→12/11/2020 - Does anyone know why the page was locked?: corrected block details |
|||
Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
*'''Exclude''' while we can include the names of non notable children on the odd occasion, we have a very high bar for such inclusions. I'm unconvinced from the evidence presented above that that bar is met. While I'm not sure it matters, I'm also unconvinced her child can be considered a "public figure" even despite the reasonable amount of celebrity media/"gossip" coverage. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 17:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC) |
*'''Exclude''' while we can include the names of non notable children on the odd occasion, we have a very high bar for such inclusions. I'm unconvinced from the evidence presented above that that bar is met. While I'm not sure it matters, I'm also unconvinced her child can be considered a "public figure" even despite the reasonable amount of celebrity media<strike>/"gossip"</strike> coverage. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 17:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC) 21:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::Just a point about an incendiary word in the post above: It's only "gossip" when it's unconfirmed claims made by anonymous sources. It's not gossip but actual fact when the parents themselves announce the child's birth to the media. Whatever merits you argument may have, using the term "gossip" is a misleading appeal to emotion, and in this case factually incorrect.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 18:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC) |
:::Just a point about an incendiary word in the post above: It's only "gossip" when it's unconfirmed claims made by anonymous sources. It's not gossip but actual fact when the parents themselves announce the child's birth to the media. Whatever merits you argument may have, using the term "gossip" is a misleading appeal to emotion, and in this case factually incorrect.--[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 18:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
::::I struck that part since don't give a screwy fuck about the gossip angle. My point is that when I looked most of those 25k sources like People, Hollywood Life etc. These are source known for their coverage of celebrity farts, who's banging who, etc. Even when these's no question that their claims are true, they are by no means the sort of sources we expect for something which is supposedly important. There seems to be minimal coverage in other sources like New York Times. Again, call those sources whatever the fuck you want, I don't give a fuck. The fact remains most of the coverage seems to be in those sources which cover celebrity minutae in details we never should. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 21:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== 12/11/2020 - Does anyone know why the page was locked? == |
== 12/11/2020 - Does anyone know why the page was locked? == |
Revision as of 21:54, 12 December 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Birthdate
The New York Times gave an age as of September 2020, and combined with the birthday month and day that both the subject and her husband have given, the Ancestry.com cite is now moot.
However, to say that there is a blanket prohibition and that we can never use Ancestry.com is incorrect. WP:RSP says re: Ancestry: "Some of [its] sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred." Preferred, not required or mandated. In this case, the source used was a birth record, so no WP:USERGENERATED was involved. And since there was no secondary source that I could find at the time, a WP:BLPPRIMARY is allowed: "...secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred," but not mandated.
The same editor had noted to me Ancestry.com cannot be used because of WP:BLPPRIVACY. That's not so, since WP:RSP says in some cases this site is allowable. But also, WP:BLPPRIVACY is primarily about notable but private figures; Amanda Kloots is a highly public figure. And we're not giving a personal address but a birthdate, which is absolutely standard biographical information. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- BLPPRIVACY says to include
full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public
. It does not draw a distinction between public v. private figures. This means that we should treat all subjects with this in mind, does it not? Furthermore, WP:BLPPRIMARY specifies not to usepublic records that include personal details, such as date of birth
in any situation. KyleJoantalk 16:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)- That same line of the policy also states we should not include "home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Unlike any of those other things, public figures' birth dates are standard to include. While this section doesn't explicitly make a distinction between public figures and private figures, that is a real-life distinction. Perhaps an RfC discussion is needed there to clarify explicitly. If I have time to initiate one, I'll keep you posted. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Tenebrae: if this ever made it to BLPN, I can say the standard is to remove with fire any birth dates sourced solely to primary sources not linked to the subject. This includes Ancestry, but anything of that sort. It is true that a lot of people are unfamiliar with our BLP norms, but experienced editors should try to familiarise themselves with them. While you're welcome to start an RfC if you desire, I'm confident that it will reach the outcome that results whenever someone tries to dispute such birth date removals. I.E. yes we do require good sourcing for birthdates and no it doesn't matter if the person is a public or private figure. The "real-life distinction" between public and private figures is likely to be seen as moot since there is an obvious response to that. If the birth date is such an important piece of information for this "public figure", WTF do you have to dig through the bottom of the sourcing barrel to find a source for it? (And yes from a BLP stand point, primary sources especially public records are generally close to the bottom of the barrel. Perhaps better than Daily Mail, but that's not saying much.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, as I said in my very first post, this is moot since I found two sources which, when combined, gave the birthdate. As for anything else, I quoted from policy/guideline above, so no need to repeat it. We completely agree that Daily Mail is bottom-of-the-barrel and neither I nor any other responsible editor would use it. Ancestry.com, for whatever else one might say, is a legit, well-documented site, so I wouldn't call it "bottom-of-the-barrel," though maybe we're just splitting semantics — I would call it "last-ditch," since it's better than the plethora of uncited birth claims I see (and remove). In any case, it's not something I think I've even ever used before in 15 years here, so there's not much danger of repeating this.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Tenebrae: if this ever made it to BLPN, I can say the standard is to remove with fire any birth dates sourced solely to primary sources not linked to the subject. This includes Ancestry, but anything of that sort. It is true that a lot of people are unfamiliar with our BLP norms, but experienced editors should try to familiarise themselves with them. While you're welcome to start an RfC if you desire, I'm confident that it will reach the outcome that results whenever someone tries to dispute such birth date removals. I.E. yes we do require good sourcing for birthdates and no it doesn't matter if the person is a public or private figure. The "real-life distinction" between public and private figures is likely to be seen as moot since there is an obvious response to that. If the birth date is such an important piece of information for this "public figure", WTF do you have to dig through the bottom of the sourcing barrel to find a source for it? (And yes from a BLP stand point, primary sources especially public records are generally close to the bottom of the barrel. Perhaps better than Daily Mail, but that's not saying much.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- That same line of the policy also states we should not include "home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Unlike any of those other things, public figures' birth dates are standard to include. While this section doesn't explicitly make a distinction between public figures and private figures, that is a real-life distinction. Perhaps an RfC discussion is needed there to clarify explicitly. If I have time to initiate one, I'll keep you posted. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Social media posts about grief and positivity
@Tenebrae @JDDJS: Since you're both in agreement and I am not, would either of you mind if I open an RfC to obtain more responses and–hopefully–a consensus on including this edit? KyleJoantalk 16:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's kind of you to ask, but of course you don't need to: RfCs are a valuable too available for any of us to use. Thank you for going to the trouble of doing so; I know it takes a while to do.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- And actually, I just noticed that I had read the first sentence in the paragraph and somehow didn't take in the second. The first sentence is notable; the part about grief and spirituality is not. It's the first part that got her national attention, and that national attention encompasses the whole of it, so the "grief and spirituality" point is redundant as well as being marginal. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the second part being removed. The first part is an extremely important part of her notability though. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced. The phrasing of the information also contains issues. The description
national attention
is too Americocentric for a worldwide encyclopedia. Readers in Japan could easily say Kloots didn't receive national attention in their country. I also don't know how one would chronicle someone's death. The article makes it sound like Kloots regularly posts updates commemorating Cordero's passing as part of her career. I'll get started on the RfC soon. KyleJoantalk 20:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- I'm still not convinced. The phrasing of the information also contains issues. The description
- I'm fine with the second part being removed. The first part is an extremely important part of her notability though. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I changed it to "received significant media attention while documenting her husband's struggle..." That removes your concern about it being too Americocentric and is a clearer term than chronicling. If you want to move the section to her personal life rather than her career, I won't object, even I disagree because it clearly had a significant impact on her career. Before her husband's illness, she was not at all a well known figure. Majority of the articles about her being made a regular on The Talk mentions her documenting Nick's struggle on instagram. She was first bought on the show as a guest to talk about it. I never oppose the start of an RFC and will always respect the consensus reached in one, but in my opinion, it would be completely absurd to not include it in the article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Digital fitness brand
We should probably include a sentence or two about her digital fitness brand. Here's a useful article about it [1]. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
- Forbes.com contributors are generally unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. KyleJoantalk 20:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
First marriage
Apparently, Nick Cordero was her second husband, with a previous marriage ending in divorce. Here's an article she wrote about it: [2], however she doesn't mention any details about her ex, not even his name. According to this: [3] his name is David Larson, however, I doubt that is considered a reliable source. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
RfC about the notability her posts
Should the following sentence about news reports mentioning her social media posts in relation to her late husband's COVID-19 journey be included in the article?
