Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons

Published judicial documents
I propose amendment of WP:BLPPRIMARY so that it will plainly permit citation of published court judgments. This responds to a claim (Ben Roberts-Smith/Talk) that references to a court judgment must be confined to secondary sources, even when these sources are only media reports of the judgment and it might be shown from the judgment itself that these reports, or a particular understanding of them, are mistaken. There has been some discussion of this kind of issue (Archive 34:1, 2; Archive 47:2), but no conclusion seems to have been reached.

The main purpose of WP:BLP and WP:BLPPRIMARY appears to be privacy. The restriction is on "public" documents or records. Taken literally, that could include published judgments of a court. However, once a judgment has been published to the world, no privacy is left. Thus, if WP:BLPPRIMARY is understood in the light of its purpose (a method familiar at least to lawyers), the restriction does not apply to published judgments. It would be helpful to make that plain.

It does not seem to matter who has published the judgment—whether the court itself, government or a private organisation—if it is a mode of publication that may be cited in judicial proceedings.

The phrase "other public documents" appears to be unnecessary, since it is covered later by "public records". The order of the second and third sentences could be reversed.

Publication has to be a restrictive criterion, although not sitting easily with the moral value of privacy, since it is now common (at any rate, already in Australia) for transcripts, the parties' submissions and other case documents to be published online even in relation to pre-judgment proceedings. These documents might well contain information distressing to a party, but the court has determined that it should be made public; as to privacy, the horse has bolted. Nevertheless, WP editors should exercise discretion; probably most of the time, the information would just not be noteworthy.

The policy might thus be amended as follows:


 * Current text : Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.


 * Proposed amended text (additions italicised for the present purpose) : Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use unpublished (even if publicly available) public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. A published court judgment may be used to support assertions about a living person, but unpublished trial transcripts and other unpublished court records must not. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on the primary source to augment the secondary source—subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

