Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons: Difference between revisions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biographies of living persons page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WT:BLP WT:LIVE

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57Auto-archiving period: 30 days

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is not the place to post information about living people. See creating an article for information on how to start a new article.

To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.

Biography Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination. Discussions: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons → Wikipedia:Biographical information on living people Not moved, 19 March 2007. See discussion. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons → Wikipedia:Information about living persons Not moved, 31 March 2010. See discussion. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons → Wikipedia:Living persons Not moved, 25 July 2016. See discussion.

It gives us no guidance whatsoever as to when a suspect's name should be included, and when it should be excluded, but it requires us to "seriously consider" excluding it. A requirement to seriously consider something, with no guidance about how to consider it, is useless. Is it time to draft some real criteria for when a suspect's name should or should not be included in an article? Does anyone have any suggestions for what that criteria might be? Levivich (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First thoughts on some factors: prominence of the crime, presence of actual charges, coverage in regional/national/international news, quantity of sourcing that mentions the name, enough coverage of details about the person that more than just their name is due for a mention, reasonable belief that identifying the accused will make identification of (unnamed) victims easier, and centrality of the crime to the article in question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We try not to be that explicit on policies and rules because the application is far too broad with many factors that come into play (as Firefangledfeathers enumerates). Like the main point of BLP, which is to do no harm to living persons without enumerating what can be done, BLPCRIME is saying "don't mention names unless it is necessary", without being specific. This is standard approaches with most policies, being descriptive and not prescriptive. Masem (t) 04:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our other PAGs (including the rest of BLP) provide more specific guidance than "must seriously consider", and BLPCRIME could, too. Levivich (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:BLPCRIME is useless in its current form, for the complete lack of guidance you describe. There is also the problematic notion that alleged involvement in a crime is itself often the justification for "upgrading" a low-profile to a high-profile individual, which defeats the entire purpose of developing protections for low-profile individuals.--Trystan (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my concern as well, if a non-notable individual being accused of a high-profile crime means that BLPCRIME doesn't apply then why do we have BLPCRIME at all. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it could help to tighten the language of BLPCRIME to clarify 'do not include unless necessary for the encyclopedia' more directly, essentially to make the presumption against inclusion more clear. The onus is on those seeking inclusion to establish a compelling encyclopedic need to override the usual BLP protections, but the current language of 'seriously consider' could be misinterpreted as a 'presumption to include unless a compelling BLP-related reason can be established' as if otherwise-unknown and presumed-innocent people do not have some of the most significant BLP concerns. Beccaynr (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How do we know when including a name is necessary for the encyclopedia? The only answers I can come up with are "always" or "never". Levivich (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As an example, there was this BLPN discussion about a suspect name in headlines/urls - part of the discussion appeared to focus on whether there were sufficient sources to build encyclopedic content without introducing the suspect's name into the main article that did not also introduce their name into the reference list (particularly via a headline). My overall view on that discussion was a compelling need may be shown (e.g. update the article about the arrest of a suspect) if no source is otherwise available that would not add their name in the reference list.

  Other examples that seem to arise more routinely are cases involving otherwise-unknown public officials (including law enforcement officers) who receive wide, in-depth, sustained, and secondary coverage that demonstrates significant public interest with a focus on suspect(s) in their capacity as public officials (e.g. as compared to occasional national news updates on a case involving an otherwise-unknown, nonpublic-official suspect). I think sometimes the coverage is so wide, deep, and sustained for people who hold positions of public authority that 'serious consideration' of not including names does not occur. Maybe we should reconsider this, but this is my general observation. Beccaynr (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If they have wide, in depth, sustained secondary coverage, then any serious consideration of whether to include their names is likely to result in inclusion; at the end of the day, our coverage has to be based on what the sources say. And, indeed, that discussion was extensive and seems to have reached a consensus to include the name - how can that not be a serious consideration? --Aquillion (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe it's a spectrum? Person of interest < person has been arrested < person has been charged < person is on trial < person has been convicted. Very high requirement for including the name of person of interest; they probably need to have an article of their own. Convicted? Unless they're a minor, include the name. Valereee (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support revising BLPCRIME to specify that spectrum. Levivich (talk) 14:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think its 100% fair to say that inclusion of names is likely to happen more upon the assurity of the charge, eg we likely will name persons convicted of crimes, but unless we're talking about famous people that get accused of certain misdoings (eg like claims of sexual harassment), mere accusation are very much not likely to have the person named. But the rest is a spectrum, and many other factors can also impact that choice. Of course, this is not tight enough wording for inclusion, but I agree that including that does not significantly impact what the rest of BLPCRIME says. Masem (t) 03:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Masem, I removed the name a few days ago of a person who had been questioned in a murder case but never apparently even became a person of interest; it had been in the article since Jan 2022. One of the editors at the article showed up at my talk to tell me the inclusion had already been discussed. The argument that was being used by those who wanted to include was that the guy had a band he'd promoted online in the Peru, Indiana area and therefore was no longer a low-profile individual. Valereee (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee in that instance, the discussion had agreed that he could be included but since he hadn't yet been convicted, the name should be left out. Once convicted, there wasn't a reason not to name since BLPCrime tries to prevent naming before the conviction unless they qualify as a public person. Unless I am mistaken?

  My stance in general is that anyone who puts their name out there in the public arena as a public figure, especially through self promotion, is a public figure. Someone making a Wikipedia article on themselves, promoting a band under their own name, and trying to build a following for their music under their own name would all strike me as a 'public figure'. If we don't use the list from 'What is a low-profile individual', then I don't really understand what basis we have for what differentiates a public/non-public individual.

  I would point out in the stated instance it would have made more sense to remove solely the name if that was the BLP issue you had with it, and not the entire block of text that had already been discussed in the page and reached consensus. Respectfully, it seemed excessive when usually a removal of the name and a note to discuss it is what I have seen in the past with issues related to BLP disputes. I thought that was the usual process, unless I am also mistaken on that.

