Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive:Privacy of names

< Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Disembrangler in topic Proposed changes to "Privacy of names" section, redux

Refining policy regarding use of children's/minors' names

Latest comment: 15 years ago43 comments7 people in discussion
Collapsing for navigation; discussion follows in next section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Recently a lengthly discussion on the BLP Board came to no strong consensus accept to point that possibly our policies should be more clear. The case discussed was using the names of the octuplet babies when there seemingly was no encyclopedic value yet the names had been widely published. The following comment in the discussion, IMHO, summed up a possible next step:


I'm wondering if there is any interest in changing anything to help guide editing? Personally I feel Wikipedia can convey the same information, that they exist, without publishing their names. Unless a compelling case is made that including these names adds significant value to our readers' understanding or the omission would compromise the article, we should leave the information out and strive to maintain the subject's privacy. Any thoughts and suggestions on what if anything should change? -- Banjeboi 03:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I've just come over here following or during a discussion with another editor about this very thing. Sadly I have nothing positive to add (story of my life here on wp!) but I can confirm that some clarification, and easily-found policy, would be welcome. I too very much incline to the "if in doubt leave it out" line. It may be of marginal interest that Maynard Ferguson had x kids and y grandchildren and was married to z or w, (although actually I would love to sit down with you with a pint and figure out why it's interesting - I am not saying it isn't merely that I am not sure why) but then when we come down to "Do we need to know all their names" I'd say no, not necessarily - make a case why, don't assume they must go in - that's just fact for the sake of fact. If one of his kids is an eminent film-maker and another climbed Everest without oxygen then yes, notable, stick the names in - but why does this encyclopaedia needs its readers to know the names of his grandkids? All I can see that doing is invading their privacy for the sake of a mostly-illusory "completeness" in the data, and I honestly do not see who benefits. I'm not wedded to this, but I am having difficulty seeing why I shouldn't be - convince me? Oh, and the other things I'd say is "imagine it's you and your kids" - you might have deliberately signed up to be a famous trumpet player, (or did you??) but they certainly didn't!" :) Thanks and best wishes to all, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the main issue here is the relative notability of the child in his or her own right:
  • Child who is relatively non-notable in his or her own right, e.g., child of a famous actor who is herself not (yet) particularly famous – I would say that in such cases the child's name should be omitted from the article. In my view the fact that the child is not particularly notable in her own right means there is no pressing reason to state her name, and the fact that she is a minor means that she should be accorded more privacy.
  • Child who is relatively notable in his or her own right, e.g., Madonna's son David Banda – here, there is arguably a stronger case for stating the child's name because of the controversy surrounding his adoption by Madonna. The Suleman octuplets case is a tricky one: are they notable in their own right? I am inclined to think that they are.
The fact that the child's name has already appeared widely in secondary sources is probably relevant to showing that the child is notable in his or her own right. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Another example: Denmark's new Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen has three children whose names are given in his article. I think they should not be named and would like to see clear guidelines about such cases. It could just say three children or perhaps one daughter and two sons; that would be more than sufficient. (I'll go remove the names now, but I'll bet I'll be reverted...) --Hordaland (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughts on the following proposed revision to "Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names are welcome:

Original text

Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

Proposed revision

Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a stronger presumption in favor of not stating the names of such individuals where:

  • they are not relatively notable in their own right (it is likely that a person who has been widely named in secondary and tertiary sources is notable in his or her own right);
  • they are not directly involved in the article's topic; and/or
  • they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy.

In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If their childrens names are publicly available, they can be mentioned. TJ Spyke 01:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I think Banjeboi's point was that even if a child's name is publicly mentioned, it may not be appropriate to mention it in Wikipedia articles because of BLP concerns. The clarification of the BLP guideline proposed above is supposed to address that concern. There is a lot of information that is publicly available (e.g., the names of people's non-notable relatives and full dates of birth), but according to BLP we do not necessarily put it into articles. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Just because the children's names are available does not necessarily mean that they can or should be mentioned. In plenty of cases it probably is possible to ferret out children's names but I don't see that that makes them appropriate for the article if it's not about them. Otherwise we just move towards a policy of include all information, which I don't think it how to improve this encyclopaedia. Best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 07:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've had a long shift so ... please pardon the terseness. Part of the concern is that in the octomom case, eight babies are, bluntly, being pimped out for financial gain/media consumption. In theory a encyclopedia should avoid being part of that. I'd rather be extra conservative and say there is nothing to be gained by including their names, even if extremely well publicized. The information remains trivial, there's likely a point when they become noteworthy on their own but when? Also is it fair to treat Madonna's children's names different from the children of octomom? I'm ambivalent if we retain sources or appropriate external links that lead to this information but we simply aren't a tabloid so I hope we can rise to an encyclopedic level and generally disclude this information because, of of yet, we don't list everyone on Earth for a variety of reasons and I think we shoud avoid doing so in these cases.
So here's my draft of the wording to be taken with a shot of tequilla and a bit of salt ...

Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a stronger presumption in favor of leaving out the names of such individuals where:

  • they are not relatively notable in their own right, and mentions in secondary and tertiary sources are primarily only in relation to notable people;
  • they are indirectly involved in the article's topic; and/or
  • they are legally minors, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy regardless of their parents'/guardians' efforts to involve them in media matters.

In all cases where the names are redacted, consider discussing the issue on the article's talk page.

Holla! -- Banjeboi 10:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Personally I rather like this. It's clear and covers points that do seem frequently to get raised. I'd like it even more if parents'/guardians' had apostrophes, and I must add that I'm very interested in the tequila, though it's not really the right time of day here. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Agreeing with DBAK on all points, though one sentence is perhaps a bit clumsy:
  • "they are not relatively notable in their own right, that is, mentions in secondary and tertiary sources are not independent of their parents and siblings;"
Maybe:
  • they are not notable to any degree in their own right, that is, secondary and tertiary sources mention them only in relation to a notable person;
- Hordaland (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I've added the apostrophes but I'm concerned that we tweak the notable wording bits sufficiently. If we state they are not notable to any degree that likely would result in wikilawyering that they have some degree, etc. I've taken another whack at it. Closer? -- Banjeboi 02:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have the following comments about the latest version of the proposed guideline:

  • "[M]entions in secondary and tertiary sources are primarily only in relation to notable people" – this could be very difficult to apply. Is an article about Madonna's adoption of her Malawian son "primarily" about her or her son? Arguably, it's about both of them.
  • "Legally minors" – according to the law of which jurisdiction? Their place of residence? I had put "under the age of 18 years" because that applies anywhere in the world.
  • I am not sure it is Wikipedia's job to protect the privacy of minors if their own parents choose not to, provided they are themselves notable, they are not irrelevant to the articles in which they named, and/or their names are already widely available in secondary and tertiary sources. Therefore, I think the phrase "regardless of their parents'/guardians' efforts to involve them in media matters" should be deleted.

Something else to think about: should the names of living persons be omitted under this proposed guideline if any one or all three of the criteria are satisfied? At the moment it's "and/or", so (a) or (b) or (c), or (a) and (b) and (c), or any combination thereof. I'm inclined to leave it as "and/or". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the and/or. The legally minors may be a bit tricky, I'm sure we have some policies regarding children/minors already. Maybe we look to those for guidance and link to them as well?
Momentarily on the fence about "regardless of their parents'/guardians' efforts to involve them in media matters" as I'm under too much stress to be fair to thinking that all through but if they are already notable it's moot and it may been POV to suggest motives.
"[M]entions in secondary and tertiary sources are primarily only in relation to notable people" - so what would work best and be less open to abuse? -- Banjeboi 20:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
One "nutshell" of the policy, though, should be to only include the names of children when they add value to the article. If they are unlikely to be mentioned in any other context, we should leave them out. SDY (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be argued about? How is it determined if the name adds value and is it in degrees? I'm stuck in a current edit war because a group of editors all likely share an email list. If a consensus can be claimed how is that counteracted? -- Banjeboi 01:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Of course it will be argued about, but it gives context to the argument: if consensus is that it's useful for the article to mention the name, then it can be included as long as all other criteria are met, but it shouldn't be included just because we can. Inclusion should default to "no" which can be overridden if appropriate. SDY (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing

I propose the following revision:

Revision 3 (amended on 23 April 2009)

Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a stronger presumption in favor of leaving out the names of such individuals where:

  • they are not relatively notable in their own right [this requires further explanation];
  • they are indirectly not directly involved in the article's topic; and/or
  • they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy.

In all cases where names are redacted, editors are encouraged to explain why this has been done on the article's talk page.

