Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 48

Tweets announcing "Happy birthday to me! I'm 21 today!"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Have we ever confirmed yes or no whether this represents a good enough self-source for BLP DOB? It looks like the question may have been asked several times and perhaps not settled? There's been ongoing discussion at Talk:James Charles (Internet personality) about whether this is sufficient proof that the subject is okay with their full dob being published. —valereee (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

If the account is verified, and it is not from a minor, I would argue that's fair to use. Obviously, we should be careful to make sure its not being sarcastic in nature "Today must be my birthday" showing like getting two or three parking tickets in a row in a picture. --Masem (t) 15:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems a perfect opportunity to knock a couple of years off (or vice versa) one's age and have it accepted by Wikipedia. ——Serial 15:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Masem, if it can be supported by reliable sources to remove the risk of fabrication that SN has pointed out. So, for example, an article about him in 2020 saying "20 year old James" (which gives a possible YOB of 1999 or 2000), and then his tweet confirming exact date. GiantSnowman 15:33, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Here are some of the sources gathered. The independent sources are mostly reporting on birthday claims Charles made himself, and they're mostly in the form of "Charles turned ## on May 23". He has also posted two Tweets that quote or screenshot his Wikipedia article with the full birthdate (1, 2).

• Independent sources:

1. Teen Vogue: "James, who turned 20 on Thursday, May 23, began the video compilation by thanking his fans for their birthday wishes"
2. Insider: "One of YouTube's biggest beauty gurus, James Charles, turned 21-years-old on May 23 – and to celebrate his birthday, he filmed himself getting drunk for the first time ever."
3. Allure: "Charles, who turned 20 on Thursday, May 23, began the video compilation by thanking his fans for their birthday wishes."

• Sources linked to subject (not exhaustive):

1. Twitter Bio: "Born May 23"
2. Tweet (May 23, 2020): "21"
3. Tweet (July 5, 2017): "James Charles Dickinson (born May 23, 1999), known professionally as James Charles, is an American Internet personality and model. On Octobe" (Note: This is intro from Wikipedia article at the time)
4. Instagram (May 23, 2021): "just wanted to say hello and thank you so so much for the birthday wishes and love, it means a lot 👋🏼💘"
5. Instagram (May 23, 2020): "21 YEARS OLD 🤯💞 thank you all so much for all of the birthday wishes!! it’s insane what we’ve accomplished together as a family over the past few years... I love you all eternally 🌎✨"
6. Instagram (May 23, 2019): "taking some business calls & washing away my teenage years 💧🧼💕 thank u all so much for the birthday wishes today 🥺 I’m not just a kid with some blending brushes anymore... I’m officially 20 years old!? growing up on social media has been such a strange experience - it’s amazing but also so scary to be a role model. I’ve made a lot of mistakes but being able to learn and grow along with you guys has made me such a strong person and I look forward to doing it more and more as the years go by. thank you for the love and support through everything. ily"
7. Youtube: "Today, the day that I'm filming this, is May 23rd, and if you know me, it is my birthday, and not only is it my birthday, okay, it's my 21st birthday, which, obviously, is the legal drinking age here in America."

POLITANVM ^talk 15:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129, to your comment about potentially fudging his age, the NYT covered him in October 2016 saying he was 17, and in April 2021 saying he was 21. Both of those line up with a May 1999 birthday, so the question is really about whether we can say the specific date. POLITANVM ^talk 15:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129, oh, interesting point. There's been discussion somewhere recently re: La La Anthony where she/her assistant were asking that her dob be corrected. We just removed it altogether. —valereee (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Certainly if there's conflicting information from other RSes - or plain obvious lies (some older person well past their 50s claiming they're 18) - that we should ignore then (tweets should always be considered lower-quality than most other BLP-appropriate RSes). But in absence of anything to contest that information, tweets like this are going to often be used by our RSes to established birth dates for celebs, and this should be fine for us. --Masem (t) 18:22, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hm, that's a reasonable point. My concern was primarily that so many people seem to think of tweets as sort of ephemeral. For minors, definitely I think we shouldn't use tweets. But maybe once someone's turned (whatever age is legally an adult where they are) and no other source is disputing the assertion, we should accept tweets as a self-source for the assertion of dob? —valereee (talk) 18:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm more interested in coming to some agreement on using this in general rather than arguing this specific case. Whether in fact a tweet by an adult that "today's my 50th" or whatever is sufficient to allow us to assume the article subject does not object to their full dob being published. —valereee (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Masem on the general and specific (how suspicious should we be) case. I think WP:ABOUTSELF supports this, and that stating ones age is not by default an "exceptional claim", even if the person is an actor. Noting that tweets like "Today is my birthday!" or "Thanks for all the birthday congrats!" doesn't give a full DOB. The first gives a date, but IMO it's weird to include date without year. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• I think it makes sense to allow a verified tweet to be used to show that an article subject is fine with their birth date being made public. If there is a reason to doubt the veracity of the tweet (such as conflicting information from another source or context suggesting it is sarcastic), then that could be resolved in local talk page discussions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I concur with what appears to be the developing consensus that tweet-as-DOB is supported by WP:ABOUTSELF. I also concur that you should at least sanity-check it, and that not every notable person is an RS for their age, but broadly speaking I think this is an acceptable use. Vaticidalprophet 03:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

trivia sections prohibition redundant?

WP:BLPSTYLE includes the sentence: BLPs should not have trivia sections.

But this is not unique to BLPs. So, for the sake of streamlining, can we just remove this line? It looks like it was added back in 2007, at a time when trivia sections were much more widespread than they are today. Colin M (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Public figures guidance

In Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures, we link to the public figure article. Is it better to link to the Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual guidance and use that term instead, which seems to be more concrete and helpful? It's already used in a couple of other sections. The public figures section is linked to from WP:BLPCRIME as an exemption, but doesn't really make clear why public figures have exemptions (the low-profile page does). I'm also not sure about setting the scope of policies like BLPCRIME based on a changing mainspace article that has a verifiability maintenance tag... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC on MOS:DEADNAME and deceased trans people

There is currently an RfC to clarify WP's deadname policy for biographies of deceased individuals. Additional input is requested. 18:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Nav template question

Rachel Owen, an artist and lecturer, was the partner of musician Thom Yorke. Is there some reason she shouldn't be included under "Related articles" in the Thom Yorke navigation template? Genuine question, I have no idea - she seems to be unrelated to his career/notable works so maybe not appropriate? Popcornfud (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

See WP:SEEALSO - "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body". She should be linked in a 'Personal life' section or similar of the Yorke article, and not in 'see also' of Yorke's article and not in his navbox. GiantSnowman 20:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

GiantSnowman, thanks for the reply, but I'm not asking about "See also" sections. and not in his navbox OK, but why not? Popcornfud (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Because why not link every person he was interacted with on a personal and professional level? GiantSnowman 08:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Tweet as DOB

Does anybody mind if I run a RFC on the Tweet as DOB to try and get wider consensus, re: [[1]] It is seems on the surface to be storing up maintanence and verifiabilty problems for the future and seems to conflict with WP:SPS, a policy that is so particularly widely used for BLP's. scope_creep^Talk 08:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how you see it conflicting with WP:SPS? Colin M (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The link you provided cites the policy WP:ABOUTSELF, which would cover someone self-publishing their birthdate.—Bagumba (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

"today is my birthday" can be used, provided it's not an extraordinary claim. "Thanks for your birthday wishes" cannot be used as that can be posted anytime afterwards. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Vax card and BLPPRIVACY?

Should WP:BLPPRIVACY apply if someone posts their vaccination card on social media and it reveals their DOB? Is that equivalent to the public court records and such? This assumes the subject doesn't say something about it like "I got vaccinated on my birthday!" AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

If there's no question about the authenticity of the source and the information, then it shows that they are not overly concerned about the privacy of that information. I still prefer independent sources. --Hipal (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, in this case, it's indeed by the person (verified account) but the text overlayed on top of the date doesn't look like it blocks what was beyond it. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

If someone was trying to obscure the date, then I'd probably not use it. Definitely don't use it if it was the subject that obscured the date. --Hipal (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Self-published familial information: reliable source?

I would like some help interpreting WP:BLPSELFPUB, § "Using the subject as a self-published source". Specifically, I'm trying to determine if a social media post published by the verified account of the article's subject, which announced the birth of the the subject's child, would pass the second criterion, "it does not involve claims about third parties". The post

• is published on the subject's verified major social media account;
• is composed entirely of a photo of the child and a caption containing the child's full name; and
• fulfills all other criteria set by WP:BLPSELFPUB to be used as a source.

A loose interpretation of the social media post suggests the post makes no claims about the child, unless giving the name of the photographed individual is a claim. It could also be argued the post does not even claim the social media account holder is the child's parent, though I would argue the name and verified status of the account would heavily imply it.

Other than the post being self-published, the largest cause of my hesitancy to use it as a source is the fact the child's full name is used. If the source is deemed reliable, following WP:BLPNAME, I would certainly leave the child's name off the article, mentioning only the existence and gender of the child (i.e., using the term son or daughter).

I have not been able to find any other reliable sources for this information; despite the subject being relatively famous in his field, he receives surprisingly little media coverage in reliable sources, especially coverage of his personal life. The subject seems to not mind sharing this information, however, though his statements appear more frequently in sources I would deem less reliable. This social media post is the most reliable source of the information I can find, so the options are to include the information and citing this source or not including the information at all.
~ JDCAce | talk ~ 20:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

If there are no other reliable sources for this info, that's a definite WP:REDFLAG. I'm baffled as to why a subject's own child would not be considered a third party. Presumably the newborn did not themselves author the post on their parent's social media. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

As to whether an announcement of the birth of the child counts as a claim about that child, simply replace the child with any adult person, or indeed any child not related to the subject. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I certainly won't argue against your conclusion, since I myself don't know, but I don't believe your logic is sound. Yes, the child is obviously a third party. The way your sentence regarding that fact is worded seems to imply I was questioning its status as a third party, though I certainly didn't make or imply that statement. My question (or at least one of them) hangs not on the term third parties but on claims. I have not been able to find a definition for claims as it relates to WP:BLP, so I will rely on Merriam–Webster's closest definition: "2b: an assertion open to challenge". Could a person challenge the social media account's assertion this is the subject's child? Sure, but I wouldn't say it's a reasonable challenge, as there are multiple pieces of evidence supporting the assertion and (as far as I can tell) no evidence opposing it. While the single post I describe does not state the child is his, any reasonable person would be able to deduce the fact: a photo of the subject holding the child and stating fatherhood made leaving for extended periods difficult; a photo of the subject's wife holding the child, with caption wishing her a happy Mother's Day; the name attached to the announcement sharing the subject's last name. Speaking of, one could also challenge the assertion of the child's name, as I mentioned in my original question. That's a much more reasonable challenge, but is it reasonable enough to fail the criterion mentioned above? I don't have an answer, thus my original post.

