Editing Eurovision Wiki:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (section)

== Can a statement made by the subject about themselves in a video interview be used in a BLP? ==

If the subject is interviewed by another person, on video, and makes a statement about themselves, can that statement be used as a source? [[WP:BLPSPS]] says "Never use self-published sources (including books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, YouTube videos or social network posts) as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themselves." Does "written by the person themselves" include "spoken by the person themselves in a video interview"? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 20:22, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

:Yes, I'd say any spoken or written claim is covered. And "never" is qualified heavily a bit further down at [[WP:BLPSELFPUB]]. So it's not never, when it's not self-serving, is germane and authentic, not about others, and not used heavily for content. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 20:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:I would expect that the video be one created by a reliable source, that would be okay. A statement made in.a CNN video, certainly. A statement made in a rand youtuber's video, where there atr potential questions of the legitimacy of the video, not so much [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 20:37, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::{{re|Masem}} The key point being whether there are questions of the legitimacy of the video? Or something else? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 21:02, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Legitimacy of video. AI is too good that I'd not trust any random youtuber claiming to interview the BLP is legit unless we know the source is good or we have confirmation via a reliable source they consider the video legit. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 21:16, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Or, I would suggest, if the subject themselves promotes the video, which would erase doubts of its legitimacy. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 22:57, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I would still beg the question. I know of very visible cases of the BLP subject promoting clear AI/faked information about themselves.
:::::Certainly if its like "Hey fans, I did an interview on XYZ's show, check it out!", sure. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 00:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Right. That kind of thing fails [[WP:BLPSELFPUB]] not because it's video, but because it's self serving and involves third parties. Imagine a video that passes BLPSELFPUB. What's the problem? Speech is speech, written or recorded. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 01:56, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::I'm not sure that raises any questions that wouldn't be raised by a living person self-publishing a deep fake of themselves. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 14:22, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::There are two concerns related to using information that someone says in a video interview with them:
:::1. Is the source of the video reliable?  In other words, did they actually say it?  If the video were, for example, from the BBC, we can be pretty confident that it's neither doctored nor created out of whole (AI) cloth.  If it's on "Bob's YouTube Channel," then we're much less confident about both.
:::2. Is the statement true?  Here's where the self-pub issues come in. If someone says "I'm actually the love child of Queen Elizabeth and Vladimir Putin," we definitely shouldn't be using that to say, in wikivoice "XYZ is the child of QEII and Putin."  If they say "I was born in Phoenix, and my parents are both accountants," that's the kind of statement that would probably be OK. [[User:BubbaJoe123456|BubbaJoe123456]] ([[User talk:BubbaJoe123456|talk]]) 22:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:Please see:
:*[[Template:Did you know nominations/Nala Ray]],
:*[[Talk:Savannah Bond#January 2026]], and 
:*[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 505#YouTube as a source of BIO subjects confirming facts about themselves]] for related discussions.
