Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

quick question about photos

If the subject of a BLP (allegedly or provably) simply objects to having any imagery of themselves on the English Wikipedia, is that covered (a) here and I missed it, or (b) elsewhere to which I could be pointed? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 22:10, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I ask because of the discussion at Talk:Sarah Kendzior#Image. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

I would think that for a low profile person even where a free photo has been taken in a public place with no expectation of privacy, that if that individual validates their intent (Like through a ticket) that no photo be had we should respect that. Masem (t) 19:04, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Two follow-ups: (a) Ckoerner (talk · contribs) suggests they're acquainted with the subject and is happy to ask her to email VRTS; should we have them do so, do you think? (b) If this is SOP, should it be explained or codified on the policy page? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 09:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

A swift google suggests that there are hundreds or thousands of photographs of this individual online, many of which superficially appear to be professionally taken. The objection seems to be specifically to images on Wikipedia, but it's not clear whether that's because they don't like the public domain images available or whether they have a specific objection to Wikipedia. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

At the article talk page, Ckoerner said, The subject of the article has made it clear that she does not wish for any frames from [a CC-licensed YouTube video] to be used. In fact, as a writer, she said she wishes there was no photo of her on Wikipedia. That's all I know. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 09:58, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Improving the wording of BLPCRIME

This RfC proposes improving the wording of the existing WP:BLPCRIME policy. The intent is not to change the policy or principles. The goal is to make the guidance clearer and easier to apply. Below is the current wording followed by the proposed revision.

Current version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, include sufficient explanatory information.

Proposed version

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations, arrests, and charges do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of committing a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other, sufficient explanatory information should be included.

When deciding whether to name a living or recently deceased person in connection with a crime, editors should assess the stage of proceedings as a spectrum: person of interest < arrested < charged < on trial < convicted. The earlier the stage, the higher the threshold for inclusion. Names should rarely be included for persons of interest. For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply. For intermediate stages, editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status.

Please comment below. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Support

• Support as proposer – This revision does not change the intent or principles of WP:BLPCRIME, but it clarifies how the policy is applied in practice. The proposed guidance would be helpful in resolving future content disputes. The existing language has been repeatedly misinterpreted, often resulting in inconsistent enforcement. This update improves clarity while preserving the core protections of WP:BLP. Thanks! - Nemov (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support as proposed per Nemov and my comments at #Making BLPCRIME clearer and more consistent. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Support - I'm in favor of strengthening BLPCRIME, and I have to admit I don't really understand why anyone would oppose it. Currently, BLPCRIME simply requires that editors "seriously consider" omitting info that someone has been accused of committing a crime, but it doesn't say anything at all about how to seriously consider that, or what factors to consider, or when to exclude info, or what info to exclude, or anything. BLPCRIME doesn't actually require omitting anything under any circumstance. The end result, as we've just seen at Killing of Austin Metcalf, is "no consensus," because there is no guidance about when to include and when to exclude.

