Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 56

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50←Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57Archive 58

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To start out with the easy part, there is overwhelming consensus against the current wording or anything weaker than it. The community strongly supports the position that WP:BLP should, by default, extend to deceased people for a certain amount of time after their deaths, with the main point of contention being how to implement this. Two rival proposals were made: Option 2, which restores the pre-2021 BDP wording (presuming applicability for roughly 6-24 months); or option 3, which places a global default limit on how long BDP applies and then allows local extensions. By the numbers, almost the exact same number of editors supported option 2 or at least one of the three variants of option 3. There was also an almost equal number of unique supporters for option 2 vs. the three 3s. To find a consensus from this, I break the RfC down into two questions, essentially one of reverting a change and one of making a new one:
  1. Should the 2021 changes be reverted? Numerically, over half of participants supported option 2, which would explicitly do this. In addition, most support of option 3 was not framed as an objection to option 2's wording; rather, option 3 proponents perceived it as a better implementation of the same general concept (namely, that BDP should apply for some period of time after death). Therefore I find consensus that the pre-2021 wording was preferable.
  2. Is option 3 an improvement on the pre-2021 wording? On this I find no consensus. It is possible that, were option 2 the status quo and this RfC were framed purely as an attempt to improve its implementation, there might have been consensus. But with, as noted above, an almost perfectly even split and arguments of roughly equal strength, it is impossible to find any consensus here. The question might be worth revisiting at some point in the future.
In other words, the net effect is a return to the wording represented by option 2. I thank all participants for their comments. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background