Errantios (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NOR. We should always rely on reliable secondary sources when it comes to including this sort of material in Wikipedia. I've seen editors misinterpret court judgements on a number of occasions, either out of attempts to WP:GASLIGHT or more often because they lack the competence to digest and summarise the content. Secondary sources, which have put the content in lay terms, make much better sources to rely on for assertions of fact in Wikipedia. TarnishedPathtalk 05:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: I find the statement that the main purpose of WP:BLPPRIMARY is privacy to be severely mistaken given the word is not mentioned once in that section of WP:BLP. That section of WP:BLP does however mention no original research, and the other sourcing policies. WP:NOR and sourcing policies are clearly, to me, the main purpose of this section of WP:BLP. Tarnished<b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 05:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Neutral I'm not a fan of the broad scope way the amendment is proposed. That said, I think using a court document to make a clear black-white claim as to the status of a court case -- where the case itself was the subject of significant coverage but its resolution was not -- would be both fine and consistent with BLP.
 * For instance, John Smith sues Jane Row, and this lawsuit is widely covered and works its way into a WP article. However, the ultimate resolution / disposition of the lawsuit receives no media coverage. In a limited instance like that, I think it would be fine to use a court document to wrap that up with a succinct "the court ruled in favor of Jane" or whatever. To do otherwise would be to leave the perception of an open lawsuit dangling over Jane's head in perpetuity on WP.
 * I wouldn't be okay citing court judgments, in the absence of secondary sources, to inject the article with any reasoning or commentary that was presented by the court, or specific passages of testimony, etc. due to both OR and TarnishPath's comment about the competence of individual editors to interpret legal documents. Chetsford (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC); edited 06:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think if the lawsuit is already notable enough to be commented on by sources, it's just common sense that we can cite the actual ruling/dismissal/etc when it is over. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 10:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per @Johnuniq's comments on BLPN: ...because an opponent of the subject can easily cherry-pick undue negativity from a laundry-list of assertions. Using a secondary source is supposed to shift the burden of deciding what reporting is appropriate from an anyone-can-edit contributor to the editorial team of the secondary source. Say ocean again (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence about citing a judgement for the reasons Johnuniq gives, I think if there are cases where there are no secondary reports about the outcome probably fall under WP:Recentism and removal should be considered instead.
 * Separately, I think that this has come up enough that it should be addressed specifically to the project page under WP:BLPPRIMARY. There are possibly hundreds of BLP's that have published case law them that probably need to be evaluated. Say ocean again (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad makes a good point. We may be looking at WP:LP violations by leaving allegations in that have been adjudicated in their favor. Not just in criminal cases, but civil cases, too. Even if we don't name people, the allegations are usually tied to individuals and are often one degree away from WP as court documents are often embedded or linked in RS. Related: Study finds Wikipedia influences judicial behavior
 * I don't think there's really an issue with notable court cases, such as in the supreme court. Those will have RS and will have the notable summaries. If they don't, the decisions aren't notable and there's no reason for us to be another case law e-book. Say ocean again (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Narrow Limited Support for this exception :
 * A notable case with outright or inference of an outcome of a case other than the actual adjudication in a reliable secondary source. The judicial decision must be available for citation. Favor deletion and exhaust all options.
 * Limited to a properly attributed quote of an adjudication of the case or a notable claim with the reason, the rule, and if it is res judicata. No WP:TMI.
 * Zero tolerance for links to public records per WP:PRIVACY.
 * Say ocean again (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 06:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment, I found the following related discussions in archives:
 * 1) Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_47
 * 2) Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_47
 * 3) Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_52
 * 4) Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_35
 * 5) Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_35
 * 6) Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_35
 * 7) Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_35
 * 8) Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_39
 * 9) Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_45
 * Not going to happen. The reason secondary sources are required is that court documents usually need interpretation. For example, if a secondary source thinks guarded language is desirable when reporting a court finding, so generally should we. Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose while I would make an exception as to citing a judgment to support the very fact of the judgment, anything beyond that should require normal secondary interpretation, I believe. Judgments are often not self-explanatory documents--and while they represent a legal finding, that does not mean that they necessarily align with anything else.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Stong Oppose WP:BLPPRIMARY does not exist in a vacuum, and I think it is important to understand the reasoning under WP:PRIMARY as well. There are many issues with using primary sources, and those issues are even more serious when dealing with the personal lives of living people, which is why we use extreme caution. Court documents such as the opinions of judges or transcripts, etc., are (1) not always public information, and (2) even when they are public documents under the law, that is not what we are really concerned about on Wikipedia. Millions of people access Wikipedia every day, and few of them are going to take the time or effort, or may even have the knowledge, to go through public databases or make public document requests to obtain information. Most people would be surprised and deeply disturbed by the amount of "public" information about each individual in the world (whether held by governments, data brokers, etc.), but that does not mean it is appropriate for Wikipedia. For example, even published dates of birth are not automatically included in Wikipedia articles. Under WP:DOB, they have to be widely published and even then there are additional considerations. Are there possibly a few limited circumstances where a secondary source is clearly wrong or silent about the outcome of a court case, and that can be fixed by citing the actual case? Probably, but then that should be a localized discussion on an article's talk page, supplemented by a discussion at BLPN or elsewhere if appropriate, rather than a reason to change the policy (WP:IAR can always help in those rare circumstances). Even in those cases, the disposition of a case and reason for that disposition are not always clear-cut, black-and-white. Judicial opinions are often complex and contradictory, with many aspects involved, from mere legal technicalities to the substantive merits of the case and everything in between, and usually with many questions under review, not something as simple as just a "guilty" or "not guilty", especially when dealing with civil cases or criminal appeals. Errantios seems to be making a big deal about what is "published" or a "public record" under the law, but that's not really what the policy is concerned about, IMO, and the law is also not that simple. I also don't think the proposed amended text makes sense from a legal perspective regarding what is "published"/"unpublished" or "publicly available" or not. Apologies for the wall of text. – notwally (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - and if crickets chirp on the outcome after RS sources had extensively covered the initial stages of the proceeding. So be it. I agree that the proceedings need to re-evaluated on WP:NOTNEWS or WP:RECENTISM, especially in a WP:BLP1E situation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is slightly off-topic; basically only a reply to your post: My concern with "if crickets chirp on the outcome after RS sources had extensively covered the initial stages of the proceeding. So be it." is that many news sources are looking for readers so they will publish articles like "individual harmed in 100 ways by big corporation" but when 95 of those allegations prove false, there is not enough clickbait/readership potential in "individual who claimed to be harmed only 5% harmed". So for the Ashley Gjøvik‎‎ article, for example, are you suggesting that after five years pass and if her allegations are dismissed and there is no new news about her, than we delete the article as BLP1E?  I'm wondering what to do with articles like this (potential one). --- Avatar317 (talk) 01:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There was question in the AfD whether WP:BLP1E (or by extension WP:BIO1E) applied, and it may well be given that her complaints are appropriately already mentioned in TRW Microwave Superfund and AppleToo. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * + Criticism of Apple Inc. Say ocean again (talk) 13:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we know a case has been adjudicated by the desire to add a judicial record, and it was not covered within days of the adjudication, that seems to be an instant indicator of WP:RECENTISM or WP:NOTNEWS.
