This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Connie Bonaros is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
New account is removing the personal information here without explanation -- presumably someone with a WP:COI wanting to subtly increase privacy for Bonaros. While the way it's being done is wrong, I would suggest that unless the spouse is a notable person in their own right, they ought to be removed from the infobox. The other stuff should remain as is - i.e. state that Bonaros is married with one kid, keeping the existing citation.
One other point. Something that Wikipedia does poorly in BLPs is allow for the situation where a marriage is over, albeit not necessarily legally finalised, but this is not publicised. If this were the case for Bonaros it doubly makes sense to avoid putting the ex-spouse name in the infobox based on just one citation. What I'm saying is putting a spouse in an infobox should only be done for individuals where change of marital status is likely to be covered by a range of press outlets. Donama (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a case where the inclusion is harmless in general but if it's being insistently removed it shouldn't be re-added because of the reasons you noted. I can remember one rather ignoble case where people kept reinstating it on an MPs biography which led to a politically-connected Wikipedian having to confirm that they had, indeed, split, which could've been avoided by just leaving it out where an issue was raised. I don't think it really makes sense to only put a spouse in an infobox for "individuals where change of marital status is likely to be covered by a range of press outlets" - as someone who's heard about a bunch of senior politico splits on the grapevine over the years, this really isn't a clear category. Unless you're the PM or a state Premier, the media's likely to not report it unless you want to talk about it yourself (like, for example, when Albanese and Tebbutt put out a press release when they split). The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His name was in the article from 19 March 2018 to 18 February 2020, and is still in the cited profile on the party website. I accept that now it has been removed 3 times, it is best not added again, at least until/unless he is reported more widely. --Scott DavisTalk 03:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)--Scott DavisTalk03:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