  • Notability in one's own right – this seems to be the linchpin because if a person is notable in his or her own right, then there should not really be any objection to the person being named. The tricky question is, what exactly does this mean and how should this be reasonably determined? Perhaps the answer can be arrived at by considering the following questions and scenarios:
    • Questions
      • Should one's notability depend on something one has personally achieved or done, or can notability be established by (1) some status that one possesses (e.g., being one of a set of octuplets, or being the oldest living person in the world); or (2) an association with an unmistakably notable person (e.g., Madonna's adopted Malawian son)?
      • Does the fact that one's identity is widely reported in the mainstream media establish notability? (Put another way, is it feasible to argue that someone is not notable despite wide media coverage?)
Yes that is feasible. For example, the child of Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes is not notable despite wide media coverage. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Scenarios
      • Scenario 1: famous actress M has an adult daughter X who is not herself famous for anything.
      • Scenario 2: famous actress M has an adult daughter X who is not herself famous for anything. However, it has recently been widely reported that X was arrested for possession of cannabis.
That makes X a candidate for tabloid fodder but does not make X notable. Even if M is a prominent crusader against cannabis use it doesn't make X notable. (Rebelling against your parents isn't notable.) It might be notable if (A) M's work against cannabis use is a notable part of M's work and (B) the public disclosure of X's use causes changes in M's work.—MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The view I expressed above was that if the person has been widely named in reliable secondary and tertiary sources, then it is reasonable to assume that the person is notable in his or her own right. I have to say I'm not altogether comfortable with this, but on the other hand trying to create a guideline along the lines of "even though this person is in all the newspapers she isn't notable in her own right" seems to be fruitless and a recipe for heated arguments on talk pages going nowhere. Thoughts?

Just because they've been names in secondary and tertiary sources doesn't make them notable. Were the Bush twins notable for getting caught with alcohol? Newspapers decide to print stories based on what will sell. Wikipedia should have a higher standard. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. What sort of criteria should apply to determine whether living individuals are not notable in their own right, though? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Minors – personally, I think it is a lot easier if we go with "under the age of 18 years" rather than "legally minors". The latter requires a decision as to which country's law is relevant for the purpose of determining whether the person is a minor or not, and then the ability to actually find out what the law is. In many countries the age of majority is 18 years, so that seems like a reasonable age to compromise at.
  • Talk page – I've changed the final sentence of the proposed guideline to "In all cases where names are redacted, editors are encouraged to explain why this has been done on the article's talk page". This is because if some aspect of an article violates BLP it has to be removed immediately, instead of being left in the article while being discussed on the talk page. What do you think?

— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Notability is not inherited" takes on a whole new meaning, eh? At any rate, one dividing point which might be useful is if anything is reported on the individual other than their name. As another line of thought, WP:NPF is very helpful here, because it's essentially the same determination. SDY (talk) 09:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have a few points to make.

1) I'm not sure of the utility of the "and" in the "and/or." It seems to me that "or" says it well.

2) Should there be an "and" or an "or" after the first item, too?

I see your point at (1) above. I don't think it's necessary to have or or and/or after each item in the list; I believe the general understanding is that when such conjunctions are placed after the second-last item, they apply to all the items in the list. — JackLee, 09:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

3) I'm not clear about the wording of the second clause. It says "they are indirectly involved in the article's topic..." Are we trying to say "they are not directly involved in the article's topic..."? If so, that's how it should be worded. To say the are "indirectly involved" says they're involved. To say they are "not directly involved" says the opposite.

Agreed. I've tweaked the proposed change in the box above. — JackLee, 09:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

4) I don't care if the parents have failed to protect the children's privacy. That shouldn't mean it's okay for us to treat the kids the same way. Obviously, for someone like Miley Cyrus, there's no point in concealing her name, but in the case of the kids of, say Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, I see no reason to include the name of their child. Wikipedia shouldn't be an arm of their PR agent. People who want to know can read People Magazine.

