Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

Sexual Assault Allegations in Social Media

Back on 10 April 2018 I raised an issue on this talk page (now archived) about a sexual assault allegation in a BLP article. Received a useful response from User:Masem at Talk:Dan Spitz. Concerning allegations that have only been made in social media but with no reporting to authorities or corroboration from reliable media outlets, Masem said "BLP strongly recommends not including this information even if it can be sourced." I have come across a couple more such things: see Timothy Heller (accuser) and Melanie Martinez (singer) (accused). Thanks to the Me Too movement, people are talking about this problem in earnest, and that's important, but WP already has rules on unconfirmed statements in the biographies of living persons. I suggest that the BLP team discuss some sort of policy on this new breed of allegations. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:36, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Images

I have posted a question about image size for BLP infobox portraits. Please see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Images for more info. Thanks - wolf 00:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Privacy re: DOB

The subject of an article I watch objected to having their (properly sourced) DOB listed. I have restored it with just the year, per WP:DOB on this page, but what happens if the subject still objects? Jdcooper (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi' IMO and my interpretation of BLP - you are adding this one https://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/information.pl?cite=6Uveb%2FGgJ76vUBR1nuHXJA&scan=1 you should not be scouring the internet for obscure sources to add a not well known dob or even year of birth to a wiki biography - BLP in question is Claudia Webbe Govindaharihari (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That source violates WP:BLPPRIMARY, "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth" Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:01, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

DOB of living persons should not be given as it aids identity theft. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC).

Thanks for your help Galobtter, I didn't realise it constituted a primary source. User:Govindaharihari, I was asking for clarification on a wikipedia guideline. I did not originally add that source myself, I was not "scouring the internet" for anything. I don't see why you felt the need to write a passive-aggressive comment on my talk page, seeing as we have had no contact whatsoever prior to this. Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

That is absurd privacy theater. Are identities of NBA players being stolen just because ESPN has their DOB listed? --bender235 (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Bender235, certainly you cannot think that all of our BLP subjects have the financial resources of wealthy NBA players, who have lawyers, accountants and agents to help protect them against identity theft. Many BLP subjects are in a far weaker situation regarding identity theft. If omitting the full DOB helps alleviate their privacy concerns, then that is a good reason to leave it out if the coverage in secondary sources is not extensive. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Cullen, if we can find a reliable source for someone's birthday, so can identity thief Joe Shmoe. Deleting a sourced DOB from Wikipedia when it is still publicly accessible at the source is mere privacy theater. --bender235 (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

To some extent I agree with you, and yet you could make exactly the same argument about a Social Security Number, and we certainly would never post that in an article under any circumstances even if we did find it somewhere. EEng 21:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Galobtter, out of interest and for future reference, if the source is a secondary source and the subject complains, what is the procedure in that case? Jdcooper (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In my experience you need to be sure there is very strong, policy-based consensus for inclusion. Remove the information while it is in dispute. Use the article talk page to review the sources carefully, and discuss any discrepancies or contradictions between sources. Once the discussion is far enough along and there's a strong proposal for inclusion, take it to WP:BLPN for review. --Ronz (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. It is debatable whether FreeBMD is "obscure" or a BLPPRIMARY source. Also, this person is a politician, a public figure and an activist. Their notability is by choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.159.70 (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Privacy and WP:DOB

The privacy policy WP:DOB needs to be modified. In particular, the sentence "[i]f the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth [...] err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it" needs to be modified or removed. First of all, the last part is redudant since per WP:BLPRS we do not include any information that is not backed by reliable sources anyways (regardless of whether it is birth dates, college degrees, or the persons membership in the Communist party).

But more importantly, why does it matter if "the subject" complains? As far as I know this is the only instance where we give subjects final editorial approval of article content. On the basis of privacy of all reasons? As User:David Gerard put it (when he first deleted WP:DOB in 2006 after it was added unilaterally without prior discussion) this is “ridiculous paranoia,” since if someone's DOB is published in say Who's Who or Library of Congress authority files, then what is the point of deleting the information from Wikipedia? What layer of privacy does it add? I understand that part in WP:DOB on "phone numbers, addresses, account numbers," but date of birth is different.

In short: date of birth is an essential part of every biography, in Wikipedia and elsewhere (for a good reason, encyclopedic articles open with DOB). I don't see why our general WP:BLP policies shouldn't apply; that is, if the information is unsourced we delete it, but if there is a publicly accessible reliable source, we keep it. Subject's privacy concerns notwithstanding, because if we can find reliable sources on somebody's DOB so can everyone else. --bender235 (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note: A previous discussion of this matter can be found at: WT:Biographies of living persons/Archive 37 § “Privacy” of birthdates that are published in reliable sources? Rebbing 20:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• How is the date of birth "essential" to a biography? In most instances, it seems to me one of the least meaningful, least useful facts that we may choose to include in an article, just after the subject's eye color and right before the names of her childhood pets.

As for your proposal, I oppose. Even if, as you suggest, a person loses all legitimate privacy or dignitary interests in his birth date once it has been reported anywhere—in the case that spurred this RFC, the only proffered source is a well-written candidate profile on a newly-minted blog—our interest in publishing it is equally trivial.

How about removing the subject's right to object but clarifying that "widely published in reliable sources" means what it says? Perhaps something like:

Wikipedia only includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely extensively published by multiple reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. In either case, the source or sources must be cited in the article.

Rebbing 21:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

How is the date of birth "essential" to a biography? It places the persons life precisely in the historical timeline. --Ronz (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

How is such precision meaningful or useful? What difference does it make to the reader that Mr. Wales was born August 7, 1966, rather than October 10, 1966, or January 30, 1966? Rebbing 00:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, Mrs. Whales may care I suppose.

