Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Resolving DOB discrepancy between reliable sources

How should this be approached for BLP? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Debbi_Morgan&diff=1336533453&oldid=1336464949 Graywalls (talk) 09:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, assuming the sources in that note are WP:BLP-good, I guess the note is a tolerable solution. Perhaps a wording like "Sources vary on Morgan's year of birth." is a little better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Request to update lead image (COI)

An approved lead image is ready to be placed on the article "Magda Marquet".

The file is available on Wikimedia Commons with VRT-confirmed permission: File:Portrait of Magda Marquet by J. T. MacMillan.jpg

I have a conflict of interest and am requesting an uninvolved editor to update the lead image.

Thank you. Mxf7 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

WP:BLPRESTORE: removal vs. administrative deletions

I have misinterpreted WP:BLPRESTORE's prohibitions on restoring content deleted on good-faith BLP objections all the time as encompassing the mere removal of text, which – as it turns out – it can't actually mean (Special:Permalink/1338717034#Arbitrary_break_of_sorts newer permalink) and, as described with a link to a 2018 discussion here at the policy's talk page, was even intentionally not changed from "deleted" to "removed" because this is really only about admin (tool) deletions. Perhaps I'm the only person who ever misinterpreted this but I guess I'm not, so this needs clarification. I guess Special:Diff/1338720959 does the job but perhaps someone has a better idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly I wouldn't have though it necessary given how the structure is laid out, but I don't see it as harmful either. I do wonder about a narrower addition further up the page that documents best practices for stuff that does not cross the deletion line. It's tempting to say the sourcing requirement already covers any such circumstance, but I'm not 100% convinced. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

The sourcing requirement doesn't cover deletions of verifiable content justified by WP:UNDUE + "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that is way too loose. Airbrushing UPEs are already way too slick sophisticated and knowledgeable without making their job even easier. Ground level day-to-day RCP practice is to summarily revert removals of unflattering material that is sourced to high-quality RS; we do not want to upset this.

Honestly I don't know how I would word it and I'm over a half-hour past when I was supposed to start a wikibreak. Maybe it's better to just let this be governed by fuzzy norms, but I know there's been a long-term change away from the old school use judgement, and ask for outside input when unsure, and toward executing a set of rules like automata, so that probably won't find consensus.

All I can ask of others to try and think through the consequences. Most will be familiar with an infamous case of airbrushing that has been in the news recently, but honestly that was low barely over scam quality UPE and it still got past us, even marginal ones tend to know which policies to cite now.

Admittedly the sad truth is that it's been an eroding situation for some time now not just BLPs, spam overall. Far too many people think that because most of the UPE caught is obvious that they all must be, but that's selection bias. Some of it has gotten incredible sophisticated, they know policy, they know how new users act, and they won't be caught by CU even with the new features. ~2025-41540-19 (talk) 00:22, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

UPEs also have a new parallel situation with AI-generated content (though they obviously overlap), which makes things even murkier because the text usually appears to be fully cited but in reality may or may not be verified by the source. Following our current (non-binding) AI cleanup guidance to the letter means reverting any of it in BLP articles then and there, no questions asked. This isn't what usually is done because it would mean a lot of reverting, just an untenable amount. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I've always read it as administrative enforcement, in line and supporting the wording of the lede section. (Reading the background discussions). --Hipal (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

I see that ToBeFree added "administratively" before "delete", and Hipal reverted that. I oppose re-insertion, thinking it could encourage anyone who in the last eight years has been tempted to add contentious material but been held back by WP:BLPUNDEL. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Looking through the policy history and relevant ArbCom decisions, I think "administratively" undercuts the long-standing intent of what's been in the lede and policy body from 2006. While the lede has been made clearer over time, the policy body content has been scattered (WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPREMOVE, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Importance), with WP:BURDEN only being mentioned in the lede and in WP:BLPUNDEL. WP:ONUS, sadly, is not included in this policy.

@JzG: re [1][2] --Hipal (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Struck my comment about ONUS above per Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Discussion below.

ONUS is appears to be too high a bar and controversial. "The burden of evidence" should not link to BURDEN, rather needs to be clarified. --Hipal (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

RfC: BLPRESTORE

The biographies of living persons policy, section "Restoration", says:
When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.
Should the word "deleted" be replaced by "removed" (removed by any user) or by "administratively deleted" (deleted with admin tools such as revision deletion and page deletion)?
09:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Removed. The status quo is confusing. A discussion at AN led me to the discovery that the current wording of the policy comes from a history of being about admin actions only and a 2018 discussion here rejecting the word "removed". The AN discussion may really be worth a careful reading because it changed my mind after years of telling users otherwise. Anyway, I think that the word should be "removed", not just referring to administrative deletions. Whether that was the original point of the section or not, it protects living people and allows any well-intentioned user to voice an actual concern that must then be properly discussed rather than thrown away. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• Removed, per ToBeFree. It aligns with WP:ONUS and our stronger caution in general regarding claims about living people. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• Unsure. ToBeFree's reasoning makes sense to me, though I think the WP:GAMING concerns people brought up in that 2018 discussion are worth considering as well. Suppose a claim is well-sourced and has implicit consensus (or maybe even explicit consensus), but then a random person removes it, saying they have BLP concerns. (The objection might not be a good-faith one, but if it's not totally clear, other editors would need to assume it is.) Would this wording change require that those wishing to restore it need to establish a new, explicit consensus?

