This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Biographies of living persons page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
This is not the place to post information about living people. See creating an article for information on how to start a new article. |
To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. |
Biography Project‑class | |||||||
|
This page has previously been nominated to be moved.
|
BLP issues summary
|
---|
|
Here, the important caveat being noted for the reader is "unless written or published by the subject of the article". That being the case, I think the bold text should begin with "unless", rather than "the". I'll admit this is a minor point, but I think beginning the bold text a few words earlier in the sentence would do a better job of emphasizing that this is the lone exception to an important rule. Joefromrandb ( talk) 23:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed a wider issue on some articles about living people, and I think it needs to be addressed as a Wikipedia-wide issue, not just on the individual talk pages when this happens as a whack-a-mole, because it affects the security of living individuals.
Beyoncé and Jay-Z are two of the most high profile individuals, and their address is the title of the article about their home. I think it should be moved to ‘Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California mansion’, or some variant of that, with all reference to its exact location removed.
The article about one of Taylor Swift’s homes, High Watch, contains the building’s address, its coordinates, and a map. But confusingly, the article also says “Several stalking, trespassing, and home invasion incidents have been reported at the house since Swift's purchase.” acknowledging that the house is a target. So it seems very irresponsible to have its address and the geographical coordinates on it. Furthermore, it is well reported in the media that Swift herself sees this as an issue. For example, she requests her planes are hidden from live flight data trackers, and has demanded that Jack Sweeney stops aggregating her flight data, with her attorney saying it’s “stalking and harassing behaviour”.
Bill Gates’s house has the same issues as above.
The buildings are not notable in their own right, and have only gained notoriety because of the people that own it. None of these articles were created before those notable people moved in. I fail to see how having the exact location data on living peoples private residences enriches the encyclopedic content of those articles. I don’t think the articles should be deleted, as they have since become notable, just the exact location data removed.
They live there as private individuals, not as public figures. Is having the address/map location/coordinates so easily available responsible?
The difference is homes like Mar-a-Lago and Buckingham Palace are notable in their own right and can be visited by the public, and were notable before the owners moved in. I think Wikipedia needs to set in stone some clear and written policy about this.
I’m speaking specifically to the ethics of Wikipedia and its BLP policy- regardless of what other websites do. For example, Wikipedia doesn’t include the birth names of transgender people if they were not notable under that name, even if that name may be well reported elsewhere. So I think a similar simple rule should be written into Wikipedia BLP policy: If the residence wasn’t notable before the notable living person moved in and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. It should also be noted that those other websites sometimes get the location information directly from Wikipedia, and deem it acceptable to also publish that data merely because Wikipedia does so too.
And also, should this data be removed, it should also be removed from all of the page history versions, eliminating the Streisand effect inadvertently happening. Other things like image data, such a file names and metadata, should not have the address anywhere if they are used to link the building to the living individual.
Edit:
WP:BLPPRIVACY should already cover this by saying “In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses” and “If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it”. The examples I gave are in clear violation of this so I think this issue should be specifically and clearly written in as a new section, with the shortcut
WP:BLPHOME or
WP:BLPADDRESS. Here’s a draft of what I think it should look like: If the residence doesn’t pass (/wouldn’t have passed)
WP:GNG only with sources that pre-date the notable living person’s earliest known move-in date and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. If the residence isn’t open to the public but the notable living owner publicizes their residence’s location; for example,
Neverland Ranch (if Michael Jackson was still alive) and the
Playboy Mansion (if Hugh Hefner was still alive), then the exact location data can be included. This doesn’t include real-estate listings they have not acknowledged publicly. Any residence that becomes a listed property by a government agency should have the exact location information regardless.
The
Ed Sheeran article should (and currently does) read: Sheeran purchased and renovated a farm near Framlingham, Suffolk, where he was raised.
and not Sheeran purchased and renovated Old MacDonald Farm on Eieio Road, Framlingham, Suffolk, FR0 7SU, where he was raised. as it is not open to the public and he doesn’t advertise it. The
Beyoncé article should read the couple bought a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million
, but alarmingly currently reads the couple bought [redacted Beyoncé’s actual home address], a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million. The exact location information should be removed as it meets all three criteria: the sources that pre-date her moving in wouldn’t make the building pass
WP:GNG, it’s not open to the public and she has never publicly advertised it.
TheSpacebook (
talk) 20:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
its [sic] only notable because a notable person lives there, which can only be proven by proving that no other reasons exist, as we've already established that a notable person lives there and that that gives some notability. You may enlighten me of any other way.If there really are other reasons, providing them shouldn't be very difficult. Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
BECOME notable BECAUSE a notable person starts living there, then what you have is (1) or (2). I agree with your sentiments, but I'm not sure what change in guideline or policy this represents. JFHJr ( ㊟) 21:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
If the residence doesn’t pass (/wouldn’t have passed) WP:GNG only with sources that pre-date the notable living person’s earliest known move-in date and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. If the residence isn’t open to the public but the notable living owner publicly advertises their residence; for example, Neverland Ranch (if Michael Jackson was still alive) and the Playboy Mansion (if Hugh Hefner was still alive), then the exact location data can be included.
