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 their home. I think it should be moved to ‘Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California mansion’, or some variant of that, with all reference to its exact location removed.
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 Palaceare 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:WP:BLPPRIVACY should already cover this by saying “In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses” and “If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it”. The examples I gave are in clear violation of this so I think this issue should be specifically and clearly written in as a new section, with the shortcut WP:BLPHOME or WP:BLPADDRESS. Here’s a draft of what I think it should look like: 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 publicizes their residence’s location; 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. This doesn’t include real-estate listings they have not acknowledged publicly. Any residence that becomes a listed property by a government agency should have the exact location information regardless. 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 read the couple bought a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million, but alarmingly currently reads the couple bought [redacted Beyoncé’s actual home address], 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: the sources that pre-date her moving in wouldn’t make the building pass WP:GNG, it’s not open to the public and she has never publicly advertised it. TheSpacebook (talk) 20:10, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 notable; or 2) the property's location touches directly on a subject's notability and stating the location is not WP:UNDUE. JFHJr (㊟) 20:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
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, then the exact location data shouldn’t be included if a notable living individual living there makes it pass WP:GNG, in my opinion. Simply, only look at sources that are before their move-in date and see if the residence does pass 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)
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)
User:Nikkimaria is correct. Notability is bright line that lets other info in. If OP challenges the notability guidelines as they apply to residences themselves, there's yet another forum to suggest changes for that: WT:GNG. This discussion is constrained to BLP content. JFHJr (㊟) 20:36, 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:AFD a property that has only 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 read the 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.
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)
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 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 parallel MOS: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:BLPHOME should 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. If the residence only passes 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 house should 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!
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)
The High Watch article concerns me the most. It 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.”. I don’t think the house would pass WP:GNG with sources pre-2013 (when Swift moved in) as most other houses in the area are similar. All this data should also be removed from the entire page version history too, to avoid the Streisand effect. However, Swift’s other residence, Samuel Goldwyn Estate, would pass 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)
Restart
I agree with this idea, which also seems to parallel WP:BLPNAME. So maybe something like this at the bottom of BLPPRIVACY:
If a residence only has significant coverage in relation to its current resident(s) and its current resident(s) have not publicized its address, 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 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.". Including general location is okay, exact addresses are not. Per the spirit of WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:UNDUE, as well as the precedent set out in MOS:GENDERID for the birth name of trans individuals. --GnocchiFan (talk) 15:57, 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:BLPHOME codified; as the 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 modeled this after WP:BLP1E and I feel like "otherwise" excludes media drivel just due to the resident. Anyways, I've removed that part since I just want some good form of this to pass. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:05, 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)
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)
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)
That also seems good to me, though I would change passes WP:GNG... to has 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 than significant coverage. It also gives a clear instruction on how to proceed if this issue comes up. TheSpacebook (talk) 21:49, 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 existsTheSpacebook (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)
Yeah, and general notability doesn't say things like "reliable sources can prove the exact location"; it's "independent, reliable sources have covered the subject a lot" Aaron Liu (talk) 22:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence has general notability in sources that predate their residency or they've intentionally publicized the exact location information themselves.When including an image of the residence, ensure all associated exact location data is absent from itself, its filename, its metadata, etc.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.
This "they've published the exact location information themselves" is a big problem. It opens the door very wide - as many people may have inadvertently or were required to publish their address.
The existing language is good - "If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it and contact the oversight team so that they can evaluate it and possibly remove it from the page history."
Now, again, the challenge here is not about biographies, but about notable structures. Any proposed language should be narrowly drafted to ensure that it does not inadvertently change the prohibition for biographies. Enos733 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
My first suggestion is to not change the existing prohibition. Initially, my thought would be to add a footnote - something like - "A stand-alone page about a notable building may include information about its owners or residents if there is significant coverage of the owner (or resident) and the building - see WP:DUE." - Enos733 (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
My original, but extremely wordy first draft says: 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 publicizes their residence’s location; 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. This doesn’t include real-estate listings they have not acknowledged publicly. Any residence that becomes a listed property by a government agency should have the exact location information regardless.TheSpacebook (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
We need to find the most concise and unambiguous way to say unless they’ve publicly acknowledged the house, but that doesn’t include private things such as real estate listings, or property listings where they are unable to not appear on a public database, such as a voting registerTheSpacebook (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This proposal seems... backwards? Most of the examples used aren't relevant solely because a famous person lives there, but other considerations. If anything, naming them as [person's house] seems like more of a BLP violation. If an article is written solely because a famous person lives there with no other commentary on architecture/history/whatever then it should be deleted. Of course don't include someone's address in the prose of a BLP, but when the building itself becomes notable then it's not really an issue anymore. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
But this just happened with Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s house, which became notable and the article was titled with the address and named them as the residents. My proposal is to clearly write a policy so this doesn’t happen again. TheSpacebook (talk) 10:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
To date, no version of the article has described, named or otherwise identified Beyoncé and Jay-Z as "residents" of that property. It describes them as owners, and as having paid a then record price for the most expensive residence in California. None of that mentions who, if anyone, actually lives there. Rotary Enginetalk11:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Bad cases make bad law. Some notable buildings are listed by their address in historic buildings / landmarks databases, some by a common name, some by the original or a later resident. The address is one of several possible identifiers under which a building may be known; we can't impose a useful rule on when not to use that identifier, particularly because it needs to be available as a redirect in many cases even if we don't put the article at that title. Also, the privacy-violating element is the identification of the building by its current resident(s). The house that prompted TheSpacebook to start this section, the latest house on Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu to sell for a record-breaking price, is best known by its address because the press coverage is about the price. The article was created at the address title and correctly named the notable architect and the couple who commissioned it before mentioning who bought it. This is not a BLP violation; it accurately reflects the coverage of the house in reliable sources. The BLP violation was TheSpacebook's subsequent move of the article (while at AfD, and after suggesting the move in the discussion but without waiting for responses) to a title that amounts to "Everybody on Google, lookie here, this is where these stars live!!". A demonstration in neon lights that the problem is not having articles—or redirects—on buildings that use the street address as an externally available search term, but showcasing where someone lives. It's a form of gossip clickbait. Any fan can trivially find the address for a celebrity real estate purchase that was covered in the real estate or architecture and design press (there is for example a short but fluffy article on the Architectural Digest website about this house purchase, and the story appears to have been broken by the TMZ, a site not known to eschew breathless celebrity coverage), and I've argued at the AfD for an aggressive merge of the article on this marginally notable building. But TheSpacebook has fallen into the exact fan trap that Wikipedia needs to avoid as the main source of search engine results: regarding where celebrities live as notable because they're celebrities. This 2021 purchase by a celebrity of another house by the same architect on the same millionaire's row was appropriately handled; the house in question, if it merits an article, should be covered at Richard Sachs residence or at the street address, whichever is more commonly used, not under its current star resident. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I moved the page without waiting as per the clear guidance of WP:BLPPRIVACY saying “If you see personal information… addresses… in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it” and renamed it in line with Bill Gates’s house. The address was listed on both of the musicians articles too, which I also removed. The only thing left to do is for the oversight to remove it from the pages version histories. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
That was an exceptionally stupid way to deal with the issue. You don't hide personal information by drawing attention to it in article titles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Valid. But I think this highlights why a specific WP:BLPHOME does need to be introduced, so issues like this don’t arise again. The current policy is too ambiguous. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
So, having spent the last few hours defending you against claims of off-Wikipedia canvassing, I now discover you had instead engaged in intentionally violating the very policy you claimed to be defending, in order to get your own amendment added? Fuck you. AndyTheGrump (talk)
@AndyTheGrump huh? How is me removing the exact location data of a notable living person violating the policy I wish to introduce? It’s the very policy I am putting forward. All that needs to be done is the oversight team removing it from the pages version histories. The article to the building was already linked in both of the musicians articles, with actual link text being their address, linking to the article which previously was titled with the address. The text I removed from both of their articles was: the couple bought [redacted the actual address], a house in Malibu, California, designed by the architect Tadao Ando, for $200 million. I removed this from their articles. I also appreciate you defending me today. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I’ve also redirected the page titled with the actual address to the architect for the time being, but this should be deleted. TheSpacebook (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@AndyTheGrump: What? What are you talking about? I gotta assume that you are misunderstanding the situation if you think that moving the article about Beyonce and Jay-Z's house to Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California house is at all against what TheSpacebook has been arguing. (It's maybe jumping the gun, considering the AFD is still ongoing, but honestly not by a lot.) Loki (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with AndyTheGrump about TheSpacebook's action: labeling the article as their house, on the basis that that's its claim to notability, is exactly the violation of BLP privacy that they are campaigning against. The editor has publicly flagged the article as being about the celebrities' house, rather than being about a house on the Pacific Coast Highway. Where I disagree is on which title should be rev-deleted. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
