Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 65

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 60

←

Propose rephrasing WP:MUG

I hate that a lot of BLP's seem to have glamor photographs in their info boxes. We should rephrase WP:MUG to highlight that images portraying people falsely are bad both when they make people look overly bad and when they make people look overly good.

Current text : "present a person in a false or disparaging light"

Proposed : "present a person in a false, disparaging, or overly flattering light"

Thoughts? NickCT (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of BLPs that have "overly flattering" lead images? Some1 (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Sure. So effectively, many of these boil down to non-candid "publicity"-style photos. I guess for actors, authors and the like, sometimes it may be appropriate to use publicitly photos (particularly where no other photo exists). But it seems weird, and out-of-place when we present publicity photos which are sometimes heavile stylized on random BLPs.

Lisa Jackson (author)

Anyway, there may be a policy somewhere calling for candid photography, but it may be worth mentioning here that we want to avoid obviously fake representations of people. NickCT (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

There is no preference for "candid" photographs. Most of your examples appear to be ordinary headshots (John M. Perkins and Tamara Gee are on the "artistic" end of the spectrum). And just about every American politician's article uses their official portrait. I don't think the proposed wording change is necessary nor would the results of such a change be useful to readers. Schazjmd (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes. The politican thing occurred to me. I guess with politicians it sorta make sense that we just always use the official portrait, b/c 1) there's almost always a free-use portrait available, and 2) using it for everyone avoids any appearance of bias.

If there isn't a preference for candid photographs I guess there is a preference against publicity (see WP:NOTPROMO), and it's hard to deny that these aren't effectively publicity shots. NickCT (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I think guidance against professional photographs stretches WP:NOTPROMO beyond its intent. Schazjmd (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

There's a distinction between a "professional photograph" and a "publicity photograph". NickCT (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Cross posting from Talk:Neri Oxman#Glamor photo?: While I may sympathise on some (instinctive, visceral) level, we do have folks who are actively engaged in various attempts to improve the quality of our BLP photos (see this, this, and this, as well as this article, to highlight a few examples). Purposely limiting quality (of BLP photographs or anything else) seems to go against the grain (per WP:1Q), and I would think it would not be easy to find consensus for a policy that intentionally does that – although in cases where there is a violation of NOTPROMO (or WP:COI, which may be closely related), normal procedures should of course apply. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not about quality. It's about whether photos portray people in a truthful light. Our current policy already tells us we shouldn't portray people in a falsely negative light. Why not a falsely positive light too? NickCT (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Again, I sympathise with your point of view (e.g., a billionaire who hires a famous photographer and probably has a staffer upload the result to Commons stretches something – although I'm not sure exactly what), I just don't see how we could define "truthful" or "falsely positive" in anything but subjective terms when referring to something as personal as one's likeness. Most people who submit a picture of themselves or someone who they can photograph (per WP:PICYOU) will choose a "good" shot that shows the subject in a positive, flattering light. It's already difficult enough to get any photographs of BLPs! If we start specifying that we want "truthful" photographs that aren't too good, it's bound to make it even more so. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
Well thanks for sympathy at least. And yes, I appreciate that if we say overly flattering photography is bad, it may make it hard to find any photographs. But you should appriciate that there are BLPs where multiple photos of the subject do exist, and folks opt to use the ludicrous, photoshopped publicity shot as the info box image. Doesn't opting for the fake stuff over candid images strike you as bad practice? NickCT (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that in cases where we have the luxury of choosing between a nice, clear candid shot and something along the lines of what you're describing, the former would usually be preferable. Mostly, the articles I'm working on either lack a photograph full stop, or the one we have is awful (e.g., Milton Glaser, Susan Kare, or her brother Jordin Kare). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Jordin Kare
Jordin Kare cropped, brightened, redeye removed.
Milton Glaser
Milton Glaser

@Cl3phact0: Edited the Jordin Kare image. It's still not "professional headshot" style, but hopefully better? --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

And the new Milton Glaser image isn't bad at all, even if I do say so myself.

--GRuban (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The Glaser image is a big win. Well done. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

And that's really the point. Good candid images should be opted for over publicity stuff. If all we can get our hands on is the publicity stuff, maybe that's OK. NickCT (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
The focus on a truthful portrayal is misguided. Wikipedia's standard is Verifiability, not truth. As long as the photo verifiably depicts the person it's supposed to and isn't overly distracting, that should be the end of it. The point of WP:MUGSHOT is to avoid creating pages that exist to attack their subject. No one is going to be astonished to find out that people sometimes look different from their photos. Heck, the passage of time alone will do that. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

A policy requiring you to look like shit in your infobox photo sounds like something from a particularly scathing parody of Wikipedia. jp×g 🗯️ 08:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hilarious. Confirming that WP:SHITPIC doesn't yet exist, if you're feeling creative. (Also see WP:UBI and the BBC article linked above.) Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

There's probably a little space between a photo that makes you "look like shit" and one that isn't overly flattering. NickCT (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Looking at this from a slightly different angle, I note that WP:BLPIMAGE (aka WP:MUG) currently contains negative guidance only: avoid disparaging images such as mugshots, avoid copyright issues, don't use AI. How about starting the section with a sentence on what good BLP images SHOULD be, i.e. representative portrayals of the subject. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Good point. Perhaps simply linking to Wikipedia:A picture of you (alongside Wikipedia:No original research § Original images) would help. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that "Good candid images should be opted for over publicity stuff." Good images should be opted for over bad images, period. Good images are images that are clearly depict the subject of the article, clearly depicting the subject is the whole point of the article, a picture is a generally effective way to do that with pixels rather than words. But if we can do that, and have a choice between an image the subject likes and one they do not like, we absolutely should choose the one they like. "Wikipedia is not here to make people sad", as Jimbo Wales says. We (a) do not want to encourage people to become paparazzi if we already have a good professional image, and (b) we do not want to give any weight to "this picture makes politician-I-don't-like look too good, we should make them look ugly", we've already got enough stupid arguments like that. --GRuban (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that so many here seem to have trouble seperating the quality of an image from the "truthfulness" of the representation. You can have a high-quality image that gives a false representation of person. A high-quality image can portray someone in a falsely disparaging, or a falsely flattering way. This seems sorta self-evident to me, and I'm not proposal is definitely not that we find images that depict people in an unclear way. NickCT (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

A very current example of "this picture makes person-I-don't-like look too good, we should make them look ugly" can be found at Talk:J._K._Rowling#inappropriate_picture, dated October 11 i think the main picture of Rowling on this article (J. K. Rowling 2010) is inappropriate because it shows her in a positive light. she's outside, smiling, relaxed. you easily get a good feeling about her. i think it goes against npov. This is from an editor of 4 years standing. I wish I were making this up. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

In the examples given earlier, I can agree that the picture of John M. Perkins is not a good picture for the article, but not because it makes him look good. It's not a good picture because most of it is of clouds, rather than of him, because it is low resolution, and because it is at a distorted angle that focuses on his hands, making them look bigger than his head, and as a minister and author, he isn't notable for his hands. I would greatly appreciate an image that doesn't have those three problems. But I have no objections to the pictures of Neri Oxman or Rick Falkvinge; the fact it makes them look good is in no way a detraction. --GRuban (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

That said, of course, we don't have a better picture of John M. Perkins, and having this picture in the article is far better than no picture at all. --GRuban (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Simple to crop the Perkins image using c:Commons:CropTool, if that's desirable. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

To me, many of these come across as "professional headshot" style which... is what I'd expect the goal to be. Denaar (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

This is some funny stuff. The Ryan Ip photo would not look out of place as his LinkedIn profile pic. There's nothing "overly flattering" about it. Maybe if the picture was of him in bed with four supermodels all caressing him, I might say, "yeah, that's laying it on a tad thick." But a standard, run-of-the-mill professional shot? Please. I agree with JPxG: the implicit message here is that BLP articles should have junk photos. -- Veggies (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

In many cases, a more stylized photo is more informative than a candid shot. E.g., the lead photo in Marilyn Monroe conveys her public persona, because that is more relevant to her notability than what she looked like lounging around the house.--Trystan (talk) 14:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean, I guess a stylized photo can indicate someone is a celebrity or something, which might be appropriate. What about just normal (i.e. non-celebrity) folks? NickCT (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I guess I'm not getting anywhere with this proposal. It's sorta weird that no one feels conveying peoples' images in honest ways is important. We're so concerned about producing "neutral" text when writing about folks. Why not "neutral" images when representing them? NickCT (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, we have a whole page (NPOV) discussing neutrality of text, and it has been hammered out as a consensus over many years. So, 'neutrality of images' is not going to be self-defining. In other words, what does it mean and can we get any agreement on it. Perhaps no such agreement is possible, because what you are really discussing is a matter of aesthetics, in the eye of the beholder. (for me, I think 'crappy images' are more of a problem, but that's me.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, I'd agree with you that low quality images are more of a problem than overly flattering images. NickCT (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, what's so dishonest about File:Vivian Perlis Publicity Photo.jpg (to use one example)? The fact that the subject is wearing a snazzy outfit? That she's looking cheerful, striking a jaunty pose? I don't think most readers are likely to assume the subject looks that way 24/7. If there's a neutrality problem, what viewpoint is being unduly emphasized? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

De gustibus non est disputandum, as the old maxim says. Consensus seems like a long-shot. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:16, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This discussion reminds me of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 131#On WP:ACCURACY, WP:NPOV, & Photographs vs Paintings & Drawings in which an editor insisted that photographs were "an exact record of the lightwaves present in the room, & objectively recorded by physics & a mechanical device" (emphasis in the original) and therefore were accurate, whereas a hand-painted portrait was automatically wrong merely because it didn't use a mechanical process. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

I think that there's a grain of some possible improvement here, but we have to be cautious (and probably slightly more specific.) "Overly-flattering" is vague. The most obvious concern I have would be actors - we frequently use promotional images for them; and I feel that that's probably appropriate, because those tend to most-closely reflect their public image. A random paparazzi shot of a celebrity might be more "honest" for a certain definition of honest, but it doesn't accurately reflect how they're usually portrayed in sources; as someone else said, our article on Marilyn Monroe has an obviously-flattering image, but it's one that clearly captures how the public views her, so it probably belongs in the lead. I feel that we'd be better-off focusing on what we do want rather than what we don't, and on giving people some sort of useful guideline in that regard - and, well, I just gave my opinion, but I'd say the image should reflect how the article subject is usually portrayed. However, I do think we'd want to avoid losing the thread of WP:MUG's main purpose, so I'd also add that for low-profile / WP:BLP1E individuals (where "usually portrayed" means less) we should have a default presumption against mugshots or other involuntary / unwilling photographs, and towards less emotive images, unless high-quality (and ideally long-term) sourcing supports the idea that that's how they're largely viewed. --Aquillion (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/temp" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/temp has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 10 § Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/temp until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2025