I will consider, for a moment, your suggestion of hypothetically swapping the child for an adult. An adult can't really have a birth announcement, so what is a birth announcement, at its core? In my opinion, a birth announcement is essentially a statement saying "This person now exists." I'll drop the "now" to make it work for an adult. Is "this person exists" a claim? Is it an assertion open to challenge? I don't believe it is, at least not reasonably.

One final note: To clarify my statement that no other reliable sources contain the info, I should add there are reliable sources written before the child's birth which state the subject was expecting a child; there simply are no reliable sources (other than the possibly reliable source in question, of course) written after the birth which refer to the child having been born sometime in the past.
~ JDCAce | talk ~ 09:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

After more searching, I have now found a recently written reliable source that mentions the child. I would like to continue this discussion on an academic basis, however, since I believe there is information still to be uncovered which may help future editors. Who knows—perhaps this discussion could lead to a clarification of the criterion.
~ JDCAce | talk ~ 09:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Using non-neutral sources

It seems this policy does not say a word that the text must be based on neutral sources. Of course, any source with a criticism may be considered as non-neutral. However we can at least identify non-neutral sources by some criteria, e.g,:

• non-neutral, attack language
• coming from a political opponent.

What do you think about adding a requirement of neutral sources, in addition to the requirement of the neutrality of the article text? Lembit Staan (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Coatrack footnoting

I am asking because this year I had a really hard time enforcing WP:BLP in bios of members of current Polish hard conservative administration. Sure, they are not likable persons and (as most of politicians) they are reasonably stupid to speak blunders. It is not enough that their opponents are quick to make a good use of these blunders, they quite often resort to nefarious tricks to enhance these blunders and even outright misquote their enemies or quote them out of context.

And recently I run into a weird situation which I would describe as "coatrack footnoting." It goes as follows. Initial article text:

Jan Kowalski said that bla bla..

Coatracked text (insertion highlighted):

Jan Kowalski spoke publicly on Octember 2120. He said that bla bla..

Quite obviously, the sole purpose of the text "spoke publicly" is to "hang" an attack reference onto it. I don't quite see how WP:BLP can protect against this. Lembit Staan (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Am I understanding the second issue correctly, the statement in the wiki article is relative neutral/benign but rather than picking a relatively impartial source to support the claim, a source that contains information that would otherwise not be DUE or reliable for the claims in the source is used. Is that the concern? As a hypothetical example, the subject of a BLP, Mr Patel, contains a non-contentious fact (Patel lives in London) but an editor decides to source that fact to a source that contains a contentious/undue/blp violating claim. Something like [ref, quote="the victim claims Mr Patel assaulted her when she visited him at his home in London"]. To further expand the example, in one case the citation would contain the quote, in another it would simply point to say an article on the claims against Mr Patel. My personal feeling is if the claim is in an article footnote it is part of the article and all the BLP rules apply. If the claim in the wiki article is not contentious and can be readily sourced then it would be a kind of coatrack to point towards a source that obviously contains contentious BLP related claims which we would not include in the wiki article. So if a different article simply states Mr Patel lives in London we should use that source vs the one that contains contentious claims. That said, this is my opinion and I'm not sure which policies/guidelines etc would support it other than perhaps the guiding view that BLP articles should "do no harm"/we as editors should always err on the side of impartial coverage. Springee (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, your understanding is basically correct. And your concluding opinion concurs with mine. But I am afraid this will not help against wikilawyers, because when it comes to Wikipedians' opinions and interpretations, the only remedy is the full-blown procedure of dispute resolution, which is costly. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

That is an interesting point, and I like the name for the phenomenon. That said, I don't believe it is our duty, or even our right, as editors to decide what is or is not a neutral source. Our job is to ensure the article itself remains neutral. If the source is—by some definiton—biased, but the content taken from that source is unbiased (such as your example "Kowalski spoke publicly"), then I believe it should be allowed. In clearly egregious examples, which should be determined on a case-by-case basis, perhaps an editor could make the argument that the inclusion of "A hostile source" adds a non-neutral point of view to the article and is thus worthy of being removed.

I don't believe this should be codified as a rule in WP:BLP. There are already a few locations in the Wikipedia: namespace that covers this. Since BLPs are arguably more sensitive than any other type of article, perhaps we could add a reminder and a suggestion instead:

{{header simulation 2|Biased sources}} See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources and Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources

When sourcing an article, make an effort to determine the source's neutrality. A neutral source is not required as long as it satisfies the existing reliability and verifiability criteria in citing source. In fact, a biased source could be used to demonstrate an widely-held, reputable, and verifiable contrary opinion or stance. If a reasonable argument could be made that the inclusion of the source—not necessarily the information taken from the source—would introduce more bias than encyclopedic value, consider using a different source instead.

~ JDCAce | talk ~ 07:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

could make an argument that inclusion of "A hostile source" adds a non-neutral point of view - That's why I am suggesting something like this to be added into WP:BLP, especially as you said it is already somewhere. We have plenty of policies mentioned in WPBLP, because this issue is sensitive and I dont want to hire a wikilawyer to rummage through all our policies to find a footnote relevant to the issue.

The word "reliable" is used in this guideline 33 times! IMO the term "neutral" is just as important for BLP and deserves to be elaborated in this context for direct application in arguments. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Spelling of a BLP's name

If a living person spells their name one way, but media sources prefer a different spelling, which spelling takes priority – their own preference, or that of the (majority of the) media? I think on BLP grounds we ought to defer to the person's own preferences, but some other editors seem to think the media's preference should take priority. This is particularly an issue for people whose native names are in non-Latin scripts (such as Cyrillic or Chinese), and for which different transliterations exist. The motivating example – the Russian opposition politician who is called Alexei Navalny in the Western media, he actually spells his first name Alexey – as can be seen from his Twitter. There was recently a move discussion on his article's talk page about this. However, I think that move discussion got distracted a bit by the somewhat distinct issue that the Russian government's official system for transliterating Russian names into Latin script turns Алексей into Alexey not Alexei. That's not the issue I want to discuss here – I agree that Wikipedia is not bound to follow the Russian government's standards. But I do think that Wikipedia ought to respect the preferences of living persons with regards to how to spell their own names. (And he was a student at Yale University, so obviously he has had some experience with spelling his own name in the Latin alphabet.) Also, I want to discuss not just his case, but the general principle of whether we should follow the article subject's preferences or the media's in the spelling of their own name. Mr248 (talk) 00:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe Spelling of Shakespeare's name is relevant here? Not exactly a BLP, but we do not spell that name the way the subject commonly did. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

David Eppstein, I think there is a big difference between spelling the name of someone who has been dead for centuries, and spelling the name of someone who is alive today. I agree we don't have any particular obligation to respect the name spelling preferences of someone who lived centuries ago; but I do think we have some obligation to respect the name spelling preferences of a living person. Wikipedia owes a special respect to living persons whom it covers which it does not owe to those long dead. And, I think a person has a greater right to a say in what their name is today, than they do in what future generations may call them. Mr248 (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree Shakespeare is probably a bad example to discuss here. However, I want to point out your use of the term respect. I would argue it is not disrespectful to spell a person's translated foreign name different than however the person wants to be spelled, as long as it can reasonably still be pronounced the same way; the act is, at worst, neutral. That said, in Navalny's case, a quick web search seems to show Alexei and Alexey are used frequently. In the case when reliable sources disagree, we should err on the side of the person's preference. In a more general sense, I believe we should use whichever spelling is used in the majority of reliable sources, perhaps giving more weight to the higher-quality reliable sources. If there is a smaller but still significant number of reliable sources using an alternate spelling, while the other spelling should be used throughout the article, the alternate spelling could maybe be mentioned once in the article—for example, "Alexei Navalny (also spelled Alexey^[1])...". (Note: I'd hate to put it in the leading sentence, but I couldn't immediately think of a better place.) The subject of an article can be considered a self-published reliable source, so I would say a single such source should be sufficient to include the alternate spelling as I described above, but only as an alternate spelling, at least until the majority of reliable sources beginning spelling it the subject's way.

Use of "Undisclosed paid" template in BLPs

The template {{Undisclosed paid}} (also "upe") looks like this:

I saw this on a BLP recently and removed it and I don't see how you couldn't. If there's money changing hands, it's pretty strongly implied that the subject would very likely be the paying hand, and that's de facto an accusation. Even tho it's technically not article text, it's very much in the article for the reader to see, emphasized in fact. It's fine for companies, but for BLP you need stone solid proof if you're implying anything negative about the subject.

{{COI}} looks like this:

and gets the point across just as well and there's no implication of financial improprieties. The article will still need work maybe, but maybe it was just written by a friend, and there's no implication of wrongdoing on the subject's part.

I'm proposing to add an admonition to the {{Undisclosed paid}} documentation not to use it on a BLP, hoping there's no objection? Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I have no objection to using {{coi}} instead of {{undisclosed paid}}, but I would be careful about your admonishment's wording. I don't think that we should actively discourage its use, instead that we should note what its use may imply and how it may affect a BLP and its subject, and that we should offer {{coi}} as an alternative. As an aside, I just learned admonition and admonishment are both words and they mean exactly the same thing. ~ JDCAce | talk ~ 08:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we should admonish it either, I think we should forbid it. Like all rules, there's always "in special cases common sense exceptions may apply, ask for one if you need it". Herostratus (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Strong disagree with the admonition. If anything, the COI template implies more than the UPE one does, since it directly suggests a particular relationship. I do not believe that the UPE template implies that the subject is the (direct) payer - for many BLPs, the payer could be a publicist, press agency, things like that. We don't know if the subject said "make me a Wikipedia page" or if they just said "get me some publicity" and their agent hired someone to make a Wikipedia page on their behalf. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

"This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments". People don't seek out a for-hire writer, pay them a couple hundred dollars at least, and violate the TOS just to write an article about a random person to which they have no connection rather than doing it themselves. Our readers know this. Herostratus (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Bob McGrath and Loretta Long

Perhaps someone better able can figure this out. The articles Bob McGrath & Loretta Long seem to be giving confused info, on whether or not they're still on Sesame Street's tv series. GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Advice

Hello. A journalistic investigation was released about the huge amount of real estate in one of the persons. There is no confirmation of this official information. This person claimed that this was not her property. The source in which the journalistic investigation was published is not authoritative, but the information from this journalistic investigation was literally reprinted by several well-known and authoritative publications. Just reprinted it, without analyzing this information and evaluating it. Can we add this information by referring to these authoritative publications? Thanks! 2A00:1FA1:1DC:DAC8:43C:DDA4:6C58:398F (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Public records and DOB

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY, "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." A blanket statement like that made me wonder why not, and I had to go read through several archives just to get context. In WT:Biographies of living persons/Archive 39#re BLPPRIMARY, Staszek Lem went through the same puzzlement, and requested to add rationale, and there was support, but I believe it was not followed upon.