  I don't understand how anyone can think that a lack of guidance can somehow provide stronger protection than having guidance--I think it's the opposite. The proposed expansion is an improvement over the status quo because it provides some guidance where there is currently none, and in doing so, makes it at least somewhat easier for everyone to know when to include and when to exclude, and that in turn protects living people and strengthens BLP policy. Levivich (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• Weak support. I agree with the idea of a spectrum and it does seem that clarification is needed. I do not like the part that implies convicted criminals should always be named. I am also concerned, like many opposers, that this will lower the bar for including names (though I admit I am not experienced in this category of discussion). And from a formatting standpoint, the < list is ugly. Toadspike [Talk] 10:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose on principle, as this doesn't feel like the claimed simple clarification, but a change to policy, changing e.g. the "convicted / not convicted" difference we had into a more gradual scale, which will only lead to more discussion and more calls for inclusions of the names of accused. Fram (talk) 15:52, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, agree with Fram, the practical effect would be to more easily allow the names of people who should be protected by BLP to be named. A person who is arrested and charged (the two go hand in hand in many jurisdictions) is halfway along the spectrum, and this by itself may generate !votes for inclusion of the suspect's name. I see this as a change in policy, and a diminution of BLP protection. Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2025
• Oppose I don't think we should think of diminishing the impact of privacy for an individual based on how close they are to being formally convicted. We need more editors to ask if we really need to include names just because they were reported, and instead think in broader terms of if those names even matter in a ten year view of the situation. WP editors are far too eager to include negative news while forgoing encyclopedic principles, and this would further encourage this. Masem (t) 17:15, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per the above, while the proposal does attempt to clarify how we could potentially handle edge cases, it also leaves the matter largely open for discussion, leaving a lot of ambiguity - "rarely", "generally", "exceptional circumstances" (that last one made me laugh. Damn near everything ends up being an exception, especially when you bake them into policy), in addition to the above concerns that this change will result in more attempts to name individuals whom we otherwise would not, it also does not deliver the clarity it promises and in my eyes would likely not result in a reduction in debates over how the policy should be implemented.ASUKITE 18:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with editor Masem above. If it is really true that many in the WP populous have been interpreting and implementing this BoLP policy in this manner, then we need to re-educate that populous on why this policy was formed to begin with. Adding this sliding scale to our long-held standard of convicted or not convicted policy would seem to make it easier to allow names to drip into prose. Our policy was specifically made to create a wall of protection for living persons in our biography articles and this proposed change feels more like opening a window in that wall to allow some bad air inside. I'm not convinced that's the direction we should be aspiring towards. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Innocent until proven guilty is not a spectrum. I would support a change to the wording to explicitly discourage adding information about alleged crimes by non-public figures. The current wording just says to seriously consider not adding such material, but does not provide guidance about what the outcome of that consideration should be.--Trystan (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  This makes a lot of sense. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Edge cases will always exist, whereever a line is drawn. I agree with Trystan, we should "explicitly discourage adding information about alleged crimes by non-public figures." --Enos733 (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I could at least see arguments that we should add such considerations as amount of coverage or whether the individual confessed (I wouldn't agree, but I'd understand), but as the point is that a person is not convicted until their convicted, and all these other steps are just the state making their assertions, this is a false spectrum. It is not a reflection of the guideline as it stands. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Although it seems like decent guidance, and perhaps this policy is in need of greater clarification, I don't think inclusion of a scale like this is particularly helpful, and parts of the guidance could lead to issues. Eg. It could lead to inappropriately including alleged crimes for non-public figures (if they are higher on the scale), and "Names should rarely be included for persons of interest" could lead to inappropriately excluding content relating to people with particularly high profiles (eg. politicians). --Tristario (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This is going the opposite direction from what Wikipedia should be doing. Like it or not we are a very widely read website, and as the rest of the internet collapses into a gray sludge of AI glurge this is unlikely to change. But we're also not a news site nor are we a crime blotter. We should have far fewer articles about contemporary crimes than we have. "Ripped from the headlines" could easily be respelled "inappropriate for Wikipedia." We should not be posting the names of non-public people nor even of those who are vaguely public people in connection to crimes for which they have not been committed. Doing so is harmful to the innocent and is taking Wikipedia away from is mission of being an encyclopedia. However this sliding-scale of acceptability will to the opposite and would make it easier to name the innocent. The carryover effect is that it will make it easier to use Wikipedia as a true-crime repository, which is unencyclopedic and off-mission. Simonm223 (talk) 17:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Contrary to the preface to the RFC (which I've asked Nemov to remove below), this proposal is not consistent with the intent or principles of WP:BLPCRIME. The intent of BLPCRIME is that we should generally not include the name of an average joe accused of a crime in an article. This proposal would invert that, presumptively favoring inclusion of the name so long as a person has been arrested and charged. I also agree with @Wehwalt, @Masem, @Trystan, and @Simonm223. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm not entirely sure whether this would increase of decrease the effective level of protection afforded by policy... I suspect it might do both depending on the context. I oppose this because don't feel that it is an improvement on what we have now, it just feels like more words for the sake of being more words. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. The added language makes the policy more confusing. And it makes "person of interest", "arrested", "charged", "on trial" a prominent part of WP:BLPCRIME, but that's not generally a major factor in deciding whether material about an alleged crime should be included. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:52, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  This part of the policy is not relevant to determining whether material about a crime (whether alleged or otherwise) should be included. It is solely about whether to include the name of a living person associated with an (alleged) criminal act that is DUE for inclusion. If the (alleged) crime is not DUE for inclusion then this whole section is irrelevant because we obviously don't include the name of someone suspected/accused/charged/convicted of a crime that we have no coverage of. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'll clarify my position, since I appear to have caused misunderstanding about it: In deciding whether to name a particular person, the scale of "person of interest", "arrested", "charged", "on trial" doesn't and shouldn't have the major role that the proposed language prominently gives it. (My earlier use of the word "material" is not a reference to a binary choice between describing an alleged crime at all or excluding all coverage completely. Editorial choices about any portion or aspect of information are choices about material. The name of a suspect is one kind of material.) I oppose the proposed policy language which overall is more confusing than helpful. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: The policy might benefit from revision, but this revision doesn't seem helpful. It adds length and detail but in a way that doesn't help significantly. One problem is that it seems to further entrench the idea of deferring to court-declared conclusions and the steps of the digestion process of the relevant law enforcement system – regardless of which government is involved. In some places, the government and its court system is a relatively trustworthy source of information and conclusions, and in other places it is not. The "person of interest" term is another sign of centrism to certain jurisdictions – it is a vague neologism that has no legal meaning and no clarity and is not used in most countries. As stated in the article on the subject, "While terms such as suspect, target, and material witness have clear and sometimes formal definitions, person of interest remains undefined by the U.S. Department of Justice." It's also basically undefined by anyone else. The suggestion goes into greater detail without fundamentally helping, and some of the extra detail is too obvious to bother with. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - first, seems like a typo where this lost the existing guidance wording at "convicted for that crime." to just "convicted." and it seems important to keep it specific that the conviction must be for the crime being mentioned. Second, the added content goes against showing restraint by doing things calmly, slowly, and modestly. I disapprove of chasing whatever this mornings feed has as story du jour, and consideration of stages "person of interest" or "arrested" when there will not even be a specification yet all seems to be chasing events and sensationalism. It also seems WP:CRYSTALBALL speculating that they are the criminal and of what crime, since until there are actual charges, it will not even be clear what - if any - specific crime is in question, so such an edit should also fail WP:V. Even after a conviction I would say give it 48 hours (I think somewhere I saw guidance for 72) because breaking news will not have had time to accumulate WP:WEIGHT or comprehensive content. At most, I would consider it appropriate to say that public figure charges or trials may be mentioned *after* they were dismissed, if and only if there is V support that the event made a major impact on their career. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. First, I'm not sure I agree that there's an underlying problem to solve here, at least on the "rewrite policy" level; there is sometimes disagreement, especially around edge-cases, but that's appropriate and trying to thoroughly settle every possible case by fiat is a mistake. Part of the reason why hard cases make bad law is because edge-cases (like the one that prompted this proposal) need to be handled on a case-by-case basis - it's the sort of thing best handled with a light touch by essays, not by trying to immediately rewrite policy. Second, I'll point out that the basic summary of this RFC is misleading to the point of being non-neutral - it says that the intent is not to change the policy or principles, but the only change being proposed here essentially invents a totally new "spectrum" policy for inclusion that was not even hinted at previously. Beyond that, though, as far as the actual proposal itself goes, this is moving in the wrong direction. If we were going to tweak this policy, then inclusion or exclusion should largely be decided by three things - first, how the sources cover the topic; second, the encyclopedic value the name has; and third, the risk of harm to the individual being named. The first two are inherent in our basic editorial process, and balancing them against the final point is core to BLP. The stage of proceedings they're in shouldn't factor into it, at least not directly - that's just a bad thing to use even as a guideline, since it's disconnected from both our core editorial principles and the principles behind BLP. Everything short of a conviction is up to prosecutorial discretion; in most cases, there's no actual meaning or significance to proceeding through the process until the point where an actual conviction is obtained. If we're going to set thresholds, they should be based on coverage, not on how determined the prosecutors are to bring something to trial. --Aquillion (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Let the sources handle it. If it can be sourced to a WP:RS and the information has been widely disseminated among them, include it .. if not then dont. MasterBlasterofBarterTown (talk) 15:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Extending more protection to persons of interest contradicts the first paragraph and WP:PUBLICFIGURE, is a substantial change and in my opinion quite wrong. HourWatch (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose in its current wording. I'm actually open to the idea of improving the clarity of the policy based on the hairy RfC surrounding the Killing of Austin Metcalf. That being said, one of the difficulties in that RfC was some editors' interpretation of the policy in opposition to others', specifically Nemov, but really most editors who were in favor of inclusion, seeing their own interpretation of the policy as correct and those who opposed as "misunderstanding the policy." That skewed perception persists here in Nemov's presentation that this proposal doesn't change the policy. It does change the policy. It narrows the interpretation to align with an inclusion perspective. And I believe it goes a bit too far. Or, rather, too far into the weeds.