Sheeran purchased and renovated a farm near Framlingham, Suffolk, where he was raised.and not Sheeran purchased and renovated Old MacDonald Farm on Eieio Road, Framlingham, Suffolk, FR0 7SU, where he was raised. as it is not open to the public and he doesn’t advertise it. The Beyoncé article should read
the couple bought a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million.but alarmingly currently reads the couple bought [Beyoncé’s actual address which I’ve omitted], a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million.. The exact location information should be removed as it meets all three criteria: it only became notable after she moved in, it’s not open to the public and she has never publicly advertised it. Again, the actual article about the house should stay as it is notable, but have all exact location information omitted.
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a living person's residence unless the building was notable from before their residency, or they've published its address themselvesseems good to me, and it would also parallel MOS:GENDERID if we wanted to write a more general guideline in the future. I don't think it matters whether it's open to the public: in almost all cases where that's important, the living person in question will have publicized the address themselves. Loki ( talk) 01:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date their residency, or they've published the exact location information themselves. If the residence only passes WP:GNG after the notable living person moved-in, the residence’s respective article should also omit any exact location information. This includes all image data, such as file names and metadata which are used to link the residence to the notable living person. Any residence that is a listed property by a government should have the exact location information regardless.TheSpacebook ( talk) 01:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
If the residence only...omit any exact location information.is redundant, we already say that earlier.
This includes all image data...to the notable living person.isn't phrased great. I initially read it as omitting images entirely.
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date their residency, or they've published the exact location information themselves. Also be careful not to include location information in the filename or metadata of an image.Loki ( talk) 03:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
… make sure all associated exact location data from the file name and metadata is completely removed before including the image. If the residence appears un-notably in another article (for example in a list of works by an architect) with exact location information, contact the oversight team to remove that information before linking. Err on the side of caution if the residence can easily be located from its name, prefer John Smith’s house or John Smith’s California house, if they have multiple; especially in the case where the architect has named the architectural body of work after the address. That last bit is because Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s address was listed on the architects article, buried in a list of his works and the title of the architectural body of work is named after the address. 1. Is in just for clarification if the building is notable enough for an article after the notable person moves in, all exact location data should be omitted. Example: Bill Gates’s house should have the exact location data removed (but I’m not sure if he’s published the location info himself at some point, so we need to check that).
Sheeran purchased and renovated a farm near Framlingham, Suffolk, where he was raised.and not Sheeran purchased and renovated Old MacDonald Farm on Eieio Road, Framlingham, Suffolk, FR0 7SU, where he was raised.". Including general location is okay, exact addresses are not. Per the spirit of WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:UNDUE, as well as the precedent set out in MOS:GENDERID for the birth name of trans individuals. -- GnocchiFan ( talk) 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
and it is likely to otherwise remain low-profileI am not convinced this should be part of the policy. There is enough media drivel that would make a home high profile by just talking about it enough. If the intent is primarily BLP oriented, just "Dont mention if current residents haven't publicised it" should serve the same goals better. Soni ( talk) 19:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date their residencyleaves no room for interpretation. TheSpacebook ( talk) 21:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
passes WP:GNG...to
has significant coverage in reliable sources that pre-date their residencysince... I dunno, capitals are scary. Aaron Liu ( talk) 21:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date the residencyleaves less room for interpretation than
significant coverage. It also gives a clear instruction on how to proceed if this issue comes up. TheSpacebook ( talk) 21:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
has general notability in sources that predate their residency? Aaron Liu ( talk) 21:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
even if reliable sourcing existsTheSpacebook ( talk) 21:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date their residency, or they've published the exact location information themselves. Ensure all associated exact location data from the file name and metadata is completely removed before including the image. If the residence appears un-notably in another article (for example in a list of works by an architect) with exact location information, contact the oversight team to remove that information before linking. Err on the side of caution if the residence can easily be located from its name, prefer John Smith’s house or John Smith’s California house, if they have multiple; especially in the case where the architect has named the architectural body of work after the address.TheSpacebook ( talk) 21:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
If the residence doesn’t pass (/wouldn’t have passed) WP:GNG only with sources that pre-date the notable living person’s earliest known move-in date and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. If the residence isn’t open to the public but the notable living owner publicizes their residence’s location; for example, Neverland Ranch (if Michael Jackson was still alive) and the Playboy Mansion (if Hugh Hefner was still alive), then the exact location data can be included. This doesn’t include real-estate listings they have not acknowledged publicly. Any residence that becomes a listed property by a government agency should have the exact location information regardless.TheSpacebook ( talk) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
unless they’ve publicly acknowledged the house, but that doesn’t include private things such as real estate listings, or property listings where they are unable to not appear on a public database, such as a voting registerTheSpacebook ( talk) 22:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