:''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 22:36, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::Pinging @[[User:CoryGlee|CoryGlee]], @[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]], @[[User:M.Billoo2000|M.Billoo2000]], @[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]], @[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|ActivelyDisinterested]], @[[User:ActivelyDisinterested]], [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]], @[[User:Barnards.tar.gz|Barnards.tar.gz]], @[[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]], @[[User:Cortador|Cortador]], @[[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]], @[[User:FDW777|FDW777]], @[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]], @[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]], @[[User:Helpful Cat|Helpful Cat]], @[[User:Jumpytoo|Jumpytoo]], @[[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]], @[[User:NatGertler|NatGertler]], @[[User:Newslinger|Newslinger]], @[[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]], @[[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]], @[[User:Some1|Some1]], @[[User:TarnishedPath|TarnishedPath]], @[[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] and @[[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] as editors involved in prior discussions. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 22:41, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::That's a lot of pings. I think you should assume that anyone who is interested in the BLPNB will subscribe to it. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 23:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::A lot of the prior dicussion occured at [[WP:RS/N]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 23:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Might I gently suggest a notice posted to RSN as being a better solution? --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 06:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Because some editors might not be satisfied, or are still confused... including myself... and this topic comes again. Thank you for pinging. In the linked RSN Archive 505, I had also asked that if a new relatively new (random) YouTuber A interviews a well known personality B, and B shares clips from it on B's own social media as well, would that A's video be reliable to use as B's ABOUTSELF on Wikipedia? Also, back in RSN Archive 486, I was advised about [[WP:UBO]] as well. [[User talk:M.Billoo2000#top|'''M.''']] [[User:M.Billoo2000|Bill'''oo''']] 23:00, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Do you have a link to the Archive 486 discussion? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 23:09, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_486#Pakistani_news_references Here] it is. [[User talk:M.Billoo2000#top|'''M.''']] [[User:M.Billoo2000|Bill'''oo''']] 00:18, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:I believe that "written...by the person themselves" includes "spoken by the person themselves", whether in a video or audio format.  Rules should be assumed not to be specific to the media or to put up barriers.  We have no need on Wikipedia to be as specific as the rules around a [[holographic will]] are.  The key point is:  Do we genuinely, soberly, taking all the facts and circumstances into account, believe that they said exactly that of their own free will? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 22:49, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::Even discounting the possiblity of AI deepfakes, if we don't consider the source/publisher themselves to be generally reliable{{emdash}}a reputation for fact checking and accuracy{{emdash}}how can we be certain they haven't engaged in editing of clips so that the context of some statements is lost? ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 22:53, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I would think that any potentially contentious material should not be sourced to a source/publisher that is not generally reliable (think a traditional news source like MASEM pointed out). Uncontroversial statements of fact might be sourceable to a source/publisher themselves that we don't consider to be generally reliable, but it might depend on the context. [[User:Katzrockso|Katzrockso]] ([[User talk:Katzrockso|talk]]) 23:01, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::::[[WP:BLPSELFPUB]] already has that in mind. OP's question was just video vs writing. [[User:JFHJr|JFHJr]] ([[User talk:JFHJr|㊟]]) 02:59, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:Only when it's published by (a) a reliable, secondary, independent source, or (b) the subject on their official website, social media, or other verified platform—where we can reasonably assume that the subject has approved the content being released. There are plenty of reasons to take a conservative approach to [[WP:BLPSPS]]. Sketchy people/sites editing the video to take the person out of context has always been a concern. Or secretly recording someone and misrepresenting it as an interview. Of course, now those types of people/sites would just deepfake the interview. Another one we've seen here is interviews with low-reader/viewer niche publications, where the interviewee reasonably assumes that nobody will see it—and all of a sudden their age/DOB or sexual orientation is out there. No, for content about living persons we should always look to reputable sources or the subject's verified platforms. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 23:30, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::This issue is ''too'' confusing for me. At an article that I wrote ([[William and Zachary Zulock]]), the DYK reviewer did not accept a Laura Ingraham video by the official Fox News source and Laura Ingraham herself speaking (no AI &ndash; Fox News website) because of this issue. I mean, what's the problem with reliability? Is it reliability or an issue with the political positions of those who speak in the video? I think that as long as the video is verified as authentic, it should be perfectly used as a RS. [[User:CoryGlee|<span style="color:fuchsia;">CoryGlee</span>]] 23:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
