Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Wot about foreign language subjects and sources.3F

These two sentences need to be clarified:

{{blockquote|text=Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person [...] Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.}}

What is "public documents" doing here?

What does "subject to the restrictions of this policy" is supposed to mean?

What kind of "assertions about a living person" are we referring to?

Perhaps it'd be better to explain the reasons why we shouldn't use trial transcripts and other court records instead. As is, we get "you shouldn't use trial transcripts because you shouldn't", and that doesn't work.

Quoting a lawyer to support a claim about what a lawyer says ought to be fine! Selbsportrait (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:You may elicit more responses if you re-title the section to make it more informative (e.g., Questions about BLPPRIMARY).

:Public documents are documents that are created and/or maintained by a government and can be viewed by any member of the public. For example, in the U.S., this includes birth and death records, property deeds, voter registration info, and many court documents. What "public documents" is doing there: it's noting a class of disallowed primary sources.

:"Subject to the restrictions of this policy" means that you shouldn't use primary sources in ways that are disallowed by other parts of the WP:BLP policy, such as "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person," and "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themself." FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::If there isn't an essay on this already, then perhaps someone would write one at Wikipedia:Why you don't get to add the juicy bits directly from the divorce filings. The main points, naturally enough, will be the risk of misidentification (is that birth certificate or census record actually for that person?), the risk of unfair bias, serious errors, and material omissions (lawyers like to say that the other guy's conduct shocks the conscience, but that doesn't mean that their claim is true), and good old WP:DUE.

::That last point is the big one: If it's worth including in an encyclopedic(!) summary(!), then you will be able to find it in another source. If you can't find it in another source, then it's not worth including. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::While I agree with your conclusion, that we shouldn't use legal documents as sources, your reasoning for why not to include them is veering close to circular. We shouldn't use them in an encyclopedia because to do so would be unencyclopedic? Surely we can make a stronger argument. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Some of this was addressed in the Topic just above this one, Question re: use of court documents (which was limited to what someone might say about themself in testimony/deposition, or what they might have their lawyer say about them in a filing). In addition to the question of whether the content is DUE (probably not, if no secondary source thinks it worth noting), people raised the issue of the potential for the content of court documents to be compelled (things that a person otherwise wouldn't choose to share). A concern about self-serving content can also be at play: the parties in a legal case are trying to win the case and are framing their arguments, evidence, etc. to make their case, and the outcomes of legal cases can have huge consequences (e.g., imprisonment, custody, large settlements), so there may be a significant motivation to make self-serving statements. The kind of bias in court documents filed by either party seems a bit different from bias in an opinion column or an advocacy group's publications. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1236 thread [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1236#deleting_text_versus_adding_%22citation_needed%22 deleting text versus adding "citation needed"] was mentioned by Pigsonthewing when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=prev&oldid=1248603302 adding in WP:BLPSPS]: "It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example." I do not think the sentence fits well here because the earlier sentences are about self-published blogs, so "It" apparently means self-published blogs. I support the mention of awards, since I once failed to use [https://www.pulitzer.org/prize-winners-by-year/2013 pulitzer.org] instead of secondary sources. But I oppose the insertion. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think the text needs to stay. When a reputable organization states on social media or on their own web site that they have bestowed an award, we should be able to take it as reliable. It is "self-published" by the organization and we don't want misguided editors thinking that disqualifies it. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm the editor who asked that Teahouse question. I agree with the intent of the edit to BLPSPS, but think the wording could be improved, especially eliminating "It" as a subject. My understanding is that the edit is meant to communicate that despite the general prohibition on using self-published sources, it's sometimes acceptable to use them, for example, if the SPS is "a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards." But all of this depends on how people assess what "self-published" means, and there isn't agreement about that (see this RfC). I don't see how to appropriately word the intent of the edit without modifying the first sentence of BLPSPS, so that it says something like "with few exceptions, do not use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themself" (instead of "never use") and following up with something like "the rare exceptions include a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards." FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think we should add wording that implies there are other unspecified exceptions. Maybe the issue by the OP is the sentence "Self-published blogs in this context refers to personal and group blogs."? I'm not sure what that sentence adds to the policy as the news organizations that have blogs later discussed are not self-published since they are subject to editorial control. Would combing the first several sentences address the concerns raised by Peter Gulutzan and FactOrOpinion? Such as "{{tq|Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themself or published by a reputable organisation about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards. Some news organizations host...}} – notwally (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The sentence preceding Pigsonthewing's addition ({{tq|"Self-published blogs in this context refers to personal and group blogs."}}) was added in 2008 along with a mention [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_18#Need_to_clarify_on_WP:RS_blog_entries_about_BLP on the talk page]. I see it as an indication that being in a group doesn't cause any exemption, so removing it might slightly help for this problem but revive another problem. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

The earlier sentences are not "about self-published blogs"; the preceding text says "self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts".

Unless Peter Gulutzan is arguing that

{{Blockquote|Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.}}

does mean that we cannot cite a reputable organisation self-publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards [as naive editors elsewhere claim, all too often], it is hard to see why they object to the change. Perhaps they could clarify if that is their meaning? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:I can clarify that that is not my meaning. I think that FactOrOpinion and Notwally have perceived what I perceived, that the word "It" is most easily understood as pointing to self-published blogs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

I see what you mean now, but in that case the current text:

{{Blockquote|"Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards}}

can be read as:

{{Blockquote|"Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. "Self-published blogs" does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards}}

Are you arguing to the contrary, that "Self-published blogs [includes] a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards [on their blog]" and so such cases cannot be used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:22, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:You make it look as if you're quoting, but that's not what's there. If you won't discuss your actual addition, which I continue to oppose, I'm hopeful that it won't get consensus. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

This:

{{Blockquote|"Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards}}

is a direct quote, cut-and-pasted from the current page. It is complete, apart form the last two words "for example", which I omitted as they are not relevant to the point I was making.

The "actual addition" added:

{{Blockquote|It does not refer to a reputable organisation publishing material about who it employs or to whom and why it grants awards, for example.}}

immediately after:

{{Blockquote| "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs.}}

those, too, are both direct quotes, cut and-pasted from the diff which you cite. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:Now that, instead of what you wrongly claimed earlier was the current text, you're quoting the actual addition: to me it looks as if the "for example" that you omitted suggests that granting of awards is an example of a self-published blog post. But in fact if, say, pulitzer.org [https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/lisa-song-elizabeth-mcgowan-and-david-hasemyer announces an award], the announcement is not a blog post. I'll pause arguing with you for a bit while we see whether others have more to say. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::If the only goal here is to make this bit of text clearer, I think notwally's suggested modification above does it.

::If you want my more extended take:

::As I noted above, all of this depends on how people assess what "self-published" means, and there isn't agreement about that (long discussion linked above). On top of that, there's a possible conflict between BLPSPS and BLPSELFPUB, in the sense that BLPSPS says "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themself," whereas BLPSELFPUB/ABOUTSELF seems to allow SPS statements about another living person if one's relationship with them is not third-party (that is, element #2 doesn't exclude this; for example, it suggests that it would be acceptable to use a self-published statement from one band member about another, or to use a self-published statement by an organization about someone it employs). This too, is contested, long discussion here.

::Why am I noting this? Because the question of how to clarify this particular bit of info is intertwined with other disagreements about what these texts mean (e.g., whether we even consider publications from organizations about employees, awardees, etc. to be self-published in the first place). FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::My only goal here is to get rid of the addition. If somebody wants to propose new wording elsewhere and seek consensus, I believe that's appropriate in a new thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::::There isn't consensus to get rid of it. The rest of us all think it's appropriate to have something of this sort in the text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::While the wording could be improved, I'm not sure why that would mean the addition should be completely removed as Peter Gulutzan is suggesting. – notwally (talk) 16:10, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at :RFC: Name of alleged killer. Some1 (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:There is no such page. Presumably what you actually mean is {{slink|Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf|RFC: Name of alleged killer}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, thanks. There's also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 April 18#Karmelo Anthony for anyone who's interested. Some1 (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Some1 is there any possible way this policy can be rewritten so it quits wasting valuable editor time? It's clear some editors don't understand the policy and it's being misused. Nemov (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Editors will need to propose specific changes to BLPCRIME and attain a consensus for those changes. But given that editors are interpreting the current text of BLPCRIME in numerous and somewhat contradictory ways (as evidenced by these suspect naming RfCs e.g., the ongoing Killing of Austin Metcalf one; {{slink|Talk:Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German/Archive 1|RfC: Suspect's name}} which found no consensus to include the name, {{slink|Talk:2022 University of Idaho killings/Archive 1|RfC: Suspect's Name}} which found strong consensus to include the suspect's name), I doubt editors will be able to agree on any proposed changes, which means a rewrite of BLPCRIME is highly unlikely. Some1 (talk) 23:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Previously, in situations where editors agreed to leave an accused person's name out under WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME, editors have removed all citations that mention the name in their titles. I don't think that this is necessary; a citation is not as visible as article text (among other things, in particular, many of the sources that use Wikipedia downstream, including summaries, do not seem to include citations.) The balance of "value vs. potential harm" for a citation is very different than mentioning the name in the article text, too - the potential harm is lower due to more limited visibility; and the value is higher because unlike a random non-notable name, excluding an entire category of citation can seriously limit our ability to write the article. Should a note be added somewhere to handle citation titles differently? It's a highly-specific question, but it's come up repeatedly. --Aquillion (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:It kind of raises another question, what is the potential harm if a person's name is mentioned over and over again in titles of citations? Why would leaving it out on Wikipedia be beneficial in that scenario? Nemov (talk) 12:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::That question cuts to the underlying rationale for BLP. It's important to understand that some parts of BLP impose a higher standard than is used in most news sources - excluding things that are easily cited is sometimes the point. The reason for this is because high-quality news sources are able to check every use of a name in-depth before they go to print, verify everything connected to it, ensure that nothing in the way it is used has problems and so on. Wikipedia, being WP:USERGENERATED, does not have such protections. Therefore, we need to err on the side of caution. Sure, an ideal usage of a name, perfectly cited to high-quality sources and only saying exactly what the sources do, has little risk - but unlike eg. the NYT we can't 100% guarantee that it will remain that way, so we have to weigh that risk against the value the name has. For a public figure this risk is acceptable (people will say all sorts of scurrilous things about major politicians or entertainers online anyway, and they already have an established reputation that isn't going to be as impacted by stuff we say about them, so the risk that their name will end up used in an unfortunate way has little risk of harm; and, conversely, the fact that they're a public figure means that their name, itself, is significant and necessary.) For non-public figures, however (including WP:BLP1E people, who don't really have a strong public reputation and who can therefore be disproportionately impacted by what Wikipedia says about them) the opposite is true; the risk of harm from even brief and mild issues is high, while the value of including it is low. So we err on the side of caution and exclude it, even in situations where major news orgs, with the resources to polish and vet every iteration of their articles that go to press, have no need to be so cautious. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I've read your essay and for articles like the the Killing of Austin Metcalf the argument falls completely flat. This person's name and picture are plastered on FOX, Yahoo, CBS, ABC, CNN, The Independent and on and on it goes... Publishing it on Wikipedia will have zero impact on this person's life. All we're doing is wasting value editor time while some argue against inclusion based on some preposterous interpretation of BLPCRIME. Nemov (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Anyway, the point of this discussion section is not to rehash any specific discussion; that one is already being hashed out on that article. The fact is that as a matter of longstanding practice and policy, we do sometimes omit the names of people accused of crimes under at least some circumstances; if you want to change policy to prohibit that entire practice in all circumstances no matter what, start another section, but until / unless you do, my concern is that we do clearly have a consensus to omit names sometimes, and when we do, people are removing citations based on their title. --Aquillion (talk) 03:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

: This does not apply in the Killing of Austin Metcalf article:

:: When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it,

: Anthony's names has widely disseminated and there is no intentional concealment. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 17:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:The last time I'd asked about this (two years ago, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive346#Suspect's_name_in_the_URL_of_sources/references 1] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_52#Clarification_on_'material' 2]), a couple of editors were arguing that the word "material" in BLPCRIME included content in the Reference section, the sources' headlines, and the URLs. Seems like overkill to me, but that's how they interpreted the word "material". Some1 (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Leaving content out of the article is within BLP, but removing otherwise reliable sources because they do include that content in the title and/or text isn't in the BLP policy because its prohibited by WP:NOTCENSORED. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::WP:NOTCENSORED is dangerous to rely on for stuff like this, since it only really applies for removals that are solely based on something being "objectionable", ones where there is absolutely no attempt to make a policy-based argument at all. This is why it's rarely... useful to cite, outside of people overtly trying to remove something for offensiveness alone. As it says, {{tq|Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view)}}; note that in this case people are alleging a BLP rationale for removal. If someone presents what they think is a policy-based argument for removing something and you think that that argument is wrong, invoking NOTCENSORED isn't really helpful, because the crux of the discussion is still about their argument. The argument people are making when removing citations is that even a headline in a cite can be material that suggests that someone has committed a crime, and that we therefore have to consider removing it per BLP (and they come down on the side of removal in that consideration.) I think that that's a bad argument because when we consider it, the balance of risk (low visibility) vs. value (we obviously want to be able to use good sources) is lopsided against removing an otherwise-good source. But they're still giving a notionally policy-based argument based on a different weighing of the potential harm, they're not calling for censorship of offensive material. So if you want to be sure that it doesn't happen, we would probably actually want a note in BLP to that effect. --Aquillion (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree, this isn't a NOTCENSORED case. The removal of the name is not because we are concerned for readers, it's a BLP concern for the person being named. In this case I think it may be hard to remove the name from source titles and URLs but I certainly feel we should try. BLP is a policy for a reason. Additionally, it is always best to err on the side of do no harm. Springee (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::If we say that this is a valid BLP argument wouldn't that mean that no source which names an accused person can be linked to at all? If there is an issue here it can't just be with the title... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Replace the name in the {{para|title}} with {{code|[defendant]}} or something. I don't like it, but it's how you can have the citation without printing the name. If the name is in the URL, then you'd have to not use that source.

:The thing is, if the text string is anywhere on the web page, removing it from elsewhere on the web page is kind of pointless, because it will index on Google anyway (maybe with a lower weight but I'm not sure that matters for Wikipedia). If you google "Levivich" and the first thing that comes up is "Killing of Foo", even if the article doesn't include the name in the prose, the association is still there. So if we're going to remove the name from the top of a web page (the article prose), we should remove it from everywhere on the web page.

:The other thing is, the reverse of this is the guidance: if removing the name from an article means removing all of the sources because all of the sources include the name in their titles, then that tells us that we should not remove the name, because doing so would be pointless, because all the sources have the name in their title, and that tells us all we need to know about, e.g., whether the name is already widely known, whether the sources treat the name as significant, etc. Conversely, if removing the name from an article means removing just one source that has the name in the title, then that suggests removing the name may be the right thing to do.

:BLPCRIME should express that it's a spectrum between those two extremes: on one end, the name and crime are extremely prominent, e.g. in the title of every source (thus: almost certainly include); on the other, it's extremely obscure, e.g. it's only mentioned in one source (almost certainly exclude). For a particular article, editors should figure out where on this spectrum we are, weigh other relevant considerations (e.g., whether the named person has voluntarily disclosed their name or otherwise sought publicity, whether the named person is minor, whether they're a public figure, etc.), and decide include/exclude accordingly. Levivich (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::If the BLP concern is that pressing how can we justify linking to a page which contains the name even if its not in the title? I would also note that if the concern is SEO the talk pages and/or community discussion pages would also need to be scrubbed of the name (and not just that but the histories as well). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::We can justify linking to another website on the grounds that linking to the website doesn't have the same Google weight as having the name in the Wikipedia article (although the link gives weight to the page we are linking to, so you're right that just linking contributes to the Google search result problem, but not as much as if we have the name on the Wikipedia page). I agree that if we exclude the name from the Wikipedia article, it makes sense to also exclude it from talk pages and community discussion pages, which are also indexed. I don't think histories -- meaning permalinks of prior versions -- are indexed, so I don't think that's a problem.

:::Bottom line, though, is we can still justify "less v. more" without a total "include or exclude." In other words, the most visible thing is having the name in the title of the Wikipedia article ("So-and-so's murder of so-and-so"); next, the lead/infobox; next, the body; next, the citations; next, talk pages; next, URLs; etc. It's a spectrum. We can justify landing somewhere on that spectrum without having to be on either end of it. It's justifiable to decide that we should make it less visible, even if we're not entirely purging the name from every page on Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Doesn't the justification need to be P+G based? I don't think that SEO/"Google weight" is mentioned in BLP. We do not currently and never have excluded such names from talk pages and community discussion pages, there is no more consenus for that than there is to remove titles and links. Until such a consensus exists this is a moot discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::That question cuts to the underlying rationale for BLP. It's important to understand that some parts of BLP impose a higher standard than is used in most news sources - excluding things that are easily cited is sometimes the point. The reason for this is because high-quality news sources are able to check every use of a name in-depth before they go to print, verify everything connected to it, ensure that nothing in the way it is used has problems and so on. Wikipedia, being WP:USERGENERATED, does not have such protections. Therefore, we need to err on the side of caution. Sure, an ideal usage of a name, perfectly cited to high-quality sources and only saying exactly what the sources do, has little risk - but unlike eg. the NYT we can't 100% guarantee that it will remain that way, so we have to weigh that risk against the value the name has. For a public figure this risk is acceptable (people will say all sorts of scurrilous things about major politicians or entertainers online anyway, and they already have an established reputation that isn't going to be as impacted by stuff we say about them, so the risk that their name will end up used in an unfortunate way has little risk of harm; and, conversely, the fact that they're a public figure means that their name, itself, is significant and necessary.) For non-public figures, however (including WP:BLP1E people, who don't really have a strong public reputation and who can therefore be disproportionately impacted by what Wikipedia says about them) the opposite is true; the risk of harm from even brief and mild issues is high, while the value of including it is low. So we err on the side of caution and exclude it, even in situations where major news orgs, with the resources to polish and vet every iteration of their articles that go to press, have no need to be so cautious. --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That applies to content not sources... There is no policy or guideline basis for excluding otherwise notable sources because of the content they contain... And I really doubt there ever will be because thats literally censorship. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Since this issue is likely to come up again in the future, I've started an RfC at the Village Pump ({{slink|Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)|RfC:_Exclusion_of_a_person's_name_following_consensus}}) so that editors can have an RfC result to refer to or point back to when needed. Some1 (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think the suggestion is too open to Wikilawyering. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2025 (UTC).