  Regardless of what's decided here, I think the section needs to be clarified. If it's changed to "removed," the section should be moved out of the "Role of administrators" section. If it isn't changed, then it needs to be made clearer that "deleted" means "administratively deleted." A third option might be to leave the section in the "Role of administrators" section (and clarify it), then add a new section elsewhere that uses the word "removed." Cadddr (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Perhaps… “administratively removed”? Blueboar (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  If there's already explicit consensus, then it can be restored without significant change. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

• Removed but strike the second sentence; otherwise deleted. I share the GAMING concerns above but believe they would be resolved by removing the second sentence requiring editors to always gain consensus to re-add removed information. I think the common understanding of this line is "removed" and we should change this to fit unless it would be clearly suboptimal... but I also think adding such an easy way to game the system would be clearly suboptimal enough that I'd rather force it back to the original meaning if it came to that. Or maybe swap to removed by an administrator instead as a third option per Blueboar. Loki (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  Strong oppose "removed by an administrator", as administrators do not (and should not) have more decision power than regular editors over article content, and edits by an administrator representing content disagreement are not administrative actions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  +1 Toadspike [Talk] 10:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Change wording to "Removed under good-faith WP:BLPREMOVE objections". This is how I have always interpreted it - the "red line" of BLP, which invokes its more drastic restrictions, falls under the relatively rigid and clear-cut line of BLPREMOVE. Lesser concerns are of course worth considering but do not get the same red-line protections; BLP is a spectrum, and acknowledging that is necessary to avoid situations where WP:CRYBLP drags editing to a standstill. Imposing mandatory consensus-required restrictions on every single thing that touches on a BLP in any way, even if nobody disputes the sourcing (which is what some interpretations here would do) goes wildly beyond anything in the rest of BLP, let alone ONUS or BURDEN. And as far as that goes, I also strenuously oppose any reference to ONUS here or any any other policy page; its wording, interpretation, and applicability is highly-controversial, and it lacks a stable consensus as to its meaning, so it should never be used as the basis for anything else. WP:BURDEN is fine but its restrictions are much more cautious and clear-cut - and are mostly in line with having this only apply to WP:BLPREMOVE objections, ie. it is about red-line issues with sourcing, not more subtle and complex concerns over tone and due weight. Those are still serious BLP concerns, but not sufficiently clear-cut for us to take the draconian step of applying a consensus-required restriction to them wiki-wide the moment someone invokes BLP in any context. --Aquillion (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• Removed. All content needs consensus to be in an article. Usually that's WP:SILENCE, but the moment a good faith objection is raised, there's no consensus to include or retain the content and talk page consensus needs to be reached for its restoration. Allowing the restoration of content with good faith BLP objections is a terrible, terrible idea. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 23:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)
• Removed by an administrator per LokiTheLiar. The passage is a subsection of the section Role of administrators. If the de jure scope of this phrase is changed to mean removal by any user as opposed to by administratorsadministrative actions, it should be moved to a different section of the BLP policy. (Note to closer: If consensus is for removed, my preference is to move the passage to the subsection WP:GRAPEVINE.) mdm.bla 01:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Removed and moved to WP:GRAPEVINE per my previous rationale and Chaotic Enby's concerns in reply to Loki. Removed as an administrator action or similar and leaving the passage in its current location would then be my second choice. mdm.bla 14:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• "Removed", which is how I've always interpreted this. A risk of gaming by sophisticated bad actors is worth the price of better protections for all of our BLP subjects, who deserve to be treated with the utmost care. Failure to consistently uphold our policies and guidelines here can have serious (legal) consequences for the project. Toadspike [Talk] 10:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)
• Removed and move it so it's clearer it doesn't apply only to admin actions. I do not believe we should give admins special powers to decide whether something should be removed. And as I said in the thread which started this off, IMO this has been the normal interpretation at BLPN for quite a while. I can't recall anyone even claiming it was restricted to rev-deletions, or even admin actions over the past few years although I don't claim to have seen even most discussions at BLP. (But I have seen quite a few where BLPUNDEL has come up.) Deleted meaning rev-deletion doesn't make any sense to me. If something is rev-deleted, then unrevdeleting it will generally be wheel warring. You'd at least need the permission of the rev-deleting admin or as an alternative consensus needs to be achieved. Adding it back without unrevdeleting makes no sense. And while technically we're still in compliance with our licences, it's unfair to the original contributors if people cannot see they're the ones who originally introduced the text because the revisions have been hidden to hide text which has now been added back. (If there's some other reason for revdeletion then fine, a necessary evil but it's different when we're just hiding what is now in the article.) As for ordinary editors, if they know the content was rev-deleted than adding it back is always likely to be a serious violation even outside of BLP. If the editor disagrees rev-deletion was justified, they should be trying to overturn the rev-deletion and not simply adding the content back. If they don't know it was rev-deleted and that's inherently a problem when there is rev-deletion, we're not going to punish them just because it was rev-deleted. Now if what they're adding is a serious enough BLP violation then they might be sanctioned but the fact it happened to be rev-deleted is irrelevant. If the content is modified, it does get more complicated but I feel this isn't necessary to spell out. BTW, I'd also support Aquillion's wording. From my experience at BLPN, even those of us who have been interpreting it to mean any editor can remove content and it requires consensus to add it back, it's not something we feel is invoked everytime someone deleted something under BLP grounds. To avoid disruption and prevent fears of CRYBLP or gaming, generally we treat it as something which can be invoked, but isn't always. When we feel the BLP concerns are minor enough, we generally just let it be and continue discussion if content is added back. And I sort of got at this in the original AN thread, you're expected to discuss & explain your position. You can't just treat it as, I raised an objection and offered a brief explanation of my BLP concerns. You now have to seek consensus and I don't have to do anything more. Nil Einne (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