If a person holding a public office has the relevant details published by the relevant public authority for the sole purpose of public consumption, why should Wikipedia still be barred from using it? The Government of India publishes profiles of all the parliamentarians, which includes date of birth, qualifications, etc. If I wish to cite a date of birth, is this a non-acceptable primary public records source, or an acceptable secondary source that happens to be a public record? Jay ^(Talk) 18:50, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The parliamentarian profiles are not a primary source, and they should as a rule be considered reliable unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. What (it appears we are trying to avoid is doing the sort of research that we expect good secondary sources to do in reading these sorts of documents, but it's perfectly clear that the writers of these profiles did that research or used other sources for the same information. I agree that it would be good to have the rationale for this spelled out rather than make people have to figure out what a "public record" entails here, since anything published by a government is in some sense a public record. Mangoe (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Previously, the below was not a separate paragraph, and hence was a supplement to the "Do not use..." statements.

"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."

Later it was moved as the 2nd paragraph, and the "Do not use..." appeared like blanket statements for which exceptions are not allowed. I will be logically linking the 1st and 2nd paragraphs with a "However" and rephrase as below:

"However, 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. Also, public records that are secondary sources, are researched and vetted before being made available for public consumption, and can be used reliably. These are subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

Jay ^(Talk) 08:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the page based on the above. Did not modify the 1st paragraph dealing with the "Do not use". Jay ^(Talk) 05:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The phrase public records that are secondary sources seems vague. Is this meant to include government gazettes such as Hansard in the UK and the Congressional Record in the US? As far as I know they are meant for public consumption, but don't usually contain evaluation and/or analysis; they're usually just transcripts of debates, hearings, and so on. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It was like a summary of what Mangoe said above. It comes down to: Not all public records are primary sources. Not all public records that are not primary, may have been reviewed and analyzed. However, public records that are assumed to pass scrutiny can be considered reliable and used. Jay ^(Talk) 07:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the addition is it's completely vague as to what's meant, so giving some examples might help people understand what is meant by public records that are secondary sources. FDW777 (talk) 08:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted it for now. We need examples to discuss at the very least. Probably an RFC or a larger number of editors to make a change of this kind. The discussion linked above included a grand total of 3 editors, including one who gave a solid reason—likely one of many—why primary sources generally aren't acceptable. Woodroar (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The blanket "Do not use" has no consensus. It's rather silly and in disagreement with the rest of the policy. Public records are some of the most authorative statements about individuals. This prohibition should be removed and replaced subject to most of the same criteria as WP:BLPSELFPUB, that is:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
3. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Particulary for issues such as DOB, the primary source requires no interpretation and that should be the first guidance to use. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The problem with that is you get people thinking a particular public record must refer to a person we have an article on, as happened at Kate Osborne. Also the idea that we should use primary sources for DOB is in direct contravention of WP:BLPDOB which says 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. FDW777 (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly so. Perhaps the problem here is that people are unclear on what is meant by "public records", but the issue of connecting them with article subjects is a matter of research. Mangoe (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Well the problem with this is that when a public record is not a matter of research, like the marriage certificate of their child, and an editor says "no, that's a primary source public record and can't be used." Which is nonsense. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

People should not be writing articles about close family members in the first place. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is writing about a close family member. A celebrity with a disputed birthdate. His daughter got married. She posted her marriage certificate as an online image. It has the celebrities birthdate on it. A vital records lookup of the marriage certificate shows the state copy is the same biodata as the displayed copy. Current policy says that is unusable. That's stupid. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Data on marriage certificates etc. can be mis-recorded, or the person could give a false date. The main criterion for including personal identifying information is "widely published in reliable sources" for a reason: sources intended for wide public consumption are relatively easy to check and are more likely to publish corrections. If we're using data posted by random individuals online or buried in state databases, then an error that no one would previously have bothered to correct can become hugely magnified. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Public records are de-facto reliable, regardless of the very rare mistakes and false claims. You're exaggerating the 0.1% of mistakes to make a 100% exclusion on this project. No, I reject that, and there's no basis for it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wait, so if a person gets married/divorced/arrested/deposed and they don't announce it and reliable sources don't cover it, you'd be okay with citing that document because someone else says "it's okay, they're my kid"? What if the document isn't accurate or they flat-out lie? What if they don't want to release the information but they're legally obligated to file that document? Too bad, so sad, now we've got their full name, their date of birth, maybe their address, maybe more? It seems to me that the implications of using public documents runs counter to BLP and all of our core content policies. Woodroar (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of anyone being anyone's child if a public record document has a basic fact that basic fact should be accepted and usable as-is unless it requires interpretation (Original Research), no reasonable doubt to it's authenticity (it's verified to a public source, the source of the data in the document is an official source), and primary source documents aren't the basis for an entire article. Your what-if scenarios are hobgoblins to be dealt with on an individual basis. And yes, it is too bad. BLP is not SPOV, it's about faithful adherence to NPOV, OR, and V with abundant caution, not SPOV. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. Privacy of living people is a concern as well. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

DOB is not indiscriminate. In the USA it is not an invasion of privacy either. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Your opinions on the matter do not have consensus, especially when dealing with BLP information. --Hipal (talk) 21:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

My opinion is as valid as any other. There's no consensus otherwise either. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is. The policy is long-standing, just because someone comes along and disagrees with it doesn't remove the consensus. FDW777 (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf and FDW777: so if it's the vagueness and lack of examples for public records that are secondary sources, then is it fine to use the example I gave in the original post about the government website on the profiles of parliamentarians? That should provide context. Jay ^(Talk) 12:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Reworded as below. Jay ^(Talk) 15:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

"However, 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. Also, secondary-source public records that are assumed to have passed scrutiny, can be used reliably, such as government-compiled criminal offender information or parliamentarian profiles. These are subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies."

Woodroar, you have reverted this again. Your earlier concern was with examples, which I have provided. Let me know your objection now. Per WP:PGBOLD, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Instead, you should give a substantive reason for challenging it either in your edit summary or on the talk page. I had pinged the other users that had objections a month back, and put out the rephrased version for about two weeks. There were no objections, and per WP:TALKFIRST, I considered it fine for the change. Jay ^(Talk) 07:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the issues mentioned above have been addressed. The phrase "secondary-source public records that are assumed to have passed scrutiny" is still vague and I'm not sure your assumptions about scrutiny are correct. Have either of your cited examples gone through RSN? Is there a valid distinction between court records and "government-compiled criminal offender information"? Why would copying or summarizing a public record from one government source to another government source make it reliable? Do government employees fact-check all of these records? How do we know? To put it in RS terms, there's no author, no editor, no information about their "editorial process", and the "publisher" has been known to execute innocent people. As for "parliamentarian profiles", the linked Disclaimer says they get information from a variety of sources. Again, no author or editor that I could see. There's contact information for officials to update their records, but that also raises issues, like puffery. Looking at the broader picture, you cite two examples but your changes suggest that all sources of these types are reliable. Are all criminal justice systems the same? What about parliaments? I think most editors would agree that there's a spectrum of reliability between the governments of different nations—and even between different agencies in the same nation. But we'd be treating them all as reliable, provided that "someone" moves or summarizes one public document into another public document. Examples of mistaken inferences of public records were given above and these changes wouldn't address that—in fact, they'd open the floodgates to it. There are serious BLP implications here, not just from these specific sources, but from "secondary-source public records" in general. Woodroar (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

References

BLPCRIME

This is a mess of a policy. It asks Wikipedia editors to wait for a "conviction," where the vast majority of cases never go to trial. It is also in direct contradiction with WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which requires that we defer to reliable sources where an allegation has been made. Whether the allegation is merely one of immoral conduct or a crime, reliable source should be the primary determinant of what is included -- not the faux legal opinions of Wikipedia editors. I suggest we seriously consider revising this policy to conform with PUBLICFIGURE or eliminate it entirely. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I support a revision or rewrite. Convictions take years or sometimes decades in different legal systems. There is nothing encyclopedic with relying on legal processes to run its course. Jay ^(Talk) 18:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I really believe it should simply conform to PUBLICFIGURE. Not all crimes involve otherwise notable persons, but some crimes become notable in of themselves. It puts editors in an extraordinarily awkward position where, on the one hand, a crime is notable enough for inclusion, but on the other, we have this well-intentioned but completely misguided policy instructing them to "wait" on some sort of process to play out. In no other area of Wikipedia are we asked to rely on primary sources rather than reliable, secondary sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

If the fact finding process has not come to a conclusion, then there are no reliable secondary sources on the facts. Reliability is always relative to the subject, and with regards to crimes, there are no reliable sources on whether a crime was committed until after a conviction has been secured. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Any results directly generated by the judicial system would be a primary source, and thus inappropriate. The New York Times reporting on the matter would be a reliable secondary source. Please explain the thought process here a little better, Kyohyi, because I just don't follow. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, if you're suggesting that somehow the only reliable fact-finding process is one performed by police and prosecutors... Wow. Respectfully, this is a naive and untenable position. Indeed, results produced by police and prosecutors are often rife with errors and bias, as I'm sure you must know. We simply cannot assume that primary "judicial" determinations have to take precedence over what's reported in reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The fact finding process is the trial, yes the police and prosecutors are a part of that, but it's not until the conviction portion where guilt can be determined. Prior to conviction, any source opining on whether or not a person has committed a crime is not reliable for facts since the process which determines guilt in crimes has not finished. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

PUBLICFIGURE does not require material to be included just because RSes have reported it, that's a failing of the premise above. PUBLICFIGURE only states that we don't have to worry about the privacy of such individuals should such allegations come to light, compared to those that are not public figures. But that said, BLPCRIME does acknowledge that public people can be accused of crimes that are widely reported, but trials can go on forever or be settled out of court or be dismissed quietly. Whether to include those initial accusations is something that should be taken in light over the overall BLP policy (in general "do no harm") - even if it is something widely reported, is this having a long-term affect on a person? And that might take a few days to actually figure out. But assuming it does, we can include that material without waiting for a conviction, we just can't state in any factual way they were guilty of the crime. So there's zero conflict here in the policies; this is exactly keeping with the legal implications of BLP to avoid libel/slander. But key is that WP is not meant to document a laundry list of every negative facet about a person - we're supposed to summarize sources in broad strokes, and thus usually when an event like a potential criminal conviction or a sexual harassment allegation is raised we want to see how that comes down to write in those broad strokes rather than jump to be accusationial; that's part of being neutral, dispassionate, and impartial about BLP topics as required by policy. --Masem (t) 18:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with that interpretation of PUBLICFIGURE, which states:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

The notion that Wikipedia should subtly filter out negative information isn't consistent with policy. Rather, we should filter out non-notable information, and the rest -- positive or negative -- should be included.