-EEng

Accuracy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia. --Ronz (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question. I will ask again: What does our reader gain by knowing that Mr. Whales was born on August 7, 1966, that he would not have gotten by learning only that he was born in 1966? Rebbing 03:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't like my answer to your question. I'm not here to give lessons in history or the importance of accuracy. If you need them, I suggest staying far away from all articles under general sanctions until you are more familiar with the Wikipedia's policies. --Ronz (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Ronz, if you're gonna be all high and mighty you should probably pay more attention to the distinction between accuracy and precision. EEng 03:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

See WP:FOC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 15:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Well, FOC you, too! EEng 16:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstood my question. I wasn't suggesting that the accuracy of what we do publish is unimportant. Rather, I am asking if any Wikipedia reader would understand Mr. Wales' biography differently had it been that he came into this world on any other date in 1966. I am arguing that, in most cases, the date of birth of a stranger is as meaningless as the precise number of hairs on his head. Conversely, if, as you argue, our reader benefited appreciably from our "plac[ing] the person[']s life precisely in the historical timeline" by including the full dates of birth of our biographical subjects, why stop at that? Why not include the time of birth as well?

I'm not asking you for a history lesson, and I understand Wikipedia's policies just fine. What I am asking you to do is to support the position you have taken and to answer my reasoned objections. You have done nothing but assert bare conclusions, dodge my questions, and respond with belittling insults. Rebbing 03:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

You want an example to your specific question. My responses are that because this is an encyclopedia we strive for accuracy, as supported by ArbCom and this very policy. It's a standard part of any biography as well. In that light, I see no reason to give examples where the exact date is notable or otherwise consequential, but as I indicated, history has plenty of examples in portents around a birth date, or inheritance. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Arguable, the DOB is a "completeness" issue, not an accuracy issue. (If we include the DOB , we want assurance it is the right DOB, that's the accuracy part). And because we're an encyclopedia, we are not bound to "completeness". Comprehensiveness, yes, but not completeness. --Masem (t) 15:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Focus on content yourself, Ronz. You belittle me while refusing to engage in meaningful debate, and, when I politely protest, you retort that I should focus on content‽

Since your reply yet again fails to engage with my objections, even the simplest (why is the full date of birth vital, yet the time of birth is insignificant?), I reluctantly accept your intellectual forfeit, but I humbly concede that you would win a pissing contest. Rebbing 16:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Do I need to turn the hose on you two? EEng 16:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Well for one thing they'd know his astrological sign? And when to celebrate his birthday. It tells you whether the person is old enough, or too old, to qualify for various public offices. And it is absolutely standard common practice to include DOB (if known) when writing biographies of any professional quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.159.70 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Why does it matter, if they ask? Because believe it or not, not everyone wants all their details to be written about by people on the internet. I see no reason to change the rule. We treat people we write about respectfully too -- now, must we prevent/remove a very well sourced DOB, no, but if a person, especially a rather low profile person) has expressed a problem and the sourcing is weak or obscure than it's common decency to do so (I also don't agree with the other change proposed in Rebbing's comments but that's another proposal they can make elsewhere). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment: We care about complaints from the subject in part because of the legal issues. While US law has become clearer this year, it has been extremely unclear in the past. See Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc.. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Hoang sounded more in contract law than anything relevant to this discussion; and the law was settled before that cases was decided. Notice how the Ninth Circuit's disposition is marked "not for publication"? In the Ninth Circuit, that designation, similarly to the usage in other American courts, indicates that the decision did not "establish[], alter[], modif[y], or clarif[y]" the law, "call[] attention to a rule of law that appears to have been generally overlooked," "criticize[] existing law," or "involve[] a legal or factual issue of unique interest or substantial public importance." Ninth Circuit Rule 36-2(a–d). In other words, it was a mundane ruling dictated by existing precedent. Rebbing 04:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ronz: I think we have to distinguish between "publishing someone's birthday" and "referring to a third party's publication of someone's birthday". If you don't agree with having your DOB out in public, don't report it to LOC or Who's Who. But if you agreed to have it published there, you cannot oppose to have it published on Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, if we know that a person agreed to publication of their birth date, then latter objections of wanting the information removed for privacy reasons would probably not hold weight. --Ronz (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rebbing: "Even if, as you suggest, a person loses all legitimate privacy or dignitary interests in his birth date once it has been reported anywhere." Why are you trying make it sound like my intention is to degrade someone's dignity? My only point is that if you (as the subject) agreed to have your DOB published in Who's Who or some other collection of biographies, you cannot legitimately oppose having your DOB on Wikipedia.

Also, regarding your suggestion: what are "widely" and/or "extensively" supposed to qualify on "published reliable source"? The number of publications, or the range and size of a source's audience? Is it not enough that WP:RS requires "reliable" sources, now they are supposed to be "popular" ones too? Please explain. And just out of curiosity: what is Library of Congress (or any other nation's authority files for that matter); popular enough to meet this criterion? --bender235 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, bender235. I didn't mean to malign your intention. What I mean is that, in my view, BLPPRIVACY isn't strictly about protecting against identity theft and the like; many people would understandably feel somewhat violated were strangers to dig up their birth dates and publish them on one of the world's fifth-most-popular website. On Wikipedia, subjects' sentiments and preferences are usually eclipsed by the encyclopedia's greater interests in neutrality, dissemination of information, editorial consistency, and the like—and rightly so—but, where subjects' feelings are most likely to be offended and our editorial interests are at a minimum, we sometimes defer. See MOS:GENDERID (a subject's subjective gender identity takes precedence over sourcing, and we are to defer to a transgender subject's wishes when choosing pronouns to describe his life before gender transition).

It is definitely not enough that sources be reliable. The reliability of sourcing is independent from the availability of sourcing, and the whole point of BLPPRIVACY is not to ensure that we only publish accurate birth dates; rather, it exists to limit us to publishing only birth dates that are already widely available. If a subject lists her birth date on her Twitter profile, or it's been recently published by several reputable news sources, disclosure is a foregone conclusion, and our listing it can cause little harm. But, if finding a birth date takes effort—say, more than two minutes with Google—our including it greatly expands the set of people who can find it.

Library of Congress records—widely available or not—are primary sources and may not be used for this purpose. This would be true even without BLPPRIVACY. See WP:BLPPRIMARY (primary sources that include the dates of birth of living people may not be cited for any purpose). Rebbing 23:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rebbing: "Library of Congress records—widely available or not—are primary sources" – that is blatantly wrong. LOC files (example) even give you the source (!) in which they found DOB or other biographical information, which makes them demonstratively secondary sources. Anyhow: what is the point of BLPPRIMARY in the first place? A person's autobiography is clearly a primary source; are we not allowed to use it as source for birthdate and such?