However, I also see that there is too much grey area in the existing wording. I particularly liked Nemov's choice, "Editors must carefully weigh factors such as the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status." I'm on board with this addition. The caveat to "weigh the extent and quality of reliable sourcing" covers my biggest concern, which was founded on WP:SENSATIONAL. If this had been in the policy, it may have persuaded me to !vote yes in the referenced RfC. Maybe. Overall, I'm grateful for this discussion. Well done, here, Nemov. Penguino35 (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as worded. A spectrum of increasing deference to privacy the closer a person is to the start of the legal process is obviously part of the "seriously consider[ing]" that BLPCRIME asks of us. This correlates with the person's increasing ability for defend themselves and avail themselves of the protections in the legal system, independent of any external factors. However, the proposal inappropriately makes this the primary consideration, when it reality it is just one of many factors that must be interpreted holistically and often in ways that are inversely proportional to one another. The proposal includes some factors: "...the extent and quality of reliable sourcing, whether the subject is a minor, and the person’s public status." and I would probably add factors such as the nature of the alleged crime, the person's alleged role, the person's legal position/defence, the person's media strategy, cultural stigmas associated with the alleged crime, the fairness of the jurisdiction etc. It would be helpful to have some guidance either here or in a subpage as opposed to "seriously consider" which can reasonable editors can interpret to mean literally anything.

Obviously conviction is a very important element, but going so far as to say "For convicted individuals, names are generally appropriate unless exceptional circumstances apply" is too far. Very ordinary circumstances could easily justify non-inclusion based on the other factors (e.g. a minor convicted after protesting along with thousands of others). On the other hand, in some cases the other factors might be so strong that that inclusion is justified even well in advance of conviction as is the case in many high-profile crimes.

Also, if we do expand on this, it would be helpful to also include some guidance on how to approach cases when someone is cleared/acquitted/has charges dropped, etc. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• Just a note on Fyunck(click)’s comment: stating that this proposal changes our long-held standard of convicted or not convicted policy is a good example of why clarification is needed. That phrase is neither the standard nor actual policy. However, many experienced editors continue to cite it as if it is. Both the current and proposed policies state that editors must seriously consider not including material, but that language is vague. There are many examples of articles that include the names of individuals who have not been convicted. This proposal simply explains the spectrum of consideration, rather than relying on the generic and inconsistently interpreted "seriously consider" phrasing. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  However changing it from "editors must seriously consider not including material" to treating it like a slide-rule is opening that window I talked about above. Instead of seriously considering not adding you have made it seriously considering some and lightly considering others. Even if not intended, the new wording would soften what we now have. I'd tend to go the other direction in protecting living people to heavily discourage usage except in extraordinary cases. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

  The last ten years of WP have seen an increase in how much extremely recent content that is added or created based only on short term news sources, which we need to reign in, but that's a separate duscuss. With that is that editors are compled to write to the truth but also there's an attitude that we must expose negative aspects that are reported as part of that truth (eg think about all the problems around covering American politics since 2016). Because editors are not working to distinguish good information that has encyclopedic permanence from fleeting newspaper coverage, we have been seeing editors to include names of suspects and the like against the principles of BLPCRIME. So while practice may suggest the sliding scale could be supported by practice, it's the fact the practice is wrong and needs to be refined in. Masem (t) 18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  So while practice may suggest the sliding scale could be supported by practice, it's the fact the practice is wrong and needs to be refined in. I couldn't disagree more - policy is dictated by practice, not the other way round. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  I would take BLP overall (not just BLPCRIME) as one of the few prescriptive policies, alongside NFC, due to legal issues that arise from them. The core content policies like V, NOR, and NPOV should absolutely be descriptive of practice, but when legal issues are involved, we don't want bad practice to leave us vulnerable to external issues. Masem (t) 00:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• I can see how the proposed paragraph could be useful for "Killing of [X]" / "Murder of [Y]" / "[Z] shooting" type articles, but outside of those, not really. Some1 (talk) 01:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)
• Is there a big problem with naming of suspects who shouldn't be? In general, the current text reads to me clearly and easily, and my instinct is to trust the members of our community to know what to do. Of course i'm well aware that it is not always followed, but my feeling is that it is flouted more by vandals, people with a bone to pick, a point to make, or no knowledge of our standards and, frankly, such editors aren't any more likely to do the right thing if we change to the proposed text ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:34, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  I know it may seem like this is an issue of inexperience, but in reality, it’s experienced editors who often cite BLPCRIME incorrectly. You can even see examples of that in the earlier discussion when this proposal was being developed. In a recent RfC about a high-profile killing, the alleged suspect’s name was left out of the article, even though every reliable source mentioned it. The RfC was closed as "no consensus," and several editors argued that BLPCRIME prohibited inclusion. Assuming good faith, it seems they simply misunderstood the policy. That’s exactly why clarifying the language would be helpful. Nemov (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Nemov: per WP:RFCNEUTRAL, you should remove the preface to the proposal and replace it with a neutral statement, such as: "The following change to BLPCRIME is proposed." Editors can determine for themselves whether or not this proposal is consistent with the intent or principles of BLPCRIME. Presumably they will then use those determinations to !vote accordingly. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm comfortable with the wording of the RfC. So far, none of the oppose votes have clearly explained how this proposal allegedly changes the policy. That seems to be a recurring issue with BLPCRIME, perhaps part of why it's so often misinterpreted and misapplied. Nemov (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  See my !vote. Also read RFCNEUTRAL. Starting an RfC doesn't give you license to declare that your proposal is consistent with policy. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  So in two posts, you have claimed that people in a previous discussion "misunderstood" the policy (the RfC went against your position), and in this discussion other people (again a clear majority) have not explained how your proposal "changes the policy", and that so often the current policy is "minsinterpreted and misapplied". Has it occurred to you that the policy may be clear enough to most, and that you are the one misunderstanding it, which would also explain why you don't see how your proposed text changes it? Fram (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Nah. "Seriously consider not including" doesn't mean "should not include" regardless of how many people say otherwise. Silence doesn't guide us better than guidance, no matter how many people claim otherwise. Just like in the other discussion on this page right now, saying an LP is a Nazi's grandson is a BLP violation no matter how many people (half a dozen admins!) claimed it was a content dispute. On Wikipedia, numbers don't mean anything; you can get a dozen people to support or oppose literally any position, no matter how silly, no matter how clearly wrong. Levivich (talk) 12:57, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Of course, but I’m confident in my reading comprehension, and when someone says "BLPCRIME prohibits" this or that, it’s clearly a misinterpretation of the current policy. As you noted in your vote, your opinion is that you "feel" differently. I can’t control how people feel or whether they speculate that this clarification will somehow make things worse. I’m not the only editor over the past couple of years who has voiced frustration with this policy. However, I took the time to draft a proposal and listen to feedback. If the community prefers to retain a vague and inconsistently applied policy, so be it.

