Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 58

This is an archive of past discussions on 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 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Published judicial documents

There is consensus against amending BLPPRIMARY to explicitly permit citation of published court judgements. While there is limited support for not having a categorical prohibition on citing court documents, most editors believe that judicial documents require interpretation, and the explicit permission of citing court documents would WP:NOR. Whether there should be a explicit prohibition on citing court documents may require additional discussion. - Enos733 (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2024 (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.

I propose amendment of WP:BLPPRIMARY so that it will plainly permit citation of published court judgments. This responds to a claim (Ben Roberts-Smith/Talk) that references to a court judgment must be confined to secondary sources, even when these sources are only media reports of the judgment and it might be shown from the judgment itself that these reports, or a particular understanding of them, are mistaken. There has been some discussion of this kind of issue (Archive 34:1, 2; Archive 47:2), but no conclusion seems to have been reached.

The main purpose of WP:BLP and WP:BLPPRIMARY appears to be privacy. The restriction is on "public" documents or records. Taken literally, that could include published judgments of a court. However, once a judgment has been published to the world, no privacy is left. Thus, if WP:BLPPRIMARY is understood in the light of its purpose (a method familiar at least to lawyers), the restriction does not apply to published judgments. It would be helpful to make that plain.

It does not seem to matter who has published the judgment—whether the court itself, government or a private organisation—if it is a mode of publication that may be cited in judicial proceedings.

The phrase "other public documents" appears to be unnecessary, since it is covered later by "public records". The order of the second and third sentences could be reversed.

Publication has to be a restrictive criterion, although not sitting easily with the moral value of privacy, since it is now common (at any rate, already in Australia) for transcripts, the parties' submissions and other case documents to be published online even in relation to pre-judgment proceedings. These documents might well contain information distressing to a party, but the court has determined that it should be made public; as to privacy, the horse has bolted. Nevertheless, WP editors should exercise discretion; probably most of the time, the information would just not be noteworthy.

The policy might thus be amended as follows:

Current text: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. 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.

Proposed amended text (additions italicised for the present purpose): Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use unpublished (even if publicly available) public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. A published court judgment may be used to support assertions about a living person, but unpublished trial transcripts and other unpublished court records must not. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on the primary source to augment the secondary source—subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

Errantios (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NOR. We should always rely on reliable secondary sources when it comes to including this sort of material in Wikipedia. I've seen editors misinterpret court judgements on a number of occasions, either out of attempts to WP:GASLIGHT or more often because they lack the competence to digest and summarise the content. Secondary sources, which have put the content in lay terms, make much better sources to rely on for assertions of fact in Wikipedia. TarnishedPath^talk 05:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Additional comment: I find the statement that the main purpose of WP:BLPPRIMARY is privacy to be severely mistaken given the word is not mentioned once in that section of WP:BLP. That section of WP:BLP does however mention no original research, and the other sourcing policies. WP:NOR and sourcing policies are clearly, to me, the main purpose of this section of WP:BLP. TarnishedPath^talk 05:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Neutral I'm not a fan of the broad scope way the amendment is proposed. That said, I think using a court document to make a clear black-white claim as to the status of a court case -- where the case itself was the subject of significant coverage but its resolution was not -- would be both fine and consistent with BLP.

For instance, John Smith sues Jane Row, and this lawsuit is widely covered and works its way into a WP article. However, the ultimate resolution / disposition of the lawsuit receives no media coverage. In a limited instance like that, I think it would be fine to use a court document to wrap that up with a succinct "the court ruled in favor of Jane" or whatever. To do otherwise would be to leave the perception of an open lawsuit dangling over Jane's head in perpetuity on WP.

I wouldn't be okay citing court judgments, in the absence of secondary sources, to inject the article with any reasoning or commentary that was presented by the court, or specific passages of testimony, etc. due to both OR and TarnishPath's comment about the competence of individual editors to interpret legal documents. Chetsford (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC); edited 06:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think if the lawsuit is already notable enough to be commented on by sources, it's just common sense that we can cite the actual ruling/dismissal/etc when it is over. jp×g 🗯️ 10:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per @Johnuniq's comments on BLPN: ...because an opponent of the subject can easily cherry-pick undue negativity from a laundry-list of assertions. Using a secondary source is supposed to shift the burden of deciding what reporting is appropriate from an anyone-can-edit contributor to the editorial team of the secondary source. Say ocean again (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about citing a judgement for the reasons Johnuniq gives, I think if there are cases where there are no secondary reports about the outcome probably fall under WP:Recentism and removal should be considered instead.