To me, it feels in line with their belief that most addresses of living people should be removed. Their proposal seems like it wouldn't apply to such articles and would suggest them be moved back to the address due to being notable outside of Beyoncé. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Whilst the article had the address as the title, the body of the article already named the musicians as the residents (not just the owners, they were named as the residents), saying The house was sold in May 2023 to Beyoncé and Jay-Z for $200 million, establishing a new record for the most expensive residence sold in CaliforniaTheSpacebook (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Describing something as a "residence" does not imply anything about the residents. Much of the world resides in properties which they do not own. Conversely, much of the properties in the world are not owned by their residents. Rotary Enginetalk07:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This policy only affects residences that are lived in by notable people. That’s a good point, we should add that to the draft. TheSpacebook (talk) 07:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Describing something as a "residence" does not imply anything about the residents. In the context used, it's a distinguisher from non-residential property; e.g. commercial property. Rotary Enginetalk07:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The existing policy language is very clear. “If you see personal information… addresses… in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it.” What is proposed would permit adding addresses under some situations. Even if where and how addresses are currently included are common sense, policy writing is difficult. - Enos733 (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
It is indeed difficult. The BLPPRIVACY policy says that, so I’m unsure why the musicians address was allowed to stay on Wikipedia, and on both of their articles for around 10 months. TheSpacebook (talk) 23:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
That interpretation would remove every address, including that of the Buckingham Palace. I feel like there isn't a reason not to add such addresses. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Common sense should apply. Also information in a stand-alone biographies is different than information about a stand-alone article of a building. - Enos733 (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I could usefully have been clearer. The proposal would require removing the street address from notable buildings when they happen to be acquired by somebody famous, or when someone who has an article takes up a position that comes with a notable official residence (like some college presidents, for example. We already have policies against including addresses in the actual biographies of living people, and naming conventions for articles on buildings that discourage having the street address as the article title. That suffices. These houses are not notable because of who currently lives there; if they merit articles, it's for other reasons. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
This proposal would not do that, as being notable before such associations would preclude necessitating removal of the addresses. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
You saying The proposal would require removing the street address from notable buildings when they happen to be acquired by somebody famous is not what I’m proposing. My proposal doesn’t require removing street addresses if a famous person lives there if the building is already notable. If the building becomes notable due to its notable residents (as with Beyoncé and Jay-Z), then the exact location data shouldn’t be included. My proposal is only talking about if previously un-notable building (for example, hasn’t already got its own Wikipedia article) becomes notable because of them living there. TheSpacebook (talk) 05:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
My proposal does not call into question the notability of a building. My proposal is that if a previously un-notable building becomes notable because a notable living person lives there (as with the case of Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s house), then the exact location data should be omitted. TheSpacebook (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The first sentence is a non sequitur. Becomes notable because a notable living person lives there and has general notability in sources that predate their residency are not congruent. Notability is a poor determinant of noteworthy content. And, while I'm there...
They are two different tests. "Has general notability ... predate their residence" excludes properties which become notable for any reason if it occurs after purchase. It presupposes that notability is "because a notable living person lives there".
The examples you gave are all publicly owned. This policy suggestion only affects private residences which are privately owned. TheSpacebook (talk) 06:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
There is only 1 test. Was the residence notable before the current owner moved in? yes(include exact location data) or no(exclude exact location data)? It’s that simple. TheSpacebook (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
So, can we stop talking about notable because a notable living person lives there then?
As for Was the residence notable before the current owner moved in?; I do not concur that this is a good test, and oppose the proposed addition to policy. Rotary Enginetalk06:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
These buildings were famous before its current living residents moved in. Notice that the text says notable living person. Also, these buildings were also publicized by their owners.Maybe we should add this as an example. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Because that's an indication that the building has notability outside of its association with its current residents, so this is a safeguard for cases where it should probably be included for a famous landmark house or something. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Why should has notability, whether outside of its association with its current residents or not, matter? And why only notable living persons? Notability is a reasonable initial determinant as to whether a topic likely merits a standalone article. It is not a good determinant for article content. Rotary Enginetalk11:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Can you provide reasons why using notability will fail in the purpose I've mentioned above? The idea is that people might want to haggle notable people and find their address from Wikipedia, but for addresses of non-notable people, they'd go there for the purposes of admiring an architectural marvel. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
a) Type I and type II errors (a residence may be noteworthy but not notable, or, conversely, notable but not noteworthy); intimated above by reference to WP:NOTEWORTHY.
b) buildings which are known solely or primarily by their street address (as mentioned above by Yngvadottir);
c) disconnect between "notable because a notable living person lives there" and "general notability in sources that predate their residency"; mentioned above. (What do we do with a building which becomes notable for its architecture, or any other "resident unrelated" reason, after a notable living person takes up residence?);
d) poor accommodation of intergenerational inheritance; (e.g. Why is publishing the street address of Graceland any less of a privacy concern for current owner, Riley Keough, than it would have been for Elvis?);
e) number of required caveats/exemptions (abovementioned: "listed" buildings, publicly-owned buildings, open to the public, intentionally publicised, etc); if it need this many caveats, it's probably not the right yardstick;
g) lacks nuance; does not reflect that differences in location, or context, of the information may influence appropriateness of inclusion;
h) poor alignment with the purpose of Wikipedia. We document human knowledge, including, on occasion, where residential buildings are located.