Tell me, what does BLPCRIME add to these basic concerns? What is the point of asking editors to "wait" on a "conviction?" Not only is this language irrelevant to the vast majority of criminal cases, it asks editors to make legal conclusions on matters that are best left to reliable sources. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

BLPCRIME doesn't say we can't include mention of cases that yet to have achieved conviction; just that when the person is question is not a public figure, we don't include that. But it does say that if for a person is of public figure, and we are including material before a conviction has been made, we must presume innocent regardless of how the media play it. --Masem (t) 19:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

What does it mean to "presume innocent?" This is not a court of law. If BLPCRIME were merely a reminder to use objective, neutral language and be sure to describe allegations as just that, not fact, that would be fine.

Also, it is not true that we don't include crimes that don't involve notable people. Crimes in of themselves become notable vis-a-vis coverage in reliable secondary sources.

None of this has anything to do with "waiting for a conviction." It's just a confusing instruction, and out of touch with other policies. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

We absolutely are following the courts of law related to anything involve legally defined crimes. As Kyohyi has pointed out, the only authority on determining criminal conviction is the court of law and law authorities, not newspapers, and we must wait until that conviction has been given to actually claim a person is guilty. Otherwise we have to presume and write as if the person was innocent. That doesn't mean we can't talk about any charges placed on them, just that we don't assume they are guilty of them. Very straight forward. The only aspect about waiting for a conviction is when we can factually state if they were guilty, in the eyes of the court of law. --Masem (t) 20:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

the only authority on determining criminal conviction is the court of law and law authorities, not newspapers What on earth does this mean? Who is disputing this? Are you saying we can't describe allegations or accusations without implying guilt? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I think my point might be getting lost here. I am not arguing for the obviously incorrect point that we should call someone a "criminal" or claim they are "convicted" if they are not. That would fail WP:V along with any number of policies. I am saying that we should include criminal accusations as they are described in reliable, secondary sources, no more, no less. Reference to "judicial rulings," "convictions," pleas, jury verdicts, are not necessary except as through reliable, secondary sources. BLPCRIME as written is unnecessary. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

We can include them, but we should also consider the weight of them relative to the overall biography. Just because someone may be caught in an initial criminal accusation that is heavily covered (such as sexual harassment) doesn't necessarily mean that in the long term that it should be kept if that accusation doesn't pan out in any type of impact on the person's life or career. This is why BLPCRIME is necessary because we tend to have people that think we need to document these indents to the moment which typically assume guilt if we're documenting that detailed a level. This is trying to keep the line from simply spinning gossip on a non-story that has no impact. For example, lots of famous actors get in routine traffic crimes or the like and celebrity magazines will cover all those nitty gritty details, but that's not the type of thing we should be covering at all - unless of course they become notorous for those types of traffic violations. Similarly, if a person accuses a famous person of sexual harassment, that being covered by mainstream sources, but no one that has ties to the professional aspects of that accused person appears to take it seriously and the accusations go nowhere, we shouldn't be documenting them. That's why BLPCRIME is necessary to emphasis that we treat all BLP as innocent of any such allegations made to them, and thus should consider what content to include in that manner, which may include not including the material at all if its its only been reported but not been treated as a serious matter. We're supposed to take a lot more care around BLP and BLPCRIME is one of those needed to help guide editors around these types of matters. --Masem (t) 23:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Your elaborations are not reflected in BLPCRIME, and the fact that it requires so much defending and expansion in these explanations alone suggests revisions are in order, to my mind. A few more points:

• Inclusion should not be equated with guilt.
• Your statement If a person accuses a famous person of sexual harassment, that being covered by mainstream sources, but no one that has ties to the professional aspects of that accused person appears to take it seriously and the accusations go nowhere, we shouldn't be documenting them is flatly incorrect. If they are covered in reliable, mainstream sources, we must include them per PUBLICFIGURE.
• BLPCRIME is necessary to emphasis that we treat all BLP as innocent of any such allegations made to them This is obvious. What do you mean by "treat as innocent?" That we have to censor and whitewash accusations?

Particular guidance as to sourcing requirements and objective language are certainly advisable. None of that is provided in BLPCRIME, which makes a vague, confusing reference to "convictions." Do you agree that the policy could be revised to reflect these points more clearly? And is there anything specifically above that I wrote that you disagree with? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong that PUBLICFIGURE says "must include", it has nothing of the source requiring that inclusion. There is never a need to rush to include anything that may be widely reported but has yet to be known if it will have an impact on that person's life, as we are an encyclopedia and meant to summarize biographical details, not day-by-day events. (This applies across all topics but more critical to BLP). BLPCRIME is but just one way to make sure of that, that this is a serious aspect to consider and we should only be including such details when they have been verified by reliable sources and have been shown to have some type of long-term impact on a person's life, rather than just rushing to include just because they have been reported. You're missing the purpose of an encyclopedia if you are trying to include on-the-spot type inclusion before we really know how that should be incorporated and balanced with all other factors related to the person. --Masem (t) 01:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

NPOV/PUBLICFIGURE do require that we include weighty information, negative or positive. We are not here to evaluate the "impact on someone's personal life." Say the president of some unnamed country has an affair with a porn star and pays hush money to cover it up, and later claims election fraud. It becomes an international scandal. Are you saying we're here to protect their personal life? Is that what the purpose of Wikipedia is? To act as the personal publicist and caretaker of living persons?

No. The purpose of WP is to present such information responsibly. That means negative and positive information must always be reliably sourced and neutrally presented.

BLPCRIME does not serve those purposes, especially with regard to crime. First of all, most editors don't know what a "conviction" means. Furthermore, we do not actively evaluate legal proceedings for their level of importance. The touchstone of inclusion should always be reliable source coverage, and not vague, fluid, subjective standards. By arguing for more precision and specificity, I am actually arguing for something that should present stronger BLP standards. You are arguing that this should remain as a vague, fluid, and in my opinion poorly worded summary that asks editors to replace the weight in reliable sources with their own, possibly misconceived, opinions and analysis. Why is that necessary? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we want to present such information responsibly, which is not something that most newspapers and other mainstream sources have to worry about, nor are they worried about long-term coverage. That's why we are going to hold back on inclusion of material in BLP that we don't know if it is going to be "weighty information" that actually will be part of how a person's life would be summarized. Of course if a world leader gets caught up in a scandal like the one you described, we would include it, but only after there's been sufficient corroboration that sources agree that the scandal actually exists and not simply because one person, repeated in many sources, claims it exists. We do have a responsibility to be cautious of unsubstantiated claims even if published in RSes related to BLP, and make sure that there's wider agreement that the claims are being taken seriously and would impact the person. And this is also why we use legal standards in considering BLPCRIME and not typical reliable sources, because again, they do not have the responsibility we have. Most editors do know what a conviction is, because that's a well defined legal standard based on actions that are done by judges, and not what RSes claim. The media tends to paint people guilty before the law actually assigns guilt, and that's a key part of why BLPCRIME is necessary because we are sticking to the well-defined legal standards here. The approach you're suggesting would open the door for WP to have the same type of problems that the media constantly faces of defamation because they aren't careful with the standards here and often slip around that. Again, that doesn't mean we can't include when people have been accused of crimes but we have to consider several other factors at play, and the wording cannot at all imply guilt; this is often a problem in the media as they often presume guilt before the trial is even complete. --Masem (t) 06:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful replies. At the same time, it is a bit frustrating to repeatedly hear articulations of policies that render them unrecognizable. Of course, this does not mean unfamiliar -- I frequently hear these talking points applied selectively by editors with an agenda seeking to whitewash pages. I am not saying that's you, but these misconceptions are the weapons of choice for biased editors with an agenda, typically seeking to keep negative information out of the article of a favored politician. We will ultimately have to work this out with an RfC, perhaps. However, a few specific responses above.

which is not something that most newspapers and other mainstream sources have to worry about That is why we use high-quality sources rather than tabloids or poor quality sources.

That's why we are going to hold back on inclusion of material in BLP that we don't know if it is going to be "weighty information" that actually will be part of how a person's life would be summarized. Weight is determined purely by coverage in reliable sources, not by the subjective value assigned by individual editors. This objective standard--where followed--ensures neutrality and that no preferential treatment is applied. It is very dangerous to veer away from this.

Again, that doesn't mean we can't include when people have been accused of crimes but we have to consider several other factors at play, and the wording cannot at all imply guilt; This is a given. Let's move past the things we agree on.

The approach you're suggesting would open the door for WP to have the same type of problems that the media constantly faces of defamation because they aren't careful with the standards here and often slip around that. We don't have to worry about accusations of defamation, as long as high quality sources are utilized.

Of course if a world leader gets caught up in a scandal like the one you described, we would include it, but only after there's been sufficient corroboration that sources agree that the scandal actually exists and not simply because one person, repeated in many sources, claims it exists. This is disturbing to me, because it both misrepresents the meaning of substantial coverage and flouts PUBLICFIGURE, which explicitly notes we do not need to wait for allegations to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This is not a court of law.

Again, these are general discussions about BLP -- but clearly you have some views that are very different from what I've interpreted in the actual policy pages. That's allowed, of course. Nonetheless, I'd like to focus on the issues specific to NOTNEWS that I raised above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Very strongly oppose scrapping it. Also, it doesn't contradict PUBLICFIGURE at all: For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must ... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  Don't think it should be scrapped. But the reference to "convictions" is ludicrous. Policies should not require or suggest WP editors do legal analysis or look at primary sources, as opposed to deferring to reliable, secondary sources.

  BLPCRIME should be about:

  1) only using the highest quality sources for criminal charges

  2) avoiding inclusion of information not reported in high quality sources

  3) avoid using court documents or other primary sources

  4) neutral wording to not imply guilt

  None of this is served by the current policy.

  Wikieditor19920 (talk) 09:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  Not to sound condescending, but reading your messages it seems like you're just misunderstanding the purpose of BLPCRIME, which has nothing to do with high quality sources. You can disagree with that purpose, but it would help to first understand why others value the policy before writing verbose arguments as to why it's a bad policy. Editors aren't required to do legal analysis or look at primary sources. You can (and should) look at a secondary source reporting that the Crown Court has convicted XYZ of (for example) rape. BLPCRIME simply says that an allegation that someone has committed rape is not the same as a conviction. Disseminating unconfirmed allegations is harmful to any person, but the line is drawn for private persons. High quality sources are irrelevant because they generally don't judge the evidence, nor do they have access to all of it. They might summarise what the charges are, but even the Daily Mail probably doesn't lie about a court proceeding about XYZ existing. So again, high quality sources are completely irrelevant. The entire purpose of BLPCRIME is to exclude information even when it's reported in high quality sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

  @ProcrastinatingReader: If my answers are "verbose," it's only because there's a lot to unpack in what I'm replying to. Trying my best here. And not to worry, you don't sound condescending. Frankly, you sound like you haven't read or understood what I've written.