Sure. But I don't think it's necessary for the guideline to say something to the effect of "children's privacy should be protected even if their own parents don't do so", which is what was suggested above. In my view the italicized bit is unnecessary. — JackLee, 09:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the phrase "even if the parents don't do so" suggests that examining the parents' behavior is okay. But it's not. The children's privacy should be protected, and the parent's behavior should have nothing to do with it. In other words, it's Wikipedia's policy. We don't give the parents any say. If they choose to use their kids' names when promote themselves, they get to do so, but Wikipedia should not provide them with additional tools. Even in the case of the President's minor children, whose media coverage goes far beyond the tabloids, we don't need to mention them in the Wikipedia article, although they're so well known that I wouldn't put up a fight in that particular case. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, magazines like People exist to give celebrities control over their coverage. Unlike the tabloids, People Magazine usually cooperates with its subjects. So when Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes let People do a story on their child, it's often done in defense against the tabloids, and I'm not knocking them for it. But Wikipedia shouldn't participate in feeding the public's thirst for private details of public figures' lives. I haven't given a great deal of thought to what makes someone's children notable, but the criteria are probably the same as for their parents. And having a clear, simple, consistent policy may help avoid annoying edit wars. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

5) While I'm on the subject, I also don't care if the tabloids are filled with articles about, say, the kids drinking or doing drugs. If that makes them notable, then I must be notable, too. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 08:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

:-D See my comments on this in response to yours above. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 09:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a phrase I think could be reworded just to make it less clumsy. Instead of saying "There is a stronger presumption in favor of leaving out the names...", maybe we should say "There is a stronger presumption against using the names..." —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment. Brain hurt. Could someone start a new subsection with the proposed and accepted mods and summarized what remaisnto be sorted; I think the scenario above may have but my feeble brain is clogged too much to jump all the bits together. I'll do it if no one else does in a day or so. -- Banjeboi 03:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

24 April 2009 draft

Original text:

Take particular care when considering whether inclusion of the names of private, living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of the privacy of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved persons without independent notability is correspondingly stronger. In all cases where the redaction of names is considered, discuss the issue on the article's talk page.

Proposed revision:

Revision 4 (amended on 24 April 2009)

Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a stronger presumption against using the names of such individuals where:

  • they are not relatively notable in their own right [this requires further explanation]; or
  • they are not directly involved in the article's topic; or
  • they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy.

In all cases where names are redacted, editors are encouraged to explain why this has been done on the article's talk page.

Comments

  • I think "private" can go, that's a battle waiting to happen. -- Banjeboi 03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for tidying up this section. I believe the current guideline refers to "private ... individuals" to distinguish them from public figures. If you dislike the word private, then we need to think of some other way to refer to such persons, otherwise the guideline just refers to "living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article", which I don't think is clear enough. Maybe we should use the phrase living individuals who are not public figures, and rely on the definition given in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan? — JackLee, 04:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
It will probably be difficult to avoid talk page battles regardless of the wording that is chosen for the proposed guideline. We are all agreed that living individuals who are "not relatively notable in their own right" should not be named in articles. The difficulty is what sort of criteria should be applied to determine this. What about a list of criteria like this?
  • they are not relatively notable in their own right; for instance, because:
    • they are only named in a few third-party published sources;
    • although they are widely named in third-party published sources, such sources only have trivial content on them (e.g., minor accidents, criminal offences and public outbursts); or
    • [Any others?]
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I can see problems with the word "private," but I wonder if this could best be clarified by example. Here's a proposed set of examples:

(Examples proposed on 24 April 2009)

Example
People Magazine' reported that actor John Doe and his wife Jane have a three year old daughter named Booboo, which is swedish for happy surprise. In spite of the entertainment value of the meaning of the name, this does not make the child notable, and her name (and its meaning) don't belong in the article. The child's name in a celebrity magazine or tabloid are Self promotion or Scandal mongering and do not make the child notable.
Example
Actor John Doe has lent his name to a campaign for tough sentences for heroin addicts. Newspapers have reported that his fifteen year old son was arrested for possession of heroin. In spite of the irony of the public allegation, the arrest is not notable, and the son's privacy should still be protected.
Example
Following his son's arrest, Actor John Doe publicly recanted his previous stand and now promotes treatment for heroin addicts. The son's arrest is now notable and may be included, although use of the son's name is still questionable, even if it has been widely reported in the news media.
We could also clarify by changing the second sentence to this: There is a stronger presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if they are already well known, where:
(We would not use the italics, of course.) This would clarify the point that mere presence in news stories doesn't make them notable. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 08:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think giving examples would be helpful. However, I think the examples need to focus on whether the individuals are notable and not whether the incidents they are involved in are notable. For instance, in Example 2, it should be mentioned that John Doe's son is not notable in his own right because he is only in the news because of his connection with Doe, and that this fact and the fact that he has been arrested for drug possession do not make him notable in his own right. Example 3 should be revised along similar lines. I think it is best to avoid saying that the son's arrest is notable. Instead, we can just say that the son's arrest can be mentioned in the article. Rather than using a term like questionable which suggests uncertainty, perhaps the example should be phrased more strongly: "... although the son's name should still not be mentioned, even if it has been widely reported in the media, as he has not become notable in his own right."
I also think your proposed second sentence needs to be revised somewhat, because the they in the italicized phrase might be read as referring to the individuals rather than their names. If the individuals themselves are well known, then this suggests they are notable. What about "There is a stronger presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if the names have already appeared in the media, where ..."? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Good point. However, we might want to say "their names" instead of "the names."
For ease of discussion, here's a revised proposal incorporating the above suggestions, with some tweaks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 08:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
While I appreciate the occasional new section for ease of editing, I'm still like to see the latest revision when I hit "show preview." Let's try to keep the current discussion and the proposed revision in the same section. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Draft revision 5 (24 April 2009)