  Awshort (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Awshort, that person was absolute trivia on that page. There was literally no good reason to include that passage. Valereee (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I mentioned this below, but I feel the important thing is that we focus on the sources and how they cover it; my feeling is that passing mentions that merely verify that the name exists are insufficient, whereas in-depth coverage discussing the individual in-depth in the context of the crime (assuming it is high-quality WP:RS coverage, of course) is generally sufficient for inclusion. In extreme cases (where the coverage is overwhelming and makes this detailed discussion of the accused central to the event) it may even require inclusion - eg. the Lee Harvey Oswald example would fall under that. If an event immediately results in every major news source writing entire articles devoted to in-depth analysis of the accused's possible motives (not just one paragraph or two in a larger piece, but entire "Who is X, the person accused of doing Y?" sorts of things where that's the focus of the entire story), that's a surefire sign that the event, their identity, and the connection between these two things is significant enough that they cannot be excluded. Finally, the other thing to keep in mind for WP:BLPCRIME is that its purpose is to protect the accused's reputation. If coverage is sufficiently high-profile then that concern no longer exists - the threshold is high, but there is definitely a point where trying to invoke BLP to protect the identity of someone who has spent the last three weeks plastered on the front page of every paper starts to become unreasonable. --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I wouldn't say any of the relevant policy text is as good as it could be, I think the best guidance we currently have for this is actually in WP:BLPNAME - When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

Applied to those who have been accused of a crime, this guidance would suggest (1) a presumption against including names where there has been a publication ban, or where the name is seldom repeated in RS, and (2) recognition of the reality that the publication of the names of accused in news stories should carry less weight than their inclusion of higher-quality sources and those more distant from the event.

If BLPCRIME were to make a clear statement that there is an especially high threshold to merit inclusion of a suspect's name that depends on (1) the status of a case (e.g., prior to conviction); (2) the breadth of dissemination of the name, especially in relation to other BLP issues (e.g., the reality that some publication bans are brought to avoid identifying crime victims and other innocent parties); and (3) the quality of the sources that name the suspect. Perhaps if we did some of this, the guideline might be more useful than just an injunction to "consider" . Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I actually don't mind the guideline as it is, though it could certainly be clearer. I definitely err on the side of leaving names out, and in this instance, I would say that dissemination of a suspect's name should hold somewhat less influence over our decision than other factors (though not zero). For me, I would go back to the old canard that "dog bites man" is not news, but "man bites dog" is. For me, we should include suspects' names only where they are independently notable, or where the suspect's position, circumstances, or characteristics somehow contribute to the notability of the crime itself. Thus, as awful as it is, the suspect in the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German is not notable and nothing about the suspect makes the crime more notable. If you had, say, an otherwise unknown catholic monk arrested for killing a prostitute, that would contribute to the notability of the crime. Similarly, a random megarich person arrested for petty theft might be. Perhaps someone can rework my standard into something a bit more eloquent, but that's the sort of heuristic I use. That said, I sense I may be largely alone in that, so happy to follow wherever consensus leads. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this heuristic is pretty reasonable, but I would shorten the second case to where not including the identity of the suspect would significantly confuse the reader. Loki (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to what you wrote, a lot of editors see BLPCRIME as a full stop of including a name under any conditions when someone is a low profile individual, and in a lot of cases even a high profile individual can be removed under BLP as being in violation, which presents issues on it's own.

Examples that aren't currently addressed with BLPCRIME (that I am aware of; I could have completely missed them in a prior search) mostly deal with low profile individuals -

Do they automatically become a public figure once a certain amount of news coverage has happened regarding them, thereby turning them into an involuntary limited purpose public figure? News coverage from what outlet, specifically?

In cold cases, if a suspect is arrested and charged for a decades old murder/kidnapping/disappearance, do they automatically qualify as a high profile figure based on their alleged involvement with a high profile crime?

Since the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German was used as an example of why to exclude, I will give an example that technically should not be allowed but was not argued against - | The suspect of the 2022 University of Idaho killings. The only discussion I could find on it was at this BLPN discussion, which seemed to imply the police had asked for help in the case so it was okay to name. The police had also asked for tips regarding the Abigail Williams case, and especially the newly arrested suspect. The Idaho suspect is charged with killing 4 people; the other is charged with killing 2, so nothing groundbreakingly different in the crimes. Neither has been convicted, both were unknown prior to the murders, and yet one is named. Mind you, one murder was 6 years ago and the other was last year. Both arrests happened in 2022, as well.

It is easy to see how it's confusing as it stands.

Awshort (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One difference between the two articles is 2022 University of Idaho killings currently has 77 sources - this event received a wide range of coverage, and there appears to be substantial and wide coverage specifically focused on the suspect - along the lines of what is noted by Newimpartial above as to WP:BLPNAME, and noted by Dumuzid above, about how reliable sources appear to have found 'the suspect's position, circumstances, or characteristics to somehow contribute to the notability of the crime itself'.

By contrast, the Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German currently has 31 sources, and the 2022 suspect does not seem to have a similar range or depth of coverage yet, and there appears to be a gag order in the pending criminal case. The support for naming this suspect currently appears to be much less well-supported by sources. I tend to think of this issue as related to the sources available at the time the naming of a suspect/defendant is considered; if there is a conviction, then it tends to become a nonissue (certainly convicted minors are an exception, and I suppose an appealed conviction might be, although I would want to assess the coverage). Beccaynr (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually multiple arguments about including the Idaho suspect's name at that article's talk before he was arrested and charged. The discussions have all been archived, but they happened. Valereee (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A similar discussion was had a few months back at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 50#Crimes committed by low profile individuals (It also involved @Masem)

A relevant quote related to when to name a suspect follows, but the full discussion is worth a read:

I would think that if in a serious crime (like said truck attack) where an individual has been determined to the suspect and charges have been placed, it would be reasonable to mention that name as long as RSes are routinely mentioning it, but not before the charges have been given. Our writing should still be clear that they haven't been proven guilty of it (including writing the event with that name as if they had done it). Masem (t) 00:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that naming someone a 'suspect' in an article implies guilt, but in most examples on Wikipedia involving current court cases with an arrest and no conviction, the section involving the arrested is titled 'Accused', or similar. I believe this is what Masem was suggesting above, but I could be mistaken. One alternative I suggested before on an article was to state the accused persons current/past plea. If someone pleaded innocent, it should be noted, especially when they are named and not convicted.

