This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
I'd added three graphics last week and see that they were removed by User:ImageRemovalBot. I'm planning to return those within the next week or so. Given that I'm not seeing a place to discuss the speedy deletion, what might I do to save a repeat of that? Rorybowman (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would guess they were deleted because they didn't have proper licensing info. WP has strict rules about the use of images that haven't been released under the appropriate Creative Commons license, and from the captions I'd assume these were not. In those cases, it has to qualify as Fair Use and have that rationale explained when you upload to photo. A couple rules of thumb: While low-resolution covers of a books can be used on articles about that book, I've never seen one allowed on a article about its creator. Photos of living people are generally not allowed based on the rationale that it's possible to get another photo that's properly licensed. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @JasonAQuest! I saw you added back YouTube as a source with the summary "Restore cites per WP:RSPYT Content on YouTube "may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." That was not the full sentence listed under WP:RSPYT, however. The full sentence reads: "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability." (bolding mine) The account for The Center for LGBTQ Studies is not verified, and therefore does not qualify as passing RSPYT. Additionally, under the legend at RSP, generally unreliable sources (under which YouTube falls), states, "Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate." --Kbabej (talk) 23:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:SELFSOURCE (which is policy), "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." That includes living persons. In case you haven't actually watched it, the video presents the subject of the article talking about his life and career. The statements in the article which cite this video are uncontroversial facts which meet the criteria in that policy. The mere fact that the video has been uploaded to YouTube doesn't make the information in it suspicious. As WP:RSPUSE emphasizes: that list is only a guideline, and context matters. Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I was thinking: The source in question isn't self-published. It's published by another agency (The Center for the LGBTQ Studies), not the subject. My understanding of SELFSOURCE has always been that it needs to be from the subject (hence the name self sourcing). I thought it was a stretch to use an interview self-published by a school and then uploaded to YouTube, even if the content is not necessarily suspicious. The article is currently undersourced, especially for the claims it makes on a BLP. I'm trying to clean it up and improve it, since the subject does appear notable and has an important part in LGBTQ history, but I didn't think that source improves it. For example, out of the 12 claims in the 'Awards and recognition' section, 8 are unsourced.
In looking at the actual content referenced to the source, I think you're right the statements are uncontroversial. And not unduly self-serving, considering it's content about his motivations and thoughts, not awards he's been given, etc. I'll defer to your analysis. Thanks for listening, and for your discussion. Feel free to revert that source change (or, if you'd like, I can do it myself. Just ping me!)
