Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 58

Labels again - request for clarification/clearer guidance

Over on the article for Elizabeth Holmes we recently had an RfC "Fraudster" on the issue of whether it was appropriate to use the label "fraudster" applied to Holmes in the article (as well as her associate Sunny Balwani). I posted an initial Talk issue, with skepticism as to the use of the word, but initially not sure. As the talk evolved, I became more certain, and eventually we had the RfC, with overwhelming support for avoiding the term. I had looked into the guidance on the issue on this page, but found it ambiguous - for the arguments back and forth we were having, this guidance could be read in different ways. The issue is as broad and pervasive as it is unclear...e.g., there is List of fraudsters, which given the results of our RfC, is an inappropriate name for the list (it calls everyone on the list a "fraudster", irrespective; an equivalent name might be "Rogues gallery"). In the Holmes case there were "sources" that used the label, to be sure, but it seemed to me that was part of the national bandwagon of anger at Holmes (with, with all due respect, elements of the usual insidious misogyny). The main news reporting articles did not use the label. Anyways, it seems to me that there should be a quite high bar on the use of such labels - someone with an extensive history of fraud/crime/"whatever", and perhaps even enough time passing to have a historical perspective. Also at issue here is the article is a biography of a living person, an important factor. I posted a similar inquiry on MOS:LABEL. Thanks, Bdushaw (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

To spark a bit of discussion on the general issue of the use of labels, I propose below a new section that might be appropriate - I had in mind something like this. I am reluctant to "boldly edit" a guidance page such as this. This new section I have in mind would go in the "Writing style" section, between "Balance" and "Attack pages".

Use of labels

A label is a single word or brief phrase used to describe the essential essence or nature of a person or thing. For example, Wikipedians have labelled Adolf Hitler "an Austrian-born German politician" and Charles Manson "an American criminal and musician." As in all cases, use of such labels should reflect common such use in reliable sources.

Labels can also be cheap, misleading, or sloppy writing. Context or nuance are impossible to convey in a label, and a simple label can carry with it misleading implications about the person. A label ascribes to a person a state of permanence: Hitler will always be a politician, Manson a criminal. The use of a label should be cautious, particularly for living persons, if that label applied to the person does not evidently convey their permanent nature. As general rule, labels should be avoided when a simple statement of the facts, situation or events will suffice.

As an example, the article for Elizabeth Holmes applied the label "fraudster" to her for a time. In the heat of her fraud scandal, numerous contemporary sources used this label, but strict news reporting sources rarely used it. In this case, the problems with the use of the label included that the label did not convey the nature of high-risk startup enterprises, or the particular nature of Holmes' fraud. Further, it was unknown if Holmes would be perpetually inclined to fraud. By consensus, the label was removed and replaced by a simple description of Holmes' fraud and its consequences.

End section Bdushaw (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've also been thinking about using labels in lists, such as List of fraudsters. I've concluded that labels in lists can be grossly wrong. Here, this list is labeling everyone on that list a "fraudster". Wikipedia is really going to do that? Bdushaw (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Possible priors = Applying controversial labels to people for BLP talk, RfC: Conspiracy theorist in the lead sentence on Michael Flynn talk, RFC "Bias categories" and whether we can categorize people, groups, organizations, and media under them for WikiProject Biography talk. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

This comes up regularly, and I've begun to associate it with a model of parenting that says you can't say "You're a bad boy", but must always say "You made a bad choice". We seem increasingly squeamish about labeling people with negative "identities", with a few exceptions. We're still willing to say that Jack the Ripper was a serial killer, but I don't think that we have a single BLP that begins "_____ is a thief", even though Category:Thieves has hundreds of articles in it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think this is a question of being squeamish – I think it’s a question of being informative. In your analogy, it is no use telling a child ‘You’re a bad boy’. You need to tell the child what they have done which is bad. Similarly, labelling someone a thief in the lead gives hardly any information. Presumably it means, at least, that the person has been convicted of theft, because otherwise it would be defamatory, but the label would cover ‘has throughout their life made a living by pickpocketing, and has never held a job’ and also ‘has spent most of their life in honest paid employment, but has also defrauded thousands of people of millions of pounds/dollars.’ If I’m reading a Wikipedia BLP, I don’t want to know whether Wikipedia editors disapprove of the subject of the article, I want to know what the subject has actually done. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Consider these two:

• "_____ is a thief best known for stealing the Famous Painting in 1972."
• "_____ is a person best known for stealing the Famous Painting in 1972."

Do you find one of them tells you less about what the subject has actually done? Do you feel a difference in the level of disapproval from the Wikipedia editors? I don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I find that the first version is less informative, because it suggests that A is a habitual thief, but leaves me guessing as to whether that is the case. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It is less informative, because it suggests more? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes – because it is ambiguous. Also, it leads me to doubt the seriousness of the writer. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as noted in my proposed text, when one uses "...is a thief..." a whole lot of implications and assumptions go along with that (habitual thief? thief as their profession? generally thieving according to opportunity? psychologically prone to thievery, etc.) that may or may not be true. Use of labels can be quite misleading. However, if the article goes on to describe a lifetime of professional thievery, well, ok then. Bdushaw (talk) 14:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"willing to say that Jack the Ripper was a serial killer" - yes, this is an interesting point, in that with a sufficient historical retrospective, such a label becomes both valid and appropriate (not sure why Hitler is not labeled a "mass murderer"). A living person, however, is still subject to change and perhaps should not be labeled by whatever, that is, should not be typecast. In the example above, after Holmes has paid her debt to society (i.e., finished her prison term), was she still to be labeled "fraudster"? Seems so inappropriate. Bdushaw (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hoping for the redemption of convicted criminals probably says good things about your character. :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

"Hoping for redemption"...lately my antenna has been sensitized to ad hominem arguments, which is what this is (attempt to spin the issue into what I "hope"; but thanks for the compliment). Rather, I try to be objective about what we know and don't know - generally speaking, we don't really ever know what a living person IS, that is, their permanent essence, until after their life. If someone does something early in life, say commits a single fraud, then goes on to become a famous nuclear scientist, say, does that make them a "fraudster and nuclear scientist", forever? I would say that if a label can't be assured of being true for the remainder of the person's life, then perhaps it should be avoided. If one swiped a candy bar from the local store as a youth, and is convicted of it, say, does that make one "a thief" for life? No. Bdushaw (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, if one is elected to public office for a few years, we call that person "a politician" for life; if one acquires a medical license at any point, we label that person "a physician" for life (although if we are very disapproving and their license is formally removed for bad conduct, such as for Andrew Wakefield, we may call them a "former" physician); if one wins an athletic competition once, we call that person "an athlete" for life; if one is known for making music, we label that person "a musician" forever; if one is notable for running a business, we call that person "a businessman" even after retirement.

These are all labels. Do you think it is completely neutral of us to be biased in favor of "____ is <pro-social activity>" and biased against "____ is <anti-social activity>"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

A fair point, though do I think we have greater responsibility to avoid applying negative connotations to someone with a BLP. I contemplate Caitlyn Jenner, who I would not label "an athlete", but would be OK with "was an athlete" (as her page employs). As you see, someone who could have been labeled "an athlete", but then that changed, though always "an athlete in the 1976 Summer Olympics". It does seem as if it is generally possible to avoid the simple (often misleading) label, by adding some phrasing to be specific. Rather than "fraudster", use "convicted of such and such fraud". Bdushaw (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I am at a loss of suggestions as to labels in lists and categories. They seem "nuclear" or "radioactive"-ly bad - the Sorcerer's Apprentice gone amok. (Please don't do that?) Bdushaw (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The List of fraudsters could be renamed to List of people convicted of fraud, assuming that the list is strictly limited to convicted criminals, or List of people who committed fraud if it includes people who haven't been convicted (e.g., people who died before the trial ended, or people who admitted to fraud but weren't prosecuted). It's more verbose but not excessively so. I doubt that anyone would object if you created those titles as redirects, and you might find support for moving the page to one of those titles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This Talk has been fairly quiet - I move toward including a version of the example text above in the guidelines. I might note that applying a "label" is a close sister to "name calling". I sense that labeling Holmes a "fraudster" was also somewhat calling her this name, that is, with an undercurrent of vindictiveness. Bdushaw (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Labels are difficult to write policy about… A LOT depends on the specific situation, and the specific label used. One thing we need to be wary of is using a label when someone is “convicted in the court of public opinion” vs convicted in a court of law. For the first, I feel we should always use in text attribution - as they ARE opinion (even if very common opinion). For the second we can state as fact. Blueboar (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would also think we need to always use labels with some context for the label (which by essence requires in-line source). For example, simply describing someone as "fraudster" without any explaining why that applies is basically name calling and is definitely non-neutral, non-impartial writing. On the other hand, briefly explaining the events that led to why the person is considered a fraud is far more appropriate neutral and in the right tone for an encyclopedia. Masem (t) 15:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  Do you feel the same about simply describing someone as a "murderer" without explaining why that applies? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

One of the things I noticed about the "fraudster" label, for example, was that everyone seemed to have a different idea about what that meant. When one uses such a label, one has to assume that all readers understand it the same way, which is not really possible. The definition of the word was quoted in our Talk discussions, but I found that to be disingenuous - the word, as in any label, carries a variety of meanings. Anyways, I concluded that by using a label like that, the text loses control of the narrative it is trying to convey. It (can be/is) sloppy writing, prone to error. (And not everyone understood the idea of "a label" the same way either!) Bdushaw (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that all labels carry a variety of meanings. Murderer has one meaning. Bank robber has one meaning. Jewel thief has one meaning. Abortionist has one meaning.