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

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

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

!Voting

  • 2. BLP and its subsections is expressly not subject to local consensus; it applies everywhere. I think the intent behind #1 may have been to emphasize that the duration was subject to consensus which is more defensible, but the wording and emphasis are ambiguous and unnecessary per WP:CREEP. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    Can you quote the line in BLP where it expressly rejects "local consensus" (a term that unforunately seems to have a variety of meanings, and which I could not find in the policy just now)?
    Can you explain how editors can reliably differentiate between "a local consensus that WP:BLP does not apply because the person has been dead for 18 months" and "a non-local consensus" for the same thing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing: it's in a different policy: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. VQuakr (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks, @VQuakr. So BLP itself does not expressly reject local consensus itself; it merely operates under the usual rules for determining what the consensus is.
    What's your definition of a 'local consensus'? (In case it's helpful, the canonical example is that Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers cannot ban infoboxes from all articles about classical composers.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
    Well no that's not correct, BLP is unusual in that it is based on the WMF BLP resolution that states [The BLP resolution] may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by Wikimedia Foundation officers or staff nor local policies of any Wikimedia project. It's not "my" definition. I linked the policy above. VQuakr (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people applies to all projects, but it also doesn't apply to dead people. Extending the same procedures to recently deceased people is a local invention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 2 (aka returning to the pre-2021 form). Those that have been on WP know the type of content that an article on a recently-deceased person that can occur in the short time after death, and hence why BDP was developed to automatically assume to apply BLP to the recently deceased. How long -- that's always been something normally left to local consensus with the exceptional interjection of admining, and doesn't need any further spelling out in the BDP policy, just that six months has always been treated as the short end, and two years the long end. --Masem (t) 00:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    Per the discussion, I am also open to Option 3 as to be clear that BDP is automatic for at least 6 months. Masem (t) 15:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 4 BDP should be deprecated as a policy and extra protections relevant to living human persons should be terminated essentially at time of death, to be replaced by standard editorial/content guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    Why? —Bagumba (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 2 since post-death sensitivity concerns can be presumed to be at their peak just after death and to decline thereafter. Assuming BLP doesn't apply in such cases while we wait for consensus to develop (which could take months) nullifies the policy during the time it's most needed. I would prefer a flat "it applies for 6 months and longer by consensus" (option 5?), but 2 is the best option on the menu. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry, I think I phrased option 3 poorly. To be clear, option 3 would mean "the policy automatically extends for six months beyond the date of death. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime. After six months, the policy may be extended further based upon editorial consensus." @Mgp28, Sideswipe9th, and Doug Weller: since they expressed similar ideas. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 18:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 2, which I think is the form with long-term broad consensus. Post the announcement of death, for any public figure, the article goes through big changes based on the availability of obituaries, gets frequent vandalism, and has an enormous spike in hits, just at the time when relatives and friends are likely to be most sensitive. This period should definitely always fall under the umbrella of BLP protection. How long this lasts is the matter that needs discussion and consensus forming, but there should be a minimum window that does not require repeated discussion. ETA: For what it is worth, I have been active as an admin in the area of enforcing BLP on articles about the recently dead, but had managed to entirely miss the 2021 change in the wording; such a change to a critical policy should probably be included in the admin newsletter to make sure we're all singing from the same hymn sheet. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 2, and although I prefer 2 years, I agree entirely with User:Espresso Addict above including their last sentence (except I think my involvement has never involved my Admin status). Doug Weller talk 09:45, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 2, obviously.—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    3, now that it's been edited, as second choice. I'd generally prefer a longer period over a shorter one.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 2, for reasons described by Firefangledfeathers and Espresso Addict. Many people visit a page shortly after the person's death so that is the worst time to have free-for-all edit warring. I like the idea of a default application for 6 months after death, giving time for any potential consensus to prolong it. Mgp28 (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    If the objective of option 3 is that the policy extends automatically for 6 months, then can be extended up to a maximum of 2 years based on consensus on that page's talk page, I would support that. But at the moment the text for option 3 is a bit long / overly complicated so still marginally prefer option 2 from the options provided. Mgp28 (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 2 This is a common sense way of keeping articles on high profile articles from turning into a free for all after a recent death. Nemov (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 2 Of the options provided, 2 is the most sensical way to handle this. A fair number of the deaths we cover on enwiki occur in contentious circumstances (ie subject was killed, or was a mass killer), and an automatic extension of BLP to cover recent deaths ensures that we handle those circumstances with the utmost of care. But I do also like Firefangledfeathers a flat "it applies for 6 months and longer by consensus", as that would seem to both encompass what the scope of the policy point was prior to the unannounced change, and address the confusion that lead to the 2021 change. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 3 for a default period of 6 months. Let's say Jane Doe is a BLP subject. One day, the BBC or CNN or whoever reports her death. Previously, some fairly unreliable tabloid had written a piece on Jane Doe's ostensible scandals. Under BLP, we don't add it. Now, however, User:XYZ adds the piece, defending it upon the grounds that BLP no longer applies. A week later, the press releases a correction stating Doe is alive and well. Someone tries to remove the piece, but XYZ reverts, saying "gain consensus on talk". It takes the other party 24 hours to see the message and start a discussion. Another week passes and the discussion is closed in favor of removing the paragraph. We've now had blp issues up for 15 days, despite her being alive and well. And this is just one of several potential issues I see. Six months is long enough for the waters to settle and specific enough that new editors aren't left scratching their heads wondering what an "indeterminate period" is. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 18:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
    • @Novo Tape: That is an elaborate fiction, but a fiction nonetheless. 1) Why would WP:BRD not apply to this situation? 2) When was the last time a high quality reliable source reported that someone was dead, then retracted it one week later? (I've seen it go as long as one day in recent memory, and even there the reporting in high quality reliable sources was that "we can't verify this".) 3) When would we ever allow a citation to a tabloid that doesn't meet the standards at WP:RS, which apply regardless of BLP? Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 3a. Which is to say, the intent of 3 (to have it start at six months and then possibly be extendable) but with this wording: The only exception would be for people who have died within the last six months. This period may be extended by editorial consensus to one year, or two years at the outside. I think the current wording of option 3 is very unclear and tries to do too much, even after the fix. Loki (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 3. It should auto extend for some period of time. 6 months ok, 1 year better. After a person dies is often when we need BLP the most because of the typical increase in editing, esp from inexperienced editors. I'm not paying much attention to the wording (eg whether options 3, 3a, or 5 mentioned above). Second choice is 2. Levivich (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
    One of the things BLP provides is WP:BLPREMOVE, which should continue to be available after someone's death (when editing frequency will likely increase). I'm flexible about how long after, I would support 3 with any time period. Levivich (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 3 for two years. I think being conservative about this policy is best. (This should be taken to express support for a shorter period if consensus for #3 for some period develops.) Valereee (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 3 but impose the two-year limit from option 2, and split the initial difference at 1 year. It's longer, but it gives specific rationales, and they matter. Otherwise, I support option 2, since it is better to have a limit but some rationale inclarity than to authorize rationales to result in forever extensions determined by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC); revised 21:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    What I dislike about "3" is that there is no mandatory ending point. I don't want Elvis Presley under BLP rules, even if some people still feel strongly about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
    Good point; I had not thought of that kind of scenario, and have revised my position.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
    I can see extremely rare (perhaps in IAR territory but give that we are talking BLO, I don't think we should resort to this) where BDP should extend beyond two years, such as a person who had some aspect of their life covered only by tabloids and other nonRS (say, a private person accused of being trans, even though no RS discusses it), such that we'd still not talk about that well after death. What we would not want us with the expiry of BDP, that suddenly that topic can be added because something like BLPSOS no longer applies. For most, two years at max is definitely fair, but we need to consider some expeditionary cases. Masem (t) 15:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
    "Hard cases make bad law." We have WP:IAR for a reason. If after two years there are nothing but garbage tabloid sources, they don't qualify as RS, so the claim can be "challenged" and removed for lack of RS.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • 3a Mandating an extension of BLP in the months immediately after the subject's death ensures appropriate sensitivity in the writing style and referencing, but editing tapers by six months once most of the obituaries revealing additional information about the subject's life and death have been published. I agree with @WhatamIdoing that the proposal should have a mandatory end point. If sloppy edits are emerging many months after the subject's death, then page protections and edit warnings should be implemented like any other article, rather than continuing to wield BLP. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 07:03, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 1 My interpretation of BDP (I wasn't around in 2021) has always been that 6, 12, and 24 months were all on the "outside", and that the rule mostly existed to stop bikeshedding over admin sanctions when the blood wasn't dry yet. I still think this is the most logical application of BDP; the power law indicates that the vast majority of new attention after a subject's death will be in the first few weeks after. Speaking of the power law, most BDP's are not particularly contentious (that's why they aren't usually protected), and the exceptions can be dealt with on an ad-hoc basis. Cheers, Mach61 (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 2 or 3 Certainly it should not require a new consensus to re-apply a sensible conservative approach to writing about people who have only just recently died. If (3), clearly endpoint of 1 year sounds good to me. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 1. Why include the vague "would apply particularly to..." in option 2? I'm particularly against option 3, which leaves the door open for indefinitely excluding well documented information. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 2 seems stable and flexible enough. I don't think we should automatically treat instances of "Joe Bloggs died of natural causes at the age of 87" as being identical to "Joe Bloggs died of a drug overdose at the age of 27". -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 04:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 1 - no change. I think the wording of "based on editorial consensus" is good. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 21:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  • At least 2, neutral on 3 Basically, not 1. The change that any protection beyond the actual day of death was now based on editorial consensus was made without consensus (see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 55 § Small but significant change in BDP wording from about 2 years ago). It would be bad to have policy changes effectively snuck in and stay due to mere WP:SILENCE, i.e. "caught you not looking", but especially counter to WP:PROPOSAL:

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

    The existing practice is to not require that a new consensus be established at every bio upon death, and doing so creates a bureaucratic mess.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 2: the policy should apply automatically. I'm in favour of BDP lasting for quite a while, particularly for cases like "Killing of ..." articles, where BLP violations are potentially extremely sensitive to families, friends and the community of the deceased. I wouldn't like to put a number on it across the board though.
    The death of a person shouldn't be an opportunity to violate privacy and immediately become slapdash about gossip, speculation and unsourced content. (Yes, we have other policies against this, but BLP elevates the urgency of removing unsourced and contentious content.) — Bilorv (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    @Bilorv: isn't 3 the "apply automatically" option? (2, the old text, says "can apply" not "does apply" after death.) Levivich (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    No, it's "can extend for an indeterminate period". 3 requires a specific length of time for all scenarios. The point is that anyone can invoke BDP without prior local consensus as justification for making an edit. — Bilorv (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
    Ah I understand your point about fixed time periods. I guess I just don't read "can extend" as meaning "extends automatically." Actually, I'd say that "can extend" means doesn't extend automatically, in the same way that "I can extend my vacation for an indeterminate period" doesn't mean that the extension is automatic or guaranteed, just possible. Levivich (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 4 per Jclemens; once someone ceases to be living they cease to be in-scope of BLP. The clue is in the name. Second choice would be 2, a short extension such as 6 months that does not extend. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
    The clue is in the name: So rename it. Or move WP:BDP. That's not a reason for outright deletion of policy text that's existed for over a decade.—Bagumba (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
  • 3a, but change "The only exception would be for..." to "The only exception is for..." I find Option 2's "can extend" wording confusing, as it provides no indication of when it does extend. The wording should be clear that the policy does apply, not that can or would, if some unclear condition is met.--Trystan (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Note: A closure request has been left at Wikipedia:Closure requests.—Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  • 3 for two years, including because of the clarity in the word "would." The word "can" could be read as implying it could not, so the most direct word seems most clear. This option also seems to help encourage the development of well-sourced, enduring encyclopedic content about contentious and sensitive issues, and to reflect the spirit of BLP, NOT, and NPOV policies. Beccaynr (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  • 3, specifically the 6 month option. Consensus should be left to be the ultimate governor since there are way too many exceptions. I would support a clause which states that pending discussion on whether BDP applies, BDP is to be enforced until consensus says so. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • 3. I think 6 months is enough to cover the post-death spike in edits. Once someone dies a lot of changes happen and by the time a discussion is held to enforce BDP it's too late. Also fine with 2, but the problem with that is admining disputes over people edit warring to enforce BLP. Galobtter (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  • 3 largely for the reasons clearly enunciated by SMcCandlish. Chetsford (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

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

VPP yes. CENT says listing of ongoing discussions, specifically those which have potentially wide-ranging impacts, which this definitely would have, so yeah. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
It's already listed at VPP. I'll add it to CENT. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)My Talk Page 18:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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

What we don't want looks like:

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

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

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

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

+1 to everything WhatamIdoing said. Ed [talk] [OMT] 23:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose WP:NOGLAMOR

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

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

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

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

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

Kind of having a "meh" reaction to this. We have WP:MUG because of potential harm to the subject, but that doesn't really apply to pics that are "particularly flattering" or whatever. Such new rule we don't seem to really need might also end up ruling out the only available pics of various people.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish: - Well yeah. I guess if a publicity shot is the only available image, using it might make sense. I feel like the current wording, or maybe "High quality candid images should be given preference over publicity photography..." makes that clear.
And regarding, not needing it; I guess that depends on whether you think the publicity photos are a problem. I think presenting people in a falsely dispariging light is probably just as bad as a falsely flattering one. Though I know most BLP folks care more about "protecting" than accuracy.
Thanks for your feeback. NickCT (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that finding a subject-approved photograph that presents them without makeup, without flattering lighting, warts and all, is both misguided and in most cases impossible. One of the purposes of WP:BLP is to avoid being offensive to our subjects. Finding deliberately-non-flattering images of them to use here is likely to be offensive. And it is not likely to be more informative to our readers. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with staged photos but I can imagine many articles (such as those about politicians) where, if you removed the official portraits, you'd end up with a lot of disruptive disagreement over which photograph to use at the top of the article. How flattering or unflattering would we be trying to be?
I also think the name could cause confusion as glamor photography doesn't really seem to be what is being discussed. Mgp28 (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorta surprised folks don't see publicity shots as obvious WP:PROMOTION. Good point abou the glamor photography though. Maybe a different name. NickCT (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