Awshort (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that it has strayed so far from its original intention that it has become actively harmful to our coverage of some topics. It should mean we should not go out of our way to name some non-notable individual in our articles in only a negative context (eg, accused of a crime). It has transformed into we cannot name anybody, notable or not, or even some have argued we cant even note the existence of a crime. The first of these is a defensible editorial judgment that would still allow for the judicious inclusion of verifiable facts when pertinent, the second is an hysterical overreaction that reduces the coverage of our article on topics that are readily accessible across the internet. nableezy - 00:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing to remember is that we are not trying to create the spectacle around crime that newspapers typically are involved with. They want to report the who, what, where, and identifying the suspect as early as possible is part of that goal. But we are more concerned with making sure that we get the facts right, and being timely is very much a low priority goal for that. If there are concerns about the suspect or the like in such events, we clearly should air on the side of caution, even if every major RS that has covered the event names the individual. But that's all down to consensus driven debate when that is appropriate. BLPCRIME just wants editors to come into that debate knowing we shouldn't name non-notable people unless it is a significant improvement in encyclopedic coverage and does not do harm to that individual. Masem (t) 04:33, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To me this is silly as well. You can mention a person has been arrested for a crime as long as it's covered by multiple reliable sources and they're famous. However, if the person wasn't famous they can't be named even if it's been widely reported. What are we really protecting here? If it's widely reported, it's a key aspect of the event, and we're not making a judgement. Wikipedia is only stating factualing things. Saying a person is arrested for a crime when it's widely reported isn't a violation of privacy. I understand the spirit of privacy, but to me this policy is kind of illogical. These kind of inane rules just confuse new editors and create content disputes. Nemov (talk) 13:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its the frame of mind that BLPCRIME established, that by default we should think of not including names of individuals that have yet to be convicted of crimes, and then use that to justify deviations from it. A notable person gets arrested for a crime? Okay, that makes sense. A other non notable person but was captured and arrested after a multi-day, highly covered manhunt? Sure. A non notable person who has been labeled as a person of interest in a case? Probably not. Its all about setting what our default behavior should be but with enough flex to argue for logical deviations. Masem (t) 13:35, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Darron Lee's article suggests nothing, so something's working. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if convicted I would argue against including a perpetrator's name. Some crimes are about attention, and publicity can reward criminal behaviour. It's best to deny that. I think crime articles should be victim focused even where the news sources they're based on aren't.—S Marshall T/C 06:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, this, more or less. I would strenuously oppose anything that imposed hard-and-fast rules requiring us to exclude the name of someone accused of a crime. BLPCRIME's intent is, essentially, that for non-public figures who have not been convicted, we default to exclusion and that you need a specific argument for why we would include it; mere passing mentions and WP:V are insufficient. However, such arguments clearly exist, and it wouldn't really be possible to enumerate every single possible one. If the Kennedy assassination occurred today, it would plainly be absurd to argue that we could omit naming Lee Harvey Oswald until he was convicted (which he technically never was - would people continue to argue that we cannot cover him after his own assassination, and presumably cannot cover that assassination at all because doing so would require naming him until sufficient time had passed after his death for BLP to no longer apply?) If there are any changes I would make to BLPCRIME it would be to make it more clear that the ultimate decision of whether and how we cover people has to be made based on how they're covered in the sources - the weight towards excluding means that mere passing mentions is usually not enough, but if multiple top-tier sources are devoting entire articles to analyzing someone in-depth, we can no longer reasonably exclude them. In fact, if there's going to be guidelines towards the threshold at all, that seems like a good one - "is there in-depth coverage on them, as opposed to just passing mentions of their name?" --Aquillion (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have attempted to improve the page using the ideas of the discussions above. [1] Please feel free to revise, but I recommend not stonewalling progress with a revert based on "not perfect, so must revert." Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I reverted because I think drafting here is probably better for now - this is BLP policy, and one of the issues that seems to need revision is a lack of clarity in the text about a default presumption against inclusion. Before factors for consideration are added that may further muddy the standard, it seems better to try to focus on clarification. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative draft

The current relevant section of WP:BLPCRIME is as follows:

For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

An alternative revision could include:

For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, material should not be included—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured or a serious encyclopedic need is shown before conviction. Circumstances that may demonstrate a serious encyclopedic need before conviction may include [...].