Apart from this: even if BLPPRIMARY applied (which it clearly does not), a birthdate is not comparable to private phone numbers, bank account numbers, or home addresses. Mixing these things is fallacious. --bender235 (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

bender235: I'm pretty sure LoC records are not "secondary sources" in the sense Wikipedia means: yes, they are based on other sources (much as a indictment—a primary source for our purposes—might rely on affidavits, police reports, and the like), but LoC records do not contain "the author's own thinking based on primary sources"; they do not reflect "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis"; they do not contain "analytic or evaluative claims"; they are a canonical example of a meticulously-checked collection of raw data. Perhaps they count as tertiary sources?

I don't see a self-disclosure exception in BLPPRIMARY, but I would argue that a typical autobiography is a secondary source with respect to its subject's life, since, unlike, e.g., a financial disclosure, it contains its "author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis" of his own life. Obviously, the facts for which it would be considered a reliable secondary source are significantly limited.

BLPPRIMARY enumerates full birth dates alongside private phone numbers, bank account numbers, and home addresses; fallacious or not, the policy plainly lumps them together. Rebbing 00:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Rebbing: You're twisting the definition of what characterizes a source as "secondary" in a absurd and almost comical way. But regardless, LOC authority files are clearly not primary sources; which means BLPPRIMARY does not apply to them. Which leaves only WP:DOB, and the merits of that statute shall be debated here. --bender235 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Having one's DOB published in Who's Who, or in news coverage, etc. is not a matter of agreeing or giving permission in most jurisdictions. It's a public record.

Also the "popularity" of sources thing is not new at BLP. For years some editors have been removing sourced content "because it's a tabloid". It doesn't matter whether that source is a major and reliable newspaper or newsmedia outlet, or how well-researched the article is. They don't like the style, so it's out. In the case of some major UK newspapers, they are accepted as a reliable source for everything else but BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.159.70 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. The date of birth of probably every person in the English speaking world is likely to be found in publicly available official registers somewhere or other, albeit after some effort. That does not mean that we have to make it any easier for an identity thief to find that information. I suggest that a BLP should contain, at most, the year of birth, and even then remove it on request of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2018 (UTC).

I think removing the birth year is going a bit too far. Where someone's life fits into the timeline of world events is perhaps the single densest piece of data you can know about someone. EEng 00:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

So for making an identity thief's life a little harder (who if he's really determined could find the necessary information anyways), we decrease the value of Wikipedia for everyone else. Great idea! --bender235 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should make an "identity thief's life a little harder". There are reasons why the month and year are valuable to a reader—but why is a day of the month of any conceivable value to a reader? I think that Wikipedia is more easily machine-analyzable than the vastness of the Internet. Bus stop (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. This is not a neutrally worded RfC. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC).

[Touché] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.159.70 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. Ok, so we've got one person arguing that we don't need to include DOB in biographies "because Wikipedia is about comprehensiveness, not completeness". Another person is arguing that we can't use Library of Congress, or other public records, for DOB "because it's a primary source" (which in BLPPRIMARY has gone far beyond the scope and intent of WP:PRIMARY - "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."). This is a good example of why BLP is an intractable mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.159.70 (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support the proposal to make this change to WP:DOB. 209.197.159.70 (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. In all cases we should just include the month and year of birth, if the date of birth is available in a reasonable number of sources. The day is the problem. Bus stop (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

In the case waaay back at the top of this discussion I think the subject was objecting to the inclusion of just month and year. I did not see an exact date included in a quick skim of the article history. I think we should include the day. It's silly not to when every other major biography resource does so routinely. That just makes Wikipedia less-useful and second rate. 209.197.159.70 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the subject's desires in this matter are just about irrelevant but we should not include the day because Wikipedia is probably easily machine-readable and the day of the month is the component least useful to the reader. Bus stop (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok I have spent waay more time lurking this discussion than I intended to, so this will probably be my last comment. But it is worth pointing out that machine-readability is a swiftly-changing standard. Probably any decently-written and organized website is machine-readable at this point, and the ones that aren't soon will be. Certainly other major biographical resources online such as IMDB, Britannica, Who's Who, etc. would be machine-readable. On the other point, aside from simple factual "completeness", which is important, a lot of readers would want to know the DOB of a notable person they are interested in. For just one example, they might want to know if they shared the same birthday. This really isn't a controversial item to include. Just how many professional-quality biographies of notable people do you come across that do not include the subject's DOB, when known? 209.197.159.70 (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. You say "I have spent waay more time lurking this discussion than I intended to". OK. Don't let me cause you to waste any more of your time. We are weighing conflicting interests. No one is arguing that there is absolutely no value in the day of birth. But including that information is less useful to the reader than the month or year, and that piece of information could be used in identity theft. As for machine-readability, Wikipedia is only one website and it has a predictable formula, thus facilitating machine-readability. Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

My last, last comment. Sorry, was waiting for that bot to take care of it. Did not know the signing thing would work for anon-IP. Have not done anything here except read articles in a long time. I try not to get involved in this stuff, but got sucked into this one. Was surfing and an evil link lead me to the discussion... I don't think machine-readability is a central issue here and when every other online biography of a notable person includes their DOB and the Wikipedia article doesn't, that just makes the biographies on Wikipedia an inferior resource. 209.197.159.70 (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think machine readability is a central issue either, but it is a contributing factor. I think the central issue is that the day of the month is less important to the reader than the month and the year of birth. The exact date of birth including the day of the month facilitates identity theft and the omission of the day is a way that Wikipedia can prevent itself from being used in identity theft. Bus stop (talk) 14:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

This is what I mean by "sucked in", it's insidious. But I do not think identity theft is a serious consideration here either. We are talking about notable people, who's DOB and other biographical data is readily available from many other sources. Including the ones cited and used for the articles on Wikipedia. Not including it here just makes the biographies on Wikipedia inferior to those other resources. This really is my last comment. I am leaving. Good luck, best wishes. Afk. 209.197.159.70 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is "readily available from many other sources". But even identity thieves are lazy. Security isn't a simple yes, you're secure/no, you're not secure thing. As you put impediments in place you increase security. And there is always a downside to putting impediments in place. We are weighing conflicting interests. Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