Separately, I think that this has come up enough that it should be addressed specifically to the project page under WP:BLPPRIMARY. There are possibly hundreds of BLP's that have published case law them that probably need to be evaluated. Say ocean again (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad makes a good point. We may be looking at WP:LP violations by leaving allegations in that have been adjudicated in their favor. Not just in criminal cases, but civil cases, too. Even if we don't name people, the allegations are usually tied to individuals and are often one degree away from WP as court documents are often embedded or linked in RS. Related: Study finds Wikipedia influences judicial behavior

I don't think there's really an issue with notable court cases, such as in the supreme court. Those will have RS and will have the notable summaries. If they don't, the decisions aren't notable and there's no reason for us to be another case law e-book. Say ocean again (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Narrow Limited Support for this exception:

A notable case with outright or inference of an outcome of a case other than the actual adjudication in a reliable secondary source. The judicial decision must be available for citation. Favor deletion and exhaust all options.
Limited to a properly attributed quote of an adjudication of the case or a notable claim with the reason, the rule, and if it is res judicata. No WP:TMI.
Zero tolerance for links to public records per WP:PRIVACY.

Say ocean again (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment, I found the following related discussions in archives:

TarnishedPath^talk 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Not going to happen. The reason secondary sources are required is that court documents usually need interpretation. For example, if a secondary source thinks guarded language is desirable when reporting a court finding, so generally should we. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose while I would make an exception as to citing a judgment to support the very fact of the judgment, anything beyond that should require normal secondary interpretation, I believe. Judgments are often not self-explanatory documents--and while they represent a legal finding, that does not mean that they necessarily align with anything else. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Stong Oppose WP:BLPPRIMARY does not exist in a vacuum, and I think it is important to understand the reasoning under WP:PRIMARY as well. There are many issues with using primary sources, and those issues are even more serious when dealing with the personal lives of living people, which is why we use extreme caution. Court documents such as the opinions of judges or transcripts, etc., are (1) not always public information, and (2) even when they are public documents under the law, that is not what we are really concerned about on Wikipedia. Millions of people access Wikipedia every day, and few of them are going to take the time or effort, or may even have the knowledge, to go through public databases or make public document requests to obtain information. Most people would be surprised and deeply disturbed by the amount of "public" information about each individual in the world (whether held by governments, data brokers, etc.), but that does not mean it is appropriate for Wikipedia. For example, even published dates of birth are not automatically included in Wikipedia articles. Under WP:DOB, they have to be widely published and even then there are additional considerations. Are there possibly a few limited circumstances where a secondary source is clearly wrong or silent about the outcome of a court case, and that can be fixed by citing the actual case? Probably, but then that should be a localized discussion on an article's talk page, supplemented by a discussion at BLPN or elsewhere if appropriate, rather than a reason to change the policy (WP:IAR can always help in those rare circumstances). Even in those cases, the disposition of a case and reason for that disposition are not always clear-cut, black-and-white. Judicial opinions are often complex and contradictory, with many aspects involved, from mere legal technicalities to the substantive merits of the case and everything in between, and usually with many questions under review, not something as simple as just a "guilty" or "not guilty", especially when dealing with civil cases or criminal appeals. Errantios seems to be making a big deal about what is "published" or a "public record" under the law, but that's not really what the policy is concerned about, IMO, and the law is also not that simple. I also don't think the proposed amended text makes sense from a legal perspective regarding what is "published"/"unpublished" or "publicly available" or not. Apologies for the wall of text. – notwally (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - and if crickets chirp on the outcome after RS sources had extensively covered the initial stages of the proceeding. So be it. I agree that the proceedings need to re-evaluated on WP:NOTNEWS or WP:RECENTISM, especially in a WP:BLP1E situation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
This is slightly off-topic; basically only a reply to your post: My concern with "if crickets chirp on the outcome after RS sources had extensively covered the initial stages of the proceeding. So be it." is that many news sources are looking for readers so they will publish articles like "individual harmed in 100 ways by big corporation" but when 95 of those allegations prove false, there is not enough clickbait/readership potential in "individual who claimed to be harmed only 5% harmed". So for the Ashley Gjøvik‎‎ article, for example, are you suggesting that after five years pass and if her allegations are dismissed and there is no new news about her, than we delete the article as BLP1E? I'm wondering what to do with articles like this (potential one). ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

