Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

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)

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)

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)