I happen to personally dislike fraudster (because of the -ster ending, it sounds slangy to me), but I recognize that's my personal preference, which is not really relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you with the -ster ending. But each of the labels just above conjure up in any given reader a particular and individual picture, and they each have dimensions of intent, extent, context, guilt, etc. Murderer: serial killer, spouse killer, manslaughter? In an accident, inadvertent, or planned? Car accident or deliberately run over multiple times in a parking lot? Drunk or sober? A single incident or many? A mass murderer (mass shooting) or ... etc. (Could Ted Kennedy be labeled a murderer? Chappaquiddick incident The same as Charles Manson, Jack the Ripper, Caitlyn_Jenner#Fatal_car_collision, or the 3-year old who inadvertently shot his mother?). With a label there are always context, intent, degree, etc. and how an individual reader will interpret the label. Why write a vague, ambiguous label, when some simple phrasing will carry a far more precise meaning? Bdushaw (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking this (and perhaps under-thinking it, too). First, educated English speakers already know that what differentiates murder from killing is that murder is an intentional and guilty action, which eliminates half of your confusion.

Second, while it is possible to say "What kind of murderer is he?", that doesn't change the fact that a murderer is a murderer. It is also possible to say "What kind of athlete is he?" or "What kind of physician is he?" or "What kind of businessman is he?" or "What kind of politician is he?" – but the possibility of providing more detail does not stop us from labeling these subjects according to their actions.

Finally, when I wrote that "Murderer has one meaning", I meant that all the usual dictionaries literally give a single meaning for the word:

• "one who murders, especially: one who commits the crime of murder" [1]
• "someone who illegally and intentionally kills another person" [2]
• "a person who commits murder" [3]

There is no second definition in any of the dictionaries I checked. It is not a vague or ambiguous label; it is precise and specific, even if it leaves some people wishing for more of the gory details. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You have invoke ad hominem arguments, which is bad faith behavior, IMO. Knock it off. Regarding definitions, you are rehashing ground that's already been worked over. In the RFC for the label for Holmes, the proponents of "fraudster" restated the definition multiple times, but the overwhelming consensus was against using the word. A strict dictionary definition of a label is often disingenuous in practical use, as has been stated already. One thing to note, is that a label can be a long term profession (accountant, politician), which would be appropriate, while other labels (fraudster, murderer) used the same way can inappropriately suggest that that is the person's predilection or profession. But these arguments are a rehash of those we had during the RFC for Holmes/fraudster. Bdushaw (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• "I think you're overthinking this" is not an ad hominem argument; it is an identification of an (alleged) error that you're making, equivalent to "you forgot to carry the 2 when you added those numbers up".
• Your argument here basically says that a single word does not always tell the story of an entire life, so (according to you) we must not use them unless the word happens to represent most of the person's life story. I agree that a label does not always represent a person's whole life, but I do not agree that this prohibits us from using labels anyway. Pope John Paul I was only pope for about 1/700th of his life, and we still label him as being a pope. Articles should lead with what a person is known for – whether that's a positive or a negative thing – and not try to get in the business of "who I really am".

WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

But if you label someone, then you are getting into the business of deciding who someone ‘really’ is. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think I'm in the business of saying what someone's known for. That could be unrelated to what they believe is most important about their lives. People's self-conception is not always aligned with their public reputations, partly because the public doesn't know everything in our hearts, but also because our capacity for self-deception is truly astounding. I've been working on an article recently that involves an abusive father (think: towering rages, threatening suicide if he doesn't get his way, shooting at the police). I'm convinced that the father thought well of himself about would have said that "who he really is" is a loving and supportive father who wanted nothing but the best for his child. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

It may be the best approach is not to specify a "policy" but to give Wikipedians something to think about before employing a label. Bdushaw (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• I find it interesting that this is primarily a BLP issue. We tend to NOT use contentious labels for long dead people. For example: King Richard III of England is widely considered by historians to be a “Usurper” (and even a “murderer”)… and yet we don’t feel the need to label him as such in the lead (much less the first sentence). No one seems to mind.

Meanwhile, in BLPs (and especially BLPs about anyone even remotely political) we get into huge debates about labels. Yet these are the articles where we are supposed to be at our most neutral! Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's entirely true? We label Jesse James (d. 1882) as "an American outlaw, bank and train robber, guerrilla and leader of the James–Younger Gang". Billy the Kid (d. 1881) was "an American outlaw and gunfighter". Butch Cassidy (d. 1908) was "an American train and bank robber". Dick Turpin (d. 1739) "was an English highwayman".

For some more recent murderers, there are occasional articles that feel weird to me, such as Lee Harvey Oswald, whom we introduce as "a U.S. Marine veteran who assassinated John F. Kennedy". I doubt that he's best known for being a veteran – perhaps it should just say "the American who assassinated JFK" or "an American who once attempted to defect to the Soviet Union and later assassinated JFK" – but we lead with veteran status. (That talk page might benefit from indefinite semi-protection. They seem to get a lot of conspiracy theorists.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bdushaw: Regarding contentious labels in lists, see the discussion here. While that didn't focus on how it would affect BLP's, I realize now that the greatest problem is with the inclusion of BLP's in such lists. BilledMammal (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• In academic or professional writing (different from persuasive writing) one should avoid language that is judgmental. If I say "X raised their voice and used cuss words" - I'm describing what happened. If I say "X was a jerk" - that's making a judgement about that person. Same with "X was charged with fraud for Y situation" vs "X was a fraudster". One is describing a situation and inviting the reader to make a judgement, one is making a judgement about the person. I really think we should avoid judgmental language in the lead all together. It might be appropriate later in the article, attributing it to specific sources. But in the Lead, in Wikipedia's voice, should be considered a biased approach no matter who it is. Denaar (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  When a BLP has been charged but not yet convicted, I'd be hesistant to say that they "are" a <type of criminal>. However, do you feel the same about "X was a <relevant type of criminal>" when the person has been convicted or admitted to the crime in question? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Suggest: “X was convicted of <relevant crime>”. Blueboar (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Why focus on the conviction instead of their own actions? How about "X murdered 23 people and injured 23 more"? "X robbed banks"? "X staged an elaborate Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of innocent victims"?

  But also: Why not call them what they are: murderers, bank robbers, and con men? WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

New subsection added on Labels

I have carefully reviewed the comments above and reviewed the previous RfC "Fraudster" on the topic and found there to be a consensus for the addition of text such as I suggested above ("Use of labels"). I have revised the original suggested text in response to some of the discussion. The discussion above is quite similar to the discussion of the previous RfC. I contemplated yet another RfC on the issue, but it seems to me there would be no point. The text I added may be perhaps overly wordy, as is my nature; others may refine it. My thinking was, for those looking for guidance, to raise the various considerations discussed above, while offering not "rules" or "policy" but guidance. Thanks to you all for comments! Bdushaw (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition, as WhatamIdoing did before me. Reading through the above discussion, I see no consensus for the merits, placement and especially language of the addition. And in any case, any such substatantial change to a core policy requires a *much* wider discussion. I'd suggest opening a discussion (as a precursor to an eventual RFC) at the appropriate Village pump if you want to proceed further. Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Really? By my count there was universal support for the concerns I've been raising concerning labeling, with the exception of one vocal editor,WhatamIdoing, prone to repetitive arguments (some with ad hominem elements) and talking past opposing views. I don't discount the existing RfC as noted. The Village pump? I see no guidance at the top of this page concerning taking issues to the Village pump...perhaps the guidance above should be revised to better describe the process. I've been engaged on this Talk page now for a month, posting proposed text 3 weeks ago...now I wonder to what end? Bdushaw (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

An RFC here would be adequate under the usual WP:PROPOSAL rules, but I think you may have conflated support for "the concerns" with support for "the specific words you put in the policy".

If I have been "repetitive" in my arguments, I suggest that you consider whether that indicates a failure to resolve my concerns. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've pulled, it because it still needs some work. Here's the test you posted:

Use of labels

A label is a single word or brief phrase used to describe the essential essence or nature of a person or thing. For example, Wikipedians have labelled Adolf Hitler "an Austrian-born German politician" and Charles Manson "an American criminal and musician." Use of such labels should reflect common such use in reliable sources.

Labels can also be misleading or sloppy writing; a label is a close cousin to name calling. Context or nuance are impossible to convey in a label, and a simple label can carry with it misleading implications about the person. Consider that people may interpret a label not by its strict dictionary definition, but in widely different ways. A label ascribes to a person a state of permanence: Hitler will always be a politician, Manson a criminal. The use of a label should be cautious, particularly for living persons and absent historical retrospective, if that label applied to the person does not evidently convey their permanent nature, long-term profession, etc. As general guidance, labels should be avoided when a simple statement of the facts, situation or events will suffice.