And I don't think it is worth making Wikipedia an inferior resource for biographies of notable people for all readers, when it makes little or no real, actual difference to the supposed and hypothetical risk of identity theft. We are talking about people who are notable enough to have public biographies written about them. Anyone who wants to try to steal their identity is just going to go on to the next Google Search entry to find it, and the would-be thief is probably not going to get very far in their attempts at fraud. It is harder to fake being someone who is famous than someone who is unknown, and there are plenty of people who still put their birthday info on their profiles. Peace. Out. 209.197.159.70 (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Why is it important to know the day of the month on which someone was born—for astrological reasons? Any other reasons? To sing happy birthday on the right day? Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Because it is a biography. Because it is a completely standard and expected thing to include in a biography of a person. Because it is a fact about the person, and most serious biographers would consider it relevant information and would include it (if known). Because in most human cultures birthdays are considered notable to some degree. Because it is needed to calculate a person's exact age. Because of the reasons I listed elsewhere in this discussion, like being able to compare birthdates and to determine eligibility for certain age-restricted things. For age-related records and records-keeping and comparisons. This is verging on an existential-type debate. Why is it important to know anything? We don't really need to know anything not essential for survival. Wikipedia exists to provide information. If you accept the basic reasons for Wikipedia to exist, and its mission, then you accept that this place is about providing facts and information. And it is more accurate to provide a full, proper date of birth. And since every other publicly-available biography of the person is likely to include this information (if known), and since BLP rules already require that any such information be sourced extensively, it's not going to be that hard to find the information elsewhere. So that makes the identity-theft rationale pretty weak. And not including it would make the biographies on Wikipedia inferior to and less useful than other biographical resources for readers, students and researchers. Deliberately, on purpose. Which undermines the whole point, purpose, rationale and mission of Wikipedia. And I don't believe in astrology, but some people do, and it is a field of study and endeavor and a matter of interest for many people. Including debunkers. And isn't it lovely that we can now sing 'Happy Birthday To You' without risking copyright infringement? It's been good debating you. Good luck and have a nice day! 209.197.159.70 (talk) 18:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)— 209.197.159.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As I've said, we are weighing competing aims. Believe it or not I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say "Why is it important to know anything?" Information is important. Period. I wholeheartedly agree that "this place is about providing facts and information." What I find dubious is that "not including it would make the biographies on Wikipedia inferior to and less useful than other biographical resources". That would only slightly be true. Just as we would not give out the subject's address or social security number or phone number, if we knew it—so too should we stop short of giving out their exact date of birth. Have an excellent day. Bus stop (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment: Although I am inclined to oppose the suppression of birth dates with the above rationales, and find the arguments for inclusion persuasive, I am very sympathetic toward privacy concerns. I will note, however, that while authoring an entire biographic article—which will be published soon, pending input on a very related issue (permanent link)—I have found the process of meticulously researching and documenting a subject's life from publicly available data scattered across the Internet to be largely indistinguishable from that which is involved in doxing. The main differences are in intent, the editorial discretion to omit minor data that are not worth reporting (such as the names and ages of the subject's non-notable children), and the absence of strictly private information. Worse than doxing in terms of exposure, however, is that we publish the information, summarized and compiled with sources to verify all of it, as an "official" entry on an encyclopedia that is currently the fifth most trafficked website on Earth (according to Alexa), all while largely remaining pseudo-anonymous and quietly tinkering away to grow the documentation further.
  If privacy concerns are what really matters here, then I am confident that the details we regularly provide in the biographies, such as residence and number of children and spouse and childhood and so on, are much more serious a threat when it comes to identity theft, social engineering, or malice of any kind than is the date of birth. At what point does public interest or its so-called "right to know" of publicly accessible (and usually not that hard to find) information that has encyclopedic value about a notable public figure—like a date of birth, unlike a Social Security number or email address—override their right to privacy and to be forgotten?
  We aren't actively suppressing entire biographic articles on the basis of privacy since notability thresholds are met, despite how I suspect many subjects would like their articles suppressed and salted down the memory hole and despite how much of that information is far more valuable to someone seeking to impersonate or locate a subject, so it is obvious that privacy is not our primary concern. Why is it here, regarding data that is frankly far less concerning than most of the information we already routinely include about a subject's personal life and history? Many of us would probably want any article about ourselves immediately nuked and would consider it functionally a dox starter pack if we were in a such a position. The moment a non-stub Wikipedia biography exists of a person, it specifying their date of birth is likely the least of their concerns.
  More basically: If the general notability thresholds are met, what justification is there to argue that the date of birth is more sensitive and private than, say, the subject's full name, or current city of residence, or the name(s) of their non-notable but widely reported spouse(s), or their non-notable family history, or their non-notable children's names and ages (which somehow do still get included with regularity), all of which are routinely added to biographies of living persons? Why is the threshold for noteworthiness higher for the date of birth, but not all those other juicy data for any extortionist or doxer to use? Because of hypothetic identity theft? If I were the subject, I would be more concerned about being hunted down by some stalker who wanted to ruin my life based on something in the article. That seems like a more realistic threat to notable subjects than identity theft. That doesn't require a date of birth. It does require knowing some of the information for which we haven't carved out a special policy-based clause, though. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:38, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2018

Dear Wiki, I am writing to request for the edit of a major verifiable character assassination clause '... until being dismissed for plagiarism". I have never been dismissed on any breach of professional ethics. If anything I have, out of ethics or other priorities, resigned from a lucrative academic position or declined an offered of a coveted academic fellowship at places like the LSE in UK.

You may verify that I have never been dismissed from LSE with Professor Mary Kaldor at LSE <redacted> or Professor Tim Allen at <redacted>, professor of government and head of international development department at LSE, who knew me and my work first-hand.

My detractors have even set up webpages attacking, among other things, my authenticity of my PhD from the University of Wisconsin at Madison (1998) while the Burmese language newspapers - which cheer-lead the genocide of Rohingya and whip up Islamophobia among the Buddhist majority - run slanderous Burmese language articles on the front pages, declaring me "national traitor" and "enemy of the state" while the military was engaged in ethnic cleansing of Rohingyas in the fall of 2017.