:::It's not the political positions, but that Fox has a history of misrepresenting facts, using doctored or misleading images, lying through omission—or just outright lying. This is particularly egregious on Fox talk shows and their political/scientific content. On the other hand, I think most would agree that The Wall Street Journal has a right-leaning bias, but they're considered generally reliable on Wikipedia. Reading through [[Laura Ingraham#Political views]], particularly the sections mentioning her promotion of conspiracy theories, well, I can't say I'd trust her on any topic. [[User:Woodroar|Woodroar]] ([[User talk:Woodroar|talk]]) 00:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:As long as you're certain it's the subject themselves, not a deepfake or maliciously edited video, then whether written, spoken, signed, or semiphored it can be used for ABOUTSELF. The question becomes if you are certain of it's authenticity. I would say a source doesn't have to be reliable for this purpose, just certain that they wouldn't deliberately misrepresent published material. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 23:54, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
::How are we supposed to be certain of that? <span class="nowrap">––[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]]</span> ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 00:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::As with most things, editorial judgement. In nearly all cases we rely on editors own good judgement. The only valid rating of a source outside of specific context is generally reliable, editors still have to judge whether that source is reliable in context and that is editorial judgement. Otherwise it's impossible to proof beyond any doubt that any video or report is true. Let's say a professor publishes a video interview with a colleague on YouTube, I can't see they would post deliberately doctored content in that context. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 00:17, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Honestly this is just a situation where the wording of policies probably needs to be changed make more sense. -- <small>LCU</small> '''[[User:ActivelyDisinterested|A<small>ctively</small>D<small>isinterested</small>]]''' <small>''«[[User talk:ActivelyDisinterested|@]]» °[[Special:Contributions/ActivelyDisinterested|∆t]]°''</small> 00:19, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::Second that. [[User talk:M.Billoo2000#top|'''M.''']] [[User:M.Billoo2000|Bill'''oo''']] 00:23, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
::That's where I'm at. This isn't really different from an interview in a print/online magazine as long as the video is authentic. [[User:Cortador|Cortador]] ([[User talk:Cortador|talk]]) 09:33, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

*'''No''', assuming we are talking about {{tq|self-published}} videos, for all the reasons I [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 505#YouTube as a source of BIO subjects confirming facts about themselves|stated previously at RS/N]]. {{tqq|Written}} does not apply to moving pictures. <span class="nowrap">––[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]]</span> ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 00:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC) {{small|edited 01:51, 13 March 2026 (UTC)}}
*:{{re|Sangdeboeuf}} For those of us who have not followed your no doubt illustrious career at RSN, could you at least summarize what those reasons are? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 01:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
*::[[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 505#YouTube as a source of BIO subjects confirming facts about themselves|The discussion is there]] for anyone to read. Given that the topic is virtually identical, familiarizing oneself with the discussion should be mandatory for anyone seeking real consensus. <span class="nowrap">––[[User:Sangdeboeuf|Sangdeboeuf]]</span> ([[User talk:Sangdeboeuf|talk]]) 01:43, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
*::: Thank you for adding the link; it wasn't there when I asked, and I have to admit that searching throughout all the edits you had ever made to RSN, which no doubt would have been interesting, engrossing, and elucidating, was beyond my humble abilities. {{smiley}} --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 13:30, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
* If there's no doubt about the authenticity of the interview (e.g. they appear on a famous podcast like the Joe Rogan Experience or Lex Fridman or the subject confirms on a verified account that it's them), then I don't see why not as long as it's properly timestamoed. Obviously it raises [[WP:DUE]] concerns if this detail has not been reported in more reliable sources, but it's something to consider on a case-by-case basis. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 02:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
*I was involved [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_505#h-YouTube_as_a_source_of_BIO_subjects_confirming_facts_about_themselves|in a similar discussion]]: should YouTube videos be allowed as sources where a BIO subject makes a claim about themselves. The current phrasing makes it easy to think only videos from news organizations are eligible. And not, say, podcasts. Videos where there is no reasonable doubt the subject is really there etc. The reply I got was that Perennial is under reconstruction and they preferred to postpone taking any action until after completing their work. So that's what I am doing. Waiting, until once more pushing for YouTube to become an acceptable source of claims made by subjects about themselves. [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 10:07, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
*:There are active RFC's at [[WP:RS/N]]. So if you have a good discussion question to bring, I'd suggest you don't need to wait. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 12:02, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
*:: I don't understand. I have already started a discussion at RS/N: [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_505#YouTube_as_a_source_of_BIO_subjects_confirming_facts_about_themselves]] This current discussion mostly just rehashes the exact same arguments. I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_505#c-WhatamIdoing-20260127174900-WP:ABOUTSELF_and_WP:BLPSELFPUB told to hold off]. Are you saying the [[WP:RSP RFC 2025]] process has been completed, so it's worthwhile to keep (restart) discussing? [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 12:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]], I'm saying that there are current RFCs occurring at RSN (which would potentially have an effect on [[WP:RSP]]), so I don't know why you should hold off if you think you have a pertinent question to bring. 