  If I may nitpick, wheel warring starts in the moment a reversed admin action is reinstated, so un-revdeleting wouldn't be a WHEEL problem by itself. It's incompatible with Wikipedia:Revision deletion § Appeal and discussion of actions though (reversal upon clear, wider consensus). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• Removed. (Summoned by bot). To be honest, I don't think that "deleted" was likely to cause significant confusion, but the question of which wording is more apt having been raised, I believe the more general "removed" is also more accurate to the point of community consensus that this policy language is meant to relate. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:58, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
• Removed/Deleted doesn't make a difference to me. In fact, I look to this discussion to really understand the difference here. I read the comments above and am not seeing a true delineation. Please advise.

But I strongly oppose making consensus finding/edit war policing solely the role of administration. Gaining consensus on BLPs is a necessary check-and-balance structure that calls out edit warring and ensures high-quality information adds and reliable sources. This is not the role of administration; it's the role of editors. And an ability to do so is one of our 5 pillars WP:5P4. Pushing towards admin is in violation of WP:BEBOLD and puts too much responsibility and work on the admin. We have a dispute resolution system for a reason. Editors should use it when consensus cannot be reached. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 14:56, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

"Removed" means taking out the content through regular editing of a page, while "deleted" means revision deletion or page deletion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:11, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Content, which tells editors writing policies such as this one to "maintain the distinction between an admin deleting a page and ordinary editors removing or blanking some or all of its contents". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Removed. Always thought it was removal and that's how I've applied it. It's generally a good rule to follow for BLPs. Revision deletion is too rare otherwise. This probably should be moved to a more general area. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Removed - This makes it more concise and helps define exact parameters incase people are confused by the difference of "remove and delete".

MaximusEditor (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Discussion

As far as clarification is concerned, I think WP:ONUS should be incorporated into this policy, and the use of WP:BURDEN the mention of "burden of evidence" in the lede should be clearly supported as widely as applicable, but at least for Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Importance. --Hipal (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Look at the talk page discussions for WP:ONUS; it does not enjoy any sort of stable consensus as to its meaning, applicability, or intent. It is not a policy that should be cited anywhere until that is settled, but certainly not on other policy pages. My opinion on it has only hardened since the last round of discussions - it is a poorly-worded and poorly-considered bit of text that was added with no discussion, has faced challenges every time it has been discussed, and generally poisons any discussion where it comes up. We should not be directing people to it as though it somehow enjoys actual consensus as to its meaning, or as if it can provide any sort of useful guidance for conduct or for resolving disputes. --Aquillion (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective, here and above. I didn't realize the disputes over ONUS, despite it being policy. I've struck out my suggestion regarding it.

Without any inclusion of ONUS, it needs to be much clearer where BURDEN applies. --Hipal (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Despite the similarity of the words used as a short cut, ONUS and BURDEN are talking about very different things.

BURDEN has a narrow scope… it talks about who has to supply sources to demonstrate that a fact or statement is Verifiable.

ONUS has a much broader scope… it talks about who has to demonstrate consensus for inclusion when the issue isn’t just simple Verifiability.