When you say the AP "posted," what does that mean exactly? I would find it relevant whether it was, say, an article about the subject as opposed to a "born on this day" feature or the like. Happy Friday! Dumuzid (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Dumuzid, sorry, I tried to be as descriptive as possible. I included links now that I have a bit more time to clarify the prior talk discussions, and the RS so far in support of both dates.
Talk:Michael_Jai_White#Birth_year,
Talk:Michael_Jai_White#Birth_date_discussion_redux
Sources that state 1964, pulled from the first talk page discussion:
[1][2] As well the birthday lists from Cleveland.com[3][4]
Published sources supporting 1967:
(Taken from first talk page as well)
:*B.E.T. Weekend Magazine - Page 6 (1999): Michael Jai White, who was HBO's Tyson and the superhero Spawn, is sizzling hot. This month, the 32-year-old martial artist is a serviceman with Morgan Freeman on NBC's Port Chicago Mutiny.
:*Today's Black Woman - Volume 4 - Page 95 (February 1998): people last remember Michael Jai White as the actor who played Mike Tyson in HBO's biopic. ... I didn't realize it until I started going to comic book conventions all around the country to promote the movie," says the 29-year-old former martial artist. What White found was a cult following.
CTPost [[5]]
Born in Brooklyn, N.Y., in 1967, White...
More up to date sources which, along with WP:CALC, confirm a 1967 birth date.
:Black Belt Magazine (Feb 2002. page 52)
Now 32, he continues to thirst for more martial arts knowledge.
:[Men's Journal], from Sep 26, 2023Men's Journal spoke with White about the new movie, balancing his filmmaking responsibilities with his fitness, casting UFC fighters, and how he's maintained his incredible high-flying physique at 55 years old.
:[Men's Health], published Sep 26, 23
The 55-year-old admitted that early in his training days, he spent more time than he should've focused on exercises like bench presses in an attempt to build an imposing, chest-forward physique.
Self published social media post on 50th birthday weekend, published Nov 13, 2017 -
[[6]] Celebrated my 50th birthday and the 20th anniversary of Spawn over the weekend in New York City. Good times.
Two other users agreed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request/Archive_155, a request for the yearbook from the years they went to high school to determine DOB, that the social media should be sufficient per WP:BLPSELFPUB. Personal note, WP:DOB states Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth., which I believe trying to determine someone's birth date from the year they graduated more than qualifies as original research.
@Redrose64 I agree in most cases, especially with older celebrities trying to get cast in younger character roles and vice versa for younger celebrities (Mila Kunis comes to mind when she was cast on That 70"s Show by omitting how old she actually was). In this instance, though, I feel the published sources as well as the self published source is more believable than a 'Todays Birthdays!' section on a few newspapers.
Awshort (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Awshort -- no problem at all, and sorry for making you go to those lengths! As I suspected, some of those links (all those supporting 1964) seem to be of the "birthday list" variety. I tend to slightly disfavor those myself, as I think there's good reason to think that they are not always subject to the same sort of fact-checking as a proper article might be. That being the case, I would personally absolutely say 1967 should be the year used, though I am of course mindful of Redrose64's very apt point. A good weekend to all! Dumuzid (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Dumuzid, did you read through the talk page discussion, especially the latter parts of Talk:Michael Jai White § Birth year and those links. It's not just the AP date that is bringing doubt to his interviews and social media, it's also the 1982 high school graduation date. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Celebs are notorious for faking their own DOB if they think that it would help their careers, knocking off a year or several from their apparent ages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Redrose64: As an admin, if you could offer advice on two things it would definitely help, and I would welcome any input @Dumuzid: would be willing to provide as well.
Firstly, I am unsure if this is in fact a BLP issue (since it pertains to a living individuals biography, and conflicting dates of birth per WP:DOB), a Reliable source issue (since the Associated Press links are from a reliable source but seem unreliable per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS), or a WP:NOR issue (since Talk:Michael Jai White#Birth date discussion redux focuses on disputing the published sources based on what year the person graduated which is a WP:SYNTH issue as well).
Secondly, with the above named policies and guidelines, under WP:CONTEXTMATTERS would a 'Celebrity Birthdays' section from a newspaper be considered a reliable source for a celebrity birthday? A quoted question I asked from the above talk page discussion
Do you consider the Associated Press reliable for his birthday? If so, why? They do not state where they get their birthdays, there have been instances where they have issued corrections when inaccurate items are pointed out to them (like Rebel Wilson, or Brett Young having a 2 month difference in his listed date and actual birthday)
In this previous RfC regarding something similar, the issue was when there were multiple conflicting reliable sources and having to pick and choose which was correct. In this case, everything ever published by the subject as well as all published interviews going as far back as the start of his career states one date of birth, and that has never deviated from his 1967 birthdate. Since the only disputed sources are from the Associated Press, they are all considered one source according to Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source from [[WP:NEWSORG], and I believe they are not reliable and made an error in their original reporting. If this was from an interview or a magazine article, I would definitely agree that it is a reliable source that causes concern in relation to his birth date.
@Daniel Quinlan: - I have to disagree that the articles talk page has been 'productive', but I would agree it has been civil (which, again, is always appreciated). I replied on that talk page, with no response [7] on January 20th. When I didn't receive a response, I added the information back on February 5th. It was reverted the next day by yourself. I asked for additional information on February 7th, and did not receive a response. I would prefer to address content issues on this noticeboard, since I don't feel that you are participating in an active consensus building process while also not allowing changes to the date of birth without your approval of a consensus, which is essentially causing a filibuster for the process until you okay it since it is a content dispute between two parties. In regards to the multiple forums thing, I did not create the original BLPN post, I was just a participant. Since the MJW article doesn't seem to get a lot of outside editors in the talk pages, this seemed like the best place to see what to do with reliable sources in a biography, since WP:DOB is part of BLP.
I just wanted to get some additional input from uninvolved editors.
Awshort (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Adding a birthdate to the Michael Jai White article is not a pressing issue, please be more patient. I will try to respond to your newer comments, but I want to be thorough and approach it when I have some quiet time.
Also, I'm not sure why you are saying this is just me. We had a consensus on the talk page between me and the other editor that was looking at the birthday sources, Kcj5062 (who succeeded in bringing me around to his view, I was originally in agreement with your viewpoint), and a third editor also disagreed with your addition and reverted it twice, FilmandTVFan28. (And then I reverted your change once when you added it again.) As noted in the edit warring policy, An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Additionally, I understand your frustration, but posting multiple lengthy comments often discourages participation. We're talking about a birthdate addition to a minor celebrity's article, and talk page discussions for these kinds of articles are often slower and lower in volume. Having some patience helps. It can also help to have some other, hopefully less contentious, Wikipedia projects to work on. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Just wanted to address this We had a consensus on the talk page between me and the other editor that was looking at the birthday sources, Kcj5062
I'm unsure of the consensus you are writing about, since I could only find you suggesting Kcj5062 tag the 1967 date as needing a better source, and later suggesting In the absence of sufficient reliable sources, it might be best to add a caveat, mention both dates as possibilities, or simply omit his birth date., which they added as a footnote on Dec 30. On Jan 7, they posted on BLPN asking for advice. I am missing the existing consensus portion though, but either way I removed the note because of this line And a couple archive links from the webpage of the high school he went to list him as a alumni of 1982 which imply a 1964 birth year. since it was WP:SYNTH and violated the No Original Research policy by being on there. Looking back on the edit now, I should have left the newspaper in per WP:DOB, because even if it wasn't reliable in my eyes, without discussion it is still considered a RS. And I should have listed the BLPREMOVE portion specifically with regards to FilmandTVFan28, even though both edits note RS, and the second specifically states SYNTH.