I'll add that the proposed policy addition wouldn't necessarily prevent including the street address of the Malibu house. (Though I consider that it should not,) the house does currently have an article, and is therefore presumably "notable", and was so at least from the time of (record setting) purchase, which (strictly) predates any residence.
Why should the exact location details or street address be included for a famous landmark house or something?
Why should location details or street addresses for non-famous residences of notable living people be strictly excluded when published extensively in reliable sources? Rotary Enginetalk13:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I have an issue with point B the most. I think that we should avoid using it and just say “John Smith’s house” like we do with Bill Gates’s house, as although it’s the common name, it’s also is exact location information. I liken it to transgender birth name policy on Wikipedia.
You noticed another flaw, thank you. With the Malibu house, it setting the record (the purchase being complete) doesn’t predate their residence, and we should define residence as purchase date should they, following a brief grace period, move into that property, to just follow common sense.
You are correct that this needs nuance. Same with the inheritance point, nuance. I think a general common-sense approach is: If the residence wasn’t notable before they moved in, do you think the residents would want their exact location data on Wikipedia?
Transgender birth names are also widely reported elsewhere by reliable sources like with Brianna Ghey and editors debate the names inclusion in the talk page.
Overall, like others, I think this is a good policy that needs to be coded in specifically, and that there are a lot of creases that need to be ironed out. We must always just err on the side of caution to protect notable living individuals, as they are often the target to stalking and harassment. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Point B relates to properties like 10 Downing Street and 180 Ebury Street. Those are the official and common names of the properties, any other title would be original research. This is completely different to the names of transgender people where we are picking between two different names, both reported in reliable sources, and choosing which one to use. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Those buildings are historic, however. Let’s take the Beyoncé and Jay-Z example, as it’s known by its address. I don’t think it should be included, as they themselves haven’t referred to their property as such, and we should err on the side of caution to protect them. It’s not original research to have a title in sentence case saying "John Smith’s house", but it would be original research to capitalise it as "John Smith’s House", as that would be giving it a name. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think it should be included, as they themselves haven’t referred to their property as such, and we should err on the side of caution to protect them. What? Why is this a relevant factor? Also, that seems like a fairly dubious claim. I'm quite sure they would have, on at least one occasion, referred to the property by its street address, even if only to tell the pizzeria where to deliver. Rotary Enginetalk14:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, common sense. If Sherlock Holmes wasn’t fictional, the address would be included, as he refers to his house as 221B Baker Street. He publicises his address as a public figure, not as a private individual. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
For completeness: Why should location details or street addresses for famous, and well documented, residences of notable living people be strictly excluded when published extensively in reliable sources? Rotary Enginetalk14:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
If you look at the Beyoncé and Jay-Z house, all the high end reliable sources The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times and Architectural Digest don’t include the address. It’s only unreliable sources that include BOTH the address and say the musicians live there, or sources that are strictly talking about the body of architecture. BLP has a blanket policy of “presumption in the favor of privacy” and I think this should apply. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The proposal as written explicitly states that location details or street addresses for famous, and well documented, residences of notable living people should be excluded. The Malibu house, as described, does not meet that definition, so is not relevant to the question posed. Rotary Enginetalk14:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Should be excluded… if they only gain notability because of the resident. As with Beyoncé and Jay-Z. It wouldn’t pass WP:GNG with sources that pre-date them buying it. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Only gain notability because of the resident; (at the risk of repetition,) the proposed text doesn't say that.
Why should an article on a well documented, notable, residence exclude location information where that information would normally be noteworthy?
Why should a comparison of documentation dates & purchase (or residence) dates be a determinant for inclusion or exclusion?
Why should information on residences which become well documented after residence date, but not because of the resident, be excluded? Rotary Enginetalk15:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Just to note, the proposed text is an extremely rough draft which requires the collaboration from other editors to discuss, amend, and solve any inconsistencies with scenarios that may arise. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
a) I don't think such buildings would even have their own articles. If it's not noteworthy, it won't have a mention at all; if it's noteworthy, under this proposed policy, its address would not be included. I don't see the point of this point. b)c) In my opinion, this policy would not change the name of historic buildings for the reasons I've mentioned above. For other buildings like the Beyoncé residence, this policy is currently open for interpretation as the building met general notability due to architecture magazines. In my opinion, such buildings should have article titles that are their address with a minor mention of their residents, and articles that link to it should either mention only the address or only the resident. So in Beyoncé's article it would mention "a house" without the address (as the resident has been mentioned), and the list of the architect's works should only mention the area without drawing special attention to it. d) Ehh... I'd say because Elvis is dead and people don't go there with the intent of seeing its current resident, and the location is publicized as a tourist destination anyway. e)f) I don't think we need to add all these. Just the existing ones, maybe + some examples, would be enough. h) That doesn't mean we should be disrespectful, c.f. GENDERID Aaron Liu (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Re:
a) It's relevant in the context of where the information is proposed to be included. Notability of the building only speaks to an article on the building. Noteworthy is in the context of the article (the building, the notable living person, other?), and the information (in this case the location or address, &/or ownership). That information may be noteworthy in one context, but not in another. Your thoughts on the Malibu house are a good example of this context.