Beccaynr (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think option 2 helps dispel the idea that inclusion is the default and that exclusion must be proved. Maybe a link to BLPNAME somewhere too? I suspect we'd avoid a lot of these cases if your "Wikipedia is not Murderpedia" idea was policy... JoelleJay (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One day, I may write a "Wikipedia is not Murderpedia" essay, with a general focus on the spirit and purpose of relevant policies and guidelines. As applied here, some language in BLPCRIME seems to have the potential to be interpreted in a way that is out of alignment with the purpose and goals of BLP policy, and I think this discussion is helping identify circumstances when a general presumption against inclusion could be overcome, as well as circumstances (e.g. the conviction of a minor) when the policy creates a strict prohibition. Beccaynr (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under option 2 would that have barred any mention of Lee Harvey Oswald name's in the assassination of JFK until he was convicted? These seems like it's moving in the wrong direction. Nemov (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 recognizes encyclopedic need to include material before conviction may exist. I did not include a proposed list of circumstances that could support inclusion before conviction, but I think there are some broad themes emerging that could be developed into a short list based on the preceding discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think "individuals" should be "people". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that the proposed text, stating clearly that we should avoid including such material "unless a conviction has been secured or a serious encyclopedic need is shown" is more in the spirit of the consensus I have seen in cases where this has arisen than the existing weaker request to "seriously consider" not including such material. There are certainly cases where we should include this material without a conviction (a generic example might be when mentioning the criminal action in question is properly sourced and necessary to explain other events in a notable biography, such as losing a job because an employer concluded that the person committed the action) but I think that is covered by the "serious encyclopedic need" escape clause. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This rule would demand that we remove quite a lot of text from Simon Warr. Is that your intent, Beccaynr?—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A presumption is not a hard-and-fast rule, it is about identifying who has the onus to support inclusion, e.g. with evidence/sources. The "circumstances" language has [...] after it, and the idea is to incorporate a list of factors derived from the discussion above, which has been talking about source-based factors, e.g. scale and depth of coverage, etc.

  Perhaps some additional language similiar to WP:BLPRESTORE could be added, "To ensure that the material accusing living people of crime is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to include, retain, restore, or undelete this material." I think it is helpful to consider how proposed language may be misunderstood and then develop alternative or additional language to better accomplish BLP goals than what has been described as a currently "useless" formulation. Beccaynr (talk) 13:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, though - you have to demonstrate that there's a problem, first. I definitely feel that your proposed wording is far too absolutist for serious consideration; the risk of it being misinterpreted in the other direction (ie. as a hard-and-fast rule to which exceptions are almost nonexistent) seems to me to be more serious. So if you want to argue for a change like that, you need to indicate that the seriously consider language is causing problems, which I don't think you do. I feel it is ideal and is generally producing exactly what we want to - detailed, in-depth discussions about whether to include or exclude a name as soon as there is any sort of challenge or dispute. If your concern is that the initial addition sometimes lacks consideration, that is not solvable - most editors are not experts on policy; nothing we change here is going to prevent the initial incident where a name is sometimes added inappropriately. But I don't see how your proposal would make discussions after that any easier, and I think there's a serious risk they could make them worse - I'm skeptical of having too many policies that place a strong presumption in one direction in general, since that discourages collaborative editing and encourages people trying to clobber each other with policy. We should be trying to get it right, which means policies should encourage contextual discussion and consideration. Outright stating "do X by default" is generally bad policy because it discourages people who want to exclude material from providing an argument (which might be answered!) and generally discourages them from engaging in any depth unless there's already an overwhelming consensus they feel they need to answer. WP:CRYBLP is already a problem as it is; we need to be cautious about giving the policy more absolutist wording unless it's absolutely necessary. What's more important is providing general guidance (which it could certainly do more of), not more ways for editors to try and go "argument X wins automatically by default". --Aquillion (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my view, S Marshall's example is obviously not excluded by the proposed language - the Simon Warr article states he "appeared on BBC Newsnight after his acquittal" and "subsequently wrote about his 672-day ordeal [...] in an essay" and then "his 2017 book" and then "appeared on Jeremy Vine [...] to debate how historical sexual allegations should be handled by police." That seems to be the type of context that can be translated into descriptive factors to consider as support for inclusion in the [...] part of the proposed alternative draft.

In the WP:CRYBLP essay, the first example of contentious content that can rise to the level of 'actual harm' is an allegation of serious criminal conduct, and I think for nonpublic figures, we should emphasize particular care and direct editors to examine sources as well as the needs of the encyclopedia at the time inclusion is considered. I have also been thinking about recent coverage in the Washington Post: True-crime fans seized on the Idaho killings. Their accusations derailed lives. (April 2, 2023) combined with the capacity of Wikipedia to elevate events and people. From my view, the language I have suggested is not "strict in theory, fatal in fact", and the addition of language outlining types of source-based evidence can help emphasize this aspect. Beccaynr (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely not. Our ultimate decisions about article content have to be made based on sources, not based on our personal opinions (which, ultimately, any "serious encyclopedic need" would boil down to.) I'd strenuously oppose any flat "...should not be included..." wording, or any change to the longstanding "...seriously consider..." wording on those grounds. Overriding the sources is not what BLP is, and is not what it has ever been; the ultimate purpose of BLP is to require highest-quality sourcing and care, not to put us in a position of trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by describing someone differently than the overwhelming majority of sources do. More generally, this would be a dramatic change from an established practice and policy; and I don't think that anyone has demonstrated that there is an actual problem here that would require this sort of heavy-handed prescriptivist sort of policy to resolve. It strikes me as the sort of ill-conceived "solve a problem by fiat from 10,000 feet in the air" sort of suggestion that leads to bad policy - policies that are excessively one-sided discourage collaborative editing or actual discussions based on context, and instead lead to intractable disputes that are just people trying to clobber each other with the most strongly-worded policies they can find, without regard for sourcing and with little room for compromise. Having slightly more detailed guidelines here might be useful (per my comments above), but I believe that the "seriously consider" wording has withstood the test of time and has generally produced excellent articles on potentially thorny subject matters. If someone wants to suggest changing it they will need to point to specific problems, on specific pages, that they believe it has caused, which no one here (that I can see) has really done. --Aquillion (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I hope my comment above helps clarify that there is no intention to have this language be contrary to the BLP focus on the highest-quality sourcing and care, and that it is instead an attempt to better align the language with the purpose and goals of BLP policy. The general idea is to expand the language at the [...] to identify the type of coverage, using examples that are surfacing in this discussion, including your comment (I have been thinking I could thematically code this discussion as if it is a mini-qualitative analysis to create a list of broad example factors for editors to consider).

