people now alive. Don't people who have lived within, say, the last 50 years deserve the same consideration? Actually, I think anyone who has ever lived deserve the considerations listed in this article. Has there already been discussion and consensus on this? If so, I believe it needs to be included in this article. Look forward to input. All the best. MarydaleEd (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
It would be ridiculous to treat John Lennon as a living person. He died at age 40 after all, over 42 years ago. But Yoko Ono, his sons Julian and Sean, his living bandmates Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr, and any other living person mentioned in his biography are entitled to the full protections of BLP policy. Cullen328 (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Does BLPCRIME apply to an anonymous person?
Suppose there is a someone only known by a pseudonym (such as a former Wikipedia editor whose real-life identity was never revealed even on internet sources outside Wikipedia). Someone claims they committed a crime. Is it a BLPCRIME violation, or does that only apply to people with known identity? I wasn't able to find any cases and I'm honestly not sure. Zerotalk11:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I would think the distinction would be if they are identifiable by the name in some context, ie we could independently identify them. So saying Wiki editor Smithy22 punched a nice lady would be an issue since we are identifying an individual. If later it was found that Smithy22's real name was John D Smithy then we have tied a real world identity to an alleged crime. Even outside of that, we have tied Smithy22 the wiki identity to a crime and that could impact their activities on Wikipedia. However, saying "the person who punched the nice lady" isn't since we aren't establishing who the person is independent of the act in question. We might all agree that hitting the nice lady was a crime but we aren't saying a particular person did that crime. (disclaimer: at the time of this writing there is no Wikipedia user Smithy22) Springee (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Master's degree sourced to TikTok
We have a DYK submission for piri (aka Sophie McBurnie) which used to contain a reference to her master's degree in fine arts, sourced only to a statement made by piri herself on TikTok. Is a primary source on TikTok sufficient for such a claim? Cc: @LaunchballerCielquiparle (talk) 11:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Depends… sufficient to say she claims to have a Masters in Fine Arts… but not sufficient to say she actually has one. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@Blueboar Thanks for that, it seems consistent with how Wikipedia handles everything else. @Launchballer I think it's your call as to whether you include the master's degree in fine arts specifically couched as a "claim" as often that just sounds lame. (And yet most people familiar with Wikipedia will know that it's often frustrating for BLPs to get their own articles updated.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
WP:BLPSELFPUB allows claims made by the subject to be used as sources for basic factual information, such as degrees, as long as "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". Which I think should also include doubt about its veracity. But if there is no reason to think piri is making it up, we can use this as a source on that basis. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I would like to revisit the issue on what point do we presume a person is dead: WP:BDP. The current policy says 115 years, but I was thinking we could shorten it to something else. My first choice would be 110 years since it is uncommon to find people who is that age alive or dead, but would be open to other times as well. I will lay out some options on what could be potential options. Interstellarity (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Er, why change it? That is, can you point to sn article about somebody to whom BLP applies but BDP doesn't, but where the situation would change if this amendment went through? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@Redrose64: If the amendment were to go through, anyone who is 110 years old where no reliable source has confirmed that they were alive within the past two years would be covered by BDP instead of 115 years. Anyone who is 110 years old or older where a reliable source has confirmed they were still alive within the past two years would be covered by the BLP policy. I hope this answers your question. Let me know if you need further clarification. Interstellarity (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I understand what you want to change, but not why. That is, what is the problem with the present policy? Can you give examples of pages where the situation on that page would be changed? In other words: before proposing a change to policy, you must demonstrate that (a) the present policy is flawed and (b) your proposed change would be a net improvement. Your phrase I was thinking we could shorten it to something else does neither. It reads like "I want to change this, so let's change it". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Redrose64: Here are some examples of articles that is a BLP, but should be a BDP: Jakob Lechleiter and Nivruti Satwaji Kamble. If they were still alive today, they would be over 110 years old. Given that for these two people, there was no confirmation in reliable sources they have reached their 110th birthday, and given that 110 is an age only reached by 1 in 1000 centenarians, I think it is reasonable for BDP to be applied here. Of course, if a reliable source indicates that these two individuals are still alive, then BLP would apply. I believe that would be an improvement because if no reliable source has confirmed that the individual has reached their 110th birthday, it is likely that they have died and their death was not reported given how rare it is to reach this age. I hope this answers your questions regarding how this change in the present policy would be improved. Interstellarity (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Nope, sorry, I don't see either of those two as being articles that would benefit by changing the policy. Neither of them has been edited recently (controversially or otherwise), neither has any suggestions on its talk page at all - let alone suggestions that were blocked because of the BLP/BDP threshold. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Lucile Randon (who died yesterday) didn't quite make it to 119 years. Whilst she was exceptional, the present policy meant that she might already have been presumed dead almost four years ago. A case could be made for raising the bar to 120 years, but certainly not for lowering it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not convinced the Randon point is correct. I had a quick look at the gerontology fandom and I see a bunch of French sources almost every year from about 2016. I have no idea how many of these are RS but I suspect some might be suggesting there was never a 2 year period where there were no reports of her being alive from 115. 110 is less clear. But this reveals another point. IMO if we were to change this policy, we probably need to make it clearer that editors need to make a good faith effort to find sources reporting on whether they're dead or alive before making any presumptions. I also think we should also say that sources which are probably not suitable to be added to the article but which are trustworthy enough are sufficient to establish presumption of death should not apply. I'm thinking stuff like primary sources from local governments and rest homes etc celebrating a person's whatever birthday. Or sources saying they were received whatever age recognition from some government etc. I also think we should expand the 2 year period to 5 years or maybe even 10 years. But IMO 115 is probably fine as is in both directions. (Although we could still consider my other suggestions, the 5 year one might be easiest.) Because it's such a rare age, in most countries if someone has reached that age you start to get regular reports on them so it's very rare someone will have reached 115 with no reports of them being alive within 2 years. While this might apply to 110 as well, I think because it's less exceptional reports on them being alive are less frequent and it is probably more country dependent. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Another thought I have is I wonder if 111 is better than 110 and for that matter 116 than 115. These may seem odd ages but I can sort of imagine especially for the 110 one that a journalist finds out someone is 110 around the time of their birthday and when looking for a feel good story they decide to do a write up. Because of the low urgency especially given that they missed the big day it may take a few weeks before they finish it and perhaps it's even put on hold for publication waiting for a time when the publication needs a feel good story. Or maybe they decide to release it on an anniversary of whatever the person is known for. While arguably BDP will cover most of this since I guess we give them at least 6 months from when they're presumed dead before we no longer apply BLP to them but still it seems cleaner not to presume death. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I don’t see a need to change. I think that the extra cautions spelled out in BLP should apply to the recently dead as much as to the still living, and so setting the bar at an older age is beneficial. Blueboar (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Also do not see a benefit of changing. 115 was chosen based on the oldest living humans, so seems consistent with that. People that have gone missing and are under 115 should just be noted as such. --Masem (t) 02:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
(Title inspired by the preceding section's title.) One purpose of our BLP policy, as I understand it, is that even when a bunch of people come here wanting to libel some politician they hate, there's a policy that no, editors can't do that : contentious unsourced information "must be removed immediately", "Wikipedia is [...] not a tabloid", etc. Reasonably, this continues to apply for a flexibly undefined period after death, so such editors also can't add tabloid smears right after a person dies, either. That's a sensible policy for us to have; go us! :) Except... that's not the policy. WP:BDP does not apply for even one second after someone dies. It just says it "can extend based on editorial consensus". So in the very situation where it'd be most important — POV-pushers are sensationally smearing a politician they hate who just died, stopped only by diligent Wikipedians applying this policy — they can just argue "nah, don't stop us, actually (don't apply BDP)", preventing there from being consensus to apply it? Then what is the point of WP:BDP? Since it already has flexibility built in about how short or long it applies, shouldn't it just apply (automatically)? -sche (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
This policy didn't used to say "editorial consensus" - the way I remembered the policy was that it automatically applied. Looks like it was changed a couple years ago by Octoberwoodlandhere. I agree with you that the way it is worded now makes the policy not useful. I think having it apply for a flexible amount of time automatically is confusing (especially if people use BDP as a WP:3RR exception), but I would support BLP automatically extending for 6 months (or a few month period at least) beyond death, with editorial consensus only needed for extension beyond that. Galobtter (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Good find; now that I see "based on editorial consensus" was added later than the rest of the wording, I wonder if Octoberwoodland's edit could even have been attempting to express the very proposal you're making, that the length of extension needs editorial consensus, not that the existence of an extension does. (I suppose someone would need to find the AN/I discussion referred to.) In any case, I agree with you. Having BDP apply automatically for even just a couple months would probably cover the majority of the situations where people are coming to some article to smear/sensationalize it because the person is in the news (for dying). -sche (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Proposed change
Based on the preceding, how do people feel about rewording
... recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside.
to
(A) ... recently died, in which case the policy extends for an indeterminate period (based on editorial consensus) beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside.
or even:
(B) ... recently died, in which case the policy extends for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, or (based on editorial consensus) one year, or two years at the outside.
? I think this would better reflect what seems to have been the reason a user added "based on editorial consensus" a while ago. -sche (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
BLPCRIME is useless
It gives us no guidance whatsoever as to when a suspect's name should be included, and when it should be excluded, but it requires us to "seriously consider" excluding it. A requirement to seriously consider something, with no guidance about how to consider it, is useless. Is it time to draft some real criteria for when a suspect's name should or should not be included in an article? Does anyone have any suggestions for what that criteria might be? Levivich (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
First thoughts on some factors: prominence of the crime, presence of actual charges, coverage in regional/national/international news, quantity of sourcing that mentions the name, enough coverage of details about the person that more than just their name is due for a mention, reasonable belief that identifying the accused will make identification of (unnamed) victims easier, and centrality of the crime to the article in question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
We try not to be that explicit on policies and rules because the application is far too broad with many factors that come into play (as Firefangledfeathers enumerates). Like the main point of BLP, which is to do no harm to living persons without enumerating what can be done, BLPCRIME is saying "don't mention names unless it is necessary", without being specific. This is standard approaches with most policies, being descriptive and not prescriptive. Masem (t) 04:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Our other PAGs (including the rest of BLP) provide more specific guidance than "must seriously consider", and BLPCRIME could, too. Levivich (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree that WP:BLPCRIME is useless in its current form, for the complete lack of guidance you describe. There is also the problematic notion that alleged involvement in a crime is itself often the justification for "upgrading" a low-profile to a high-profile individual, which defeats the entire purpose of developing protections for low-profile individuals.--Trystan (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it could help to tighten the language of BLPCRIME to clarify 'do not include unless necessary for the encyclopedia' more directly, essentially to make the presumption against inclusion more clear. The onus is on those seeking inclusion to establish a compelling encyclopedic need to override the usual BLP protections, but the current language of 'seriously consider' could be misinterpreted as a 'presumption to include unless a compelling BLP-related reason can be established' as if otherwise-unknown and presumed-innocent people do not have some of the most significant BLP concerns. Beccaynr (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
How do we know when including a name is necessary for the encyclopedia? The only answers I can come up with are "always" or "never". Levivich (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
As an example, there was this BLPN discussion about a suspect name in headlines/urls - part of the discussion appeared to focus on whether there were sufficient sources to build encyclopedic content without introducing the suspect's name into the main article that did not also introduce their name into the reference list (particularly via a headline). My overall view on that discussion was a compelling need may be shown (e.g. update the article about the arrest of a suspect) if no source is otherwise available that would not add their name in the reference list.
