After answering a question at the help desk, I was left pondering about this guideline and engaged in a quest of organization and stylistic changes to improve the page. It was to improve the form, visuals, style, navigation, organization. I did not intend any meaning changes and if there is any it was likely unintended. I hope the changes are of the liking of my fellow editors. If not, feel free to discuss or change. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

When is it useful or encyclopedic to say something like "he died seven and a half weeks before his 93rd birthday" instead of "he died at age 92"? I might be convinced to allow something like "she died one day before her 100th birthday", but where do we draw the line? Chris the speller ^yack 18:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chris the speller, I see no point in including that sort of content. The age at death should be sufficient. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum, I would expect a reliable source to mention it, establishing some significance.—Bagumba (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for the response. There are hundreds of these, including some like this: "exactly two weeks before his 95th birthday". What precision! But what good does it do for any reader? I will nibble away at this pile of excessive drivel. Chris the speller ^yack 20:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Chris the speller, a related point is that in many cases where such expressions appear the date of birth is unsourced. Therefore any expression of a span before or after a birthday would be unsourced, also (unless the span is stated in the obituary or has some other reliable source). Eddie Blick (talk) 00:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that a line should be drawn, if the detail is reliably sourced, I don't see how it benefits the reader to provide a less precise range rather than a more precise one. The fact that such references commonly occur in reporting suggests that it is a detail likely to be of interest to readers, and I would generally be opposed to any sweeping campaign of removing these details, absent a lack of sourcing. BD2412 T 23:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If the specific date of death is provided, can't the reader determine for themself how much of a "partial year" of age they had at the time of their death? I don't really see any need to include something extraneous like that, especially when it's already there for anyone who actually is interested. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I find such details to be excessive, with the damage being distraction and undue weight. Birthday anniversaries just aren't (usually) that important. It is appropriate in some nonencyclopedic writing that is trying to add some color to the story, but Wikipedia should stick to plain facts. I think some editors would even reject this as analysis of the sources (assuming the sources just give the birth and death dates). Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Since 99.7% of our dear departed did not die on their birthday, for uniformity we should either specify the proximity to their birthday or omit it. If everybody gets the birthday mention, who's going to pitch in and add it to the hundreds of thousands of articles that don't yet have it? Easier to remove it from the relatively few articles where the subject's niece or nephew added this unencyclopedic trivia. Chris the speller ^yack 04:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I am sure that newspapers have some rule for this. It is very common for news reports to indicate this proximity where it is close (within a few weeks). Taken to the opposite extreme, why do we say of someone, "he died at age 92" rather than "he died in his 90s"? BD2412 T 04:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

In my first post at the top of this discussion, I asked "where do we draw the line?" To me, "until his death three months before his 56th birthday" is only slightly less preposterous than "until his death ten months before his 56th birthday". Chris the speller ^yack 05:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

where do we draw the line": YMMV. Depending on where and when, some are satisfied if it's verifiable (or even via WP:CALC), others may get into whether it's WP:DUE. Ultimately, there's the WP:ONUS policy:

While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying that someone died weeks before their birthday is more informative to the reader than merely stating their age. Within two weeks is probably a reasonable cutoff, unless we are talking about some milestone (100th birthday, for example), perhaps for which celebratory plans were already in the works (see, e.g., Betty White#Betty White: A Celebration (2022)). BD2412 T 20:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think if a reliable source deems it important enough to mention, so should we. GiantSnowman 21:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with BD, we certainly do not need any campaign to remove all such mentions. We are writing for the facts, yes, but that does not mean we should strive to make this place completely devoid of colour (anyone else still running Vector 2022?) We are not robots, but if anyone wants a rule, then yes, it seems silly to mention a birthday if it was more than a month out, and removing that seems fine to me. Beyond that, personally I wouldn’t add such detail without it being closer than a week on either side, but to remove it is more of a waste of time than many, many other things you could be doing instead. — HTGS (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Disabilities are almost never mentioned in first sentences, just nationality and occupation. See Category:Deaf actors for examples. However this article (Kaylee Hottle) seems to be breaking established status quo. 🅶🅰🅼🅾🆆🅴🅱🅱🅴🅳 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• The first sentence should highlight attributes that the subject is most notable for. Which attributes should be mentioned is very subject specific. Sometimes an attribute is crucial to a person’s notability (ie the person is notable because of that attribute), while the same attribute may be trivial to the notability of another person. Blueboar (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Does WP:SELFID come into play at all? How does the subject of the article consider themselves? An actress who is deaf, or a deaf actress? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Not for the opening sentence. That should be based on independent sources. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