Edit: I am having trouble pasting links today for some reason, so removing the diff links I had originally included. Awshort (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Awshort (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi Awshort, it looks like this is proceeding on the article talk page, which seems appropriate to me. Having been pinged, however, I just wanted to briefly follow up with my thoughts. And to be clear, these are my thoughts, not so much policy or consensus--therefore take them for what they are worth! But as said above, actors, and to a lesser degree athletes, are notorious for false dates of birth. While a birthday list type feature in a reliable source is obviously usable, I consider it basically the bottom rung of reliability. It just stands to reason for me that such pieces are not as carefully vetted as other content. Given that I start dubious about entertainment types, I personally would probably wait for something a bit more solid before including in an article. That said, reasonable minds may certainly differ on the issue. Have a nice weekend! Dumuzid (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Awshort, I've responded on Talk:Michael Jai White and I'm still hopeful we can come to some sort of consensus there. I don't think there's a need to keep adding forums (BLPN and now here) for this discussion when the discussion on the article talk page has been productive and civil. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What is wrong with our standard "teach the controversy" stance? State that sources conflict on whether his birthdate was 1964 or 1967 and cite reliable sources for both dates. If that causes difficulties for infoboxes that can only easily report a single date, tough. If we only have reliable sources for one date then that is the one we should use regardless of whether we believe it; we are here to report on what reliable sources say, not to determine the truth for ourselves. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about self-published sources for establishing death dates

WP:BLPSPS is quite clear: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Something I've noticed several times is a self-published death announcement for figures who are unlikely to attract e.g. explicit obituary coverage. (I assume death announcements by definition cannot be published by the subject of the article.)

This is especially common for academics: a colleague or friend often publishes an "in memoriam" post. In such cases, there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity, but by my reading of the policy we cannot edit the subject's Wikipedia bio to say they have died, use past tense, etc. I believe WP:BDP does not apply here, because the nature of the death announcement means the person isn't "confirmed dead by reliable sources". Is my reading of the policies correct? Assuming (as will be true in the vast majority of such cases) that no reliable sourcing of the subject's death will ever be published, when can we edit the page to list them as deceased? (115 years after their birth year?)