Other examples that seem to arise more routinely are cases involving otherwise-unknown public officials (including law enforcement officers) who receive wide, in-depth, sustained, and secondary coverage that demonstrates significant public interest with a focus on suspect(s) in their capacity as public officials (e.g. as compared to occasional national news updates on a case involving an otherwise-unknown, nonpublic-official suspect). I think sometimes the coverage is so wide, deep, and sustained for people who hold positions of public authority that 'serious consideration' of not including names does not occur. Maybe we should reconsider this, but this is my general observation. Beccaynr (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
If they have wide, in depth, sustained secondary coverage, then any serious consideration of whether to include their names is likely to result in inclusion; at the end of the day, our coverage has to be based on what the sources say. And, indeed, that discussion was extensive and seems to have reached a consensus to include the name - how can that not be a serious consideration? --Aquillion (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Maybe it's a spectrum? Person of interest < person has been arrested < person has been charged < person is on trial < person has been convicted. Very high requirement for including the name of person of interest; they probably need to have an article of their own. Convicted? Unless they're a minor, include the name. Valereee (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I think its 100% fair to say that inclusion of names is likely to happen more upon the assurity of the charge, eg we likely will name persons convicted of crimes, but unless we're talking about famous people that get accused of certain misdoings (eg like claims of sexual harassment), mere accusation are very much not likely to have the person named. But the rest is a spectrum, and many other factors can also impact that choice. Of course, this is not tight enough wording for inclusion, but I agree that including that does not significantly impact what the rest of BLPCRIME says. Masem (t) 03:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Masem, I removed the name a few days ago of a person who had been questioned in a murder case but never apparently even became a person of interest; it had been in the article since Jan 2022. One of the editors at the article showed up at my talk to tell me the inclusion had already been discussed. The argument that was being used by those who wanted to include was that the guy had a band he'd promoted online in the Peru, Indiana area and therefore was no longer a low-profile individual. Valereee (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee in that instance, the discussion had agreed that he could be included but since he hadn't yet been convicted, the name should be left out. Once convicted, there wasn't a reason not to name since BLPCrime tries to prevent naming before the conviction unless they qualify as a public person. Unless I am mistaken?
My stance in general is that anyone who puts their name out there in the public arena as a public figure, especially through self promotion, is a public figure. Someone making a Wikipedia article on themselves, promoting a band under their own name, and trying to build a following for their music under their own name would all strike me as a 'public figure'. If we don't use the list from 'What is a low-profile individual', then I don't really understand what basis we have for what differentiates a public/non-public individual.
I would point out in the stated instance it would have made more sense to remove solely the name if that was the BLP issue you had with it, and not the entire block of text that had already been discussed in the page and reached consensus. Respectfully, it seemed excessive when usually a removal of the name and a note to discuss it is what I have seen in the past with issues related to BLP disputes. I thought that was the usual process, unless I am also mistaken on that.
I mentioned this below, but I feel the important thing is that we focus on the sources and how they cover it; my feeling is that passing mentions that merely verify that the name exists are insufficient, whereas in-depth coverage discussing the individual in-depth in the context of the crime (assuming it is high-quality WP:RS coverage, of course) is generally sufficient for inclusion. In extreme cases (where the coverage is overwhelming and makes this detailed discussion of the accused central to the event) it may even require inclusion - eg. the Lee Harvey Oswald example would fall under that. If an event immediately results in every major news source writing entire articles devoted to in-depth analysis of the accused's possible motives (not just one paragraph or two in a larger piece, but entire "Who is X, the person accused of doing Y?" sorts of things where that's the focus of the entire story), that's a surefire sign that the event, their identity, and the connection between these two things is significant enough that they cannot be excluded. Finally, the other thing to keep in mind for WP:BLPCRIME is that its purpose is to protect the accused's reputation. If coverage is sufficiently high-profile then that concern no longer exists - the threshold is high, but there is definitely a point where trying to invoke BLP to protect the identity of someone who has spent the last three weeks plastered on the front page of every paper starts to become unreasonable. --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
While I wouldn't say any of the relevant policy text is as good as it could be, I think the best guidance we currently have for this is actually in WP:BLPNAME - When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.
Applied to those who have been accused of a crime, this guidance would suggest (1) a presumption against including names where there has been a publication ban, or where the name is seldom repeated in RS, and (2) recognition of the reality that the publication of the names of accused in news stories should carry less weight than their inclusion of higher-quality sources and those more distant from the event.
If BLPCRIME were to make a clear statement that there is an especially high threshold to merit inclusion of a suspect's name that depends on (1) the status of a case (e.g., prior to conviction); (2) the breadth of dissemination of the name, especially in relation to other BLP issues (e.g., the reality that some publication bans are brought to avoid identifying crime victims and other innocent parties); and (3) the quality of the sources that name the suspect. Perhaps if we did some of this, the guideline might be more useful than just an injunction to "consider" . Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
So, I actually don't mind the guideline as it is, though it could certainly be clearer. I definitely err on the side of leaving names out, and in this instance, I would say that dissemination of a suspect's name should hold somewhat less influence over our decision than other factors (though not zero). For me, I would go back to the old canard that "dog bites man" is not news, but "man bites dog" is. For me, we should include suspects' names only where they are independently notable, or where the suspect's position, circumstances, or characteristics somehow contribute to the notability of the crime itself. Thus, as awful as it is, the suspect in the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German is not notable and nothing about the suspect makes the crime more notable. If you had, say, an otherwise unknown catholic monk arrested for killing a prostitute, that would contribute to the notability of the crime. Similarly, a random megarich person arrested for petty theft might be. Perhaps someone can rework my standard into something a bit more eloquent, but that's the sort of heuristic I use. That said, I sense I may be largely alone in that, so happy to follow wherever consensus leads. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
I think this heuristic is pretty reasonable, but I would shorten the second case to where not including the identity of the suspect would significantly confuse the reader. Loki (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
With respect to what you wrote, a lot of editors see BLPCRIME as a full stop of including a name under any conditions when someone is a low profile individual, and in a lot of cases even a high profile individual can be removed under BLP as being in violation, which presents issues on it's own.