The Wikidata Living people policy page includes a link in its [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Living_people#See_also See also] section to our main BLP policy page. For symmetry and better mutual understanding of these policies, I propose adding a reciprocal link in our

Project page's Further reading section (where we already include a link to the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution). Any objection to this addition? -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:That page includes a link here because it was partially based on this page. Instead I've tweaked the Wikidata item so the Wikidata policy appears alongside all of the other policies in the Wikidata item. That way there is easy access to the versions of the policy on all other projects for mutual understandingNikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you, I'm sure that that will be useful too. However, it does not add a link here, in the "Further reading" section of our project page, as I propose. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 09:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't understand why that would be needed in addition? They have a specific reason to link to ours, but that reason doesn't apply here. Why highlight that particular link over all the other projects that have one? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh, I see. Sorry I didn't make that clear! Why? Because there are many users here on enwiki who are unsure of what exactly the BLP policy at Wikidata is and how it affects the thousands of articles (and many other aspects of what we do here) that use information that originates there (in Wikidata). It took me a while to connect the dots, and I would have done so much more easily had there been a link here. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sorry, I still don't follow you - what specifically do you feel the link tells people reading this page about how it impacts our articles? And what are the "many other aspects of what we do here" that you're referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::You're starting to lose me here, but I'll do my best to answer your questions! I could also toss it back to you and ask why would we not want this? Am I missing something obvious? Is there some hidden agenda? To be sure, I thought I was erring on the side of curtesy and community spirit (and perhaps extreme caution, this being a policy page and whatnot). I do wish I'd been more bold making what seems like a useful and uncontentious addition that improves Wikipedia (in the spirit of WP:1Q) without flagging it for discussion. Alas, having brought it up here, I suppose the onus is now upon me to justify the proposed addition.

::::::So, without further ado, a small sample of specific recent discussions which led me here in the first place – notably those revolving around the subject of the use and merits of Wikidata generated infoboxes in biographgical articles (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.). If the objective is to encourage a wider discussion and participation of other editors, we can also look at older discussions about this subject (such as this), and perhaps discussions from other biography focused Wiki Projects that use Wikidata in interesting and constructive ways (e.g., WP:WIRED, which uses it for tracking and generation of useful metrics and redlists), or discussions where editors have at times expressed confusion or concern about how exactly things over there in Wikidata-land work (e.g., this, or these). There is also the concept of reciprocity which may apply, although, I suppose that this depends on one's point of view (especially as to whether Wikidata is "another website", "a sister project", a tool that can be put to good use, or something else).

::::::I'll leave it there and hope that I've made a clear, convincing case for how this small addition (i.e., Wikidata Living people) to our Standard appendices and footers might benefit the community and lead to the improvement of Wikipedia, etc. I certainly can't see how it would disimprove the project (again, see WP:1Q). If this isn't what you're asking me to do here, then I'm afraid I'm flummoxed as to why this isn't now just a perfunctory "Oh, yes, lovely. That's a good idea, carry on [...], please add the link as it will surely be useful to someone else as it has been to you." Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::From my perspective, we already have a link to this page alongside all of the other projects that have such a page, in the position in which I would expect to find it. But let's see if anyone else is convinced of the need for an additional link. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Fine, good idea. Let's take the time to see what others think. Meanwhile, you say that {{tq|we already have [the] link}}, which confuses me even further. I can't find it (nor, for that matter, any mention whatsoever of Wikidata) anywhere on the BLP project page. Would you mind pointing it out to me? In fact, the only link I see is to the [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Media_about_living_people WMF BLP Resolution] page (which, according to the MOS may actually belong in MOS:LAYOUTEL rather than MOS:FURTHER, and if so, presumably my proposed link belongs there too). Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It's one of the links in the sidebar, along with the other projects. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

A few editors have written and articulated detailed arguments about why we should proceed with caution when deciding whether to include or exclude a name under WP:BLPCRIME. I believe most editors agree that this is an important aspect of BLP policy and should be handled with care. However, there have been several cases in recent years where the policy has not been clear enough to be consistently useful. The current content dispute is a good example of how widely the current wording of BLPCRIME can be interpreted.

Current wording:

:{{tq|A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.}}

:{{tq|If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.}}

The goal of this discussion is to develop a clearer version of BLPCRIME. It’s an important policy, but it would benefit from more precise guidance on when and how it should be applied.

:{{u|Levivich}} wrote that {{tq|BLPCRIME should express that it's a spectrum between those two extremes: on one end, the name and crime are extremely prominent, e.g. in the title of every source (thus: almost certainly include); on the other, it's extremely obscure, e.g. it's only mentioned in one source (almost certainly exclude). For a particular article, editors should figure out where on this spectrum we are, weigh other relevant considerations (e.g., whether the named person has voluntarily disclosed their name or otherwise sought publicity, whether the named person is minor, whether they're a public figure, etc.), and decide include/exclude accordingly.}}

I believe this a good place to start.

