Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biographies of living persons page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
This is not the place to post information about living people. See creating an article for information on how to start a new article. |
To discuss issues with specific biographies or personal mentions, please use the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. |
Biography Project‑class | |||||||
|
This page has previously been nominated to be moved.
|
BLP issues summary
|
---|
|
Section: Avoid self-published sources
Here, the important caveat being noted for the reader is "unless written or published by the subject of the article". That being the case, I think the bold text should begin with "unless", rather than "the". I'll admit this is a minor point, but I think beginning the bold text a few words earlier in the sentence would do a better job of emphasizing that this is the lone exception to an important rule. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Publication of Living Individuals Home Addresses
I have noticed a wider issue on some articles about living people, and I think it needs to be addressed as a Wikipedia-wide issue, not just on the individual talk pages when this happens as a whack-a-mole, because it affects the security of living individuals.
Beyoncé and Jay-Z are two of the most high profile individuals, and their address is the title of
The article about one of Taylor Swift’s homes, High Watch, contains the building’s address, its coordinates, and a map. But confusingly, the article also says “Several stalking, trespassing, and home invasion incidents have been reported at the house since Swift's purchase.” acknowledging that the house is a target. So it seems very irresponsible to have its address and the geographical coordinates on it. Furthermore, it is well reported in the media that Swift herself sees this as an issue. For example, she requests her planes are hidden from live flight data trackers, and has demanded that Jack Sweeney stops aggregating her flight data, with her attorney saying it’s “stalking and harassing behaviour”.
The buildings are not notable in their own right, and have only gained notoriety because of the people that own it. None of these articles were created before those notable people moved in. I fail to see how having the exact location data on living peoples private residences enriches the encyclopedic content of those articles. I don’t think the articles should be deleted, as they have since become notable, just the exact location data removed.
They live there as private individuals, not as public figures. Is having the address/map location/coordinates so easily available responsible?
The difference is homes like Mar-a-Lago and Buckingham Palace are notable in their own right and can be visited by the public, and were notable before the owners moved in. I think Wikipedia needs to set in stone some clear and written policy about this.
I’m speaking specifically to the ethics of Wikipedia and its BLP policy- regardless of what other websites do. For example, Wikipedia doesn’t include the birth names of transgender people if they were not notable under that name, even if that name may be well reported elsewhere. So I think a similar simple rule should be written into Wikipedia BLP policy: If the residence wasn’t notable before the notable living person moved in and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. It should also be noted that those other websites sometimes get the location information directly from Wikipedia, and deem it acceptable to also publish that data merely because Wikipedia does so too.
And also, should this data be removed, it should also be removed from all of the page history versions, eliminating the Streisand effect inadvertently happening. Other things like image data, such a file names and metadata, should not have the address anywhere if they are used to link the building to the living individual.
Edit:
- If as you assert these homes are not notable, it would be best to nominate them for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- That’s not what I’m saying at all. The buildings such as Taylor Swift’s and Bill Gates’s house are notable. But notable living people live there, so it’s only specifically publishing the exact location data I have an issue with. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- So if the buildings are notable own their own right what's the problem? The vast majority of notable buildings are places where living people live and work, at least as far as I understand it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Bill Gates’s house only exists and is only notable because a notable person lives there, the exact location data should be excluded in my opinion. Only if the resident is a notable person, and them living there made the residence notable should the location be omitted. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- How do you know that its only notable because a notable person lives there? That seems like an unprovable assertion based on circular reasoning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bill Gates’s house was designed by him and built specifically for him and his family in 1997. Him and his family are the first and only residents. TheSpacebook (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes... And you need to somehow prove that the exact same house built by a non-notable individual for her and her family in 1997 wouldn't be notable. Given its size, features, and location I don't think thats something you can actually be confident of. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Can you prove that there are reasons it is notable other than the fact that Bill Gates lives there? Your comment sounds like Russell's teapot. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Russels Teapot underlines that "the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others." with the person making the empirically unfalsifiable claim ("X only exists and is only notable because a notable person lives there") being TheSpacebook, but here you are trying to shift the burden of disproof from TheSpacebook to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- No. By default no reasons exist. One has to prove the existence of every reason, not the nonexistence of all others, which is empirically impossible. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly TheSpacebook's generalized claim is empirically both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, what I'm saying is you have to prove that there are other reasons, since nobody can prove that there are no other reasons. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- The whole point of Russels Teapot is don't say that... Nobody has to give a reason why the teapot doesn't exist or prove that there are no reasons why the teapot can't exist, the person who said that there is a teapot needs to give reasons why it exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I’ve missed this whole sub-thread. If there are reliable sources to say that other people have lived at Bill Gates’s house, then that would open up the debate if any reliable sources are published that say so. TheSpacebook (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- And how is that the opposite of what I've said? You're the one claiming somebody needs to prove why they don't exist. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I never claimed that, what the heck are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- You're asking to prove that