Examples that aren't currently addressed with BLPCRIME (that I am aware of; I could have completely missed them in a prior search) mostly deal with low profile individuals -
Do they automatically become a public figure once a certain amount of news coverage has happened regarding them, thereby turning them into an involuntary limited purpose public figure? News coverage from what outlet, specifically?
In cold cases, if a suspect is arrested and charged for a decades old murder/kidnapping/disappearance, do they automatically qualify as a high profile figure based on their alleged involvement with a high profile crime?
Since the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German was used as an example of why to exclude, I will give an example that technically should not be allowed but was not argued against - | The suspect of the 2022 University of Idaho killings. The only discussion I could find on it was at this BLPN discussion, which seemed to imply the police had asked for help in the case so it was okay to name. The police had also asked for tips regarding the Abigail Williams case, and especially the newly arrested suspect. The Idaho suspect is charged with killing 4 people; the other is charged with killing 2, so nothing groundbreakingly different in the crimes. Neither has been convicted, both were unknown prior to the murders, and yet one is named. Mind you, one murder was 6 years ago and the other was last year. Both arrests happened in 2022, as well.
It is easy to see how it's confusing as it stands.
One difference between the two articles is 2022 University of Idaho killings currently has 77 sources - this event received a wide range of coverage, and there appears to be substantial and wide coverage specifically focused on the suspect - along the lines of what is noted by Newimpartial above as to WP:BLPNAME, and noted by Dumuzid above, about how reliable sources appear to have found 'the suspect's position, circumstances, or characteristics to somehow contribute to the notability of the crime itself'.
By contrast, the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German currently has 31 sources, and the 2022 suspect does not seem to have a similar range or depth of coverage yet, and there appears to be a gag order in the pending criminal case. The support for naming this suspect currently appears to be much less well-supported by sources. I tend to think of this issue as related to the sources available at the time the naming of a suspect/defendant is considered; if there is a conviction, then it tends to become a nonissue (certainly convicted minors are an exception, and I suppose an appealed conviction might be, although I would want to assess the coverage). Beccaynr (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
There are actually multiple arguments about including the Idaho suspect's name at that article's talk before he was arrested and charged. The discussions have all been archived, but they happened. Valereee (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
A relevant quote related to when to name a suspect follows, but the full discussion is worth a read:
I would think that if in a serious crime (like said truck attack) where an individual has been determined to the suspect and charges have been placed, it would be reasonable to mention that name as long as RSes are routinely mentioning it, but not before the charges have been given. Our writing should still be clear that they haven't been proven guilty of it (including writing the event with that name as if they had done it). Masem (t) 00:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that naming someone a 'suspect' in an article implies guilt, but in most examples on Wikipedia involving current court cases with an arrest and no conviction, the section involving the arrested is titled 'Accused', or similar. I believe this is what Masem was suggesting above, but I could be mistaken. One alternative I suggested before on an article was to state the accused persons current/past plea. If someone pleaded innocent, it should be noted, especially when they are named and not convicted.
I think the problem is that it has strayed so far from its original intention that it has become actively harmful to our coverage of some topics. It should mean we should not go out of our way to name some non-notable individual in our articles in only a negative context (eg, accused of a crime). It has transformed into we cannot name anybody, notable or not, or even some have argued we cant even note the existence of a crime. The first of these is a defensible editorial judgment that would still allow for the judicious inclusion of verifiable facts when pertinent, the second is an hysterical overreaction that reduces the coverage of our article on topics that are readily accessible across the internet. nableezy - 00:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
The other thing to remember is that we are not trying to create the spectacle around crime that newspapers typically are involved with. They want to report the who, what, where, and identifying the suspect as early as possible is part of that goal. But we are more concerned with making sure that we get the facts right, and being timely is very much a low priority goal for that. If there are concerns about the suspect or the like in such events, we clearly should air on the side of caution, even if every major RS that has covered the event names the individual. But that's all down to consensus driven debate when that is appropriate. BLPCRIME just wants editors to come into that debate knowing we shouldn't name non-notable people unless it is a significant improvement in encyclopedic coverage and does not do harm to that individual. Masem (t) 04:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
To me this is silly as well. You can mention a person has been arrested for a crime as long as it's covered by multiple reliable sources and they're famous. However, if the person wasn't famous they can't be named even if it's been widely reported. What are we really protecting here? If it's widely reported, it's a key aspect of the event, and we're not making a judgement. Wikipedia is only stating factualing things. Saying a person is arrested for a crime when it's widely reported isn't a violation of privacy. I understand the spirit of privacy, but to me this policy is kind of illogical. These kind of inane rules just confuse new editors and create content disputes. Nemov (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Its the frame of mind that BLPCRIME established, that by default we should think of not including names of individuals that have yet to be convicted of crimes, and then use that to justify deviations from it. A notable person gets arrested for a crime? Okay, that makes sense. A other non notable person but was captured and arrested after a multi-day, highly covered manhunt? Sure. A non notable person who has been labeled as a person of interest in a case? Probably not. Its all about setting what our default behavior should be but with enough flex to argue for logical deviations. Masem (t) 13:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Even if convicted I would argue against including a perpetrator's name. Some crimes are about attention, and publicity can reward criminal behaviour. It's best to deny that. I think crime articles should be victim focused even where the news sources they're based on aren't.