I encourage editors to help refine this policy so it better reflects how we already approach these situations in practice. A clearer, more flexible version of BLPCRIME, one that acknowledges the spectrum of coverage and context, would benefit everyone: editors seeking guidance, readers seeking clarity, and subjects seeking fairness. Let’s work together to bring the wording in line with common-sense application and longstanding consensus. Nemov (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think a more flexible BLP crime policy would be a good thing. If anything we should be stricter about accusations and clarify precisely what constitutes a "public person" so we can prevent internet micro-celebrities getting attack page coatracks created about them and other such problems. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::We do have WP:LOWPROFILE. One issue I have run into (which I obliquely touch on in the essay below) is that sometimes people who end up in the public eye involuntarily will do things like interviews, press gatherings, and so on in order to try and regain control of their life; and this is sometimes used to argue that they are no longer low-profile. Obviously there are some people who parlay their 15 minutes of fame into actual celebrity, but IMHO it'd be useful to draw a clearer distinction between people who are "grappling with unwanted fame" vs. "seeking to expand and prolong their fame". --Aquillion (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This is exactly what I was getting at - you merely expressed it much clearer. I think we should reinforce that giving statements to the press about allegations that are reported on in the press does not make an otherwise private person suddenly public for the purposes of BLPCRIME. Simonm223 (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• My general perspective is at When to include a name under BLPCRIME; for low-profile individuals who fall under WP:BLP1E, we should err on the side of excluding the name unless a context-specific argument can be presented for including it. Our requirements are different than those used by news sources in this respect (per WP:NOTNEWS), so widespread usage among such sources without WP:SUSTAINED coverage isn't sufficient, and news sources in particular are bad sources to use to determine whether to include a name because their purpose (as news) is so divergent from ours (as an encyclopedia.) This means that for recent events, where the only coverage is breaking news stories, the name of the accused will (and should) often be excluded. The argument people make that wide usage in the news means there's no risk of harm seems to me to be clearly false; Wikipedia has a substantial influence on search results and AI training sets and the like (moreso than flash-in-the-pan news coverage, precisely because we are NOTNEWS and take a longer view), so the risk of harm from including a name is serious. Conversely, the arguments I've seen for changing policy to make it more lenient strike me as mostly weak and frivolous; no real rationale has been provided for including such names in the general case beyond "a bunch of news sources do it". Either way I don't think sweeping changes are a good idea right now - hard cases make bad law, and the specific case you're using as the impetus for this is one where consensus shows a fairly even split, so you're unlikely to find a consensus to dramatically change policy in a way that could satisfy either side. I'll also point out that contrary to your assertion that this has led to confusion, excluding names of accused low-profile individuals has generally been fairly standard practice for a while now and is usually comparatively uncontroversial. Either way, I am strenuously opposed to any change that could plausibly be construed as making it easier to include the names of low-profile WP:BLP1E figures; we need to be more cautious with them, not less. The only change I would seriously consider is making it unambiguous that mere recent news coverage using the name is never sufficient to justify inclusion of a name own per WP:NOTNEWS, regardless of volume - that, to me, is the crux of the recent dispute. Coverage must either be sustained or have significant in-depth non-news discussion of the individual in order to establish that the name is relevant. I believe that this largely reflects longstanding consensus and practice anyway, and that the recent tempest-in-a-teapot over it is because the high profile of the case has attracted people who are less familiar with our practices in that regard. --Aquillion (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :With all due respect, and without rehashing an ongoing dispute, when a person's name and photo appear in nearly every news report about an event, and your position is "do not include," then your argument effectively seeks to remove any flexibility in the policy. Essentially, you're arguing that any non-notable person accused of a crime should never be named on Wikipedia. That opinion is valid, but it is not currently reflected in the wording of BLPCRIME. I dismiss your hard case point as irrelevant. This isn't the first time this has come up over the past few years and this is a real problem. For those of you who want to keep a dogmatic interpretations of this alive that's fine, this is in the policy proposal idea editing stage and not a question of approval. You can cast your inevitable oppose votes if something is eventually drafted. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No, that's not how policy proposal drafting works. I gave a clear, well-reasoned, policy-based argument for why news coverage, regardless of breadth, isn't sufficient to justify inclusion of a name under WP:BLPCRIME (while, contrary to your assertion, outlining the specific criteria that would let them be included, ie. sustained coverage or in-depth non-news coverage focused on them specifically), and I intend to make clarifying that a centerpiece of any proposed changes. If you're opposed, we can break the RFC down into multiple questions, but I feel that that point ("is widespread but not yet sustained news coverage using the name of the accused, on its own, sufficient to include the name of someone accused of a crime in our articles under WP:BLPCRIME?") concisely boils the underlying questions down to a simple yes-or-no question suitable for an RFC. You asked for ways to clarify the underlying question of when to include a name; these are my answers. --Aquillion (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I already linked to your essay and further wall of texts discussions will only discourage input from the community. Your opinion is noted. Nemov (talk) 14:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is definitely my opinion that a non-notable person should not ever be named for a crime for which they have been accused but not convicted and a person who is only notable for having been convicted of a crime should not be named unless the crime itself meets notability standards. Simonm223 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::The absolute worst thing we could do with BLPCRIME is amend it to include words like "always" or "never". The real world is messy and nuanced so our policies need to reflect that grey areas exist and one size does not fit all. If a previously low-profile person who is accused of a crime shuns publicity and is generally not named in news reporting (and when they are it is not prominently) then there needs to be some exceptional reason for us to name them (but it is important to note that such a reason could exist). However if that same person makes a big deal about it and purposefully remains in the public eye (regardless of why they do this) such that newspapers continue to write about them, including their name, then we need an exceptional reason not to name them (but again, such a reason could exist). While we don't slavishly follow the sources, we cannot pretend that they don't exist or that Wikipedia exists in a vacuum. Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a crime blotter. Most crimes, including most crimes with Wikipedia articles are not encyclopedically relevant and are naked recentism. We should not be exacerbating these unencyclopedic tendencies by making it easier to violate the privacy rights on random people. Simonm223 (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You appear to have completely missed the entire point of my comment. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::*I generally agree that absolutely rigid "always do X" policies aren't great (if we're going to have them anywhere, BLP is the place, but I don't think it's needed in that case.) That's why my suggestion is just to establish that, for low-profile WP:BLP1E figures accused of a crime, we default to exclusion, with widespread but brief / non-sustained news coverage not being sufficient, on its own, to justify inclusion. It's a fairly narrow category, but it seems to be the crux of the relevant policy disagreements. That still leaves a lot of room for people to come up with context-specific rationales why a name should (or shouldn't) be included, while clarifying the relatively narrow point at hand. I also think that it'd be worth noting the two most likely rationales that do qualify - sustained coverage over an extended period of time, and in-depth non-news coverage focused on the individual specifically. Stuff that, in other words, establishes that their name and identity, specifically, has lasting significance. --Aquillion (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::Why is "they're the defendant" not a sufficient context-specific argument for inclusion? Why does the name of the defendant not have encyclopedic value in an encyclopedia article about a court case? I'd say "it's a basic fact" and thus merits inclusion, as a starting point. If we had an article about an event in which a person played a prominent role, we'd always name that person if their name was prominently included in RSes. I think it's odd to require a "context-specific reason for inclusion" when the reason seems (to me) both obvious and the default in every case: include names that are prominent in RS. That's the reason for inclusion. I don't understand what you mean by "context specific" if weight in RS is somehow not context-specific. Thus, the argument about needing a context-specific reason for inclusion doesn't persuade me, since I think that criteria is met in every case under consideration. That's the starting point, not the end point.