As an example, the article for Elizabeth Holmes applied the label "fraudster" to her for a time. In the heat of her fraud scandal, numerous contemporary sources used this label, but strict news reporting sources rarely used it. In this case, the problems with the use of the label included that the label did not convey the particular nature of Holmes' fraud and that there was no evidence that Holmes would be perpetually inclined to fraud. By consensus, the label was removed and replaced by a simple description of Holmes' fraud and its consequences.

and here are some comments:

• It does not differentiate between "labeling" and "describing" or "defining". Have we "labeled" the "essential essence or nature of" Algebra? How about Cipro? Or New York City? Or is that not "labeling"? Are we really "labeling" Hitler by saying that he was a politician? You implicitly present here labeling as being something bad, but you don't explain how to tell the difference between the bad thing and the good thing (i.e., the thing that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#First sentence wants us to do for every single article).
• "Labels can also be misleading or sloppy writing" → Anything except clear, good writing can be misleading or sloppy writing. Since you haven't differentiated between objectionable labeling and sentences that "tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is" (to quote the MOS), this is pointless. Penicillin will be "labeled" as a type of antibiotic (its "essential essence of nature"), and now we're being told that might be misleading and sloppy writing, but not told what we could write that isn't "labeling" the drug.
• "Context or nuance are impossible to convey in a label" is not a factually true statement. Some objectionable labels provide a wealth of context and nuance. (Also, sometimes nuance is irrelevant, e.g., when writing about violent crimes.)
• "a simple label can carry with it misleading implications about the person" – and so can a refusal to use plain, straightforward language, like "Charles Manson was a murderer".
• "Consider that people may interpret a label not by its strict dictionary definition, but in widely different ways." This is true for almost every word we use and is not uniquely relevant to "labeling" politicians as being politicians.
• "A label ascribes to a person a state of permanence" – Remember when we were talking about philosophical or religious ideas? Your personal POV is showing up again. The idea that murderers are "permanently" murderers or that monarchs are "permanently" monarchs is not inherently a bad thing for an encyclopedia. "Charles Manson was a person who killed a few people, but that was only during two months a long time ago, and for all we know, he might have had a complete change of heart before he died in prison, so we wouldn't want to label him a murderer, as if that were a permanent thing with him" is not an encyclopedic approach, no matter how much you copyedit it.
• "The use of a label should be cautious" – editors can't be cautious if they can't figure out which words are "labels".
• "As general guidance, labels should be avoided when a simple statement of the facts, situation or events will suffice": It is unclear to me that this desire to be verbose ("Charles Manson was a human who made music, operated a cult, and killed multiple people in 1969"? We'd still label him as a human, but presumably that's not an objectionable label) applies generally, rather than in a very few high-traffic articles ("very few" as in "a single-digit number"). Also, the "simple statement of the facts" is that Hitler really was a politician, and Manson really was a murderer.
• I'd remove the Holmes example entirely. For one thing, AFAICT from the inadequate definition, we're still labeling her "an American former biotechnology entrepreneur". According to what you wrote, labels ascribe permanence, and we don't know whether her current unemployment is permanent. Secondly, "was convicted of fraud" does not say anything about the consequences of that fraud, unless you think that being convicted is the only consequence worth mentioning (and not, e.g., the consequences for the former staff, other investors, etc.).

I suggest that if you want to add a complaint about "labeling", then you figure out what labeling is and isn't, and that you come back when you can give a definition that editors can apply to a few dozen articles and get consistent results from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"still needs some work" - that's disingenuous, as is the rhetorical morass you've made above. You've been opposed to the concerns over labeling from the beginning, whereas "still needs some work" suggests you've accepted the issue, but the language just needs refinement; I don't believe that's true. I couldn't begin to unpack the multitude of ways the above rhetoric is off track (well, I could, but why? e.g., "It does not differentiate between "labeling" and "describing" or "defining"." is an ipse dixit statement; no one else had any trouble with what a label was, generally, etc.). You could just as well apply these rhetorical tricks to the rest of the article page. You disagree? OK, "Still needs some work", how would you rework the text I proposed three weeks ago? Bdushaw (talk) 00:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have already told you how I would re-work it: "figure out what labeling is and isn't, and ... come back when you can give a definition that editors can apply to a few dozen articles and get consistent results from."

I don't want to see articles begin by inappropriately labeling people, e.g., "Manson was an abusive, manipulative predator". I do want to see articles begin by appropriately describing what people are, e.g., "Manson was a murderer". You've provided a whole lot of reasons why inappropriate content is inappropriate, but you have provided only two sentences that address what editors ought to do ("Use of such labels should reflect common such use in reliable sources" and "As general guidance, labels should be avoided when a simple statement of the facts, situation or events will suffice") and zero sentences about how to tell whether a given word is "a label" or "a simple statement of the facts". How can people replace what that sentence calls "labels" with "a simple statement of the facts" if they can't figure out whether "Manson was a murderer" counts as "labels" or "a simple statement of the facts"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Bdushaw, I understand what you are trying to do and I agree with it in concept. I do think labels are applied to BLP subjects too freely. I also think WhatamIdoing is making very good points. Essentially the addition is long winded and vague. It's intent is, in my opinion, correct, but the clarity isn't there. I absolutely agree with WhatamIdoing's comment about trying to better define when something is a label vs description. I think part of that can be pulled from LABEL were we talk about value driven but you also might look at how relatively subjective the thing is. "Mayor" as a job title is objective (was mayor from 1982-1990). "Evil" is harder to define. Mao is considered evil by many but others may see what he did as good. Perhaps listing some potential labels would be a starting point. We could then try to understand what makes some of them better/worse when applied to BLPs. The objective would then to use that information to try to draw a better line in the sand for the rest of your arguments. Springee (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I would say the descriptions of Hitler as a "German politician" and Manson as a "criminal and musician" are not good examples; they certainly aren't good examples of describing their essential essence. The use of labels is tricky to give advice on, because it is so multifaceted. It depends on whether a more specific option is readily available (clearer to introduce Oswald as "an American who assassinated John F. Kennedy" rather than generically as an "American assassin"), context (natural and appropriate to put Oswald in an "Assassins" category"), relative importance (weird to lead with Hitler being a politician, Manson being a musician, or Oswald being a marine), and the specific term used (I think there are valid reasons to avoid "fraudster" in American English).--Trystan (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• I strenuously oppose the second paragraph, which makes no mention of sources at all; in particular the sentence Labels can also be misleading or sloppy writing; a label is a close cousin to name calling is extremely strange and aggressively-worded. Calling something "name-calling" or "sloppy" is itself name-calling and would never be acceptable in a policy page; I don't think we can seriously consider any version that uses either term. And more generally, the aggressive tone of the second paragraph seems to invite editors to argue for ignoring sourcing because they personally feel that a particular summary of the subject, though widely-used in high-quality WP:RSes, is "name-calling" or "sloppy", a subjective judgment that essentially invites them to substitute their own beliefs and prejudices for the assessment of the sources. Likewise, I would oppose As general guidance, labels should be avoided when a simple statement of the facts, situation or events will suffice in strongest possible terms because it disregards the sources; it would have to be something like as general guidance, labels not present in high-quality sources should be avoided. The "simple statement" bit should be omitted; it isn't correct and isn't relevant, since our judgment should be based on what the sources say. And the rest of this paragraph is likewise meandering and essentially invites editors to use your personal opinions about what you personally consider "labels" to be as a substitute for the judgement of sources. I would also oppose the entire example paragraph, which is vague and hand-wavy about the relative quality of the sources. Simply saying Use of labels should reflect the common use in the best reliable sources is sufficient - we should avoid any wording that could be seen as encouraging editors to apply standards beyond "what do the best available WP:RSes say". Although, since one thing I think that this discussion has shown is that "label" itself has become a bit of a snarlword, I think it would probably be best to avoid using the word entirely in this section and focus on a less emotive wording - eg. Subjects should be described using the terminology in common use among the best reliable sources. It doesn't need its own paragraph; there's several places it could be put. Our ultimate responsibility is to describe subjects the way the best sources do - going beyond that threatens to tread into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. That has always been one of the guiding principles of WP:BLP - the purpose is not to describe subjects the way they would want to be described, but to accurately summarize them in strict adherence to our core content policies, which tell us that sourcing, not editor's opinions about "labels" or personal preferences for the language they wish the best sources used instead, are what is paramount. --Aquillion (talk) 12:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  I think that seems to invite editors to argue for ignoring sourcing because they personally feel that a particular summary of the subject, though widely-used in high-quality WP:RSes, is "name-calling" or "sloppy", a subjective judgment that essentially invites them to substitute their own beliefs and prejudices for the assessment of the sources might kinda be the point. Viewed very narrowly, this is supposed to enshrine in policy a recent decision that even though Liz Holmes was called a fraudster in many reliable sources, Wikipedia shouldn't follow the sources' choice of language.

  "Subjects should be described using the terminology in common use among the best reliable sources" has some potential (but I doubt it will be acceptable, because that would argue in favor of calling Holmes a fraudster), but I'd like to consider as well that we should Wikipedia:Use our own words. Sometimes this even means not using the words that are commonly used in reliable sources (best or otherwise).

  (If you wanted to avoid the word label – which has the additional virtue of removing the potential confusion with WP:LABEL – then one potential approach is to recommend against using judgmental language.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

A few points that I'd want to see:

• Label should always be considered to be contentious language for purposes of NPOV writing, even if the label is widely used.
• Labels should be used only if a significant portion of high quality RSes use the label in non-opinion reporting pieces. We don't want labels cherry picked from a few sources.
• In this view, we also should only use labels that have persisted in time, and to point labels that remain in use in multiple sources for years after core events have passed can start to be treated as facts (though should still be considered controversial from a neutrality and tone level). Labels that only come out of one event and are never used again by RSes probably should be included.
• Labels should be introduced in context of why the label applies. Labels used in isolation from text that describes why they apply do amount to name calling and poor writing. "X is a far right politician." Is poor, while "X is a far right politician, supporting anti abortion and anti LGBTQ legislation and promoting religion in public schools." is a much more neutral and useful statement.
• in following these points, labels should never be included in the lede sentence, even if that label is what they are most noted for. Labels can be introduced later in the lede with context to keep ledes as neutral and impartial as possible, even of BLP articles whose subjects are seen casually as vile people.