—S MarshallT/C06:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this, more or less. I would strenuously oppose anything that imposed hard-and-fast rules requiring us to exclude the name of someone accused of a crime. BLPCRIME's intent is, essentially, that for non-public figures who have not been convicted, we default to exclusion and that you need a specific argument for why we would include it; mere passing mentions and WP:V are insufficient. However, such arguments clearly exist, and it wouldn't really be possible to enumerate every single possible one. If the Kennedy assassination occurred today, it would plainly be absurd to argue that we could omit naming Lee Harvey Oswald until he was convicted (which he technically never was - would people continue to argue that we cannot cover him after his own assassination, and presumably cannot cover that assassination at all because doing so would require naming him until sufficient time had passed after his death for BLP to no longer apply?) If there are any changes I would make to BLPCRIME it would be to make it more clear that the ultimate decision of whether and how we cover people has to be made based on how they're covered in the sources - the weight towards excluding means that mere passing mentions is usually not enough, but if multiple top-tier sources are devoting entire articles to analyzing someone in-depth, we can no longer reasonably exclude them. In fact, if there's going to be guidelines towards the threshold at all, that seems like a good one - "is there in-depth coverage on them, as opposed to just passing mentions of their name?" --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I have attempted to improve the page using the ideas of the discussions above. [3] Please feel free to revise, but I recommend not stonewalling progress with a revert based on "not perfect, so must revert." JehochmanTalk13:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
I reverted because I think drafting here is probably better for now - this is BLP policy, and one of the issues that seems to need revision is a lack of clarity in the text about a default presumption against inclusion. Before factors for consideration are added that may further muddy the standard, it seems better to try to focus on clarification. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Alternative draft
The current relevant section of WP:BLPCRIME is as follows:
For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
An alternative revision could include:
For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, material should not be included—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured or a serious encyclopedic need is shown before conviction. Circumstances that may demonstrate a serious encyclopedic need before conviction may include [...].
I think option 2 helps dispel the idea that inclusion is the default and that exclusion must be proved. Maybe a link to BLPNAME somewhere too? I suspect we'd avoid a lot of these cases if your "Wikipedia is not Murderpedia" idea was policy... JoelleJay (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
One day, I may write a "Wikipedia is not Murderpedia" essay, with a general focus on the spirit and purpose of relevant policies and guidelines. As applied here, some language in BLPCRIME seems to have the potential to be interpreted in a way that is out of alignment with the purpose and goals of BLP policy, and I think this discussion is helping identify circumstances when a general presumption against inclusion could be overcome, as well as circumstances (e.g. the conviction of a minor) when the policy creates a strict prohibition. Beccaynr (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Under option 2 would that have barred any mention of Lee Harvey Oswald name's in the assassination of JFK until he was convicted? These seems like it's moving in the wrong direction. Nemov (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Option 2 recognizes encyclopedic need to include material before conviction may exist. I did not include a proposed list of circumstances that could support inclusion before conviction, but I think there are some broad themes emerging that could be developed into a short list based on the preceding discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
My feeling is that the proposed text, stating clearly that we should avoid including such material "unless a conviction has been secured or a serious encyclopedic need is shown" is more in the spirit of the consensus I have seen in cases where this has arisen than the existing weaker request to "seriously consider" not including such material. There are certainly cases where we should include this material without a conviction (a generic example might be when mentioning the criminal action in question is properly sourced and necessary to explain other events in a notable biography, such as losing a job because an employer concluded that the person committed the action) but I think that is covered by the "serious encyclopedic need" escape clause. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
A presumption is not a hard-and-fast rule, it is about identifying who has the onus to support inclusion, e.g. with evidence/sources. The "circumstances" language has [...] after it, and the idea is to incorporate a list of factors derived from the discussion above, which has been talking about source-based factors, e.g. scale and depth of coverage, etc.
Perhaps some additional language similiar to WP:BLPRESTORE could be added, "To ensure that the material accusing living people of crime is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to include, retain, restore, or undelete this material." I think it is helpful to consider how proposed language may be misunderstood and then develop alternative or additional language to better accomplish BLP goals than what has been described as a currently "useless" formulation. Beccaynr (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Again, though - you have to demonstrate that there's a problem, first. I definitely feel that your proposed wording is far too absolutist for serious consideration; the risk of it being misinterpreted in the other direction (ie. as a hard-and-fast rule to which exceptions are almost nonexistent) seems to me to be more serious. So if you want to argue for a change like that, you need to indicate that the seriously consider language is causing problems, which I don't think you do. I feel it is ideal and is generally producing exactly what we want to - detailed, in-depth discussions about whether to include or exclude a name as soon as there is any sort of challenge or dispute. If your concern is that the initial addition sometimes lacks consideration, that is not solvable - most editors are not experts on policy; nothing we change here is going to prevent the initial incident where a name is sometimes added inappropriately. But I don't see how your proposal would make discussions after that any easier, and I think there's a serious risk they could make them worse - I'm skeptical of having too many policies that place a strong presumption in one direction in general, since that discourages collaborative editing and encourages people trying to clobber each other with policy. We should be trying to get it right, which means policies should encourage contextual discussion and consideration. Outright stating "do X by default" is generally bad policy because it discourages people who want to exclude material from providing an argument (which might be answered!) and generally discourages them from engaging in any depth unless there's already an overwhelming consensus they feel they need to answer. WP:CRYBLP is already a problem as it is; we need to be cautious about giving the policy more absolutist wording unless it's absolutely necessary. What's more important is providing general guidance (which it could certainly do more of), not more ways for editors to try and go "argument X wins automatically by default". --Aquillion (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
From my view, S Marshall's example is obviously not excluded by the proposed language - the Simon Warr article states he "appeared on BBC Newsnight after his acquittal" and "subsequently wrote about his 672-day ordeal [...] in an essay" and then "his 2017 book" and then "appeared on Jeremy Vine [...] to debate how historical sexual allegations should be handled by police." That seems to be the type of context that can be translated into descriptive factors to consider as support for inclusion in the [...] part of the proposed alternative draft.