  I also think we have a recent example [5] where it may have helped to have more clarity about who has the burden to support inclusion, as well as the need to support inclusion with sources; that RfC was recently discussed at AN; the reopened RfC is pending. Another recent example is here [6]. I think particularly in lower-profile articles with nonpublic suspects, there may be a risk in a small discussion that "strongly consider" could be interpreted as a presumption for inclusion unless editors can show a BLP-based reason to exclude (as if BLP reasons do not already exist). My goal is to help 'unclobber' the discussion area, by clarifying the framework so it is more clear about who has the burden and the general types of evidence that can help support inclusion of contentious content. Beccaynr (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I basically support this revision, but it's impossible to truly evaluate without a detailed list of the conditions where such a name should be included. Loki (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I generally support this revision, and it is in line with how we should be evaluating sources on BLP's. Reliability of any source is always contextual, sure we set up guidelines like RSP which are generally good, but certain considerations like those highlighted in BLP always apply. When we're dealing with BLP's we need to be asking is this source authoritative for the content. For purposes of criminal allegations there is only one authoritative source on whether or not they are true, and that is the criminal justice process. If the criminal justice process has not come back with a conviction, there are no authoritative sources. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• If any change is made it could be helpful to include something backing up or mentioning WP:BLPPRIMARY. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Title inspired by the preceding section's title.) One purpose of our BLP policy, as I understand it, is that even when a bunch of people come here wanting to libel some politician they hate, there's a policy that no, editors can't do that : contentious unsourced information "must be removed immediately", "Wikipedia is [...] not a tabloid", etc. Reasonably, this continues to apply for a flexibly undefined period after death, so such editors also can't add tabloid smears right after a person dies, either. That's a sensible policy for us to have; go us! :)
Except... that's not the policy. WP:BDP does not apply for even one second after someone dies. It just says it "can extend based on editorial consensus". So in the very situation where it'd be most important — POV-pushers are sensationally smearing a politician they hate who just died, stopped only by diligent Wikipedians applying this policy — they can just argue "nah, don't stop us, actually (don't apply BDP)", preventing there from being consensus to apply it? Then what is the point of WP:BDP? Since it already has flexibility built in about how short or long it applies, shouldn't it just apply (automatically)? -sche (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This policy didn't used to say "editorial consensus" - the way I remembered the policy was that it automatically applied. Looks like it was changed a couple years ago by Octoberwoodland here. I agree with you that the way it is worded now makes the policy not useful. I think having it apply for a flexible amount of time automatically is confusing (especially if people use BDP as a WP:3RR exception), but I would support BLP automatically extending for 6 months (or a few month period at least) beyond death, with editorial consensus only needed for extension beyond that. Galobtter (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good find; now that I see "based on editorial consensus" was added later than the rest of the wording, I wonder if Octoberwoodland's edit could even have been attempting to express the very proposal you're making, that the length of extension needs editorial consensus, not that the existence of an extension does. (I suppose someone would need to find the AN/I discussion referred to.) In any case, I agree with you. Having BDP apply automatically for even just a couple months would probably cover the majority of the situations where people are coming to some article to smear/sensationalize it because the person is in the news (for dying). -sche (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change

Based on the preceding, how do people feel about rewording

... recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside.

to

(A) ... recently died, in which case the policy extends for an indeterminate period (based on editorial consensus) beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside.

or even:

(B) ... recently died, in which case the policy extends for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, or (based on editorial consensus) one year, or two years at the outside.

?
I think this would better reflect what seems to have been the reason a user added "based on editorial consensus" a while ago. -sche (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC on joke AfDs about BLPs on April fools day at Wikipedia_talk:April_Fools#RfC:_Ban_joke_AfD_of_living_people. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's an anonymous editor that is hell-bent on adding libelous drivel to the David Caron talk page. I don't even know how or where to report this so I thought I'd start here. See the recent history. Wes sideman (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wes sideman: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Depending upon the seriousness, you could try: WP:HD, WP:BLPN, WP:AIV or WP:ANI. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have just learned of a project called "Les sans images" which aims to create artwork to illustrate women's articles lacking an illustration. The Commons category is Category:Les sans images. I reverted multiple instances of what I considered non-notable "fan art" being added to BLPs until I learned of this movement just now. It appears to have begun at the French Wikipedia around 2021, but some images are in use here. I'm bringing this to the community's attention (assuming there have not been previous discussions on the topic) to see how we feel about the implementation of these images, and any guideline updates that may be necessary. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 18:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was a very recent discussion (can't remember which noticeboard it was on) regarding a similar instance of the inclusion of cartoon portraits of living people. The consensus reached, if I remember correctly, was in favor of exclusion; the determination was that if the cartoons were based on actual images, then they would not meet our copyright licensing requirements, and if they weren't based on actual images, then they were original research. Curbon7 (talk) 13:38, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the recent discussion which didn't actually reach a final consensus.

Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 49 EthicalComics (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Curbon7 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I support it, assuming that the images are sufficiently high quality and respectful of the person portrayed, and with the caveat that we remove them if the subject objects. (Unlike a photo, which we can argue to keep even if the subject objects, like an uncomfortable fact that we will often keep even if the subject objects, a non-notable sketch that we ourselves generated should be removed if the subject objects.) Some, even most, of the images in that category are high quality and respectful, and some ... aren't. Here are some examples of each in my opinion. (My opinion is just one editor's opinion, but I have uploaded a few images to illustrate a few articles in my time.)

• High quality respectful drawing. I'd support using it.... with the exception that it seems to be derived from a specific copyrighted image, see User:Abecedare's note below.
  High quality respectful drawing. I'd support using it.... with the exception that it seems to be derived from a specific copyrighted image, see User:Abecedare's note below.
• 
  High quality cartoon, but clearly a caricature. Since the subject is a comedienne, that may be acceptable in this case, but I can definitely see subjects that lack a sense of humor and would not like to be caricatured in this way.
• 
  High quality cartoon, but clearly a caricature. Since the subject is an activist, notable for being beaten and having her son be murdered, I think it is not appropriate for us to use a non notable caricature to illustrate her article; not funny.
• 
  Not a professional quality work. If the subject article were a BLP, I'd remove it immediately. Since it's not ... I'd still advise against using it there.
• 
  Not a professional quality work, and the article is a BLP. I'd be against using it there without explicit consent from the subject (and if we can converse with the subject, why not just ask her to release a photograph?)