Masem (t) 18:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Masem, I think part of the problem here is that it's unclear whether or not "X is a politician" is "a label". Joe Biden currently begins this way: "Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. (/ˈbaɪdən/ BY-dən; born November 20, 1942) is an American politician who is the 46th and current president of the United States." Is calling him a politician "a label", or not? If it's "a label", should it be considered contentious language? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Most times, "Politician" is an occupation/profession which we can clearly factually sort to Biden throughout his career. That's not a label in this sense. I could see that being an issue with some random Joe, who happens to be notable, that may have a normal occupation but one year decided to run for their local school board and lost but otherwise was never involved in such governmental positions; calling that person a "politician" would be a label in that case (in my scheme, that would likely be an issue with few sources covering that label particularly well after the election) Masem (t) 12:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

How do you know whether a given word is "a label"?

One could say that your random candidate isn't a politician (i.e., that the statement is inaccurate, and we should 'label' him as "a failed candidate" or by whatever thing made him notable). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Clarifying WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

PUBLICFIGURE begins with In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources... In context, this is clearly referring to when there are accusations against a public figure; the definition of public figures vs. low profile figures is in WP:LOWPROFILE, which the section links. However, leading into the section with that sentence, without a summary of what a public figure is, does invite confusion, and has led some people to the mistaken belief that a public figure is simply anyone who has received a lot of coverage. I suggest a sentence summarizing the points in WP:LOWPROFILE to clear this up, eg. A public figure is one who has sought out public attention or something to that effect. (Keep in mind, of course, that we can and do cover low-profile individuals when there's enough coverage, of course; it's just that the standards for what we include are different per WP:NPF.) --Aquillion (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

My present understanding is that the person either must have been a public figure prior to the event or chooses to seek public attention after the event to qualify for naming prior to any conviction.

The BLPCRIME section links directly or indirectly to no fewer than three separate places for guidance on what is a public figure:

1. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE (a subsection of BLP)

2. WP:PUBLICFIGURE (another subsection of BLP)

3. WP:LOWPROFILE (a guidance essay)

4. Public figure (a mainspace article)

So not only does someone need to go to four different places, the guidance they'll read is conflicting, and mutually incompatible. This is totally unnecessary, confusing, and ultimately useless--particularly to new editors like me--and even the experienced ones on the crime beat either don't seem to understand it, or completely ignore it and go by wide-spread RS mention. It should be possible to write a succinct definition of public figure in BLP itself, in a dedicated section, with no external links to chase, that carries the strength of policy; i.e. is not WP:JUSTANESSAY.

WP:NPF is arguably a 5th (anti)definition. Did I miss any others?

Why not simply say a person is a public figure if they meet certain criteria, and if they don't they're not?

I think the succinct definition of pubic figure is one who has sought public attention. One gray area might be if they've only succeeded gaining it in self-published media like Twitter or YouTube. Then there is do public academics not widely known outside their field count? WP:LOWPROFILE seems to have pretty good guidance, and that's what I have mostly relied on, ignoring the spread-out, and confusing text currently in BLP proper. Xan747 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a wikilink in WP:PUBLICFIGURE: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources..., which from my view, can set a higher bar than the WP:LOWPROFILE essay. I also take a holistic view of the WP:LOWPROFILE essay (indicative of an overall pattern of conduct), but I have seen the essay treated more like an à la carte menu (i.e. if an individual does any one of the examples, they can be considered "high-profile"), so I agree there appear to be opportunities for wide differences in interpretations within the current language. As to what may be missing, I also think the introduction of BLP policy is worthwhile to consider: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Beccaynr (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I definitely don't think that the multitude of reliable published sources... bit was ever intended to have anything whatsoever to do with defining a public figure. It is saying if someone is a public figure - and when there is an allegation or incident, the larger topic of the section - then a large number of sources will discuss that allegation and incident. But simply presenting a big pile of sources discussing them is not sufficient to render someone a public figure. I also strongly disagree with the assertion that it is a "higher bar" - it is, in my experience, a much, much lower bar, at least in the situations where this policy actually matters. Realistically, we would never even consider including BLP-sensitive material of the sort this section contemplates about anyone without a multitude of reliable published sources. The point of WP:PUBLICFIGURE is that for some people - specifically, WP:LOWPROFILE ones - even that is sometimes insufficient; when someone is not a public figure, we should cover them in as minimal a manner as we can while still reflecting what the sourcing requires we include. The sourcing threshold to pull someone into the spotlight is much higher than the threshold for covering stuff about someone who is already there (or who is clearly seeking it out), so to speak; if simply having a multitude of reliable published sources alone was enough to negate the protections of being WP:LOWPROFILE, then WP:PUBLICFIGURE would have no meaning at all and would realistically protect nobody. --Aquillion (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I meant to refer to the public figures wikilink, not really the "multitude of reliable published sources" bit, but now that you mention it, I do consider the scale and depth of coverage as a factor, although not the only one. I do agree "The sourcing threshold to pull someone into the spotlight is much higher than the threshold for covering stuff about someone who is already there (or who is clearly seeking it out)", and I think this distinction may help discourage using the WP:LOWPROFILE essay to declare someone a "public figure" for the purpose of naming them (or including allegations in their article) before they have been convicted of a crime.

From my view, I think we have plenty of BLP subjects who could be considered "high profile" according to the WP:LOWPROFILE essay, because e.g. they are artists/musicians/authors/athletes/politicians who have engaged in self-promotion of their work, but are not public figures to the extent that allegations of criminal conduct should immediately be included in their articles. A "multitude" of sources might change the consideration - sustained, national and/or international reporting on and secondary coverage of an individual accused of a crime could demonstrate a level of public interest that makes it much more clear that the person is a public figure. Beccaynr (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I've never looked into it myself, but it's my understanding that our original use of non-public figure related to the concept of a public figure and how this affects defamatory action in the US. I don't know if this was because of the stronger threshold for defamation of public figures or simply because it was felt we should provide additional protections in a similar vein to US civil law even if it's believed in we should never come close to risking defamation of a non public figure even if we apply the standards we apply to public figures. My assumption is this move to talk about low-profile individuals rather than non public figures was a move against tying our standards to the US legal concept but does anyone know? In any case, do we want any connection now in our policies and guidelines? IMO it might be helpful to clarify this especially since there are still various links to the wikipedia article on the legal concept of public figures. Nil Einne (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aquillion, Beccaynr, and Nil Einne: - I refer you to this source [4] on the standards in the United States, which refer to (1) public officials, (2) people who "occupy positions of such pervasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes", and (3) people who "have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved". starship.paint (exalt) 13:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

That version makes sense to me. I don't like that we sometimes take any form of public statement to bed enough to move someone from low profile to public. Springee (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it's perverse that we sometimes treat people as "public figures" solely for having given interviews denying the allegations. I've even seen it happen in a case where reliable sources view the allegations as disinformation; there, we're essentially re-victimizing the accused (I'll note that BLP1E is a completely dead letter nowadays, partly due to this expansive interpretation of PUBLICFIGURE). DFlhb (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Some editors consider people "public figures" even if they have never made any public statements solely on the basis of "all the media are talking about them". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:31, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I like that this definition includes the qualifier that the person must have power and influence over society. Adopting a fuller definition along those lines would prevent the current wide redefinition whereby if someone is accused of committing a high profile crime, they are somehow considered a public figure due solely to the volume of sources as Random person no 362478479 has said. It would also allow us to make exceptions for individuals who become limited-purpose public figures due to their actual actions after an event has taken place, while keeping something routine like "suspect has plead not guilty" or "suspect denies the charges" within the realm of being a private individual. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it is definitely a good basis. It would require some explanations and clarifications, but other than that I would be onboard with this. One such clarification would be that category (2) includes celebrities (which is mentioned in the PBS article). Another other would be who counts as public official, e.g. are police officers public officials, are soldiers, are government employees? Also whether or not it matters whether the crime is related to their public role. Another question would be whether e.g. a spree killer or terrorist falls automatically into category (3). I'm sure there are more. Of course a lot of these details would not necessarily have to be codified in a guidelines, I don't think we could come up with exhaustive criteria. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Motive counts for a lot here. A disgruntled ex-employee who mass murders their former bosses and coworkers most likely acted on simple vengeance. A terrorist, by definition, did it for a cause--and that I think elevates them to at least limited public figure status.

In the Kingsessing case, police released statements to the effect that Carriker said he had done it "to clean up the neighborhood", and that his social media posts had mentioned complaints about "loss of freedoms", and in one post, "During community patrols I have notice a big shame. So many of our 50 + 60 + 70 year old elders are influencing the youth negatively. They are without a doubt promoting and participating in robbing, prostitution, scamming, and murder." This is marginal at best, and given that he's gone silent since being arrested and charged, why I !voted to not name him.

Dylan Roof: hate crime, clearly making a statement, confessed he did it, no question to name him. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, terrorist, same conclusion. Had Wikipedia existed for Ted Kaczynski and Tim McVeigh, same logic, same decision. An interesting wrinkle common to all four is the gap between when they were declared suspects, and when they were arrested. IIRC, we only had the likenesses of Kaczynski and McVeigh prior to their arrests, but we had images and names for Tsarnaev and Roof. Should Wikipedia have re-published that information prior to them being arrested? Xan747 (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Secondary sources, e.g. ("other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts") could help determine how much impact a defendant is considered to have had, but I think using claims by the defendant, police, prosecutors, witnesses, family, friends, etc as sources for their intended impact is problematic. There are other reasons to name some of the individuals noted above, but purported motive based on primary sources does not seem sufficient. Beccaynr (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to think of the brightest-line cases I could, but hindsight bias could be playing tricks on me. Kaczynski is easy; prior to his arrest, he promised to stop the bombings in exchange for having his manifesto published in the national press. The others are less clear. Should we have released the composite sketch of McVeigh, or the video stills of the Tsarnaev brothers while the manhunts for their capture were underway? It's a really good point about how to use what police and prosecutors tell the press (or especially what they leak to it) about what suspects in custody have told them. Which of the above would you have named and why? Xan747 (talk) 02:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Some perpetrators may be associated with notable events before they are caught (which may include composite sketches and video stills), and from my view, when to name a person after they are identified as a suspect, or arrested, or charged is related to the quality and depth of the sources. WP:BLPNAME notes 'wide dissemination' of a name as a consideration, as well as whether the omission results in a significant loss of context, and this section of the policy also favors "publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts." From my view, these are the types of sources that help us develop significant contextual content that could support inclusion. This section of the policy accords less weight to "the brief appearance of names in news stories," which would not help us add more than that; the WP:MINORASPECT section of WP:NPOV policy seems to echo this as well.