In the WP:CRYBLP essay, the first example of contentious content that can rise to the level of 'actual harm' is an allegation of serious criminal conduct, and I think for nonpublic figures, we should emphasize particular care and direct editors to examine sources as well as the needs of the encyclopedia at the time inclusion is considered. I have also been thinking about recent coverage in the Washington Post: True-crime fans seized on the Idaho killings. Their accusations derailed lives. (April 2, 2023) combined with the capacity of Wikipedia to elevate events and people. From my view, the language I have suggested is not "strict in theory, fatal in fact", and the addition of language outlining types of source-based evidence can help emphasize this aspect. Beccaynr (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Side discussion re: allegations of/sanctions for noncriminal conduct
I recall that you, Beccaynr, were adamantly opposed to deleting our article on Jessica Foschi, a woman who's only notable for being wrongly accused and hasn't sought publicity since. Do you make a distinction because she was accused of sports cheating rather than criminality?—S MarshallT/C16:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the Jessica Foschi article makes clear that she did seek publicity afterwards, e.g. there is a feature news article about her ten years later that includes quotes from her, and her case is analyzed in a 2015 law school textbook that also notes her legal writing on the subject generally. And while you may recall me as "adamantly opposed," I recall being slightly frustrated with how I could perceive complex legal proceedings with substantial coverage, interspersed with substantial biographical coverage, that would take more time to untangle than the usual AfD timeframe would permit for a proper WP:HEY.
I am glad to focus on content examples to help us develop further descriptive source-based factors that might help guide editors when thinking about the inclusion of contentious content about living people. From my view, it seems possible to consider Foschi a public figure during the time of the allegations and various legal proceedings, with her post-allegation publicity further supporting inclusion, and the encyclopedic significance further supported by the academic secondary source. Beccaynr (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2023 (UTC) (academic secondary sources, e.g. [4], [5], and there was 1999 biographical coverage as well [6]. Beccaynr (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC))
And I've exhaustively refuted all those claims in the past. By my understanding of your proposed text, that article would need to be deleted because there's neither consensus nor serious encyclopaedic need to include it?—S MarshallT/C09:23, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
The Foschi AFD/DRV discussions seemed to mostly be about whether there should be a BLP or an event article, and occured before the article was updated to incorporate sources found during the discussions. For this BLP policy discussion, Foschi was not accused of a crime; she was subject to a variety of independent sports agency proceedings and sanctions while she continued her swimming career, and there was a civil action brought by her parents.
Under the proposed text, first determine whether BLPCRIME applies to sports agency and civil proceedings (is this an accusation of crime?) and if Foschi is a nonpublic figure. Then show a 'serious encyclopedic need to include' (similar to the current 'seriously consider not including' language), with help from a nonexclusive list of descriptive factors that have not been drafted yet.
I think content examples may help identify descriptive factors that can outline types of coverage that may support inclusion. e.g. multiple cases with over more than a year of media coverage, the subject's participation in media coverage during and up to a decade afterwards, encyclopedic interest/significance supported by multiple academic secondary sources. But we also already have a lot of participation in this discussion to work with to help continue drafting. Beccaynr (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Our ultimate decisions about article content have to be made based on sources, not based on our personal opinions (which, ultimately, any "serious encyclopedic need" would boil down to.) I'd strenuously oppose any flat "...should not be included..." wording, or any change to the longstanding "...seriously consider..." wording on those grounds. Overriding the sources is not what BLP is, and is not what it has ever been; the ultimate purpose of BLP is to require highest-quality sourcing and care, not to put us in a position of trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by describing someone differently than the overwhelming majority of sources do. More generally, this would be a dramatic change from an established practice and policy; and I don't think that anyone has demonstrated that there is an actual problem here that would require this sort of heavy-handed prescriptivist sort of policy to resolve. It strikes me as the sort of ill-conceived "solve a problem by fiat from 10,000 feet in the air" sort of suggestion that leads to bad policy - policies that are excessively one-sided discourage collaborative editing or actual discussions based on context, and instead lead to intractable disputes that are just people trying to clobber each other with the most strongly-worded policies they can find, without regard for sourcing and with little room for compromise. Having slightly more detailed guidelines here might be useful (per my comments above), but I believe that the "seriously consider" wording has withstood the test of time and has generally produced excellent articles on potentially thorny subject matters. If someone wants to suggest changing it they will need to point to specific problems, on specific pages, that they believe it has caused, which no one here (that I can see) has really done. --Aquillion (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I hope my comment above helps clarify that there is no intention to have this language be contrary to the BLP focus on the highest-quality sourcing and care, and that it is instead an attempt to better align the language with the purpose and goals of BLP policy. The general idea is to expand the language at the [...] to identify the type of coverage, using examples that are surfacing in this discussion, including your comment (I have been thinking I could thematically code this discussion as if it is a mini-qualitative analysis to create a list of broad example factors for editors to consider).