 * For the Gjøvik‎‎ article, as an example of NOTNEWS, the only source of the lawsuit is Apple Insider, and seems to fall into For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources. We know that the claims mentioned in this article have been adjudicated and it's unsurprising it is not in any RS because it wasn't covered elsewhere to begin with and as Avatar317 notes, it's not very newsworthy to let everyone know a pro se lawsuit's claim against a corporation was dismissed.
 * For RECENTISM, the adjudication of the whistleblower complaints with the DOL became public with another judicial decision, but also partly from the same AppleInsider post. We know from the adjudication of the lawsuit that she did not file any complaints with the SEC that qualified her as a whistleblower, so they are dismissed permanently. I don't think it makes sense to wait five years to see if a hypothetical RS decides that matters, because if it becomes notable again, it will just be recreated by way of process. Say ocean again (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose The reason for this not having been allowed in multiple discussions past is that judicial documents require interpretation to understand the legal outcomes and impacts. Interpretation is not something we, as editors, are allowed to do and must have secondary sources do for us. Hence why we have our rule of WP:No Original Research. Silver  seren C 01:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Legal judgments, like laws, are very often not transparently clear without full knowledge of earlier proceedings and relevant legislation, and debatable even then – consider the frequent extensive arguments in courts as to the meaning and applicability of laws and precedents. They may occasionally inform editorial discussions and decisions, such as whether to keep RS'd material about the beginning of proceedings or eventually remove it as having turned out to be inconsequential and unencyclopedic, but it should still be clearly understood that they can't be used as sources for article content. NebY (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Limited support on a case-by-case basis. We are not going to routinely rely on court decisions, especially trial-court decision, in writing articles about controversial topics, but the rule cannot be as categorical as some have suggested above. A good example, given above, is where an article indicates that a lawsuit is pending but the record shows that it has been resolved. Similarly, to insist on our reporting that a criminal charge is pending when it has actually been dismissed, in either a published or even an unpublished document, could actually be defamatory and a serious BLP problem in its own right. In addition, articles on notable court decisions, such as U.S. Supreme Court decisions, frequently include quotations and summaries drawn from the decisions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Limited support in the vein of NyBrad. (No opinion on the Gjøvik stuff since I'm acting in an admin capacity there). I've cited court documents before. While publication is a useful metric, it isn't the only metric. The current text correctly recognizes that filings by a party are almost always worthless, and that trial transcripts are equally problematic. Trial court opinions (which come in categorically unpublished form) are sometimes useful but only for the sort of things NYBrad is talking about. Appeals courts proceedings (which come in both published and unpublished form) are sometimes citable, but sometimes not. Supreme court opinions (which are almost universally published) are generally high quality and may even be cited without a secondary source in appropriate cases. Of course, not all published opinions are alike. Federal court opinions should generally be given more weight than state court opinions, and so on. And this doesn't even begin to consider non-American justice systems. Bottom line: if we're gonna make a guideline about how to use court documents, which is I think a useful idea, we'll need a lot more brainstorming. <b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b> <i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>⚓ 04:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I never thought of reported appellate decisions like US Supreme Court opinions as the kind of "court documents" the policy is referring to, although in the strictest sense they are. To me, appellate opinions are in their own category when it comes to how to properly use them, while "court documents" means things like court docket entries (whether appellate court or trial court). Loosening the policy to allow those kinds of court documents to be used would be dangerous. The risk of an editor misinterpreting a court document (whether an appellate opinion or a docket entry like a complaint, a judgment, a trial court ruling, or a party's filing, all of which are "published" in the non-legal sense of the word) is far greater than the risk of something vitally significant to an article (WP:ASPECT) being in a court document but not reported in any other WP:RS. I don't believe the hypothetical BLP situation is plausible, where a criminal complaint is dismissed that meets the encyclopedia's inclusion criteria but is not reported in any RS. Either the whole case would not be an WP:ASPECT or the topic would not meet WP:N. A notable or significant case would have its result reported in RS. More likely, in my view, is that editors would misinterpret a court document and think, e.g., that a partial dismissal, removal, or transfer, was a dismissal of the case. If RS and court documents don't align, editors are better off going with the RS. So I think the current policy about court documents (as in docket entries, not including published appellate decisions) is correct. As others have said above, it's not about privacy (although Wikipedia is a giant megaphone due to its favorable search ranking and being used for Google knowledge panels, LLMs, etc.), it's more about WP:NOR. Levivich (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not only about privacy, but privacy is always an important consideration in any BLP policy. – notwally (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I have seen far too many examples of court documents being improperly cited in BLPs to consider this proposal at all appropriate. As of now, I can absolutely guarantee that examples can be found in BLPs where such documents have not only been cited, but done so in an intentionally partisan manner, to the detriment of the article subject. The policy needs enforcement, not weakening. As for the point made by NYB, I would have to suggest that leaving things open on a 'case by case' basis' would make matters objectively worse, given the limited scrutiny such assessments would be likely to receive. In as much as the specific situation described by NYB might arise, I would have to suggest that any exception to a 'no court documents' rule would have to be made subject to prior broad community approval, on an individual basis, from at minimum an RfC on WP:BLPN. And meanwhile, if a BLP contains say sourced content regarding charges that were subsequently dropped, without this dropping being reported by third-party sources, the solution is to remove all content regarding the charges entirely. If the dropping isn't significant enough to be commented on, the initial charges almost certainly didn't belong in the article in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would oppose as above, but with one exception : if secondary sources have covered the initiation or start if legal action related to a BLP, but fail to follow up on that (often if the case lasts for years), then including the final Judical decision related to that person should be allowed to provide the necessary closure, particularly in criminal charges. This is rare but I've encountered this situation outside BLP and I see no reason to include for BLP as long as the case is originally covered to a significant degree in RSes. M asem (t) 17:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Limited support There are a few limited cases where I can see an open ended case that received coverage which contributed to someones notability, but the end result was either not covered or the case was not able to be completed for one reason or another. An example is the section at Emily Willis, where the case was not able to be completed as scheduled due to the claimant falling into a coma, and coming out of it in a vegetative state.
 * However, I also agree with statement that there are examples where cited docs can be used against the article subject in question. An example that comes to mind is Murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, where the section cites the Supreme Court documents in several instances to add material not covered in reliable sources about living subjects.
 * There is also the reality that people could add or remove material from court documents based on their own opinion, research, etc with Talk:2022 University of Idaho killings and Special:Diff/1222685656 being prime examples of the bad elements I would be concerned with.
 * TL;DR - Support neutral summaries of court documents if no coverage exists in RS's for the finality of a cited case to help someone reading the article understand the outcome, or lack of it ('the case was dismissed on X, Y withdrew their lawsuit in 2010', etc), if the case was notable itself. It should be noted that judgements can be vacated, so my limited support is for higher court documents (Supreme Court - either State or of the US, as well as courts of Appeals).