  FWIW, this isn't about a recent RFC. I've been on both sides of these discussions. A clearly policy would be helpful. Nemov (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  "I feel" because I'm open to being convinced, by rational arguments, that I'm wrong in that the sliding scale, as presented, will not lead to more "we should include it because he is on trial, which is nearly a conviction, see the scale!" arguments, instead of the current "no, he isn't convicted, please leave it out" situation. Your proposal change a black-and-white situation (convicted or not) into a white-grey-nearly black-black situation, and "nearly black" will (in my opinion, hence "feel") lead to more "on trial is sufficient for inclusion" arguments. Now, you have declared quite confidently that your proposal is not a policy change, and that it is somehow clearer to have the scale than the two-situation guide we have now. It is not clear to me, nor apparently to the other opposers, why you believe this. Fram (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Your proposal change a black-and-white situation (convicted or not) into a white-grey-nearly black-black situation the current situation is not black-and-white, no matter how many people try and claim otherwise. The policy does not say that individuals who have not been convicted may not be named, nor does is say that those who are convicted must be named. Current policy, current practice and this proposed policy are all greyscale. Thryduulf (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  when someone says "BLPCRIME prohibits" this or that, it's clearly a misinterpretation of the current policy. I agree, it's annoying but I also wonder how much of an impact the misinterpretation of BLPCRIME has in discussions or RfCs. Take Talk:2022 University of Idaho killings/Archive 1 § RfC: Suspect's Name for example (which you and I both participated in). The OP cited WP:BLPCRIME as a reason to remove the name, but everyone else overwhelmingly disagreed and voted to include it. So even if editors cite BLPCRIME incorrectly, I don't believe it significantly affects the outcomes of the discussions. Some1 (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  Misinterpretation of BLPCRIME was responsible for a significant proportion of the words in the Killing of Austin Metcalf discussion. Whether it significantly impacted the outcome is probably a matter of opinion, but it unquestionably significantly impacted the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 03:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  …none of the oppose votes have clearly explained how this proposal allegedly changes the policy… BLPCRIME as drafted doesn't provide any guidance on whether or when to name non-public figures accused of crimes, so adding any such guidance is necessarily a change to the policy. The better question is what that guidance should be.--Trystan (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  I feel like this discussion is drifting from this initial concern. @Nemov, are you willing to rephrase the question presented per WP:RFCNEUTRAL? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  I thought I answered you above. Responding to a RfC doesn't give you license to declare that a proposal is inconsistent with policy. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 14:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  And starting one doesn't give you license to tip the scales by declaring up front that your proposal is consistent with policy. Have you read RFCNEUTRAL? voorts (talk/contributions) 14:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is all very silly, but I've updated the wording so the scales won't be tipped!! Nemov (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

How does WP:BLP handle adding negative details about ones ancestors?

This arose from the article Christopher Mellon. The user is trivially notable as are a number of his large extended Mellon family. Please note that this BLP subject, Christopher, was born 1957-1958.

On this edit, a user inserted the following language:

He is the grandson of Matthew Mellon and his first wife, Gertrude, a German citizen who was later naturalized American. Matthew Mellon taught American Studies at the University of Freiburg in Freiburg, Germany throughout the 1930s. According to Princeton Alumni Weekly editor Datus Smith, Matthew Mellon was a "Nazi enthusiast", though he personally disavowed being "a Nazi nor a Nazi agent". In 1934, Harvard University rejected Mellon's offer to fund a scholarship for a Harvard student "for privileges of study in the New Germany". The following year, Mellon expressed "admiration for the accomplishments of the Hitler regime" and celebrated "that Germany is again rearming". Following World War II, Mellon served on the board of trustees of Colby College.

References for same:

References

I have no concerns with the bolded sentence or the link to Matthew T. Mellon itself. Those are fine!

The issue is:

1. User:Chetsford, in order to establish Matthew T. Mellon as a Nazi enthusiast in the separate WP:BLP article about Christopher Mellon used sources from 1938, 1934, 1934 again, 1935 again, 1935 a third time, and finally 1950.
2. Christopher Mellon was not born until decades later. Not one single WP:RS within the lifespan of Christopher Mellon has any mention of his grandfather's Nazi issues. None.
3. The Nazi issues owned by Matthew T. Mellon are not related to any of the established notability, life or career of his grandson Christopher Mellon in any WP:RS.
4. Not one of the articles used to establish the grandfather as a Nazi affiliated person have anything to do with his grandson--who was not born yet.
5. Putting "Christopher Mellon" +Nazi or "Chris Mellon" +Nazi into searches turns up nothing at all.
6. In fact, I can't find a single mention to this not-Christopher Mellon family member anywhere in any of the sources I scoured to make this article.

My position is that we do not, and should not, on a WP:BLP of a living person put down substantially negative history about their ancestors, given the sourcing situation--to do so would imply that the WP:BLP in some way owns anything to do with what their grandfather did 'before he was even born. Further, it's documented and notable as a fact itself the family was wildly estranged, with the BLP subject growing up apart from the "rest" of the family, apparently. To include an entire paragraph sourced to news articles written before the WP:BLP subject was even born about how their grandfather--who has no sourcing connection to the BLP!--was a Nazi supported seems wildly inappropriate. Again: no issues linking to his ancestor. But this is akin to putting a paragraph on the WP:BLP article of anyone alive whose grandparents or great-grandparents were notable Nazis, to remind the reader that the living person had Nazi-friendly ancestry.

This is not a person where the media has covered their ancestors actions, nor have they discussed them that exists in any WP:RS. It's a black hole. All we have is pre-BLP's subjects life sources that discuss his grandfather's beliefs. This isn't like Himmler's descendants speaking out on what their ancestor did or the media covering the same. This is like researching that a random WP:BLP's ancestor had genocidal traits, and then putting a paragraph into that BLP's page about all the bad things their ancestor believed--that has nothing to do with the actual BLP subject.

This was challenged on the talk page and migrated to WP:ANI at this link, and the user then began what seems to be a RFC to include the above data on WP:MOS grounds.

Over on ANI, it was suggested this needed deeper WP:BLP scrutiny.

Short version: I believe it is wrong on WP:BLP and other policy (and ethical) grounds to put down in a WP:BLP that one's ancestors were Nazi (or affiliated as here) and to bring that up in the WP:BLP, especially when the WP:BLP subject has absolutely nothing. On the WP:ANI thread, User:Swatjester suggested this may be an overlooked hole in WP:BLP: putting very negative data about ancestors into their descendents articles, when the descendent has and had nothing at all to do with the acts and beliefs of their ancestors.

To be 100% clear: not one single source about Christopher Mellon talks about his grandfather's Nazi stuff. None.