When it is central to the subject's notability, it should be mentioned. When not, not. An example where it is central and mentioned is Chieko Asakawa. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I gotta be honest, in both of the articles mentioned above I would make sure the disability is in the lead, and maybe the second sentence, but I wouldn’t put it in the first sentence as they are. Most people should be regarded for their work first, then their disability. The fact that they are deaf or blind is not the primary reason these people are notable, but it has clearly had a strong impact. — HTGS (talk) 06:33, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I have been active in creating and editing business biographies here for many years. For a few weeks now I have been replacing phrasings such as "John Doe serves as the CEO of XYZ Inc", with "John Doe is the CEO of XYZ Inc". The latter is more concise, and I think clearer and more neutral. The edit summary I have typically given is "copyedit, more neutral language". None of my edits have been reverted. On my talk page, User_talk:Edwardx#"serving_as"_non-neutral?, Anastrophe has asked "can you point me to the policy or discussion where it was determined that "serving as" is non-neutral language?".

MOS:OPENPARABIO reads "The first sentence should usually state ... One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms." I think that "serves as" is subjective and contentious. Private sector companies, PR and the business press encourage us to (at least subconciously) see some sort of equivalence between private sector business roles and what might traditionally have been called "public service".

For business biographies this seems clear-cut. But what about politicians, armed forces personnel, roles in not-for-profit organisations, and unpaid roles? I think that we should consider removing "serving/serves/served as" from all articles, and would much appreciate hearing the views of other editors. Edwardx (talk) 19:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this, Edwardx. I'll repeat my question/arguments from Edwardx's talk page here, for further clarity. First largely responds to the question of use for military, politicians, etc.

"[...] I'm still unclear in what way describing someone as serving a particular position or role is non-neutral - it doesn't sympathize with nor disparage the subject in any way that I can discern. Politicians and military personnel work within the broader scope of what is commonly and accurately characterized as "public service". With the exception of extremely minor public service, such as serving on a small town's city council, where the members only fill that role part-time and earn a living elsewhere, those in public service aren't expected to work for free. Being paid doesn't change what their role is."

And reply to the contention that the biz press encourages its use so that we subconsciously see an equivalence with public service:

"But is that the case? I hate to throw out the original research argument, but that's what this appears to be. Absent a concrete policy stating that the terminology is overtly violating WP:NEUTRAL, rather than an individual editor's notion about what the term might mean, I think you should bring the matter up in the appropriate place for broader discussion, rather than imposing this as a blanket change. I'm unable to find any reliable sources that support your opinion on this. I've seen 'serving as' used to describe a "low level" customer service representative position - that's why it's described as "customer service".

Look forward to other perspectives as well. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer to see this sort of phrasing only for unpaid roles that one might actually consider as service rather than employment. Or maybe for someone serving in the armed forces; that's also commonly called service. But not for just a job, CEO or otherwise. "Served as" has the connotation that to hold this position is a service to society, and (in cases where it is just a job rather than obviously being a service) we should avoid that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Edwardx's edits, though there may well be cases where "serves" is appropriate. However, I disagree with the edit summary. I don't think it is a matter of neutrality. I would use an edit summary along the lines of "plain English". The text being removed is often just verbiage, and not the great writing we aspire to. If a link was desired for plain English, there is the essay Wikipedia:Use plain English. Nurg (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

We also need to consider narrative flow. It is utterly tedious to read an article where every sentence is "Smith was this, and then Smith was that, and after that Smith was the other thing". Phrases like "served as" break up the tedium, which is sometimes necessary for readability. BD2412 T 00:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

This is dubious... repetitive prose usually derives from syntax problems, in which case the solution is not to start substituting synonyms. See WP:ELEVAR.

"serves as" is usually not the simplest and most direct way of solving the sentence. Popcornfud (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It is bog-standard terminology, however. See, e.g., William Francis Rocheleau, Great American Industries: Manufactures (1900), p. 8: "The stick served as a lever, and the stone as a weight". No lofty subjective praise is read into that. It is more descriptive than "was". BD2412 T 17:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, it's an extremely commonplace construction, it's just usually not the simplest one.