This edit request to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This page uses inconsistent British/American spellings; please change all forms that are not common to both varieties of English to just one form. Please make sure to retain spelling consistency. ~2025-33481-13 (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotJamestack (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The overall thrust of what they're requesting is clear. For example, both "organisation" (British spelling) and "organization" (American spelling) appear in the text. Anon. is not using a "change X to Y" because they're not requesting that all British spellings be changed to American spellings, or all American spellings be changed to British spellings, only that it should be one or the other. I personally do not care whether the default spelling if British vs. American. The thing that's a hassle is reading through the entire policy to find the inconsistencies. I suppose that once the British vs. American spelling is resolved, someone can just copy/paste into an appropriate spell checker. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

The first few versions do not have an obvious national spelling style, but this version from two days after it was created and when it was being significantly expanded does have a few American English spellings and no British English ones. The only two authors at that point were WAS 4.250 (last edit 20111) whose user page explicitly states they are from New Jersey and SlimVirgin (now deceased) whose user page is not explicit but I believe was also from the United States, so that does make sense. So if anyone thinks standardising would be a good use of their time then American English looks to be the one to go for, but I am not such a person. Thryduulf (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't hugely matter, but IIRC SlimVirgin was a Briton living in Canada. These non-STRONGNAT creations from toward the end of her life appear to be either Canadian English or British English with Oxford spelling. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:26, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that matters at all.

The style that was used at one point does not have to be the style used now, if that is no( longer/)t in line with the content of the article.

"Strong ties" apply to the article subject, not its author/editors. What you are referring to is related to RETAIN, which would only apply as long as there is an existing style (if someone had concluded that at the time, they could have enforced this, but they did not, and the article evolved in a different direction).

I don't think there is a strong argument for a certain style. I am honestly sad there isn't a guideline/manual on how to deal with cases of ambiguous engvar on articles. I don't even remember how many requests I've seen like this and I can't fault the IP's for trying, because they ARE right.

Ironically, if this article was not a MOS about BLP, but a BLP article, we would likely have a StrongTies case (or at least some sort of ties we could use to cut the knot). This policy, I think, never took into account WP namespace pages.

I generally prefer the British spelling personally, but I suggest we check if there is a consistent style among all the other MOS pages, and if so we can (somewhat arbitrarily still) decide to use that for this article. This isn't the policy as far as I am aware, but just a minor argument we could use, imo, to break through in the absence of actual, stronger (policy based) arguments.

We could also throw the thing into a spell/grammar checker to check how many changes we would need to set it to a certain style, and then pick the one (again: this is obviously still arbitrary and not policy-based, unless there is a clear and overwhelming majority in favour of a certain style).

Just one note: we could also see besides this, how far we can get just changing, where possible, to neutral phrasings/spellings. (As a rather liberal interpretation of what is indicated as general advice on MOS:COMMONALITY.)

I hope this discussion/case will further the development of guidelines/consensus on this subject (of policy), so I am watching it with keen interest. Edit: To be clear this is mostly a response to Thryduulf, and unlike him I DO support standardising, as I think is the MOS guideline.

Happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC) edited 02:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Urgent BLP Concern re Paul Waugh and Lighthouse British Organisation

Hi,

I am writing regarding the Wikipedia page titled Paul Waugh, as it contains material that is potentially libellous about a living person. I have previously raised these concerns on both the Talk page for Paul Waugh and the Talk page for Lighthouse (British organisation). However, my comments are either being deleted or removed from visibility, and I would like to understand why this is happening.

The source material used for the Lighthouse (British organisation) page has already been refuted, and the statements made about Paul Waugh are also false, defamatory, and libellous. Despite raising this with editors, the material remains in place while good-faith attempts to correct the record are being removed.

I am requesting immediate attention to this matter. I have already emailed the department responsible for handling defamatory content and am still awaiting a response. Given the seriousness of the issue, I would appreciate if this could be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Thank you,

ChronoEditor1 ChronoEditor1 (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Nothing has been 'refuted', clearly, since we don't base content on what article subjects say about themselves. As for the rest, I suggest you read Wikipedia:No legal threats. And please note that you are discussing the Lighthouse Paul Waugh on the page of another person of the same name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I think they're talking about the hatnote at the top of Paul Waugh. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, @ScottishFinnishRadish — that is correct.

@AndyTheGrump It is concerning that you are unwilling to review the content and evidence we have provided regarding the libellous claims made by both the BBC and other news outlets. This appears to contradict Wikipedia’s commitments to truth, accuracy, and transparency as outlined in your own guidelines.

As such, I will be writing an open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation’s CEO to request that this matter be investigated with the urgency and seriousness it warrants. As one of the largest global information providers, the responsibility for ensuring accuracy on this platform is significant, and at present, it feels as though that responsibility is not being upheld.

If you do decide to review the evidence and factual material we have submitted, please notify me as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

ChronoEditor1 ChronoEditor1 (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I think you should detail what exactly the problem is before making useless threats to report to the foundation CEO. You should know that we control article content, not the foundation, and your threat has no teeth at all. Good luck, - Walter Ego 13:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

ChronoEditor1, in reply to your bullshit-bot-generated nonsense above, I refer you to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I love you Andy. In a wholesome brotherly way of course. - Walter Ego 13:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, note that this talk page is for discussing the Biographies of living persons policy itself. A claim of a BLP issue should have been reported at WP:BLPN – though you'll likely get the same answer there. You might also like to consider the Streisand effect. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how the current hatnotes and content on both the Paul Waugh page and the Lighthouse (British organisation) page adhere to your own core policy guidelines of NPOV?

I am referring directly to your stated policy:

"All encyclopaedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia... This policy is non-negotiable... and cannot be superseded by other policies, guidelines, or editor consensus."

Given that most, if not all, of the sources cited on these pages come from the BBC or similar media outlets, I am asking for a clear explanation as to how this constitutes adherence to a neutral point of view, especially when alternative perspectives, clarifications, or directly relevant primary material have been excluded, dismissed, or removed outright.

I will not address the other policy violations I've identified until we are clear on this one point, because this issue alone is substantial and foundational.

Regarding the open letter to the Wikimedia CEO: this is not a threat. It is simply a necessary step, given that the responses I have received so far have been inconsistent with the standards Wikipedia claims to uphold. Regardless of what does or does not change in the articles, I will be writing to them personally.

I and others have made every effort to follow your guidelines, to research them fully, and to approach editors with respect, clarity, and patience. The experience and treatment in return have been extremely discouraging.

Thank you,

Kind regards,

ChronoEditor1 ChronoEditor1 (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

You need to use the proper forum, WP:BLPN, not this page. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Question abt a wikilink

Greetings, all. The subsection titled "Deadnaming and misgendering of transgender people", begins, "Whether a deadname or misgendering of a living person is removed is a matter of editorial judgment [etc]." The wikilink of the term "deadname" points to MOS:GENDERID. I do not think all the necessary information is imparted there. Should the wikilink perhaps point instead to Deadnaming? -The Gnome (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID covers the use of dead names. What I would do is remove the second link and move the words "or misgendering" into the first link. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, MjolnirPants. Please go ahead and do it, if you don't mind. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully, nobody gets too upset about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:48, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Use of NIH iCite bibliometric data in scientist biographies

Hello everyone,

I’d like to propose that Wikipedia recognize NIH’s iCite platform as a reliable source for citation impact metrics in biographies of scientists. At present, we often see commercial rankings such as Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers list mentioned in articles, but not NIH bibliometric data—even though iCite is government‑backed, open‑access, and reproducible by any reader.

Rationale:

Scientific validity: NIH iCite is widely used by granting agencies, universities, and governments to evaluate research proposals and careers. It reflects the consensus of the scientific community rather than editorial judgment by journalists or commercial firms.
Verifiability: Any reader can reproduce the results by entering PubMed‑linked publications’ portfolios into iCite. This makes it uniquely transparent compared to opaque commercial rankings.
Neutrality: Presenting percentile data (e.g., “According to NIH’s iCite platform in July 2025, her publications ranked in the 81st percentile of neuroscience papers funded by NIH since 1980”) is factual, not promotional, and avoids subjective interpretation.
Consistency: Wikipedia already allows citation‑based recognitions (e.g., Clarivate’s Highly Cited Researchers list). NIH iCite provides a more rigorous and transparent alternative.

Proposal:

Permit inclusion of NIH iCite percentile data in biographies of scientists, provided the data is presented with clear attribution (e.g., “According to NIH’s iCite platform…”).
Encourage editors to list selected publications with PubMed links, so readers can verify the percentile themselves.
Treat NIH iCite outputs as equivalent to other recognized bibliometric honors but avoid editorial synthesis beyond what iCite directly reports.

Benefits:

Improves accuracy and neutrality in representing scientific impact.
Reduces reliance on opaque commercial rankings.
Aligns Wikipedia with evaluation practices already standard in science policy and funding.

I welcome feedback from the community on whether this could become an accepted standard for biographies of scientists.

Thank you! Walerus (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

The Clarivate highly cited list seems pretty junky to me (obtained from an arbitrary cutoff on a gameable statistic), and I think that we should generally not include it in articles unless there is significant coverage that someone has gotten it. I'm aware that some articles do include it. The NIH percentile lacks the arbitrary cutoff, and might be useful for notability discussions, but is likely to fluctuate, and I don't think it is good style to include it in biographical articles. We generally do include pubmed identifiers in "cite article" templates where available. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:32, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

I wonder whether it would make more sense to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It isn't relevant to the BLP policy.