There was question in the AfD whether WP:BLP1E (or by extension WP:BIO1E) applied, and it may well be given that her complaints are appropriately already mentioned in TRW Microwave Superfund and AppleToo. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

+ Criticism of Apple Inc. Say ocean again (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

If we know a case has been adjudicated by the desire to add a judicial record, and it was not covered within days of the adjudication, that seems to be an instant indicator of WP:RECENTISM or WP:NOTNEWS.

For the Gjøvik‎‎ article, as an example of NOTNEWS, the only source of the lawsuit is Apple Insider, and seems to fall into For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. We know that the claims mentioned in this article have been adjudicated and it's unsurprising it is not in any RS because it wasn't covered elsewhere to begin with and as Avatar317 notes, it's not very newsworthy to let everyone know a pro se lawsuit's claim against a corporation was dismissed.

For RECENTISM, the adjudication of the whistleblower complaints with the DOL became public with another judicial decision, but also partly from the same AppleInsider post. We know from the adjudication of the lawsuit that she did not file any complaints with the SEC that qualified her as a whistleblower, so they are dismissed permanently. I don't think it makes sense to wait five years to see if a hypothetical RS decides that matters, because if it becomes notable again, it will just be recreated by way of process. Say ocean again (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose The reason for this not having been allowed in multiple discussions past is that judicial documents require interpretation to understand the legal outcomes and impacts. Interpretation is not something we, as editors, are allowed to do and must have secondary sources do for us. Hence why we have our rule of WP:No Original Research. Silver seren^C 01:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Legal judgments, like laws, are very often not transparently clear without full knowledge of earlier proceedings and relevant legislation, and debatable even then – consider the frequent extensive arguments in courts as to the meaning and applicability of laws and precedents. They may occasionally inform editorial discussions and decisions, such as whether to keep RS'd material about the beginning of proceedings or eventually remove it as having turned out to be inconsequential and unencyclopedic, but it should still be clearly understood that they can't be used as sources for article content. NebY (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Limited support on a case-by-case basis. We are not going to routinely rely on court decisions, especially trial-court decision, in writing articles about controversial topics, but the rule cannot be as categorical as some have suggested above. A good example, given above, is where an article indicates that a lawsuit is pending but the record shows that it has been resolved. Similarly, to insist on our reporting that a criminal charge is pending when it has actually been dismissed, in either a published or even an unpublished document, could actually be defamatory and a serious BLP problem in its own right. In addition, articles on notable court decisions, such as U.S. Supreme Court decisions, frequently include quotations and summaries drawn from the decisions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Limited support in the vein of NyBrad. (No opinion on the Gjøvik stuff since I'm acting in an admin capacity there). I've cited court documents before. While publication is a useful metric, it isn't the only metric. The current text correctly recognizes that filings by a party are almost always worthless, and that trial transcripts are equally problematic. Trial court opinions (which come in categorically unpublished form) are sometimes useful but only for the sort of things NYBrad is talking about. Appeals courts proceedings (which come in both published and unpublished form) are sometimes citable, but sometimes not. Supreme court opinions (which are almost universally published) are generally high quality and may even be cited without a secondary source in appropriate cases. Of course, not all published opinions are alike. Federal court opinions should generally be given more weight than state court opinions, and so on. And this doesn't even begin to consider non-American justice systems. Bottom line: if we're gonna make a guideline about how to use court documents, which is I think a useful idea, we'll need a lot more brainstorming. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I never thought of reported appellate decisions like US Supreme Court opinions as the kind of "court documents" the policy is referring to, although in the strictest sense they are. To me, appellate opinions are in their own category when it comes to how to properly use them, while "court documents" means things like court docket entries (whether appellate court or trial court). Loosening the policy to allow those kinds of court documents to be used would be dangerous. The risk of an editor misinterpreting a court document (whether an appellate opinion or a docket entry like a complaint, a judgment, a trial court ruling, or a party's filing, all of which are "published" in the non-legal sense of the word) is far greater than the risk of something vitally significant to an article (WP:ASPECT) being in a court document but not reported in any other WP:RS. I don't believe the hypothetical BLP situation is plausible, where a criminal complaint is dismissed that meets the encyclopedia's inclusion criteria but is not reported in any RS. Either the whole case would not be an WP:ASPECT or the topic would not meet WP:N. A notable or significant case would have its result reported in RS. More likely, in my view, is that editors would misinterpret a court document and think, e.g., that a partial dismissal, removal, or transfer, was a dismissal of the case. If RS and court documents don't align, editors are better off going with the RS. So I think the current policy about court documents (as in docket entries, not including published appellate decisions) is correct. As others have said above, it's not about privacy (although Wikipedia is a giant megaphone due to its favorable search ranking and being used for Google knowledge panels, LLMs, etc.), it's more about WP:NOR. Levivich (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not only about privacy, but privacy is always an important consideration in any BLP policy. – notwally (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I have seen far too many examples of court documents being improperly cited in BLPs to consider this proposal at all appropriate. As of now, I can absolutely guarantee that examples can be found in BLPs where such documents have not only been cited, but done so in an intentionally partisan manner, to the detriment of the article subject. The policy needs enforcement, not weakening. As for the point made by NYB, I would have to suggest that leaving things open on a 'case by case' basis' would make matters objectively worse, given the limited scrutiny such assessments would be likely to receive. In as much as the specific situation described by NYB might arise, I would have to suggest that any exception to a 'no court documents' rule would have to be made subject to prior broad community approval, on an individual basis, from at minimum an RfC on WP:BLPN. And meanwhile, if a BLP contains say sourced content regarding charges that were subsequently dropped, without this dropping being reported by third-party sources, the solution is to remove all content regarding the charges entirely. If the dropping isn't significant enough to be commented on, the initial charges almost certainly didn't belong in the article in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I would oppose as above, but with one exception : if secondary sources have covered the initiation or start if legal action related to a BLP, but fail to follow up on that (often if the case lasts for years), then including the final Judical decision related to that person should be allowed to provide the necessary closure, particularly in criminal charges. This is rare but I've encountered this situation outside BLP and I see no reason to include for BLP as long as the case is originally covered to a significant degree in RSes. Masem (t) 17:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Limited support There are a few limited cases where I can see an open ended case that received coverage which contributed to someones notability, but the end result was either not covered or the case was not able to be completed for one reason or another. An example is the section at Emily Willis#Defamation lawsuit, where the case was not able to be completed as scheduled due to the claimant falling into a coma, and coming out of it in a vegetative state.