“ | In 2020, Kloots received significant media attention while documenting her husband's struggle and eventual death from COVID-19 on Instagram.[1][2] | ” |
References
KyleJoantalk 04:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Strong include It clearly had a significant impact on her career. Before her husband's illness, she was not at all a well known figure. This bought her to a wider audience, and without, she would not currently even be notable. Majority of the articles about her being made a regular on The Talk mentions her documenting Nick's struggle on instagram. She was first bought on the show as a guest to talk about it. Here are just a few more of the extensive coverage of it: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] It was even mentioned in Cordero's obituary in NY Times [13] In my opinion, it would be completely absurd to not include in the article. In fact, I would go one step further and say that it should be included in Nick Cordero as well, though I will let this RFC play out before adding it there. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- Exclude per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Not only does the description
significant media attention
read like puffery, but celebrities receiving coverage for their social media posts is simply not encyclopedic content. Thelong-term, historical view
of Kloots' notability encompasses her works and the marriage itself and not any of her documentation of either point. KyleJoantalk 03:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- KyleJoan If you have a problem with the wording, you're more than welcomed to rewrite it. Also the idea that "celebrities receiving coverage for their social media posts is simply not encyclopedic content" is simply untrue. From Kim Kardashian to George Takei, plenty of articles contain sections on their social media usage. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's an invalid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The section in Takei's article clearly fails WP:DUE, while Kardashian's contains information on the money she generates from social media rather than its effect on her notability. The title of the section in Kardashian's also does not adequately summarize its content (e.g., a magazine cover, mobile game, cameo in a film, and makeup line). KyleJoantalk 19:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I am not claiming that we need to include because other stuff exists; I am just pointing that your claim that social media use by celebrities is not notable is not backed up by anything. And your claim that "The section in Takei's article clearly fails WP:DUE" is just your opinion, and one that is clearly not shared by the overwhelming majority of the hundreds of editors who have left it in and expanded on it for several years, and never even brought up removing it on the talk page. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Include per JDDJS. The only reason this individual is even notable is because of her husband's COVID diagnosis & subsequent death. Why do you think this page was only created a few weeks ago: [14]? NOTNEWS/RECENTISM clearly does not apply. She is hardly known for anything else, and this sentence needs to be in the lead. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- If she is only notable due to her husband, then we should be proposing the article for deletion instead of including anything in it, no? It's also interesting that there is no mention of anything related to his COVID journey in the link you provided, and yet the article underwent a successful review in that state. In addition, it's confusing to read that
NOTNEWS/RECENTISM clearly does not apply
when her posts about her husband's death were recent occurrences that do not warrant an article on their own. So which is it? Does RECENTISM not apply or does it apply so greatly that this article should not exist? KyleJoantalk 05:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- If she is only notable due to her husband, then we should be proposing the article for deletion instead of including anything in it, no? It's also interesting that there is no mention of anything related to his COVID journey in the link you provided, and yet the article underwent a successful review in that state. In addition, it's confusing to read that
If you want to put this BLP for an AfD, be my guest. But why waste all your hard work on getting this article created? You do realize that the very first line of the first version of the page was: "Kloots was married to actor Nick Cordero from 2017 until his death in 2020." The proposed sentence is merely expanding upon this sentence in a clear and concise manner. It's really undeniable that her main source of notability was through her late husband. How else would she be notable? JDDJS is correct--how much coverage did she receive prior to her husband's battle with COVID? ( The Answer: Not a lot!) Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I don't believe we should put the article for an AfD; I was addressing how your points suggested that you do. If that is the case, then why spend time wanting to expand on notability that's only inherited? If that isn't the case, then why keep insisting that she is not notable in her own right? KyleJoantalk 19:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- You're completely misunderstanding WP:INHERITED. It means that being related to a notable person doesn't automatically make someone notable. However, people absolutely can be notable for their relationship to someone, if there is significant coverage of it. Tiffany Trump is only notable for being the daughter of the president, but we have an article for her. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- That's another invalid OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Tiffany Trump became notable in her own right in addition to being the child of a US president. Amanda Kloots became notable in her own right following her husband's death; she did not do so in addition to having posted about it. I also never said that Kloots' notability was inherited; I was addressing how Dr.Swag Lord Ph.d's point suggested that they believed that was the case. KyleJoantalk 19:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Amanda Kloots became notable in her own right following her husband's death