@Walerus, I've fixed the formatting of your comment. Copy/pasting from chatbots are unwelcome on Wikipedia partly because they break the page formatting. I assume that you want to use this source in Draft:Maria Dorota Czajkowska-Majewska. If you want to discuss this further, please provide a link to the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Request to Correct Date of Birth

I am the subject of the article entitled, Dennis Rinsler. I would like to make a correction to my Date of Birth which is currently listed incorrectly. The current DOB in article is 1966. My correct DOB is 1947. ~2025-42344-27 (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-42344-27, an editor has changed the date of birth in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 20:49, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Dennis Rinsler has been edited to remove the birth date because there is no reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Clarification or removal of an ambiguous line

WP:BLP, under the section about categories, navigation templates, and lists, states: "This policy does not limit the use of administrative categories for WikiProjects, article clean-up, or other normal editor activities." It is not clear to me what this sentence is referring to. Is "this policy" the entire BLP policy? I can't imagine that's the case -- that directly contradicts the idea that BLP applies everywhere (especially for "normal editor activities"). Is that referring to just the section that covers categories, nav templates, and lists? If so, that's unclear how that works since "normal editor activities" constitute the vast majority of those uses. Also does "administrative" in this case mean Big-A administrators, i.e. sysops? Or just "routine maintenance" for WPs? Can we either clarify this more directly in the policy text, or remove it? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

This is an Exception that proves the rule: by making this exception, we prove that we have duly considered all the various reasons why someone might want to violate this policy, and determined that out of all the excuses editors have dreamed up, the only ones that matter are admin/maintenance categories. BLPs are allowed to be listed in, e.g., Category:Articles with topics of unclear notability even though that implies something negative about a publicity-hungry subject; in Category:Suspected hoax articles, even though that implies they don't exist; Category:Wikipedia articles with undisclosed paid content even though that implies the article was improperly created; in Category:LGBTQ+ studies articles by quality, even though that implies that the person might be gay; Category:Low-importance Biology articles, even though that implies that the person is unimportant, and so forth.

The grammar is: (This policy) (does not limit) (the use) (of administrative categories for WikiProjects, article clean-up, or other normal editor activities). This policy limits, e.g., "normal editor activities"; it exempts only "categories for normal editor activities". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Podcasts and videos citable?

Given that podcasts are explicitly mentioned on the page (but only once) I assume it is ok to cite podcasts (or Youtube videos) of well-known people to document what they have said. Or is it? I am asking specifically whether I can cite quotes from a Tucker Carlson interview with James Tour (available on podcasts channels but also Carlson's web page). Both are prominent people, if not celebrities, and thus it's clearly noteworthy. Their latest interview is about scientific questions, so that the topics covered can be discussed using objective criteria, largely avoiding opinionating. Thanks. Peteruetz (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

There are multiple issues with citing videos - for a start, they are often downloaded (e.g. to YouTube) in breach of copyright, and unless you can be certain that the video was actually downloaded by the copyright holder, it cannot be cited. If the video in question is on Carson's web page, this is unlikely to be an issue, but check. Beyond that, Wikipedia policies concerning sourcing and neutral point of view apply, and one needs to be careful that videos haven't been edited in a misleading way. Regarding 'scientific topics', I'm not sure how you can conclude that they can de discussed while avoiding 'opinionizing'. We certainly shouldn't be adding our own opinions, but we absolutely can, and very likely should, be citing expert opinions on anything of significance that Carlson is saying - and if he isn't saying anything of significance, why would we be covering it at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

You can cite anything you want. WP:LINKVIO only prohibits posting a URL to a potential copyvio.

It's perfectly fine to cite non-web-based sources without a link; if you've got a reason to cite it, then this:

Jones, Charles M. (29 March 1958). Hare-Way to the Stars (Animated short). Warner Bros.

is just fine, with no need for a URL to a possibly copyvio'd YouTube page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

To add to the above, your recent edits to the James Tour article concerning his interview with Carlson were unquestionably original research - your own analysis of Carlson's comments, rather than anything citing a reliable source directly discussing the comments. This was correctly removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Assuming the video is legit on copyright ground, it can be used very sparingly, like with social media posts per WP:PSTS and WP:SPS and WP:DOB. If a notable person has an intro video that talks about where they were born and their date of birth in a video on their official channel, those are the kind of thing that's ok to cite the video for. Those are details that's unequivocally neutral in any bio articles.

They should be used like seasonings meant to be used very sparingly and using numerous such sources (such as links to multiple YouTube videos in order to include those links) or writing a large amount based on their self published contents is often violates WP:NPOV. They're like seasonings that should be using sparingly, but what often ends up happening in promotional articles is a fry atop a bucket full of pepper with the fry representing a meager coverage of the subject in a secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 06:15, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Floating an idea about information that can be useful to identity thieves such as signatures and exact dates of birth

Related: WP:BLPSIGN, WP:DOB.

I have been thinking about information that can be useful to identity thieves such as signatures and exact dates of birth. Maybe we can somehow discourage adding that info to most BLPs?

In particular, I see zero benefit to the reader in the cases of somewhat obscure people. Does anyone really need to know the exact birth date of Martijn van IJzendoorn? Would listing a year or even a year and a month instead of the full date of birth be a huge loss? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it is a basic detail that is obviously important. What benefit is it to the reader to know every specific championship someone has won? What benefit is there to have someone's name? What benefit is there to have the article you linked at all? If we have to be less informative because the person has requested it that is one thing, but preemptively doing so in cases where they have already made their birthdate public (as is already required) is a net negative. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this. There has been an idea floating around a while back about removing birth days from all BLPs and just leaving the birth year. I wonder how popular that proposal is among the Wikipedia community and especially among readers. Some1 (talk) 00:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

If the source is WP:BLP-good, fine, include. Several editors seems to like complete DOB:s, sometimes puzzling together several social media posts etc to get them, which I think is generally a bad idea. A WP:ABOUTSELF source is fine, but it should be clear and unambiguous. DOB:s are not gold to mined. The specific example seems to be of the common uncited kind though, and can be removed. Many sports-bios seems to cite DOB:s to some sort of relevant database which lists DOB:s as routine, but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Slightly related, I started Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_230#DOB_but_without_year? last year. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Grant Gilbrecht

Is An American Guitarist , Singer And Songwriter , Born Walter Grant Gilbrecht On September 8th 1960 in San Jose California , He Is The Youngest Of Five Children , Youngest To Oldest Grant , Matt, Aric, Robin, Jan , .. He Recorded An Album By 1985 In A Band Called "TYEMZ", Made Of High School Friends , Then In 1987 He Was In A Band Called "Vintage Urban Nothing" They Recorded Two Albums One3five7 (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi! You might find this page to be helpful: WP:SINGER (just click on the link). --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

RFC: Amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources

CLOSED - OPTION 1

Moderate but clear community consensus for option "1"

ANALYSIS: I would first like to get my biggest concern out of the way; I feel that some users were not aware that the RfC was specially referring to "primary news sources" (see WP:PRIMARYNEWS). However, even in considering this, I do not feel community consensus would be impacted on this matter. I think that one could try to make more out of this than need be, but that it would go against the spirit of the consensus that I contend is found here.

The idea that mention of accusations or charges against an LPI is totally precluded by WP:BLPCRIME is seemingly rejected by the community. This may require alterations to other, relevant policies/guidelines — or at least discussions about doing-so — and this may be the catalyst. Comments note that editors are still constrained by various policies and should still exercise caution as a best-practice (WP:RSBREAKING), but that total, blanket exclusion is not justified nor warranted. Users consistently opined that statements made by news outlets are not "secrets". The community was seemingly not compelled by the WP:NOTNEWS argument(s); Again, mere mention of a (sourced) name does not suddenly transform Wikipedia into a news aggregator.

As the opener stated, future RfCs are invited to expand and/or constrain the requirements for inclusion. Personally, I see some support for more clearly defining what "sparse coverage" would constitute and when not to name an individual, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion and is — in my opinion — already covered by other policies (sufficiently enough in the meantime).

MWFwiki (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the purposes of WP:BLPCRIME, should the amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources be a valid consideration (among others) in determining whether to include or exclude information about an otherwise low-profile individual who has not been convicted of a crime? 19:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Depending on the result of this RFC, one of these two sentences would be added to the end of the first paragraph of BLPCRIME, referring to low-profile people:

The amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources is a valid consideration, among others.
The amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources is not a valid consideration.
No change

Future RFCs could clarify what other considerations should and should not be taken into account. This RFC is proposed because this argument has been used in recent RFCs on specific events, and it was hotly debated whether BLPCRIME does or does not mean this, and consensus for the existing wording has been challenged. -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia talk:No original research, Wikipedia talk:Notability (events), Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Survey on amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources

Yes (and agree there are other factors we should clarify later). Revealing an important secret the first time can be quite harmful, but revealing it a second time to the same audience is not. If an accused person's identity is well-known due to widespread news coverage, they have little remaining privacy interest and Wikipedia naming them will produce negligible harm. Privacy is balanced against the things the public can only do when a name is given in an article: find information about a person when searching on their name, do further research on the event or a person involved in an event using their name, making connections to the same person's involvement in other events and topics. Name disclosure can be beneficial to the subject if they are crowdfunding a defense or Wikipedia is providing objective, factual information that can debunk misinformation circulating about them on social media or in the tabloid press (which is a reason to take into account the amount of coverage in unreliable sources). Wikipedia does not do original research, and we must have a factual record in reliable sources in order to say anything, regardless of the amount of coverage in unreliable sources. If we rely on reliable sources that follow the principles mentioned in Journalism ethics and standards#Harm limitation principle, they will have done much of this balancing for us. Extensive disclosure in ethical sources means it's almost certainly ethical for us to disclose. WP:RSBREAKING should also influence our decision to name the accused, waiting a day or two to avoid spurious and easily debunked accusations. Named or unnamed, we must also continue to carefully distinguish between accusation, admission, conviction, etc., and fairly describe disputed facts. -- Beland (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes so long as the consideration is not given dispositive weight. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I generally agree with @ActivelyDisinterested, but it seems that many editors don't agree with WP:LPI's definition of low-profile as excluding individuals who have not sought publicity. I imagine that will be amended or clarified depending on the outcome of this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes. The truth of the matter is that WP:BLP should always be interpreted within the constraints of pillar policies, and thus WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT should always be applied to such considerations. But in practice, every veteran editor (yours truly surely included) sometimes loses sight of this and is inclined to wave BLP talismanically around in a fashion that can abrogate the normal verification and weight testing process. And there are few areas where this been more problematic in recent times than in coverage of criminal acts (or acts which are perceived to have potential criminal liability even). I'm a little nervous about authorizing this change independently of the rest of the content of BLPCRIME, and as is often the case with a policy language RfC, I would have strcutured the changes slightly differently. But unambiguously, this is a change for the better. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
We've had this conversation over and over again, and this is the best response in favor of it I've seen: "The truth of the matter is that WP:BLP should always be interpreted within the constraints of pillar policies, and thus WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT should always be applied to such considerations." It's a good reminder for all of us as editors.