Awshort (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

When does academic or political criticism fall under WP:BLPPRIMARY?
A couple sub-questions here,


 * 1) When is criticism relating to the subject's work (or their politics, etc) considered information about the subject? My understanding is that such criticism generally does fall under BLP, even if the criticism focuses on the work rather than the person, since the two are strongly associated. What about criticism of, say, the administration of a president - is that a gray area?
 * 2) How do we determine whether a piece of criticism is a primary source? Would this come down to whether the criticism is based on the author's own original arguments, or summarizing those of others?

For example, Benny Morris cites criticism from an interview/debate, as well as articles like this. I'm trying to determine whether or not content like that adheres to WP:BLP. — xDanielx  T/C\R 23:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of that is probably going to be primary sources, and even though parsing when a source is primary or secondary can be difficult, I think a lot of it still deserves a cautious approach. Additionall, something like an interview or a published article from a partisan think tank should probably not be given nearly the same weight as a published book from a reputable, non-partisan publisher. The best sources would be giving overviews of the criticism rather than the criticism itself, although that's not going to be possible in a lot of situations. Any "praise" or "criticism" section should be viewed with a fair amount of caution regardless of sourcing, see WP:CSECTION. I also think there are a lot of problems with most "political views" sections, including BLPPRIMARY and overuse of interviews rather than secondary sources commenting on those views. That article you cite looks like a hot mess. I think more than 50% is "praise" or "criticism" and the rest is mostly "political views" with only a small "biography" section. There look like more "political views" sourced to a single citation than the entire text of his actual biography. May be helpful to leave a message on the talk page if you are going to do major work because I could imagine that would be a contentious article with passionate editors who have worked on it. – notwally (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of praise and criticism requires commentary from secondary sources about the praise and criticism, rather than the primary sources, unless it is an expert of the subject of the criticism or praise. Say ocean again (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Do biographies of living people need categories supported by the text
I just had this note connected with an edit reversion. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk'') It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry. This is just plain wrong practice. If we cannot be bothered to mention something in the text of an article, it is too trivial to categorize by. Categories are supposed to lead people through somewhat similar articles. A minimum expectation is that the information be mentioned in the article.''John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC) I recently had 4 articles I had edited get revered. This is the general tone of the edit summaries. "Undid revision 1231303175 by Johnpacklambert (talk'') It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry, this is just ludicrous. First off, external links are not always reliable sources, so just using them to push categories directly is problematic. Beyond this, categories are supposed to link something that means something. They need to be "defining". If playing for a team was so non-defining to a person that we do not even mention it anywhere in the text of the article, not even in a table, we should not categorize by it. This makes me think that at some level team played for becomes to close to performance by performer categories. I am sorry, but we should not be categorizing anyone by 18 different teams played, especially with the amount of other categories sports people are placed in. At least not when we do not even mention in any way all 18 teams in the article.''