--you basically admitted that if it wasn't for her husband's death, she would not be notable--which is true. Posting about the events most definitely contributed to her notability. But don't take my word on it:
Extended content
|
---|
|
- Practically every source in this article describes the significance of her social media posts. It's very central to her rise to notability. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- I said she became notable after her husband's death, not
for
it. Thank you for the sources, but less than half of them highlight the posts as significant toher rise to notability
. Kloots havingchronicled [her husband]'s struggle
(Deadline Hollywood) andkept the world informed
(The New York Times) are only enough to state in Wikipedia's voice that she did those things; neither source says anything about the significance of the attention she received. We can now also discuss whether the inclusion of the attention itself would give it undue weight, but I'd rather not continue bludgeoning this RfC. Feel free to respond and have the final word if you'd like. Cheers! KyleJoantalk 03:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- I said she became notable after her husband's death, not
- People can be notable for recent events. She clearly is. She has gotten a bunch of coverage now making her notable, but notable coverage of her before her husband's illness is scarce, and surely not enough for her to pass the notability guidelines. Just about every bit of coverage she gets mentions her husband's fight or death with COVID. Also, this coverage started back in March, over 8 months ago, and has been consistent, so it's not really even recent anymore, and the lasting impact has already been covered. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Exclude per KyleJoan. ~ HAL333 06:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Strong Include- It is absolutely unbelievable anyone would suggest this should not be included. First as to the issue regarding afd, she has acting credits so the page is going to stay as having acting credits is a basis for inclusion within wp. This is a simple sentence with sources and should be included as much as any statements about a person. SailedtheSeas (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)- Include - We'd be burying our heads in the sand to not acknowledge in a single sentence all th media attention that gave rise to her notablity. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
RFC about including sons name
Should we include her son's name? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Include It's been well established multiple times that there is no policy preventing the inclusion of children's names if the parent(s) release it themselves. Kloots shows him on her social media everyday, with his name, and frequently mentions him by name in interviews. "Elvis Cordero" results gets over 25,000 hits on Google. Here are just a couple of references: [15][16] (I'm just including one of the dozens of People articles that mention him, with a bunch including his name in the title) [17][18][19][20][21]. There are plenty more, but you get the point. Also, the name has been uncontroversially included at Nick Cordero for months. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Exclude per this RfC. Kloots' non-notable child's name is not
relevant to a reader's complete understanding
of her per WP:BLPNAME. KyleJoantalk 19:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- That RFC (that technically wasn't closed) was about that specific case. This is different, as Elvis has received much more media attention than Benoist's child has, and that was clearly only a local consensus. And I would argue that it is important to understanding her because if you see her talking about Elvis on social media or in an interview (as she does, extremely frequently) you would be confused (especially considering that many people immediately think of the singer when hearing Elvis). JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Include - In addition to JDDJS's comments, WP:BLPNAME does not require exclusion of children's names and leans towards include if relevant to discussion. While the child in their own right at this age can't make themselves relevant, their parents can and HAVE. Elvis is relevant because his parents made him so and especially after the father's death. Also while what one page does does not necessitate another page, the fact that the father's page includes the name supports notability at least until some small mind goes there and takes it off. Perhaps the best example is a politician's child that is not involved in politics. Generally their names are included, eg Barron Trump who has done nothing on his own to be named but is, and it's because of his parents. The fact is many pages include relatives names that I think are unimportant, but the fact that their is discussion about inclusion also supports that there is notability. Also, the referred to RFC above is irrelevant to this discussion unless we want one page to dictate to another. Let me give another example why one's relationship with another can make them relevant. Kaley Cuoco's first husband is not noteworthy of himself but is named on her page. He is relevant because of their relationship, same as Elvia with Kloots. If we applied the standard those that want to exclude Elvis, then Cook should not be on Cuoco's page as he is not important. SailedtheSeas (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
- Additional Comments: First, I do not believe an admin has weighed in, and there are people making statements as if they are the offical decider. They are not. No one person is the decider whether the name should be included and people need to stop saying it as if they are the judge because you are not. That is the reason for the RFC. Just because your opinion of the facts and guidance is one way or the other, is the reason for the RFC because WP looks for consensus.