Your "stick served as a lever" example is actually a different usage of "to serve" — it means in the sense of using something to achieve another purpose, like a field serving as a parking lot. Joe Biden is not serving as the US president in the same sense. Popcornfud (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how False Title applies to this at all, as it has nothing to do with adding or substituting synonyms; it actually argues against excessive brevity. Wikipedia, just as the False Title essay points out, is, unlike newspapers, not constrained for space. Good/great writing is not only about writing in the simplest, most terse, manner.

I've found some past discussions here on WP about the matter, but nothing outside of WP that suggests there's something nefarious or dissembling or puffery-ish about use of serving as/serves as/served as etc.

The past discussions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_221#%22Serving_as%22_in_lede_of_politics_articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marcia_Fudge/Archive_1#How_should_we_word_the_lead_sentence?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch/Archive_7

The last one there has the most discussion, and while I only skimmed through it, the sense seemed to be that it's not problematic per se, and certainly not harmful, but could be but isn't strictly puffery/PoV.

In my personal opinion which holds zero weight, it strikes me as over-policing of speech. Also of no weight at all but interesting, from etymonline, '[...] Sense of "be useful, be beneficial, be suitable for a purpose or function" is from early 14c.; that of "take the place or meet the needs of, be equal to the task" is from late 14c. [...]" - all of which seems to be its use in this context.

Amusingly, in its earliest usage in the late 12th century, it had the connotation of 'be a slave'. Quite the opposite of puffery! Fortunately, this is not the 12th century.

When people have asked me in the past what I do for a living, I can recall saying, for example, 'well, in one aspect of my job I served as [...], but I also served as [...]" when describing my job functions within a company, since in many of my jobs I wore multiple hats. Perhaps though I was overcompensating for a lack of self-esteem.

My sense - in terms of WP and non-rigid standards/practices - is that we should just do as we do with date formatting, BC/BCE, and other things - if it's one way in an article, leave it that way, if it's the other way, leave it that way. I don't think it needs wholesale replacement. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

My bad — I linked to the wrong essay entirely. WP:ELEVAR is what I was thinking of. Sorry for the confusion. Popcornfud (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice essay. Just an essay, though, and one that provides no counterpoint to the problem of repetitive monotony, which makes it harder to actually maintain focus while reading a text. This is not an all-or-nothing proposition, there can be a middle ground, and there are definitely circumstances where "served as" is more informative to the reader than merely "was". A person can hold an office in name only and do nothing in it, and it can accurately be said that the person "was" whatever the title of the office was, but not that they "served as" the holder of that office. BD2412 T 20:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Apart from elegant variation, we there is also avoidance of close paraphrasing, the need to phrase things differently to the source. (I agree that "served" is usually better than "was".) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll just add the relevant essay here, since to my surprise it hasn't been mentioned yet. WP:AREYOUBEINGSERVED Popcornfud (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that @Edwardx: continues to purge the terms "serves", "served" etc from articles, but with no rationale, just 'copyedit'. I repeat my objections - however mild - to this, as there's no policy or guideline or even reliable source that I can find that states that those terms are bad/wrong/inappropriate/manipulative/disembling/deceitful/nefarious/must be purged from Wikipedia.

I, and probably most people, wouldn't get the impression that Jamie Dimon is a public servant if his bio noted that he 'serves as the chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of JPMorgan Chase'. I see no difference between "serves as", "acts as", "works as". It means filling a role and doing a job. It's plain english.

It doesn't praise or denigrate to say "X served as regional manager" rather than "X was regional manager", or even "X acted as regional manager". WP:ELEVAR suggests avoidance of excessive use of variable wording, particularly where it introduces confusion. I don't think it argues that variety in terminology is to be avoided at all costs.

As I suggested before, if an editor runs across an existing article and it uses 'is/was' or 'serves/served' etc., leave it as you found it, as both are reasonable. Absent some guidance that these words are problematic, I think that's a fair compromise.