its [sic] only notable because a notable person lives there
, which can only be proven by proving that no other reasons exist, as we've already established that a notable person lives there and that that gives some notability. You may enlighten me of any other way.If there really are other reasons, providing them shouldn't be very difficult. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)- No I didn't... I said "How do you know that its only notable because a notable person lives there?" which is not an unfalsifiable claim, the answer is whatever is going on in their head (its [don't be a jerk] asking how they know something, not why something is true). The unfalsifiable claim is "Bill Gates’s house only exists and is only notable because a notable person lives there" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- You're asking to prove that
- I never claimed that, what the heck are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- The whole point of Russels Teapot is don't say that... Nobody has to give a reason why the teapot doesn't exist or prove that there are no reasons why the teapot can't exist, the person who said that there is a teapot needs to give reasons why it exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- No, what I'm saying is you have to prove that there are other reasons, since nobody can prove that there are no other reasons. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly TheSpacebook's generalized claim is empirically both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- No. By default no reasons exist. One has to prove the existence of every reason, not the nonexistence of all others, which is empirically impossible. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Russels Teapot underlines that "the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others." with the person making the empirically unfalsifiable claim ("X only exists and is only notable because a notable person lives there") being TheSpacebook, but here you are trying to shift the burden of disproof from TheSpacebook to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bill Gates’s house was designed by him and built specifically for him and his family in 1997. Him and his family are the first and only residents. TheSpacebook (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- How do you know that its only notable because a notable person lives there? That seems like an unprovable assertion based on circular reasoning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Bill Gates’s house only exists and is only notable because a notable person lives there, the exact location data should be excluded in my opinion. Only if the resident is a notable person, and them living there made the residence notable should the location be omitted. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry for the [sic], not sure why I had that compulsion.That claim is very falsifiable. All you have to do is to provide some other reason it is notable. See also the claim of "the teapot doesn't exist" in Russell's teapot. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Because that reason would need to be from an alternative reality where the house was not built and lived in by Bill Gates. No such reasons exist in the reality we live in, they're deep hypotheticals. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- So if the buildings are notable own their own right what's the problem? The vast majority of notable buildings are places where living people live and work, at least as far as I understand it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I support privacy protections to include removal of exact address, geographical coordinates, etc. for residential properties (not necessarily all properties) of living subjects (and non-subjects named in articles); unless: 1) the property is ]
- I’m not talking about general location information, I’m talking about EXACT location data such as addresses and geographical coordinates. What’s your opinion on properties that BECOME notable for the mere fact that a notable living individual is living there? All the examples I gave, the articles were all created after the living individuals started living there, and created because they started living there. My original proposal for Wikipedia BLP policy: If the residence wasn’t notable before the notable living person moved in and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- You can't use a page not having been created yet as evidence that the topic wasn't yet notable, most notable topics are notable long before a page is created. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- If the residence previously wouldn’t have passed WP:GNG with these sources only. If it doesn't pass with sources that pre-date their move-in, the exact location data should omitted. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)]
- But you don't actually know whether it would have passed unless it was put through AfD at that time. You can't just guess at the outcome of a discussion that never happened. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- If the residence previously wouldn’t have passed
- You can't use a page not having been created yet as evidence that the topic wasn't yet notable, most notable topics are notable long before a page is created. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- The OP is discussing standalone articles about these houses - if your criterion 1 isn't met, these articles shouldn't exist at all. (Disclaimer: I haven't looked at these specific articles, am speaking generally). I would generally agree with excluding addresses from articles about the people themselves according to your criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- ]
- Someone’s home address is part of a biography of a living person though, and I think my proposal should be in the BLP guidelines. Some buildings are notable, as for example Bill Gates’s house is notable for its features. And Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s house was designed by a famous architect, who has a Wikipedia article, and broke the record for its sale price- but the building itself wasn’t notable before the musicians moved in.