- So much OPINION and misstatements are being thrown around. Whether the child's name should be included is an opinion, and the purpose of the RFC is to gain consensus whether the child is notable enough and material enough to the article. Just because one person says it's not is not the measure which is why there is this RFC because there is an obvious disagreement. People keep throwing out WP links and say you can't do this when that is not what the links say. The below mentioned Biographies of living people says nothing that matters to this discussion. BLPPRIVACY says nothing about minor children despite it being restated over and over. It states that full names and DOBs can be included if they've been widely published by reliable sources or by sources linked to the subject, but there is nothing special about minors so stop repeating that because the guidance is for adults and minors equally. So Elvis could be 50 years old and the same weighing of the facts and guidance would be needed.
- Saying that the child's name adds nothing of substance is a person's opinion while other's have a different opinion. Just because you say it does not make it so, which again is the reason for the RFC. The argument regarding WP making the info public is irrelevant because the measure is whether the info is already widely published and WP does not make it more so.
- As to some facts. The info is widely out there- name and dob. The child has conservatively over 2M google hits, with many pictures, at one years old. I'm many decades older and don't have even a fraction of that. Whether it should be DOB or YOB is debatable as in my opinion it meets the criteria of having many sources, but WP guidance says to err on the side of the YOB. The fact is Elvis DOB has been widely reported and potentially could be justified, but a compromise for this insanity could be to just have the YOB which is in multiple RS publications including USAToday, People, Today Show, and many more. IMDB has the name and YOB which is linked right from WP so not having it on WP protects nothing unless you want to remove the IMDB link.
I think everyone needs to put there passions aside for a moment, calmly think about it and stop trying to act like the authority so as to win the argument. Allow the RFC to play out and gain a consensus of opinion and stop trying to put your own opinion out there as the standard and fact. Lastly, please stop arguing as if you are the judge, because you are not. Consensus is the judge. SailedtheSeas (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)- You seem to have a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of an RfC. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Enlighten me, and I find it interesting that an ip user that has been active for one week is the expert with 40% of contributions are to this Rfc. There is no rule to not include a child's name, but instead guidance. If you doubt this please see this child included as the result of a Rfc. In fact there have been multiple Rfc's as to whether to include a child's name, so explain how I am fundamentally misunderstanding. The guidance is based upon the facts and the facts are in dispute and how these facts apply is based on one's opinion and the consensus opinion is what carries the day. Your opinion is that the child's name does not add to the page while I believe it does. There, we are tied. I again implore people to stop claiming to be experts and the final judge as to what is to be included because as the above example shows dispite repeated statements that a minor cannot be included, the fact is they can be. SailedtheSeas (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)- For your enlightenment, I've been active on Wikipedia for around ten years. As I have explained at the SPI you have just opened on me because I have made comments in an RfC (a request for comment) you didn't like. If you aren't prepared to countainance that people can have good-faith disagreements with you over the content of an article, I can only suggest that you might do better to take your talents (and your accusations against others) elsewhere. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
First, thank you for making my point that this is good-faith disagreement over article content which was exactly my point above. You are the one that made this personal by your comment directed at me when I made no comment directed at you. I questioned the biographies of living persons you referred to and asked what in it applies to this discussion to which you have not replied. And yes, I opened a sockpuppet inquiry because you became active 7 hours after the Rfc and 2 of your 5 contributions during that 7 day period were on the Rfc. If you are not a sockpuppet, then I apologize, but it's not because you disagree; it's because of [WP:Duck]. At the same time, I hope that everyone will move back to center, and simply make their argument about the content and stop saying that how they see it is how it should be. I personally have made no such argument. As to your suggestion for me to go elsewhere, this is America and I will go where I please thank you very much. SailedtheSeas (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)- No, you made it personal when you told people in a request for comment to '"stop saying" things you disagreed with. If that isn't a fundamental misunderstanding of what an RfC is for, then I don't know what the heck would be. And no I didn't 'become active' to post on this RfC. I became active on Wikipedia something like ten years ago - from what I recall, to correct in an error on the Supermarine Spitfire article. Dynamic IPs tend to change rather more frequently than once per decade. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- For your enlightenment, I've been active on Wikipedia for around ten years. As I have explained at the SPI you have just opened on me because I have made comments in an RfC (a request for comment) you didn't like. If you aren't prepared to countainance that people can have good-faith disagreements with you over the content of an article, I can only suggest that you might do better to take your talents (and your accusations against others) elsewhere. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- You seem to have a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of an RfC. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Include - As Kloots already presents him many times on her social media activities, there is no reason to exclude his name. Also, there is no problem with the policy, So his name can be include. Rondolinda (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Include - This is basic biographical information, and these are not private citizens but public figures who announced their child's birth and name to the media. Aside from the horse having left the stable, the toothpaste being out of the tube, the subject by making a media announcement obviates any privacy concern.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- Exclude. WP:BLPPRIVACY takes precedence: this is an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine, and minors who are not notable in their own right deserve not to have their names and birthdates up on one of the top 5 internet sites and broadcast by Google. Parents' social media posts can be hidden or deleted; Wikipedia is far more permanent and easier to find. I've taken the specifics and the Instagram post out again as contrary to policy and to good practice. (I hope the specifics aren't also in the infobox, I keep forgetting about those.) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Exclude per Yngvadottir above, and per the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution on Biographies of living people [22] The name of the child adds nothing of substance to their understanding of the subject of the article - which is Kloots herself, not a non-notable child - and the inclusion of a non-notable individual's date of birth is grossly inappropriate, per WP:DOB. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing at the linked Resolution:Biographies of living people says one word about not including children's names, and I find it disingenuous for this anon IP, against whom a sockpuppet investigation has been launched, to falsely claim it does. Any professional biographer knows that the basic details of a highly public figure having children —of a highly public figure a huge milestone in their lives — are a standard part of the biographical record. To give just one example: Read any biographical book. Professional biographers adhere to standards of ethics and best-practices, and someone with no training in this but just a personal opinion really should not make pronouncements about things being "grossly inappropriate" that any professional can tell is untrue.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Is the concept of "respect for personal privacy" not something you are familiar with? The WMF seems to think that Wikipedia contributors should be. As indeed do the Wikipedia contributors who wrote WP:BLP: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private", "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". This child isn't 'involved' in anything, beyond being born to someone about whom there is a Wikipedia article. And as for sockpuppet investigations, we've both been the subject of complaints (yours for alleged 'edit warring'), and since neither of us is a sock or an edit-warrior, that is irrelevant to this discussion. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nothing at the linked Resolution:Biographies of living people says one word about not including children's names, and I find it disingenuous for this anon IP, against whom a sockpuppet investigation has been launched, to falsely claim it does. Any professional biographer knows that the basic details of a highly public figure having children —of a highly public figure a huge milestone in their lives — are a standard part of the biographical record. To give just one example: Read any biographical book. Professional biographers adhere to standards of ethics and best-practices, and someone with no training in this but just a personal opinion really should not make pronouncements about things being "grossly inappropriate" that any professional can tell is untrue.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- First, let's note there is a sockpuppet investigation against you. As for "we've both been the subject of [a sock investigation],' the malicious one that you/User:KyleJoan filed against me was dismissed out of hand. Really, every time I think you've hit bottom, you go lower. The fact you have to do this says you cannot make a viable case based on the facts.