::As to Wikipedia's web ranking, if the name is already widely reported, then when you Google the name, RSes about the crime will come up. In such a situation, how does adding one more google result (the Wikipedia article) add to the harm? Whether or not Wikipedia includes the name, the Google results will be the same. Levivich (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the comments above about making it easier or harder to include are a red herring. The problem here isn't about difficulty, it's about clarity. We need to make it easier to make a decision about whether to include or exclude.

Towards that end, I suggest a productive thing to do is to brainstorm some possible criteria, factors, considerations, etc., and then propose them in an RfC.

Here are some thoughts on particular criteria that could be considered in deciding whether to include or exclude:

• The topic of the article: is it a biography (and is the Blpcrime content about the biography subject or someone else), an article about a crime or criminal court case, or something else?
• The age of the person (and perhaps whether they are/were tried as a juvenile or as an adult)
• Whether the person is already a public figure or not
• Whether the person has sought out publicity (with consideration for people speaking to the press without actively seeking publicity)
• The weight given to the name by RS and how widely reported it is amongst RS (my spectrum suggestion quoted above), with consideration for the quality of the sources (eg academic > news, top-tier int'l news > local news), and whether the coverage is WP:SUSTAINED
• Where in the criminal process the person is. To quote {{u|valereee}} from the "Blpcrime is useless" discussion two years ago: {{tqq|Maybe it's a spectrum? Person of interest < person has been arrested < person has been charged < person is on trial < person has been convicted. Very high requirement for including the name of person of interest; they probably need to have an article of their own. Convicted? Unless they're a minor, include the name.}}

Are there other potential factors to consider?

Once we have some factors/language brainstormed, we can present the menu of options as an RfC and see if there is consensus on a list of considerations.

Separately (or perhaps as part of the same RfC), we might consider clarifying explicitly whether the default is include, exclude, or neither. (This is to stop people from arguing that the default is one or the other; let's settle that argument.) Levivich (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the ping, Levivich. My default is exclude, with increasing rationale to include based on where they are in the process (as above: {{xt|Person of interest < person has been arrested < person has been charged < person is on trial < person has been convicted. Very high requirement for including the name of person of interest; they probably need to have an article of their own. Convicted? Unless they're a minor, include the name.}}) Valereee (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose any change as of now, at least along these lines. If the gosl is clarity, this absolutely does not help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

So something like this:

:

:When considering whether to include the name of a living person in connection with a crime, editors should evaluate the stage of legal proceedings as a spectrum. Each stage carries different considerations for inclusion, and a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate.

:

:Person of interest < Arrested < Charged < On trial < Convicted

:

:* At the earliest stages, particularly when someone is identified only as a person of interest, the threshold for including their name is very high. In such cases, inclusion should be limited to individuals who are the subject of sustained, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and who are likely to meet the criteria for a standalone article under notability guidelines.

:* For individuals who have been convicted, inclusion of their name is generally appropriate unless there are exceptional circumstances (e.g., the person is a minor, or there are specific legal or privacy concerns).

:* For intermediate stages (e.g., arrested, charged, on trial), editors should carefully assess factors such as:

:** The extent and nature of coverage in reliable, independent sources.

:** Whether the individual is a public figure or has voluntarily sought publicity.

:** The potential harm or undue weight that inclusion may cause.

:** Whether naming the person serves a clear encyclopedic purpose.

:

:Editors are reminded that inclusion must still comply with WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:BLP, and that omitting a name may be the better option when in doubt.