b,c) but ... the proposed text doesn't say that.
d) Why is this a line of distinction? Why does a previous notable owner being dead matter?
e,f) but ... those are the exemptions discussed above. Should they be exempted or not?
a) I didn't say anything about the Malibu house, nor do I know what it is :) I still don't get what you mean. b) c) It indeed doesn't, and it is not regulated by this policy at all. Either this be judged independent of the words of this policy or we discuss this later. d) Because people won't try to go "speak" to the owner. e)f) These are already exempted according to the current criteria. h) We shouldn't be disrespectful. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
a) The text I am referring to is: For other buildings like the Beyoncé residence ... only mention the area without drawing special attention to it. The residence in question is in Malibu, California.
I basically mean that currently we might include different information at the article on the building and the article on the person; or include information only at one location. - the proposed policy doesn't allow for that.
FWIW, I would generally agree with the approach outlined in your thought on that residence.
b,c) The Beyoncé residence is firmly in scope of the proposed policy.
d) I don't believe this is a good, or reliable, distinction.
e,f) Of "listed" buildings, publicly-owned buildings, open to the public, intentionally publicised only the last is mentioned in the proposed text.
Ah, thanks for clarifying. b)c) It is my belief that the article currently passes notability because of its architectural significance, as otherwise it would fail notability per BLP1E. Thus it is notable in sources before the singers bought it and excluded by current criteria. e)f) Because the last is enough to exclude all these. I can't think of any such residence that hasn't been intentionally publicized. I have a strong feeling that the distinction in d) accords to the purposes of BLPPRIVACY but I can't seem to put my reason into words... Aaron Liu (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
b,c) I see. We seem to have different assumptions on the notability of that property. I don't find (m)any independent, reliable sources which predate the purchase. I believe BLP1E applies to people, not property.
As a hypothetical, and to highlight one reason where I see the proposed text as suboptimal: If Harry & Meghan (or any other notable living persons) were to buy the Beyoncé & Jay-Z house today & take up residence tomorrow, the proposed policy would offer no protection. The house is notable prior to their residence, and so location information could be included. Is this as intended? Rotary Enginetalk16:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, you have convinced me that this is a problem this proposal needs to address. I'll try to make a draft when I get access to a PC in a few hours. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
You raise a very good scenario. In my opinion: if the Carters sell their house TO the Sussexes, the exact location data is still omitted. But if the Carters sell their house to a non-notable third party that isn’t mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia, the exact location data is put on the article; and if the Sussexes buy the house form this non-notable third party, the exact location data remains on the article. But if it would cause a clear and serious security issue, we contact oversight. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
And if the Carters sell to anyone, maybe allow for a small grace period after the sale to see if a notable person bought and lives in the house. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Arriving at different outcomes based on chain of ownership is profoundly unsatisfactory. State-based (wikt:state 1.) decision making is preferable here over path-based (history based) decision making. Rotary Enginetalk06:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The creator of this thread seems to have opened a thread on Wikipediocracy to canvass people to this discussion
Is that an issue? WP:CANVASS says “In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus”
and that “Canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way”
However, I opened my post with a neutral request to request eyes “Hello everyone. I’m requesting eyes on a topic on the BLP noticeboard regarding Wikipedia publishing the home addresses of notable individuals, and concerns I have that this creates a security issue for them and doxxes them.”. This isn’t to, as you say, “canvass people to this discussion”
WP:MEAT says “do not recruit who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate”. Again, I neutrally opened the post saying “I’m requesting eyes” TheSpacebook (talk) 12:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
While I don't think that warranted a week-long block, Wikipediocracy is a non-neutral party that would almost certainly agree with you. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
New section as editors were getting confused with the exact proposal
Is Bill Gates' house sufficiently notable to actually bring into question the address issues? Remember that the GNG is not an assurance of a standalone article, with policy being reasons not to have one. Merging the content into the article on Bill Gates himself (such as under Personal life#Wealth), where it would be obvious only having to state the city/state of the home, seems to make a lot of sense. Also to point out the other question, when we have famous residental buildings such as those by Frank Lloyd Wright, which are not known for their resident but their architecture, we should not be listing past and current residents unless there's good reason too. --Masem (t) 02:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, the proposal does not call into question any building notability. If a building becomes notable because the resident moved in, then the exact location data should be omitted. If the building was already notable, then the exact location data shouldn’t be omitted. This is the best so far:
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence has general notability in sources that predate their residency or they've intentionally publicized the exact location information themselves.When including an image of the residence, ensure all associated exact location data is absent from itself, its filename, its metadata, etc.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.