As there's no clear consensus above, perhaps someone can link to any reliable sources outside WP that argues that there's something inherently problematic with the terms. I can't find any. The terms are used broadly in business, politics, academia, research, activism, and more. We shouldn't be making up language rules based on whims. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Edwardx please stop making this change. It is the equivalent of changing “till” to “until”; both forms are acceptable, and you have better ways to spend your time than policing the way people use English. — HTGS (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily disagree with the edit on one level (per my comment earlier), I have only made such an edit myself as part of a larger and more significant edit (as far as I recall). In the context of the copy editing that can be done, it is quite a minor issue. To address the last sentence of Edwardx's post, I don't think there should be a campaign to remove the wording from all articles. I suggest to Edwardx that they focus rather on more worthwhile edits. Nurg (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I just did a random spotcheck of some of Edwardx's "copyedit" edits. All three of the edits I reviewed (, , ) look like improvements to me and good examples of where simple "be" verbs do the job better than "serve". Popcornfud (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their varied and interesting thoughts, and especially to anastrophe for uncovering some earlier pertinent discussions. Stepping outside of Wikipedia for a wider view (and we should be seeking to mirror what is written in reliable secondary sources anyway), I have been looking at how obituaries in the leading reliable sources and profiles in Britannica.com, Biography.com, Forbes.com, Simple Wikipedia, etc. None of them use "serves/served as" to describe for-profit CEO/chairman/director roles. For political and military people, they generally avoid it in the opening sentence, and often in the entire first paragraph. We should be seeking to emulate the best secondary sources. The nuances of language matter, especially in the lead, which is all that most of our readers bother with. Using "serves/served as" can be seen as a value judgement, it is needlessly verbose and we should prefer plain English.

My (reconsidered) view is that we should not use "serves/served as" to describe any for-profit CEO/chairman/director roles, and we should avoid it in the first paragraph of any biography. Edwardx (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that the removal of "serves/served" etc continues apace, now eliminating it even from military service. I am compiling some information regarding this matter which I'll post later. I still await any reliable sources that state that 'served/serving' etc biased/subjective/a value judgement/to be avoided. I am only going through Britannica.com thus far, and the claim that 'none of them use serves/served as to describe for-profit CEO/chairman/director roles' is not reproducible.

When the difference between "verbose" and "plain" is a matter three letters, I think we're in trouble of reducing WP to a very low literacy threshold. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Collapsed below is a list of biography entries from brittanica.com. I've done my best to randomly poke around through different disciplines but it's obviously not comprehensive; in fact, the list is short, because I've spent way too much time finessing the formatting to wikitext; that's also why I haven't bothered with visiting the other online encyclopedias, I've put more than enough work into this as it is. I prefer to make decisions based on information, not speculation or personal observations in a vacuum.

I have excluded any person whose notability is primarily in public service – politicians, military leaders – or where the only use of 'serves/served/serving/' etc. is in regard public service outside of their primary notability. If I had included its use in public service bios, I'd estimate the list would be half-again larger.

The split between 'public service' and 'not public service' is not black & white at times, and I'm open to striking any for which a compelling argument against inclusion is tendered. I would note, however, that in earlier discussion the split was on formal public service, i.e. political/government/military service, which seemed less of an issue in discussion. Working for a publicly-funded organization, or one that receives some level of government funding, doesn't explicitly mean it's "public service", imo.

I've restricted findings to occurrences in the first or second graf; only the latter is noted when it occurs. Editor Edwardx is not confining the removal to the first or second graf, I would note – all instances are seemingly being removed, but I haven't reviewed every single edit; if I'm mistaken, apologies.

The only elisions are when the use is in the first sentence, as it would mean including birthdate/place etc.

I could discern no obvious inclination or reluctance on Brittanica in using the term. Brittanica seems to have no issue with its use in business bios. I acknowledge my own confirmation bias in this, as I hope others would of their own findings. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 17:55, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

So, I posted factual information here two days ago that clearly shows that "[...]the leading reliable sources and profiles in Britannica.com [...] use 'served/serves' in biographies for people in "[...] for-profit CEO/chairman/director roles [...]", contrary to the claim that none of them do, and that it is used [...] in the opening sentence, and often in the entire first paragraph." I agree that "We should be seeking to emulate the best secondary sources", and one of the best sources uses the terms. I can find no reliable secondary sources - none, anywhere - that claim or even allude that "Using "serves/served as" can be seen as a value judgement [...]". Yet the purging of the term continues. We should not be making wholesale changes to WP based upon vague feelings, when we have objective evidence that the terms are acceptable for one of the best reliable sources. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have a compromise. It seems perfectly fine to change “serves as” in the present tense, for simplicity, but for those positions once-held, the past tense should not be changed. What do you think, @Edwardx? — HTGS (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a UK/US component here, and certainly there's a lot of personal preference, but whenever I read "Joe Biden is serving as the Nth president" or some-such, I wonder what the REAL president is up to while this Biden stand-in fellow does his job. This is a usage not dissimilar to Popcornfud's example above "Q. is it really a car park? A. No, but it will serve", ie is an adequate substitute. Clearly military serve abroad and in their particular branch and it is not uncommon to thus refer to diplomats, but isn't it the most common usage for political/public roles that "Biden is" and "Trump was" president. What useful purpose does the more elaborate phrasing serve? Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Again, we keep going with personal opinions and speculation, and apparently evidence is not helpful at best, dismissed at worst (while we're here, Pincrete can you explain your addition of "Italic text" to the William Rainey Harper entry in the collapsed section above?)