This seems like a good starting point. Nemov (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose the status quo is better. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose also. You can argue naming them poses an "encyclopedic purpose" at any stage. Quite frankly in most of the situations where we bring this up it would be useful if we just prevented having articles on it until someone is convicted, not that anyone would ever agree to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Looks good to me. My only feedback is that I think it would be better if it were significantly shorter... like condensing that into a sentence or short paragraph. Not sure if others agree. Levivich (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I agree, but wanted to capture the full scope before it started getting trimmed down. I'll let some other chime in (outside the dogmatic opposers) since I believe it captures most of what's been discussed in the past. Nemov (talk) 19:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment This isn't a vote. This hasn't been submitted as a RFC and commenting "oppose" over and over again when you're coming from a status quo perspective is just weird and frankly anti-consensus building. Save your "no" for when something is finally submitted. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• I generally like this. I think we should allow for mention of the name of a person of interest when the person is a public figure and they have made public comment specifically about the situation and it is being covered in independent reliable sources. I'm thinking of cases such as the police say only that they've spoken to "a 50-year-old male" as a person of interest relating to allegations of electoral fraud in Doncaster, but Joe Bloggs, the 50-year-old MP for Doncaster, publicly states that they are cooperating with the police about the same matter, and this is being covered in independent reliable sources. Mentioning their name may or may not be DUE, but there should be no absolute barrier to doing so if it is. Thryduulf (talk) 19:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Would this be an addition to BLPCRIME or would it replace the current text of BLPCRIME? If the latter, then I think we're giving disproportionate attention to the suspect's name when there other {{tqq|material}} to consider, such as CCTV images (in a suspect's BLP article), statements/hearsay (["Suspect's friends said that the suspect seems like the type who would commit the crime"]), etc. I know I said before that I think BLPCRIME needs a rewrite, but now that I think about it, I quite like the general vagueness of it all. Some1 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
• The change that I'd prefer is to say: Don't put the names of living minors in Wikipedia. Maybe if the minor is already, obviously notable for some other purpose (e.g., a very famous teenager gets arrested for a crime), we could make an exception, but overall, the rule should be omitting the names of kids and teenagers as much as possible. Additionally, I think we shouldn't put the names of non-celebrity crime victims (of any age) in Wikipedia, unless they're already dead (i.e., if they died yesterday, it's okay to include the name, even though the rest of the policy still applies for a while under the WP:BDP extension), and even then, we should keep an eye out for whether this is the right thing to do, especially if in the early days after an apparent crime. {{pb}}I don't know how many of you were around when the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case was in the news, but we had a long string of people saying that if the hotel maid he had sex was going to publicly accuse a sports star of sexual assault, then her name should be publicized everywhere, too. It felt like basic misogyny at work: Any woman who accuses a popular, powerful man of a sexual crime needs to be punished for daring to accuse her betters. A lot of the suggestions came from newbies. Since then, the situation for victims and accusers seems to have only gotten worse, and it's not just in the US. More recently, consider the 2024 Kolkata rape and murder, in which some people wanted to publicize the innocent victim's name, even though news media was reporting that her family had fled their home after receiving threats. There's encyclopedic value in knowing that a new physician worked 36 hours straight, was found asleep in an unlocked room (because the hospital did not provide secure quarters) by a man who has a history of abuse and who has since been convicted of sexually torturing and murdering her at the hospital. There's no encyclopedic value to knowing her name. You're never going to say "Oh, well, her name was 'Mary' – her name obviously explains why a man with a history of sexual abuse was allowed to be in that part of the hospital" or "It was really informative to learn her family's name, because women in that family get murdered a lot". TLDR: Wikipedia:Don't be evil to young people and crime victims is a reasonable approach for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Also, for a complicated variation, please see Talk:Killing of Austin Metcalf#RFC: Name of alleged killer. In that case, it's not even clear that any crime has been committed. Does BLPCRIME apply at all in that situation? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Practical question: I assume you would want to move nearly all articles with titles like "Killing of [name]", "Murder of [name]" etc. What would your preferred title be? "[year] [location] [crime]" seems a lot more vague to me. Toadspike [Talk] 08:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Based on the feedback, BLPCRIME would be updated to include an additional paragraph discussing when it is appropriate to name a living person.

:{{tq|A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures-that is, individuals not covered by {{section link||Public figures}}—editors must seriously consider not including material that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, sufficient explanatory information should be included.}}

:

:{{tq|When deciding whether to name a living person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest unless they are the subject of sustained coverage and meet notability guidelines. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply (e.g., minors). For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh the extent of reliable sourcing, the person’s public status, potential reputational harm, and whether inclusion serves a clear encyclopedic purpose.}}

This would be a clearer version of BLPCRIME. Nemov (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:I still prefer the status quo as this revision makes our BLPCRIME rules far more ambiguous and will open the flood-gates to low-quality crime articles on non-notable subjects. Simonm223 (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Can you point out what is specifically ambiguous about this compared to the current wording? The proposed text doesn’t change the policy, it simply makes the existing guidance more explicit and detailed. Nemov (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I dislike using a vague "spectrum" because it will almost certainly be used to cram non-notable people's names into crime articles for crimes they have not been convicted of. We should not be a party to convicting people in the court of public opinion. The status quo provides strict guidance. Non-public-person, non-convicted, don't bring up their name. While I would prefer that we clarify a person doesn't become public by responding to press inquiries about an alleged crime this goes the opposite direction and makes it easier for people who are functionally innocent to be associated with criminal activity. Simonm223 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tqq|The status quo provides strict guidance. Non-public-person, non-convicted, don't bring up their name.}} That is not what WP:BLPCRIME says. If it did, it would provide strict (and clear) guidance. But it doesn't. I hope you re-read what the policy page actually says, realize that it doesn't provide "strict guidance," or clear guidance, and then help the rest of us to clarify it. Arguing in favor of a supposed status quo that doesn't actually exist just isn't going to help clarify this for the rest of us. Levivich (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm flummoxed by your response. Do you prefer the status quo simply because it's apparently more difficult to understand so you can argue it says something it does not? Nemov (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{green|For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply (e.g., minors).}} Ethan Crumbley was 15 when the Oxford High School shooting occurred, pled guilty at 16, and was sentenced at 17. His name was included in the article from the beginning, and I don't believe there was any debate about its inclusion (at least based on a quick skim of the article's talk page and its archives). Is the quoted sentence saying that the Oxford High School shooting article should not have included his name prior to him turning 18, even when he pled guilty and was convicted? Some1 (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::This doesn't say anything about a specific case. Nemov (talk) 01:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm just using that case as an example. Some1 (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::it's up to the community to determine an exceptional circumstance. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. So you think that line should be removed? Nemov (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't think the new paragraph is needed at all if {{tq|it's up to the community to determine an exceptional circumstance.}} That's what the status quo is. Some1 (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm not surprised this nebulous and useless policy continues to exist in it's current form. Essentially, the lack of clarity is a useful for those want to interpret it in it's most dogmatic terms. This bureaucratic red tape just prevents anyone from attempting to improve this mess. If someone points out how inane this situation is they're greeted with "go change it" knowing there's no chance it'll ever happen. I guess they're also right. Nemov (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I also see issues with this per the two above. This doesn’t make the issue better. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Do you have any recommendations for improvement or are you just gonna chime in "no" at every step? Nemov (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I think this is starting to look like WP:BLUDGEON - you don't need to reply to every comment by every person who disagrees with you. Simonm223 (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I am workshopping this proposal and asking questions is a natural part of this process. Nemov (talk) 15:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

