Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

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

Should the wording of WP:BDP 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 #Small but significant change in BDP wording from about 2 years ago above). 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)

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)

Using primary sources for quotes that could potentially harm the reputation of the person being quoted

This has come up a few times, so I thought I'd bring it up here, since WP:BLP does not specifically address it that I can see. I feel that it is generally a BLP violation to use a primary source for a quote that could reasonably be interpreted as harmful to the speaker's reputation - eg. going through someone's writings and finding a quote where they say "yes, I love fascism and hate babies!" and then adding it to their Wikipedia article, cited solely to a primary source where they wrote it, generally isn't appropriate. Similarly, going through someone's Twitter account to find tweets that make them look bad and then using Wikipedia to publicize them (citing them as a primary source) is clearly unacceptable. Quotes that are clearly harmful to the reputation of the person speaking or writing them should always require a secondary source. Should a sentence to this effect be added to WP:PRIMARY or WP:BLPSPS? Something like Quotes that are likely to harm to the author's reputation should never be cited to primary sources, only to secondary ones or something of that nature. --Aquillion (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Support, this should tried to be work into the existing aspect around "should not be unduly self-serving" since that's the same problem in the opposite direction. Masem (t) 13:03, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Many people who are prolific social media users say provocative or satirical or "joking" things to get attention online, and Wikipedia editors should not go cherry picking in a search for negativity. If reliable secondary sources take note, that is another matter. Cullen328 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment. I think we should distinguish between different forms of self-publication. There's a scale of weight between, say, a published monograph with a major university press/a peer-reviewed research paper in an academic journal --> an authored opinion piece in a reputable newspaper --> an interview in a reputable newspaper --> a throwaway (possibly joking) comment in an interview or on social media --> an overheard comment that wasn't intended for publication. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is smart and true. jp×g🗯️ 10:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I support this in principle. I agree with Masem that it would be good to tie this in with existing guidance on the opposite problem. I think the word "solely" needs to be in the guidance somewhere. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:50, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with this, though as above, with caveats both that if the speaker clearly intended to widely publish the material, such as in a book, that can change the calculations, and if reliable sources have taken extensive notice of the quote and any reactions to it, then the quote should be provided to give context to any discussion in the article about that. But if there isn't some substantive analysis by reliable sources, there's a substantial risk of something being taken out of context, a joke or sarcastic/tongue-in-cheek remark being presented as though the speaker actually meant it, and various problems like that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Support. Sometimes people become famous or infamous for saying stupid things, but if so we should be able to find reliable secondary sourcing for it. We shouldn't be in the business of attacking people by mining their quotes and trying to make them become famous for saying something when they aren't already famous for it. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

So...

I've got some reservations about this, mostly around WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Imagine that a politician says something potentially career-ending. It's all over the news. But... the television show where the comment was made live? Primary source. The breaking news report that appeared in your news feed minutes later? Primary source. The newspaper article the next morning, that says "Paul Politician said <something shocking>. This reported asked several people downtown about it, and they all said they were shocked"? Primary source.

(The problem of satirical or "joking" things could probably be handled as an example of quoting out of context.)

I also notice that there are no examples given either of inappropriate behavior in articles or of disputes that couldn't be resolved without adding yet another rule to the policy. Could this be a WP:CREEPY proposal that, although obviously motivated from a morally and encyclopedically sound place, isn't strictly necessary? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

What she said, more or less. jp×g🗯️ 10:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Comment: If the intent is to use a quote out of context to make a person look bad, then there is a lack of neutrality which is covered elsewhere. If this is about the reliability of social media as a source, that is also addressed elsewhere. I have reservations about using the word "never" in a guideline like this without more details about circumstances and types of sources. This is a bad example because it is clearly discussed in secondary sources, but consider that Hitler expressed his opinions of Jews in Mein Kampf. Whether a historical publication or a book published today, I don't think we would want a policy that says we can't quote from Mein Kampf because it would make Hitler look bad. As long as the quote is not accompanied by interpretation (original research), editors should be able to quote from primary sources as appropriate. (Recognizing that MOS suggests paraphrasing instead). In short, I don't want to start debating whether something makes a person "look bad" or is a usable fact. Rather, I think we can rely on UNDO to guide us through whether a fact is encyclopedic and important to the subject. Rublamb (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The WP:BLPSELFPUB policy is far too strict