The Burden to supply sources is fairly easy to meet. The Onus to demonstrate consensus is much harder. This is why ONUS is controversial but BURDEN is not. Blueboar (talk) 20:56, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Good point. BURDEN is far too low a bar for BLP issues. I've struck out BURDEN from my initial comment above, as it's misleading. I think it should be unlinked from the policy in both locations. BLP requires NPOV, V, and OR to be strictly followed, and it's the phrase "the burden of evidence" that needs clarification. --Hipal (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@official__suraj__shah ~2026-10905-43 (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi! This is not the place to contact a biography subject or ask for a biography to be created. May I recommend you Wikipedia:Article wizard and Wikipedia:Your first article for the latter, if that is your intention? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

• So, my main point of curiosity here is how exactly this works with the classic situation where the subject is a fraud/criminal of some kind, and this is evidenced in sustained, high-quality coverage, and the subject repeatedly tries to delete that fact from the page. Do we just say "these are not good-faith deletions", or is an explicit consensus in favour required, and not just multiple editors reverting the deletions as vandalism? FOARP (talk) 13:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

  Hopefully we won't use the word "deletion" at all, because the options here are that it's not actually WP:Deletion, or that the subject is going to lose his admin bit forthwith. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Removed per Thebiguglyalien the Doug hole (a crew 4 life) 18:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

The names of the accused when that name is highly reported

I made this edit: [3] and waited for the R of WP:BRD to kick in, which it duly did. Now I'm discussing it.

In my opinion, it is very silly for Wikipedia to have a policy that advises "strongly considering" omitting the name of someone when that name is widely reported in reliable sources. I understand the idea is to protect the accused--who is presumed to be innocent, to be sure--from unnecessary damage to his or her reputation. I do indeed understand that. Suppose Bob Smith is accused of murdering the celebrity Suzy Senna and then later he's acquitted--we wouldn't want his reputation to be damaged when he's been absolved by a jury of his peers.

However, let's think for just one moment. If CNN, CBS, the New York Times, the Guardian, Fox News, and the CBC all have already named Bob Smith as the accused murderer, his reputation is already ruined far beyond what little Wikipedia can do. We cannot reasonably pretend that we are doing Bob even the smallest favor by obscuring his name.

Meanwhile, if we are obscuring his already widely-reported name, we run the risk of violating WP:NPOV by appearing that we're coming down on the side of the accused. Why else would we obscure the well-reported name? Why else would Wikipedia be the one website on the planet that doesn't tell you the name of the guy they arrested for Suzy's murder?

The caveat that I introduced in the policy, therefore, is a necessary safeguard to stop Wikipedians from wasting time "Strongly considering" something that is painfully obvious. If reliable sources are already widely reporting the name of an accused, Wikipedia should name the accused, period, no discussion required. Red Slash 18:58, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe if it's relevant to understanding the murder investigation and legal proceedings? --Hipal (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

If CNN, CBS, the New York Times, the Guardian, Fox News, and the CBC all have already named Bob Smith as the accused murderer, his reputation is already ruined far beyond what little Wikipedia can do. We cannot reasonably pretend that we are doing Bob even the smallest favor by obscuring his name.

Yes we can? Wikipedia is one of the largest sites on the internet, and our page on Bob Smith will be viewed long after the incident has left the news cycle.

Meanwhile, if we are obscuring his already widely-reported name, we run the risk of violating WP:NPOV by appearing that we're coming down on the side of the accused.

NPOV is not about appearance of neutrality, it's about balancing sources. It may be the worst-named policy on this site because the misconception that it has anything to do with the view-from-nowhere is so common.

Why else would we obscure the well-reported name? Why else would Wikipedia be the one website on the planet that doesn't tell you the name of the guy they arrested for Suzy's murder?

Oh, because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and not everything that ordinary news sources report is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Loki (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Accused by the media, or by a court of law?

When someone is actually indicted by a court, I think we can note that fact… but if it is just the media trying to sell papers and gain clicks by spreading rumor, hell no. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Re: "trying to sell papers and gain clicks by spreading rumor": The argument that the OP ought to be making is if the guideline's wording could crack the door open a bit more if gold-standard, sober-minded, grounded, and international/national outlets like the NYT, WSJ, CBC, BBC, etc. are reporting a name. To nod to the other side of that coin, the guideline could also perhaps close that door if outlets at that level are not giving the name. The RfC last month did not dive far enough into that question. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 23:19, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

I reverted the edit because it amounted to telling contributors that they weren't allowed to exercise editorial judgement if a name was "widely reported in reliable sources". Why exactly shouldn't they be? And since when has it been policy it insist that particular content more generally must be included in articles? Even ignoring that though, all it would really achieve would to be to move editorial judgement one step further, to argue what 'widely reported' means. Spammed out as nothing more than a name by multiple media outlets over the first few hours of a developing story (where such names are very frequently wrong), or discussed in depth after careful research a month or two later. Both might be described as 'widely reported' but they are very different. We need editorial judgement, not do as you are told count-the-sources instruction. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Every article on a building in Wikipedia tells you where that building is located. Every article on a war tells you which countries fought in that war. Every article about a person tells you their name... Yes, every article about a crime should tell you who the accused is (if such a fact is known and widely reported). This is basic, fundamental information about the crime! If Wikipedia does not include the name of the man who is accused (when this is known and widely reported), Wikipedia is failing to be an encyclopedia. That's what encyclopedias do: they list the major, widely reported and fundamental facts of a subject.