For the purposes of this discussion section, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE also encourages us to focus on "high-quality secondary sources" and to take special care with "material that may adversely affect a person's reputation." I think an allegation of criminal conduct is plainly material that may adversely affect a person's reputation, regardless of the presumption of innocence or adding "alleged" to the claim, but "high-quality secondary sources" may offer support for inclusion; this tracks with demonstrating what is WP:DUE to include, just also in the context of the subject of a living person, and the considerations from BLP policy. I think the suggestion by -sche to add 'most people are not public figures' could help emphasize what appears to be the current expectation for names or allegations to typically be supported by high-quality secondary sources demonstrating encyclopedic significance. Beccaynr (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

starship.paint, I think that PBS source helps highlight some complexity in determining who is a "public official" ("Although there is no bright-line rule for who qualifies..."), the "two types of public figures: all-purpose public figures and limited-purpose public figures," and "Private persons." Some of this terminology does not quite match BLP policy, and the purposes of BLP policy appear to be written more broadly than concerns about defamation.

However, as to "Limited-purpose public figures [who] "have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved"", I think the BLP policy risks of 'spreading titillating claims,' the 'possibility of harm,' and/or sensationalizing a defendant seem lower if they make overt attempts to publicize themselves (beyond cursory denials), particularly if they succeed in garnering attention from secondary sources. According to WP:BLPNAME, they could be seen as adding 'significant value' to an article. This may be rare because typically a criminal suspect or defendant would probably be implored by their legal counsel to not make substantial statements to the media. Beccaynr (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that it would be good to start this section with at least some guidance on who is or isn't a public figure—or at least state in the 'prose' which other pages list criteria, rather than just putting that in the {{see also}}!—to clarify that "is mentioned in sources" is not the criterion. Maybe even start with "Most people are not public figures", then the summary of or link to the criteria for who is or isn't a public figure, and then the current "In the case of public figures"? (As Aquillion and others have said above, if the criterion for "is a public figure" were just "is mentioned in sources", then the section would be without effect / purpose.) -sche (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• I am glad you started this discussion, because the level of deference and privacy we give to public figures is different than other individuals (even if they might meet the notability requirement for a stand-alone page). We recognize the difference in the fact that low-profile individuals could request a page be deleted, have different standards when accused, and (perhaps) when a former name is encyclopedic. That all said, the US definition of who is a public figure does not neatly work for this project, as the US definition is based on a discrete moment of time (e.g. an individual does or does not hold elected office at a specific moment), while an encyclopedic entry is not bounded by time (once an elected official - always a elected official). I don't have answers - "writing policy is hard" - but I appreciate the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Should a marital status or number of children be mentioned if no sources deem them noteworthy?

I can't find any policy for mentioning a subject's marital status or number of children in general, only a policy about the names of family members. WP:ABOUTSELF notes that uncontroversial information about a subject can be sourced from primary sources, but should that be done if no reliable secondary sources deem it necessary to mention the subject's family? Cortador (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

This would be the content in question. Seems utterly ridiculous that we can't use the subject's own website to say that he's married and has children. But have at it, folks. Let's all do our best to make Wikipedia even more embarrassing. – ².O.^Boxing 09:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with it. On a biographical article, I would expect basic details like schooling/degree, marriage status, children, religion, etc. Primary sources should be fine for WP:ABOUTSELF info, barring issues like self-serving/WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims, WP:BLPPRIVACY concerns, etc. It's not like we're naming names or revealing birthdates or something, right? Woodroar (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I would not expect any mention of marital status, children, or religion except in cases where it is relevant to the notability of the subject. Indeed, specifically on the topic of categorizing by religion, WP:BLPCAT and WP:CAT/R demand that it be a defining characteristic and that the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief. I do not think we should use lower standards for inclusion in the text of a BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me that, as a general rule, use of self-published material is problematic. I am thinking of George Santos at the momennt, who lied about everything in his life. We are in a "truth-challenged" era, and we need to be that much more vigilant that the facts are correct and correctly supported. And I find the persistent need to delve into a person's personal life (sexual orientation, relationships, children, etc.) to be often intrusive and unnecessary - seems to me to include such factoids, they should be relevant to their notability. Bdushaw (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There's two coniderations here, due-ness and reliability. There's certain basic facts that, IMO, are by default considered due because they are the sort of thing encyclopedias include in biographies—essentially the things Woodroar says above. That's a presumption, not an absolute; if RS seem to go out of their way to not include a particular detail, for instance, or there's reason to think it would have some negative effect (like abetting harassment), that can change things. But in general, basic biographical information is appropriate in a biography. The question of when we consider someone reliable for talking about their own life is a deeper one. Most people don't lie about their own basic biographical data (or, frankly, if they do the lie is usually inconsequential), so there's a longstanding consensus to trust people unless they're someone like Santos who has lost credibility as a narrator of their own life story, or if it's something like Andrew Tate's supposed coming-out as trans where there's obvious reason to doubt that. Whether we should be lest trusting of ABOUTSELF sources in general is a different discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 07:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Marital status and the number of children are typically basic information that we would expect to find in any biography elsewhere. If the information is not contradicted or there's no serious question about the veracity, the DUE bar should generally be set very low, because in most cases the marital status or number of children are unlikely to cause harm to parties. Politrukki (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF says "it does not involve claims about third parties". However with the possible exception of when someone says they're single, "marital status" is explicitly a claim about a third party. Likewise an claim about children is a claim about a third party. There is nothing in BLP which suggests ABOUTSELF can be used for someone to make claims about third parties when they are not named so the fact that they aren't named is irrelevant. Even when someone claims they are single, there is a risk that this could involve claims about third parties. So no, ABOUTSELF cannot be used for either. P.S. Hopefully it should be obvious why making a claim about marital status can affect the partner a person is claiming they're denying any connection to/engaged to/married to/separated from/divorced from etc. In case it's not obvious why number of children can have the same implications, consider the history of Steve Jobs and Lisa Brennan-Jobs, where for a time Jobs was publicly denying paternity which affected both his daughter and her mother Chrisann Brennan. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

BTW, as for the basic biographical information thing, I'd argue that if this is really such basic biographical information then it shouldn't so hard to find a reliable secondary source covering such details on a notable person. Perhaps such arguments could be made for someone of borderline notable especially if there are few or no recent sources and the information is new but definitely not for anyone with many recent sources. I'd go so far as to claim that in such a case, the inability to find coverage of such details in reliable secondary sources suggest it's not in fact basic biographical information that must be covered. I'd note that I've seen the same arguments made about the names of non-notable children as well of birthdates, things we explicitly don't always mention even when they are in reliable secondary sources so it's clear that people have different ideas of what's basic biographical information. (I'm fairly sure that for some fans, every single person some celebrity has dated or at least the person they're currently dating is basic biographical information.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

That's why I was wondering: if the only source is a primary source, is family status even notable? Cortador (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Notability doesn't apply to the contents of articles per WP:NNC much less infobox material or biographical information. Huggums537 (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

In other words, it is a requirement that the subject be notable enough to have an article, not that any of the information in the article has to be notable just to be mentioned in the article. If you have facts that are verifiable by reliable secondary sources, then you are fully allowed to put them in an article without any requirement that they be notable, and WP:NNC actually forbids notability governance over content within articles.. Huggums537 (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I'm sorry to have misinformed you. It is my responsibility to you as a new editor to let you know that the notability guideline is not a requirement, but rather a debatable "test" for the inclusion of new articles. WP:Verifiability is a policy and WP:Notability is a guideline. Policies do take priority over guidelines, but we have been inundated with so many notability fanatics in recent years that it sometimes seems the other way around... Huggums537 (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you should give those articles a read then before lecturing about them to others, Just a suggestion. Cortador (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I've read them multiple times, but they are subject to change very quickly around here for one thing, and for another thing, human beings (such as myself) are not impervious to making mistakes at any given moment. I asked forgiveness for making a mistake, and corrected myself. If what you have to offer in return is a snarky comment masked as an unhelpful suggestion, then please understand that by virtue of everything I have just explained to you, your suggestion is simply no use to me. Huggums537 (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

On the issue of third party claims, your logic here is akin to saying that if a divorced wife decided to keep her ex husband last name we shouldn't be allowed to use that last name because we have no idea what kind of an effect it would have on the ex husband as a third party [or that it would be insinuating some kind of a claim about a third party] [such as they are still married or something], and that is extraordinarily ridiculous. It isn't up to us to decide or even speculate on this, only to report the biographical facts. Huggums537 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Updated on 15:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Updated again 19:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No that's just dumb and not at all equivalent. A wife keeping her ex-husbands name is very different from us re-broadcasting lies someone has told because we are inherently unable to fact check such claims and can't even provide a simple process for people to get such lies corrected. Nil Einne (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I know, right? It sounds dumb as hell doesn't it? I think that was part of the whole point. I'm glad you at least got half of it, and you almost have the other half because it really isn't up to us to be doing research on who is telling the truth and who isn't, but just reporting straightforward facts about who said what. Likewise, it also isn't up to us to speculate on who gets hurt by what people say, but only to report what people have said. Huggums537 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