The opinion that User:Curbon7 brings up "if the cartoons were based on actual images, then they would not meet our copyright licensing requirements, and if they weren't based on actual images, then they were original research" does not apply; images are an exception to the original research policy, we editors are explicitly encouraged to go out and make images of our article subjects to illustrate our articles, and a pencil and paper is no more or no less an instrument of illustration than a camera is. You can take a bad photograph of a person the same way that you can make a bad drawing - it's just easier to take a passable photograph than to make a passable drawing; many amateur photographs will be perfectly acceptable, while most amateur drawings will not be. --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply to you here since you used two of my portraits.

I drew Aditi Mittal in such a colourful way because it’s how she appears in the numerous media I’ve seen her on. Colourful patterned shirts, coloured hair and coloured background.

As for Ahlam Khudr, I didn’t draw her in a funny way. She often is displayed using the V sign and with a flower crown. I depicted her as she appears in reality. EthicalComics (talk) 18:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you read [[Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images and took that as encouragement to create drawings of people? It's not! It's talking about photographs, diagrams, graphs, charts, svgs of flags and symbols, etc. - not drawing a picture of someone because we don't have a photo! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I support this initiative. I actually don't see a problem using any of these drawings above for articles that have no illustrations provided they follow the commons rules (the judging of the "professional quality" I find is sometimes very subjective.). The use of colors in itself should not be an incentive to rule out a picture.

In some cases some drawings have triggered living persons to provide a free licensed photography (I cannot remember which one) and the drawing has been replaced by the photo. These images are usually done by professionals or experienced amateurs that have some notions of drawing portraits and published under free license. The actual process of using drawings for living persons is well known in the medias for exemple, where often drawings of trials are done instead of photographs. :There are many examples of personnalities illustrated with a painting or a drawing. I think furthemore we are loosing time that could be devoted to contribution instead of arguments and also, please consider how discouraging it can be for a new contributor on our projects to see their work that they have generously published under free license being brushed away and constantly criticized. Hyruspex (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m sorry to say I find it fairly damning to learn BLP subjects have been distressed enough by volunteer illustrations that they felt they had to release photos to ameliorate the situation. To me that says the depictions were out of line with our BLP policies against causing harm. Really all contributors should be apprised that their work like all work on the project could be subject to scrutiny about how it complies with these policies. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To add to Curbon7's copyright point: the Anna Tsing drawing is a derivative work of the author photograph at her publisher's website, which is presumably copyrighted, and hence not usable (and if the photograph is not copyrighted, we are better off using it itself). And alternatively, we can use a video still from this video interview, which is released under a CC-Attribution license, to better illustrate the article. Abecedare (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Woo. Nice catch. Found and uploaded a frame from the video to replace the drawing in the EN article, and will nominate the drawing for deletion on that basis. I still support the principle as above; it is not the case that every drawing has to be a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph, but in this case it seems clear that this one is. --GRuban (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way, I agree with the gloss you appended to the images above and also agree that WP:OR-concerns need not always forbid use of user-drawn images. So in principle user-drawn images may be used in some instances but I fear that, for the reasons you already mentioned and the derivative-work concern Curbon7 raised, those instances may be very few and may need to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Aaaaand it's been removed from the article! I would appreciate participants to voice their opinions for or against at Talk:Anna Tsing#Image removed?. Thank you. --GRuban (talk) 23:35, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the initiative, subject to the criteria outlined by GRuban above. There's going to be some degree of subjectivity to the decision to add any image, but we should prefer ones which are high-quality, respectful of the subject, and appropriate to the tone of the article as a whole. Nick Number (talk) 17:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the initiative is a positive one and support the inclusion of these images as a general principle. I think it's also important to remember that illustrators as much as other contributors will be working in good faith. Lajmmoore (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I support the initiative and endorse the excellent points made by User:Hyruspex above. It should be recalled that the use of references in art is a universally accepted practice and does not in itself constitute a copyright infringement, just like writing an article from several sources and without copy-pasting from any one of them is not plagiarism. I also congratulate Abecedare and GRuban on their finding, while underlining that their discovery was triggered by the existence of the hand-drawn portraits of Anna Tsing; it thus must also be in part put to the credit of Les Sans Image, further demonstrating the value of the project. In general we should value and encourage the production of original work, avoid putting our contributors in impossible situations (such as "it's either plagiarism or original research"), and strive to improve not only our articles but also the skills of our contributors. Rama (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't support use of these illustrations in articles. WP simply isn't equipped to judge whether they are of sufficient artistic merit to warrant inclusion, much less whether the tone is one the subject would appreciate. Judging an illustration is much more subjective than determining whether a photo gives a clear view of what a person looks like. The encyclopedic value of the illustrations is small, as an abstract drawing doesn't really convey a person's appearance. Their primary value would be as an artistic flourish, but we don't even allow MOS:PULLQUOTES, so I don't see why we would allow these on that basis.--Trystan (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to ground your argumentation on false premises: these drawings are not abstract, and photography very much carries artistic style. There is no reason they would be any less encyclopedic than photographs. Some might not be to everybody's taste, some might advantageously be replaced by better images; but I see no reason to refuse them on principle. As far as encyclopedic value goes, a good drawing is worth a good photograph, a bad drawing is worth a bad photograph; and in any case the thing to do with perfectible Free content is not to delete it, but to surpass it. Rama (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have seen an image added to Eileen Kramer, and I'm not sure it is helpful. The caption to a photograph usually specifies "Kramer in 20nn", showing the point in time when it was taken. Here we have a generalised image of the subject (still active Nov 2022 aged 108), with no indication of its sources, and in a style which looks, to me, like a whimsical image rather than an encyclopedic illustration. PamD 23:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On further thought I have removed the image from Eileen Kramer because it is an unsourced addition to a BLP. If we allow unsourced images like this there is nothing to stop anyone from adding an image which completely misrepresents the topic, and that is dangerous for the encyclopedia. While the artists contributing at present are doing so in good faith, we know there are people out there with other agendas. PamD 08:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Found two photos for Eileen Kramer. --GRuban (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• While I very much appreciate the spirit in which it was undertaken, I don’t think this initiative has proved helpful for en-wiki (which I specify only because I am a very limited contributor to other languages and can’t speak to their policies.) Every example I have seen either has the copyright issue mentioned above and/or is not a sufficiently serious representations for use as an encyclopedic portrait, from my POV (I would not use the image of Tsing above even if it were not copyvio). I don’t object to using, for instance, a professional courtroom sketch if we did have access to it, so I don’t think we need a rule against drawings, but I don’t think the project of soliciting volunteer drawings is working out. My two cents. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To add. While not on par with GRuban’s experience, I do have more than 500 uploads to the Commons at this point. So my comments do not come from lack of concern with or attention to the challenges of illustrating women’s bios especially BLPs (rather the opposite—I am very concerned we maintain our standards when representing women.) Innisfree987 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would not call the image of Tsing "High quality respectful drawing". Divorced from the context of the photo it is copied from, the first thing it brings to mind to me is that it is a picture of a bird pooping on her head. The second thing it brings to mind is that her features have been exaggerated to look more Asian, perhaps based on her name and not the way she actually looks in the many photos one can find of her. Not the sort of thing we would want to show in a BLP, and especially not of someone who has written serious academic works on the problematic behavior of white men regarding Asian women [7]. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• MOS:IMAGEQUALITY encourages us to "Use the best quality images available. Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary. Think carefully about which images best illustrate the subject matter" and states "A biography should lead with a portrait photograph of the subject alone, not with other people." MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE includes, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. When possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones" and "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic." In the context of WP:BLPIMAGE policy, these guidelines seem to discourage the use of "ambiguous" images that do not 'look like what they are meant to illustrate' in BLP leads, such as the abstract portraits identified in this discussion, even when it is not possible to find an alternative image. There was also a brief discussion at Talk:MOS/Images#Sketches, drawings or paintings as photograph substitutes in July 2021, a more substantial discussion about BLP lead images generally at BLPN in April 2021, and a discussion about low quality images on an article Talk page in September 2021 that may be relevant to consider. Beccaynr (talk) 02:59, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello,