  To repeat: BLPCRIME simply says that an allegation that someone has committed rape is not the same as a conviction. Why on earth would we need a separate policy to remind users of this? High quality sources are not irrelevant; they are the crux of what we build an article on. An accusation leveled in court by a witness or police officer is no more reliable than anything else. If the New York Times reports an allegation, at least we'll be relying on a proper secondary source.

  And high quality sources are "irrelevant," are you saying we cannot discuss pending charges in an article, absent a "conviction?" What about a conviction of one party to a crime, but not the others? Do you consider a plea deal a conviction? Excluding information that's contained in high quality sources because the matter happens to involve the legal system is a concept pulled out of thin air and totally inconsonant with the rest of how we handle content on Wikipedia. The fact that an editor could interpret BLPCRIME in this manner is exactly why the policy needs to be reworked. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would also be opposed to getting rid of an important policy such as WP:BLPCRIME. The policy also explicitly says that it does not conflict with WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and so I am not sure how that concern is relevant at all. It seems like the primary concern being expressed is that determining when to include criminal accusations and even sometimes convictions is difficult, which is always going to be the case when dealing with one of the most serious areas involving WP:BLP concerns. However, without specific suggestions for improvement of the policy, I'm not sure there is going to be a lot of value in the discussion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• I certainly oppose getting rid of WP:BLPCRIME and no actionable proposals for changes have been made. This is about low profile people, not public figures. The initial observation that "vast majority of cases never go to trial" is of no value here because the majority of these cases result in a guilty plea to a lesser charge or with an agreement for a lesser sentence. Those cases result in a criminal conviction just as much as a jury trial, in the United States as well as most other countries that I know about. If charges are dropped, the matter does not belong in the article. This policy language is needed because indignant inexperienced editors frequently try to add salacious allegations to biographies of low profile people, and there needs to be policy language that makes it clear that this is inappropriate. Perhaps there can be some adjustments to the language to improve clarity. If so, propose the changes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think we should remove it, but it needs rewording: "must seriously consider" is practically an oxymoron in a policy document. Must implies a specific course of action seriously consider is vague and ill-defined. What must we consider when making that decision? inserting "Must not name them until their name has been published by an official source, such as a state prosecutor or police force.. and seriously consider not including.." would be one way to end that sentence. i.e. 'reports in the media' are insufficient. Also, the policy doesn't make it clear what suggesting that they are accused of committing the crime means. can you state that a person has been arrested, linked, or is 'wanted' in connection with a crime, or otherwise imply that they are linked to the crime (without saying they are accused?) All subject to WP:Verifiable of course. JeffUK (talk) 12:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPEDU?

I just removed a privacy violation from Ludwig Ahgren, that violation being a PDF of a list of students who graduated Arizona State University with him, which includes himself. I replaced the PDF with a less concerning source, a Looper article. Because of PDFs like the one I just mentioned, I believe that there should be a guideline pertaining to education privacy, two of the shortcuts I will call WP:BLPEDUCATION and WP:BLPEDU. Let me know your opinions. Thank you all in advance for your inputs. L33tm4n (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That ASU posted the graduation pamphlet to its website would not make it a privacy violation to use it as a reference, much in the same manner that we absolutely use sources that name people that would would not name under BLPCRIME or the like. It would be inappropriate to recreate that list in full here. It would be inappropriate if the pamphlet was not made public by the school and we were dealing with a scanned image provided by an attendee from their own personal website. --Masem (t) 15:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: Thank you for your input.

Not only is this about Ahgren, I also wanted to talk about minors and their education statuses. I couldn't find any guidelines pertaining to a minor's education status. If there are any, let me know. Thanks. L33tm4n (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Non-notable minors (including children of notable people, since notability is not inherited) we generally avoid naming or identifying in any capability unless it is clearly shown relevant to the BLP involved. I could have sworn there was something about this specifically at WP:BLP but I don't see it, outside of what BLPPRIVACY states. But that doesn't mean that sources that identify minors by name or other details can't be used if they are otherwise reliable, for the same reasons above. --Masem (t) 02:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Masem, maybe you were thinking of the guidance from Template:Infobox person, which says "only list names of independently notable or particularly relevant children" and "For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of living children, unless notable"? I don't think there is anything specific regarding the main body, as many articles contain the names and birth dates of the children of notable people, such as politicians and celebrities. Policies like WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:BLPPRIVACY, and WP:BLPNAME are helpful in many situations to at least limit the amount of information, such as only including the first name and year of birth for children and others who are not notable but have been mentioned in some sources. Regarding the original question, I'm not sure what "education privacy" means, but people graduating from Arizona State University are not going to be minors. BLPPRIMARY says to "exercise extreme caution in using primary sources", and BLPPRIVACY is clear that full names would have to be widely published to be included in an article. For what type of external links can be used in an article, Wikipedia:External links is not very specific, but I think that type of link could be argued to violate "the spirit of WP:BLP". However, those types of discussions are probably better done on case-by-case basis, with the understanding that there is a strong presumption in favor of privacy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

​@Wallyfromdilbert: Thank you. One, I meant to say where a minor is being educated, not their education status; and two, I never said people graduating from ASU were going to be minors, I just said that we should also take the location of a minor's education into consideration, as they would most likely want it private. L33tm4n (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPSTYLE - Actions vs beliefs or identity

• WP:VPP § WP:BLPSTYLE - Actions vs beliefs or identity

A proposal related to this policy page is being discussed at VPP, input welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 11:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion for WP:COPSEP

See this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

BLPs and image sourcing

I wrote an opinion piece in the Signpost on the recent Nathaniel White legal case: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-10-31/Opinion

This involved a police photograph of a living person being used for several years as the lead image in the WP article on a serial killer of the same name.

There are obvious BLP and image sourcing implications, and it would be great to see some discussion about how to address them, and how to minimise the chances of similar cases arising in the future. Thanks, --Andreas JN466 19:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I would think that if we cannot readily collaborate the person identified in an image by other images of that person (read: this is the only image of that person that can be found at this time), then we should expect that the source of that image should be a BLP-qualifying RS so that we know they are (to the best of their ability) affirming the validity of that person. (This would be different if, for example, I went to Flickr and found a random CC-BY of Michael Jordan by an unknown (and pretty much assured its not flickrwashing), as I can readily compare that picture to other photos of Jordan to verify). Or as a more broader rule, for people who we do not identify as public figures (WP:PUBLICFIGURE) that any image should have this type of RS source confirmation, since someone who is a public figure is expected to have good visibility and already likely to have been photographed. --Masem (t) 00:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

For starters, we should require that all mugshots be sourced to reliable sources. Scraping mugshots from Murderpedia and tabloids should not be acceptable. It's amazing that there haven't been more cases like Nathaniel White's given our lax standards. Nosferattus (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the following sentence: Mugshots, when used in articles, must be sourced to reliable sources. Nosferattus (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It is a good step, but I think we can make it a bit stronger, as it isn't so much mugshots (even though I agree they are a significant issue) but potentially any photo of a person charged or convicted of a major crime. - Bilby (talk) 06:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a good step, and glad to see we're making headway. Can we put some thought into distinguishing the types of sources we consider reliable enough for this purpose, i.e. sources that we consider to have a sufficient "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", from more questionable sources that might cause us and the people depicted a problem? --Andreas JN466 13:32, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Diff. What do you think? --Andreas JN466 16:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this was the intention, but this seems to have the effect of weakening the previous wording, in the sense that it only requires RS sourcing for mugshots if they're "used to imply that the person depicted was charged with or convicted of a specific crime". Colin M (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean, though I'm not sure what problematic cases there might be that would not involve tying the person depicted to an instance of being charged or convicted of a crime. I really just meant it to get people thinking about what they are doing, and act responsibly.

Separate issue: I wonder whether we should explicitly deprecate true crime sources, as they're by definition sensationalist. Thoughts? --Andreas JN466 19:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

[2] "Any police photograph used to imply that the person depicted was charged with or convicted of a specific crime must be sourced to a top-quality reliable source with a widely acknowledged reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that links the relevant image to the specific incident or crime in question." Does that work? --Andreas JN466 21:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Has there ever been such a thing as a non-top-quality reliable source? By definition, if the reliable source is enough not-top-quality to matter, it's not a reliable source at all. So the phrase has no meaning, and all references to "top-quality" reliable sources should be purged from Wikipedia. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of generally reliable sites have a poor track record when it comes to claims about living persons. Take a look through WP:RSP and you'll see that many entries have specific notes about BLP content. In addition, reliability is contextual. Additionally, you can have experts that are absolutely reliable in their area of expertise—whether it's model railroads or plant genetics or astrophysics—that simply aren't qualified to talk about mugshots. Woodroar (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I would just call that scenario "reliable for railroads but not for mugshots".

If "not top quality relaible source" actually means "reliable for some purposes but not others", we would be saying "well, mugshots need top quality reliable sources, but some other things only need low quality reliable sources". I have never seen anyone on Wikipedia even claim that a low quality reliable source exists, let alone that there's anything that it's okay to use one for. "Top quality", when there is no such thing as low quality, is marketing-speak and has no place in Wikipedia. Ken Arromdee (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

There are definitely different levels of quality of sources particularly when it comes to BLP. Sources like BBC and NYTimes are far better quality sources to use for BLP compared to something like TMZ or People magazine (both which are still RSes), for example, particularly if the material is controversial. And if we are using a mugshot which the only claim to identity is from TMZ, I would raise several questions if that was truthful or not. --Masem (t) 17:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It's probably wrong to assume that a small tweak to policy will prevent situations like this. The broader issue appears to have been the simple lack of any real editorial oversight at all, and that affects everything. Even after this BLP was lit up, still nobody has even noticed the DOB isn't even sourced. Policy says that should be removed immediately. Mackabrillion (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely (and well spotted with the date ). There must be thousands of police photographs on Wikipedia ... a substantial proportion of them will be as poorly sourced as this one was. Who will check them all? Even if this policy change sticks, many people will carry on as before. Lasting and pervasive change of practices will take years. (That can happen though ... the other day, I looked at BLP edits from 2008 ... things have moved on a bit.) Cheers, --Andreas JN466 19:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

What this change would help is that if someone comes along to a page using a mugshot, and sees the mugshot seems improperly sourced, then there would be a reason to submit it for a FFD review or similar. Alternatively, if there's a strong concern that a high percentage of these shots are poorly sourced, then we can have a drive to review them one by one. But WP by design reviews content reactively, not proactively. We always fighting after the fact from poor additions. --Masem (t) 17:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

BLP1E change

In looking at BLP1E, some of the wording strikes me as problematic when comparing it to policy at WP:CRYSTAL (and the relevant essay WP:TOOSOON). It seems to me that the words "likely to remain" a low profile individual are often used at AFD to make people prove that the person won't be notable in the future. I often find such arguments impossible to make because we are essentially arguing about the future. Isn't this essentially encoding a predictive element into the guideline in violation of CRYSTAL and TOOSOON? Keeping a low profile person who is likely to become high profile in the future doesn't seem like a good policy in light of the fact that the world is unpredictable. I would think that it would be better to just make BLP1E people wait until a second notable event actually happens with sources proving it in order to have an article on wikipedia. I mean anything can happen. People with promise suddenly disappear for all sorts of reasons (illness, death, personal tragedy, world events, etc.). There's nothing wrong with making people wait to have an article until they truly are notable for more than one event. I am starting this discussion to get a feeling for other's opinions. If there is a consensus that a change is needed, then maybe the next step would be an RFC.4meter4 (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and would support removing the words "and is likely to remain" from WP:BLP1E. It would be inappropriate for us to claim that BLP1E doesn't apply to someone who remains a low-profile individual, based only on speculation that they might not be one in the future. Particularly given how low-profile individual is explained, there is absolutely no way for us to know whether or not it will apply in the future.--Trystan (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

4meter4, this seems like an obvious and (famous last words) uncontroversial change. Go ahead with an RfC at WP:VPP. Fences&Windows 12:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Date of birth/death in short descriptions

I don't see any advice about short descriptions on this page, so asking here.