Because of my uncompromising activism against my own country's genocide against Rohingya muslims - I am a Buddhist, not Muslim - I have been subjected to relentless and nasty character assassination attempts and trolls on line. I did not set up this page as "ZARNI (activist)". This was set up by those whose intent was to destroy my credibility and integrity by pigeonholing me as "activist" - and nothing else. I am a writer, political commentator, scholar, grassroots organizer, human rights advocate - not simply "Rohingya campaigner".

This article published in N. America's reputable TRICYCLE touched on the issue of slanderous, below-the-belt attacks on me as a human rights activist.

https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/voices-inside-rohingya-refugee-camps/

I would like to permanently removed that nasty clause from the Wiki entry. Thanking you in advance.

Sincerely,

Maung Zarni

UK: <redacted> & <redacted> M zarni (talk) 09:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume this is relation to the Zarni (activist) article. I have removed the unreferenced plagiarism statement from the article. For future reference the articles' talk page is probably the best place to make these requests. Greyjoy ^talk 09:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Done Danski454 (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Acceptable source question

Hi all. Do we find academia.edu to be an acceptable source for citations in biographies of living persons? My gut says it's way too close to self-published but I'm occasionally wrong. Please ping me if you respond as I will not be following this page. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you give a link? Google scholar is one of the best publicly accessible source for citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC).

Google Scholar is not a source of anything, it's a search engine. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC on AfD's about recently dead BLP subjects

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § RFC on AfD's about recently dead BLP subjects

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Heavy SNOW despite the ongoing heat waves. — JFG ^talk 08:59, 30 July 2018 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

Should WP:BLP and WP:CSD be changed in such a manner?

1. Add a clause in WP:BLP deferring the AfD nominations for pages already older than 90 days for at least another 90 days after their deaths. This rule would only apply to pages that have remained in the main space for the aforementioned period, in effect establishing that editors have been accorded ample time to nominate the article before the person's death.
2. Create a WP:CSD category for recently created pages on non-notable subjects that recently died. All other articles on possibly notable subjects can be moved to draft space and required to be fully realized before publication. Perhaps even require submission to WP:AFC.

This RfC was created here, because it is related to admin behaviour, involves at least two separate policies, and this is a highly trafficked discussion page.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC) Then moved here.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:11, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support as OP to both #1 and #2 per my explanation in the closed discussion WP:AN above. A deletion tag on a BLP who has not even been buried is insensitive to the real world. Human dignity, as codified in the April 2009 Wikimedia Board of Trustees resolution is a basic tenet underlying our policies on the biographies of living people. However, I have changed my thinking on this after seeing the comment there by Ad Orientem; they are correct in that pages created in a sensationalized manner are also an issue. I am also guilty of this myself. Which is why I proposed the counter clause in the criterion for speedy deletion to prevent those cases as well, and not give editors free rein to create such pages unchecked.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Absolutely not to both. I find the whole notion of a separate deletion process for the recently deceased utterly baffling, and I assure you that in the vanishingly unlikely event this proposal is accepted, you won't find a single admin willing to enforce it. Yes, articles are disproportionately likely to be nominated for deletion when there's a significant change to the topic (in this case, the subject's death), as those are the occasions on which articles are edited more heavily than usual and consequently when they appear in the recent changes feed and come to the attention of uninvolved editors. That's Wikipedia's processes working correctly, not a bug that needs fixing. I find the argument you've made elsewhere, that an AfD notice on a biography is somehow an insult to the article subject, utterly spurious—quite aside from the fact that the person is considerably more likely to take offence if they're alive to read the article, and that consequently your argument would be an argument for a moratorium on the deletion of BLPs altogether—this argument would also mean we couldn't delete an article on any incident in which someone was killed or badly injured. Incidentally, I think, you're seriously missing the point of the WMF resolution you're linking above. What they meant by Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information, especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest is that they were concerned we weren't deleting biographies as often as they felt we should.) ‑ Iridescent 2 22:26, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I have never said it was an insult to the subject. It is insensitive to the psychological effect on their families in a mentally fragile time in their lives. It does more harm than good. The subject is dead. They have no opinion on the matter. Their families, on the other hand, is a different subject. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

And to your comment about the Board of Trustees, if what you say is true, why did they add the caveat "or removing information". --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:43, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're trying to convince people that the WMF resolution means the opposite of what it said, you're on the wrong page, since most participants in this discussion were there for the events which led to it and know exactly why that particular language was used. It was in response to multiple complaints from relatively marginal figures (and one relatively marginal figure in particular) that biographies were being created without their consent and consequently affecting their right to private life, and also to a case regarding a high-profile acquaintance of Jimmy Wales who felt that Wikipedia's biography of her was biased and gave undue weight to a particular incident. The resolution was intended to make it clear that with regards to biographies, we shouldn't be creating articles (or adding material to existing articles) without a justifiable reason to do so, and as a default position we should be removing anything questionable unless a case could be made for retaining it. ‑ Iridescent 2 08:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Iridescent, who as usual, makes the points on these sort of things better than I possibly could. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent. If AFD's are considered an insult that could apply to the living every bit as much as to the recently deceased (or long deceased for that matter) in which case WP:NOTCENSORED is relevant. MarnetteD|Talk 22:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposal is clearly being made in good faith, but there is not the slightest chance of this passing. I would encourage the OP to withdraw this before things get ugly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, open to abuse and excessive process to boot. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think that the potential "insult" to those connected to the deceased subjects are really any concern of ours. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - With some sympathy, but really this is the end result of having biographies on non-notable people. The fix for which is... deleting them earlier. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I'd consider up to a 14-day moratorium on AfDs of recently-deceased people, for the practical reason that reliable secondary sources about people's lives is often published in the immediate aftermath of their death. AfDs that need to discuss sources published during the AfD are generally unproductive. There is no deadline, and I'm sure we can find a way to have Twinkle tag the pages "for future AfD". 90 days is far too long to wait, and a CSD criterion definitely isn't called for. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. My argument has been that if the AFD is worth it, it will still be worthy after a while. It can keep. There is nothing stopping us from using WP:A7 for the clear cases.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 00:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I appreciate the kind-hearted intentions of the OP, but I don't think these suggestions are feasible. Lepricavark (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, with respect, for reason above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:35, 30 July 2018 (UTC).
• Oppose per all of the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Iridescent. BethNaught (talk) 08:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per all of the above. I wonder if a WP:SNOW close may be justified? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:25, 30 July 2018 (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.