named them as the residentsis verifiably false. Rotary Engine talk 10:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Bad cases make bad law. Some notable buildings are listed by their address in historic buildings / landmarks databases, some by a common name, some by the original or a later resident. The address is one of several possible identifiers under which a building may be known; we can't impose a useful rule on when not to use that identifier, particularly because it needs to be available as a redirect in many cases even if we don't put the article at that title. Also, the privacy-violating element is the identification of the building by its current resident(s). The house that prompted TheSpacebook to start this section, the latest house on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu to sell for a record-breaking price, is best known by its address because the press coverage is about the price. The article was created at the address title and correctly named the notable architect and the couple who commissioned it before mentioning who bought it. This is not a BLP violation; it accurately reflects the coverage of the house in reliable sources. The BLP violation was TheSpacebook's subsequent move of the article (while at AfD, and after suggesting the move in the discussion but without waiting for responses) to a title that amounts to "Everybody on Google, lookie here, this is where these stars live!!". A demonstration in neon lights that the problem is not having articles—or redirects—on buildings that use the street address as an externally available search term, but showcasing where someone lives. It's a form of gossip clickbait. Any fan can trivially find the address for a celebrity real estate purchase that was covered in the real estate or architecture and design press (there is for example a short but fluffy article on the Architectural Digest website about this house purchase, and the story appears to have been broken by the TMZ, a site not known to eschew breathless celebrity coverage), and I've argued at the AfD for an aggressive merge of the article on this marginally notable building. But TheSpacebook has fallen into the exact fan trap that Wikipedia needs to avoid as the main source of search engine results: regarding where celebrities live as notable because they're celebrities. This 2021 purchase by a celebrity of another house by the same architect on the same millionaire's row was appropriately handled; the house in question, if it merits an article, should be covered at Richard Sachs residence or at the street address, whichever is more commonly used, not under its current star resident. Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The house was sold in May 2023 to Beyoncé and Jay-Z for $200 million, establishing a new record for the most expensive residence sold in CaliforniaTheSpacebook ( talk) 05:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The proposal would require removing the street address from notable buildings when they happen to be acquired by somebody famousis not what I’m proposing. My proposal doesn’t require removing street addresses if a famous person lives there if the building is already notable. If the building becomes notable due to its notable residents (as with Beyoncé and Jay-Z), then the exact location data shouldn’t be included. My proposal is only talking about if previously un-notable building (for example, hasn’t already got its own Wikipedia article) becomes notable because of them living there. TheSpacebook ( talk) 05:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I too oppose this proposal; broadly per Yngvadottir, above. Additionally: tying inclusion criteria to notability is suboptimal; tying it to notability at the time of purchase is just silly. Rotary Engine talk 04:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Becomes notable because a notable living person lives thereand
has general notability in sources that predate their residencyare not congruent. Notability is a poor determinant of noteworthy content. And, while I'm there...
Becomes notable because a notable living person lives there= don’t include exact location data.
has general notability in sources that predate their residency= include exact location data. TheSpacebook ( talk) 06:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
notable because a notable living person lives therethen?
Was the residence notable before the current owner moved in?; I do not concur that this is a good test, and oppose the proposed addition to policy. Rotary Engine talk 06:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
notable living person. Also, these buildings were also publicized by their owners.Maybe we should add this as an example. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
famous before its current living residents moved inmatter? Rotary Engine talk 11:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
has notability, whether outside of its association with its current residents or not, matter? And why only
notable living persons? Notability is a reasonable initial determinant as to whether a topic likely merits a standalone article. It is not a good determinant for article content. Rotary Engine talk 11:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I see. There are a few areas of concern.
In summary:
I'll add that the proposed policy addition wouldn't necessarily prevent including the street address of the Malibu house. (Though I consider that it should not,) the house does currently have an article, and is therefore presumably "notable", and was so at least from the time of (record setting) purchase, which (strictly) predates any residence.
Why should the exact location details or street address be included for a famous landmark house or something?
Why should location details or street addresses for non-famous residences of notable living people be strictly excluded when published extensively in reliable sources? Rotary Engine talk 13:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think it should be included, as they themselves haven’t referred to their property as such, and we should err on the side of caution to protect them.What? Why is this a relevant factor? Also, that seems like a fairly dubious claim. I'm quite sure they would have, on at least one occasion, referred to the property by its street address, even if only to tell the pizzeria where to deliver. Rotary Engine talk 14:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Only gain notability because of the resident; (at the risk of repetition,) the proposed text doesn't say that.
For other buildings like the Beyoncé residence ... only mention the area without drawing special attention to it.The residence in question is in Malibu, California.
"listed" buildings, publicly-owned buildings, open to the public, intentionally publicisedonly the last is mentioned in the proposed text.
FYI: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13444&sid=6a36c41186b953e95c1930d77476b218
Closers may want to keep this in mind. jp× g 🗯️ 12:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
TheSpacebook ( talk) 05:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence has general notability in sources that predate their residency or they've intentionally publicized the exact location information themselves.There will obviously be some exceptions such a Listed Buildings or publicly owned, privately resided in government buildings. TheSpacebook ( talk) 13:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Rotary Engine: I could not think of a good way to deal with buildings with a name that has nothing to do with their address, and the scenario you've mentioned happens. I hope that editor discretion can sort that out Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
In biographies of living persons, do not include addresses, coordinates, or other exact location information of the (current?) residence(s) of that person. It's shorter, simpler, and (for mine) has fewer gaps.
significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources; and is not WP:INHERITED simply by the residence being owned, built or designed by someone notable.
This wording does not make any logical connection between the first and second paragraph. It appears that the second paragraph covers all images of residences, not merely images that fall under the first paragraph. I cannot support a proposal that prohibits Wikipedia from providing the location of the White House on the metadata of an image of the White House merely because it happens to be the residence of a notable person. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
In (articles which are?) biographies of living persons, do not include addresses, coordinates, or other exact location information of the (current?) (non-official?) residence(s) of that person., does not affect content at White House or Streisand effect (not biographies) and has no impact on file or image metadata.
should not (normally?) includeverb; again, only applicable to biographies. This softens the proposal, but provides more room for editorial discretion.
Articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons&
If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it ...; which doesn't seem to allow many of the obvious cases where we would readily include addresses. Rotary Engine talk 22:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Anyways, here's the current version:
Aaron Liu ( talk) 13:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I’m currently on vacation with limited internet, so I haven’t read anything on this since my last edit; but I’m still committed to protecting the exact location data of living people. I think this discussion would be helped if we bought in more current examples, and judged if we deem them to be appropriate or inappropriate.
The arguably most famous example is Barbra Streisand's house. I am well aware of the Streisand effect, however I have some concerns with the article about it. Let me make it clear, the image should stay. But I believe on the files page the 'Camera location' coordinates and 'object location' coordinate fields of the image should be removed. This property gained notoriety after the current resident moved in.
Furthermore, whilst she did inadvertently publicise the property, it was an unintended consequence of her attempting to not publicise it. The article says "It was only about the use of my name attached to the photo", so we should use common sense that she didn't want to publicise it.
Given that this phenomenon's name is widely used, with no exact synonym, I think it would be inappropriate to list exact location data to Barbra Streisand's house (or anything that would infer the location, such as the 'camera location'), on the files page.
Let me say again, the image should stay, but the exact location data should be removed.
It could be overkill to remove parts such as the name "Streisand Estate, Malibu", as that could cause The Streisand Effect Sequel. But I think to protect a living person, parts such as 'camera location' and 'object location' coordinates attached to the image should be quietly removed. They should be removed as the house gained notoriety after she moved in and has said herself that she didn’t wish to publicise the exact location of her house alongside her being named as living there.
I think another good idea is to hold this exact location data in some private Wikipedia database that only admins have access to; and should, for example, Barbra Streisand no longer live there, the location data is then put into the relevant places for public view. If so, it should be called something like The Dataplace or The Wherehouse
What does everyone else think? Doxxing or not doxxing? TheSpacebook ( talk) 14:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
In the discussions above, I have seen frequent mentions of the same residences, and whether they should be affected by the proposal. Rather than reply individually, as a whack-a-mole, I'll just put them here in one place. The addresses to the private residences mentioned have been intentionally self-published, as they are listed on their official websites. Self-publication in this manner should deem its inclusion permissible. This shouldn't include real-estate websites or land registry databases etc. A common-sense approach should be applied as the following are clearly "intentionally publicised":
Sandringham Estate: https://sandringhamestate.co.uk/plan-your-visit/ticket-prices
10 Downing Street: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/prime-ministers-office-10-downing-street/about/social-media-use
The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/get-involved/write-or-call/
But we should probably write this “if it’s on the official website” part specifically into the policy, as I feel it is one of the most appropriate markers. TheSpacebook ( talk) 16:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Following the fiasco at Where is Kate? (see the first AfD, BLPN discussion, deletion review, first requested move, second AfD, and third AfD), I propose an additional paragraph to WP:BLPGOSSIP. This is a rough draft to encapsulate what I'm thinking:
Sometimes, an event in a living person's life attracts significant coverage in the media. These events rarely require standalone articles from the living person's biography: they should generally only be spun-off from the living person's biography when the biography cannot provide appropriate encyclopedic coverage of a major event. Beware of recentism.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
In general, it's best to be very careful about covering events in a living person's life while news is still breaking. Breaking news, even from generally reliable sources, is often less reliable than usual, and even in cases where such reporting is reliable for facts, sources published before all the facts of an incident have been reported can inadvertently create a misleading picture of a situation.
Avoid spinning off events in a living's person life to separate articles until media coverage of the event has subsided enough for its long-term significance to be established. Making a new article for every controversy is more likely to lead to a problematic WP:POVFORK than it is to generate worthwhile encyclopedic coverage.Loki ( talk) 21:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
must be fair to their subjects at all times(see also WP:NOW).
I have a question about the BLP information in the WikiProject banner shell that displays at the top of a talk page. If the article in question is about a person who has recently died, in particular under controversial circumstances, should living=n or living=y be specified? If living=n is specified, it says that the biographies of living persons policy does not apply to the subject, but that it does apply to other persons who are mentioned. The page that I am looking at is Talk:Death of Nex Benedict. It says that the BLP policy does not apply to them, but it does. They is* a person who has recently died, and who is entitled to the same status as if they were still alive. Should I change it to blp=y? Should the instructions for the template be changed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.". While "possible" is mentioned here, I think it's clear from the next "particularly gruesome crime" part that we're talking about a case where someone is dead, but it's unclear whether the cause is suicide or something else. In any case, "particularly gruesome crime" part seems to be clearly talking about cases where the person is dead rather than it being unclear if they are dead. So not only is the family explicitly mentioned, but it's also clearly talking about cases where the person is indisputably dead rather than where it might be a mis-report. The Nex Benedict example seems to definitely be a case where this comes up. From the beginning, there was no dispute that they were dead. However the details were very murky and it was right to be particularly strict in BLP terms not only for other living persons directly affected (since the details often had implications for other individuals) but for Benedict too no matter that there was no dispute they were deceased. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The simplest solution (for the general situation that at any given time there will always be some people who "deceased recently", regardless of whether or not the specific case mentioned above is still within "recently") might be to add, alongside the options of living=n or living=y, the option of living=bdp, for use whenever BDP applies. -sche ( talk) 06:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I am not convinced that Bill Morgan (lottery winner) is notable. Please see discussion at Talk:Bill_Morgan_(lottery_winner)#Notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Biographies of living persons page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
This is not the place to post information about living people. See creating an article for information on how to start a new article. |
To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. |
Biography Project‑class | |||||||
|
This page has previously been nominated to be moved.
|
BLP issues summary
|
---|
|
Here, the important caveat being noted for the reader is "unless written or published by the subject of the article". That being the case, I think the bold text should begin with "unless", rather than "the". I'll admit this is a minor point, but I think beginning the bold text a few words earlier in the sentence would do a better job of emphasizing that this is the lone exception to an important rule. Joefromrandb ( talk) 23:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed a wider issue on some articles about living people, and I think it needs to be addressed as a Wikipedia-wide issue, not just on the individual talk pages when this happens as a whack-a-mole, because it affects the security of living individuals.
