Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biographies of living persons page. |
|
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
| The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
| This is not the place to post information about living people. See creating an article for information on how to start a new article. |
| To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. |
| This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
| ||||||||
This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
|
BLP issues summary
|
|---|
|
Celebrity charged but not (as of now) sentenced
[edit]As I guess many will have seen, one of the world's best known celebrities has today been charged by the police in Sweden for rape. Several respectable media considered RS from all around the world has already reported on it and named the celebrity. Given that the celebrity has been charged, and the charges are all over media, do we mention it at all in the celebrity's article? Jeppiz (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a news service. That said, if several RSes are reporting on this, I'm not sure why it wouldn't be appropriate to mention it, as long as we're careful to only say what the news services have said and not add our own insinuations. DonIago (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Following a discussion at user talk:WhatamIdoing (permalink), I've written user:Thryduulf/DOB supplement with the intention that it be discussed and then moved to Wikipedia space as an explanatory supplement to WP:DOB when there is consensus to do so. Please keep the discussion to User talk:Thryduulf/DOB supplement so it's all in one place. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
What's the guideline on editing articles about yourself
[edit]Since 2007 at least, it has been against guidelines to edit articles about yourself. What's the name and link for this guideline? Thanks. 2601:246:5B82:1660:E18F:4932:CC7B:E9FC (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's a bit nuanced. You're probably looking for Wikipedia:Autobiography ... and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is also highly relevant. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear: stating that this is "against guidelines" is a bit too strong. There are some very restrictive circumstances when it is ok: "if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy". Anything else is "strongly discouraged" but not actually forbidden. And of course you must declare the COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- Also, the subject of an article can certainly contribute on the article talk page, noting errors and making requests for changes. Blueboar (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear: stating that this is "against guidelines" is a bit too strong. There are some very restrictive circumstances when it is ok: "if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy". Anything else is "strongly discouraged" but not actually forbidden. And of course you must declare the COI. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Please see
[edit]Please see:
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GLAAD & anti-LGBT groups – a discussion about whether we can use certain material about public figures/third-parties, or if the organization's website falls under WP:BLPSPS.
- Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#SPS definition – a discussion about whether an organization's website is really self-published (i.e., written by 'the org' and posted online by 'the org') or if it might be traditionally published (e.g., if it is written by one staff member and posted online by a different staff member, similar(ish) to a journalist and a newspaper editor).
The practical difference in the definition is all about BLPSPS: If coca-cola.com is "written by one employee and published by another", and that's all it takes to get out of BLPSPS rules, then we can use the website for The Coca-Cola Company to add information on employees of PepsiCo, and vice versa. But if we say that a corporate website is written by the company and published by the company, then the only BLP uses for that Coca-Cola's website are ABOUTSELF (e.g., what it says about its own employees).
BTW, I suggested a few hours ago, in the second one, that we consider changes to WP:BLPSPS, as it appears that editors really want to use certain, carefully selected, reputable advocacy websites in articles about BLPs (mostly politicians). I don't know if anyone's paying attention to that idea, but if you see such a proposal here in the future, that's where it came from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
RFC at WP:RSN#RFC: Should grey literature from advocacy groups and other similar orgs always be considered WP:SPS and therefore subject to WP:BLPSPS?
[edit]There is a RFC discussion on the consideration of grey literature relating to BLP coverage at the Reliability Noticeboard that watchers of this page may be interested in. Raladic (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- Notice: the discussion has moved to a new centralized subpage at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grey Literature as it was gaining in size. Raladic (talk) 16:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)