I also think we have a recent example [7] where it may have helped to have more clarity about who has the burden to support inclusion, as well as the need to support inclusion with sources; that RfC was recently discussed at AN; the reopened RfC is pending. Another recent example is here [8]. I think particularly in lower-profile articles with nonpublic suspects, there may be a risk in a small discussion that "strongly consider" could be interpreted as a presumption for inclusion unless editors can show a BLP-based reason to exclude (as if BLP reasons do not already exist). My goal is to help 'unclobber' the discussion area, by clarifying the framework so it is more clear about who has the burden and the general types of evidence that can help support inclusion of contentious content. Beccaynr (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I basically support this revision, but it's impossible to truly evaluate without a detailed list of the conditions where such a name should be included. Loki (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I generally support this revision, and it is in line with how we should be evaluating sources on BLP's. Reliability of any source is always contextual, sure we set up guidelines like RSP which are generally good, but certain considerations like those highlighted in BLP always apply. When we're dealing with BLP's we need to be asking is this source authoritative for the content. For purposes of criminal allegations there is only one authoritative source on whether or not they are true, and that is the criminal justice process. If the criminal justice process has not come back with a conviction, there are no authoritative sources. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Rashid Buttar and the topic of "death announcements" here
We are currently dealing with a number of attempts to add content for the alleged death of Rashid Buttar. (See the talk page.) The sources are very poor, so experienced editors are encouraging a "wait for better sources" attitude. We really do not know if he's dead.
We need an official section in this BLP policy for dealing with such matters. Careless editors have been punk'd and fooled many times by hoaxes and unreliable sources, and premature and false death announcements cause real world harm to the person, their family, and Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy.
I propose we add something like the following to our BLP policy:
Death announcements Shortcut: WP:BLPDeath
Due to the sensitive nature of death announcements, and the tendency of the worst sources to be the first to publish such things, editors need to be extra cautious about sourcing. Hoaxes abound and some may be targeting Wikipedia in hopes of damaging our reputation. When a notable person dies, we must be able to find more than one very reliable secondary source that mentions the death, or at least one very reliable secondary source and a primary source (per ABOUTSELF), such as the person's website or workplace. The content must be backed by inline citations to more than one RS.
In some cases, temporary protection must be used to prevent Wikipedia being cited in external sources for the death. This happens almost immediately, so it must be stopped quickly here. It must be treated as "unsourced or poorly sourced negative information". The prohibition against edit warring does not apply to deletion of clear vandalism or clear BLP violations.
No harm is done by waiting a few days until the death is properly verified, but great harm is done by getting this wrong. Careless editors have been punk'd and fooled many times by hoaxes, unreliable sources, and activists. Premature and false death announcements cause real world harm to the person, their family, and Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy.
Strike "a few days" in favor of "until properly verified", or something along those lines. Reliable sources could in some cases just be minutes behind the TMZs and Daily Mails of the media sphere, I would not want to create a suggestion of an artificial wait-time. Zaathras (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Your policy needs to take into consideration the fact that someone can be just barely noteworthy enough to have the minimum number of reliable sources writing about him, but also hated enough that no reliable source will stoop to take notice of the fact that he has died. This appears to be what is happening in the present case. What this means is that your policy keeps the bereaved family waiting for Wikipedia to acknowledge that he has died; anyone coming to the page and (at present) not scrolling to the bottom will assume the person is still alive. This is, arguably, even more offensive than a person being said to be dead when it is easy to prove otherwise. --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
You, of all people, should be very concerned about BLP violations using unsourced or poorly sourced negative content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
It is almost always inadvisable to make substantive changes to policy based around unfolding events concerning a specific individual. More so, if the justification given is entirely unsubstantiated hyperbole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Well, after you've caused the family enough pain by making them wait, go ahead and change the page, and then look at the policy again.
Of course, you won't.
Again, the argument is simple: if it does harm to a person to be falsely said by Wikipedia to be dead, and if you should care about such harm, then why do you not also care about the harm done to a family when a person is falsely said to be alive (even if the fact is not reported in any "reliable source")? --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Larry Sanger, you have been wrong about every aspect of online encyclopedias for over 20 years. Why should anybody pay attention to your ill-informed opinions after that track record? Cullen328 (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
According to ad hominem, Philosopher and pundit on informal fallacies Douglas N. Walton argues that a circumstantial ad hominem argument can be non-fallacious. This could be the case when someone (A) attacks the personality of another person (B), making an argument (a) while the personality of B is relevant to argument a, i.e. B talks as an authority figure. To illustrate this reasoning, Walton gives the example of a witness at a trial: if he had been caught lying and cheating in his own life, should the jury take his word for granted? No, according to Walton. That is perfectly applicable in this context. Cullen328 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
You plainly understand neither the fallacy nor even what you quoted. I was not at any point depending on my own authority in my argument. If you think I was, you are committing another fallacy, namely, strawman. Larry Sanger (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh come on, your only claim to fame is 20 plus years of being spectacularly wrong about Wikipedia and alternative online encyclopedias. That's not a straw man. That's the genuine Larry Sanger. Cullen328 (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The harm caused by falsely claiming someone is dead is very different the harm by falsely claiming they are alive. For example, someone may miss out on opportunities if they are falsely believed to be dead; that isn't possible if they are falsely believed to be alive.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the grieving process, or this might be more obvious to you. The failure of a major public source of information to acknowledge the passing of someone they love, and in fact falsely implying (at least at the top of an article, last time I checked) that he is still alive, does emotional harm the family. If you continue to claim not to understand this, I probably shouldn't waste my time trying to convince you. --Larry Sanger (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
As someone familiar with the grieving process (sadly most people are), I'd have to suggest that Wikipedia biographies being out of date wouldn't be much of a priority for most people. And if it were, there are better ways to rectify the situation that getting their friend Larry Sanger to gripe about it - I assume you are a family friend, since you seem to know so much about them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
While emotional harm of third parties is unfortunate it isn't the sort of harm we have BLP policies to avoid. It also isn't the sort of harm we can reasonable avoid without causing immeasurable damage to the encyclopedia; in this case it would require us to include unverified and possibly false information, while in other cases it would require us to exclude verified and encyclopedic information.
