Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." I understand the reason for this in general, but am wondering if it should be quite as blanket a statement as it is, or if it should instead include an exception for statements that a living person makes about themself (e.g., in court testimony or a deposition) – and possibly also if the person has their lawyer(s) make a statement about them in written motions – assuming that the WP content meets the conditions of WP:BLPSELFPUB and is WP:DUE. Seems to me that someone making a statement about themself under oath is at least as reliable as that person posting the same thing on their website. I recognize that if secondary RSs aren't publishing this information, it often won't be DUE, but I'm inclined to think that that should be assessed on a case by case basis. Most recently, I've encountered this in several legal cases challenging Trump administration actions (e.g., in court cases involving immigrants who are challenging potentially illegal detention/deportation, the immigrants' lawyers are providing some background about them in the court filings; a DOGE employee described her role in a court deposition). So far, I've removed these citations when I see them (along with any info that can't be sourced to an acceptable RS), but it's making me wonder about the blanket prohibition. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think we should make this proposed exception. People are compelled to make statements in court cases either in an attempt to build their own case or in response to questioning or discovery. Based on court documents alone, we have no way to assess whether a statement that a person makes about themselves is something they would want public or something they they felt they had to include for a legal reason in the case. – notwally (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely should not be using non-ruling or non-order court filings for any type of validation per this.. Anything not written by judges on the case should be consider one side's version of the truth. If RSes make a point about a factor raised in such documents, or, like in the case of SCOTUS petitions, the questions asked by the case are normally consider part of the facts of the case, then maybe the ruling can be used but RSes should be used first and foremost. Masem (t) 19:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Court orders should not be used to make claims about living people either. I do not believe the self-published opinions of judges are reliable enough for BLP purposes, and the same problems exist when using them as relying on court transcripts and other court records. – notwally (talk) 19:32, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand looking at it from the perspective of: the person may be making statements about things that they otherwise wouldn't make public. But I'll note that the documents are public and news media sometimes mine them in writing articles, and we often add that info to articles, using the news articles as citations. Admittedly, there are many legal cases that the news media have no interest in, but in the three situations that led me to wonder about this issue, the news media are paying attention. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If news media pick it up, then it's a different issue, and we do still consider privacy interests in those types of situations. I think BLPPRIMARY is only meant to avoid us as editors mining those types of public documents. – notwally (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is far better to use news articles from reputable sources reciting court documents to use for any claims (and for nearly all info related to court cases) as first, we are not legal experts so we shouldn't be trying to determine the salient points from a court document but rely on legal experts that can vouch for what's important, and second, if there are BLP claims, a reputable agency will likely try to verify that claim prior to republishing it, or make it clear if the claim is unsubstantiated. Masem (t) 21:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about anything that requires legal expertise. For example, in Mahmoud Khalil's case (he's a legal permanent resident grabbed by ICE in NY and taken to LA, not because he'd broken any laws but because of his pro-Palestinian speech at Columbia U.), one of the documents says that his grandparents were displaced from Palestine to a Syrian refugee camp in the 1948 Nakba. This isn't about his legal argument, just background about him, and I don't see how any news source would be able to confirm it independently. It's very likely something that we'd add to the article if he'd written it in his own blog (it's not self-serving, ...). At any rate, I figured I'd ask about it since I've now encountered this situation several times, but I'm not going to push for the policy to change. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:44, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think, generally speaking, we rely on secondary sources not only for fact-checking and determining what is likely to be true (though that's certainly a major part of it), but also to determine what is substantially significant. If no other source found something significant enough to say "__________ stated, in a court filing, that..." (which requires them to do no fact-checking other than reading said filing), then why should Wikipedia be the first place that appears? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:55, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Compelled or not, people routinely provide garden-variety biographical details about themselves in testimony and other proceedings. I frankly see no reason why we would not publish something like a subject's date or place of birth where this is recorded in a court document, so long as it is not a fact at issue in the trial. BD2412 T 01:03, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely because it may be compelled. The entire point of our WP:ABOUTSELF exemption is that we are assuming that people are fine with this information being on Wikipedia because they are publishing it themselves. That assumption does not apply to court records. As WP:DOB also explains "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" (emphasis added). And given the numerous other problems that come with court records and similar documents... – notwally (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same for all content sourced as BLPSELFPUB, which we do not uniformly reject. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, court documents can and do sometimes contain errors (and people can lie under oath), so the statements should be attributed to the documents if they were to be used (e.g. According to the May 3 probable cause affidavit...). I agree with Seraphimblade though that if something from the court documents were important enough to include in a Wikipedia article, that secondary RS would've covered it by now. Some1 (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the statements are addressed by reliable sources, then we should be guided by how those sources qualify the statements. Otherwise, the statements should not be used at all if they are about a living person and only sourced to court documents. – notwally (talk) 04:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These two sentences need to be clarified:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1236 thread deleting text versus adding "citation needed" was mentioned by Pigsonthewing when 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 pulitzer.org instead of secondary sources. But I oppose the insertion. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:24, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 "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)[reply]

The sentence preceding Pigsonthewing's addition ("Self-published blogs in this context refers to personal and group blogs.") was added in 2008 along with a mention 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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:

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This:

"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:

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:

"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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at RFC: Name of alleged killer. Some1 (talk) 23:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The Wikidata Living people policy page includes a link in its 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)[reply]