Relevant context: an edit I submitted to the Louis Rossman article was reverted. I could not find any secondary sources that contained any relevant information, and the 3rd party (the NY State Department of Taxation and Finance) claims were supported with documents sent by and recordings of converstaions with various NY State-affiliated entities. These documents and recordings were released by Louis Rossman but are not available directly from NY State. Louis Rossman's struggles with NY State are arguably an important part of his history, and the article is incomplete without that information:

I suggest that the following rule:

 it does not involve claims about third parties;

have the following footnote added:

 The release of documents written by or written to a third party does not constitute a claim about a third party.

Additionally, I would like the following rule removed:

 the article is not based primarily on such sources.

If the source meets all of the other quality standards (including, importantly, the 'there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity' rule), then this rule adds nothing and reduces the amount of content that can be included in Wikipedia. Pandapip1 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Reading the edit summary of the edit that reverted your addition, I see no mention of BLPSELFPUB. I do however see a mention of WP:UNDUE, and yeah that content would be undue as primary sources do not contribute towards due weight. In my opinion, changing BLPSELFPUB would not have prevented the content you added from being reverted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. I'm relatively new.

It appears that you're right about WP:UNDUE being the reason for the revert (although I will be disputing that, since there is no published alternate viewpoint). However, my edit, it appears, would also violate BLPSELFPUB as it currently stands.

I don't care about reinstating the edit nearly as much as improving this rule, since it currently seems extraordinarily flawed. Let's pretend that my edit was also reverted for BLPSELFPUB. What do you think of my suggested changes to the rule? Pandapip1 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea. The footnote would not cover common situations where an article subject self-publishes a press release alleging another article subject wronged them in some manner. It doesn't matter if that second article subject is another individual person, or an organisation or some other body, it is still a claim about a third party. It certainly would not assist with the content you tried to add to Rossman's article, because Rossman was making claims about a third party (in this case, the New York state government) made in relation to his own business and non-profit organisation.

As for the removal, again this is a bad idea. We already have an issue with overly promotional articles on individuals, where the promotional nature is often solely sourced to self-published sources. The current rule allows for us to clean up those articles, and keep them where reliable, independent, secondary sources about that person exist, or delete them where they don't because they are not notable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What about my footnote wouldn't cover my edit? NY State sent documents showing that they dropped both fines. I expressed Louis Rossman's view by stating his opinions and included factual information that NY State sent.

I agree that the footnote could use additional expansion. But as someone unfamilliar with the process, I would assume that larger changes are harder to make, and didn't want to propose sweeping changes that would take ages to implement. Would you recommend I expand the footnote?

Overly promotional articles can be fixed / removed using other existing rules, such as the notability rule and the 'there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity' rule. Is the ability to fast-track article removals for overly promotional articles a reasonable by disallowing a significant amount of legitimate content really a good tradeoff? I'd say no; if you disagree, I'd like to know why. Pandapip1 (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