I sometimes see the dates of birth and/or death in short descriptions — for example, Irish musician (1920—1980) or Japanese politician (born 1962). As a general rule I think these aren't useful enough to extend the shortdesc (short descriptions should be short), but I see them enough that it makes me wonder if I missed some RFC or style guide point somewhere. Did I? Popcornfud (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion for including dates where useful as disambiguation appears to have been added to Wikipedia:Short description#Inclusion of dates in December 2020 in this edit, with a discussion in Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 8#Dates in short description. The discussion there focused on using dates as disambiguators, and leaned against including them as a general rule in other cases. Nevertheless, the added language stating that the use of dates "is encouraged where it would improve the short description ... generally that is the case at least for biographies" has since been interpreted by some as a general license for adding dates to all short descriptions; see for instance a recent discussion at Talk:Ian Munro (computer scientist). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree with the logic that this can help with disambiguation, but otherwise isn't a useful addition as a general rule. Popcornfud (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Heads of state & government

Hello. @Hassanjalloh1: has been adding presidential & prime ministerial seals & flags, underneath the infoboxes of current world leaders. I don't believe there's a consensus for these additions. What say ya'll? GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

"I don't believe" simply based off your own opinion. What makes you think your own opinion or view is superior? Can you wait and see how many people undo my edits then you can easily have a reasonable basis. So far you are the only person doing this. So just stop! Don't use your own personal opinion to undo each of my edits. It's completely silly.Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 16:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

If any editor reverts you, then you should probably stop and discuss. You mentioned that "It's really necessary for mobile users and especially for those with reading disability" but guidelines like MOS:FLAG say otherwise. Like it or not, most people don't know every flag or seal at a glance and many readers can't see at all. Per our guidelines, we should be using words, not flags to convey meaning. That's especially true in infoboxes, which are supposed to include important text and maybe an expected image. Woodroar (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Is "race" an appropriate field in a template?

Just found it in Template:Infobox FBI Ten Most Wanted. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Good question. Here's an example of the bulletin the FBI puts out. [3] (PDF) Perhaps these fields were selected to mirror the ones used by the FBI? That might be a reason, but it might not be a good reason. Jehochman ^Talk 16:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the obvious problems with this, I'd have to say that no, it isn't appropriate. Just as an example, see José Manuel García Guevara, which gives 'race' as 'Hispanic' in the infobox. Even back in the days when 'race' was supposed to actually mean something objective, 'Hispanic' wasn't regarded as a 'race'. Given context, it can mean one of several things, but none of them correspond to 'race'. And needless to say, it is unsourced... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Where we say 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 we should clarify that if a person becomes notorious (reported in multiple reliable sources for being accused of a crime), that is an exception. In effect, a person can become a public figure by virtue of being accused of a high-profile crime. At that point, Wikipedia will name the accused because keeping this information out of Wikipedia does nothing to protect the subject. The world already knows they have been accused, and we look incomplete for failing to report facts widely reported in reliable sources. Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you want to take part in the RfC just above this section? ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Not yet. I don't think the question is framed correctly. Maybe we should discuss it a little first and see what people think and what the points of contention are before we write a survey question. Jehochman ^Talk 19:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The clarification you are seeking is provided in an explanatory supplement called WP:LOWPROFILE. TLDR: no, being accused of a crime, and having that widely reported, does not make someone "high profile" or "public figure" within the meaning of WP:BLP. The sine qua non of BLP-public-figure is that the living person seeks the public attention. A person who is in the public eye but not through their own choosing is a non-public figure, or a low-profile individual, as defined by BLP policy. You're also misreading BLPCRIME which does not say to omit facts widely reported in reliable sources, but rather to give serious consideration to omitting them. We should always give serious consideration to this issue; that's why there are no exceptions. Levivich 16:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

What does "give serious consideration" mean? How is it helpful to tell people to argue loudly about it and then flip a coin? When do we make an exception and when do we not, after giving serious consideration? I think the issue is whether the coverage rises to a level that the person becomes notorious. Here's an example where we named the two notorious suspects [4]. It will help prevent disputes to provide a criteria in the policy rather than to tell editors to go give it "serious consideration." Jehochman ^Talk 19:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"Serious consideration" reinforces not only whether there is some kind of presentation, but the required careful treatment and circumspection in which it might be done, reinforcing the purpose of this policy and the encyclopedic long view, despite any passions of the moment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Flipping a coin would be the opposite of serious consideration. We don't "make an exception" because there is no rule. We would make a decision, on a case-by-case basis, whether to include or omit the content, after giving it serious consideration. Levivich 19:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we should provide something more specific than “serious consideration.” Maybe a link to WP:LOWPROFILE with advice that such serious consideration should focus on whether the subject remains low profile, or whether they have become infamous. Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Jehochman, I think you need to work on the "reported" language. A "report" is very ambiguous in terms of what kind of a source it is. "Report" includes the most primary of primary sources, including the minutes of an association meeting, which just happen to be accessible only and prone to be used, poorly. Even in newspapers, there is a lot of primary source content that should not be used by Wikipedia. "Newspaper articles" are already ambiguous, and are commonly split into "newspaper reports" (primary source material) and "newspaper stories" (secondary source material). I read your use of "report" as leaving a door open for pretty bad unintended misuse of your language. I recommend GNG-style language, multiple, reliably published, secondary sources that discuss the topic (the "criminal") directly. Meeting minutes, court records, newspaper snippets that happen to name the person in passing, all of these should be excluded as evidence that the person is a public person. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, thank you. That’s a good suggestion. I will try to propose specific wording. Jehochman ^Talk 23:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think the threshold should be official indictment, not accusation by the press. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
• I don't think "serious consideration" is confusing, and suggesting that it is similar to "flipping a coin" seems disingenuous. Of course there will be disputes about contentious material such as accusations of criminal conduct, but extensive discussion to form consensus is an important part of resolving difficult issues here. I think Levivich and Alanscottwalker have left particularly useful comments above. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• "Serious consideration" is about as open to personal interpretation as it gets. Something more objective would be better. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Applying BLP:Crime to deceased persons

I know this is about living persons, but it seems unfair to me that living persons get afforded the benefit of having accusations against them treated as not conclusive enough (on their own) to label them as criminals, yet deceased alleged criminals (some school shooters for instance) are treated not only as having committed or perpetrated what they’re accused of but also as criminals. Double standard?

All human rights and duties are fundamentally inapplicable to the dead, since they lack even basic human needs and skills. A corpse doesn't mind strangers assuming it's guilty any more than it minds being kept unattended in an underground box for centuries (among other common post-mortem practices for which an actual person could easily sue). It doesn't stand to lose friends, job opportunities or any feeling of social acceptance. This is not Wikipedia's problem to solve. Such inequality has existed in humanity for millions of years, and among other species for billions. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Allowing for the possibility that souls retain personalities after life and watch their survivors from a sort of spirit realm, yes, it would suck to be the ethereal remnant of a school shooter (for instance) trying in vain to convince people you were insane, or under duress, or acting in self-defense or whatever the strange case may be. But there's just no documented precedent for justifiable homicide ghosts. So Wikipedia naturally tends to accept Death as the complete cessation and forfeiture medical authorities agree it seems to be. If (as some say) guilty spectres are punished by an omnipotent omniscient judge, and the innocent are given everlasting bliss, that's even better! They wouldn't think twice about mere earthly presumptions, or may even forgive us. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion: including names of deceased victims

For any who have interest, there is an active discussion at Talk:Oxford High School shooting#Names of victims regarding a mass shooting article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposed clarification related to crime

In WP:BLPCRIME should we make the following change?

• V0: 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

to:

• V1: individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must not include material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured or the individual has become notorious due to high-profile coverage in multiple secondary sources.

Specific guidance is more useful than "serious consideration," which is a nose of wax. Jehochman ^Talk 12:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

• I do not think this suggested change is helpful, and I think a vague term like "notorious" is far less useful than "seriously consider", especially as reason-based discussion to reach consensus on contentious issues is a fundamental aspect of editing on Wikipedia. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• The suggested change would be creating a new rule, changing "must seriously consider" to "must not". I oppose anything that inflexible. I also question what problem we are solving here and if there is any evidence that anyone is confused about "seriously consider" or that there is any other problem with the current language. Levivich 13:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

How about this, then?

• V2: individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must not include material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured, or the person has been covered in multiple, reliable, secondary sources.

Is that better? The phrase "must seriously consider not including" is quite long winded. Is there any way to make that more concise? Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this policy should provide guidance on when to include criminal accusations against a non-public figure. The convoluted current wording doesn’t do so, it just says to consider not mentioning it, and is often misinterpreted.

I like the proposed version. The only change I would make is to require the accusation, rather than just the person, to be widely covered in multiple reliable sources.--Trystan (talk) 14:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• It needs to be more than just an accusation. At a minimum, an official indictment should be the threshold. Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• V3: individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must not include material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured, or multiple, reliable, secondary sources have reported an official indictment.