I think it's another version of what @Nemov argued a few months' back: "The intent is not to change the policy or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply." ^[1] Maybe we'll finally see this policy get the additional clarification it obviously needs. Penguino35 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC) Penguino35 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but... enduring coverage must be considered to make sure it wasn't a flash of coverage without any followup. Even if a hundred RSes article do umrnted something over one day but never spoke to the matter again, we shouldn't include, while in the same vein we had only 25 sources cover it but all over a two week period, that makes far more sense to include. It should not be just a straight numbers game. Masem (t) 20:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I think this is more a problem with the amount of articles people rush to create when a high-profile crime occurs. Not every high-profile crime is notable, even if it gets some press coverage for a week. I think another major issue we need to address is NEVENT, which is long, bloated, and confusing. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes per Beland, Voorts and SnowRise. The ultimate point of BLP is that our articles should present neutral encyclopaedic information in the manner that causes minimal harm to living people. There are times when the amount of information present in sources (reliable and unreliable) means that naming someone prior to conviction is either completely neutral harm wise or even reduces the harm caused by unreliable sources. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but... per Masem. I think that for many crimes the name of the accused is not necessary, and perhaps only necessary for the most noteworthy crimes. I also generally agree with Beland that we should hesitate to name any suspect (especially a minor) to avoid spurious and debunked accusations. I think there is often a rush to judgment in reporting that does not serve this project well. --Enos733 (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Note: it's unclear what a "yes/no" answer means in this discussion. Which of the three options presented above am I !voting for or against, exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2025 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
The question is "should the amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources be a valid consideration", yes or no? There was no third option when I started the RFC. -- Beland (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
In that case, No change. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable, secondary sources. Primary news coverage such as breaking news often contains errors and should not be used for contentious claims about living persons. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes (option 1) per Beland. When a name has been disseminated widely by reliable sources in the context of a crime, this should absolutely be a factor--even the primary factor--in considering whether to include the name of a perpetrator. Frankly, this is how the community has largely interpreted BLPCRIME in the most recent discussions about name inclusions. As Beland said, once a name is widely reported any privacy interests are essentially gone. R. G. Checkers^talk 06:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Comment What is the intent of the change here? Currently we don't refuse to cover accusations even for people who are otherwise not public figures. I feel like option 1 is basically the default. Consider the case of Kyle Rittenhouse. His name was quickly added, with extensive Wiki coverage after he shot people. It was clear the consensus of editors was not that we should wait and not mention his name until there was a conviction. Would we refuse to mention his name after his acquittal? Several change proposals have been made recently. I would like to have some examples of where the existing standards, in Beland's view, failed and in what direction (too much WEIGHT/not enough WEIGHT in Wikipedia). Springee (talk) 13:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
The argument that WP:BLPCRIME, perhaps in combination with WP:BLPNAME, prevents adding the name of an accused low-profile person no matter the amount of coverage in reliable sources was fervently made in Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf/Archive 2#RfC: Should the name of the indicted suspect be included in the article? and was the reason it is being reviewed. It was voorts who initiated the process of making a change to clarify this policy so that in future RFCs this argument can either carry the day or be clearly dismissed as a matter of policy; see Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Let's put this to rest. They may have more examples of previous RFCs where this was an issue, or the Metcalf RFC or review might as well. -- Beland (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
I can see the concern. When thinking about these things I also like to ask, how would we have handled Kyle Rittenhouse differently in such a case. I haven't reviewed the old discussions but I suspect Rittenhouse's name was in the article within hours of his name going public. If we think that was the correct outcome, then I would ask how would this change in policy/guideline change that previous discussion. Personally I think the accused name could be included in Metcalf on several grounds. First, they said as much. Second, their family started doing interviews etc and raising money. Third, the coverage was very significant. In general the same three things applied in the Rittenhouse case. In my opinion, in both cases once the name was included the self defense argument should have also been included. My feeling is, if including information about Rittenhouse, including his name, was rule compliant, why isn't the Metcalf case also compliant? Assuming both inclusions would be rule compliant, why would we need to change the rules/guidelines? Springee (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2025 (UTC)
There is a substantial faction that feels your third reason goes against BLPCRIME, and thus any opinion which relies on that justification should be ignored by closers and other editors as a matter of policy, and that this makes Metcalf non-compliant. If the community agrees with you that your third reason is legitimate, clarifying the policy would hopefully result in similar disputes being resolved more clearly, quickly, congenially, and predictably in the future (i.e. without having to call an RFC, much less having an RFC so acrimonious that it gets taken to closure review). -- Beland (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
If that is the case, would they agree that Rittenhous's name shouldn't have been included or at what point do they feel Rittenhouse, who was not trying to be in the public light prior to his acquittal, should have been named? Basically, what makes the Rittenhouse case different? Springee (talk) 02:05, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
My understanding of this argument (which I do not agree with, so feel free to correct me) is that if he was not seeking power or public attention, he should not have been named. -- Beland (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure where I think the line is on naming people. I wasn't trying to draw a line at only those seeking power/public attention. Rather I'm asking if we are being consistent. I'm not going to claim that I think naming Rittenhouse when Wikipedia did was right or wrong. To be honest I'm not sure. Rather, I'm asking if people who feel we shouldn't name the suspect in the Metcalf case approved of naming Rittenhouse early on? Basically I'm struggling to see a difference between the two cases or why we would name one vs the other. So, I'm not sure where the correct place to be is but I do think we should be consistent. My read of the current policy is that naming the accused in the Metcalf case is policy compliant already based on both the volume of coverage and the actions of those associated with the accused. I know this doesn't get to your question, should we change the wording. My feeling is, given the Rittenhouse case, editors already don't feel that a lack of conviction prevents naming names. Why Rittenhouse can be and the other person can't be is not clear to me. Springee (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, when I wrote "this argument", I mean that was the argument of the folks who interpret BLPCRIME as prohibiting inclusion regardless of the amount of reliable coverage. They would (if I understand correctly) consistently say that neither should be named because neither was seeking power nor public attention. Looking at the early history of Kenosha unrest, it appears this argument was not raised then; if it was, I would expect that it would not have carried the day. -- Beland (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

You might find this BLPN discussion interesting. It's clear we are inconsistent with house we apply BLPCRIME to otherwise not notable people. Springee (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like the same argument being debated here was made at Talk:2023 Kingsessing shooting#Suspect charged with murder, and escalated to a very long discussion on this talk page. The proposed policy change is intended to prevent this from happening over and over again. -- Beland (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the case we should keep in mind is Richard Jewell, a security guard who was falsely accused of planting bombs in 1996. If Wikipedia had been around at that time, what would you have wanted Centennial Olympic Park bombing to say about him in the first days? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I would have advised editors to follow WP:RSBREAKING and wait a day or two for the news media time to sift through eyewitness accounts and eliminate early misinformation. The New York Times on the next day had an accurate and fairly complete account of the series of events and the number of casualties, which mentioned "an AT&T security guard" but not Richard Jewell by name. TV coverage in the minutes and hours afterwords would have been less reliable. Apparently for several days thereafter, Richard Jewell gave a lot of television interviews about his heroic finding of the bomb and clearing the area, and his name could have legitimately made its way into the Wikipedia article in a positive light without BLP concerns, especially given he was actively talking to the press.

Three days after the bombing, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution broke the story that Jewell was a suspect, and TV news then started saturation coverage of Jewell's name and video of him after the bombing. He was put on leave from his job the same day. The FBI at that time had said they had a composite sketch of the bomber and gathered a voice recording and fingerprint and footprint evidence from the phone used to make the warning call. The NYT reported all this the next day, naming Jewell and printing a big picture of him. By that point, there would be no reason for Wikipedia to avoid naming him as a suspect. The next day, August 1, there was a "mob" of international reporters outside Jewell's house watching the FBI search it, and it would be about 3 months before he was cleared of suspicion.

I think Wikipedia would have had to have been at least as careful as the NYT, emphasizing that the FBI had not charged Jewell, and relaying that they agency was also actively investigating other suspects. At one point the NYT reported acquaintances of Jewell said he owned a green backpack similar to the one used in the bombing, which may have been true but turned out to be spurious. The FBI was also questioning whether Jewell could have physically gotten from the phone booth to the bomb discovery site in the short time between those events. On August 1, the NYT did an in-depth piece where they disclosed his criminal record, that he lived with his mother, and other personal details. I'm not sure we would have wanted all that detail, but I'm also not sure after having been published in national newspapers and TV if there was any privacy interest remaining. Given there was some evidence that seemed to point to Jewell's innocence, Wikipedia having a lot of detail may have been helpful in creating doubt in the public that the FBI was doing a good job.