Revision 5 (last amended on 24 April 2009)

Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a stronger presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if the names have already appeared in the media, where:

  • they are not relatively notable in their own right; for instance, because:
    • they are only named in third-party published sources because they are related to or associated with notable individuals;
    • they are only named in a few third-party published sources;
    • although they are widely named in third-party published sources, such sources only have trivial content on them (e.g., minor accidents, criminal offences and public outbursts); or
  • they are not directly involved in the article's topic; or
  • they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy.

Examples

  • Gossip Magazine has reported that actor John Doe and his wife Jane have a three-year-old daughter named Booboo Happy Flower. In spite of the entertainment value of the name, this does not make the child notable in her own right. She is only in the media because she is related to Doe and for the novelty of her name. The fact that her name has appeared in one or more celebrity magazines, newspapers or websites may be an instance of self-promotion or scandal-mongering, and does not make her notable. Thus, her name does not belong in an article on John Doe.
  • Actor John Doe has lent his name to a campaign for tough criminal sentences for heroin addicts. Newspapers have reported that his 15-year-old son was arrested for possession of heroin. In spite of the irony of the public allegation the son is not notable in his own right, and his privacy should still be protected.
  • Following the arrest of John Doe's son, Doe publicly recants his previous stand and now promotes treatment for heroin addicts. The son's arrest may now be included in the article about John Doe, although his name should still not be mentioned, even if it has been widely reported in the media, as he has still not become notable in his own right.

In all cases where names are redacted, editors are encouraged to explain why this has been done on the article's talk page.

I'm rethinking one aspect of my examples. The last two use a minor child where they may not need to. By making the son 15 years old, we are implying that if he were an adult, the use of his name would be acceptable, which isn't really true. While I want to emphasize that children should especially be protected, I also want to make it clear that adults names often shouldn't be used. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I decided that this might be clearer with an addition to "What What Wikipedia is not." So feel free to check out the last section of the discussion page of What Wikipedia is not, where I propose a new section called "Wikipedia is not a publicist's tool. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Miguel. Go ahead and update the proposed guideline in the box above. Are there any other comments on this proposal? If not, we can proceed to have the guideline go live soon. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to "Privacy of names" section

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am relisting for further discussion the following proposed change to the wording of the "Privacy of names" section. I was under the impression that consensus on the change had been reached following discussions that took place on the talk page between 27 March and 3 May 2009 (see "Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 21#Refining policy regarding use of children's/minors' names"), but Jclemens thought not and reverted my edit. Further comments are welcome. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a stronger presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if the names have already appeared in the media, where:

  • they are not relatively notable in their own right; for instance, because:
    • they are only named in third-party published sources because they are related to or associated with notable individuals;
    • they are only named in a few third-party published sources;
    • although they are widely named in third-party published sources, such sources only have trivial content on them (e.g., minor accidents, criminal offences and public outbursts); or
  • they are not directly involved in the article's topic; or
  • they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy.