The conflict between deadnaming and ABOUTSELF, versus VERIFIABILTY and previous RfCs

Over at WT:MOS, Yndajas has raised an off-topic thread about deadnaming of the transgendered. Said party has been pointed to this page about 5 times but continues re-discuss the matter on a page where the issue is not going to be resolved, so I'm opening this discussion for them. (I suppose WT:V or WP:VPPRO could also have worked, but this seemed the most narrowly tailored policy-not-guideline talk page).

The gist (with various drama elided):

• City of York Council election, 2015 includes lists of (non-notable) candidates.
• One of these is User:Yndajas under their prior name. There is no article about this person (and likely won't be).
• Yndajas wants this name removed from the 2015 article and replaced with Ynda Jas, their current name, but not the name used in the election or in sources about it.
• Yndajas suggested [1] that the table heading "Candidate" was a label of identity of the candidates in the present tense, while "Name on the ballot" would just be historical information.
• So, the table heading was changed (though this makes it inconsistent with other such articles); Yndajas returned to the claim that it's still deadnaming. Cf. WP:ONEHANDGIVES.
• WP:ABOUTSELF policy clearly would permit us to change references to this person's old name to the new one, for present-tense material (e.g., if the subject had their own article, or was in the news again for something post-namechange).
• Three back-to-back community RfCs at Village Pump concluded against the idea of changing names in historical material (e.g. Athletics at the 1976 Summer Olympics will continue to say "Bruce Jenner" not "Kaitlyn Jenner"):
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 120#Clarifying/updating WP:BIRTHNAME with respect to MOS:IDENTITY
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive_121#MOS:IDENTITY clarification
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 123#Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY in articles about transgender individuals
• Yndajas nevertheless proposes that the ABOUTSELF principle should be permitted to apply to the historical context, and has supplied self-published proof [2] by Ynda Jas (who presumably really is User:Yndajas – we have no basis for doubt) that they use that name exclusively not the old name; it's clear that Yndajas is offended by use of the old name's use here.
  • However, because the subject is non-notable and just mentioned in passing on WP in one list article, with no further context, there really is no way to tie that back-then name to Ynda Jas today. I.e., Yndajas is basically self-deadnaming by pursuing this debate, which seems a bit WP:POINTy and casts doubt on the emotional-harm claims made by this party (as does their continued maintenance of a website that uses the old name; see below).
• A consequence of making a BLP rule that ABOUTSELF can be retroactively applied is that we would end up with a verifiability problem:
  • If the election list article says "Ynda Jas" this will not be findable in any sources cited for that article and that information in it.
  • This could be resolved-ish with a footnote explaining that Ynda Jas as listed in our article corresponds to whatever name is found in the source. But this is likely to simply be claimed again to be deadnaming, just less obvoius deadnaming.
  • Idea: Maybe WP:OTRS could accept e-mailed proof of a claim (they way it handles proof of copyright permission for images, etc.), but then suppress it from public, non-admin view in the actual article. I don't know if that's ever been suggested before.

I see no obvious way to resolve this, but I do know that WT:MOS can't make up a new change to sourcing policy for bios of living people; it's the wrong venue no matter what the potential outcomes of such a debate might be.

PS: The deadname was incidentally mentioned in the WT:MOS thread in a (good faith) post of the subject's website as evidence [3] (turned out to be their old website [4]); it has the deadname as its domain name. This might need to be WP:OVERSIGHTed, though I already redacted the link, so it's only available in the old diff.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:09, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

They are not notable. That means that Wikipedia neither cares about nor documents their life events. It is a straight up BLP violation for us to discuss the personal life of a non-notable person mentioned in passing in one of our articles. It is arguably promotional for them to be pushing for this since a major effect of changing the name in the list is to link their new name with their candidacy on Wikipedia resulting in SEO for the new name.

While Wikipedia articles should be written with sensitivity towards living people is also must be written with sensitivity to the factual historic record i.e we do not change history because someone is offended by it. If there were an article about this person it would be appropriate to add a 'changed name to' comment linking to their article (to note why we are linking to a differently named article) because the name change would be part of the record along with their continuing notability. I regret that this person is caused distress by their previous name being listed but evidently all material related to this election everywhere uses the prior name as should we. Jbh ^Talk 18:13, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks SMcCandlish for bringing this here and summarising the issue. I had not yet done so as this as the situation is causing me significant anxiety and distress, and navigating this side of Wikipedia is not something I'm an expert in so I really didn't have the energy to do it yet. As I said elsewhere, I continued to respond on the other thread by responding directly to the resistance I was facing, not for the sake of repititiont (and with no drama intended, only reasonable argumentation).

I hope you don't continue to class this as bickering, drama or whatever else, but I'll continue to respond to points raised with no drama intended.

First, a tip: "transgendered" is an outdated and offensive term. "Transgender" and "trans" are much better.

If anything, this sounds like drama (or attempting to cause it) to me: "no article about this person (and likely won't be)" (perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but it sounds like "you'll never be noteworthy", which doesn't bother me but feels like an unnecessary jibe)

I didn't suggest it would be okay to use "Name on the ballot" and then continue to deadname me, I simply said the historical accuracy argument that seems very common on this issue would be more valid/appropriate if it said something like that. You changed it to be non-standard and now it is historically accurate - I accept that - but the issue remains.

I can't see where it says that WP:ABOUTSELF guidance is limited to present tense references - perhaps I'm missing something?

I'm not self-deadnaming beyond providing a link to my old website for the purpose of evidence - you'll note that I've consistently referred to my deadname as "deadname" or "[deadname]". Further, my old website is not maintained - it's live but not maintained (maintained in my understanding meaning continuing to be updated as per usual). As I've stated elsewhere, I'm in the process of shifting to my new website and the old will redirect once the new is finished and then disappear when domain name registration and hosting expire. I've slowly been updating links to my old website to link to my new website. It is being phased out. Does this cast away your doubt of my claims of emotional harm, or at least address this specific point of evidence for such a claim?