I've never come across the notion that the term confuses people into thinking there is a shadow presidency or other conflations. It seems a stretch, and only if one is overthinking the plain language presented. In my opinion.

The various iterations of how the term 'serve/s/d' is used differently aren't a strong argument against this usage - shall we digress, for example, into the definition and usage of the term 'set', in all its 430 (and growing) distinct usages? If I said "I set the chair aside me", is it likely someone would misinterpret that to mean that I congealed a chair next to me?

I'll refer to sources 'outside of' WP and outside of our own personal opinions (and, again, actually provide the results, rather than 'summarizing' it through my own lens). While not acceptable as reliable secondary sources, they provide a look into what large-language-models "think". I chose three of the better known AI.

cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Regarding MOS:FIRSTBIO, which says in part The opening paragraph of a biographical article should neutrally describe the person, provide context, establish notability and explain why the person is notable, and reflect the balance of reliable sources. Should this include or exclude the terms "convicted felon" or "convicted sex offender" in cases where the subject is notable for something else but is also a convicted felon or sex offender? Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein are two key examples where edit warring of the lead sentence to include or exclude this phrasing has occurred. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe this falls into RGW territory, but I think it should list the crime specifically. “Sex offender” can mean anything from rape in a dark alley to being gay before 2003, it doesn’t really tell the reader anything and depending on the crime it can actively mislead them. Same for felonies in general.

Whereas if you say “convicted rapist”, that maintains notability while being unambiguous. Likewise for felonies, “convicted felon” doesn’t really say anything. Did they commit arson or did they bounce a check? Snokalok (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It depends. The opening sentence of an article should explain what the subject is primarily notable for. Someone like Jeffrey Dhalmer is really only notable for his crimes. The opening sentence appropriately focuses on his mass murder. People like Epstein and Weinstein, on the other hand, are notable for a lot besides their crimes. While we definitely should NOT ignore their crimes, we should not highlight their crimes over the other things that make them notable. A more nuanced opening sentence is more appropriate (Epstein was a businessman who committed sex crimes… Weinstein was a Hollywood film producer who committed sex crimes). Blueboar (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the answer is almost always no, at least for the felon part. That's rarely why these kinds of individuals are notable in sum total, and it almost always feels like a smear rather than neutral statement of fact (Safiya Bukhari is a convicted felon, but that's absolutely not the summation of her career, to pick another example.) Even if someone like Donald Trump got convicted, which would be an immensely historic and notable event in America, it still wouldn't make sense to say the most important thing about him was that he had a criminal conviction in the first breaths. The only places I think it makes sense is when the person's claim to notability is central to why they even have an entry (such as their criminal acts being the only reason they have an article.) There's also the issue of the fact that "sex offender" or "felon" is a massive gamut of potential crimes and would essentially lump without elaboration; to take the previous entries together, that a civil rights activist who got a patently unfair trial is equivalent to a Hollywood sex pest. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Almost always no. If their crimes are a major enough aspect for a first-sentence mention, it should almost always be possible to be more precise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Snokalok. We should describe the actual crime (and not just when the perpetrator is independently notable). So for instance, HH Holmes is described as a con artist and serial killer, not just as a felon.