  I support the project "sans imagEs" in which I am active.

  It is very important to distinguish the use of files on Commons and on Wikipedia pages.

  There is no doubt that all these files can be used in an educational context and therefore should not be deleted. Alacoolwiki (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In my view there are far too many issues with BLP, copyright and NPOV for amateur portrait drawings to be used in articles on living persons. Our priority should be to be faithful to the actual appearance of the subject and a truly faithful depiction will probably end up being a derivative of a copyrighted work unless the artist is very skilled - and to be frank, most highly skilled artists are not willing to work without compensation or credit (despite what the licensing terms may say, it's a reality that images from Wikimedia Commons tend to get shared throughout the internet without crediting the original creator).
  The examples presented above are (no offense to the artists) in no way suitable for use in articles, IMO. Besides the issues with copyright and encyclopedic style, the NPOV issues are a minefield, e.g. David Eppstein's note above that the drawing of Anna Tsing seems to exaggerate her "Asian" features. I'm sure this wasn't the artist's intention but one can imagine the outrage if someone complained about Wikipedia using a "racist caricature" to depict a woman scientist. What if someone wants to illustrate an article on a Jewish politician and happens to draw them with a slightly larger nose? Such things have been done in political influence campaigns, and been condemned as antisemitic [8]. What if the drawing leaves out a few blemishes or makes the person look a bit slimmer than they normally do? Is that just artistic license or is it enforcing unrealistic beauty standards on women?
  I ran into a similar issue a few years ago with someone adding amateur illustrations to a number of Canadian biographies (link). The images ended up being deleted on copyvio grounds because they were basically traced from copyrighted photos. Despite that, there were still issues with how accurately they depicted the subject. I remember in particular an illustration of Aliocha Schneider, who if you look him up on Google is a young, trendy-looking man - but the illustration made him look like someone's grandma. I think a better way to solve the issue of biographies without images might be an outreach campaign to encourage subjects or their representatives to release images under a compatible license through WP:VRT. Spicy (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Found and uploaded two pretty good (if I do say so myself) images for Aliocha Schneider after this mention. That said, speaking as someone who has done them regularly, outreach campaigns to subjects are HARD. Explaining to people why and how we need them to release images is HARD. (I've learned that:

  • Tell them "you need to be the photographer; take a selfie" and they will immediately steal an image from their last published magazine interview and pretend they own it. You'd think "look into a mirror holding a smart phone" would be simple enough, but they'd rather die than not have a professional image, but they aren't going to pay for a professional to release an image.
  • If they actually do have a professional quality image, they will send it in with the statement "you can use this on Wikipedia but we retain the copyright" - despite the fact that I told them that wouldn't work in the very email they're responding to.
  • The majority of article subjects couldn't edit their own web sites if their lives depended on it, so they will have to email it in to permissions-commons with a release.
  • Sometimes permissions-commons will make them jump through hoops to prove they own the image; I've had a request to scan in and mail their driver's license, I've had a claim that they need to email a release from the photography studio even though the photography studio closed 20 years ago, and in the country the photo was taken the law was that the client owned the copyright not the studio.)