While there may be something meritorious buried in this tread, TheSpacebook is proposing so many different things, many of which contradict each other, that I cannot support changing anything based on this discussion. Start a new discussion somewhere (WP:VPI may be the best place) and set out what the goal of the change would be. Once you have agreement that a goal is clear and unambiguous (and there is at least some support that it is desirable), then workshop a proposed change to policies and/or guidelines that people agree would clearly and unambiguously achieve that goal (or at least go a significant way towards solving it), then make a proposal to enact that change, explaining what the potential consequences of the change are and how any negative ones will be mitigated and/or how and why they will be outweighed by the positive consequences. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
On the most fundamental level, I’m suggesting: Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence has general notability in sources that predate their residency or they've intentionally publicized the exact location information themselves. There will obviously be some exceptions such a Listed Buildings or publicly owned, privately resided in government buildings.TheSpacebook (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
We need a policy that covers Stephen King's former house properly. I think the above may do it. It's one of the most well-known tourist attractions in Bangor, Maine, and he used to open the house for Halloween, before that became unwieldy. As far as I know, it wasn't notable before he moved in. These days, as far as I know, there are plans to make it an artists' retreat, since he lives out-of-state, so it's even less of an issue, but we still need to cover similar situations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
“Former house”. I’m sorry but I’m not proposing anything regarding peoples former house in this, just their current residence. TheSpacebook (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Your proposal does not restrict itself to current residences. If it did, there would need to be some consideration for the privacy of current residents, especially if those residents were also notable. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, I think that a problem is that you are adding this to BLP, when the concerns are (usually) not with a stand-alone biography, but a stand alone page of a building/structure/property. My perspective is that under no circumstances the home address should be listed in a stand-alone biography. - Enos733 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
There are some circumstances in which it might be desirable to mention an address in a standalone BLP. For example if the address of the house is relevant to their notability or it is an official residence known by its address (10 Downing Street, for example). Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
A very quick scan of biographies suggests that generally only current heads of government have an exact address an infobox in their biographies. - Enos733 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
It can also be helpful when a property had had a number of different names over the years with none being clearly more notable than the others. A lot of big old houses have had multiple lives, not all of them strictly residential. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence has general notability in sources that predate their residency or they've intentionally publicized the exact location information themselves.When including an image of such residences, ensure all associated exact location data is absent from itself, its filename, its metadata, etc.Err on the side of caution if any residence of a notable living person can easily be located from its name, especially in the case where the architect has named the architectural body of work after the address. If the address meets the above requirements to be included, articles linking to it should only mention either its address or its resident(s). For example, on John Smith's article, prefer John Smith’s house or John Smith’s California house, if they have multiple, instead of 418 Ash Tree Lane; on the architect's article, prefer 418 Ash Tree Lane and do not mention John Smith.
@Rotary Engine: I could not think of a good way to deal with buildings with a name that has nothing to do with their address, and the scenario you've mentioned happens. I hope that editor discretion can sort that out Aaron Liu (talk) 11:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
This proposal still is a big expansion of under what circumstances a residence can be listed. On biographies, we may want to remove "Residence" from the infobox - as a field encourages an entry. I feel confident that the real concern is on pages of notable buildings/structures, where some structures are known by a past or current occupant. And WP:DUE would apply to how much information about the residents should be on the page. - Enos733 (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It's a "big expansion" only because the previous one removed all residence addresses. Again, common sense and WP:DUE have not removed addresses from many of the situations this policy would remove them. I also don't see the harm in including the part in the spirit of DUE (and privacy), as it may not be obvious. I don't see the parameter for residence in {{infobox person}}. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
My perspective is that guidance to editors should be that addresses are never included. There is no reason to give reasons for editors to consider entering the address in a biography; there is no reason to provide guidance that provides exceptions to the general prohibition. There are some editors who will see this proposal and think it may be ok to publish an address (either by stretching the "intentionally publicizing" language or thinking it is ok to enter the address in a BLP.
From the BLP angle there is no difference there... Both living people, both residences. As long as the person is a public figure why should it matter what sort of public figure they are? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The difference is that there is no expectation of privacy, nor privacy risk to the officeholder, with regard to the address of an official residence that comes with a prominent office (where the address would be WP:DUE in an article about the office itself). Rosbif73 (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The lack of an expectation of privacy extends to all public figures equally. We don't treat politicians as a special class of public figure, nor should we. Some countries do hold the address or coordinates of their official residences and/or offices to be state secrets, wikipedia doesn't care because wikipedia is not censored. In many places the residence and the office are in different places, the US is kind of weird in combining them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Besides what JAJ has said (a case which I'm sure you'll adapt to soon), you also have the conflict with works by an architect where scrubbing the address from the article about the house can accidentally boost SEO and introduce inconsistency in the architect's article. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Truly appreciate the effort. But still see issues as outlined at a) through h), above.