Thoughts? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Views on this article exploded a few days ago, is there something current going on with the individual? Looks like it might need some time to cool off a bit. That said, I don't think that the mentions of their grandfathers party affiliation or the mental health of their family members are worth including. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:26, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Timeline:

1. User:Chetsford sent Christopher Mellon to AFD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Mellon
2. I remade it from scratch, it passed AfC, and is live at Christopher Mellon. Lots of people were engaged, including the AfD nominator.
3. User:Chetsford created Matthew T. Mellon today, apparently about Christopher Mellon's grandfather.
4. User:Chetsford included the new data today, and it started a bit of an avalanche of people editing.

Longer timeline data if relevant: Talk:Christopher Mellon#Article timeline, AfD and AfC: zero policy or rules based reason this should not pass. The newness or hotness doesn't matter really. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

• To be specific, since I didn't see it explicitly mentioned here - the "hole" in the policy (unless it was intentional, for some reason) is that all references to the scope of applicability of the policy explicitly references statements about *living people*. The issue arises when there is text on an article about a living person, but that text exclusively only directly mentions to a different, dead person, and where said text carries an unstated but negative implication (about the living person). The applicable text in the policy: "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." and cites to footnote B, which quotes relevant portions of the Rachel Marsden case and the Manning case. The Marsden quote says Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry." The Manning quote says "The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page.". Between these three statements (which as best as I can tell are the only ones that cover the applicability in scenarios where the article subject is not the person about whom the claim is being made) there appears to be a gap -- all three apply to statements, mentions, or references made about "living people", even if not the subject of the article. But in this case, Matthew T. Mellon is not a living person, he died in 1992. The statement in question is solely about Matthew T. Mellon and makes no reference to any other person. So what we have is a statement made *on* a BLP, that is not about a living person, but whose existence carries an unspoken implication *about* that living person. I don't think anything in the policy covers that and to be honest, I don't know if that's intentional or not. I could see why perhaps it would be -- the purpose of BLP policy is to protect living people's reputations, not dead people's. I can also see why perhaps it would not be. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  I feel like if someone was notable for say, acting, and by coincidence their father happened to be a child molester, but no sources about the actor noted this, including that their father was a child molester in the article about the actor using sources unrelated to the actor would be a BLP violation.

  Also, generally it is just poor form to use sources in an article that never mention the topic of the article PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  100% agree with Parakanyaa's analysis. I'll add that I think what Parakanyaa explains is the logical result of the application of WP:NPOV (particularly WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT), WP:OR (particularly WP:SYNTH), and WP:BLP (including WP:BLPBALANCE, "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."). Levivich (talk) 22:16, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  It would certainly be undue, and a WP:COATRACK, and all kinds of other reasons why it would be removed. But in your scenario, if the (living actor's) hypothetical father was dead, my point is that as currently written this would *not* be a BLP policy vio, because all references to scope in the policy specify statements about living people only; and per the WP:BDP section Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. If the intent is that this is a loophole that should be closed, I can propose language. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:20, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'd propose adding something like this to the WP:BDP (Recently Dead or Probably Dead) section (please wordsmith):

Although Biographies of Living Persons policy generally does not apply to people who are no longer alive, negative or contentious information about a deceased individual that reflects poorly on living persons (such as the deceased’s family members or close associates) should be handled with the same care as material about a living person. In particular, editors should avoid including details about a deceased person’s misdeeds, controversies, or other reputation-damaging facts if the primary effect is to cast a living person in a negative light by association. Such content is often guilt by association and should not be included unless it is directly relevant to the topic and supported by reliable sources that discuss its relevance to the living person. Any material about a deceased person that could imply reputational harm to an identifiable living individual must adhere to the highest standards of sourcing, neutrality, and relevance in line with Wikipedia’s core content policies (verifiability, neutral point of view, and no original research). Editors must not present facts about a deceased person in a way that insinuates unsourced negative impressions about a living person. If including such information is not clearly justified by the context and sources, it should be omitted or removed in order to prevent indirect defamation or undue harm to the living person’s reputation. When in doubt, err on the side of caution and do not include the material.

Would love to hear thoughts. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:25, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Would you care for a modification to that along the lines of, "The actual WP:BLP subject, the dead subject, and the 'misdeeds' must (hard must--not should) be covered in otherwise satisfactory WP:RS to be included in the WP:BLP"? Basically -- to merit that if you want to include something about the BLP, you still need to be able to source it about the actual BLP, not their family? Or else, the door is open to having a BLP with a notable family lineage maybe tracing back through generations of inoccuous or non-notables, until you get to great, great, great, great grandma the Famous Cannibal or something. Should my BLP, for me born in 1965, included the notorious facts about my ancestor who died in 1798 from eating too many people? Simply--unless WP:RS discuss me, the Cannibal Granny, AND her actions such as in a single article--not allowed to be included. Otherwise it's WP:OR tying me to granny's deeds. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

In general I'm open to whatever there's a consensus would be helpful. It took me a bit to come up with the above text, trying to keep it phrased in a manner that broadly matches language we use elsewhere when we're saying "hold something to a high standard" and the specifics are really found in the core content policies. I do understand your concern though about the ability to hang a negative hat on "your" bio because of Cannibal Granny, to be clear, but I think there's a more wordsmithed way to say it.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I am keenly interested in pursuing this to an eventual RfC here on updating WP:BLP. I'm more than happy to work with you and others toward that, to protect our article subjects. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that this is actually necessary. Trawling for negative content concerning a biography subject's ancestors like this is a violation of WP:NPOV policy, regardless of whether the subject is alive or dead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree 100% that the Matthew T. Mellon content is inappropriate as a direct consequence of existing policies including those listed. Any special mention of information on deceased family members should be brief and placed in the context of the rest of BLP, NPOV, UNDUE, COATRACK, etc. I understand why BLP pays special attention to negative details–and I agree with this policy–but I would think this also applies to positive biographical information. If a famous fashion model's deceased grandmother was a Nobel Prize winning scientist, it's fine to mention it but would almost always be inappropriate to include a well-referenced paragraph on grandma's life and career in the middle of the article about the model. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Person X was living person y's grandfather and a Nazi is material about a living person. Also, WP:BLPBALANCE is BLP policy. There is no hole in the policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