Am I understanding the policies correctly, or do I have a misconception here? The specific case that triggered this is Don Ihde and this death announcement; I have no idea who is correct here. I assume this is a common question, but I wasn't able to quickly find an answer among the policies. Thanks for any insight! Suriname0 (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Sometimes it may take a bit more sleuthing to find a death announcement from an independent source. In this case, the announcement of Ihde's death is on the Stony Brook Department of Philosophy page. - Enos733 (talk) 06:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I guess I'm confused; Stony Brook is clearly not independent as the subject's employer, right? Certainly, the department announcement was published with the same level of editorial oversight (none) as the colleague's blog post. Suriname0 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
There was a similar problem with Tim Ball, see talk page thread = A notice in wattsupwiththat.com. After various suggestions, the date of death was added without a citation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, that's a useful point of comparison. Gotta say, that seems like a pretty unsatisfying conclusion; seems like it would be more helpful to readers to link to death announcements (when there's no doubt of their authenticity), even if self-published (by a colleague or an employer). Suriname0 (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Stony Brook is not self-published the same way as a blog is (or can be). There is noting inherently prohibited in using non-independent, but official sources. The overarching policy is WP:V. - Enos733 (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
To me, policy seems clear that the Stony Brook announcement is self-published. WP:SELFPUB says "Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of the content. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases, the material contained within company websites, advertising campaigns, material published in media by the owner(s)/publisher(s) of the media group, self-released music albums, and electoral manifestos." A university webpage seems like a straightforward example of a company website. Suriname0 (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Even if we consider Stony Brook to be self-published, which I dispute, since an institution issuing a press release about an individual is not about the institution, WP:ABOUTSELF says that the self-published source can be used when the claim is not exceptional. A death notice is not exceptional, especially when the notice is not disputed.
Finally, any policy must lead to rational results. It would be absurd if we were to follow down the path to the original self-published source around someone's death. In most cases, a death notice will be issued by the surviving family (and I have my doubts that any institution or news source will question the authenticity of that notice, thus not independently verifying the material [this is the same reasoning that journalists will often accept and reprint facts posted in a press release about corporate earnings, number of enrolled students, or scientific facts, because there is no way to independently verify those facts]). That is if a company is convinced about an employee's (or past employee's) death to make a public announcement, we should have confidence that the information that company provides is correct. - Enos733 (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
By WP:BLPSPS, a self-published source can only be used if "written or published by the subject of the article"; otherwise, the policy is to "Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person". I agree that WP:BLPSPS is ignored on literally hundreds of thousands of BLPs (e.g. when using a company press release to verify a biographical detail; I myself have violated this policy dozens of times!), but that's a reason to change the policy to reflect actual practice. Suriname0 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
All press releases are self-published.
The way that we usually finesse this is to say that employees aren't really "third parties" wrt to their employers; they are part of the employer/organization. Therefore, a press release announcing that the employer has hired/fired/regrets the death of Emil Employee is self-published, non-independent, and 100% compliant with ABOUTSELF, as it is an announcement from the employer about the employer's own "self". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
So… let’s say a reporter who writes for the New York Times dies while on assignment. If the Times publishes an obituary … that obit is ABOUTSELF? Not sure I would agree with that. Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's ABOUTSELF. When a traditional publisher is writing about itself/its people, it should be considered both self-published and non-independent. (Consider, e.g., the corporate website: a book published by Reputable Publisher, Inc. is non-self-published; their own website is self-published.)
The NYT obit would still have most of the qualities of a reliable source (e.g., a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, being published by a reputable publishing house, being "appropriate for the material in question" and having editorial oversight), but it's still technically as self-published and non-independent as if the same people had submitted the same thing as a press release.
It's also 100% a usable source. It's important to remember that whether to use a WP:Published source is not a single-factor decision. A source can be ABOUTSELF and the best possible source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps the thing we need to be clearer about, at least among experienced editors, is that ABOUTSELF is not a fancy way of spelling unreliable. If editors have an ABOUTSELF source that they are willing "to rely on" for a claimed death, then it's likely "reliable" for the claim that the person died. One might, in some cases, decide to wait for a day or so to make sure that there isn't any retraction ("Sorry, my account got hacked/I wanted to get listed in Faked death on Wikipedia/I'm a jerk"), but what makes a source really be reliable is whether experienced editors accept it, and not whether it ticks most of the items in some checklist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
  • This highlights a bit of a grey zone in ABOUTSELF… and our preference for independent sources. When a person publishes something about him/her self… or when an organization publishes something about itself, we can clearly say “this is ABOUTSELF”.
However, when an organization publishes something about a person that has a tie to that organization (say a member/employee/etc) things are not quite as clear. We have to look at CONTEXT to determine whether it falls under ABOUTSELF.
If the organization is discussing something the person did as a member/employee/etc (something that is a function of their membership/employment/etc) then ABOUTSELF still applies. But if the organization is discussing something the person did that is NOT a function of their membership/employment/etc (such as death) we are at least one step removed from ABOUTSELF. The org is not completely independent of the person (there is still a tie between the two), but the org is not really talking about “itself”. Blueboar (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Do we add "born", in front of the birth date, in the lead?

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers § Do we add "born" in front of the birth date in the lead, where "née" is present?

GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

SELFPUB and family members

I have a question on point 2 of BLPSELFPUB as it relates to family. If all the other points of SELFPUB are met, is it appropriate to use a self-published source by an article subject to provide the names and birthdates of their non-notable minor children? Or are they considered third parties? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes for biographies

There's currently a discussion at MOS:INFOBOXES that effects infoboxes for a variety of different articles. Please feel free to comment. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 01:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Using primary sources for material that could harm someone's reputation, again