I already gave permission at least twice to have a footnote stating that the name on the ballot was different, and I will accept this as a solution in my case (but argue this is not appropriate for many trans people less privileged than me). It's not ideal, but it's better and less invalidating than being deadnamed in the main body of the article.

As I've said, I'm happy to provide evidence of thr name change if it helps resolve this issue.

Jbh - I've argued elsewhere that using notability as a criteria for not deadnaming trans people creates a two-class system where you must earn your right not to be deadnamed. Surely not a fair and ethical approach?

I'm not asking for my personal life to be discussed, simply that my name on the page reflects who I am rather than an old label.

This is absolutely not for promotional or SEO reasons - this feels like an unfounded mischaracterisation of me/my motives. I've been fairly clear on why I don't want my deadname holding a prominent place on Wikipedia, and I don't care about (or even have much awareness of) any SEO implications. The issue is more the other way around - if people go to my website and read that I stood for election and then research it, they might find the old name. I don't want that. The footnote solution would at least reduce the risk. I'm not interested in people researching and finding my website from Wikipedia, and highly doubt that would have a significant effect - how many people are going to read the page and search for an unelected candidate?

As I've argued elsewhere, it is historically accurate to say Ynda Jas was the candidate - Ynda Jas is the person who ran. It's less accurate to say [deadname] ran. Yes, it is accurate to say [deadname] was the name on the ballot, but this is an unnecessary use of non-standard practice when other solutions are possible. Sticking to records when there is good evidence of a change and when it causes undue harm is not good, ethical practice. Yndajas (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

MOS:GENDERID, under the subheading Referring to the person in other articles, advises: "Generally, do not go into detail over changes in name or gender presentation unless they are relevant to the passage in which the person is mentioned. Use context to determine which name or names to provide on a case-by-case basis." User:Yndajas is mentioned once under her former name at City of York Council election, 2015, with no individual description apart from party, and number and percentage of votes. This context suggests the candidate's subsequent name change is not relevant to that page, and need not be substituted. KalHolmann (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

• I regret that having your previous name in the article in question is causing you distress. The issue though is that you were a candidate under that name not your current name. That is how it is recorded in contemporaneous sources and that is the name our readers would be looking for when they read the article. Changing it would require we explain to our readers why it was changed and our BLP policy would require we document both the change and why it is relevant to the article.

The reason notability comes into the equation is rather simple. Wikipedia's content policies say that we do not write things about non-notable people which are not documented in reliable sources as being directly relevant to the subject of the article the person is mentioned in. This protects people who are not subjects of WP biographies from having their lives opened to documentation simply because they were mentioned in an article and keeps articles from becoming coat-racks and/or attack pages. Because of this we would be violating both our BLP and Notability policies to shoe-horn a discussion of your transition and name change into an article wherein neither have any relevance to the subject. Should you ever have an article, we would be able to put a note in which links to your article where it would be appropriate to discuss your life.

The cruel fact is that if a person is not notable then our policies say we do not update our readers on them - we do not mention their marriage, death or anything that occurs with them outside of the scope of the article where they are mentioned. WP:BLP is binary in this: Notable we can discuss the details of their life; Non-notable we may only discuss them within the context of a particular article. There is no 'carve-out' for people who transition and change their name or for any other kind of identity affirmation nor do we get into existential issues like name v. identity. Such issues are intensely personal and matter a great deal to the individual but, unless the subject of commentary in reliable sources (Which would usually mean the person is wiki-notable with a biography where such could be appropriately addressed.), they are not encyclopedic. Jbh ^Talk 03:24, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

But policies that are harmful surely need reconsideration? Even if you have a standard ruling (which I argue can be harmful), could there not be a process by which an individual can request an exceptional change to information about them? I read in the LGBT guidelines about the principle of doing no harm - well this is doing harm, so either the policy needs changing or there needs to be some nuance/guidance on exceptional circumstances. Also, as I've said, I'm not asking for my personal life to be discussed in any detail - I'm allowing it in a very limited way (e.g. "name on ballot was [deadname], but has since been changed by deed poll") in my case if that's the only way my current identity can be respected to your and other's satisfaction. That's all it needs, and surely the MoS's suggestion to use context to decide which name to use can be interpreted to include using a current name out of respect and to avoid doing harm, especially when requested by the individual? A one-size-fits-all solution isn't always helpful, and the MoS itself seems to recognise that. I don't think context should just be taken to mean historical context/what was used at the time.

Also, just to be clear, my pronouns are they/them/their etc (I saw she used a couple times). Yndajas (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe I, and several others, have clearly explained Wikipedia's policies on this and the reasons behind them i.e. you have made your request and repeatedly received an answer. That answer and the policies behind it are not going to change just because the result is not what you desire. I understand this is very important to you but the community has discussed this issue, both in general and specific cases, several times and has come to a consensus not to do what you ask (see MOS:GENDERID). I really do not believe that you continuing to press here for a special exception will be productive. I suppose you could open an RFC at Village Pump Policy but I suspect the answer there would be the same you have received elsewhere. It would also very likely contribute mightily to a Streisand effect. Jbh ^Talk 15:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

To respect trans people, when we write about them once they identify as trans and begin to transition, we write about them using their preferred name. This is very common in the library world, when we replace the dead name of an author in authority records with their preferred name so that every catalog record about a book or article they had written will be retrievable using their preferred name.

While it is true that Wikipedia cannot control the artifacts out in the world which have the dead name of a person, we can be respectful and change dead names to preferred names for living persons--especially if they personally request such a change.

RachelWex (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

But with authors, we generally use the published names - if that changes over time, then we go with that. The issue here is that there is no published form of the new name. StAnselm (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

What counts as published? My new name is online in various places and in print (for a publication) in at least one. Yndajas (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for your distress. We assume you are who you say you are but we cannot be certain, and we cannot use what you say as a Wikipedia User in the article. It may be that further groundwork discussion has to happen through WP:OTRS because we are presumably talking about a living person, there are a chain of facts that need WP:RS, and we assume but cannot know that is you. Just be aware, you may ultimately have an outcome tying both names more closely and prominently together. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jbhunley: I hadn't even considered the SEO angle, nor the idea that even engaging in a discussion like this might raise BLP policy problems. I have tried to avoid (and encourage others to avoid, and redact as necessary) any discussion of the deadname that actually identifies it. My point in raising it here was to put it in the proper venue; if this venue wants to just hat this matter, I have no objections. This isn't exactly my haunt, and I'm not sure what is perennial rehash on this page.