  My success rate for any given photo outreach is 10-20%, and even the successes are not trivial, here's a pretty typical one: User_talk:GRuban/Archive_9#To_whom_it_may_concern. --GRuban (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm reminded of a story that Nicolas Slonimsky once told: briefly, he was challenged by a policeman one day, while walking in the street, to present his identity documents, and was unable to do so, having forgotten them at home. Slonimsky asked the officer to come with him to the public library, where he went to the stacks, pulled down a reference work, and showed his portrait in the book to the policeman to establish who he was.

The story gets to my feelings about this discussion: I think any illustration provided to any article should be realistic enough as to be easily used to identify the subject of said article. That's my prime concern in situations such as this; too often I find that the illustration, as created, is either too abstract, or too stylized, or too cartoonish to serve its stated purpose. I have no objection, on principle, to using a created artwork as the lead image in an article, but I think the style of artwork chosen needs to be considered carefully. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We already had this discussion at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_49#Cartoon_portraits, where consensus was fairly clear to not use amateurish drawings in BLP articles. Zaathras (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently dealing with a number of attempts to add content for the alleged death of Rashid Buttar. (See the talk page.) The sources are very poor, so experienced editors are encouraging a "wait for better sources" attitude. We really do not know if he's dead.

We need an official section in this BLP policy for dealing with such matters. Careless editors have been punk'd and fooled many times by hoaxes and unreliable sources, and premature and false death announcements cause real world harm to the person, their family, and Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy.

I propose we add something like the following to our BLP policy:

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strike "a few days" in favor of "until properly verified", or something along those lines. Reliable sources could in some cases just be minutes behind the TMZs and Daily Mails of the media sphere, I would not want to create a suggestion of an artificial wait-time. Zaathras (talk) 19:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Done. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your policy needs to take into consideration the fact that someone can be just barely noteworthy enough to have the minimum number of reliable sources writing about him, but also hated enough that no reliable source will stoop to take notice of the fact that he has died. This appears to be what is happening in the present case. What this means is that your policy keeps the bereaved family waiting for Wikipedia to acknowledge that he has died; anyone coming to the page and (at present) not scrolling to the bottom will assume the person is still alive. This is, arguably, even more offensive than a person being said to be dead when it is easy to prove otherwise. --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You, of all people, should be very concerned about BLP violations using unsourced or poorly sourced negative content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a threat. --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is almost always inadvisable to make substantive changes to policy based around unfolding events concerning a specific individual. More so, if the justification given is entirely unsubstantiated hyperbole. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tru dat. We can also wait and just let this simmer. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:41, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after you've caused the family enough pain by making them wait, go ahead and change the page, and then look at the policy again.

Of course, you won't.

Again, the argument is simple: if it does harm to a person to be falsely said by Wikipedia to be dead, and if you should care about such harm, then why do you not also care about the harm done to a family when a person is falsely said to be alive (even if the fact is not reported in any "reliable source")? --Larry Sanger (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanger, you have been wrong about every aspect of online encyclopedias for over 20 years. Why should anybody pay attention to your ill-informed opinions after that track record? Cullen328 (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a personal attack and an ad hominem to my argument, I must observe. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to ad hominem, Philosopher and pundit on informal fallacies Douglas N. Walton argues that a circumstantial ad hominem argument can be non-fallacious. This could be the case when someone (A) attacks the personality of another person (B), making an argument (a) while the personality of B is relevant to argument a, i.e. B talks as an authority figure. To illustrate this reasoning, Walton gives the example of a witness at a trial: if he had been caught lying and cheating in his own life, should the jury take his word for granted? No, according to Walton. That is perfectly applicable in this context. Cullen328 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You plainly understand neither the fallacy nor even what you quoted. I was not at any point depending on my own authority in my argument. If you think I was, you are committing another fallacy, namely, strawman. Larry Sanger (talk) 23:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The harm caused by falsely claiming someone is dead is very different the harm by falsely claiming they are alive. For example, someone may miss out on opportunities if they are falsely believed to be dead; that isn't possible if they are falsely believed to be alive.

What specific harms are you so concerned about? BilledMammal (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are not familiar with the grieving process, or this might be more obvious to you. The failure of a major public source of information to acknowledge the passing of someone they love, and in fact falsely implying (at least at the top of an article, last time I checked) that he is still alive, does emotional harm the family. If you continue to claim not to understand this, I probably shouldn't waste my time trying to convince you. --Larry Sanger (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As someone familiar with the grieving process (sadly most people are), I'd have to suggest that Wikipedia biographies being out of date wouldn't be much of a priority for most people. And if it were, there are better ways to rectify the situation that getting their friend Larry Sanger to gripe about it - I assume you are a family friend, since you seem to know so much about them? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While emotional harm of third parties is unfortunate it isn't the sort of harm we have BLP policies to avoid. It also isn't the sort of harm we can reasonable avoid without causing immeasurable damage to the encyclopedia; in this case it would require us to include unverified and possibly false information, while in other cases it would require us to exclude verified and encyclopedic information.

When we have a reliable source declaring someone is dead then we can list them as dead. Until them, we minimize harm by presuming they are still alive. BilledMammal (talk) 20:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, blah. Whatever you need to say to let you keep doing exactly whatever you want to do. This place hasn't changed one bit. Still as fraudulent, self-important, and childish as ever. Larry Sanger (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic. Roxy the dog 20:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expect it inherited those characteristics from a founder... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanger is the Ronald Wayne of Pete Bests, to put it in meme terms. If he continues with these antics, then he should be brought to ANI like any garden-variety disruptive troll. Zaathras (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Antics” LOL. Whatever. Don’t worry. I’m done slumming here. —Larry Sanger (talk) 00:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has, without a solid consensus, added the info to the article, seemingly based on the idea that using several poor sources makes it okay. They don't understand the adage "The plural of anecdote is not evidence." Sad. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]