But Dead Person X was living person Y's grandfather. X was a Nazi as two separate factually correct and reliably sourced statements, potentially from two different editors, is not material about a living person. It's material about a dead person, which BLP policy tell us is generally not covered, in several ways. If the BLP policy itself says, effectively "this entire policy generally doesn't apply to statements about dead people", then it's not immediately clear that the portion of that policy about guilt by association is an exception that applies to statements about dead people; particularly when that portion just vaguely says "Beware" of it. This *is* a hole, even if a minor one; if it's an unintended one, it should be plugged. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Person X was dead person Y's father and a Nazi,(source 1) Y is the father of living person Z(source 2) would generally be kosher... I'm not so sure its a hole though... It doesn't guarantee inclusion, that still gets decided in context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Don't we need a source tying the two human subjects together across that intermediary "Nazi" claim, or whatever other contentious claim? If we said Bob Smith (born 1980, notable for whatever) was the descendent of Johan The Nazi, notable for whatever Nazi things, and if Bob had nothing to do with Nazis and zero WP:RS tying Bob to Johan, beyond that Bob is a great-great grandchild of Johan... why would we mention Johan being a Nazi on Bob's page? Link Johan's page -- "Bob is the descendent of Johan". But why would we put the Nazi familial tie onto Bob's page, if no WP:RS ties Bob to Nazi things or Johan being a Nazi? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Only if we want to make the claim that the living person is a Nazi. We generally give a wide license when describing dead ancestors, but what we actually say is going to be context dependent. I would note though that in cases where the notable family member is actually a Nazi and not accused of being a Nazi sympathizer we don't really have an issue with it... We would just say "His grandfather was Heinrich Himmler, a leading member of the Nazi party" or something like that... The key here is that we're one step removed from that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Any such commentary needs to show how it is relevant to the person that is the subject of the article. Simply because one's relative was a Nazi, for example, means nothing to what that person is about if that's the only thing we can say from reliable sources. On the other hand, if part of the person's life's work is to be try to make up for their parent's past behavior, that would be reason to include. Or if there is commentary from non-SPS reliable sources that tie the persons behavior to their parent's association with such as group (eg this is a situation associated with Elon Musk) even in a negative way, that's reason. But just having a RS that says that one's relative was associated with such a group, with no direct statement how that applies to the person themselves, is inappropriate. Masem (t) 00:36, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

'A perfected chronology.' I want to provide a perfected chronological narrative to the slightly dramatized sequence of events introduced above.

• The five sentences in question were added prior to the Matthew T. Mellon article being created. As we were introducing a name with no reference point, it was appropriate, for encyclopedic treatment, to provide brief biographical information about Matthew T. Mellon (not Chris) if available in RS instead of just dropping a random name out of the sky. We did the same thing in this article for the great-grandfather (establishing he was a judge) and we did the same about the father (providing details on his occupation, mental health concerns, and suicide). Instead of weirdly skipping a generation, information was provided for the grandfather too by briefly summarizing the things for which he was best known: professor, trustee at Colby College, Nazi.
• These five sentences were included in a section titled "Family" which was dedicated to discussing the members of Christopher Mellon's extended family, not Chris. Per NPOV, I couldn't suppress and conceal one of these three facts (professor, trustee, Nazi) simply because it failed to cast the Mellon family as an institutional/corporate concern in the best possible light. And, since Matthew has been dead for 40 years, BLP didn't apply -- nor would it have in any case, as we have ample RS establishing Matthew (not Chris) was a Colby trustee, a Nazi, and a professor.
• Within minutes of the content being introduced, VPP removed it. It was not reinserted as, by this point, the Matthew T. Mellon article was live and the extended description was, in my opinion, no longer necessary.
• The locus of debate then transitioned to a Talk page discussion as to whether MOS:NOFORCELINK suggest we introduce appositive descriptors when introducing notable subjects not widely known, with specific reference to Matthew. A consensus of editors disagreed. This all occurred as an orderly discussion on the Talk page that resolved itself.

The content that is the locus of three sprawling threads introduced by an editor across multiple Talk pages was (a) in the article for 24 minutes, (b) literally no on is arguing to reintroduce. Whether every extremely mild content dispute on articles involving flying saucer enthusiasts needs multiple threads on every noticeboard we can find is a separate question and one, unfortunately, I don't think is going to resolve based on the current trendline.

Chetsford (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

These five sentences were included in a section titled "Family" which was dedicated to discussing the members of Christopher Mellon's extended family, not Chris.

You, yourself, changed the section from being "Life and career" as seen in the preceding version; you, personally, on that same edit where you added all the Nazi details to Christopher Mellon also changed the section to be "Family"--framing it as a section that was dedicated to his family is false--you made it that. At this point, I think I want to pursue review of WP:BLP policy overall to seal the gap that Swatjester identified. You merely shined the light on it.

Consensus both here and on Talk:Christopher Mellon and the thread on WP:ANI all show and point to consensus against this inclusion, and on that, we are agreed. You wrote here:

literally no on is arguing to reintroduce

So, as we have emerged consensus across multiple venues that this is not appropriate for this article, and I applaud you for being gracious in accepting the rejection of your position, all that remains is the examination of WP:BLP policy now for future application across all BLPs. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Very Polite Person, I want to approach this as cautiously as possible. May I gently suggest that your frequent use of phrases like "accepting the rejection of your position" is not much different from "admit you lost" [1], "Do you agree to my terms?" [2], "You will moderate your behavior to expected adult levels of maturity" [3], etc. in that it perhaps contributes to a charged atmosphere even more than opening ANI threads for every content dispute? I understand, from our interactions, that you are very passionate about the topic of flying saucers and I respect your interest in that subject. However, I think you'll find there is room on WP for more calm, collegial, and discursive disagreement even around topics in which we have a deep concern. I know other editors have provided counseling to you on this so I hope you'll take it only with the positive reception with which you greeted those messages and not as any perceived slight by me. Chetsford (talk) 02:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I really don't mind you. I've looked at your articles. You're a very, very good writer. You're as smart in military history type stuff as I assume I am in my corners of knowledge. Maybe you're smarter. You probably are.

I'm just frustrated by the bizarre and pointless anger and baiting people have, and how people get so weird, about all this UFO-adjacent articles. I just saw a bunch of messes that seemed super hard to source and a challenge, and I like to be challenged, so that's why I fixed Luis Elizondo, Christopher Mellon, and tried to do so for The Sol Foundation, and previously tried and failed with this. That's it. I don't even really get into these past those, and you'll notice those all overlap a lot with the topics I'm interested in. Space, aerospace, advanced/theoretical technologies, and certain sorts of American legal doctrines. It's what I know, so I help in the realms I know. I just kept seeing the weird battles on these, and thought: I bet I can source this. Then I did. I don't know why no one could before. Isn't that weird?

But every time I try and fix these articles from being a mess--no offense--you and certain other familiar faces basically come at me like a pack of organized raptors to peck and try and get a rise. I decided to just stop playing, which is why I've gotten increasingly... curt and rules-bound about these. Does this make sense? If you (all?) are so opposed to these topics to whatever ends, then why on Earth fight so hard against people trying to add in and slowly chisel them into being hard rules compliant? You lack content, you find content, add if rules-correct/makes sense/is the right thing to do, analyze, edit, cut, loop, until you run out of unconsidered data, then check back later to see if you have any new data some day. That's all I do. I add stuff and slowly fix up all sorts of other articles--I get thanks or no one says a thing. I try the same thing, just being a normal editor, treating Controversial UFO page as if it was giraffe or vanilla--find unconsidered rules compliant encyclopediac content--and if it makes sense, add it correctly, and now the world knows more about the giraffe. Or the UFO thing. Or the science thing. Or the whatever. But do that on a UFO article--you're the bad guy? Huh?