I brought this up before, and people were generally supportive, but there were some concerns over whether it was necessary. It has come up again in discussion on Talk:Sweet Baby Inc.; essentially, there was an internet kerfuffle where one dimension, at least as discussed on Twitter, involved outrage about certain tweets and comments by living individuals. Secondary sources have not focused on or even mentioned those things. An editor is arguing that they can be included under WP:ABOUTSELF. This is obviously inappropriate for a variety of reasons, but it would make situations like this much easier to explain if there was a clear-cut sentence in WP:BLPSPS about not using self-published primary sources in ways that could harm the reputation of the source. Currently, "you can't pull a quote off of Twitter and cite it as a primary source in a way that implies that someone is a bad person" is something present in the intersection of WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:BLP; but given the importance of not doing it, I think it is worth a single sentence - something like Quotes that are likely to harm the author's reputation should not be cited to primary sources, only to secondary ones. --Aquillion (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I should add, regarding the objections people raised back then (since I got distracted and didn't reply) - to me, ABOUTSELF is for completely uncontroversial raw datum and things of that nature. I would never consider accepting an ABOUTSELF quote from, for instance, a politician in the middle of a scandal unless it was completely anodyne (without even the slightest whiff that it could be interpreted in any way even slightly exculpatory or incriminating.) Likewise, if someone holds views that make them look bad, and those views haven't been covered in any other reliable sources, then it's clearly inappropriate to try and use Wikipedia to "surface" those views. Adding juicy details to someone's scandals or the precise shape of their antisemitism or whatever is not and has never been the purpose of WP:ABOUTSELF - it's for things like date of birth, marital status, and so on. --Aquillion (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Do you think the "exception claim" wording proposed here would be sufficient to address this issue? If so, it might be worth trying to unstall that discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
It's already present in all versions, isn't it? I don't see any changes to it proposed there. I don't think that it's enough because it's too broad (WP:EXCEPTIONAL covers a lot of other stuff.) Like I said, I do think that this can be derived from existing policies, but it's hard to explain to a new or inexperienced user (who won't necessarily know what EXCEPTIONAL means, won't know the ins and outs of OR / SYNTH, etc.) Having a sentence here that could be pointed to in order to sum it up specifically in the context of BLPs would make conversations of that nature much simpler. --Aquillion (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I think this question is better for the BLPN but since it was asked here... I generally agree that ABOUTSELF should is not so editors can pick and choose damning quotes from tweets etc. It's hard to think of any case where an ABOUTSELF claim could be used in a way that is detrimental to the subject. ABOUTSELF should be used for uncontroversial claims (typically age, marriage, home town etc). However, it can also be used for rebuttals. For example if a RS claims Mr BLP said X, it is reasonable to use a self published claim in response. Note this isn't strictly limited to BLP cases. For example, RSs carry a claim made by an environmentalist group that company X is clear cutting old growth forests and that info is added to the company's Wiki page. It would be reasonable to note the company published a statement refuting the claim (and possibly some level of detail if warranted). The reason this is acceptable is a RS provided weight for the topic to be included on Wikipedia. The ABOUTSELF reply isn't unduely self serving since it's rebutting rather a claim rather than trying to provide weight to information that would otherwise be undue for inclusion. Springee (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Section: Avoid self-published sources

Here, the important caveat being noted for the reader is "unless written or published by the subject of the article". That being the case, I think the bold text should begin with "unless", rather than "the". I'll admit this is a minor point, but I think beginning the bold text a few words earlier in the sentence would do a better job of emphasizing that this is the lone exception to an important rule. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of WP:BLPGOSSIP

Following the fiasco at Where is Kate? (see the first AfD, BLPN discussion, deletion review, first requested move, second AfD, and third AfD), I propose an additional paragraph to WP:BLPGOSSIP. This is a rough draft to encapsulate what I'm thinking:

Sometimes, an event in a living person's life attracts significant coverage in the media. These events rarely require standalone articles from the living person's biography: they should generally only be spun-off from the living person's biography when the biography cannot provide appropriate encyclopedic coverage of a major event. Beware of recentism.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