- Let me be clear, I’m not calling into question any buildings notability; my point is that buildings that since BECOME notable BECAUSE a notable living person starts living there, the EXACT location information should be omitted. If the building was already notable before the living person moved in, the exact location data doesn’t need to be removed. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- (1) Well, we can already WP:INHERITed its apparent (non-)notability. (2) We can't suppress the location of a notable building. So: if one should]
BECOME notable BECAUSE a notable person starts living there
, then what you have is (1) or (2). I agree with your sentiments, but I'm not sure what change in guideline or policy this represents. JFHJr (㊟) 21:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)- The buildings have now become notable, so the buildings articles shouldn’t be deleted. Im glad you agree with my sentiments; I’m talking about a specific new policy being written. But I think exact location data of a living person should not be included, to protect the individual (especially as it’s well reported that these people are stalked). I did have concerns that I’d be met with this being labelled as “suppression”, so in my original post I gave the example: Wikipedia doesn’t include the birth names of transgender people if they were not notable under that name, even if that name may be well reported elsewhere. So I think a similar simple rule should be written into Wikipedia BLP policy: If the residence doesn’t pass WP:GNG only with sources that pre-date the notable living person’s earliest known move-in date and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. I’ll also add that even if it is not accessible to the public, but the living owner publicly advertises their house (the only examples I can think of is Neverland Ranch (if Michael Jackson was still alive) and the Playboy Mansion (if Hugh Hefner was still alive)), then the exact location data can be included. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)]
- My proposal for an addition to the Wikipedia BLP policy is as follows:
If the residence doesn’t pass (/wouldn’t have passed)
WP:GNG only with sources that pre-date the notable living person’s earliest known move-in date and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. If the residence isn’t open to the public but the notable living owner publicly advertises their residence; for example, Neverland Ranch (if Michael Jackson was still alive) and the Playboy Mansion(if Hugh Hefner was still alive), then the exact location data can be included.- The Ed Sheeran article should (and currently does) read:
Sheeran purchased and renovated a farm near Framlingham, Suffolk, where he was raised.
and not Sheeran purchased and renovated Old MacDonald Farm on Eieio Road, Framlingham, Suffolk, FR0 7SU, where he was raised. as it is not open to the public and he doesn’t advertise it. The Beyoncé article should readthe couple bought a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million.
but alarmingly currently reads the couple bought [Beyoncé’s actual address which I’ve omitted], a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million.. The exact location information should be removed as it meets all three criteria: it only became notable after she moved in, it’s not open to the public and she has never publicly advertised it. Again, the actual article about the house should stay as it is notable, but have all exact location information omitted. - I’m seeking to codify this clearly in the Wikipedia BLP policy. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- So are you proposing: for notable properties (with their own article passing WP:GNG) that are residences of living persons, which only became notable because of that living person actually living there; there should be a new rule for omitting content as basic as location for a GNG-fit building that otherwise would have its location provided? A WP:BLPHOME? What about when a living person sells it, and we are certain a non-notable living person owns it next? I also find this hard to square with having a notable building. If it's notable, you have to say where it is. Keeping it vague doesn't do the job of an encyclopedia. I'll step back from the discussion now, and see if anyone else will help build a consensus around your proposal. Thanks for your time and thoughts and effort, TheSpacebook. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)]
- That’s a very good example. 1) I think that properties that only become notable because a living person is living there, the exact location data should be omitted whilst they’re living there. 2) If the notable living person sells the house to a non-notable person, then the location data can then be included, only if the article clearly says the notable person no longer lives there, to protect the new owner from bad actors thinking the notable previous owner still lives there. Again to clarify, if the building was already notable before the notable living person moved-in, then the exact location data shouldn’t be removed. 3) The only sticky ground I see is that if the notable person dies, and their immediate non-notable family members inherits the notable residence doesn’t sell it and chooses to live there, it should be case-by-case basis on whether the exact location data actually enriches the encyclopedic content to the article. 4) Any building that becomes listed by a government agency should have the exact location data regardless. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- One last PS here: Ed's article shouldn't have egregious details that violate his private life. I'll take a look! Thank you again. JFHJr (㊟) 22:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)]
- I’ve edited my above reply to add more info. How is the part I’ve just written in red about the Beyoncé not an egregious violation of her privacy? TheSpacebook (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Fine. Last last PS here. I'm on a tiny device on a lake, holiday weekend (US). The article about B's residence probably doesn't pass GNG. It's not something I'll get around to until Tuesday at the earliest. If anyone else takes it to AFD, I'll contribute. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve edited my above reply to add more info. How is the part I’ve just written in red about the Beyoncé not an egregious violation of her privacy? TheSpacebook (talk) 22:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- So are you proposing: for notable properties (with their own article passing
- The buildings have now become notable, so the buildings articles shouldn’t be deleted. Im glad you agree with my sentiments; I’m talking about a specific new policy being written. But I think exact location data of a living person should not be included, to protect the individual (especially as it’s well reported that these people are stalked). I did have concerns that I’d be met with this being labelled as “suppression”, so in my original post I gave the example: Wikipedia doesn’t include the birth names of transgender people if they were not notable under that name, even if that name may be well reported elsewhere. So I think a similar simple rule should be written into Wikipedia BLP policy: If the residence doesn’t pass
- (1) Well, we can already
- ]
- I’m not talking about general location information, I’m talking about EXACT location data such as addresses and geographical coordinates. What’s your opinion on properties that BECOME notable for the mere fact that a notable living individual is living there? All the examples I gave, the articles were all created after the living individuals started living there, and created because they started living there. My original proposal for Wikipedia BLP policy: If the residence wasn’t notable before the notable living person moved in and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- That’s not what I’m saying at all. The buildings such as Taylor Swift’s and Bill Gates’s house are notable. But notable living people live there, so it’s only specifically publishing the exact location data I have an issue with. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I totally agree with you here, this is a clear privacy concern that should prompt a specific BLP page. Something like
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a living person's residence unless the building was notable from before their residency, or they've published its address themselves
seems good to me, and it would also parallelMOS:GENDERID if we wanted to write a more general guideline in the future. I don't think it matters whether it's open to the public: in almost all cases where that's important, the living person in question will have publicized the address themselves. Loki (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)]- I’m glad we agree! I think WP:GNG after the notable living person moved-in, the residence’s respective article should also omit any exact location information. This includes all image data, such as file names and metadata which are used to link the residence to the notable living person. Any residence that is a listed property by a government should have the exact location information regardless. TheSpacebook (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)]
- I mostly like it but I have a few quibbles:
- 1.
If the residence only...omit any exact location information.
is redundant, we already say that earlier. - 2.
This includes all image data...to the notable living person.
isn't phrased great. I initially read it as omitting images entirely. - 3. I'm not sure what the purpose of the "listed property by a government" exception. Many people's addresses are technically in some public registry somewhere, such as voter records, and this is not usually a sufficient justification to publish those addresses.
- So my second proposal would be:
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date their residency, or they've published the exact location information themselves. Also be careful not to include location information in the filename or metadata of an image.
Loki (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)- Yes, yours is more concise. I’ll just add that I think
… make sure all associated exact location data from the file name and metadata is completely removed before including the image. If the residence appears un-notably in another article (for example in a list of works by an architect) with exact location information, contact the oversight team to remove that information before linking. Err on the side of caution if the residence can easily be located from its name, prefer John Smith’s house or John Smith’s California house, if they have multiple; especially in the case where the architect has named the architectural body of work after the address
. That last bit is because Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s address was listed on the architects article, buried in a list of his works and the title of the architectural body of work is named after the address. 1. Is in just for clarification if the building is notable enough for an article after the notable person moves in, all exact location data should be omitted. Example:Bill Gates’s houseshould have the exact location data removed (but I’m not sure if he’s published the location info himself at some point, so we need to check that). - 2. It was just a rough draft, so it can be reworded!
- 3. “Listed” as in a Grade II Listed Building
- Overall, this won’t have much effect right now, as people’s addresses are widely disseminated. But it’s for future-proofing Wikipedia. TheSpacebook (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, yours is more concise. I’ll just add that I think
- I’m glad we agree! I think
- I've nominated WP:GNG is lacking. TarnishedPathtalk
- The WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date her residency, so the location information should stay on that article. TheSpacebook (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2024 (UTC)]
- High Watch is actually by far the most notable of all the houses we've discussed here, it would have passed GNG by 1950 post acquisition by the Harknesses (who were almost as prominent in the society pages of their day as Ms Swift is in ours). I also think perhaps your understanding of the Streisand effect is backwards, the only way to avoid it is to publish the information in full. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes. You are correct. I skipped straight to the references, and skimmed over the part that says notable people have owned the house before. The information on High Watch should stay! TheSpacebook (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- High Watch is actually by far the most notable of all the houses we've discussed here, it would have passed GNG by 1950 post acquisition by the Harknesses (who were almost as prominent in the society pages of their day as Ms Swift is in ours). I also think perhaps your understanding of the Streisand effect is backwards, the only way to avoid it is to publish the information in full. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- The
Restart
- I agree with this idea, which also seems to parallel significant coverage in relation to its current resident(s) and its current resident(s) have not publicized its address,Aaron Liu (talk) 15:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
and it is likely to otherwise remain low-profile,its address should not be included.