Do you get why it's frustrating? You guys don't make a lick of sense, fighting people from fixing a specific caste of articles. Even the stupidest shit deserves a compelling, awesomely written article. Every turd is entitled to be a rose. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

The edit is known as a WP:COATRACK where an article on A is used to pile shit on B (and, by association, A). The standard response is to look for reliable secondary sources that demonstrate how the association influenced the life of A. If found, the article on A would outline the influence (for example, A was denied citizenship of country X because his grandfather was a Nazi enthusiast). Regardless of that, if B is notable, an article on B should exist and should describe what sources report on them. If B is not notable, there is no reason to coatrack it into an article on some other topic. Another case (which I'm not going to link to) involves a living female author where people try to add juicy details about the ex-husband (a pedophile who was long ago divorced). Particularly in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it is important that coatracking is strongly resisted. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

This example does feel very much like a Coatrack. While I would agree that putting an honorific in front of a notable family member is appropriate, I think we should shy away from adding many details about a subject's family in the prose. - Enos733 (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

My 2c: When a dead relative is not bluelinked, going into detail about the relative's activities is usually not WP:DUE, and may well be a problem with WP:COATRACK, but not a WP:BLP violation (it does not say anything negative about the article subject). When the dead relative is bluelinked, and one of the nearest bluelinked relatives, it is usually WP:DUE to mention the connection, with a brief gloss on who the relative was. In this particular case, the nearest bluelinked relatives are the brother and the grandfather, Matthew. The lead sentence of Matthew T. Mellon says that he "was an American scholar of history and literature, Nazi Party supporter, Colby College trustee, and member of the Mellon family". If we used that text as our gloss of him, in articles on his near relatives, with proper sources, I see no problem, neither with WP:DUE nor with WP:BLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Another real world father-son hypothetical

Example: Sebastián Marroquín is the son of Pablo Escobar. Would it be alright if I added a paragraph to Sebastián's page, sourced only to articles that mention his father--and not him--and then in that paragraph I laid out the awful things his father did? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish that policy already covers this. In a way, the fact that the negative material concerns a not-living person is a red herring. This would be just as much of an issue if it were "Mellon is from X, a town known for its high density of serial killers" or "Mellon was employed by Y, which also funded ethnic cleansing in the Congo". As others have said, the answer to the question of "How much do we say about X's misdeeds in Y's BLP?" is simple, and really just the same question as "How much do we say about X in article Y?": As much as the highest-quality reliable sources say when talking about Y. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

How about...

WP:BLPOFF ("off‑subject contentious material"): "Any negative, contentious, or controversial material in a WP:BLP article, if about any topic or matter that is not the BLP themselves, and unless sourced to a WP:RS that covers the BLP subject themselves, may be immediately removed by any editor, exempt from 3RR limits."

User:Swatjester, is this sort of what you were thinking? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Not exactly, no; in my view the particular "loophole" specifically involved the lack of applicability to dead people. But it's apparent to me that there's something resembling a consensus that this is unnecessary due to already being covered elsewhere; if that's the case it solves the problem without having to change the policy, as we'd have a consensus that can be pointed to later if this were to ever come up again to say "Nope you can't do it." It's a weaker solution than actually changing the policy because it relies on people's institutional memory and the ability to subsequently convince folks that the consensus existed....but it does technically work. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

That still seems unnecessary. WP:BLPBALANCE already exists and explicitly mentions guilt by association. Reverting BLPvios is already in WP:3RRNO. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 04:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPBALANCE is actually a different thing--that's about inference, weasel approaches, things like that. WP:BLPOFF is simpler: nothing negative, contentious or controversial about things that are not the BLP should be on a WP:BLP, unless it's sourced to WP:RS about the BLP, to prove the connection and erase a raft of sneaky violation vectors. It forces the person who wants it in to negotiate and source their work on the talk page. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 05:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Everything you've said seems redundant with claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content and the presumption of exclusion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:06, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler to have a bullet point level version so everyone can save thousands of words of debate every other week on some noticeboard? If negative, controversial or contentious (NCC) is on a BLP, about a topic that's not the BLP, yank it unless RS connects the two. No other nuance required. It truly is a binary. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Avi Yemini recently passed GA (by me). It includes appositive descriptors and restrictive clauses throughout (e.g. Since 2020 he has worked as the Australian correspondent for Rebel News, a Canadian far-right website. instead of Since 2020 he has worked as the Australian correspondent for Rebel News.). I was cautiously fine with that but opened the subject up at MOS Talk for further discussion. Hawkeye7 and EEng both raised, I think, good points, the latter in that "forcing editors to click to another article, just so they can learn something we ought to be telling them in whatever article they were originally reading, makes no sense". I'm not clear how we reconcile that approach (which I think is a good one) with NPOV by saying we will force readers to click a link if we subjectively determine the content in question makes us sad (I don't want to say negative content as that would imply it casts Chris in a bad light, which it doesn't as it's about a different person entirely).
tl:dr It seems we either need to generally accept the use of appositive descriptors and restrictive clauses or have a guideline against them. The current situation, in which we pick and choose when to use them based on whether or not we want the subject to seem illustrious or not (i.e. it's okay to use appositive to say Matthew Mellon was a Colby College trustee, but we can't use appositives to say he was a Nazi - even though he was better known for the latter than the former) seems to go against the spirit of NPOV. Chetsford (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

We use the appositive descriptors and restrictive clauses that RSes about the article subject use, as per NPOV policy. So if, in an article about X, the RSes about X say that X's Y was a Z, then we say X's Y was a Z. If they don't, then we don't. This is the WP:DUE and WP:ASPECT parts of NPOV. Levivich (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

So should we remove "Canadian far-right website" from the Avi Yemini article then? We have one source that says he wrote for Rebel News and several other sources that establish Rebel News is a "Canadian far-right website". But there's no overlap between the two. And, to be honest, just off the top of my head there are many other articles that should be edited if we're affirming this view. Chetsford (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

But we do have a source that connects the two for Yemini: In 2020, Yemini became the Australian correspondent for the Canadian far-right online media outlet, Rebel News [4] Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

What is your opinion of my above WP:BLPOFF verbiage, were it a rule? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 06:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort I regret to say I think it's unnecessarily convoluted. That said, I also don't believe WP:BLPBALANCE covers this case as "guilt by association" first requires the implication of guilt. Stating that X is related to Y, and then identifying Y by what they're best known for as brief biographical appositive (e.g. "He is the grandson of former Republican Party chairman John Smith.") does not impugn that the subject is also a Republican (or Democrat or Socialist or Nazi or whatever) in the mind of any reasonable person. It would be guilt by association and proscribed by BLPBALANCE if we connected two separate assertions to create a single thought: "As the grandson of former Republican Party chairman John Smith he supports X, Y, Z." (where we have two separate sources with no overlap). So, if you want to introduce guidelines that proscribe any biographical content about any secondary person mentioned in a BLP, I do agree a new maxim needs to be crafted. Chetsford (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

I think a key difference here is the element of choice. Yemini chose to work for a far-right website. Christopher Mellon did not choose to have a Nazi grandfather. It doesn't say anything about him, unless a source says it does. If Matthew Mellon were some anodyne scholar it wouldn't matter; there's nothing controversial about that. Mackensen (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Just noting here that Elon Musk has something similar in his "Early Life" section (his grandfather died when he was 3):

  His maternal grandfather, Joshua N. Haldeman, who died when Elon was a toddler, was an American-born Canadian chiropractor, aviator and political activist[13][14] who wrote far-right, antisemitic conspiracy theories,[15][16] moved to South Africa in 1950 in support of apartheid,[16] took his family on record-breaking journeys in a single-engine AviaBellanca airplane,[14] and was said by Errol Musk to have supported Nazism.[17]

  Does anything in WP:BLP cover material like that? BLPBALANCE doesn't seem like it does and people can argue that the material is not "undue". Some1 (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  The sources in Elon Musk which talk about his grandfather's political views are sources about Elon Musk. We cite two book-length biographies of Musk, and three articles which explicitly discuss the relationship between Musk's politics and those of his grandfather. The NYT piece says I was again struck at how little of what Mr. Musk proposes is new and by how many of his ideas about politics, governance and economics resemble those championed by his grandfather; the Atlantic piece says But as Musk carries on his own war of words with Jewish institutions ... it’s worth pausing on his grandfather, a man whose weakness for anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and devotion to white-supremacist ideology drew the worried attention of Jewish groups on two continents.

  Perhaps there's a discussion to be had about whether the coverage given to Haldeman's politics in the article on Musk is WP:DUE, but reliable sources absolutely do discuss Haldeman's politics in the context of Musk; this is a different situation from the one brought up at the beginning of this thread where as far as I can tell nobody is arguing that sources about Christopher Mellon discuss his grandfather's Nazi sympathies. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  I've started a discussion at Talk:Elon_Musk#Haldeman. Some1 (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• I think we should limit materials on a person's ancestor in an article on them at least to stuff in sources that are clearly talking about the person. I think us finding a source on Y and connecting it to X through other sources is a type of synthesis that we should not engage in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• I don't think that's an unreasonable standard. Though, I would be inclined to define it a bit tighter. In this case, both Chris and Matthew are discussed in The Mellons: The Chronicle of America's Richest Family and Chris is described as Matthew's grandson and their relationship with each other is explored at various points. Matthew's Nazi interests are explained in depth. Naturally, Chris is not mentioned as aligned to them as we have no evidence he was/is. But, in this case, we have a source describing Chris, mentioning Chris is Matthew's grandfather, and separately mentioning that Matthew was a Nazi. This is more-or-less identical to the sourcing we use that Some1 noted to describe Errol Musk as a Nazi in the Elon Musk BLP. As I've said, I'm inclined now to believe the Chris article doesn't need to overtly mention Matthew was a Nazi. But if we're going to protect against that, allowing it if we just find a source that mentions both in tandem won't do it as - in this case - we have that. Chetsford (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Revised suggestion:

  WP:BLPOFF ("off‑subject contentious material"): "Any negative, contentious, or controversial (NCC) material in a WP:BLP article, if about any topic or matter that is not the BLP themselves, and unless sourced to a WP:RS that covers the BLP subject's relationship directly with the NCC material themselves, may be immediately removed by any editor, exempt from 3RR limits."

  Does that cover your worry? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 14:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Very Polite Person Are you familiar with Hard cases make bad law? Polygnotus (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but I cannot see a single--any--reason, why we should have negative commentary within a BLP about ANY topic that IS NOT the BLP themselves, especially if the source used doesn't even mention the subject. If there is a notable painter from Ohio named Charlene Manson, and she's had an article for ages, and then it somehow is revealed she's the long-lost daughter of Charles Manson, what--at all--would we even write in Charlene Manson about Charles Manson except what RS about Charlene say in context to Manson? If all we got is boiled down to: "In 2025, the painter learned she was the long-lost daughter of Charles Manson, resulting in some media coverage for a time. Manson previously had no awareness of her unknown heritage, has never met him, and has no plans to," would we have any reason to list on Charlene Manson any details about the infamy of Charles Manson? Or just link him?

  That's what BLPOFF is for. If I'm notable and I'm, say, from a particularly piece of shit town, why would we say anything about my town in my page, beyond I'm from there? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Very Polite Person I think the more important point is that trying to change a policy as a reaction to something that happened once and is pretty damn rare, and to add an extra exception to 3RR, is a bad idea unless there is a documented need for that change (a pattern of incidents), and consensus behind it.

  I saw a bit of the debate with Chetsford but I haven't really dug in because it seemed pretty boring to me but based on my limited understanding this was a thing that happened once and has now stopped. Polygnotus (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  See also: Wikipedia:Avoid_instruction_creep Polygnotus (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

  • I mean, it depends on what the sources say. If we havea high-quality source whose premise is "Very Polite Person grew up in a a piece of shit town. Here's what that means", then it might make sense to cover the fact that you grew up in a bad town. It's a problem if we're performing synthesis, but not if the sources make that connection themselves. I'd say that it is generally BLP sensitive if it is clearly being discussed in a context that implicates you, but with some caution because this sort of logic could be used to turn anything at all into a BLP violation if taken too far - the less direct the connection to you is and the more matter-of-fact our coverage is, the less significant it becomes from a BLP perspective. --Aquillion (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is more-or-less identical to the sourcing we use that Some1 noted to describe Errol Musk as a Nazi in the Elon Musk BLP I don't think that's true. We cite three sources in the Elon Musk BLP which do explicitly discuss the parallels between his politics and those of his grandfather (not Errol Musk, who per the Guardian source opposed apartheid, but Joshua Haldeman). Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLPIMAGE

WP:BLP-good?

This part speaks of AI-images. But what of userg-non-photo images that aren't necessarily AI, like the one in The Feminist Five?

Should we write policy to mention images like this as well? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Fallecido

CARLOS JORGE STOCK 181.170.117.182 (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2025 (UTC)