  • This proposed addition is short sighted, snobbish, and poorly worded. I would suggest leaving the policy as it is, what is not broken does not need to be fixed and nothing here is broken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that no policy changes are necessary. If I understand correctly, the current discussion seems to be about whether our current policies have been correctly applied in this case? If so, I think this will muddy the waters further. GnocchiFan (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    I wouldn't suggest that any change be implemented until the AfD closes. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 16:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    How would one use this policy to determine which of these articles should have been spun off? WP:SPINOFF gives the right considerations for spinning off: undue weight and NPOV. -- Jfhutson (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    Not many of these articles are events in the life of Donald Trump. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    The proposed policy seems to conflict with WP:BLPBALANCE: "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." If a BLP is only notable for a few things, but one negative event in their life justifies an article-length treatment, the policy would favor including all of that information in their bio. -- Jfhutson (talk) 21:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
    Easily fixed by adding "When the living person is independently notable from the event, these events rarely require..." IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    Someone only notable for a few things is still independently notable from the event. They should not have a page at all if they are only notable for the event (WP:BLP1E). Really though, my concern isn't limited to people with low notability. WP:PROPORTION should govern how much of an article is taken up by each aspect of a subject. The proposed policy puts a finger on that scale and says that, if there is notable event in the person's life, then the bio gets to include undue weight on that because we don't want a separate article. The advantage of separate articles is they allow us to maintain PROPORTION of coverage in the main articles while covering notable events. -- Jfhutson (talk) 12:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree we should add something to WP:BLPGOSSIP but I'm not convinced that wording captures what we want. Here's my suggestion:
In general, it's best to be very careful about covering events in a living person's life while news is still breaking. Breaking news, even from generally reliable sources, is often less reliable than usual, and even in cases where such reporting is reliable for facts, sources published before all the facts of an incident have been reported can inadvertently create a misleading picture of a situation.
Avoid spinning off events in a living's person life to separate articles until media coverage of the event has subsided enough for its long-term significance to be established. Making a new article for every controversy is more likely to lead to a problematic WP:POVFORK than it is to generate worthwhile encyclopedic coverage. Loki (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This seems good to me. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This is very similar to WP:DELAY, which is fine, since most BLP policy is just strengthening of existing policy. It seems like there should be a link to DELAY but I'm not sure where. -- Jfhutson (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Why would be link DELAY and not RAPID? It seems that people will likely try and use this new wording to support the deletion of an article which already exists and they should be reminded that the spirit of NOTNEWS is strongly against deleting such articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that links to DELAY and RAPID could be usefully added to the "See also" list at the top of BLPGOSSIP. Both are relevant: don't create a BLP spinoff article too quickly based on breaking news/gossip, but don't delete one too quickly if it has already been created. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Thats not a bad idea. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The link should be WP:DELAY and not WP:RAPID because the reasoning for RAPID is based in Eventualism: an article based on breaking news may well be good once the news finishes breaking. It even explicitly links to WP:NODEADLINE. For most articles, that's fine. But it's not acceptable for BLPs, which per WP:BLPBALANCE must be fair to their subjects at all times (see also WP:NOW).
Because of this, BLP-related articles simply should not be made based on breaking news. When they are they should be deleted, because news is less reliable while it's breaking and because breaking news may be incomplete. This is similar to, but slightly different from, the reasoning in WP:DELAY, which is more about the significance of the event and less about the accuracy of the information. Loki (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Thats an interesting opinion but I disagree. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

BLP info in WikiProject Banner Shell

I have a question about the BLP information in the WikiProject banner shell that displays at the top of a talk page. If the article in question is about a person who has recently died, in particular under controversial circumstances, should living=n or living=y be specified? If living=n is specified, it says that the biographies of living persons policy does not apply to the subject, but that it does apply to other persons who are mentioned. The page that I am looking at is Talk:Death of Nex Benedict. It says that the BLP policy does not apply to them, but it does. They is* a person who has recently died, and who is entitled to the same status as if they were still alive. Should I change it to blp=y? Should the instructions for the template be changed? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

BLP doesn’t apply to people that recently died?? If not, I strongly argue that it should, for the sake of the grieving family. It’s just common-decency. And written clearly into Wikipedia policy that it does apply to recently deceased. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Its April so we're outside the "recently" window for a February death (recently is days, weeks, *maybe* a month... Not normally any longer), especially given that the subject isn't otherwise notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I was unaware of what what the death was related to until I just read it. As transgender individuals face particularly high levels of abuse, even after they die- I would support this “recently window” being extended for everyone (so it’s not unfair on non-transgender people). Seems like common sense as the family would probably still be grieving. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The window applies to all BLPs, it covers the off chance that someone has been reported dead but is not actually dead (this happens pretty consistently with celebrities). It has nothing to do with the feelings of the family, we don't consider that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah I see. You’re right, we can’t be overly emotional as an encyclopedia, I take what I said back. But we still need to have protections for abuse of dead people of course- I see that that article recently had a gold-padlock protection. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
They still have all the protections of a normal article, they just don't have the extra layer of BLP protection. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Fairly weird to say the family is not involved, or that it's only for incorrect reports when the policy says "Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.". While "possible" is mentioned here, I think it's clear from the next "particularly gruesome crime" part that we're talking about a case where someone is dead, but it's unclear whether the cause is suicide or something else. In any case, "particularly gruesome crime" part seems to be clearly talking about cases where the person is dead rather than it being unclear if they are dead. So not only is the family explicitly mentioned, but it's also clearly talking about cases where the person is indisputably dead rather than where it might be a mis-report. The Nex Benedict example seems to definitely be a case where this comes up. From the beginning, there was no dispute that they were dead. However the details were very murky and it was right to be particularly strict in BLP terms not only for other living persons directly affected (since the details often had implications for other individuals) but for Benedict too no matter that there was no dispute they were deceased. Nil Einne (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The "recently" window is six months minimum, actually. See WP:BDP. Loki (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
BDP says nothing about a six months minimum (lets be clear, there is technically no minimum or maximum), it gives six months as an example of an outlier situation... It doesn't even say that it always or generally gets extended, it just says it can get extended. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
You need to read it again then. EEng 09:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
"The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside." Tell me how I'm wrong and please be specific. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
We had an RfC on this quite recently which restored the original wording but couldn't come to a consensus on a new wording to more clearly specify a minimum /Archive 56#RfC on whether BDP should apply automatically or only after editorial consensus. However despite that, it seems fairly clear as reflected in the closing statement, that there was consensus 6 months was the generally minimum. It was just whether it should be spelt out explicitly or leave it more ambigious by simply saying BDP applyies from 6-24 months. So consensus is clearly against you. Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Grammatical note: correct usage

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The simplest solution (for the general situation that at any given time there will always be some people who "deceased recently", regardless of whether or not the specific case mentioned above is still within "recently") might be to add, alongside the options of living=n or living=y, the option of living=bdp, for use whenever BDP applies. -sche (talk) 06:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_56&oldid=1226581943"