Fundamentally, am not convinced that something like: In biographies of living persons, do not include addresses, coordinates, or other exact location information of the (current?) residence(s) of that person. It's shorter, simpler, and (for mine) has fewer gaps.
Am not overly concerned by the inclusion of location information in separate articles on genuinely notable residences; on the basis that such notability, per WP:NBUILD, requires significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources; and is not WP:INHERITED simply by the residence being owned, built or designed by someone notable.
Am not concerned by inclusion of official residences for officeholders; whether political, royal or otherwise. Nor by inclusion of location information in articles on those residences.
Examples: We should have an article on 10 Downing Street, which is a notable residence, and not be at all worried that it specifies the street address. We shouldn't have an article on "XXXXX Pacific Coast Highway"; with the current sourcing it's not independently notable. But, if it later becomes notable (ie. documented in depth in reliable, third-party sources), then an article on it likely should include the address (assuming it's in those reliable, third-party sources). Rotary Enginetalk06:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
BLP applies whenever you mention a living person. Even on the architect's article we have to mention that Jay-Z and Beyonce bought it for a record sum. NPOV is not negotiable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
This wording does not make any logical connection between the first and second paragraph. It appears that the second paragraph covers all images of residences, not merely images that fall under the first paragraph. I cannot support a proposal that prohibits Wikipedia from providing the location of the White House on the metadata of an image of the White House merely because it happens to be the residence of a notable person. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with David. It could also be argued that providing details of the location of any property that happens to have a notable person residing there would breach this policy, even if no connection to that person was made. For example it is public that Jimmy Wales lives in London, but not more precisely than that. I don't know more precisely than London, but as I also live and take photographs in London it is not impossible I have unknowingly photographed his house. If I upload a photograph in which his house appears, and give detailed location information of that house, then I have breached this policy even if I don't know anybody notable lives there. Obviously if nobody else on Wikipedia knows its Jimbo's house then I won't get in trouble for breaching the policy, but at the very least Jimbo knows where he lives (or at least I hope he does), and I suspect that he is not the only Wikipedian who does. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
That would be such an egregious and stupid gaming of a policy (as it reveals someone's location at the same time) to the point where I don't think we should consider such scenarios. It provides no benefit and only absolute nolifes would attempt to invoke this policy on such grounds. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Never write policy on the assumption that it won't be enforced in situations where it applies just because you don't think it should be enforced in that situation. Write it so that it doesn't apply in that situation. Enforcement in the scenario I describe wouldn't necessarily require outing anybody it would be enough to publicly state that it is the residence of a notable person (lots of notable people live in London) with details supplied privately to arbcom or whoever on request. Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Amended to "such residences". What do yáll think about just replacing the first two paragraphs with Rotary's proposal? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Still no. We cannot and should not try to set policy for censoring metadata on other projects like Wikimedia commons, where File:Streisand Estate.jpg is hosted. The residence depicted in that image does not appear to meet the proposed new standard of being independently notable itself, and is a location that its resident specifically tried to keep private. Nevertheless, we can and should include that image at Streisand effect, where it is central to its notable topic. Any proposal that would say otherwise is a no-go for me. And any proposal on en.wiki that attempts to control content on commons is like King Canute and the tide: demanding something that we have no power to achieve. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what I was thinking when I asked about it instead of asking about removing the paragraph, but Rotary's proposal does not include anything about files and thus would remove it. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The first paragraph is still problematic for the content of Streisand effect. It lists the home of a BLP, for whom that building is not independently notable, in a case where the BLP has not intentionally publicized its location. And yet, listing that specific home is central to Streisand effect. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Text being discussed, In (articles which are?) biographies of living persons, do not include addresses, coordinates, or other exact location information of the (current?) (non-official?) residence(s) of that person., does not affect content at White House or Streisand effect (not biographies) and has no impact on file or image metadata.
Alternatively, would suggest the same text, but with a should not (normally?) include verb; again, only applicable to biographies. This softens the proposal, but provides more room for editorial discretion.
Am trying to suggest something that's better aligned with community practice than the existing policy text at WP:BLPPRIVACY: Articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons & If you see personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc. in a BLP or anywhere on Wikipedia, edit the page to remove it ...; which doesn't seem to allow many of the obvious cases where we would readily include addresses. Rotary Enginetalk22:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I still wonder if it is worth implicitly encouraging editors to look for the exception rather than the existing language which suggests editors should remove the personal information (and scrub it from the page's history). The usual time this occurs is when a page about a building mentions current (and previous) residents. The notable building would have an address associated with it.