Beyoncé and Jay-Z are two of the most high profile individuals, and their address is the title of the article about their home. I think it should be moved to ‘Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California mansion’, or some variant of that, with all reference to its exact location removed.
The article about one of Taylor Swift’s homes, High Watch, contains the building’s address, its coordinates, and a map. But confusingly, the article also says “Several stalking, trespassing, and home invasion incidents have been reported at the house since Swift's purchase.” acknowledging that the house is a target. So it seems very irresponsible to have its address and the geographical coordinates on it. Furthermore, it is well reported in the media that Swift herself sees this as an issue. For example, she requests her planes are hidden from live flight data trackers, and has demanded that Jack Sweeney stops aggregating her flight data, with her attorney saying it’s “stalking and harassing behaviour”.
Bill Gates’s house has the same issues as above.
The buildings are not notable in their own right, and have only gained notoriety because of the people that own it. None of these articles were created before those notable people moved in. I fail to see how having the exact location data on living peoples private residences enriches the encyclopedic content of those articles. I don’t think the articles should be deleted, as they have since become notable, just the exact location data removed.
They live there as private individuals, not as public figures. Is having the address/map location/coordinates so easily available responsible?
The difference is homes like Mar-a-Lago and Buckingham Palace are notable in their own right and can be visited by the public, and were notable before the owners moved in. I think Wikipedia needs to set in stone some clear and written policy about this.
I’m speaking specifically to the ethics of Wikipedia and its BLP policy- regardless of what other websites do. For example, Wikipedia doesn’t include the birth names of transgender people if they were not notable under that name, even if that name may be well reported elsewhere. So I think a similar simple rule should be written into Wikipedia BLP policy: If the residence wasn’t notable before the notable living person moved in and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. It should also be noted that those other websites sometimes get the location information directly from Wikipedia, and deem it acceptable to also publish that data merely because Wikipedia does so too.
And also, should this data be removed, it should also be removed from all of the page history versions, eliminating the Streisand effect inadvertently happening. Other things like image data, such a file names and metadata, should not have the address anywhere if they are used to link the building to the living individual.
Edit:
WP:BLPPRIVACY should already cover this by saying “In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses” and “If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it”. The examples I gave are in clear violation of this so I think this issue should be specifically and clearly written in as a new section, with the shortcut
WP:BLPHOME or
WP:BLPADDRESS. Here’s a draft of what I think it should look like: If the residence doesn’t pass (/wouldn’t have passed)
WP:GNG only with sources that pre-date the notable living person’s earliest known move-in date and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. If the residence isn’t open to the public but the notable living owner publicizes their residence’s location; for example,
Neverland Ranch (if Michael Jackson was still alive) and the
Playboy Mansion (if Hugh Hefner was still alive), then the exact location data can be included. This doesn’t include real-estate listings they have not acknowledged publicly. Any residence that becomes a listed property by a government agency should have the exact location information regardless.
The
Ed Sheeran article should (and currently does) read: Sheeran purchased and renovated a farm near Framlingham, Suffolk, where he was raised.
and not Sheeran purchased and renovated Old MacDonald Farm on Eieio Road, Framlingham, Suffolk, FR0 7SU, where he was raised. as it is not open to the public and he doesn’t advertise it. The
Beyoncé article should read the couple bought a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million
, but alarmingly currently reads the couple bought [redacted Beyoncé’s actual home address], a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million. The exact location information should be removed as it meets all three criteria: the sources that pre-date her moving in wouldn’t make the building pass
WP:GNG, it’s not open to the public and she has never publicly advertised it.
TheSpacebook (
talk) 20:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
its [sic] only notable because a notable person lives there, which can only be proven by proving that no other reasons exist, as we've already established that a notable person lives there and that that gives some notability. You may enlighten me of any other way.If there really are other reasons, providing them shouldn't be very difficult. Aaron Liu ( talk) 16:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
BECOME notable BECAUSE a notable person starts living there, then what you have is (1) or (2). I agree with your sentiments, but I'm not sure what change in guideline or policy this represents. JFHJr ( ㊟) 21:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
If the residence doesn’t pass (/wouldn’t have passed) WP:GNG only with sources that pre-date the notable living person’s earliest known move-in date and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. If the residence isn’t open to the public but the notable living owner publicly advertises their residence; for example, Neverland Ranch (if Michael Jackson was still alive) and the Playboy Mansion (if Hugh Hefner was still alive), then the exact location data can be included.