@Yndajas: Re "bickering, drama": that was in reference to the ad hominem and other unconstructive material I collapse-boxed in the original thread. I'm not implying that the entire discussion is bickering and drama, or I would not have bothered bringing it here. About '"transgendered" is an outdated and offensive term', The GLAAD Media Reference Guide doesn't agree, and simply suggests it's a redundant construction and inconsistent with other terms; I don't see much out there about it being "offensive" other than material written by TG language-reform activists. I'll avoid the term on the basis of redundancy. Your old site is maintained, because it's live and that's not free. It's not like a wicked gang of thugs is forcing you to have that site up and running. If you cared as much about deadnaming in the real world as you seem to here, you would have taken that site down a long time ago. So why are you "activisting" about deadnaming on Wikipedia? It smacks of WP:POINT. And linking or referring to it is deadnaming yourself, since the entire domain name consists of nothing but that deadname with a .co extension. You're free to do that all you want, but in my view it torpedoes your argument here. "There is no article about this person (and likely won't be)" is not drama, it's an observation that we have zero evidence you are even potentially WP:Notable for anything other than having run for local office a few years ago. Approx. 99.9884% of living persons are not notable, minus some percentage of bios we definitely need to have but don't have yet (we have about 870,000 BLPs, and the world population is about 7.5 bil ±100 mil), Ergo, saying you likely will not be notable isn't an insult, it a statistical near-certainty. You are clearly searching for ways to find offense in everything people say when you aren't getting what you want, and that won't fly here. I'll let others address the rest of this; I brought you to this page for that reason – others who spend more time on BLP matters are much better able to address ideas like "using notability as a criteria for not deadnaming trans people creates a two-class system where you must earn your right not to be deadnamed", and other more substantive statements than the trivia I've responded to.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: ooppss... I did not mean to imply that discussing the matter here was a BLP violation. It seems my telepathy failed when I wrote "It is a straight up BLP violation for us to discuss the personal life of a non-notable person mentioned in passing in one of our articles" What I intended is it would be a BLP violation if we were to go into details of a person's life in an article where those details are outside of the scope of that article e.g. discussing a candidate's gender identity in an article concerned only about election results. I am pretty convinced that this is not a case of someone trying to backdoor "unsourced or poorly sourced controversial information" into a BLP out of malice and that they are who they say they are but what they want to do probably sets a record for the number of PaGs violated by a single good faith edit request. Jbh ^Talk 02:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

BIO1E vs. BLP1E

Right now the BLP1E section of this page says, not-very-clearly:

The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. It is important for editors to understand two clear differentiations of the People notable for only one event guideline (WP:BIO1E) when compared with this policy (WP:BLP1E): WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals.

Does that mean biographies of all low-profile individuals, living AND dead?? That means that the "1 EVENT" rule is enough to torpedo all BLPs, and biographies of (dead) low profile individuals (WP:LPI). Or just living low-profile individuals? But this implies it is NOT enough to torpedo BIOs of dead people who sought the lime-light and had no problem with self-promotion. For example, what about a BIO for the world's shortest man (a Tom Thumb) if he gave newspaper interviews and accepted awards? All else in his fame in the fruit of his being short (1 event). Perhaps this rule doesn't work on BIOs of 1E (dead) people even if they do NOT self promote, as we don't care about the privacy of dead people as much? If that is really true, then there should be a mirror-image guideline under WP:BIO for self-promoting 1E DEAD PEOPLE (like Tom Thumb) and even for really-short dead people who never joined the circus, and were shy. In fact, if WP really intends the notability rules to change when a person dies, it should very clearly (somewhere) spell out how. It doesn't. I cannot logically infer it, as the language is not clear. We need a clear "WP:BDP" (biography dead people) policy. SBHarris 09:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

One event is usually taken to be one actual event, and not a characteristic (eg being the shortest living person). That is, we're looking at the idea of 15 minutes of fame-type people, where after those proverbial 15 minutes, they are/were nobodies again, particularly if they were nobodies before the event. 1E is a combination of both privacy and looking at the bigger picture related to notability, as when it comes to notability, we want more than a burst of coverage (what one gets with a singular event) and instead more enduring coverage. --Masem (t) 13:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand that. I want to know if there is any difference in the application of this in BLP for living people, vs. BIO for dead ones, as the lines from the policy above suggest there IS. What do the bolded lines above MEAN?? See my example. What about an BIO article for the oldest woman ever Jeanne Calment, if she is already dead. Or the tallest man ever. Etc. SBHarris 21:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The principle difference in the actual applicaon of BLP1E and BIO1E in that we should be more cautious in the case of a living person, and err on the side of caution to not include since we could affect their privacy. We still want to be cautious for someone who has died to report neutrally on them, but we're far less worried about privacy at that point. --Masem (t) 21:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• Whether people are dead or not is mostly irrelevant to this issue. The main point of the one event (1E) issue is that, if you have a notable event, then the many people who may have been caught up in it are not thereby separately notable. For example, a disaster such as the sinking of the Titanic involved many people but only those who were especially central or distinctive will tend to have articles – people such as the designer, captain or special survivors. It doesn't mean that people with only one claim to fame are therefore not notable. Many people are only famous for one thing and we have articles about many thousands of them. This is not a problem. The main problem is that people continually misunderstand this and so make facile attempts to delete notable subjects. Tsk. Andrew D. (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but you have NOT explained the quote above. It says: WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people, or those who have recently died, and to biographies of low-profile individuals And it also says that WP:BIO1E, which it differentiates from WP:BLP1E, IS different. Okay, how? If being dead is irrelevant, as you claim, them BLP1E = BIO1E, end of story and off. The quote takes pains to say that isn't so. SBHarris 08:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)