Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Bill Morgan (lottery winner)

I am not convinced that Bill Morgan (lottery winner) is notable. Please see discussion at Talk:Bill_Morgan_(lottery_winner)#Notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Preparing for a future RFC at DYK on BLPs

Hi all. The DYK community is currently preparing for a future RFC for how we can more consistently implement BLP policy at DYK review/promotion. We aren't currently discussing the issues, just gathering evidence and formulating questions. Any thoughts on the preparation side and the RFC construction would be helpful to us. It may be that those intimately familiar with BLP policy will have a question that should be asked at this RFC. You may comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Future RFC on BLPs at DYK. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC notice on DYK and BLP policy

There is currently an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#RFC on DYK and BLP policy. All editors are welcome to participate.4meter4 (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Regina M. Anderson

Should categories for a person's descent be listed if it seems to be minor, such as Native American, Swedish, etc. for Regina M. Anderson?–CaroleHenson (talk) 07:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

In reading through MOS:ETHNICITY, the degree to which one's ethnicity is in the article at all is based on whether it's relevant to their notability or "of defining importance," like whether they are Jewish-American, etc. And, ethnicity should be omitted if it is not clear (e.g., Copernicus)

So, She was of Native American, Jewish, East Indian, Swedish, and other European ancestry; one of her grandparents was of African descent, born in Madagascar. Despite her own identification of her race as "American,"[4] she was perceived to be African-American by others.[5]" should be worded to "one of her grandparents was of African descent, born in Madagascar[4] and she has been perceived to be African-American by others.[5]"

This is relevant to the article, but not that she is partially "Native American, Jewish, East Indian, Swedish, and other European ancestry". Is that right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

In addition, in the 1910 census both of her parents are said to be mulato (mix-race better term now) and in 1900 census both were said to be Black.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

My take now is that it should say "one of her grandparents was of African descent, born in Madagascar[4] and her parents were described as Black and mixed race with Black heritage. - with citations for the census records. That makes it clearer than "she is perceived". I am going with that unless anyone thinks it needs to be discussed more.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Used census records per WP:PRIMARY #1 and 3. But of course, this can be revised as needed.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Published judicial documents

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)

• 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)

• Comment, I found the following related discussions in archives:
  

1. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_47#Create_exception_to_BLPPRIMARY_and_BLPSPS_for_court_docs_and_expert_SPS_in_articles_about_court_cases_with_public_figures?
2. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_47#Avoid_misuse_of_primary_sources
3. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_52#Resolving_conflicts_between_WP:BLPPRIMARY_&_WP:BLPEDIT/
4. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_35#WP:BLPPRIMARY_needs_help
5. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_35#Restrction_on_public_records
6. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_35#RfC:_Restrction_on_public_records
7. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_35#Misuse_of_primary_sources
8. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_39#re_BLPPRIMARY
9. Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_45#WP:BLPPRIMARY_vs._WP:BLPSTYLE_on_primary_sources.

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)

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. Silverseren^C 01:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)