Sheeran purchased and renovated a farm near Framlingham, Suffolk, where he was raised.and not Sheeran purchased and renovated Old MacDonald Farm on Eieio Road, Framlingham, Suffolk, FR0 7SU, where he was raised. as it is not open to the public and he doesn’t advertise it. The Beyoncé article should read
the couple bought a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million.but alarmingly currently reads the couple bought [Beyoncé’s actual address which I’ve omitted], a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million.. The exact location information should be removed as it meets all three criteria: it only became notable after she moved in, it’s not open to the public and she has never publicly advertised it. Again, the actual article about the house should stay as it is notable, but have all exact location information omitted.
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a living person's residence unless the building was notable from before their residency, or they've published its address themselvesseems good to me, and it would also parallel MOS:GENDERID if we wanted to write a more general guideline in the future. I don't think it matters whether it's open to the public: in almost all cases where that's important, the living person in question will have publicized the address themselves. Loki ( talk) 01:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date their residency, or they've published the exact location information themselves. If the residence only passes WP:GNG after the notable living person moved-in, the residence’s respective article should also omit any exact location information. This includes all image data, such as file names and metadata which are used to link the residence to the notable living person. Any residence that is a listed property by a government should have the exact location information regardless.TheSpacebook ( talk) 01:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
If the residence only...omit any exact location information.is redundant, we already say that earlier.
This includes all image data...to the notable living person.isn't phrased great. I initially read it as omitting images entirely.
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date their residency, or they've published the exact location information themselves. Also be careful not to include location information in the filename or metadata of an image.Loki ( talk) 03:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
… make sure all associated exact location data from the file name and metadata is completely removed before including the image. If the residence appears un-notably in another article (for example in a list of works by an architect) with exact location information, contact the oversight team to remove that information before linking. Err on the side of caution if the residence can easily be located from its name, prefer John Smith’s house or John Smith’s California house, if they have multiple; especially in the case where the architect has named the architectural body of work after the address. That last bit is because Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s address was listed on the architects article, buried in a list of his works and the title of the architectural body of work is named after the address. 1. Is in just for clarification if the building is notable enough for an article after the notable person moves in, all exact location data should be omitted. Example: Bill Gates’s house should have the exact location data removed (but I’m not sure if he’s published the location info himself at some point, so we need to check that).
Sheeran purchased and renovated a farm near Framlingham, Suffolk, where he was raised.and not Sheeran purchased and renovated Old MacDonald Farm on Eieio Road, Framlingham, Suffolk, FR0 7SU, where he was raised.". Including general location is okay, exact addresses are not. Per the spirit of WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:UNDUE, as well as the precedent set out in MOS:GENDERID for the birth name of trans individuals. -- GnocchiFan ( talk) 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
and it is likely to otherwise remain low-profileI am not convinced this should be part of the policy. There is enough media drivel that would make a home high profile by just talking about it enough. If the intent is primarily BLP oriented, just "Dont mention if current residents haven't publicised it" should serve the same goals better. Soni ( talk) 19:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date their residencyleaves no room for interpretation. TheSpacebook ( talk) 21:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
passes WP:GNG...to
has significant coverage in reliable sources that pre-date their residencysince... I dunno, capitals are scary. Aaron Liu ( talk) 21:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date the residencyleaves less room for interpretation than
significant coverage. It also gives a clear instruction on how to proceed if this issue comes up. TheSpacebook ( talk) 21:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
has general notability in sources that predate their residency? Aaron Liu ( talk) 21:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
even if reliable sourcing existsTheSpacebook ( talk) 21:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date their residency, or they've published the exact location information themselves. Ensure all associated exact location data from the file name and metadata is completely removed before including the image. If the residence appears un-notably in another article (for example in a list of works by an architect) with exact location information, contact the oversight team to remove that information before linking. Err on the side of caution if the residence can easily be located from its name, prefer John Smith’s house or John Smith’s California house, if they have multiple; especially in the case where the architect has named the architectural body of work after the address.TheSpacebook ( talk) 21:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
If the residence doesn’t pass (/wouldn’t have passed) WP:GNG only with sources that pre-date the notable living person’s earliest known move-in date and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. If the residence isn’t open to the public but the notable living owner publicizes their residence’s location; for example, Neverland Ranch (if Michael Jackson was still alive) and the Playboy Mansion (if Hugh Hefner was still alive), then the exact location data can be included. This doesn’t include real-estate listings they have not acknowledged publicly. Any residence that becomes a listed property by a government agency should have the exact location information regardless.TheSpacebook ( talk) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
unless they’ve publicly acknowledged the house, but that doesn’t include private things such as real estate listings, or property listings where they are unable to not appear on a public database, such as a voting registerTheSpacebook ( talk) 22:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