In these particular cases, Harvey Weinstein would be described as a "convicted rapist" and Jeffery Epstein as a "convicted child sex trafficker". In both of these cases, I think enough of their notability is for the crimes that this should be a first sentence mention. Loki (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It should be case by case weighing the reliable sources about the person. I don't think a blanket rule prohibiting the use of "convicted felon" is logical. Otherwise we might as well change FIRSTBIO to only include the first reason the person was notable. Nemov (talk) 20:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

It depends on if their crime is the reason for their notability. In most cases it's better to treat it with more detail and context further on, e.g. X is an American musician and entertainer. In 20xx they were convicted on Y counts of Z. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with everyone here. When I see "convicted felon" crammed into the first sentence of the lede, it's often a red flag that the writer wants to cry "Shame! shame!", but realizes that the details would make the person seem not evil enough. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Exclude per WP:LABEL and instead describe the conviction in the first sentence if that is their main notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an issue that's come up at DYK and ITN. The common problem is that if you are trying to say something about a person in one sentence, there is nearly no way there is sufficient context in that one sentence to explain that subjective negatively-toned phrase (even if 100% objectively true) and provide the context that is appropriate to explain what for or other aspects related to that, which makes the phrase stand out as non-impartial or dispassionate writing. Where there is more space to supply the full details (like what they were convicted of), such as later in the lede or within the body, that language is fine. BLP does not require listing everything a person is notable for in one lede sentence, and to me it makes much more sense to wait a sentence or two, or even one or two lede paragraphs, to address such topics so that the lede works from the most objective material to more subjective later, using to opportunity in later paragraphs to give that context and breathing room.
The only exception here would be for a person where their only means of notability is from doing or suspected of a crime, in which case it's hard to say anything else for a lede sentence. — Masem (t) 21:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

For both those people, without reading either article, I would expect to see details of their crimes in the second sentence, but not the first. This conforms with what you have quoted above, and I see no need to change it. In most cases I would not write simply “convicted X”. These people are notable for their crimes, not for the fact that they were convicted. We lead with the conviction because we don’t want to be unclear and to avoid allegations of libel. — HTGS (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Unless the primary reason someone is notable is a crime or crimes they committed, no, I don't think we should be describing them in the first sentence as "convicted felon" or "convicted sex offender". And really anywhere in the article we should report what RS are reporting, and unless are RS are calling them those things, we shouldn't either. We should report what RS are saying: "In 2014, X was convicted of a sex crime." "In 2024, Y was convicted of securities fraud." Or whatever. Valereee (talk) 00:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