The current "strongly considering" text is a solution in search of a problem. We win nothing at all by hiding that information from our readers... other than lowering their trust in Wikipedia. Red Slash 04:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The close of the RfC (Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 65 § RFC: Amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources) says The community was seemingly not compelled by the WP:NOTNEWS argument(s); Again, mere mention of a (sourced) name does not suddenly transform Wikipedia into a news aggregator. (emphasis mine). I think the wording of BLPCRIME is fine as is; footnote "f" in BLPCRIME links to that RfC and says The amount of coverage in reliable primary news sources is a valid consideration, among others. Some1 (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Loki, that's definitely not true. Our page on "Bob Smith", unlike virtually every RS that mentions him, will be updated to show that he was acquitted. CNN will always have the article naming him as the accused murderer. Wikipedia will say "Bob Smith was originally accused of the murder but was acquitted by a jury of his peers".

And yes, NPOV requires a balance of sources. Like, if every single source names him, it's imbalanced on its face to not name him.

And of course, not everything from a news article about a crime should go into the Wiki article on that crime. But, uhh, the name of the accused is hardly trivia. Red Slash 04:43, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Another response to your point on NPOV: I disagree with Loki that that argument shows a misunderstanding of what NPOV is. You're right: BLP is fundamentally at odds with NPOV. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm saying it's by design. Take the beginning of BLPCRIME, for example—not stating in wikivoice that someone committed a crime unless they've been convicted of it is specifically a protection we extend to living people. If historians unanimously agree that someone from 1865 committed a crime they were found innocent of in court, we would absolutely say in wikivoice that they committed the crime.

When we wrote BLP, we chose to sacrifice tiny bits of NPOV to protect people, specifically so we have the choice in scenarios like this to not perpetuate the potential damage caused by sources. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 18:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, who is making the accusation? IF a person is formally accused (ie indicted) in a court of law, we can note this as fact (and note that a trial is pending or ongoing). But IF it is the media making the accusation, we should refrain.

We report fact… we do not spread speculation or rumor… even speculation or rumor that is reported on by normally reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree with you that an accusation or an indictment should be sufficient justification in and of itself for naming the person. Red Slash 02:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

No… Anyone can make an accusation. An indictment is more formal. Blueboar (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you, but NPOV is one of our pillars, and BLP is not. Red Slash 02:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

BLP is mandated by the WMF Board. Wikipedia:Five pillars, you might recall, is just a pretty page written by some guy on the internet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Neither the text prior to my edits nor the text after my edits runs afoul of the WMF page in the slightest, though Red Slash 01:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Having a BLP policy is mandated by the board, the specific shape that it takes is much less so. Katzrockso (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I've seen the high-profile US kidnapping case in my news feed. It seems that more than one person has been compelled to spend time with the police so far, but none of them seem to by guilty of anything. So I wonder: if any of these names are "widely reported" in editors' opinions, and then a couple of days later, the police say they exonerated them, have we actually helped educate anyone in the world? (NB that I don't count satisfying the curiosity of gossips and busybodies as 'helping educate'.)

Because of this, I think "multiple reliable sources have already published" is the wrong standard. The minute a name is discovered, it will be copied by multiple news agencies. For a high-profile case, we'll have one source name a person at 8:00 a.m., and it will be in a dozen sources a few hours later.

Since news serves a different purpose – in particular, it serves the purpose of letting people know who has been accused, so that one of them can say "Hey, he couldn't have done it, because we were together when the crime was committed! I gotta call the police and set them straight" – this can be a reasonable thing to do and a benefit to society.

But Wikipedia doesn't serve that purpose. Our job is to provide general education. Getting the name in on the very day it is "already published" by "multiple reliable sources" that all copied each other is not Wikipedia's purpose. In fact, the name per se is frequently not the point at all. People don't want "the name" so much as they want an explanation. Given a choice between "a 20-year-old drug addict" and "Bob Smith, about whom nothing at all is known", people actually find the name less informative than the nameless description.

I suggest that there's a fuzzy hierarchy that runs along these lines:

• The police are talking to someone, or have arrested someone, but they've not been charged: Don't name the person today; don't name them later, either, unless they are notable or there is some significant circumstance (e.g., a law was passed to protect accused people as a result of their experience; they became a well-known fundraiser for falsely accused people).
• The police have charged someone: Don't name the person today, because the charges might get dismissed tomorrow. But once the legal process is well underway, consider naming the person.
• The accused is standing trial: It's reasonable to name the person by the first day of the real trial (i.e., not necessarily during various pre-trial hearings and other preliminary proceedings).