Jewell sued some news outlets for defamation and got some settlements (I assume from those that were more reckless than Wikipedia should be), but the New York Times was not one of them. The The Atlanta Journal-Constitution won its case, apparently on the grounds it had reported truthfully that Jewell was indeed being investigated by the FBI, and they had also mentioned the problems in the FBI case against Jewell. The federal government apologized a couple times for leaking the fact that Jewell was a suspect, which not only caused a media frenzy that impacted his life, but interfered with their own investigation. This is probably the decision that did the most harm. Should an ethical press have exercised restraint in publishing details of an ongoing investigation? Arguably yes, though once the AJC published its story, it would have been difficult for any other outlet not to pick up the news. There might be a case for Wikipedia not covering details that were only in the AJC, but not for trying to keep secret details that were already on national television. -- Beland (talk) 17:08, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes Seems obvious and actively against the encyclopedic nature of Wiki if not. Although agree with other users it must not appear here first. IndrasBet (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Yes (1) - The intractability of high-profile crime articles demands that some serious change be made. The wording needs to be clear and concise, however. -- Veggies (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
No/2 we should focus on high quality secondary sources as opposed to low quality primary sources more concerned with sensationalism than ethics and factual accuracy. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:46, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
No/2 If a low profile person is "someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event" then how can 'but they're covered in reliable sources' be a serious consideration to not include the material. If the person has sought media attention as part of the case then that would be different. However that media often repeats the name of someone, who at that point is just a random low profile individual, can't be part of a serious consideration to not include that name. Or alternatively what is considered a low profile individual should be changed to just be peole not once named in mass media. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I think the point of asking the question is so we know if there's consensus to rewrite the policy, not to ask how people currently interpret the policy. So I guess I'm asking, would you support option 1 if the connection to the existing definition of low-profile person were changed, or would that overall be a bad direction? -- Beland (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't support changing the definition of a low profile person, but if it was changed then I wouldn't have a reason to oppose the change to BLPCRIME. Overall I think that either change is a bad idea. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:43, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. -- Beland (talk) 22:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Just to say that there is harm in publishing the name of someone who may well be innocent and have no further media exposure after 1E, that Wikipedia would only be repeating the harm already caused by other sources doesn't mean that there is no harm in doing so. Taking part in an event that ruins someone's life isn't lessened just because Wikipedia would be following other sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes (1) So long as Wikipedia is not first to publish (and given BLP sourcing requirements, we should never ever be) the harm is zero. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 19:05, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes. It's a valid factor, but it isn't the only factor, and in some cases isn't even the primary factor. Clearly, if two individuals are in exactly the same scenario in respect to a crime, but reliable primary sources mention one by name frequently and the other not at all, then our analysis of whether to include information should find that the former has a stronger argument for inclusion. At some point if there is wide enough coveerage of a person's name, then the cat is out of the bag, and the privacy implications of Wikipedia naming them are much lowered. However, other factors such as their role in the alleged crime (e.g. alleged accomplice, witness, investigating officer), how widely reported the crime itself is (e.g. local interest vs. national or worldwide interest), the nature of the alleged crime, how far the legal process is, etc are also important, if not more so..-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
You mention other factors, what would your opinion be if the only factor considered was how frequent a name was mentioned? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
@ActivelyDisinterested why is this question relevant? That is explicitly not what is proposed here, and I don't recall anybody suggesting it. We currently uncontroversially weigh multiple factors, including what they are accused of (an accusation of sexual assault of a minor is much more serious than an accusation of shoplifting), the manner of the reporting, whether other people are also mentioned in connection with the incident (e.g. "the authorities have released a list of 20 people they would like to speak to in connection with the recent disorder, including X, Y and Z" is very different to "X is the only suspect in the murder of Y"), the individual's profile prior to the incident (in the real world, high or low profile isn't a binary, e.g. a regional TV news reporter is lower profile than an A list celebrity but higher profile than most primary school teachers) among others. The question here is only whether the amount of coverage is also a valid thing to consider, and it's being asked because there is significant disagreement about it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I was just asking for clarification. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Its an argument seen quite often in such discussion, and I was wondering if Patar knight had any thoughts. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 13:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Can you share some examples of people making an argument that the amount of coverage is the only relevant factor to consider? Thryduulf (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
In several of the recent discussions on this topic. See the WP:RFCBEFORE discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
See, e.g., Red Slash's comment below. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:33, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Red Slash states it's "darn near the only consideration" (my emphasis). That's not the same as "the only consideration" Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

only consideration was emphasized by bolding in the original, rather than darn near. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but that still doesn't make it the "only consideration". If @Red Slash had intended it to be literally the only consideration they wouldn't have written "darn near". Thryduulf (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

My final sentence was However, other factors...are also important, if not more so., so clearly I think that other factors are relevant too, such as those mentioned by Thryduulf above. I also don't think that anyone has argued that it is the only factor in play. Just commenting that the amount of coverage is relevant without additional qualifiers =/= amount of coverage is the only factor. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:57, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks Patar knight. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:03, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Yes, it's potentially a reasonable consideration. It's one of several reasonable considerations and should rarely be the decisive one. If a lot of reliable sources are discussing a death in a reasonable amount of detail, that's a good indication that we need to cover it somehow.—S Marshall T/C 21:45, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
However, there are lots of different ways TO cover that death without naming everyone involved. For example, in a murder, suspects can be referred to as “the suspect” or “the alleged killer”. Witnesses can be called “witnesses”. Family members can be referred to as “the victim’s wife” (etc). Not saying we should never include names, but we do have options that allow us to cover a crime event and still respect the privacy of those involved, and we should always consider those options. Blueboar (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
That's the status quo we have already and it produces absurd editing logjams where high-profile cases with very widespread coverage name suspected perpetrators and editors can't add their names because of some reflexive belief that any name whatsoever violates BLPCRIME. It's ridiculous. -- Veggies (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
Why is it ridiculous? Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
I literally explained why in the same comment. -- Veggies (talk) 21:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
@Veggies, do you mean that it's ridiculous that pro-naming editors can't add BLP names because other editors oppose adding the names? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
I think the complaint is not merely that other editors oppose adding the names, but that their reason for doing so is in the eyes of the commentator, extreme. -- Beland (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Some editors have expressed opinions that can be paraphrased as "any mention of the name of a person who has not been convicted of a crime is inherently a major BLP violation because it unavoidably causes significant real-world harm to that person (and/or others). Nothing about what coverage exists or doesn't exist in other sources changes (or can change) this." Others have also expressed similar but not quite as extreme views. I believe @Veggies is saying that they find this argument absurd. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
That belief/argument probably wouldn't be changed no matter what the result of this discussion is, though. When people feel that strongly about it, if you take away one 'rule' for justifying their preference, they'll just find another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Their view probably won't change as a result of this discussion, but this discussion is heading towards an outcome that demonstrates this the view not does not have the consensus of the community. If that is the result here then such arguments will in future be afforded little to no weight in discussions, hopefully reducing heat and increasing the speed at which a consensus (to include or to exclude) is arrived at. If such people switch to a different argument, and that argument becomes disruptive then we can have a discussion at that time about what the best way forwards is. Thryduulf (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I believe @Veggies is saying that they find this argument absurd. You don't need to try to ventriloquize me. I can speak for myself. -- Veggies (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

It's ridiculous because there are no clear guidelines for adding the names of suspects to articles (including very high-profile articles) other than "seriously consider not". "Seriously consider not" is an absurd, vague, and unworkable standard and it produces endless, identical RfCs on those articles with people making the same tired arguments and a complete intractability in editing because of the lack of clarity. Is that clear to you now? I hope so. Veggies (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, and frankly it is darn near the only consideration. We rely on reliable sources! If reliable sources are naming someone, then we name them. Red Slash 21:09, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
No. The call for this reflects the tendency to make Wikipedia a news-summary generator rather than the encyclopedia it is intended to be. We do not need to rush to be up to the minute on accusations, and the planned longevity means that if the name is included, Wikipedia's statement of the accusations could be in the longer term the first search result for that name. Our needs, goals, and effects are not the same as the news outlets. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
This has essentially been the point of my resistance to the idea of clarifying this policy in favor of more leniency, citing WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:RECENT. We have to display caution in rushing to get that edit. Things that feel hugely notable today are often inconsequential a year from now, so much so that the details don't get edited out of the article (because no one is thinking about it anymore). It's a legitimate concern.

That being said, I did convert to a revised version of clarity because we are too often at a stalemate often due to strict adherence to the niche policy in opposition to pillar-driven editing arguments, and additional clarification would be helpful. For me, The caveat to "weigh the extent and quality of reliable sourcing" provided by @Nemov in May covers my biggest concern, which was founded on WP:SENSATIONAL. I feel Option 1 in this RfC accomplishes the same thing. Penguino35 (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes I have yet to see a compelling "no" argument. If the amount of coverage in reliable, mainstream news sources is not a valid consideration, then what exactly are editors basing inclusion or exclusion on, vibes and the moon phase? Nemov (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)
They are basing it on potential harm. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The wording of the RfC specifically concerns coverage in reliable primary news sources, not news sources generally. Secondary sources are always preferred over primary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:52, 30 September 2025 (UTC)
Whatever errs on the side of anonymity I admit I'm not quite sure what the options are or how this would be a change from existing policy. But we should always err on the side of not naming potential perpetrators, especially in the absence of conviction. We aren't a newswire service and we don't have to name every potential perpetrator the moment that the gossip rags name them. They're often wrong! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:13, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
None of these options would require naming anybody, nor change the presumption of whether to name or not, so all are compatible with anonymity. Option 1 would explicitly allow arguments like "nearly every reliable source includes their name, so there is minimal to no harm from us doing so too" and "the name is barely mentioned, with almost all sources choosing not to name them so we shouldn't either". Option 2 would explicitly prohibit both such arguments, and option 3 would leave it undefined. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Strong No (3) - and sorry, somewhat longish details

First, there was a recent RFC in May about covering ongoing proceedings so this seems relitigating the conclusion about the basic intent of WP:BLPCRIME - to have some restraint and caution and say nothing about non-public figures until *after* there is a decision, protecting the presumed innocent and avoiding any chance for participating in slander or libel or harm to the person. The news does name people of interest, or arrested, or charged - but WP has a longstanding policy that it does not. People other than public figures get privacy.

Second, I object this is against WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOTNEWS. I discourage chasing whatever this mornings feed has as story du jour since initial coverage is commonly ill-informed, speculative, and chasing sensationalism - it simply takes more time than the morning breaking news cycle to see if the tale goes beyond a one-day flap or gets debunked or how much WP:WEIGHT it accumulates. There is WP:NORUSH, and letting 'breaking news' be the explicit consideration seems just going the wrong way. It also seems a backdoor to WP:CRYSTALBALL, because it's opening WP to press speculations just because they print such.

