Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

FYI, I just wrote about whether a denial should be placed in the lead if an accusation is already in the lead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I know very well that the WP:BLP policy applies to talk pages (indeed any pages on Wikipedia) and that unreliable sources are not permissible as a source for statements about living persons. However, editors sometimes quote sections from unreliable sources that contain negative information about a living person on a talk page - could this be a violation of the WP:BLP policy? For instance, in a discussion about a living person, someone could quote an unreliable source that contains negative (and possibly defamatory) information without any further encyclopedic purpose. Katzrockso (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it certainly can be a violation of policy, and if such content is added 'without any further encyclopedic purpose' it merits removal or even WP:REVDEL. Having said that, it has been acknowledged that some leeway is needed for talk-page discussions concerning possible addition of legitimate negative content. Ultimately, we need to exercise careful judgement over this, and not over-use WP:BLP policy as a means to prevent discussion entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not simply talking about content in reliable sources that might be negative - when discussing whether or not to add such material to the article, of course it can be quoted and discussed on the talk page. I'm talking about material from unreliable sources quoted on a talk page with no seeming purpose other than to malign the living person. Katzrockso (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

If you are sure that is what you are looking at delete it, and depending on the severity, either warn the person responsible on their talk page, or in extreme cases (e.g. when there is evidence of such activity being repeated) report them at WP:ANI. And note that regardless of what is being posted on a talk page, content not discussing actual or potential article content doesn't belong there anyway: see WP:TALKNOTFORUM, and note that per WP:TALKOFFTOPIC it can be legitimate to remove such content not just because of WP:BLP violations, but for many other reasons - unambiguously off-topic material and/or gibberish being perhaps the most obvious. Just be prepared to have to defend your deletion if it might look at all questionable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

The BLP policy isn't totally explicit in what should happen if reliable sources interpret a subject's statement to mean something that the subject didn't actually mean, and the subject then corrects the sources. Should the interpretation be placed alongside the subject's correction, or should the interpretation be removed entirely? Or are there different circumstances where one might be preferred over the other? This is distinct from, albeit closely related to, cases where the subject is being accused of something and then denies it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

If the subject has convinced us that the RS was wrong, then we simply omit it as per WP:VNOT.

If the subject was trying to wiggle out (which happens a lot), and it has been acknowledged in RS, then we say something cursory like "the subject denied the interpretation". The subject doesn't get to choose how the RS interpret it or how we summarise it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

The idea that the subject has to "convince" us makes me incredibly uncomfortable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:19, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:SELFSOURCE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The whole point is that the subject does not get to choose how his/her words are seen and understood by the others. As I mentiond earlier, it is very very common for people to wiggle out of what they said or meant. If the subject was unduly hammered by a particular RS, the other RS could have drawn different conclusions. Allowing the subject to override the RS (with consideration to DUE) would throw out the whole point of the RS policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I would say, as with any other statement, if a subject denies an allegation, including that their statements carried that connotation, we can include the denial but we don't cede full interpretive authority to primary sources and that includes BLP subjects. As such there's an element of Death of the Author at play. A subject's words mean what reliable secondary sources say. If the subject disagrees we include that but don't override the secondary sources. Simonm223 (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with User:Kautilya3 and User:Simonm223, it's a straightforward case of WP:DENIALS. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

This is too broad a question because the answer clearly depends on a variety of circumstances. For example, in the case of a clear misunderstanding, an important question might be whether the misunderstanding has itself become notable or newsworthy. There are also times where a misstatement receives widespread coverage and a later correction does not, not because anyone disputes the correction, but simply because the news cycle has moved on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

This question is specifically about the latter case. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think it would be very hard to come up with a good general answer to this question; there are just too many variables involved. It's one of those situations where the answer is "depends" and editors have to use good judgement to evaluate the unique circumstances of each case. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 10:52, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

But you can see why I want some sort of clarification in policy—without any sort of specifics or variables given, the people replying here were immediately unsympathetic toward the hypothetical subject. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

So, here's what I would suggest, and likely do myself. First identify the sources making the allegation. How reliable are they, are they academic sources, mainstream newspapers, advocacy journalism, public statements by advocacy organizations, marginal political publications, etc. Second, what is exactly being provided by the sources, including the presumed denial by the BLP. Do they include the full statement, are certain publications omitting information that can change the meaning of the expression. Sources can have an interpretation something a BLP says, and we can document that interpretation. However, source reliability is related to a source being factual and accurate. So, if a source which omits something that drastically changes the meaning of a passage, we should reduce how reliable we view them. We have a responsibility within BLP to make sure we get it right. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

There is a dispute at Talk:Ke Huy Quan about whether the subject was born in 1970 (as he has stated) or 1971 (as reported in RS). I think it strains all credulity to suggest that the RS are in possession of some information that the subject is not, but am I engaging in SYNTH to suggest that the RS just copied it from somewhere blindly (even if that is almost certainly the case)? GreatCaesarsGhost 14:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

So far I think this is the only comment here to actually consider the issue in a way that gives the benefit of the doubt to BLPs, instead of being distrustful and framing it as a "denial" when subjects correct statements others made about them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

This would need to go hand in hand with prioritising BLPs in Category:Wikipedia conflict of interest edit requests, there's two there from March. They should probably be in their own category or labelled as BLPs Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

They should both be mentioned, chronologically, in roughly the same level of detail, without granting primary interpretive weight to either one. If it's really so obvious, then the reader will be able to draw a conclusion from the two statements. I think this is a simple application of WP:SPSAS, and whatever policy says that Wikipedia is supposed to be informative about whatever it chooses to write about. I agree that WP:VNOT could come into play here. (As it seems to have in the tangential example of Talk:Ke_Huy_Quan#Date_of_birth_again.) Dingolover6969 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Policy is rightfully clear about not deadnaming or misgendering people but is silent on articles concerning individuals who have changed name and find their old name distressing. This is an issue when the notability arises from sources that are exclusively about the former name. I think the situation is equivalent to deadnaming and would propose an addition to the policy to the effect that Where a subject has changed name and requests the article to be moved to that name we should accommodate this where we can. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that addition, but removing information that allows all the sources from the previous name to be connected to the current name just doesn't work (which I know is not what you're suggesting). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and you are right, that's not at all what I'm suggesting. There should be a clear statement along the lines of formally known as, it's more than the actual article sits on the name they subject is currently using rather than the former name. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says:

This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.

We should simply add that same text here to the lede. That is all. Any content in the enclycodpia must comply with both without exemption so there is no valid reason to omit it surely. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 14:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. This seems like a weird roundabout way to weaken Wikipedia's requirement for the primacy of NPOV following on from discussions at WP:FT/N. In general a WP:POLICY is a "standard all users should normally follow" not a hard-and-fast rule, which is why WP:IAR exists for exceptional cases. In practice WP:BLP is recognised as non-optional because of the clarity of its provisions using the word "must" coupled with the warning: "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing". However, if this proposal is actually an attempt to fix a real problem then could we have some actual examples of the problem that would be fixed, with some before/after examples of how this change would apply in practice? Bon courage (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)