* This article is 16 plus paragraphs long. The various external links that are said to support the categories for things like playing with the Winston-Salem Warthogs, not mentioned at all in the text, are not all reliable sources. With living people I would think that we would need the thing mentioned in the article to place in a category. With this level of teams it is heading very close to performer by performance level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems very obvious that for any topic, moreso for BLP, a category must be supported by sourced material in the body. In this case, for a player across a dozen some teams, this could be easily done by a simple list of those teams not otherwise called out in the article.<span id="Masem:1720532633529:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 13:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree that, for a categorization to be considered “defining”, the basis for the categorization should be substantiated in the article text. This is especially the case for BLPs. If a factoid about a person is too trivial to even mention in the article text, that factoid is “non-defining”. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely a good point, even if the person played for a team, if most sources do not associate that player with that team and is only relegated to a statistic, then it's definitely not a defining category. It's data for Wiki data, but not the category system.<span id="Masem:1720534949837:Wikipedia_talkFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 14:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks to me like most sources for Major League baseball players treat their career about the way our articles do. They generally only mention major league teams. They are much more likely to mention college play than minor league. Especially in summary style and leads. I am wondering if we have some minor league teams where none of the players in the category have any mention of that team in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Kurt Abbott and Jim Abbott are two such articles. Jim Abbott's article literally says he played in no minor league games. So whatever his connection with the 4 minor league teams mentioned in the article, including single-A (4th tier baseball) Hickory Crawdads, he seems not to have actually played in any games for them. Kurt Abbott only has 1 of the minor league teams he played for mentioned. It appears there was a decision to limit MLB players info boxes to the MLB teams they played for and to exclude the minor league play from the box. Evidently because minor league play is not considered important (let alone being on a minor league roster so little time you do not play).John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. In addition to Masem and Blueboar's good points, there's WP:CATV, which requires that categories be supported by verifiable article text. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not WP:FORUMSHOP. Discuss the matter at one place only, per WP:MULTI. I suggest Wikipedia talk:Categorization as that is fairly central, and has attracted three replies. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to create an article that I was planning on creating
I received a request on my talk page to create a page for an academic in a field I'm very familiar with. I have created a few pages that are on topics this person is closely associated with, which is how they found me in the first place I'm sure. They are one of many academics I was hoping to one day create a page for, and have been collecting relevant sources as I stumble upon them. I do not know this researcher in person, and have never contacted or been contacted by them besides my talk page. Now that I have received a request, is there anything I should do to avoid COI accusations if I do ultimately try to publish a page in the future? I'm not getting paid, obviously. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 17:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , I don't think that would be a WP:COI, but you could use the WP:AfC process or make a note of the request you received when you create the page, such as in an edit summary or on its talk page. I would also suggest you let the other person know they should avoid leaving personal information like their email address on talk pages. Using Wikipedia talk pages may be the best way to communicate with them anyway so that you cannot be accused of having established an external relationship with them through off-Wiki discussions. – notwally (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, Thank you for the advice. If I can get enough solid sources to make the page, I will proceed as I had intended before the request, and note the request in the talk page. If I get a reply from them on my talk page, I'll be sure to mention it is not good practice to share their personal contact information on talk pages. GeogSage  ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 20:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Can RT bio be used for living people
I’m trying to add Emily Alyn Linda birthday to her wiki page. Her birthday was listed as May 6, 2002 on Rotten tomatoes but my edits get reverted I also found article from her at age 9 when she says her birthday is May 6 from Smashing interviews. I also talked to user: Laterthanyouthink (talk) and he said IMDB is not a reliable source, but I remember an earlier talk page discussion about RT bios where the editors concerned agreed that it was acceptable for DOB. I have added some notes and other sources on the talk page of the article, so you can use those sources and/or discuss it further there. Tnays20 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RSPS states: There is consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information, cast and crew data, or other film and television data, as it is sourced from user-generated and user-provided content with a lack of oversight and verification. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)