| Revision as of 05:44, 29 September 2014 editJoojay (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers36,854 edits →WP:BLPNAME← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:49, 29 September 2014 edit undoWinkelvi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,145 edits →WP:BLPNAME: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| :::::The date is an entirely different matter - that is usually omitted primarily for privacy concerns. You are quite wrong about consensus here, and didn't bother to comment on the contradicting articles cited above, among dozens of other articles that list the names of offspring. You are the one edit warring, by the way - BLP policy refers to removal of ''damaging material'' - it does not give you leave to unilaterally decide that you don't like having an offspring name listed and repeatedly take it out. Making unilateral decisions is not the way things work here, as you well know. By the way, as you also ought to know, notability guidelines are referring to the creation of articles about an individual, not the inclusion of facts in another one. I think you need to reread both ] and ] - BLP is about including defamatory or damaging material that is unsourced. It is not a reason to leave off a well-sourced fact that is consistent with our biographies all across the encyclopedia. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 05:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | :::::The date is an entirely different matter - that is usually omitted primarily for privacy concerns. You are quite wrong about consensus here, and didn't bother to comment on the contradicting articles cited above, among dozens of other articles that list the names of offspring. You are the one edit warring, by the way - BLP policy refers to removal of ''damaging material'' - it does not give you leave to unilaterally decide that you don't like having an offspring name listed and repeatedly take it out. Making unilateral decisions is not the way things work here, as you well know. By the way, as you also ought to know, notability guidelines are referring to the creation of articles about an individual, not the inclusion of facts in another one. I think you need to reread both ] and ] - BLP is about including defamatory or damaging material that is unsourced. It is not a reason to leave off a well-sourced fact that is consistent with our biographies all across the encyclopedia. <strong>]</strong>/<small>]</small> 05:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :::::: ] refers to the "we" in the decision making process. I want to see the link to the exact conversation thread regarding the debate over the Chelsea Clinton baby name. Otherwise like all other Misplaced Pages things, no consensus was reach at this point. Two editors opinion on how to read the historical context of citation is not consensus, especially since it is not exactly the same scenario. I would also like to point out, almost every politician has their children named in their Misplaced Pages articles.] (]) 05:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | :::::: ] refers to the "we" in the decision making process. I want to see the link to the exact conversation thread regarding the debate over the Chelsea Clinton baby name. Otherwise like all other Misplaced Pages things, no consensus was reach at this point. Two editors opinion on how to read the historical context of citation is not consensus, especially since it is not exactly the same scenario. I would also like to point out, almost every politician has their children named in their Misplaced Pages articles.] (]) 05:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
| Any of you are welcome to take this to the BLP Noticeboard. Until then, because this is a BLP article and policy is clear (as well as the consensus in numerous previous discussions on this very subject), the name and all other identifying info should stay out. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:49, 29 September 2014
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chelsea Clinton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | Biography C‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chelsea Clinton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Baby
Just to explain why I made my edits - this is really not a big deal, but the NY Times article entitled "Chelsea Clinton Says She Is Expecting" accurately reported what she actually said: "Marc and I are very excited that we have our first child arriving later this year." The other source given was a weaker source, a Washington Post blog, which was the one taking journalistic liberties, not me. Also, the edit ("she was pregnant") is grammatically awkward and could be misinterpreted as saying she no longer is which eventually will be the case, but not now. So that is why I think we should not put words into her mouth, even though they obviously are true, and follow the better source. I don't really have any problem with saying she is pregnant, but think "she and her husband Marc were expecting their first child" is what she announced and what the better source, the Times, accurately reported, so what we should say. It's not clear to me why the wording was repeatedly changed - maybe the source I provided wasn't looked at. Tvoz/talk 06:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME
See the following regarding releasing the name of the baby: . More to come shortly. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
See WP:BLPNAME.
-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I still don't understand this conversation, the new baby's name is released ALL over the internet in newspaper publications at this point. Why is it not on the[REDACTED] article? The links provided by Winkelvi are primarily discussions about other people with more private family lives. Jooojay (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- A baby of celebrities is notable for one thing: being born. That's not enough to make a non-notable minor child notable. Misplaced Pages isn't a tabloid, a newspaper, or a magazine, it's an encyclopedia. We have a responsibility to raise the bar, not lower it. Adding the name of a non-notable minor child doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject, therefore, it doesn't belong. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Examples cited do not support arguments for suppression of the Chelsea's daughter's name because in this case the name was announced by the parents -- not the tabloids. Here is a Washington Post article with the baby's name in the title. How hot is the sun? (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Examples cited most certainly do support keeping the name out. I guess you need to read them again. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Examples cited do not support arguments for suppression of the Chelsea's daughter's name because in this case the name was announced by the parents -- not the tabloids. Here is a Washington Post article with the baby's name in the title. How hot is the sun? (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Winkelvi is correct—it's standard that details of children are not included as the details are unimportant news-of-the-day space fillers. Gushing over the sex, name and birth-weight of a baby is fine in general, but it has no encyclopedic value. There are exceptions for cases like Barack Obama where even the family dog may be named, but the general rule is that interesting but unimportant details such as address, phone number, names of children are not included. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Removing the name is utterly wrong. The name was released by the parents, has been widely reported in top-notch reliable sources, and is in no way an invasion of anyone's privacy. This is a misinterpretation of BLPNAME. Further, it can be said that it does contribute to readers' understanding of the subject of the bio, in the choice of middle and last names - there has been much press coverage and disquisitions about the choices made by the baby's grandmother and mother regarding their surnames, and how Clinton and Mezvinsky decided to name their child is notable in that context. - this isn't "gushing". There are no relevant examples or policy supporting its removal. Specifically: example 1 above is about an unnotable list of controversial celebrity baby names,which has nothing at all to do with this; example 2 above is about baby names that were not released by the parents, irrelevant here; and example 3 refers to material that is not well-sourced and is specifically directed at material that might be considered defamatory, again irrelevant here. None of these arguments have anything to do with the subject at hand. And finally, indeed this is an encyclopedia, and as has been pointed out elsewhere, an encyclopedia biography should include information like names of children - which you will find everywhere here. I have no idea what bar is being referred to as needing to be raised. This information is appropriate to be included and consistent with Misplaced Pages biography style. See, for example, Jenna Bush, Caroline Kennedy, Susan Ford, Amy Carter, Lynda Bird Johnson Robb, Julie Nixon Eisenhower - to name several President's daughters with articles here naming their children. And please don't cite WP:OSE because it's also irrelevant to this. This is unsupportable and ridiculous, and without consensus, and the name needs to be reinstated.. Tvoz/talk 03:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's had consensus over and over at various articles as well as the BLP Noticeboard. Names and other identifying information on non-notable minor children are to be left out of articles. Especially the names and identifying info on babies (who have done nothing notable other than being born -- one "notable" event does not a notable individual make in Misplaced Pages). The name and birth date stay out. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The date is an entirely different matter - that is usually omitted primarily for privacy concerns. You are quite wrong about consensus here, and didn't bother to comment on the contradicting articles cited above, among dozens of other articles that list the names of offspring. You are the one edit warring, by the way - BLP policy refers to removal of damaging material - it does not give you leave to unilaterally decide that you don't like having an offspring name listed and repeatedly take it out. Making unilateral decisions is not the way things work here, as you well know. By the way, as you also ought to know, notability guidelines are referring to the creation of articles about an individual, not the inclusion of facts in another one. I think you need to reread both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BLP - BLP is about including defamatory or damaging material that is unsourced. It is not a reason to leave off a well-sourced fact that is consistent with our biographies all across the encyclopedia. Tvoz/talk 05:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Winkelvi refers to the "we" in the decision making process. I want to see the link to the exact conversation thread regarding the debate over the Chelsea Clinton baby name. Otherwise like all other Misplaced Pages things, no consensus was reach at this point. Two editors opinion on how to read the historical context of citation is not consensus, especially since it is not exactly the same scenario. I would also like to point out, almost every politician has their children named in their Misplaced Pages articles.Jooojay (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- The date is an entirely different matter - that is usually omitted primarily for privacy concerns. You are quite wrong about consensus here, and didn't bother to comment on the contradicting articles cited above, among dozens of other articles that list the names of offspring. You are the one edit warring, by the way - BLP policy refers to removal of damaging material - it does not give you leave to unilaterally decide that you don't like having an offspring name listed and repeatedly take it out. Making unilateral decisions is not the way things work here, as you well know. By the way, as you also ought to know, notability guidelines are referring to the creation of articles about an individual, not the inclusion of facts in another one. I think you need to reread both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BLP - BLP is about including defamatory or damaging material that is unsourced. It is not a reason to leave off a well-sourced fact that is consistent with our biographies all across the encyclopedia. Tvoz/talk 05:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- It's had consensus over and over at various articles as well as the BLP Noticeboard. Names and other identifying information on non-notable minor children are to be left out of articles. Especially the names and identifying info on babies (who have done nothing notable other than being born -- one "notable" event does not a notable individual make in Misplaced Pages). The name and birth date stay out. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- Removing the name is utterly wrong. The name was released by the parents, has been widely reported in top-notch reliable sources, and is in no way an invasion of anyone's privacy. This is a misinterpretation of BLPNAME. Further, it can be said that it does contribute to readers' understanding of the subject of the bio, in the choice of middle and last names - there has been much press coverage and disquisitions about the choices made by the baby's grandmother and mother regarding their surnames, and how Clinton and Mezvinsky decided to name their child is notable in that context. - this isn't "gushing". There are no relevant examples or policy supporting its removal. Specifically: example 1 above is about an unnotable list of controversial celebrity baby names,which has nothing at all to do with this; example 2 above is about baby names that were not released by the parents, irrelevant here; and example 3 refers to material that is not well-sourced and is specifically directed at material that might be considered defamatory, again irrelevant here. None of these arguments have anything to do with the subject at hand. And finally, indeed this is an encyclopedia, and as has been pointed out elsewhere, an encyclopedia biography should include information like names of children - which you will find everywhere here. I have no idea what bar is being referred to as needing to be raised. This information is appropriate to be included and consistent with Misplaced Pages biography style. See, for example, Jenna Bush, Caroline Kennedy, Susan Ford, Amy Carter, Lynda Bird Johnson Robb, Julie Nixon Eisenhower - to name several President's daughters with articles here naming their children. And please don't cite WP:OSE because it's also irrelevant to this. This is unsupportable and ridiculous, and without consensus, and the name needs to be reinstated.. Tvoz/talk 03:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Any of you are welcome to take this to the BLP Noticeboard. Until then, because this is a BLP article and policy is clear (as well as the consensus in numerous previous discussions on this very subject), the name and all other identifying info should stay out. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Categories: