Talk:Josh Dallas

BLP

Response to edit summary here

One's children is a significant part of any person's biography; professional biographers do not leave out the names of children in books, articles, etc. And the parents themselves consider their children's names and births significant, since they themselves announce it in official statements and even on the covers of magazines, who pay the parents hundreds of thousands of dollars are more. No one would do that if the public and the parents did not consider these things significant. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

How does including the name of a non-notable minor child (who has no contribution to anything other than being born) improves a BLP article? While not a specific policy, it's always been understood (by me and several long-time editors I've come across) that the names and identifying information of non-notable minor children are to be left out of articles for reasons of privacy. Nonetheless, the following (found at WP:BLPNAME) is policy: "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. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." is clear. The name of a non-notable minor child that doesn't enhance a reader's understanding of the article subject. It should be left out on this premise alone. While some might argue that the names of celebrity children are announced publicly all the time, therefore, their names should be included in Wikipedia articles, this is true and not true. Kanye West and Kim Kardashian's child, North, falls into this category. We are all aware of how over publicized the couple is. The same would be true with Michael Jackson's children when they were born and growing up. Siri Cruise's name would also apply here. These children, however, attained notability because of the amount of publicity their parents/families allowed prior to and after their births as well as during their growing up years. The children of Ginnifer Goodwin/Josh Dallas and Kelly Clarkson do not fall into this category. Their minor children remain non-notable. When they become notable (whether as minor children or as adults upon reaching age 18), then it would be appropriate to name them in the articles on their parents. At this point in time, knowing the names of these children do not enhance the article nor does it assist in the reader's complete understanding of the article subject. That is how the policy reads. I maintain that leaving these names out of the respective articles is the correct action in accordance with policy. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I gave a a four-part answer to the question of biographical significance and BLP policy in my post above. As I mentioned, I am one the longtime editors of whom you speak, having been here nine years, and I haven't run across your interpretation previously. It is in infoboxes we don't include the names; we do in the article body. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Except that Winkelvi removed the post that I refer to, and has been edit-warring in order to do so. I've taken this up at an ANI, but removing the bulk of another editor's comments so that primarily only your own comments appear on a talk-page discussion is completely beyond the pale. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed it because copying and pasting entire user talk page entries is unrelated and inappropriate on article talk pages. I could speculate here why you did it, but won't. What I will say is that by copying and pasting directly from my talk page (and including content that was completely unrelated) you were commenting on an editor (me) rather than content and were not discussing how to improve the article. If you want to copy and paste your "four-part answer" and include it here, do it. But don't reference it and copy it as user talk page discussion including followup comments you made at the same page. My talk page contents are not germane to the discussion about this article. Frankly, I see the inclusion of such as an intimidation tactic bordering on harassment.

If anyone's interested in the particulars of Tenebrae's beef with me and his subsequent actions, it can all be viewed at ANI here: [1] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 17:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The post Winkelvi summarily and unilaterally deleted contained a four-part rebuttal to his fringe interpretation of BLP, so it was completely pertinent. I've never heard of someone owning a talk-page before, where only he can decide what other editors can and can't say in rebuttal to him, but that appears to be what is happening here and on two other pages he's taken over. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

To respond to Winkelvi's additions to his 16:45, 22 June 2014 post: He makes an arbitrary distinction based on his own personal gauge: Kim Kardashian and Michael Jackson's non-independently-notable children are fine to mention but not Ginnifer Goodwin's. What's his criterion? His own opinion of what's widespread-enough coverage. Where does one draw the line? One million readers/viewers? 10 million readers/viewers?

Whereas a completely objective and neutral criterion is whether the celebrity parents themselves chose to announce the births and names of their children in news releases to mass-circulation magazines, newspapers and entertainment-news TV shows. Some celebrities choose not to do that, and in those cases, we shouldn't make public what the parents themselves are keeping private. But when parents stand on rooftops and make announcements over megaphones, it's absurd to suggest they're demanding privacy, or that this biographical information that appears widespread in hundreds and hundreds of news outlets should be kept hidden and secret on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Policy on this remains clear:

"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. The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced."

Adding the name and exact birth date of a a non-notable low-profile minor child of a celebrity is not relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the article subject. Saying the child exists and giving a birth month and year is sufficient mention.

-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is clear: "low-profile". They are no longer "low-profile" when the parents put them on the covers of magazines or tell millions of people in magazines, newspapers, and entertainment-news TV shows.

And you keep repeating an irrelevant point: "if they are not properly sourced". Nothing in this discussion involves anything not properly sourced. It's a non-issue. We are only talking about children the parents themselves ballyhoo to millions of readers/viewers in magazines, newspapers and TV shows. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, I've got relatively minor surgery tomorrow, so if I don't respond for a couple of days, that's why. Please know I hope to remain a part of this conversation. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop repeating the exact same comments/discussion across three talk pages. Consolidate discussion here, (or even another talk page, but mirroring the exact same conversation across multiple talkpages is painful and inappropriate.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Consolidated discussion

Discussion now on only one article talk page. Please take comments here: [2] -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 18:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing name of child

As it turns out, Goodwin and Dallas' representative did not release the name to mainstream media, and in fact the cited source here gives no name. If the parents announce it, it's an encyclopedic fact. If not, we don't source to tabloids. I've removed the uncited name here and have do so at Ginnifer Goodwin. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus + removal of content

Per consensus at the BLP noticeboard (here:[3]), all identifying information on the article subject's infant child have been removed. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 19:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)