Examples

  • Gossip Magazine has reported that actor John Doe and his wife Jane have a three-year-old daughter named Booboo Happy Flower. In spite of the entertainment value of the name, this does not make the child notable in her own right. She is only in the media because she is related to Doe and for the novelty of her name. The fact that her name has appeared in one or more celebrity magazines, newspapers or websites may be an instance of self-promotion or scandal-mongering, and does not make her notable. Thus, her name does not belong in an article on John Doe.
  • Actor John Doe has lent his name to a campaign for tough criminal sentences for heroin addicts. Newspapers have reported that his adult son was arrested for possession of heroin. In spite of the irony of the public allegation the son is not notable in his own right, and his privacy should still be protected.
  • Following the arrest of John Doe's son, Doe publicly recants his previous stand and now promotes treatment for heroin addicts. The son's arrest may now be included in the article about John Doe, although his name should still not be mentioned, even if it has been widely reported in the media, as he has still not become notable in his own right.

In all cases where names are redacted, editors are encouraged to explain why this has been done on the article's talk page.

This idea seems basically OK to me, but I wonder if we couldn't simplify the list of criteria when presumption is stronger to "when such individuals are not in themselves sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article". That seems to me easier to balance in practice against the "adding value" criterion. (Also it says "There is a stronger presumption against... [when]" without clearly saying first that there is a general presumption against.) Rd232 talk 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to "Privacy of names" section, redux

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

The following proposed change to the wording of the "Privacy of names" section still hasn't received a full discussion after being auto-archived, so I am relisting it again. Please do comment on it. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider carefully whether significant value is added to an article by including the names of private, living individuals such as family members of the subject of a biographical article. There is a stronger presumption against using the names of such individuals, even if the names have already appeared in the media, where:

  • they are not relatively notable in their own right; for instance, because:
    • they are only named in third-party published sources because they are related to or associated with notable individuals;
    • they are only named in a few third-party published sources;
    • although they are widely named in third-party published sources, such sources only have trivial content on them (e.g., minor accidents, criminal offences and public outbursts); or
  • they are not directly involved in the article's topic; or
  • they are under the age of 18 years, and thus deserve greater protection from intrusions upon their privacy.

Examples

  • Gossip Magazine has reported that actor John Doe and his wife Jane have a three-year-old daughter named Booboo Happy Flower. In spite of the entertainment value of the name, this does not make the child notable in her own right. She is only in the media because she is related to Doe and for the novelty of her name. The fact that her name has appeared in one or more celebrity magazines, newspapers or websites may be an instance of self-promotion or scandal-mongering, and does not make her notable. Thus, her name does not belong in an article on John Doe.
  • Actor John Doe has lent his name to a campaign for tough criminal sentences for heroin addicts. Newspapers have reported that his adult son was arrested for possession of heroin. In spite of the irony of the public allegation the son is not notable in his own right, and his privacy should still be protected.
  • Following the arrest of John Doe's son, Doe publicly recants his previous stand and now promotes treatment for heroin addicts. The son's arrest may now be included in the article about John Doe, although his name should still not be mentioned, even if it has been widely reported in the media, as he has still not become notable in his own right.

In all cases where names are redacted, editors are encouraged to explain why this has been done on the article's talk page.

This idea seems basically OK to me, but I wonder if we couldn't simplify the list of criteria when presumption is stronger to "when such individuals are not in themselves sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article". That seems to me easier to balance in practice against the "adding value" criterion. (Also it says "There is a stronger presumption against... [when]" without clearly saying first that there is a general presumption against.) Rd232 talk 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I have two comments:
  • I am not sure if the test for whether a relatively non-notable person should be named in an article should depend on whether that person is notable enough for an article on him or her. That seems to be too high a standard. It may be appropriate to mention a person in an article even if it is not appropriate to create a whole article about that person.
  • I agree that the guideline shouldn't refer to a "stronger presumption" without first talking about a general presumption.
— Cheers, JackLee –talk– 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, "they are not relatively notable in their own right" is basically another way of saying "they are not notable enough for an article", no? But the latter concept is something WP is much more familiar with. We're basically proposing a trade-off which balances the value of mentioning the names versus privacy, with a presumption in favour of privacy if the person named is not notable enough for their own article - a presumption which can be overturned if the value is high enough. The value needn't be sky-high, but it needs to be there. Basically, the default should be a sort of "notability is not inherited" - don't mention names unless there's a particular reason, for example if the relationship with the person is described in some non-trivial way, rather than the fact of it just being mentioned. I mean, that's basically what your proposal is anyway, I'm just suggesting a clarification, I think. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Can I assume that there are no objections to the proposed change to the guideline (taking Rd232's comment into account) if no other editors comment on it by the time this section gets automatically archived? — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive:Privacy_of_names&oldid=1088740057"