named them as the residentsis verifiably false. Rotary Engine talk 10:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Bad cases make bad law. Some notable buildings are listed by their address in historic buildings / landmarks databases, some by a common name, some by the original or a later resident. The address is one of several possible identifiers under which a building may be known; we can't impose a useful rule on when not to use that identifier, particularly because it needs to be available as a redirect in many cases even if we don't put the article at that title. Also, the privacy-violating element is the identification of the building by its current resident(s). The house that prompted TheSpacebook to start this section, the latest house on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu to sell for a record-breaking price, is best known by its address because the press coverage is about the price. The article was created at the address title and correctly named the notable architect and the couple who commissioned it before mentioning who bought it. This is not a BLP violation; it accurately reflects the coverage of the house in reliable sources. The BLP violation was TheSpacebook's subsequent move of the article (while at AfD, and after suggesting the move in the discussion but without waiting for responses) to a title that amounts to "Everybody on Google, lookie here, this is where these stars live!!". A demonstration in neon lights that the problem is not having articles—or redirects—on buildings that use the street address as an externally available search term, but showcasing where someone lives. It's a form of gossip clickbait. Any fan can trivially find the address for a celebrity real estate purchase that was covered in the real estate or architecture and design press (there is for example a short but fluffy article on the Architectural Digest website about this house purchase, and the story appears to have been broken by the TMZ, a site not known to eschew breathless celebrity coverage), and I've argued at the AfD for an aggressive merge of the article on this marginally notable building. But TheSpacebook has fallen into the exact fan trap that Wikipedia needs to avoid as the main source of search engine results: regarding where celebrities live as notable because they're celebrities. This 2021 purchase by a celebrity of another house by the same architect on the same millionaire's row was appropriately handled; the house in question, if it merits an article, should be covered at Richard Sachs residence or at the street address, whichever is more commonly used, not under its current star resident. Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The house was sold in May 2023 to Beyoncé and Jay-Z for $200 million, establishing a new record for the most expensive residence sold in CaliforniaTheSpacebook ( talk) 05:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The proposal would require removing the street address from notable buildings when they happen to be acquired by somebody famousis not what I’m proposing. My proposal doesn’t require removing street addresses if a famous person lives there if the building is already notable. If the building becomes notable due to its notable residents (as with Beyoncé and Jay-Z), then the exact location data shouldn’t be included. My proposal is only talking about if previously un-notable building (for example, hasn’t already got its own Wikipedia article) becomes notable because of them living there. TheSpacebook ( talk) 05:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I too oppose this proposal; broadly per Yngvadottir, above. Additionally: tying inclusion criteria to notability is suboptimal; tying it to notability at the time of purchase is just silly. Rotary Engine talk 04:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Becomes notable because a notable living person lives thereand
has general notability in sources that predate their residencyare not congruent. Notability is a poor determinant of noteworthy content. And, while I'm there...
Becomes notable because a notable living person lives there= don’t include exact location data.
has general notability in sources that predate their residency= include exact location data. TheSpacebook ( talk) 06:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
notable because a notable living person lives therethen?
Was the residence notable before the current owner moved in?; I do not concur that this is a good test, and oppose the proposed addition to policy. Rotary Engine talk 06:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
notable living person. Also, these buildings were also publicized by their owners.Maybe we should add this as an example. Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
famous before its current living residents moved inmatter? Rotary Engine talk 11:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
has notability, whether outside of its association with its current residents or not, matter? And why only
notable living persons? Notability is a reasonable initial determinant as to whether a topic likely merits a standalone article. It is not a good determinant for article content. Rotary Engine talk 11:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I see. There are a few areas of concern.
In summary:
I'll add that the proposed policy addition wouldn't necessarily prevent including the street address of the Malibu house. (Though I consider that it should not,) the house does currently have an article, and is therefore presumably "notable", and was so at least from the time of (record setting) purchase, which (strictly) predates any residence.
Why should the exact location details or street address be included for a famous landmark house or something?
Why should location details or street addresses for non-famous residences of notable living people be strictly excluded when published extensively in reliable sources? Rotary Engine talk 13:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think it should be included, as they themselves haven’t referred to their property as such, and we should err on the side of caution to protect them.What? Why is this a relevant factor? Also, that seems like a fairly dubious claim. I'm quite sure they would have, on at least one occasion, referred to the property by its street address, even if only to tell the pizzeria where to deliver. Rotary Engine talk 14:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Only gain notability because of the resident; (at the risk of repetition,) the proposed text doesn't say that.
For other buildings like the Beyoncé residence ... only mention the area without drawing special attention to it.The residence in question is in Malibu, California.
"listed" buildings, publicly-owned buildings, open to the public, intentionally publicisedonly the last is mentioned in the proposed text.
FYI: https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13444&sid=6a36c41186b953e95c1930d77476b218
Closers may want to keep this in mind. jp× g 🗯️ 12:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
TheSpacebook ( talk) 05:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence has general notability in sources that predate their residency or they've intentionally publicized the exact location information themselves.There will obviously be some exceptions such a Listed Buildings or publicly owned, privately resided in government buildings. TheSpacebook ( talk) 13:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Rotary Engine: I could not think of a good way to deal with buildings with a name that has nothing to do with their address, and the scenario you've mentioned happens. I hope that editor discretion can sort that out Aaron Liu ( talk) 11:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
In biographies of living persons, do not include addresses, coordinates, or other exact location information of the (current?) residence(s) of that person. It's shorter, simpler, and (for mine) has fewer gaps.
significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources; and is not WP:INHERITED simply by the residence being owned, built or designed by someone notable.
This wording does not make any logical connection between the first and second paragraph. It appears that the second paragraph covers all images of residences, not merely images that fall under the first paragraph. I cannot support a proposal that prohibits Wikipedia from providing the location of the White House on the metadata of an image of the White House merely because it happens to be the residence of a notable person. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
In (articles which are?) biographies of living persons, do not include addresses, coordinates, or other exact location information of the (current?) (non-official?) residence(s) of that person., does not affect content at White House or Streisand effect (not biographies) and has no impact on file or image metadata.
should not (normally?) includeverb; again, only applicable to biographies. This softens the proposal, but provides more room for editorial discretion.
Articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons&
If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it ...; which doesn't seem to allow many of the obvious cases where we would readily include addresses. Rotary Engine talk 22:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Anyways, here's the current version:
Aaron Liu ( talk) 13:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I’m currently on vacation with limited internet, so I haven’t read anything on this since my last edit; but I’m still committed to protecting the exact location data of living people. I think this discussion would be helped if we bought in more current examples, and judged if we deem them to be appropriate or inappropriate.
The arguably most famous example is Barbra Streisand's house. I am well aware of the Streisand effect, however I have some concerns with the article about it. Let me make it clear, the image should stay. But I believe on the files page the 'Camera location' coordinates and 'object location' coordinate fields of the image should be removed. This property gained notoriety after the current resident moved in.
Furthermore, whilst she did inadvertently publicise the property, it was an unintended consequence of her attempting to not publicise it. The article says "It was only about the use of my name attached to the photo", so we should use common sense that she didn't want to publicise it.
Given that this phenomenon's name is widely used, with no exact synonym, I think it would be inappropriate to list exact location data to Barbra Streisand's house (or anything that would infer the location, such as the 'camera location'), on the files page.
Let me say again, the image should stay, but the exact location data should be removed.
It could be overkill to remove parts such as the name "Streisand Estate, Malibu", as that could cause The Streisand Effect Sequel. But I think to protect a living person, parts such as 'camera location' and 'object location' coordinates attached to the image should be quietly removed. They should be removed as the house gained notoriety after she moved in and has said herself that she didn’t wish to publicise the exact location of her house alongside her being named as living there.
I think another good idea is to hold this exact location data in some private Wikipedia database that only admins have access to; and should, for example, Barbra Streisand no longer live there, the location data is then put into the relevant places for public view. If so, it should be called something like The Dataplace or The Wherehouse
What does everyone else think? Doxxing or not doxxing? TheSpacebook ( talk) 14:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
In the discussions above, I have seen frequent mentions of the same residences, and whether they should be affected by the proposal. Rather than reply individually, as a whack-a-mole, I'll just put them here in one place. The addresses to the private residences mentioned have been intentionally self-published, as they are listed on their official websites. Self-publication in this manner should deem its inclusion permissible. This shouldn't include real-estate websites or land registry databases etc. A common-sense approach should be applied as the following are clearly "intentionally publicised":
Sandringham Estate: https://sandringhamestate.co.uk/plan-your-visit/ticket-prices
10 Downing Street: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/prime-ministers-office-10-downing-street/about/social-media-use
The White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/get-involved/write-or-call/
But we should probably write this “if it’s on the official website” part specifically into the policy, as I feel it is one of the most appropriate markers. TheSpacebook ( talk) 16:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Following the fiasco at Where is Kate? (see the first AfD, BLPN discussion, deletion review, first requested move, second AfD, and third AfD), I propose an additional paragraph to WP:BLPGOSSIP. This is a rough draft to encapsulate what I'm thinking:
Sometimes, an event in a living person's life attracts significant coverage in the media. These events rarely require standalone articles from the living person's biography: they should generally only be spun-off from the living person's biography when the biography cannot provide appropriate encyclopedic coverage of a major event. Beware of recentism.
IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 14:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
In general, it's best to be very careful about covering events in a living person's life while news is still breaking. Breaking news, even from generally reliable sources, is often less reliable than usual, and even in cases where such reporting is reliable for facts, sources published before all the facts of an incident have been reported can inadvertently create a misleading picture of a situation.
Avoid spinning off events in a living's person life to separate articles until media coverage of the event has subsided enough for its long-term significance to be established. Making a new article for every controversy is more likely to lead to a problematic WP:POVFORK than it is to generate worthwhile encyclopedic coverage.Loki ( talk) 21:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
must be fair to their subjects at all times(see also WP:NOW).
I have a question about the BLP information in the WikiProject banner shell that displays at the top of a talk page. If the article in question is about a person who has recently died, in particular under controversial circumstances, should living=n or living=y be specified? If living=n is specified, it says that the biographies of living persons policy does not apply to the subject, but that it does apply to other persons who are mentioned. The page that I am looking at is Talk:Death of Nex Benedict. It says that the BLP policy does not apply to them, but it does. They is* a person who has recently died, and who is entitled to the same status as if they were still alive. Should I change it to blp=y? Should the instructions for the template be changed? Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.". While "possible" is mentioned here, I think it's clear from the next "particularly gruesome crime" part that we're talking about a case where someone is dead, but it's unclear whether the cause is suicide or something else. In any case, "particularly gruesome crime" part seems to be clearly talking about cases where the person is dead rather than it being unclear if they are dead. So not only is the family explicitly mentioned, but it's also clearly talking about cases where the person is indisputably dead rather than where it might be a mis-report. The Nex Benedict example seems to definitely be a case where this comes up. From the beginning, there was no dispute that they were dead. However the details were very murky and it was right to be particularly strict in BLP terms not only for other living persons directly affected (since the details often had implications for other individuals) but for Benedict too no matter that there was no dispute they were deceased. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Robert McClenon ( talk) 02:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The simplest solution (for the general situation that at any given time there will always be some people who "deceased recently", regardless of whether or not the specific case mentioned above is still within "recently") might be to add, alongside the options of living=n or living=y, the option of living=bdp, for use whenever BDP applies. -sche ( talk) 06:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I am not convinced that Bill Morgan (lottery winner) is notable. Please see discussion at Talk:Bill_Morgan_(lottery_winner)#Notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 00:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)