- One of those facts is there is no privacy issue whatsoever when the parents themselves announce the child to the news media. Nick Cordero and Amanda Kloots put it out to the press, and countless print, digital and broadcast outlets picked it up, exactly heeding the parents's wishes. We're not here to right great wrongs and criticize the parents for making a parental decision that is their right to do. The fact is, the child is a recurring part of the parents' media record.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a sockpuppet investigation against me. One which will be closed as the nonsense on stilts it clearly is. As you've just noted, "malicious sockpuppet and 3RR complaints"[23]] are a thing on Wikipedia. And as for "the parents' media record", I can't see that mentioned in WP:BLP, but whatever. This is an RfC. I've made my comments. You don't have to agree with them. How about seeing what others have to say on the subject? 165.120.15.66 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I would wait to see what admins say before claiming the sock investigation "will be closed as ... nonsense." And the notion that every word an editor uses in a debate must appear verbatim in a particular policy/guideline is, to use your own term, "nonsense on stilts." A term like "media record" is a concise way of saying they (now she) has announced Elvis to the press, talked in detail about him in media appearance, posted on social media about him continually since literally the day he was born. Is that better? It seems wordier to me. You put up a righting great wrongs argument to suggest the parents were wrong for announcing the child's birth to the media, as countless celebrities do. That's simply an appeal to emotion, and not an argument based on logic or the kinds of professional biographical standards to which any encyclopedia or biographical reference should keep.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Exclude while we can include the names of non notable children on the odd occasion, we have a very high bar for such inclusions. I'm unconvinced from the evidence presented above that that bar is met. While I'm not sure it matters, I'm also unconvinced her child can be considered a "public figure" even despite the reasonable amount of celebrity media
/"gossip"coverage. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC) 21:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just a point about an incendiary word in the post above: It's only "gossip" when it's unconfirmed claims made by anonymous sources. It's not gossip but actual fact when the parents themselves announce the child's birth to the media. Whatever merits you argument may have, using the term "gossip" is a misleading appeal to emotion, and in this case factually incorrect.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- I struck that part since don't give a screwy fuck about the gossip angle. My point is that when I looked most of those 25k sources like People, Hollywood Life etc. These are source known for their coverage of celebrity farts, who's banging who, etc. Even when these's no question that their claims are true, they are by no means the sort of sources we expect for something which is supposedly important. There seems to be minimal coverage in other sources like New York Times. Again, call those sources whatever the fuck you want, I don't give a fuck. The fact remains most of the coverage seems to be in those sources which cover celebrity minutae in details we never should. Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- Just a point about an incendiary word in the post above: It's only "gossip" when it's unconfirmed claims made by anonymous sources. It's not gossip but actual fact when the parents themselves announce the child's birth to the media. Whatever merits you argument may have, using the term "gossip" is a misleading appeal to emotion, and in this case factually incorrect.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
12/11/2020 - Does anyone know why the page was locked?
Been building up her acting credits and was going to put them on this weekend, but find the page locked. Does anyone know why they did this? SailedtheSeas (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Note: SailedtheSeas has been blocked indefinitely for suspected sockpuppetry. KyleJoantalk 20:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
- It's because of a false 3RR report filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tenebrae reported by User:KyleJoan (Result:No violation, page fully protected for a week ). I'm very disappointed in User:KyleJoan.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- SailedtheSeas The lock has since been reduced to semi protection, so you should be able to edit it now. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Fully protected for 5 days
I apologise for lowering to semi-protection, that was an error I've just been told about. I meant to just shorten the period of full protection and never meant to shut out IPs. But this is getting a bit silly, what with SPIs and the ANI thread, so I've reinstated full protection as was always my.
I realise that this is the wrong version for some and I understand fully the BLP issues, having warned editors before about full dates of birth and names of children. But this one doesn't seem cut and dried and should be capable of resolving by RfCs and I don't think any damage is done by protection.
Any requests for further changes in protection should be made at WP:RPP, and I don't mind if another Admin changes it. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)