However, I also agree with @AndyTheGrump: statement that there are examples where cited docs can be used against the article subject in question. An example that comes to mind is Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom#Murders, where the section cites the Supreme Court documents in several instances to add material not covered in reliable sources about living subjects.

There is also the reality that people could add or remove material from court documents based on their own opinion, research, etc with Talk:2022 University of Idaho killings#We should immediately remove the name of accused and section about him and Special:Diff/1222685656 being prime examples of the bad elements I would be concerned with.

TL;DR - Support neutral summaries of court documents if no coverage exists in RS's for the finality of a cited case to help someone reading the article understand the outcome, or lack of it ('the case was dismissed on X, Y withdrew their lawsuit in 2010', etc), if the case was notable itself. It should be noted that judgements can be vacated, so my limited support is for higher court documents (Supreme Court - either State or of the US, as well as courts of Appeals).

Awshort (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

Lucy Letby

There's a discussion over at Lucy Letby that could use the help of the community to sort out. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Nemov, I've also opened up a proposal to move it to Trial of Lucy Letby at Lucy Letby#Requested move 8 August 2024. Say ocean again (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Shorten sentence in lead

There is a sentence in the lead that has always irritated me because it contains superfluous words:

"This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

Unless I'm missing some special nuance, I believe the following version still covers that:

"This policy applies to any living person mentioned, whether or not that person is the main subject, in any article or other page, including a talk page."