When we have a reliable source declaring someone is dead then we can list them as dead. Until them, we minimize harm by presuming they are still alive. BilledMammal (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
collapsing commentary unrelated to the topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Blah, blah, blah. Whatever you need to say to let you keep doing exactly whatever you want to do. This place hasn't changed one bit. Still as fraudulent, self-important, and childish as ever. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Zaathras, Pete Best is a far better person. He says he has no regrets, has led a productive life, is cheerful and has not wasted decades in bitter recriminations. Cullen328 (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
ec LMFAO! Ouch! A very apt description, Zaathras. People often get wiser with age. Sad story, and not aging well. Our garden variety trolls often have more appreciation for verifiability, source quality, BLP, and NPOV. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
There are personal attacks flying around from both "sides" but it wouldn't nearly get this heated up if he didn't come in here with fury and tell all editors that they are "acting like clowns". Merko (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Buttar is/was a dedicated self-publicist. I agree that we should have a high bar to inclusion, and this article should probably have been merged to Disinformation Dozen, but Wikipedia allows ANTIVA to edit like anyone else, and they are quite determined to include their false prophets, regardless of how badly that usually goes for them - like SovCits demanding a supervisor, even though said supervisor very often arrests them. 92.40.199.21 (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is and remains a top ten website worldwide, except in authoritarian countries that suppress Wikipedia. Larry Sanger has struggled and failed for decades to create and maintain a top 100,000 website as an "alternative" to Wikipedia. To advance his vindictive agenda, he has chosen to endorse far right disinformation operatives and their unhinged conspiracy theories. He freely made those deranged choices and it is incumbent on us to observe the facts of the matter. Cullen328 (talk)
Sanger is both covered by BLP and NPA, Im collapsing this bit as unrelated to our articles/policies. nableezy - 17:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Someone has, without a solid consensus, added the info to the article, seemingly based on the idea that using several poor sources makes it okay. They don't understand the adage "The plural of anecdote is not evidence." Sad. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I like clarifying the handling of recent deaths with respect to BLPs. But a question: Would it be reasonable to carve out a distinction between high-profile and low-profile individuals for death announcements? I've had a few articles where IPs repeatedly added a death date, and the death date appeared to be accurate per e.g. twitter posts of family members, friends and colleagues, but where there was no source passing WP:RS. After reverting several times over several weeks, looking for reliable sources, and verifying that there is nothing to suggest that they did not die on the given date, I've on a couple of occasions added a citation-needed tag to the death date (but let it stand). I am not certain of the best way to handle a situation like this, but I do think we should take into account the grief of survivors as one factor of many. (To be clear, I do not think that Rashid Buttar is a low-profile individual in the sense that I am speaking of.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi Russ. I think you make a good point. There should be different standards of probable cause for how we deal with high- and low-profile individuals. Please attempt to formulate such content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps "If the subject is a low-profile individual, then reliable sources may be more difficult to find. If no obituary or other source can be found after several weeks, and if there is some reason to believe the death date (and no evidence to the contrary), then it may be appropriate in some circumstances to leave the death date in the article with a citation needed tag." Others may be able to think of some unintended consequences, however. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
One question, is there actually an attributed quote form a family member saying he is dead? Not sources saying "according to the family" an actual attributed quote? Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
We now have workplace confirmation. While his workplace website says nothing, a call to his official workplace answering machine does. < redacted > Try it.
The answering machine message confirms his death. While an unusual source, I feel it justifies tweaking our wording to an actual death. Such a source should be listed as generally reliable for this purpose. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:48, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
As pointed out by another user (but reworked by me) trying to wp:v this might be seen as harassment. Imagine 100's of editors trying to confirm this? Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree with Andy. We shouldn't add an entire section (and a long one, 3 paragraphs) about something that isn't a frequent problem across BLPs, to address a single talk page dispute. WP:BLP already requires poorly-sourced contentious claims to be immediately removed. This is WP:CREEP. DFlhb (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Earlier discussions have attempted to focus on whether these are allowed, and if a single mention in social media constitutes sufficient grounds for concluding an individual approves of general disclosure of the personal information.
Here, I wish to suggest a different matter for conclusion and resolution—whether, by any party, a self-disclosed DOB is trustworthy biographical information. Invited are perspectives at least along two lines—
that in particular lines of work, e.g., news broadcasting, acting, etc., that there is, woven into the dynamics of the occupation, reasons to dissemble; and
that as a disclosure or personal information, an individual knowing that a statement in social media is such, may likewise covertly attempt to dissemble, for reasons of maintaining privacy (e.g., the non-public facing individual that values privacy that states an inaccurate DOB, not out of vanity, but of intent to obfuscate easily searchable records).
Bottom line is the question, can any self-statement of personal information (of the DOB sort), be prima facie evaluated as non-self-interested, and therefore reliable in encyclopedic writing.
No. Such personal statements are always sufficiently suspect, such that they are never further trustworthy as stand-alone sources in encyclopedic writing. They can however be communicated as supplementary sources alongside a valid, independent, third-party (reliable) source, or as stand-alone with prose making clear that it is an autobiographical claim, e.g., "[Article subject] has stated on social media that they turned 50-years old on [date of posting]."<ref>{{cite twitter | etc., etc. 2601:246:C200:4619:926:F7C2:6D6B:7EC3 (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
It sounds like you feel very strongly about this subject. May I suggest, though, that you not try to "vote" at the end of your comment? WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Offical presumption of death
The WP:BDP currently reads:
"Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 17 December 1908 [update]) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources".
Does this also include people who have been officially declared dead by the jurisdiction they resided in? If not, the article about Richey Edwards who we are referring to in the past tense is in breach with this policy.
In my opinion, when a person has been presumed dead (and thus legally also is dead), we should be able to refer to that person in the past. This is because he have an official authority backing it.
For me, the real problem is Wikipedia itself assuming someone dead. Here I completely understand the 115 years policy. However, when a person has been declared dead in absentia, we are by referring to that person in the past merely sticking to what is the most recognised view among reliable sources.--Marginataen (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