In other words, it is our mandate that we shouldn't be trying to control how people "feel" about reading our articles because different people are going to have different reactions. Someone who loves one thing might be hated by another, so our mandate should be to simply report neutrally as possible, and let the audience decide how to "feel" for themselves, not control things so that we decide how they should feel about someone or something for them. I mean, why stop at saying things like this would "hurt the feelings" of the Wife and daughter of Steve Jobs? Why not say it would also hurt his reputation, or that of the company? Why not just say the living persons policy also extends to the "feelings" of readers throughout the globe if it is "harmful" to them? If this were our barometer, then we'd have to limit our content just because some people hate it or it makes them sad. There is a huge difference between protecting living persons we write about from harm, and protecting the "feelings" of the entire populations of the Earth, which is not only a futile task to undertake, but one we are incredibly ill equipped for handling, and I think it is an extremely arrogant if not ill conceived idea to suggest it in the first place. We can't possibly know, and we shouldn't try to speculate on what kinds of effects any of our articles have on our readers just because our readers are "living people". It is not our mandate to be the self appointed guardians of the "feelings" of Earth, but to protect who we write about from harm. Honestly, we should be writing in a way that has no effect on people one way or the other if we can, but if we want to tell the truth, there is sometimes just never any best nice way to say something bad has happened. Huggums537 (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

I should add that we are not just repeating any possible lies about other people but we are repeating them in a way that will often only they are simple facts. E.g. We're not going to say the person has said they're married or have X children and we're definitely not going to have a footnote in the info box making it clear such details are only coming from the subject with no checking at all. Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Your logic here is akin to saying that if a divorced wife decided to keep her ex husband last name we shouldn't be allowed to use that last name because we have no idea what kind of an effect it would have on the ex husband as a third party - well, no, there's several problems there. First, in that case we'd normally be relying on a secondary source, surely? When we have a secondary source for someone's name, all the problems about WP:ABOUTSELF go away. And second, making the statement that someone has a particular last name doesn't directly imply anything about a third party (because, of course, they could still be married or not; people's names can change in all sorts of ways for all sorts of reasons.) Whereas if someone makes a blog post saying they're married to some celebrity, stating that they're married to that celebrity in an article would clearly be a potentially WP:ABOUTSELF-sensitive statement (and potentially even on the level of WP:BLP) with regards to the actions and status of that celebrity. You seem to be taking the position that "of course whatever they posted on their blog is true and accurate, since it's just an uncontroversial minor biographical" but Cromwell's rule applies most pointedly here - while it will usually be true, even the slim possibility that it could be wrong or that they could be outright lying could lead to a catastrophic outcome on the level of what caused us to create WP:BLP in the first place. Given that the lack of secondary coverage shows that this is not a defining part of them (or even particularly significant), and therefore not something that must be included, it seems reasonable to say that we should err on the side of caution and omit it. I should be clear here - I think that we can sometimes use an WP:ABOUTSELF source to say "person X is married", although I'd still argue caution and I never think it's something we're required to include. But I don't think we should ever say "X is married to this specific person" cited only to an WP:ABOUTSELF source. Why would we? It's something that the sources clearly do not treat as important, and which provides little-to-no meaningful information to the reader except in the very situations where it would be an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim that most clearly requires a secondary source. --Aquillion (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be taking the position that "of course whatever they posted on their blog is true and accurate, since it's just an uncontroversial minor biographical" but Cromwell's rule applies most pointedly here - while it will usually be true, even the slim possibility that it could be wrong or that they could be outright lying could lead to a catastrophic outcome on the level of what caused us to create WP:BLP in the first place. You've misunderstood my position. I'm not saying that whatever people print is usually true. I'm saying that our job is more to report what is printed than on figuring how much truth there is to it, and that once something is public any perceived "catastrophic outcomes" have already occurred by virtue of the fact that once something is published the cat[astrophie] is already out of the bag so to speak. Given that the lack of secondary coverage shows that this is not a defining part of them (or even particularly significant), and therefore not something that must be included, it seems reasonable to say that we should err on the side of caution and omit it. Just imagine yourself making that same exact argument for other basic biographic information like date-of-birth, and then tell me if your position still makes sense to you. In other words, just because secondary coverage doesn't include DOB doesn't mean the DOB isn't "defining", "significant". Huggums537 (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I also forgot to make the point that what you said about Cromwell's rule seems to apply just as equally to either primary or secondary sources when it comes to the fact that they both might usually be telling the truth, but there may be the slim possibility of sometimes being wrong or outright lying so I so see no real distinction in using either one to support such claims if it comes down to that, and if there are no secondary, then primary seems good enough to me under this "Cromwell rule". Huggums537 (talk) 09:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC) Updated on 09:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'd say this is basic biographical information, so as long as there is RS (ABOUTSELF being fine, saying that someone exists and is related to you is making no claim about their thoughts or actions) it can be included. Whether something is basic biographical information also doesn't change based on who it relates to: it either is or isn't. Immediate family is one of those things, so if there's a source, I think it's fine. Just remember to date the statements (i.e. "as of 2023 they were married"), as marital status can change and a new source may not appear to update it. Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  This is potentially one of the best ways to enrage a BLP subject: state that they are married when actually that marriage is over. Extreme care needs to be taken in using old sources for subjects who are not celebrities or public figures (for whom current marriage data might reasonably be expected to be available). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah that's actually a common problem we get at BLPN. Someone complains that they're no longer married but our article still says they are. Mostly these are cases where the info is from some reliable secondary source but old. The solution IMO is to just remove the information but it's tricky and sometimes editors may disagree or simply not think of this. More likely if the request for the information to be updates never makes it to BLPN and instead only appears in an article or its talk page. Note IIRC most cases I recall, this person has no website, or public and verified social media so it's not a case where us using such sources will help. (Although I'm sure there are some cases where this has arisen but even there the solution remains the same IMO, just remove the info completely.) I think there have been times when the person wants their marriage mentioned but these are not surprisingly far rarer. (I mean specifically rather than because the article just mentions they are divorced, or worse still attached to an older partner.) This actually ties in with my point above about the difficulty people have given the nature of Wikipedia in getting such info corrected. Note an important point I made here is that often this info is from some reliable secondary source but is outdated. Our standard response, ask the source to get correct the info doesn't really work since you're basically telling the person to convince a source to publish a "correction" or "update" to information that was correct at the time of writing in cases where they don't normally do so and it's just a routine life change. Likewise telling the person to get a secondary source to publish this information (as new information) is also very odd. In some cases the person may have social media or an official website they could use, but as I mentioned a lot of the cases I recall they don't. Note that even if someone has a website linked to them this doesn't mean it can really be used for that purpose. E.g. I hope no one expects an academic must publish their marital status on their university page just so we can update it. So really the best solution IMO tends to be just remove the info completely (assuming this would satisfy the person), perhaps asking for identity verification first. Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• I was going to agree with @Woodroar and Tamzin:, to say biographical info like this is fine, but it looks like Woodroar struck their comment for some reason. I tend to agree with Tamzin that the most relevant factors here are reliability and what is DUE. Huggums537 (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'm reconsidering how I think about this. I've always felt that biographical articles should probably include where and when someone was born, who their parents are/were, where they grew up, any higher education, plus family details like relationships and children. These are basic facts that you expect in a biography, just like a photo, you know? Of course, we have to balance that against the subject's privacy, copyright of images, questionable claims, and generally leaning towards being encyclopedic and not a gossip rag. But I can't argue with the fact that ABOUTSELF says "it does not involve claims about third parties" and not "it does involve claims about third parties as long as we don't name them". A reasonable reading of policy says that shouldn't mention marital status and children unless covered by reliable, secondary sources. It also makes me rethink what I considered "basic facts"—and if they're at all "basic" if RS don't consider them so. Woodroar (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  I really think that interpreting ABOUTSELF in that manner is a huge error, and this whole thing about privacy is blown way out of proportion since it doesn't matter if it is being published by a primary source vs. a secondary source for the information to have been made freely available to the public either way. For example, if someone writes an autobiography, or posts information about their family on social media, they have the option to make it private or public so we should be able to take basic biographical information that has already been made public without fear of violating any privacy that hasn't already been made public. This idea that we shouldn't report marital status or children based on some paternity dispute with Steve Jobs is just patent nonsense. So what if it affected the mother and daughter? That's not our fault for reporting the facts, it's their fault for making it public. If someone denies paternity, then it isn't our fault if they make it public or if it hurts the feelings of a million people. Once it goes public, it's out there. There is no more "third party" feelings/privacy BS. Stop letting others pull on your heartstrings or play on your fears and start thinking for yourselves people! Huggums537 (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  If other reliable sources reported information that is incorrect because they didn't do proper fact checking that is unfortunate but it's not something we can easily do anything about given the way Wikipedia works. We can of course ensure we are careful in what sources we deem reliable so this is less likely to happen but I think anyone who works on a BLP knows that this is something that is going to happen sometimes. However it's a completely different thing for us to directly repeat someone's lies in an article which is often one of the only things people may read on a subject, and hurt living persons by doing so because we intentionally do not, and aren't really able to engage in fact checking. Indeed even the process for subjects to get hurtful lies corrected is very convoluted on Wikipedia, whereas good sources tend to have far better processes in place than we can ever have precisely because of the different ways in which we operate. And to be blunt, if you don't care about us hurting living persons because you don't think the harm caused to them is allowed to "pull on your heartstrings" then you shouldn't be editing BLPs period. Nil Einne (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  However it's a completely different thing for us to directly repeat someone's lies in an article which is often one of the only things people may read on a subject, and hurt living persons by doing so because we intentionally do not, and aren't really able to engage in fact checking. I think you have missed the point of what I have been saying. If it is already the the only thing people have been reading on a subject, and it is already public, then it already all they know so so we are only reporting what the public already knows, and we aren't supposed to be using living persons as an excuse to play investigator to find out if it is the truth or who it might hurt, and if you think we should be doing that, then maybe you should reconsider editing BLPs. Huggums537 (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Updated on 17:48, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Also, to provide some crystal clarity for context, I have struck the last portion of my comment because it unfairly speculates on what you *might* be thinking, and "to be blunt", if you have any objectivity whatsoever, you would do the same with the last sentence you wrote, and for the same reason. Huggums537 (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

  Actually if the information is only in someone's website, the reality is it's often not something people read about the person. As I've already said, the reality is we are one often the only thing people read about a subject. There's a reason people complain to us when something is wrong and don't give a fuck about the information being wrong in somewhere else, even in a reliable secondary source. Any regular at BLPN knows this, and any dealing with BLPs regularly really needs to understand what appears on wikipedia tends to matter far, far, far more than what someone has published on their website let alone something someone published on their social media one day 3 years ago that is now very hard to find or even deleted. An exception might be for very high profile celebrities but let's be realistic, this issue is only going to arise where that isn't the case. If Kim Kardasian posts on her Instagram that she married or had a child or whatever, this isn't going to be something we need to rely on social media to cover. Even for someone like Hayley Westenra, there was an uncertain social media post she made once about a possible marriage which RS in NZ did comment on, yet in reality she's still someone who far more people in the world are only ever likely to read about her from her Wikipedia article than her social media or anywhere else. As for your investigator point, I don't understand what you're trying to say. I keep saying the opposite. In fact it's precisely because we don't want to be playing investigator that we do not want to have to deal with such things, as I've clarified even more in my new post below (before I read your response). I'm saying we should not be playing investigator hence we should not be using ABOUTSELF when it means we have to play investigator to ensure we don't lie about some third person, as even Red Hawk a support of ABOUTSELF to tell such things seems to acknowledge, and others (why else bring up Santos?) If you don't want us playing investigator then pray tell me WTF do you expect us to do when someone complains that we've told mistruths about them based solely on the word of another person? As I've below I do hope you at least acknowledge it's ridiculous for us to expect this person to convince the subject to stop lying or another source to publish info on the lies and we really should remove it after some minimal verification (perhaps simply of identity). By comparison it's far more reasonable when some trusted source has published this mistruth for us to tell the person they need to deal with the trusted source although still not always simple, especially in the case where the source doesn't exist.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I mean you are making some fairly valid points here, but surely you have to see the contradictions you are are making within them where you say at one point that you are firmly claiming we don't investigate, but then later asking me WTF are we supposed to do when people ask us to investigate? We can't have our cake and eat it too by deciding investigation is okay only when it is convenient, and not okay when it isn't. Otherwise, rules are just nothing more than inventions for people to use as excuses to argue about, punish each other with, or profit from, and not for their intended purpose. Huggums537 (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I realised I failed to re-iterate my main point. Let's put aside how often people read Wikipedia vs random websites or social media posts i.e. and how high profile Wikipedia is vs some random person's website; and how this affects the spread. All that aside there is a big difference between whatever someone has posted on their website which may or may not be true and where hopefully most people reading the website do recognise this is something under the complete control over the person and in any case whatever the person has told which is untrue that's on them, and a when we as an encyclopaedia who people often trust probably way more than they should repeats such information because our editors have decided it's okay to repeat. And where even if the person reading does happen to look at what the citation is for such information and sees it's only the person's website, there's a fair chance the same mental processes (this is only what the person said, it's not something which has been checked in any way), likely still doesn't apply. It's why we as editors have responsibility to ensure we use good sources before saying something, and that when we don't and as a result spread mistruths and when we do, that's on us as editors and not something we simply waive away in a sorry not sorry the info is already out there manner. I mean let's be clear stuff that's already public includes accusations of crimes like sexual assault and rape and all sorts of things that we intentionally do not cover because they have not been covered in reliable secondary sources (and sometimes per WP:DUE etc, even when they have), recognising that us repeating such things is very significant no matter that the info might already be on Twitter or Reddit or whatever. AFAICT, everyone in this discussion recognises this and the reason some people are saying it's fine here is because it's far less consequential and/or something which rarely requires a different perspective, neither of which I disagree with, I'm simply saying it's still not okay. That's why I'm so confused about the information is out there argument since it could be used to allow stuff which I think anyone here acknowledges we should never do. P.S. I recognise I've posted a heck of a lot on this so I'll refrain from posting any more and let others continue if they wish. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  One thing I should clarify, I'm not trying to suggest reliable secondary sources must check such claims and they've failed if they don't. It may very well be reasonable for them to not bother most of the time and just rely on what the person says even if this unfortunately leads to the occasional error. However such sources are much better places than us to actually decide when they do need to check. If there are rumours about a secret family, or if they're interviewing the person by voice and the way they respond is weird, if the person is known for hiding or misleading about details.

  People brought up Santos but there are undoutedly a lot of people where is enough reason for sources to take care with what they say, but where such things are mostly only known to journalists etc or maybe in Reddit threads etc i.e. not something we would consider but where it's might be fair and right for our secondary sources to take much more caution with fact checking what they've said. I don't want to make this too political, but my understanding is Donald Trump's tendency to tell lies about himself and his businesses was known within the media much earlier then it became well known in the public sphere.

  There might be other cases where they seek clarification for what we'd consider OR e.g. the person says they married their same sex partner but unfortunately they live in a bigoted place that still doesn't recognise same-sex marriage.

  And as I keep saying, such sources are also in a much better position to deal with any fallout if someone did lie and they repeated it. If a person failed to acknowledge their children of an affair or when they were younger or whatever, and these children or the other parent (probably mother) of these children wants the information corrected, any decent source should have processes in place to deal with the person's complaint, fact checking it probably asking the original subject for a response and likely publishing a correction.

  I can say as a BLPN regular, I definitely never want to be dealing with someone saying they're such a child the subject refuses to publicly acknowledge even if it's legally accepted they're the parent. And if it does ever come up, I don't want to be telling this person hey sorry the subject lied on their website/Twitter/whatever, um there's actually nothing we can do other than remove the information. No we don't want your birth certificate or proof, there's zero we can do it. I mean you could try and convince someone else to publish this info but since no one else re-published this lie, well good luck with that.

  I.E. unlike the case where the info came from a reliable secondary source where we can at least say hey sorry about that, but while I understand why you care much more about us one of the highest profile websites in the world publishing the info compared to some obscure old source few people ever read; they did publish it. It would be best if you ask them to correct it and hopefully they'll provide enough info in their correction that we can do more than simply remove the information. Of course such things don't always work, in particular if the source is no defunct the person is in the same boat which isn't ideal. Still assuming we are vigilant with RSS requirements at least we can point to someone else other than the subject's direct lies where the info came from.

  P.S. It's not clear to me but are those advocating the use of such ABOUTSELF sources at least agreeing that where someone does come and dispute the claims, we should remove it? Or are they applying the same standard we sometimes apply to info from reliable secondary sources and this person needs to convince the subject to correct the info on their website/whatever, or another source to publishj it. I do hope it's not the latter since if that's the case I don't even know what to say other than that they really don't understand BLP and so frankly shouldn't be editing any BLPs. (As I say we should often do even for info from reliable secondary sources where someone complains and the sourcing is limited or may be up to date.)

  Nil Einne (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  I.E. unlike the case where the info came from a reliable secondary source where we can at least say hey sorry about that, but while I understand why you care much more about us one of the highest profile websites in the world publishing the info compared to some obscure old source few people ever read; they did publish it. It would be best if you ask them to correct it and hopefully they'll provide enough info in their correction that we can do more than simply remove the information. There is no reason why this same process can not also be equally applied to the same primary source subject where the details come from. I see no valid argument suggesting why we could not do the exact same process if the details came from the subject, or why it is "unlike" the following; "hey sorry, we understand you care about our highest profile article compared to the website from your ex-spouse few people read, but they did publish it so go ask them to change it, and we will update it accordingly." I'm not sure what to tell you where I stand on the issue about if someone disputes the claims because that isn't the main topic, and I really want to dial down the time I have invested in this discussion since I don't edit BLPs that much anyway. Huggums537 (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I would definitely argue that even if from a BLPSPS, if this type of data is not reported in any way by a third-party RS, it should not be included in WP, particularly given the issues described by Nil Einne above (where the BLP may make questionable claims). I know there's a desire to have what is considered "standard" biographical data on WP, but I really think that we should be far more precautionary on inclusion of this material across the board. Masem (t) 22:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a terrible plan. That means that if we have a totally notable subject who has written an autobiography, but reliable sources only talk about the life work of the subject, we can't include simple biographical information from the subject because it comes from their autobiography, and not any third party sources. I think that is just pretty darn nuts if you ask me [goes beyond precautionary, and ventures into overprotective territory]. Huggums537 (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Updated on 22:58, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

If they are "totally notable", to the point they have written an autobiography, it would be unexpected that details that might involve third-parties like claims of marriage or children are only reported in the autobiography. Masem (t) 00:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I see how you might mistakenly think it is unexpected, but it isn't completely impossible. I should have left the "totally" adjective out to illustrate the point better, and avoid your confusion. Even if a regular notable person wrote an article about themselves, or their personal life we wouldn't be able to use it with your suggested standard if the only thing third party sources cover are their life accomplishments. For example, a business leader or professor might be covered in sources about their career while basic biographical information about them as a person may not be covered outside of their name. Just because they are notable and covered by third parties doesn't mean that coverage is complete. Significant coverage doesn't require that every possible detail about them is contained in order to make them notable or even "totally notable". So, I have absolutely no idea why you would have the false impression that just because they are "totally notable" it would somehow mean that third party sources just must have included every possible detail. Huggums537 (talk) 05:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Again if this is basic biographical information that it's so important we must include, why is it that none of the other sources have thought this is basic biographical information that they must include? The obvious answer is that it's not basic biographical information that must be included to understand the person. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Just because sources haven't written every possible detail about a person since they might have only been focused on one particular aspect of that person doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't add verifiable details about that person to get a better understanding of them. It also doesn't follow that just because those details were not needed for the understanding of that particular aspect of the person does not mean that the details are not needed for the overall understanding of the person in general. Concluding that just because sources might have focused on one aspect of a person by leaving out some details of them as a general person must mean those details are not needed for the general understanding of that person is actual nonsense when you think about it. Huggums537 (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC) Updated on 22:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• At the very least I don't think it's fair to say that we must include material that can only be cited to their autobiography. For the most part I lean towards "uncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF stuff is take-it-or-leave-it"; most of the time, I don't think it would particularly harm Wikipedia to allow it, but I also don't think it would significantly harm Wikipedia to completely ban it. The actual important things - the things where it would actually reduce the quality of our articles to omit them, the "must-have" things and not the gray-area "have it or leave it things" - those things are going to have secondary sourcing, fullstop, no exceptions. You say "coverage of them would normally include these biographical details" but if that's true, and if they're notable enough for an article in the first place, then that secondary coverage will exist and will include those things - if it doesn't, then there may be more significant reasons why it's not mentioned anywhere. (In fact, the very basis of your argument there strikes me as off a bit - you're implicitly acknowledging that secondary coverage is what really determines when we must cover something, by implying that secondary coverage of someone's marriage and children usually exists in the abstract even if you're unable to find it in a given specific case. That argument doesn't really scan.) And on the balance - given that this sort of information is mostly on the razor's edge of "we might be able to include it, but we're never going to be in a position where we must include it" - I feel the most compelling argument is the one raised by David Eppstein above; that is to say, while someone's marital status might usually be uncontroversial, there are still going to be some cases where it is very controversial indeed - and in situations where there are no secondary sources covering it, how are we going to reliably spot those cases? For this reason I would lean towards exclusion. --Aquillion (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

This sort of thing is basic biographical information that are warranted in any good biographical entry on someone. A core principle of Wikipedia is that when a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Unless there is reason to doubt the veracity of the claims, then I don't see why one's post on a public social media account that they married someone, complete with wedding photographs, would be unacceptable for saying that the two are married. The same goes for a self-published autobiography: unless the claim is potentially self-serving or there are other reasons to doubt claims of marriage/progeny, then I see no logical reason why that would be unacceptable as a source.

If we need to amend WP:ABOUTSELF or include a footnote to say that information related to one's marital history/progeny is not excluded under "other parties", then so be it, but this seems to be the sort of edge case that WP:IAR is built for. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Precisely. Even if ABOUTSELF didn't exist, us repeating whatever someone thought to post about other people is clearly harmful, so we should never allow it no matter how much some editors may insist it's basic biographical information that for some reason no other sources thought was important enough to mention. So let's not even discuss this further and just acknowledge it's completely unacceptable to use such sources whatever BLP says since ultimately it doesn't matter since we should just IAR and remove such harmful additions on sight as they are clearly bad for Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

[tangent] @Red-tailed hawk and @Nil Einne: I agree with you, and I sometimes wish that the NPOV had a short paragraph that explained this concept. Officially, due weight is determined by what the reliable sources write about, but in practice, every subject has a certain set of "basic" information that's expected in an encyclopedia article, even if it's neglected by most/all reliable sources. For a biography, it's place and time (e.g., "a 19th-century French writer", even if the sources are all from France and felt no need to point out that he was a French writer). For a disease, it's symptoms and treatment. For a city, it's location. For a non-fiction book, it's the subject matter and publication date. If you don't include some basic information, you haven't really written an encyclopedia article. Maybe NPOV needs a bit called ==Write an encyclopedia article==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• Why would we even consider mentioning the name of a spouse that has no secondary coverage? There are only two possibilities here, in my mind:

• First, they've made a blog post saying that they've married someone who isn't particularly well-known or high profile, and is therefore unexceptional. In this case, its inclusion has no value to the reader to offset the slim but very real risk that the source is inaccurate, outdated, or an outright lie. The balance here is to clearly exclude the names of non-notable spouses. We don't usually want to name low-profile individuals anyway unless we absolutely must due to high coverage; why would this be a special exception to that?
• Second, the name is of someone significant, such that mentioning them has clear implications for the article's subject - they've made a blog post claiming they married a famous celebrity or something. In this case, surely it becomes important to have secondary coverage? The idea that someone has married someone so significant with no coverage is already a red flag in and of itself.

And, obviously, I don't think that we want to be analyzing a primary source for veracity (eg. looking at wedding photos - are editors going to go over the pixels and argue whether they are AI-generated?) It's much simpler to just omit the name of the spouse unless they have secondary coverage, which is how we would cover naming any other name in any other context. I would strenuously oppose both changing both WP:ABOUTSELF or invoking IAR to name spouses in that circumstance - avoiding names in those sorts of situations is part of the purpose of that sort of policy! I'm indifferent to whether we can say "X is married and has Y children" based solely on an WP:ABOUTSELF source, but I'd strenuously oppose using it to include names - including the name of a specific individual in an article should always require secondary WP:RS sourcing. --Aquillion (talk) 06:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The OP was simply determining the mention of marital status and number of children. Nobody has said anything about mentioning names afaik, but even if they did you are confusing the difference between analyzing a primary source for veracity, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. One you don't want to do, and the other you do. Simply going to a primary source to verify and report that wedding photos and marital status have been published is something that you do want to do, but I agree with you that trying to analyze about if any of it might be unreal, from another dimension, or just part of the matrix is something you sure don't want to do. In other words, we do want verify it, but not analyze it for veracity. Huggums537 (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm really surprised to hear anyone saying that "He's married and has four children" involves a claim about any third parties. I don't think that's either true or reasonable, and I don't think this concept helps Wikipedia.

I also add that ABOUTSELF is regularly and uncontroversially interpreted as permitting self-published sources (e.g., corporate websites, press releases) to name people that are associated with them (e.g., their employees). I'm not sure why "He's married and has four children" would involve more third-party considerations than "We just hired Bob Business as our new CEO".

I personally dislike having the names of non-notable family members in articles (or, worse, the dates of birth for the children), but I recognize that my POV is not universally shared. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you on the last point - I think personal info like birth dates, marriages, children - unless it's somehow important to the article, can be skipped. If the spouse/child/parent is also notable, then it makes sense to include them. Denaar (talk) 15:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The argument being presented had nothing to do with notability though. It was the exact equivalent to saying that we should not include where someone is born/residing/buried in an article because that would be "involving a third party", namely the city, state, or country where the person is born, and thusly causing "potential harm" to the named third parties by virtue of the fact that just maybe those third parties might not want to be associated with that specific person because they are infamous for something particularly heinous or embarrassing. It is really stretching the boundaries of Wikipedia rules about privacy to such an extreme that it [actually disrupts the article writing process itself]is utterly absurd, and this is a way too far common practice for a great many rules on Wikipedia. I think if people can be a better judge of the difference between "real threat of real harm" and "ordinary potential embarrassment", then it will be much easier to figure it out. Huggums537 (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• ”I am married and have two children” is NOT a claim about a third party - It is an ABOUTSELF claim, no different than “My first job was delivering news papers”. No third party is identified. Now, “In 1995 I married my wife, Morgan Fairchild. (yeah, that’s the ticket)” could be considered a claim ABOUT a third party, since the third party is identified. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

  One more in the "basic bio info, Not about third parties," camp. If the claim is that it's still about about a spouse even if we don't name the spouse, then so is "I was born in..." because it's about unnamed parents. Overreach.--GRuban (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone come up with a good shortcut to the Maintenance section?

It doesn't need one, but the absence is (somewhat) conspicuous. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPM / WP:BLPMAINT

WP:BLPT / WP:BLPTEMP - templates

Something like that. - jc37 02:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Roman Polanski

There's currently a RfC about Roman Polanski and how to handle his sex offender history in the lead. I would welcome all feedback from editors experienced on these matters. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving MOS:GENDERID to WP:BLP

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#GENDERID in BLP – a proposal to move all or part of MOS:GENDERID (and perhaps rewrite it in the process) out of the guideline and into the WP:BLP policy. I'm suprised no notice was left here yet about this, especially since it's standard operating procedure to discuss merges at the to page not the from page anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

An RfC has begun at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on GENDERID in BLP that involves adding content to this page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 19:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC on Oliver Anthony

There's currently a RfC on Oliver Anthony that involves WP:BLP questions. Please feel free to add to the discussion. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Privacy of personal information and using primary sources section

WP:DOB, should the section not have a sentence on how to deal with minors? Under 18s? For instance from 2018 at Talk:Lyndsy Fonseca there was a request of comment regarding the issue.

That For under 18s it is recommended to only include month, year and first name. Or something along those lines. Seems to be that might need to be addressed in the second. Govvy (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The current provisions are adequate. Why would we want to suppress the DOB of Prince George of Wales, for example? WWGB (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That is somewhat a different kettle? I was looking at general use, I would think Prince George would come under a different rule. :/ Govvy (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2023 (UTC)