Finally - on a practicality level, making policy changes causes implementation difficulties that seem unjustified here. It sounds like a few individual articles had RFCs about this, it did not link to them or ping those, so I don't see it actually any pressing need at the level and width to support screwing with major policy for all pages. The practical issues include how much widespread impact it makes in *other* articles and lack of trust about policy stability because it moved results, and will it actually get done everywhere or have any benefit. Sparking a bunch of debates over what is the right "amount of coverage" or counts as "primary news" or "policy has changed, so all those closed RFCs are overturned'... is this going to actually get anything worth the consequences ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:42, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

On (1), the main objection in that RFC seemed to be about the "person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted" spectrum, not consideration of the amount of coverage in reliable sources. (2) I agree writing about events in the same news cycle is usually not desirable, but that is why we have WP:RSBREAKING. (3) It seems like RFCs on individual articles have been coming out in favor of taking the amount of coverage in reliable sources into account? Those would be affirmed rather than have to be reconsidered, and instead of generating policy instability this would align policy with practice. Are you thinking of an example that's come out the other way? -- Beland (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I hear you. And, cases that are truly in question of violating the parameters above will still ultimately come to RfC, which slows down the process. Our editing-for-consensus formula ensures we can't leap at every whim of WP:SENSATIONAL. And, I share your concerns. I've argued for both sides of these policy changes, including the one in May. I'm interested to see where consensus leads us today. Penguino35 (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes (1). Firstly, we follow reliable sources, not second-guess them. If the consensus among reliable sources is that it was ethical and acceptable to include a particular name, we should follow, not second-guess, that determination. (The same, of course, is true if most reliable sources have chosen to omit the name; we should then follow that as well.) Secondly, this is a privacy consideration, but we cannot protect the privacy of something that's no longer private to start with. If something was only mentioned in a local paper with a circulation of 2000, that's one thing, but if it's been heavily covered in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the BBC, and the AP has sent out widely-republished wire stories containing it, that information is no longer private or low-profile, and it does not matter towards that whether we also publish it or not. In that case, we should err towards including more relevant information, not less. Omitting a relevant fact should happen only under exceptional circumstances, and "Who was involved?" is almost always relevant to an event. "What do the best available sources say about it?" is always our primary question for determining what the article should say about it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:57, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
No Wikipedia is not a news aggregator and we generally do our worst work when people try to contort it into a news aggregator. The argument that "newspapers covered it and thus so should we" forgets that Wikipedia is not and should not be a news aggregator. Simonm223 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
Fair, but then I wonder what you would think if the wording were, "The amount of coverage in quality, reliable sources is a valid consideration, among others." And put the onus on editors to ensure our list of Perennial Sources is up to par. Penguino35 (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

No. This is a situation where WP:NOTNEWS is most relevant; our priorities and goals are different than those of primary news sources. Wikipedia is used, and trusted, by a wide variety of places that use it as what you might call a staid, established encyclopedia; they do not use breaking news articles the same way, precisely because we're expected to show more caution. And this means that adding a name here does, in fact, have significant potential for harm (eg. it is more likely enter places that use Wikipedia as a dataset for established knowledge rather than breathless breaking news - most recently, though by no means uniquely, AI); Wikipedia is a potential vector where a name could shift from appearing only in transient news coverage to appearing in longer-term records. We absolutely should not be doing that; our purpose is to follow, not to lead. And the risk or cost of excluding the name of a non-public-figure until it has more substantial coverage than mere news reports is very, very low. People above suggest that a name could be used to "search for more information" but by definition little to no information exists when the coverage is only breaking news (and that, of course, can be searched using the name of the event); therefore, there is no real value to the name. If actual in-depth coverage has appeared, it would satisfy the non-news criteria; so the argument of "well they can use the name to search for more info" actually supports the position that the dividing line should be whether there is non-news coverage. On top of this, if the name is "all over the news", people can just read the news to find it; the only really practical effect to including the name in Wikipedia is to "spread" it outside of the breaking-news bubble, which we should absolutely not be the first source to do. Finally, WP:BLPNAME has long indicated that we should not weigh news coverage highly when deciding whether to include names; the idea that this restriction could be loosened in the contexts of accusations of crimes specifically (one of the most sensitive places where we might consider using a name) is obviously absurd. I would also note that many of the "yes" opinions above do not actually seem to be considering the distinction between primary news sources and other sources, instead apparently misinterpreting the question to mean whether we should consider sources in general. --Aquillion (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2025 (UTC)
This "by definition" claim strikes me as odd. Lots of information exists about people apart from news coverage of their involvement in a breaking news event, which could be accessed by name. For example, social media accounts, voter registration records, news coverage of completely unrelated events, membership in social clubs with web pages, participation in online discussion forums, real estate records, marriage records, and information that could be gleaned by talking to or reading the writings of people who know them (like neighbors and family members). -- Beland (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

I get the established knowledge concept, but what exactly is the established knowledge here? I see only 2 possibilities:

That someone did do something
That someone was accused of doing something

And if it were the second, then that someone was accused of doing something is established fact, even if the accusations are shaky. Good day—RetroCosmos ^talk 19:31, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the amount of coverage in RS is a "valid consideration". It is not the only consideration, and to some, it may not be an important consideration, but it is a valid consideration. Some1 (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes and a suggested improvement. I've covered my opinion pretty extensively in responses above as well as the archives in previous discussions on the different variations of attempts to clarify this policy.

I propose the wording, "The amount of coverage in quality, reliable sources is a valid consideration, among others." This change puts the onus on editors to ensure our list of Perennial Sources is up to par, which includes both primary and secondary news sources. I wonder if editors who voted no would reconsider with this edit clarification. After all, we're trying to reach consensus!

We've had this conversation over and over again, and User:Snow Rise has the best response in favor of it I've seen: "The truth of the matter is that WP:BLP should always be interpreted within the constraints of pillar policies, and thus WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT should always be applied to such considerations." It's a good reminder for all of us as editors. Penguino35 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

That quote is not well made. BLP is one of our content policies, alongside the more general content policies, and it takes precedence over them in BLP's. It is true that editors need to harmonize them in operation, but the reason BLP exists at all is to create particular application within its domain. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but consideration should be given as to the nature of the RS. Strictly local news sources, weeklies and so on, should not be given the same weight as news publications of national repute (e.g., the Boston Globe). Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

No Change Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS we should be behind the curve and wait for reliable secondary sources rather than using primary sources(as well as taking other considerations into account.) GothicGolem29 (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, - if news reports (after an identity is determined) use a name prominently, and the person is central to the event. This satisfies the requirements of WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME, provided we are clear that the person named is only accused. As I have only started editing again after a long break, this is per the above (more experienced) editor’s comment on a recent shooting. Slyfamlystone (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

No as per User:GothicGolem29's reasoning (i.e. NOTNEWS). Chetsford (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but 3. No change. Breadth and depth of coverage in reliable sources might reasonably inform the serious consideration required by WP:BLPCRIME. But it should not be the sole determinant; other factors might also inform consideration - and even override coverage in reliable sources. Modifying WP:BLPCRIME to explicitly mention this one factor gives it more weight than it is due. See also: WP:CREEP. Rotary Engine ^talk 08:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
Yes/Option 1 per Seraphimblade and Aquillion's 2023 comment here which explains it better than I could; So I'd say that including the name is generally optional, with a bias towards excluding when coverage is sparse or brief, and including at least a single brief mention when coverage is sustained and discusses the accused in-depth using their name as opposed to just passing mentions.Katzrockso (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
No As others have more elorquately put it, wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. We are an encyclopedia, not a news aggregator. Let'srun (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

I added "no change" as an explicit option, since it was a common position taken above and the wording of the RFC implied that that was somehow not an option. --Aquillion (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I intentionally left that off (people can of course always give a "none of the above" response) so I hope this does not result in a muddled answer. -- Beland (talk) 20:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

There needs to be something about the enduring amount of coverage related to the crime. If there's a burst of cover that only lasts for a day and never mentioned again, likely not appropriate to include. Masem (t) 19:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Not everything needs to be an option in an RfC. You can make that argument, others can adopt it, and the closer can see if it obtains consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Including duration in the question was pre-discussed, and more editors found it was better to take things one step at a time. I do intend to ask about duration in a future RFC if this RFC is closed as "yes". If it is closed as "no", then this question is moot. -- Beland (talk) 20:59, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I think the policy WP:SENSATIONAL covers this concern and could be referenced in active discussions surrounding the application of this updated policy. The reality is that while this adaptation provides more clarity, naming of accused persons will still go to talk pages for consensus. This policy update implies very well that there are other things to consider. Staying away from making it overly wordy or prescriptive aids clarity when there are other policies which adequately cover this concern. Penguino35 (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Masem, and I think that "amount" is ambiguous here. For example:

There is a difference between 42 news articles on the same day that mention a person's name, and news articles on 42 different days that mention that person's name. The first could be a flash in the pan; the second is sustained coverage.
There is a difference between 42 news articles that happen to mention a person's name in passing, and 42 news articles that provide in-depth information about that person and their role. A passing mention of a person's name is not important; a detailed analysis probably is.

I think that the RFC question of "information about an otherwise low-profile individual who has not been convicted of a crime" may be much broader than some respondents are thinking. Using Killing of Austin Metcalf as the example, "an otherwise low-profile individual who has not been convicted of a crime" would include at least all of these people:

the deceased's father
the deceased's brother
the accused's father
various police officers
the judge who lowered the bail
the accused's lawyer
various government officials
the head of a non-profit organization
the owner of a pizzeria, and
the founder of a donation website.

However, the real question appears to be less about whether to consider omitting the names of the many low-profile individuals affected by this death, and a lot closer to "Please change the policy to say that I can always put the accused's name in the article if it's in a lot of WP:PRIMARYNEWS articles". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

"Please change the policy to say that I can always put the accused's name in the article if it's in a lot of WP:PRIMARYNEWS articles" that is a gross mischaracterisation. The question is actually: "If the accused's name is mentioned in reliable sources, is the amount of such coverage something we are allowed to consider when deciding whether or not to include their name in a Wikipedia article?". It would explicitly not be the only factor considered, so the other things you mention can be taken into account if relevant in the individual circumstances. As for the other people you mention, I'm not sure why you think they are relevant as (to my knowledge) none have been accused of a crime in reliable sources and so BLPCRIME does not come into play. It is certainly not a BLP violation to state that e.g. the deceased's father is the deceased's father (if there is no dispute about this fact). Whether naming any of those people is encyclopaedically relevant is a standard matter and I'm not aware that there have been any disputes about this that need any policy clarification. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Because the existence of an accusation against the individual isn't the only way for BLPCRIME to be applicable. A person of interest can be an innocent witness, and BLPCRIME applies to them, too. The RFC question isn't limited to accused people. It is about any low-profile person to whom BLPCRIME could be relevant. That is potentially most of the people in that article.