You're not going to have a lot of success changing this policy because your edit was (correctly) reverted on other grounds. You're trying to fix a problem that isn't actually a problem as far as the rest of the Wikipedia community sees it. MrOllie (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Pandapip1 (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It would not be feasible to remove "the article is not based primarily on such sources" without also doing an RfC or similar consensus discussion at WP:V also, since it's part of the version in V as well. I.e., this would be a substantive change to two policies at once (plus a guideline, RS). See Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Merge WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:BLPSELFPUB to WP:ABOUTSELF for ongoing efforts to merge all three of these into a single policy location in V. Also, any proposals for substantive changes like the above "release of documents" stuff should be postponed until after that merge is complete, or it will simply cloud the proceeding and impede getting consensus on anything at all. (Yes, I know it was posted before that; I mean to head off more such proposed changes to this section in the interim.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• No, both of these are bad suggestions. Clearly documents written by or to a third party can have implications for third parties (consider eg. if the head of the KKK wrote a letter to a political candidate endorsing them; any reference at all to that letter would require a secondary source.) And the second suggestion is totally unworkable - there are very, very good reasons why we don't want an article to rely entirely on such sources. Articles are required to be based primarily on WP:INDEPENDENT sources, for one, and a BLPSELFPUB source is never independent. The severity of that lack of independence, coupled with the high risk of people trying to improperly write articles based primarily on BLPSELFPUB sources for obscure figures who have few other sources available, is more than enough reason to make that restriction particularly severe in this context and spell it out explicitly, but it's ultimately a stronger version of policy that applies everywhere (ie. it would be inappropriate to base an article heavily on sources that aren't independent from the subject even if the sources are RSes and not just usable under BLPSELFPUB.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Presumtion of death

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.

---

The WP:BDP states:

"Anyone born within the past 115 years is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death. Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. 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".

I think the real problem is Wikipedia itself declaring people dead. I thoese situations, I understand this policy of 115 years. However, it seems to me that by writing about someone in the past tense who has officially been presumed dead by the juristiction within they resided is merely propagating what is the most widely held view is according to reliable sources. I therefore think we should add that if a person has been declared dead in absentia, we should write about them as if they were dead. To my understanding, not having this exception makes the current page about Richey Edwards in breach with the policy.--Marginataen (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

So in the case of Edwards, the last sentence of the Disappearance and presumed death section states that Edwards was declared presumed dead in November 2008. That declaration was made through a court order by Edwards' parents, following the normal process for declaration of presumed death within UK law. In that circumstance, referring to Edwards in the past tense is supported by the sources about him.

Just to make it clear, Wikipedia is not declaring Edwards dead, reliable sources and the UK court system are. Until the point at which he was declared presumed dead, the article used the present tense when referring to him. The change over to the past tense happened on 23 November 2008, after the news broke. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, @Sideswipe9th. I think that is how it should be. I just can't see anything in the policy about it being OK to write about a person in the past tense before 115 years have passed. I am suggesting to make it a part of a policy to use past tense when the individual in question is declared legally dead. In the day, he just follow what is the established view (that X is dead). Marginataen (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Are there examples of articles where you see the presumed dead thing as a problem? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:09, 22 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.

Footnote to BLPSELFPUB point 2

Point 2 to WP:BLPSELFPUB currently reads: it does not involve claims about third parties^[d]. Footnote d reads For allegations of crime or misconduct that involve multiple parties, or the conduct of one party towards another, a denial would not constitute a "claim about third parties". If a self-published denial does additionally make claims about third parties, those additional claims do fall under this criteria, and do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

I think the final sentence of the footnote should be trimmed to just: If a self-published denial does additionally make claims about third parties, those additional claims do fall under this criteria, i.e. removing , and do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia..

The reason for this is that this is completely redundant to the rest of the criteria in cases where self-published sources are the only place these claims are made, but is irrelevant and potentially incorrect where those same claims are reported in third-party sources (the inclusion or exclusion of which are dealt with by other policies). As an example of where this matters, consider a situation where living person A accuses living person B of a crime, person B denies this and makes counter-claims against person A. If a reliable source reports both sets of claims, but we only have a self-published source for the (detail of the) denial by person B then the denial is covered by BLPSELFPUB but that denial being self-published is irrelevant to whether the claims against a third party merit inclusion, and this policy should not speak to whether they are or are not. Slightly separately in some cases it might be appropriate for a self-published source to be used to verify that claims against a third party were made as part of a denial (but obviously not details of what those claims are). Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

BLP/V/OR dispute about pronunciation keys in lead sentences

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: WT:Manual of Style/Lead section#Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Pronunciation – What began as seemingly a style question about a particular handful of articles has turned into a broad sourcing and OR debate, most especially as it pertains to pronunciations of individuals' surnames, with some particular BLP argumentation. This could really use input from BLP regulars not just MoS regulars.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)