To me, this is where a bio is really no different than any other article. I could start off an article about, say... capacitors by saying, "A capacitor is a component used in making pulsed-power energy weapons." But what I have there is a headline meant to grab attention, yet tells me absolutely nothing about what the subject is. The first sentence of any article should answer the question of what in the broadest, simplest terms possible, and that rarely consists of some label. It will be vague, but that's fine. Details are for later. Only in cases where that's all the subject is notable for, such as Charles Manson, would that even make sense. In most cases, the person is something else, whether notable for it or not, but that something provides context for whatever crime or label they became notable for. For example, Mary Kay Letourneau begins "...was an American sex offender and teacher who pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child." The label is rather redundant and pointless, but is also preceding the context needed to explain it, so it's awkward to read. What she "was" was a school teacher. That provides context for what she did, which was have sex with her student. One needs to precede the other for the story to flow coherently, and the same is true for any article. Every sentence is context for the following sentences. Zaereth (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this is what you're saying is ...was an American sex offender and teacher who pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child works better? If so, I agree. — HTGS (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that's partly what I mean. I agree with many here that much of the use of labels is often more a case of recentism and emotion. Labels are a convenient way of boiling something down to a pure stereotype, which makes them very effective at eliciting an emotional response. But they're not one bit objective and an example of a poor way to write an article. We're no longer conveying facts but trying to provoke a gut-reaction emotional response to persuade the reader to a particular opinion, and those who say otherwise would only be fooling themselves. As an example of a well written article, see Adolph Hitler. We don't start off by saying he was a bigot and a mass murderer. He was, but we don't need to resort to name calling and such emotionally charged words to convey it, nor does it need to be in the first sentence. We start off with his role in German government and the Nazi party, which is the logical place to start, and then go on to describe all the horrible things he did. Those horrible things speak very loudly of their own accord, we don't need to add labels as a big exclamation point. That's what a very well-written article should look like, and a bio of a living person is no different. Zaereth (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• I oppose the use of the terms "convicted felon" and "sex offender" in the first sentence of biographies except for cases where 1) the commission of those crimes is the primary reason for the subject's notability and 2) there isn't a better way to describe the subject and their crimes. I believe the use of those terms comes across like an attempt to smear or shame the subject, but more importantly I think describing the specific crimes a person was convicted for (if DUE) provides a more accurate picture for readers. Hatman31 (talk) 02:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• One thing I would add to the above discussion is that the main reasons a person is notable can shift over time as the body of reliable sources about them grows; it isn't fixed in time at the point they first became notable. For Epstein in particular, surely the coverage of him as a high-profile sex trafficker far outstrips whatever notability he had in other aspects of his life, and the lead sentence should reflect that.--Trystan (talk) 02:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that someone like Epstein is now most written about because of the girls, but being a highly connected, mega-rich financier facilitated his deeds. Putting "American financier who …" and then summarising the crimes, is a more efficient way of providing context IMO. Pincrete (talk) 07:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• What is the reason behind saying "convicted"? Senorangel (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Because that makes it obvious that we're not accusing them of a crime out of nowhere, we are reporting the results of the court. It's important to be careful with accusations of crime because of the possibility of libel. We wouldn't have wanted to say, for instance, that OJ Simpson is a murderer in Wikivoice because he was never convicted. Loki (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• When I see "convicted felon" crammed into the first sentence of the lede, it's often a red flag that the writer wants to cry "Shame! shame!" Stylistically, and in more efficiently fully relating the narrative Letourneau ... was an American sex offender and teacher who pleaded guilty in 1997 to two counts of felony second-degree rape of a child works better. As does Weinstein ... was an American convicted rapist film producer who was found guilty in ???? to XX counts of rape and other sex offences ditto how one would write Epstein or Jimmy Savile as their profession followed by their 'crime' stated explicitly wherever possible. I have so often found myself arguing that, except in a small number of cases, the previous life is a significant component of the notoriety, not an afterthought. Even if Weinstein is now mainly regarded as an offender, his role in the film world facilitated those offences, ditto Savile, Epstein and Mary Kay Letourneau. So "profession who did this" is the most concise way to give context to the crimes. Nobody bothers to write articles (either in the real world or on WP) about un-finished sex trials committed 45 years ago, unless the accused is famous for other reasons. So even to those who write about his crimes, or who despise him for his crimes, he's the internationally known film director who had sex with a 13 year old model not the accused sex offender who happened to make successful films. I don't also see the sense of 'felon' or 'sex offender' when the charges can be stated explicitly. If it's worth telling me that someone committed a crime, it's worth telling me what it was, otherwise we might just as well say 'bad person'. Where subject's SOLE notability is their crime, this obviously doesn't apply, but those cases are rare and tend to be the most heinous crimes.Pincrete (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
• There is no one-size-fits-all answer to this. There definitely are articles where it gets crammed into the lead in a weird or unnecessary manner, but it's also true that sometimes someone's crimes can overshadow prior notability (we would not, for instance, describe John Wilkes Booth solely as a stage actor in the first sentence of his lead, even though he was famous as that before he became famous for something else.) I would similarly characterize Epstein as someone whose primary notability is now his crimes. --Aquillion (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think that John Wilkes Booth's first sentence is perfect and would not be improved by adding the phrase "convicted felon" to it. (Well, obviously, since he was never actually convicted, but you get what I mean.)

  Part of the confusion here is that while nobody likes the proposition as phrased, the opinions on what to do instead are going in two very different directions. To somewhat oversimplify, one is that we should avoid saying bad things about the subject of the article in the first sentence, and the other is that we should be more specific about the bad things we say about the subject of the article in the first sentence. The way the RFC is currently framed, these two opinions seem to both be taken as "no" when actually they're opposites: if we can't describe Epstein as a convicted child sex trafficker in the first sentence of his article, I would very much prefer "convicted sex offender" to nothing. Loki (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think "convicted" in the lead sentence of already famous people is often swayed by recentism or campaign to WP:RGW. People like Kellen Winslow II, who were not involved in a "trial of the century", probably have WP:UNDUE weight placed on their crime(s).—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Either there isn't any guidance or I haven't been able to find it, but I've not been able to find any guidance on how aristocratic names are treated in infoboxes or other box lists. I have included Lord Rosebery's infobox as an illustration of the issue. According to MOS:SURNAME the first use of an aristocrat's name should be in full, or using the title that they held at the time they held office. Additionally Wikipedia:NOPIPE suggests that piping the link from 'Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery' to the Earl of Rosebery isn't the right approach. I also don't think simply listing the title without the holder's name is particularly effective, given that a father and son might hold the same office and this might be easily missed by readers. Ecrm87 (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ecrm87 (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)