: I think this additional detail makes the policy a bit clearer. – SJ + 02:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Levivich, @Thryduulf are there any changes to this version of the wording you would like to see? This is close to being presentable. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::I don't like "(e.g. minors)" as it implies that being a minor is always an exceptional circumstance and their name should never be included, which is very clearly not the consensus (e.g. Kyle Rittenhouse, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, Mary Bell, Scarlett Jenkinson and Eddie Ratcliffe). I would just remove the parenthetical and have a third paragraph saying something along the lines of "The standard for the inclusion of names of minors and vulnerable adults is generally higher than it is for others, but there is no presumption either way. Injunctions or similar prohibiting the naming of someone involved in a legal trial (in any capacity) should generally be respected unless reliable sources in that jurisdiction do not." Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree, something like this: {{tq|The standard for including the names of minors and vulnerable adults is generally higher than for others, but there is no presumption either way. Legal injunctions or similar restrictions on naming individuals involved in legal proceedings should generally be respected unless reliable sources in that jurisdiction do not.}}

:::This is clearer, but is 3 paragraphs too much? This needs to be a clear a possible to cut down on the misinterpretations that continue to happen. Nemov (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for the ping. In case it helps anyone else, here is the textdiff of the proposed changes:

{{textdiff|A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.

|A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures-that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, sufficient explanatory information should be included.

When deciding whether to name a living person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest unless they are the subject of sustained coverage and meet notability guidelines. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply (e.g., minors). For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh the extent of reliable sourcing, the person’s public status, potential reputational harm, and whether inclusion serves a clear encyclopedic purpose.}}

::I think all the copyedits in the first paragraph are good, except I have a mild preference for keeping "in any article" in order to emphasize that this applies not just in BLP articles or articles about crimes, but in any article (like the rest of BLP policy).

::As to the new proposed second paragraph, I would support it as written, as a helpful clarification to the current language. That said, here's what I would change about it:

::* I agree with Thryd about "(e.g. minors)" and think that parens should be stricken. I certainly think that whether the subject is a minor should be a consideration, but as written, it suggests that minors' names should never be included, with which I disagree. At least in the US, and I assume in many other countries as well, juvenile court records are sealed, so that if a minor is facing a juvenile charge, the press won't even report on the minor's name, and court records are not public. In those situations -- where the RS do not report the name -- we certainly should not report the name. This is true even after conviction. However, if a minor is tried as an adult, then the case is not sealed (or at least not necessarily). In the circumstance where a minor is tried as an adult and convicted, and their name is widely reported in RS, then I don't think the guidance should be to exclude the name, but rather to include it. I think this is too "in the weeds" for the purposes of the second paragraph, so I would (TLDR:) remove "(e.g., minors)" just add something like "whether the subject is a minor" to the last sentence of the second paragraph.

::*This is pedantic but "living person" should probably be "living or recently deceased person"

::*I'm not sure about "unless they are the subject of sustained coverage and meet notability guidelines," as this is never the standard for whether to include text in an article (the standard being WP:ASPECT/WP:DUE). I wouldn't object to the whole thing over this one phrase, but my preference is to omit the phrase, and instead say something that conveys a "high degree of DUEness," rather than notability. Maybe "unless the name is a given a lot of significance by a lot of high-quality RS" or a more professional version of that. What I'm thinking of is if the NYT, BBC, AP, etc. etc. all put the name in the headline or their lead paragraphs, then it's OK. But if it's just local news or news blogs, or if the name is mentioned buried in the body somewhere, then exclude.

::*I would change "the extent of reliable sourcing" to "the extent and quality of reliable sourcing," again to emphasize that top-shelf international media is more important than local news, news blogs, etc. In my parlance: WP:TIER2 v. WP:TIER3.

::*I'm not sure that "potential reputational harm" should be listed as a factor in the last sentence, since that one seems obvious: the reputational harm will be negative whenever one is named as a criminal suspect, defendant, or convict. I can't imagine a situation where the potential reputational harm will be anything other than seriously negative, in a BLPCRIME situation.

::*I hate the phrase "serves a clear encyclopedic purpose" whenever we use it on Wikipedia. Every fact, every detail, about a topic, serves a clear encyclopedic purpose. Where the crime happened, when the crime happened, and who was involved, all obviously serve a clear encyclopedic purpose. The other reason I hate this phrase is that we do not define "encyclopedic purpose" or even "encyclopedia" anywhere in our policies, and furthermore, this whole website is a giant re-definition of the word "encyclopedia," so what the hell is an "encyclopedia" other than Wikipedia, and so what the hell is an "encyclopedic purpose" other than "to educate," and including facts educates. I think what people mean when they talk about "encyclopedia purpose" is WP:NOTTRIVIA, but there is no way that the name of, e.g., a suspect, defendant, or convict, is "trivia" in an article about the crime. If we are going to say something along these lines, I'd prefer to reference the policy -- e.g. "the name it's not trivial in relation to the article subject" -- over talking about "encyclopedic purpose." But even this seems unnecessary, since if it meets the "widely reported in RS" requirement, that's the same as "not trivia."

::But even if none of those changes were made, I'd still support this as an improvement over the status quo. HTH, Levivich (talk) 16:35, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Levivich and @Thryduulf, thanks so much for your feedback. This is the reworked version.

::::{{tq|A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures-that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, sufficient explanatory information should be included.}}

::::

::::{{tq|When deciding whether to name a living or recently deceased person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply. For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status.}}

:::This reads a lot clearer than the current policy. I'll move forward with this in a couple of days, but feedback on wording is appreciated. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::LGTM, thanks for shepherding this. Levivich (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::::My only issue is that the final sentence could be read as meaning those are the only factors that may be considered, but other things will also be relevant to some cases. Perhaps {{tpq|For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality...}}? Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, adding "such as" should be fine. Nemov (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::+1 Levivich (talk) 21:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#BLP1E is split into two pages regarding this policy's WP:BLP1E and its relation to WP:1E. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:35, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:This is on purpose… while the two overlap, they relate to different situations. Blueboar (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

If the subject of a BLP (allegedly or provably) simply objects to having any imagery of themselves on the English Wikipedia, is that covered (a) here and I missed it, or (b) elsewhere to which I could be pointed? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)