What do you think about the above formulation? Does this provide a sound framework for making decisions? Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Levivich that there appears to be no problem or actual confusion with the current policy. I don't see how anyone can legitimately argue that "seriously consider" is "convoluted" language. It appears these are simply suggestions to weaken the BLPCRIME policy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • These appear to be suggestions to strengthen BLPCRIME, not weaken it. The key point is the current wording of must seriously consider not including material always leaves it open to undermining by editors who say "ah, well it doesn't say you can't include it". The change to editors must not include material would prevent that occurring. Whether that's a positive or a negative is another thing, but it most definitely does not weaken BLPCRIME. FDW777 (talk) 20:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    • You are apparently only taking into consideration the change to the first half of the sentence, as every proposal here would add language that would allow criminal accusations to be included merely if there is more than one reliable source while removing the requirement that editors seriously consider not including the accusations. That would be a substantial weakening of the current policy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Right, the proposal isn't must not include, it's must not include...unless... which will be read as "ok to include if...". Levivich 21:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
• The current wording is broken by its "or is accused of having committed" clause, since in practice, Nearly every new crime article with a press-named suspect has a Suspect section and infobox field, which are naturally filled before the trials even start; waiting for a conviction is neither a must nor seriously considered. V3 would allow indictments to act as convictions and V1 or V2 would be worse still, allowing us to suggest anybody awaiting trial in the big-time news is guilty. I suggest just removing the faulty clause. It would reflect reality, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see how that would make a difference, since reporting an accusation surely suggests that a non-public person has committed a crime. So the universal application of the third sentence of BLPCRIME continues to be "consider not adding it, then invariably go ahead and add it anyway." The first two sentences of BLPCRIME prevent us from stating that any person, public figure or not, is guilty prior to a conviction. The third sentence, as I read it, is intended to cover the cases where we wouldn't even mention an accusation in connection with a named non-public figure, but doesn't seem to reflect any current practice.--Trystan (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    • The issue is that requiring a conviction is too strong. If a person is indicted for a crime, and this is widely reporting in secondary sources, it becomes awkward for Wikipedia to ignore such obvious information. Consider the case of Fotis Dulos as an example. He was a low-profile person, but became high-profile as a result of suspicion and indictment. This is a hard question, where to draw the boundary. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
    • If "suggests" is too vague, "indicates", "signifies" or "says" could work. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Looking through the articles from that category page, most do not seem to name suspects who have not been convicted. Going through January and February, most of the articles are about serious, large-scale events, such as massacres or riots, and do not contain a "suspect" section at all or only have a "perpetrator" category that mentions "soldiers" from different countries without providing any names. I'm not sure that incorrect claims about "current practice" are helpful. In my experience working on biographies and at BLPN, the far more common practice is to not include names of non-public figures who have been accused of a crime except for in exceptional circumstances. I would not support the suggestion to weaken BLPCRIME by allowing any accusations of criminal conduct to be included about anyone as long as they are merely reliably sourced. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    • You seem to be talking about the ones without a press-named suspect or suspects. That's certainly common in third-world warzones. Much more immediate identification elsewhere, especially in the Five Eyes states. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• V4: individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed a crime unless a conviction has been secured

  V4 has been suggested by InedibleHulk. Please correct it if I misunderstood your suggestion. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good, thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I would definitely oppose weakening BLPCRIME to allow for any accusation of criminal conduct against a non-public figure to be included merely if it is reliably sourced. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• There is a huge difference between suspicion, an arrest, and an indictment. The first is essentially rumor mongering, and should not be covered. The second is an unofficial accusation, and so we should avoid covering it. An Indictment, on the other hand, is an official accusation, and to my mind it is where we cross the line into being something we should mention in an article. That said, I would put the standard for inclusion in an INFOBOX at conviction. Blueboar (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Still kinda missing the point of BLPCRIME. As I said above, the issue isn't that indictments aren't reported by multiple RS, they are. The issue is, as WP:BLPCRIME says, Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. That the government has decided to push for charges doesn't mean that much more than the arrest; I suppose it might mean the government is confident they can secure a conviction, but obviously criminal cases aren't always decided in the favour of the government. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I would also add to this that there is an implicit human nature factor that we as a whole like to point out and focus on negatives particularly of people that don't fit into standard society; the media does this, and its very easy as WP editors to do this. This is where BLP + NPOV step in and remind us that we need to be impartial and dispassionate in our tone and coverage. Just because the media may have latched onto allegations and/or arrests and pre-emptively "judged" a person guilty, we have to work against that human nature to try to write as factually about it and avoid the same furor that the media might have. BLPCRIME is a specific step in that direction where we have to rein in the media's take to one that is more appropriate for an encyclopedia. And often for those that were non-notable, non-public figures before an event, until a conviction is had, these allegations and arrests are typically not appropriate to include. --Masem (t) 13:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I do understand what you are saying, yet being indicted for a crime is a significant thing in any person’s life, and I don’t think it appropriate to simply ignore it. We obviously need to phrase things in a way that avoids any implication that the article’s subject is guilty of the charges (unless convicted), but to not even mention the indictment seems UNDUE to me. Blueboar (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• What about more of a two pronged approach, separating the standards for suggestions that a person has committed a crime from suggestions that a person has been accused of a crime? Something like, "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must not include material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured; additionally, editors must seriously consider not including material that suggests the person is accused of having committed a crime unless multiple, reliable, secondary sources have reported an official indictment." This two pronged approach would not allow editors to even suggest that a person is guilty without a conviction and would ensure that any accusations mentioned have to have multiple reliable sources have reported on the official indictment.JMM12345 (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)JMM12345
  • This suggestion guts the current BLPCRIME policy the same as the other suggestions by allowing any accusation of a crime merely if there is more than one reliable source reporting on an indictment. Multiple reliable sources are already required for any type of allegation or incident against living public figures (WP:PUBLICFIGURE). Applying such a lower standard for non-public figures would make BLPCRIME virtually meaningless. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    • The problem is that BLPCRIME is currently meaningless, as long as the guidance has the “seriously consider” loophole. It gives the appearance of protecting the rights of BLP subjects who are accused of wrong doing, without actually doing so. Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Exactly. "Must seriously consider" means nothing in practice. What must be seriously considered? What are the specific criteria to give serious consideration to? What is an example of an accusation that we would include, and one that we would not include? Where is the boundary? How do we identify that line? Jehochman ^Talk 13:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
        • There is a big difference between a guideline that does not provide an exact boundary and a "meaningless" guideline. "Seriously consider" means there is a very high bar for including accusations of criminal conduct against non-public figures, and that is how it has been applied in hundreds of discussions on BLPN and various articles. Discussion being needed to reach specific determinations does not make a policy "meaningless" or else most policies and guidelines would be meaningless. Changing a policy to provide no higher of a standard than general sourcing policies already require would, however, make the policy meaningless. None of the suggestions here clarify the policy at all; they instead substantially weaken it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
          • Reviewing the history of articles in 2021 crimes in the United States by month (excluding the Capitol attack subcategory), we have, by my count, 18 that named suspects/accused based on police identification, arrest, or charge. (That includes 8 that named very recently deceased individuals; BLP applies for some time after death, particularly “in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime”.) There are 5 articles on crimes where no suspect has been identified by authorities, 1 where the minor accused were not named by authorities, and 1 that discusses a group as a whole without naming the individuals involved. I don’t see any articles where we have relied on BLP:CRIME to avoid naming a suspect when there is available sourcing to do so.--Trystan (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• Question: Does this relate to a) naming the suspects in articles about notable crimes (a BLP1E situation)… or b) mentioning recent criminal accusations in existing BLPs?

  My comments have been focused on the latter… if we have an article on (say) a notable academic, and that academic has recently been accused of murdering his wife, surely we would not just ignore the accusation in his bio article? Blueboar (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

BLPCRIME - an example for discussion

Ok… let’s take a look at a recent (actually current) example… our article on the Oxford High School shooting, which names the young man who is accused of the shooting. Was any “serious consideration” given to NOT naming this young man (especially given that he is a minor - a class that we are usually very protective of)? He certainly wasn’t a “public figure” (does the shooting make him one?), so it appears that the policy was simply ignored. I am curious as to why? Note: I don’t want to edit the article. I am just curious to know how the thinking on this goes from a policy perspective. Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I like the idea of Wikipedia including an official indictment when it is reported widely. We should not include trivia. We should not include speculation. Jehochman ^Talk 00:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I think allegedly shooting up a public school makes a kid who'll be tried as an adult a public figure. His name is verifiable, per V, and choosing to ignore that widely-reported and key Who of the story would violate NPOV (and irk most traditional storytellers). If history's any indication, the regulars will again seriously consider not suggesting he committed murder, assault or terrorism until the charges are proven in court. Some readers will nonetheless infer such guilt early. This, as far as I know, cannot be prevented through careful wording, prudent decategorization or any other edits. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Whether to name the suspect was discussed on the talk page, and as this is one of the most high-profile shootings in the United States, it was quickly noted that the suspect was being widely named in mainstream news. The suspect had not been named in the article until that widespread news coverage had occurred, which is how BLPCRIME generally operates in these types of cases. There has been significant "serious discussion" throughout Wikipedia about whether and when to name suspects in these types of high-profile cases that are widely covered in the news by hundreds of high-quality reliable sources. Given that every one of the most notable newspapers in the country has named the suspect in one of the most high-profile crimes to happen in this particular year, this is not a particularly useful example for most applications of BLPCRIME. The example is also not relevant to the above suggestions, as they would allow for criminal accusations to be included merely if "multiple" sources include a suspect's name regarding any incident, while the example here is instead one of the most high-profile and widely-reported criminal accusations of this year in the United States. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that taking account of how many times a name is repeated in high-quality RSes (BBC, NYTimes, not local papers, etc.) on an indictment, arrest, or similar "official" aspect (such as for the Oxford shooting, the parents being the target of a manhunt by authorities) would be fair. We absolutely do not want when a name emerges but is not identified as a "person of interest" by authorities, but, say, online speculation that papers are repeating. --Masem (t) 18:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• OK… So is it fair to say that that intensive press coverage as well as some sort of “official” accusation (arrest, indictment, etc) influences our decision to name a suspect? Is that something we should state in the policy? Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  I think "intensive" is a bit much. Articles about alleged crimes exist for meeting the WP:GNG standard of coverage, like normal articles. The who, why, what, when, where (and arguably how) are just those articles' essential informative parts, subject to the same requirements as the whole. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

0183138419

0183138419 2405:3800:814:F8F8:C60B:C3C2:ACF7:B3E1 (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

867-5309 (see also WP:NOTDIRECTORY). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Is WP:BLP applicable to recently dead people? Not clear

After reading WP:BDP I understand that WP:BLP is applicable to recently dead people. Another user Shanusar read it and reached a conclusion [5] that it is not applicable to Bipin Rawat who died 2 days ago. Who is correct here? And why is the WP:BDP written in such bad way that after reading 2 people make polar opposing inference. There should be no room for confusion here. Venkat TL (talk) 17:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

This should go to WP:BLP/N. But in short, anybody who is but two days dead should be treated with the full cautions stipulated by WP:BLP by default. Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have 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. Such extensions would only apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. seems pretty clear to me about how BLP extends for several months after death. --Masem (t) 17:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It is quite poorly drafted though, in that it is not "defensive" of misintepretation. Opening with "Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources" is an invitation to WP:WLs to stop there. Alexbrn (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. This should not be left ambiguous. @Shanusar made a wrong inference and then filed an edit warring report on the basis of applicability of WP:BLP and I had to reply on his complaint. Unnecessary bad blood and time waste could have been avoided by making WP:BDP clear that BLP is applicable to recently dead by default. Right now Shanusar is understanding (and claiming) that we need to have a consensus on the talk page, that BLP applies to recently dead. Venkat TL (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