*:::If you do decide to bring a question, I'd think something along the lines of 'Are statements by interviewees on SPSs able to be used for uncontroversial statements about themselves, and if so which policies—if any—should be updated to make that clearer?' would be good. That said, I don't know that the best place for such discussion is [[WP:RS/N]]. Perhaps [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SPSs as a source of BIO subjects confirming facts about themselves]]? Given the implications for multiple PAG, you'd might need to notify [[WP:VPP]], [[WP:VPR]] and other places of such a discussion if you went along that path. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 12:41, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::: Why do you persist in suggesting I proceed with my aim to make [[WP:RSPYT]] more clearly allowing YouTube as a source of BIO subjects confirming facts about themselves even when the account isn't a news agency when I've been told RSP first needs to become subpages, so sources like YouTube can have many entries in the table, [[User:TarnishedPath]]? And how is it relevant there are current RFCs occurring at RSN - there always are; are you thinking of anything in particular? Best regards, [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 13:03, 14 March 2026 (UTC) 
*:::::Why do I persist with suggesting you proceed? Because, like you, I would like clarification from the community. <br>
*:::::Why is the fact that there are current RFCs occurring at RSN relevant? Because it demonstrates that these sorts of discussions do not need to be put on hold. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 13:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::::: Which '''specific''' current RfCs harbor "these sorts of discussions", TarnishedPath, and how do you think adding another to the pile would make a difference? You haven't justified going ahead with even more discussions, even though I have explained to you I have already gotten the response "let's restart discussion when the underlying technical platform supports the nuance required". I think we're done here. [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 15:11, 14 March 2026 (UTC)  
* As per others, if there is no question, this is a video with them (and has not been edited) answering, and as long as it is not self-serving, it should be OK. But I am unsure if any of that can be proven. At the end of the day, how trustworthy is the video publisher? [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 11:03, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
*:The OP started this topic I think because of my review on a [[WP:DYK]] nomination. See the links I provided above. One of the YouTube video's is from Charlie Kirk. Do I trust Charlie Kirk to not have engaged in selective editing? Fuck no. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 12:05, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
*::With due respect, somewhat, but not quite. I asked the question in general, because I wanted the answer in general, and, as I am pretty sure I wrote on the DYK nomination, I don't even think Charlie Kirk applies, just like the Fox News issue mentioned by Woodroar and Cory Glee above; they may or may not be reliable, but for different reasons than this one. Permit me to make a separate section about the [[Nala Ray]] article specifically, and we'll talk about the specific article and those specific sources there, and we'll keep this about the general question of interviews in general. All right? --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 13:38, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::I think it is a worthy question in general, given that there has been at least two prior discussions on this{{emdash}}that I know about{{emdash}}and likely more. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;"><u>talk</u></b>]]</sup> 05:18, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

:I would also add a point, mentioned a few times above, that if the video source is not assuredly a reliable source (or considered by reliable sources to be valid), the best we should be pull from those are fundamental biographical facts, birthday, birth place, where they are living, etc. Any statement that has some contestable aspect that is beyond mere biographical facts, even like "I was valedictorian of my high school", that needs a far better source. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 14:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
:Speaking and writing about oneself should be considered the same. <span style="white-space: nowrap;">—[[User:Compassionate727|Compassionate727]]&nbsp;<sup>([[User talk:Compassionate727|T]]·[[Special:Contributions/Compassionate727|C]])</sup></span> 20:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)