But note these important caveats:

• I'm assuming that the crime itself is notable. The right answer for a high-profile murder is not the right answer for a porch pirate stealing a package from a pop star's doorway.
• I'm assuming that we're talking about an industrialized democracy with low corruption. If (e.g.) the leading opposition candidate gets arrested on the eve of an election, or if the police have a reputation for arresting innocent people, then the ordinary rules don't apply.
• I'm assuming that there is no significant skepticism in the press about whether the accused is guilty.
• I'm assuming that there is no significant risk of harm to being wrongly suspected. For example, there might be reputational harm if a person was identified as being present at the scene of a crime but absolutely innocent, if the scene of the murder is a place others would make negative assumptions about (e.g., a brothel, a methadone clinic, an abortion clinic...), then it might be unfair and harmful to name them.

When we tell editors to "seriously consider" not naming a suspect, or even a convicted perpetrator, we are thinking about the golden rule, or some version of don't be evil. So imagine that you were falsely arrested for a crime at the age of 20, and you were 100% totally innocent. You were released soon after the arrest, no charges were filed, and you left the jail perhaps a little shaken but thinking that you had a good story to tell for years to come.

In the meantime, your full name and description got reported in the news, and some Wikipedia editor decided to put that in an article. Ten years later, the article still says "_____ was arrested on 1 May 2016 in connection with this murder, though he was released the next morning without charges", and every time someone – a potential employer? new neighbor? the person you have a crush on? – does a web search for your name, the Wikipedia article comes up. Sure, you're thinking, but so will those original news sources, so it doesn't matter! The problem is that those original sources have since rearranged their websites, gone out of business, or fallen to the bottom of the search rankings (which usually deprioritize webpages that haven't been updated for a long time). As a result, in a few years, it may well be that the only link that draws attention to that experience is the Wikipedia article. Is that what you would want for yourself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I 100% agree with WhatamIdoing and couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm very skeptical of weakening WP:BLPCRIME, because the benefits are fairly small but the harms are potentially very large. If news sources at the time report a name, it's very easy for the reader to check the underlying sources and see the name if they really want. But there's a huge difference for some private citizen (or even a minor celebrity) between having your name connected to a crime in some ancient local news archive and having it connected to a crime on Wikipedia.

I have a Google News alert for my IRL name (mostly for fun). When it pings, it's often for someone who shares my name being arrested for a minor crime. These never show up when you directly Google my name because there are a few minor celebrities who share my name whose personal websites alone dwarf the traffic to some local news story. But if one of these random people accused of crimes had a crime they were accused of added to Wikipedia, then their name would come up connected with a crime when Googled. Which means that my name, and the names of the minor celebrities, would also come up connected with a crime when Googled despite none of us having anything to do with the situation at all.

And so could yours by the way, you are not immune just because you don't know this is happening. BLP stuff, especially when it deals with private citizens and major accusations, is a huge deal we can't take lightly. Loki (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the visualizing of this issue. I'm going to ping @WhatamIdoing and @LokiTheLiar and @GoodDay.

The police are talking to someone, or have arrested someone, but they've not been charged: Don't name the person today; don't name them later, either, unless they are notable or there is some significant circumstance (e.g., a law was passed to protect accused people as a result of their experience; they became a well-known fundraiser for falsely accused people). Sure.

The police have charged someone: Don't name the person today, because the charges might get dismissed tomorrow. But once the legal process is well underway, consider naming the person. (first, let me be pedantic--in America at least, police don't charge anyone.) I disagree with this: if the charges are dismissed, delete the information from Wikipedia. But until then, no, if it's widely reported, it'll be notable.

The accused is standing trial: It's reasonable to name the person by the first day of the real trial (i.e., not necessarily during various pre-trial hearings and other preliminary proceedings). - see above

I'm assuming that the crime itself is notable. The right answer for a high-profile murder is not the right answer for a porch pirate stealing a package from a pop star's doorway. - obviously!

I'm assuming that we're talking about an industrialized democracy with low corruption. If (e.g.) the leading opposition candidate gets arrested on the eve of an election, or if the police have a reputation for arresting innocent people, then the ordinary rules don't apply. Hard disagree. If some dictator arrests his main rival over corruption charges on the eve of an election, that's unbelievably notable', like, off-the-charts notable. Why in the world would we avoid naming the person charged??

I'm assuming that there is no significant skepticism in the press about whether the accused is guilty. Why? If the name is widely reported in reliable sources, say it, and show the skepticism, too!

I'm assuming that there is no significant risk of harm to being wrongly suspected. For example, there might be reputational harm if a person was identified as being present at the scene of a crime but absolutely innocent, if the scene of the murder is a place others would make negative assumptions about (e.g., a brothel, a methadone clinic, an abortion clinic...), then it might be unfair and harmful to name them. This is the core of what I think you guys are missing. If CNN runs an article that says "Four women murdered in broad daylight on NYC bus", and we deem that to pass WP:GNG, and in that CNN article (and a FOX News article, and a BBC article, and a CBS article, etc...) they say "Police have named Michael Stokesman as their main suspect"...