There is no need to mention "a BLP" type article or "material", as the topic of this policy is the person, not the type of article or material, no matter where they are mentioned. Would we lose any important nuance with the shortened wording? What think ye? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't This policy applies to any living person mentioned in any article and on other pages, including talk pages be even more succinct? Trimming the rest of the superfluous text, I don't see why we'd need to keep "whether or not that person is the subject".Schazjmd (talk) 16:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

You're right. I like it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

AfD on Gordon Edwards (scientist)

I recently repaired a broken AfD on the BLP Gordon Edwards (scientist) which, it appears (best guess), did not get fully setup; that turned into a second AfD. This has unleashed tirades from Wikipedia:Single-purpose accounts. Maybe one or two of you would like to take a look; you probably have more experience with comparable situations. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

JD Vance

There's a RFC over at JD Vance that could use the input of the community to sort out. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

What if I personally interviewed the subject?

Am I allowed to use information from the interview on the subject’s wikipedia page, or is that considered a self-published source? Clairesby (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Clairesby: I'd say an interview that you conduct would be a primary source and would usually only be used for simple factual statements, and we'd still prefer reliable secondary sources for those. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email) 02:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

You'd run into Wikipedia:No original research. It's better to rely on a published interview. If there's a shortage of published materials about a subject, that may indicate that the subject is insufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article. Jehochman ^Talk 03:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Clairesby, where was this information published? Self-published content cannot be used on a BLP, see WP:BLPSPS. You also probably shouldn't be adding any information involving yourself since you would have a conflict of interest. – notwally (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your help.

My question was a hypothetical (for future reference); but in my scenario, the information was published nowhere. It’s from a personal interview I (hypothetically) conducted with the subject, which I have not posted online.

The interview (notes, transcripts, recordings, etc.) is solely in my possession. Clairesby (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The better solution would be to find some way to get the interview reliably published and then suggest its use on the talk page rather than making a COI edit to add it yourself. But even then, ClaudineChionh's concerns that we should make only limited use of primary sources would apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Clairesby: If an interview is unpublished, it's unacceptable per the policy on verifiability. If you conducted the interview, that's also a WP:NOR violation, as others have pointed out. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Clairesby: Good of you to ask Clairsby, thanks, but as you can see, this would not usually be appropriate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Using a subjects verified social media account to confirm a date of birth amongst multiple reliable sources

Can a subjects verified social media account be used to confirm a date of birth between multiple conflicting reliable sources? Awshort (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC) ; edited RfC text to be more concise by changing "Can a subjects verified social media account be used to confirm a consistently reported date of birth amongst multiple reliable sources, if there are conflicting dates of birth?" to what it is currently. 19:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A previous RfC had a closure note stating Once a clear and consistent date of birth has been widely reported, the consensus is to update the information to reflect this., which was not included when the rest of the closure text was added to the BLP policy page in 2021.

We currently include all birth dates for which a reliable source exists, noting discrepancies based on that RfC, but it is unclear if once a clear and consistent date is established, if it is necessary to include discrepancies any longer. The previous RfC was for instances where multiple sources existed for a persons date of birth without a clearly more reliable source for the statement being made. It was followed up by this RfC for using a subjects verified social media account for their date of birth.

Awshort (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Where is the deadlocked recent discussion that has made an RfC necessary? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Is that not an optional step? I had asked SFR recently, and maybe I misunderstood his response. The closing of the previous RfC was recently discussed here, and I don't believe it's necessary for the RfC closer to reopen the previous discussion, as they offered, since it is has been several years. I do think it could do with an RfC though, for the reasons I listed on that discussion.

Awshort (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You should really have linked those at the outset. We get too many people who start an entirely new discussion, unrelated to anything that has gone before, and stick a {{rfc}} tag at the top because they think that's the way that all discussions are conducted. So we do need some sort of evidence that WP:RFCBEFORE has at least been tried, preferably exhausted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Understood. To clarify; would you suggest closing this as an rfc and changing the title to remove the rfc part to get a proper discussion going on?

My goal is to make the least amount of spread out discussions and work for someone else to fix.

Awshort (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

You've already got responses, there's no need for a closure. Discussion can continue; to convert it from a formal RfC to a normal discussion, all you need to do is remove the {{rfc}} tag. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Isn't a consistently reported date of birth amongst multiple reliable sources and conflicting dates of birth a contradiction? Schazjmd (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Ouch. After proofreading it before submitting, I clearly did a bad job lol. Any suggestions on better wording @Schazjmd:? Awshort (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I can't suggest anything because I'm not sure what you're trying to say, sorry! Schazjmd (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

To unravel the mixed up wording of the question… I believe you are asking whether a (verified) social media account can be used as a sort of “tie breaker” when other sources give conflicting dates. Is this the question? Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct.

Example conflict - An autobiography lists that Celeb X is born on Jan 1, 1990. Multiple magazines interview them and they give the same date. They post celebrating their 30th birthday from a verified account on their birthday.

A People Magazine issue from 2015 has a picure of them at a sporting event with an age that conflicts with the agreed upon dates above, but all other articles in People show them as having the agreed upon date from other examples.

Per existing WP:DOB, both dates would have to stay in the article, although common sense would say that the People magazine article had an error and should be excluded. Most articles I've seen it come up in, common sense goes out the window because "it's policy". And the opposite would also apply in the above example; a celebrity tweets it's their 38th birthday, when all previous interviews and articles put them at being 42. Per existing policy it would have to go in, even though common sense would show the old date was accurate.

Awshort (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

If I was to make this RFC from that description, I'd phrase it as Should an article subject's social media account be considered more reliable than other sources for personal details such as birthdays? Loki (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

People have been known to lie about their age. Even with a verified WP:SPS, if other reliable sources are reporting something different, the discrepancy should be addressed at least in a footnote. Schazjmd (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed; age fabrication exists, so we should be cautious about relying solely on (or giving precedence to) WP:SELFPUBlished DOBs. Some1 (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@Some1: I agree that caution should be taken when looking at using a specific date. I disagree that relying on a person for confirming information should be afforded any less weight if the information is widely reported prior to their confirmation which is a requirement of WP:DOB already for birth dates being included.

Sources make mistakes, plain and simple, and no single source should be considered immune to typos or getting something wrong. We can't give an outlier the same weight as a widely reported date from multiple sources, since it would be WP:UNDUE to put them on 'equal footing'.

@Schazjmd: I agree, assuming it is widely reported (see People Magazine typo example to Blueboar above for what I would not consider 'widely reported'). You had similar advice a while back for the DOB for Scott Baio to use the subjects SPS statement and provide the disputed content in a footnote.

I am not saying a subject should always be trusted for their date of birth (see Elizabeth Berkley, Emily Hampshire, Playboi Carti for sources giving differing dates themselves in interviews and causing age disputes). But the other side of the sword is that reported dates of birth can be wrong and fixed by a subject if there isn't reason to doubt them. Example: Dove Cameron

Awshort (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

A BLP's verified social media account should count as a primary source, so I see no reason why it can't be used to verify their birthday. There should be some secondary reporting as well before adding it to their page though, alongside making sure that the social media account is in fact the BLP's. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Hold on - didn't we discuss this seven months ago? See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 56#Conflicting birth dates with possible unreliable source - should the subjects WP:ABOUTSELF social media post be used? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I remember the article from tbat discussion (MJW) but I forgot about posting that. Looking back over it, I had asked a similar question that ended with no consensus either way on the board (Dumuzid suggested to find better sources for that article, Daniel suggested to discuss it on the talkpage of the article, you stated celebs are sometimes untruthful about their age, and David suggested to teach the controversy in general). While those are somewhat helpful for that article itself, they wouldn't help in other instances like the example I mentioned to Blueboar above. And they would more than likely not be usable for someone running into similar issues and looking at the board for a general course of action.

Awshort (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

MOS and extent of coverage about family members

I am reposting what I posted at WikiProjects Biography, because the talk page seems inactive beyond Good Article Nomination postings.

There is currently a disagreement over the extent of coverage about family tree in the lede in an individual's page Talk:Jack_Schlossberg#NPOV_and_due_weight_issues. I have checked several random biography pages listed as Good Article and didn't come across articles covering family like this in the lede. The edit in disagreement is Special:Diff/1249973757. In biography articles about individuals, is it customary to go over family pedigree like this in the lede section? Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 13 October 2024 (UTC)