And again, I ask: How does one measure "the amount of such coverage" in WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources?

Imagine that tomorrow, we wake up to a case of Missing white woman syndrome. All the news outlets have brief article saying that a blonde woman has been reported missing by her distraught boyfriend. The next day, all of them say the boyfriend is suspected of killing her. Since "all the news outlets" were saying on that he was a suspect, is that "a big amount of such coverage"?

Imagine that she turns up safe and sound the day after that. A few news outlets say something about her being safe. One or two mention it in their year-end wrap up. A journalism textbook uses it as an example of reporting dilemmas. None of them name the boyfriend, or only do so to explicitly say that he had been falsely suspected. Since few news outlets ever said anything about this again, is that "a small amount of such coverage" of him? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

It is impossible to answer those questions in the abstract because the answers require the whole context. That's why there is no proposal to say X amount of coverage = include <X = exclude, let alone any attempts to define X. Literally the only thing that is being asked here is whether the amount of coverage is a factor that can be considered, alongside other factors, when determining whether someone's name should be included in the article. That includes allowing arguments like "the name is barely mentioned therefore we shouldn't name them" not just the opposite. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

As written, BLPCRIME applies only to persons of interest and those accused. It does not talk about bystanders or judges or family members at all, nor witnesses unless they are described as a "person of interest" (which has the connotation of possible suspect, unless the investigators specify otherwise such as that they are only sought as a witness). WP:BLPNAME does create an enhanced privacy guideline for people only tangentially related to encyclopedic events, not limited to crime. The proposal does not change BLPNAME, only BLPCRIME, so the guidelines would not change with regard to the long list of people above, if they are not a person of interest or accused. -- Beland (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

"All the news outlets" say that the boyfriend is suspected of murder after one day, with no body, and zero evidence that a violent crime took place? What? Domestic violence is not a new thing, so can you point to any example of such a thing occurring as you just described? -- Veggies (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I understand wanting to argue against whatamIdoing for their use of false analogies and hasty generalizations, but let us also remember that just because logical fallacies are being used in an argument doesn't mean the argument could not be correct.

This argument, however, is difficult to prove because of the lack of news coverage that overturns faulty news coverage. This is why we, as editors, employ the use of policies like WP:SENSATIONAL and WP:NOTNEWS to slow down the editing BLPs process and see where truth lies. Too often, journalists and news publications pick up articles with a reasonable amount of support that will get clicks and reads (particularly when the rhetoric revolves around fame and politics -- and white woman syndrome). News outlets are time pressured to break the news. The same pressure does not exist from those sources to pick up the "correction" stories when they eventually come to light, especially if their readers aren't interested in hearing the truth that needs to be corrected once it's "old news."

Wikipedia should not face this same pressure, particularly on BLPs and especially if that coverage is controversial. Penguino35 (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

An unlikely hypothetical example is not a case of false analogy or a hasty generalization.

My question remains unanswered: Is "amount of coverage":

the total number of words printed on the subject (2,000 words across an irrelevant number of sources)?
the total number of sources published on the subject (20 sources, and we don't care how long or short they each are)?
the timespan over which sources were published (sources published on 20 different days, and we don't care how many were published on each day)?
something else?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

If option 1 passes, any or all of the above will be allowed to be considered, alongside other factors, when determining whether or not to name someone. It will be up to the editors in each individual discussion to determine, in the context of that discussion, whether to present any of those facts for consideration, and, if any are presented, how much weight to give them.

If option 2 passes, none of these will be allowed to be considered - it will simply be a binary "is the name reliably sourced or not?" - wall-to-wall coverage in every reliable source in multiple international publications for weeks and a single mention in a single local source will attract the same weight.

If option 3 passes, there will be no explicit rule either way.

Note that arguments such as the name only appeared once, in a single obscure reliable source, so we should exclude the name and the name has been repeatedly used by many different sources over the span of multiple weeks, so we should include the name are both based on the amount of coverage and will either both be allowed or both disallowed by options 1 and 2 respectively. None of the three options in this proposal will allow one but disallow the other (in either way). Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, getting too prescriptive with the direction here does damage: First, it eliminates nuance to treat different persons, cases, and situations with unique WP:DUE discussions. Second, it kills the discussion on this page. (I've seen it happen over and over any time we try to update this policy to go too far into the weeds). And third, violates WP Pillar 5: There are no firm rules, "The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." I don't believe you'll ever get a satisfactory answer to your question. We have to trust that editors will use the sources considering all WP policies and come to useful conclusions WP:AGF. Penguino35 (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a firm rule. I'm asking whether we have a shared understanding of what we mean, when we say "amount of coverage" in the RFC question "should the amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources be a valid consideration?"

If one editor says "Yes, the length of primary news sources should be a valid consideration" and another says "Absolutely not, the number of primary new sources is not a valid consideration", then these two editors have not answered the same question. You cannot say in such an instance that the community is divided 50–50, because these two editors might both agree that the total number of sources is irrelevant but the existence of a very long one is important.

@Penguino35, I can't tell you what the "principle and spirit" of this proposed rule is unless I know what these words are intended to mean. See also what happened when Richard Feynman asked "Is a brick an essential object?”

If "any or all of the above" counts, then we will end up with disputes in which Editor A says "The BLP policy says that the amount of coverage can be considered, and this is a very long source, so has a high amount of coverage, and anyone who disagrees is disregarding the clear intent of the BLP policy", followed by Editor B saying "The BLP policy says that the amount of coverage can be considered, and this is just one source, so it has a low amount of coverage, and anyone who disagrees is disregarding the clear intent of the BLP policy". This is an avoidable problem – if we want to avoid it. It is true that editors occasionally want vague and self-contradictory rules, so that I can selectively invoke the one that will let me win. Do you think this is one of those times? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Whether something has a "high" or "low" amount of coverage is something that can only be determined in the context of an individual discussion (and obviously in the real world it will be far more complicated than just "high" or "low"). If two editors disagree then they need to discus it, if they still can't agree then they get a third opinion, etc. as normal. Amount of coverage (by any definition) is not a binary and it is explicitly not the only consideration. There will be no rule or guidance or anything of that nature that says "high coverage = include" or "low coverage = exclude", regardless of which option gains consensus here. The intent of the BLP policy is not changed by the outcome of this discussion, regardless of what the outcome is.

It's beginning to feel like you might be engaging in sealioning to try and derail the discussion. I really hope I'm mistaken in that, as I normally have a lot of respect for you, but something definitely doesn't feel right. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

I think we need to add to the discussion is depth of coverage weighed against amount of coverage. One source that covers a crime in depth is better than twenty sources that mention it in passing. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

@Blueboar, for notability purposes, I absolutely agree with you. But for this RFC question of whether to mention the name of a low-profile BLP, I wonder if it might be the other way around: If only the most detailed source mentions this person's name, and we're trying to write a concise encyclopedia article, might that not be evidence that we shouldn't include that detail? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thryduulf, I foresee a problem with this, in that good-faith, unbiased editors who are trying to do the right thing will interpret The Rules™ in completely different ways, which leads to avoidable drama.

If we had no shared concept at all – really zero – then someone could say "In my personal dictionary, the word 'amount' means a cat, and I see no cats in the coverage, and therefore these sources don't at all." We're not at that level: editors agree that 'amount' means some sort of quantity. But we don't appear to be talking about which sort of quantity.

This could be something like WP:SOURCES, in which we say that if an editor is talking about a source, they could be talking about any or all of at least four different things, and we hope you can glork the specific meaning from context.

But this could also be something that we really do intend to be just A (e.g., the total number of sources mentioning the BLP's name at all), but we've phrased it so badly that editors will instead say that it's B (e.g., the amount of detail provided about the low-profile BLP) or C (e.g., whether the low-profile BLP's name continues to be mentioned over time).

It could also be something that we intend to be applied to the whole group of sources instead of to an individual source (oversimplified example: two 300-word sources containing 6 unique facts about the low-profile BLP each equal six 100-word sources containing two unique facts each, because both produce a total of 600 words and 12 unique facts).

This is all Feynman again. We can't reach a shared understanding of whether this is desirable until we know what 'this' is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

And you already have answers to that question, multiple times from multiple people, both directly to you and indirectly in other comments here and in the preceding discussion. If it isn't clear what someone means, ask them. If someone thinks that the amount of coverage means someone's name should be mentioned and you disagree with that (or vice versa) say that in the discussion and explain why you think that. We're not setting up any new rules here, we're just clarifying whether the amount of coverage (by any meaning of "amount") is something that is a valid consideration. No option will mandate anything. Option 1 would prohibit only arguments that the amount of sourcing is irrelevant. Option 2 would prohibit only arguments based on the amount of coverage (both to include and to exclude). Option 3 would not prohibit anything.

I'm genuinely not understand why you seem not to understand something that is to me extremely simple and straight forward - especially when it's been explained in multiple different ways. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

A: I think this primary source, which writes 300 words about the BLP's action and relation to to the event, justifies inclusion of the BLP's name in this article about the event.

B: The RFC at WT:BLP last month said editors are prohibited from considering 'the amount of coverage' in primary sources when making this decision.

A: I'm not talking about 'the amount of coverage'. I'm talking about the qualitative aspects of this source, namely that it provides in-depth information rather than a passing mention.

B: No, you're not. You're talking about the amount of coverage.

A: Am not.

B: Are so.

A: Am not.

B: Are so.

C: "Children!" said Mrs. Mouse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Worries about the above scenario seem moot, as this RFC is leaning "yes". It's too late to rephrase the question now, but as further clarification is needed on duration vs. sheer number, it was always the intention to have another RFC once the main direction was set. In the meantime, simply eliminating the "amount of coverage can't be taken into account at all" arguments will resolve a lot of needless disputes. -- Beland (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Editors want to make their edits they find valuable and will use whatever rhetoric they can to present their case in situations that are controversial. Getting in a locked conversation like the oversimplified example above is all part of WP process, but it shouldn't stop us from trying to improve a policy. Think it needs to be further refined? Let them consider the due weight and engage in conversation. That's process. Let us not try so hard to get ahead of miscommunication that we narrow the scope so severely as to make one person's interpretation of that policy the word of God. Penguino35 (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Note that at some point, apparently after many people expressed their opinion, the options were changed from yes or no, to 1, 2 3. An answer of "Yes" is with near absolute certainty the same as an answer of "Option 1" (and it is in my case), an answer of "No" is, with very slightly less certainty, the same as "Option 2". Thryduulf (talk) 12:46, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

References

[1]
Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 62#Request for Comment: Improving the wording of BLPCRIME

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:BLPSELFPUB vs WP:ABOUTSELF

Hello,

Any reason the first numbered point differs between WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF?

WP:BLPSELFPUB has

it is not unduly self-serving;

WP:ABOUTSELF has

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;

Is there a reason we omit the "not exceptional claim" bit or is this a mere omission we can correct? Thanks, CapnZapp (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

My first thought is this is backwards? If someone has made an exceptional claim, then an ABOUTSELF source should be fine to verify that they made the claim (whether it is DUE or not is an unrelated question). However I don't see a reason to use a self-published source for an exceptional claim in anything other than an ABOUTSELF way. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if people think of different things when they think of an exceptional claim about one's own self. Is "I am not a crook" an "exceptional claim"? Or is denying guilt a bog-standard response to an accusation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Responding to a claim made about oneself is pretty much never going to be exceptional when all the following are true

The response makes no claims about a third party (i.e. not themselves and not the accuser), and
The response makes no new claims about the accuser that are unrelated to the accusation, and
The response makes no new claims about oneself unrelated to the accusation

Responses where some or all of those are not true might be exceptional, but it will depend on the response. Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

It's something that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. There's obviously things one can say about themselves that are exceptional and self-serving - claiming to be the Queen of England, claiming they were abducted by aliens, claiming they're a reincarnation of Jesus Christ, etc. In some of these cases we might want to be cautious about self-published sources because of the risk of making the subject themselves look bad via "nutpicking" - it's not appropriate to go over someone's social media accounts, find their most absurd claims about themselves, and drop them in an article about them in a way that makes them look crazy. Denials are something the community has generally indicated they want to treat as a separate case but even there there's room for caution - "I didn't do it" is very different from "I couldn't have done it because at the time of the murder I was being abducted by aliens", say; or "I didn't do it and everyone who is accusing me is a liar and a crook." The latter two examples would absolutely not be appropriate uses of WP:ABOUTSELF. I'd also be cautious about situations where a denial clearly carries implications that are exceptional, self-serving, or impugn third parties - consider a situation where eg. coverage describes someone as not having a PHD, and they declare that they do (or vice-versa, if they're asserting they're a man of the people or something.) That's not an appropriate WP:ABOUTSELF usage, either; it's for uncontroversial details, not a blank check for article subjects to present themselves however they please. And again, in situations where the subject's statements seem to contradict everything else or observable reality or the like, there's a risk of "nutpicking" and performing WP:OR, especially in the age of social media where editors have huge amounts of statements to trawl through looking for a particular take on the subject. Basically, the usual logic of WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies - if a statement is likely to dramatically change how people view the subject, we really ought to be able to find a secondary source for it; if we can't, that means that something is probably wrong somewhere, because why would secondary coverage skip something that seems so important? --Aquillion (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

No direct replies to my question, but to the best of my ability I take the discussion to mean "no" (no, there are no particular reasons this was omitted). Fixed. CapnZapp (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Peter Camani - re: address of BLP

interpreting WP:BLPSELFPUB for WP:RSPYT

Request to update lead image (COI)

Resolving DOB discrepancy between reliable sources

Addition of YouTube to BLPSPS

list of works that is self-published and opinionated

Timeline template at Evanescence

Lapadite is in an editing dispute with multiple editors, myself the most, regarding the timeline on this article. It uses a completely different structure than is typical protocol for rock bands, which they insist is the only neutral way to present this as it is chronologically-focused, and that any editor is free to interpret whatever order they want to make a timeline as long as it is "neutral". They bitterly fight for this version, no matter how many people try to show them their chronology defies a long-followed standard which makes sense to everyone except apparently them, but ironically they unilaterally changed it back in December 2022 and repeatedly revert editors for saying this isn't protocol. Just look at the edit history since; it's been happening for years but I'm the only one who's bothered to debate the issue.

I adamantly insist that this is wrong and have attempted to explain on their talk page, in depth, that this de facto standard exists which dictates that roles are grouped by instrument chronology (specifically, usually vocals, guitar, bass, drums, keys) instead of one based on strictly time, but this has been consistently rejected as "arbitrary". So what if it's arbitrary? People look for how a role has evolved over time, seeing who does what, not just who is in the band. If it's just who is in the band that we're focusing on, it is significantly more difficult to follow with who did what, considering the different colored bars are scattered across the plot, creating distraction. But no, apparently according to Lapadite, people don't look for that in a timeline, and I have no idea what I'm talking about. There was nothing broken with the first timeline and it should not have been changed.

Someone tell me I'm not crazy for thinking there's an accepted, unwritten standard for rock bands across Wikipedia that everyone uses except apparently Evanescence. mftp dan ^oops 20:54, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I'll crosspost this at WT:MUSICIAN as well. mftp dan ^oops 17:56, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Evanescence § Timeline

– Will connect with you & others over there! WidgetKid ^Converse 18:58, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

BLPIMAGE and low quality

Hello everyone. Has there been a discussion before about whether WP:BLPIMAGE should give a minimum standard of quality for images of living people? I haven't found one in the archives, but perhaps I'm using the wrong search terms. A few examples:

I came across Charlayne Woodard today via a Reddit thread and removed the image. It's so small and so low quality (look at the blurriness, and that's after someone sharpened the image!) that it feels functionally unusable for our purposes. I'm curious if it fits the idea behind "disparagement" in BLPIMAGE, as having that bad of an image on top of your Wikipedia article certainly doesn't benefit us or them.
I also came across Neil Breen today via that same Reddit thread, which featured a photo of him blinking. I don't know that I'd call that "disparagement," the word currently used in BLPIMAGE, but this talk page conversation kinda sums up the living person NPOV problem: "the current photo in its utter ugliness and amateurishness captures the essence of Mr. Breen perfectly." (Edit: I've since been reverted based on that talk page conversation.)
Many years ago now, I removed this photo from Jared Lorenzen because it was blurry and not a decent portrayal of the subject.

Those examples are for discussion. Really, I could see people thinking that this is indeed a BLPIMAGE problem, that the quality question is really for WP:IUP, that it should be handled on an article-by-article basis, that one/all of these are not actually a problem we're concerned with, or more. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've seen Wikipedia:Unusual biographical images, but I think poor-quality lead photos are handled on a case-by-case/article-by-article basis. Some1 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Some1: I actually unsuccessfully nominated that for deletion when it was named "funny biographical images," and in that discussion I said we should really think about images and BLP at some point. But no one, including me, ever actually started that discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

IMO there's no amount of blurriness that counts as "a false or disparaging light" for WP:BLPIMAGE. If a very blurry image is our only option we should take it, because a blurry image is still useful to the reader and doesn't do real-world harm to the article subject.

However the subject being in a funny or strange pose usually would be false or disparaging, and even if that sort of photo is our only option we shouldn't use it because it could cause real-world harm to the article subject.

My instinct here would be to leave up the images at Charlayne Woodard and Jared Lorenzen but remove the image at Neil Breen, exactly the opposite of what actually happened. :P Loki (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Small blurry photo of man walking away from photographer — Peter Goddard (physicist) Photo no longer in article after being recently commented on at an unmentionable forum.

One obvious discussion point regarding photos is whether they actually enable anyone to identify the subject: see the photos that have previously graced the Peter Goddard (physicist) article. I could point to quite a few that have the same issue: most commonly football players and the like, cropped from large images, facing the wrong way, or with their head obscured by helmets (American Football) or other obstructions. In my opinion, if you can't see someone's face in a photo, it shouldn't be the only image in a biography of a living person, unless there are very exceptional circumstances. And 'we haven't got a better photo' isn't one of them. It's disrespectful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Wow. Well, I suppose you've found the image that I should have led this section with. I do agree with the idea that a person's face needs to be visible, and perhaps that's some low-hanging fruit that we can all agree on adding to BLPIMAGE as part of this discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, to turn that into an actual proposal. How about adding a sentence to BLPIMAGE that reads: "When a photo is used in the lead of an article about a living person, such as in an infobox, that person's face should be [clearly shown/fully visible/some other phrase]." @AndyTheGrump, LokiTheLiar, and Some1: Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

'Clearly visible, other than in exceptional circumstances' Which might possibly include the one in the Lord Buckethead article, as an example? We need to make it clear though that a 'no face visible' photo can't be justified purely on the basis that we don't have anything else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Very fair point. "When a photo is used in the lead of an article about a living person, such as in an infobox, that person's face should be clearly shown other than in exceptional circumstances. For examples, Lord Buckethead, The Stig, and Mil Máscaras use photos that hide their faces because their costumes form the foundation of their identity, but we would not use the obscured face of a helmeted American football player." Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:12, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd prefer to make the exception more concrete. How about:

When a photo is used in the lead of an article about a living person, such as in an infobox, that person's face should be clearly shown unless the subject is known for deliberately hiding their face. For examples, Lord Buckethead and The Stig use photos that hide their faces because their costumes form the foundation of their identity, and Yoko Taro uses a photo that hides his face because he is well-known for wearing a mask in interviews, but we would not use the obscured face of a helmeted American football player even if no better photos exist.

(Quick note about the Yoko Taro photo: that's not just a one-off, he wears that mask in almost every interview and public appearance. I added him because I think we should include at least one example of someone who is not a costumed character.) Loki (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Yup, I was thinking on the same lines: an individual who intentionally masks their face in public is a clear exception, though I'm not sure it would be the only one, and we probably need to leave a little leeway for editorial judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't think image quality automatically connects to BLP in a way that would make sense at a policy level. Certainly some images might look so ugly that they could qualify as disparaging; but in other contexts blurriness might be expected, or at least not something that would raise BLP concerns, so it's sufficiently covered by existing text (ie. you can't just automatically say "this image is blurry therefore it's a BLP violation", you have to make the argument that its blurriness disparages the subject somehow, which must be made on an individual basis.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Survey on amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources

Arbitrary break 1

Arbitrary break 2

Discussion

Related Articles