In fact, the more I re-read it, the less it seems to mean. I think it could be argued that it means dead people are fair game for anything without consensus to the contrary, and even then only for controversial content. So yeah, it needs attention. In any event, talk page discussion would be the way forward for now. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the admin EdJohnston promptly and thankfully locked the page. So the discussion is the 'only' way now. I think adding a simple second sentence that "BLP applies to recently dead." would go a long way in preventing ambiguity. Venkat TL (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

But it doesn't, generally. And shouldn't, logically. The whole reason for treating living people extra cautiously is the potential harm bad info could have on their lives; no dead person has a life. If you want an exception for up to two years, it must be based in consensus, for each recent death case. You can't just change the whole policy to make it apply overall to a completely opposite subject area. It would make winning this edit war easy, of course, but think of how much we'd have to delete from the bios of people who lived in eras where scant and/or contradictory surviving reference material is all we have. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a strawman. This thread is about "recently" dead, in "this" era. Not some ancient era. Venkat TL (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It was a misreading, and you beat me to catching it. Sorry. But it would still change the rules drastically, and only postpone inclusion of whatever another content policy can't exclude. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Recently dead are HIGH visibility pages. This one has 2 million views. By using clear language, we will be saving a LOT of time by not re-inventing the wheel (i.e. discussing applicability of BDP) on every "Recently" dead article. Venkat TL (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The problem isn't the clarity of the language, just how it radically changes the scope of the policy. Saying it applies to ancient dead or living dogs or inhabited places would be just as clear and just as radical. The guidance is already pretty clear about how some RD are temporarily covered; if you don't have editorial consensus for an exception, BLP does not apply. Might be clearer if we dropped "would" from "such extensions would only apply...". But it'd certainly be quicker to establish local consensus than to change sitewide policy, if you can't accept how different the social situations of the dead and living truly are, regardless of time or pageviews. Some sections and sentences simply can't apply to recently dead, even if allowed, such as BLPCRIME. It'd take more revising than you think, even in this article, nevermind this era's particularly gruesome crime articles. Anyway, that's all I advise, good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

"generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources" the said person Bipin Rawat was declared dead by gov. of India and most of the reputed News paper have covered it. Now I am a new user here. So need clarification in most easy language. When he was declared dead, why this policy will be applicable on him, The Source I gave were not just one news media but 6-7 different media house. Two of them were are from 2016 old so it can not be the mirror. So Why was my edit reverted by Venkat TL without giving any other source, can we do that ? There is even no controversy or issue or any other claim, is there any source which says that there is some controversy over that then he should provide the reliable source for that. Shanusar (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - the de facto practice is that BLP applies to the recently dead in all cases. I take a cautious approach of a 2 years threshold, especially for controversial figures. I'd rather BDP be edited to match practice instead of trying to contravene it with a tortured interpretation of ambiguous language. Maybe this belongs on VPP? EvergreenFir (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  I'd also like to see BDP revised. VPP or WT:BLP? Doug Weller talk 16:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Is labelling Bat Ye'or "British-Jewish" in another article ok?

See [6] which the editor reverted at it was an a-i article. The editor has replied to me here. I'll notify them about this discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Doug Weller talk 15:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The phrasing "British author" is a typical generic version of "<nationality> <profession>" we use commonly. The problem is that "Jewish" is not a nationality but an ethnicity OR a religion, depending (we've had numerous discussions on this issue), and thus including "Jewish" as a secondary nationality is just not correct. Particularly with "Jewish" we need to be 1) absolutely clear self-statements or high quality sourcing to affirm that the person is Jewist by ethnicity or religion, and 2) usually make sure it is clear in context when we use Jewish to specify that it applies to ethnicity or religion or both. So the removal in the above case is appropriate. --Masem (t) 17:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

It is well-known that Ye'or is Jewish and she chose a Jewish pseudonym. And it is used in an activistic Jewish context. --Wickey (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That's fine if that can be sourced, but we still avoid putting "Jewish" in places that we talk nationality as in the removed edit above. There's other ways to denote any ties to Jewish outside that place. --Masem (t) 17:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

And of course her article is linked, so if people want to know her background it's easy to find. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

FYI The user was tbanned from I/P conflict user_talk:Wickey#UTRS_46728 Shrike (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Exception to BLPCRIME?

Is there an exception/exemption to BLPCRIME that if multiple reliable sources identify the alleged perpetrator Wikipedia can report the identity of an alleged perpetrator? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This was sparked by this edit by Jehochman and its subsequent revert by Levivich, both of which are editors in good standing, thus proving that it is contested and should be sorted by an RfC. I have no position/stake in this outcome, just see it as a question evidently best raised due to it being disputed.

Survey

• Great Caeser's ghost, No. First of all, we do not have to define "public figure" as strictly as the legal definition in meatspace. I don't. In my view for our purposes "public figure" should include only people who have sought that status or are massively famous. Choosing a career as an athlete or novelist or whatever is not seeking public figure status. That's a side effect of you following your talent and desire, and publicity is a side-effect and often unwelcome (examples abound). Others may differ and we can agree to disagree. (Seriously running for office does demonstrate desire for life in the public eye tho.)

Second, remember we are very powerful and significantly define a person's public face, and private persons are hapless mooks who have few tools to fight back. Neither "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" nor, to address this particular case, "The other guys were setting that hobo on fire so what difference does it make if I joined in" are directions I think we should be moving toward. Herostratus (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, when Wikipedia names a person, Wikipedia-citogenesis is initiated. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• No at least when talking alleged crimes (before conviction). There may be edge cases where the name may be needed for clarity but we should always lean in favor of omission of names of non-public figures. --Masem (t) 16:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, there's no exemptions from BLPCRIME. But as others have pointed out, BLPCRIME is not a prohibition on mentioning names of highly publicized accused people - it's a requirement that serious consideration be given to the matter. We know from various high publicity events that sometimes we're just not going to exclude some people's names, or would be silly to do so. But it's not something that should be included without serious consideration. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Can we specify the criteria for "serious consideration"? What do we seriously consider? I agree that somebody accused of a crime of local significance and then covered by three regional newspapers might remain low profile. But if that local crime generates national attention, the accused becomes notorious (e.g., Fotis Dulos). Wikipedia would name the person as doing so would not alter their reputation. Jehochman ^Talk 17:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  I agree there's a level of publicity where what we say will make no difference to a person's notability. I guess like most things we evaluate it on what the reliable sources say, including (supplemented by) official statements and the like. However I can't think of a hard rule for either inclusion or exclusion. A consensus, with the burden on the includers, seems like the best thing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, not unless we grant the original research right to editors so they can decide when a particular person is a "public figure" due to social media and its news-of-the-day mirrors. Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. Not until a conviction is recorded. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC).

  This means we would never mention the names of people such Kyle Rittenhouse, even today. Is that really a credible standpoint? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah... well... there are exceptions to every rule. He is extremely famous, so he could be considered a public figure (and also he may have been seeking fame), and so as a public figure in the political life of America he gets less protection. And here we're not talking about a driveby "Smith was arrested for mopery in 1997 but never convicted", we're talking about an entire article build largely around his court case... in this case it's different, a rare exception. Herostratus (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

People keep talking about exceptions. Place yourself in the few hours or days after the initial event .. a low-profile person gets charged a high profile criminal act (about which we have an article). The example of the week is that someone who drove into a Christmas parade in the US and got charged with 5+ homicides. There's endless examples of cases like this where we mention the names of people without convictions, thus we don't know if they're seeking publicity or not, and we rarely know their motivations at the time - Thomas Mair, Salih Khater, Khairi Saadallah, and Ali Harbi Ali are just a few I've recently dealt with which spring to mind. In the end we've often included the names after charges but before convictions, after discussing it on the talk page. As I mentioned before, I don't find this policy particularly confusing, as long as one doesn't think in terms of exceptions. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 04:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Uh... [tugs tie]... well... I mean having no mention of say Kyle Rittenhouse anywhere in the 'pedia... that would seem odd. It is true that being indicted means nothing, he might be innocent. And in fact he was found innocent, so double reason for leaving him alone. But having nothing at all on Rittenhouse seems extreme, and would not gain consensus. Because he's very famous, and his case an important one in the political life of America. So that'd be an exception. Mair, Khater, Saadallah, Ali... never heard of them, they're not very famous so they're not public figures, so leave them alone. No article, no mention if they weren't convicted. If they were convicted and clearly meet WP:BIO that's a lot different. While we still have to be real careful not to be gossipy or unkind, they're not necessarily protected against being described. Herostratus (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• No. This wording, "their name has been reported by multiple reliable sources", in using the word "reporting", includes primary sources, such as court documents or newspaper reports, and crosses the line into primary source sleuthing. To be a public person, the person needs to be discussed in multiple independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• No defeats the entire point of BLPCRIME, which is not just a restatement of our sourcing policies. BLPCRIME is meant to lead to name exclusion even when many RS report a name, as they will when there are notable crimes going on. There are exceptions made on a case-by-case basis, but these are rare and there shouldn't be a general clause in the policy which substantially weakens it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• This was sparked by this edit by Jehochman and its subsequent revert by Levivich, both of which are editors in good standing, thus proving that it is contested and should be sorted by an RfC. I have no position/stake in this outcome, just see it as a question evidently best raised due to it being disputed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
• There should probably be a discussion before an RFC is started (WP:RFCBEFORE). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
• Especially since its a little unclear, is OP asking if there is currently an exception in text and/or intent of the rule such as that, right now, we can do this thing. Or is OP asking if we should add an exception (or conversely, add text making explicit that there's no exeption)? Which are we discussing here?

Oh OK this is probably over whether to specifically add text to WP:BLPCRIME, which currently says that if a person, particularly a private person, is [accused of / being investigated for /arrested for / indicted for] a crime but not (yet) convicted, editors must "seriously consider" not adding info about that. The suggested addition is something like

An exception is that Wikipedia reports the identity of an alleged perpetrator when their name has been reported by multiple reliable sources, making them a public figure.

If OP wants to quickly add the info that 1) a suggested change in the text is proposed, and 2) what the text is, and 3) that the change is to WP:BLPCRIME, and 4) optionally add the underlined text above so people don't have to puzzle thru BLPCRIME, then we could have a proper RFC maybe. Withdrawing and making a discussion first would be OK too. Herostratus (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I think this is already explained/covered by my first comment in this section? I don't see the ambiguity here. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh Hi @TheSandDoctor:, I didn't see that you were OP. It needs to be in the body of the RfC right at the top. It needs to be clear that an actual text change is proposed and what that change is. It'd be easy for you to do this, I think you should. Herostratus (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Herostratus: Done. I wasn't the OP of the disputed edit, but the OP of this RfC....just in case there is ambiguity there. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)