- I agree with this, as well as what has been said above. Perhaps some clarification to make sure that we are talking about exact locations here - as TheSpacebook notes earlier on: "The MOS:GENDERID for the birth name of trans individuals. --GnocchiFan (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)]
- I've changed "location" to "address" Aaron Liu (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I see some good progress has been made in making it clear and concise whilst I was… away. As I said above, I don’t think this would have much impact now, but it will definitely futureproof Wikipedia to have a specific policy of WP:BLPPRIVACY is, at present, loosely adhered to. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)]
and it is likely to otherwise remain low-profile
I am not convinced this should be part of the policy. There is enough media drivel that would make a home high profile by just talking about it enough. If the intent is primarily BLP oriented, just "Dont mention if current residents haven't publicised it" should serve the same goals better. Soni (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)- I think this might be too vague. I think the clear and objective rule of
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date their residency
leaves no room for interpretation. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2024 (UTC)- Except that whether or not something passes GNG is up to interpretation of course, which is tons of room. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not an issue with the very similar MOS:GENDERID, which has a similar restricted-notability requirement. Loki (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)]
- Agree. I think WP:BLPHOME should be clear, to minimise the room for interpretation, in the fashion of other similar rules. Overall to protect living individuals. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody is claiming that MOS:GENDERID "leaves no room for interpretation" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think what they mean is that we can have a more concrete process for debating whether a location can be included using this version. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- If thats what they meant then they should have written something completely different then. If there remains significant room for interpretation nobody should be claiming that there isn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have never once seen the notability parts of MOS:GENDERID be the sticking point in a case where it was ambiguous whether to apply it. Loki (talk) 23:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have never edited for any transgender person. However, I believe that the birth name of Brianna Ghey can be reliably sourced, and there have been debates in the talk page on its inclusion. TheSpacebook (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think what they mean is that we can have a more concrete process for debating whether a location can be included using this version. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Consensus on whether it passes WP:GNG with sources that pre-date the residency, can be discussed. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)]
- So there is room for interpretation, lots of it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not an issue with the very similar
- That also seems good to me, though I would change
passes WP:GNG...
tohas significant coverage in reliable sources that pre-date their residency
since... I dunno, capitals are scary. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)- Disagree with you on this,
passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date the residency
leaves less room for interpretation thansignificant coverage
. It also gives a clear instruction on how to proceed if this issue comes up. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)- Well, I have a preference that policies and guidelines don't use external initialisms... How about
has
general notability in sources that predate their residency? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)]- Actually I might change my mind and agree with you. I think this policy should be based around the premise of MOS:DEADNAME which says don’t use the name]
even if reliable sourcing exists
TheSpacebook (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)- I think that means to not use the name if reliable sourcing can prove that name, not that even if reliable sources cover it a lot. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Don’t use exact location information if the building wasn’t notable before they moved in, even if reliable sources can prove the exact location, unless the owners publish it themselves.. right? TheSpacebook (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think that means to not use the name if reliable sourcing can prove that name, not that even if reliable sources cover it a lot. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Actually I might change my mind and agree with you. I think this policy should be based around the premise of
- Well, I have a preference that policies and guidelines don't use external initialisms... How about
- Disagree with you on this,
- I've just thought of something: How about residences passed down generations? Including locations is currently allowed by this wording, and obviously including the location of the Buckingham Palace should have no issue. But what about a private-r residence of a famous family? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Case-by-case consensus. Err on the side of caution if the close family inherit the house and choose to still live there. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Except that whether or not something passes GNG is up to interpretation of course, which is tons of room. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have concerns about the proposed from Aaron Liu. I think the language will have the opposite effect - as it many more generous of allowing addresses to be published than it is today (as people publish their own address with some frequency). That said, there probably is some BLPPRIVACY concerns on pages about notable structures, even if those concerns rarely manifest on stand-alone biographies. --Enos733 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think I may defer to TheSpacebook's argument about vagaries. What do you think about their version? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- The following hits all the points for me, would anyone be willing to make it a bit more concise?:
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence passes WP:GNG strictly using sources that pre-date their residency, or they've published the exact location information themselves. Ensure all associated exact location data from the file name and metadata is completely removed before including the image. If the residence appears un-notably in another article (for example in a list of works by an architect) with exact location information, contact the oversight team to remove that information before linking. Err on the side of caution if the residence can easily be located from its name, prefer John Smith’s house or John Smith’s California house, if they have multiple; especially in the case where the architect has named the architectural body of work after the address.
TheSpacebook (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)- I think the case of Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s house was a clear example of a worst-case scenario. The address was the name of the actual architectural body of work and it’s listed un-notably with that name on the architects Wikipedia article in a table listing his works. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- And what would we do with residential buildings which actually are known by their address like 220 Central Park South? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- I think the case of Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s house was a clear example of a worst-case scenario. The address was the name of the actual architectural body of work and it’s listed un-notably with that name on the architects Wikipedia article in a table listing his works. TheSpacebook (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)