Bro, Michael Stokesman will always have his named tied to that, whether Wikipedia names him or not!! Do you really think that your date will search up "Michael Stokesman" on Google, scroll RIGHT PAST the CNN and Fox News and BBC and CBS articles associating you with the murder, and say "GASP! Wikipedia lists him as having been a suspect at one point for a murder!" Do you think the employer who wants to hire you will be worried about the Wikipedia article (that's been updated to clear you of any involvement in the case) instead of, idk, the Wall Street Journal article that directly implicates you and was never updated?

We gain nothing from hiding widely reported information from our readers--absolutely nothing. Red Slash 01:45, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

1. I disagree with this: if the charges are dismissed, delete the information from Wikipedia. But until then, no, if it's widely reported, it'll be notable. I assume you actually mean "worth putting into an article", which probably means WP:BALASP or WP:DUE, rather than WP:Notable. And at one level, arguing about "the name" is silly, because no source actually cares what the name of the suspect is per se. That is, there are no sources that will be saying "Wow, it was someone named Bob? I mean, I'd have expected a John or a Jacob or even a Jason, but the suspect was actually named Bob? Nobody named Bob ever does anything like this..." Instead, what the sources typically care about is the person, i.e., the "20-year-old drug addict living in Smallville" part, rather than the "his first name is Bob" part. I would encourage you to focus more on the part that matters and less on the name itself.
2. If (e.g.) the leading opposition candidate gets arrested on the eve of an election...then the ordinary rules don't apply. Hard disagree. If some dictator arrests his main rival over corruption charges on the eve of an election, that's unbelievably notable, like, off-the-charts notable. Why in the world would we avoid naming the person charged?? – We wouldn't, and I didn't say that we would. I'm giving you an example of an exception to "the ordinary rules". If "the ordinary rules" say not to name suspects the day they're arrested, then something extraordinary like arresting political rivals should not follow "the ordinary rules".
3. significant risk of harm to being wrongly suspected... If...we deem that to pass WP:GNG, and in that CNN article (and a FOX News article, and a BBC article, and a CBS article, etc...) they say "Police have named Michael Stokesman as their main suspect"...
   Bro, Michael Stokesman will always have his named tied to that, whether Wikipedia names him or not!! Do you really think that your date will search up "Michael Stokesman" on Google, scroll RIGHT PAST the CNN and Fox News and BBC and CBS articles associating you with the murder – Yes. Because in a few years, those news articles won't be at the top of the search results, but the Wikipedia article probably will be. Also, I'm "ma'am", not "bro", and this is my segue into saying that I'm old enough to have known a lot of people over the years, including someone who was murdered by a total stranger. If you put the victim's name in Google, or the name of the main suspect, the first page does not have any news reports from the time of her death. Just because a news source is at the top of the list today doesn't tell you that it will be at the top of the list next year, much less in WP:10YEARS. You won't have to scroll RIGHT PAST the CNN and Fox News and BBC and CBS articles associating you with the murder because those articles won't be in the search results any longer.
4. We gain nothing from hiding widely reported information – Nothing except our reputation for being level-headed and responsible instead of chasing page views with the latest up-to-the-second claim.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Yes, of course, I mean WP:DUE not WP:GNG or anything like that. Listen, nobody really cares about the address of the Empire State Building, but if you look up the Wiki article for Empire State Building and it doesn't have the address, that would be weird, right? Nobody really cares if the attempted assassin of Trump in Florida is named Tom or Harry or whatever, but if Attempted assassination of Donald Trump in Florida didn't have the guy's name, that would be weird. FYI, it was less than 24 hours after the article was created that we were already naming Ryan.

2. wow, I completely got that paragraph reversed. Of course you're right, my bad!

3. My apologies, ma'am. I'm very sorry for your loss. I would say that Wikipedia is far, far easier to wipe than any news article; if someone's charges are dismissed then their name should be wiped from the articles in question, and BLP really oughtta reflect that.

4. It's not a question of chasing pageviews, not at all. It's a question of appearing impartial. Hiding the accused's name (when there is an accused person who has been arrested, whom half the freaking world is reporting as being the alleged perp) is taking the side of the accused and not giving the WP:DUE weight to the many, many, many news reports that have decided that his name is in fact worth printing. If CNN and Fox and NBC and CBS and the BBC and ABC and CBC and el Pais and Le Progress and the Times and the Guardian and the Times of India and everything else have all decided that, yes, it's quite important to name the suspect... it is undue for us to hide that name. Red Slash 07:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

1. There's plenty of buildings whose address is public that we do not list for BLP purposes. (So for instance, the address of the mansion that was the center of the Streisand Effect controversy is known, but we don't list it.)

3. As other people have pointed out there are lots of Wikipedia mirrors, plus the article history, plus most importantly not every page is terribly active years after it was originally newsworthy.

4. That you're framing this as "taking the side of the accused" is even more reason why I don't trust you to make this change at all. We're taking the side of not harming ordinary people. (Also: the sources do not make editorial decisions for us, and the inclusion of some information in a source or even many sources never mandates us to include it, especially in a case like this where it would be against our policies.) Loki (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

1. Right: "Nobody really cares if the attempted assassin of Trump in Florida is named Tom or Harry or whatever", so – particularly in the early days – I think we should focus on giving them what they do care about, which is non-name information. On very high-profile cases, we're going to have more editors, and therefore a greater likelihood of someone saying that "hiding" the person's name just doesn't meet their expectations (also many, many more sources), but on the ordinary "Murder of" article, I think we're better off providing a description than a name.
2. No worries. It's easy to get turned around in long conversations. I've done it (and worse) myself.
3. If we didn't put the name there in the first place – or at least not for the first few days, when the unexpected exoneration is most likely to happen – then we wouldn't have to worry about removing it later. BTW, this policy was created in part because of the difficulties we had over the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case. He had sex with a housecleaner at a hotel. She claimed it was nonconsensual. He claimed it was merely adulterous. The woman's name is probably still visible in the page history. Did her name matter? No. Is putting the name of a 19-year-old alleged rape victim in one of the top-read articles on one of the top-read websites a decent thing to do? Also no. But we did, and even when we agreed to take it out, we still had people saying "But we need her naaaaaame..."
4. Not including something is not "hiding" it.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

“if the charges are dismissed, delete the information from Wikipedia”. No. That locks in the old information into mirrors and web archives. Instead, change to the correct information. “Bob Smith was charged with … by … on <date>, but these charges were dropped … on <date>.” Leave that information live for longer than the information it replaced, for the mirrors and webarchives to update with, and later, if it is uninteresting to the final picture, cut it without deletion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Of course, if we didn't put Bob's name in the Wikipedia article the same day that the information became available, then we wouldn't have to worry about what got copied to mirrors and forks when Bob was declared innocent in a day or two. My position isn't "no, never"; it's just "maybe wait a little bit". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I very much agree. Wait a little bit. I like objective numbers, having noticed that a high proportion of editors look for the number and stop reading when they’ve found one. I suggest “When at least three WP:GREL sources have named someone, without retraction or major amendment, for three days, then Wikipedia may cautiously include the person’s name”.

Of course it’s not about guilty or innocent, that takes years. The killer of Charlie Kirk was the third person of interest, apprehended on the first day, and wasn’t charged until the sixth. I think three days feels about right. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Red Slash:, you may be looking for a solution, where there's none. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I support the edit. Where “multiple reliable sources have already published the accused's name in connection with the crime”, I trust Wikipedia to be responsible and balanced-cautious in supplying the facts properly worded. A suspect has been named in reliable sources. Wikipedia should summarise what others have already said, responsibly. If the name is already in the public domain, I would prefer to have a responsible statement in Wikipedia to excited innuendo that can be read from media eager to publish first. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Fundamentally oppose this change, since it throws innocent until proven guilty to the dogs. FDW777 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

BLPIMAGE and low quality

Hello everyone. Has there been a discussion before about whether WP:BLPIMAGE should give a minimum standard of quality for images of living people? I haven't found one in the archives, but perhaps I'm using the wrong search terms. A few examples:

• I came across Charlayne Woodard today via a Reddit thread and removed the image. It's so small and so low quality (look at the blurriness, and that's after someone sharpened the image!) that it feels functionally unusable for our purposes. I'm curious if it fits the idea behind "disparagement" in BLPIMAGE, as having that bad of an image on top of your Wikipedia article certainly doesn't benefit us or them.
• I also came across Neil Breen today via that same Reddit thread, which featured a photo of him blinking. I don't know that I'd call that "disparagement," the word currently used in BLPIMAGE, but this talk page conversation kinda sums up the living person NPOV problem: "the current photo in its utter ugliness and amateurishness captures the essence of Mr. Breen perfectly." (Edit: I've since been reverted based on that talk page conversation.)
• Many years ago now, I removed this photo from Jared Lorenzen because it was blurry and not a decent portrayal of the subject.

Those examples are for discussion. Really, I could see people thinking that this is indeed a BLPIMAGE problem, that the quality question is really for WP:IUP, that it should be handled on an article-by-article basis, that one/all of these are not actually a problem we're concerned with, or more. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 19:39, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've seen Wikipedia:Unusual biographical images, but I think poor-quality lead photos are handled on a case-by-case/article-by-article basis. Some1 (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Some1: I actually unsuccessfully nominated that for deletion when it was named "funny biographical images," and in that discussion I said we should really think about images and BLP at some point. But no one, including me, ever actually started that discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 21:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

IMO there's no amount of blurriness that counts as "a false or disparaging light" for WP:BLPIMAGE. If a very blurry image is our only option we should take it, because a blurry image is still useful to the reader and doesn't do real-world harm to the article subject.

However the subject being in a funny or strange pose usually would be false or disparaging, and even if that sort of photo is our only option we shouldn't use it because it could cause real-world harm to the article subject.

My instinct here would be to leave up the images at Charlayne Woodard and Jared Lorenzen but remove the image at Neil Breen, exactly the opposite of what actually happened. :P Loki (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)