So, I am thinking better practices would be to: start with removing dates of purchase or periods of occupancy of living people in a page about the notable building if it is necessary to mention residents at all. This may have the effect of leaving it ambiguous for whether a person currently lives there. Second, we might generally prohibit information about the sale or ownership of a notable building. However, these would not be absolute guidelines and more rule of thumb, since some notable residences are public buildings and some residences may also be businesses. Still, the goal is to limit the circumstances when this project hosts personal information of living people. - Enos733 (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Prohibiting ownership information entirely would be controversially against notcensored. The exceptions allowed by this proposal do nearly no harm, and anyone committed to that point can probably find it in news either way. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence has general notability in sources that predate their residency or they've intentionally publicized the exact location information themselves.
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.
I think this is basically good but I'm also a little worried that "general notability in sources that predate their residency" isn't quite what we're looking for. It's easier to evaluate than "general notability separate from their residency (or the residency of other living people)" but honestly I feel like if we mean the latter, we should say the latter.
The example given before of a famous person moving into a residence previously owned by another famous person is the main edge case I'm worried about. That does happen pretty frequently and it doesn't really feel like it should be a case where a residency can be publicized.
On the other hand, one could easily imagine a counter edge case where a residency becomes notable because it happens to be the location of a notable event while a living person lives there. That does feel like a case where we should be able to publish the location of a residency. Loki (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
One goal I set while deciding the language was to make it easy to evaluate. I can't think of any such language that will satisfy this case, so I'll hope that people can be sane and evaluate these case-by-case.For the counter–edge case, could you provide an example? I don't seem to understand. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Choosing policy language because it is easy to evaluate rather than it matching the desired outcome is a terrible idea. The wording should always match the intent as closely as possible, as it is the wording that will be enforced by those who are not aware of the circumstances in which is was written (which is almost everybody). As Loki points out this proposed wording suffers from both false negatives and false positives, so it would be a bad foundation for policy. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Don't list the address, coordinates, or other exact location information of a residence of a notable living person unless the residence has general notability separate from their residency (and the residency of other living people) or they've intentionally publicized the exact location information themselves.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.
Counter edge case: imagine that it comes out that there a major dinosaur fossil was found on the grounds of Beyoncé's residence.
The location here is clearly newsworthy and has relevance separate from the person living there, right? But by the previous wording it's not allowed anyway. Loki (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. The current language says that locations are not permitted. What the proposers are doing is creating an exception to the original prohibition and giving editors more permission to publish an address. This formulation is not necessary.
And, as I have written, where a conflict between the guideline and common sense exists is on the pages of a notable structure. If there is a community need to clarify to reflect existing practice, that language should be added in an essay or some other place so that the exception of including an address applies only on a stand alone page of a notable structure, and never in a stand-alone biography. - Enos733 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The language suggested here though makes the exemption largely swallow the general rule. Consider Allison Tant, member of the Florida House of Representatives. There is no reason her address should be added to Wikipedia. However, she hosted a fundraiser in 2017 that was covered in the local paper, which included a copy of the fundraising invite. So, she has "publicized the exact location" with intent (or at least there will be some editors who will argue that the address was intentionally publicized).
What I believe is that editors should be actively discouraged to publish an exact address. This is why I strongly support the current language. Now, I do agree that common sense applies to a very limited number of residences (public residences and notable buildings), but never on stand-along biographies. - Enos733 (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I would also probably prefer no wikilinks from a stand-alone biography to a notable building to prevent a reader from going from a biography to a building that contains the address. - Enos733 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
So, to be clear, my opinion on the current language is neither that it forbids all addresses nor that it allows any specific set of addresses to be published. It's just very vague. My issue was with the previous suggestion. Loki (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Presumably you mean the current language of WP:BLPPRIVACY. I think that it embodies the spirit of what we are trying to achieve perfectly: avoid creating privacy issues for BLP subjects. It seems obvious that the addresses of well known official residences (e.g. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue) are not privacy issues. As to private residences, the current wording already makes it clear that we should not include any means of determining the location of a BLP subject's private residence. That's a "should", not a "must", and occasional exceptions are therefore allowed. The length of this discussion shows how tricky it would be to codify them, but we don't need to: that's what WP:IAR is for. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
This makes me favor the previous wording, as it'd suffice to say "Norfolk, Pennsylvania" instead of providing the exact location. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Barbra Streisand and suggestion for private database to store the removed data
I’m currently on vacation with limited internet, so I haven’t read anything on this since my last edit; but I’m still committed to protecting the exact location data of living people. I think this discussion would be helped if we bought in more current examples, and judged if we deem them to be appropriate or inappropriate.
The arguably most famous example is Barbra Streisand's house. I am well aware of the Streisand effect, however I have some concerns with the article about it. Let me make it clear, the image should stay. But I believe on the files page the 'Camera location' coordinates and 'object location' coordinate fields of the image should be removed. This property gained notoriety after the current resident moved in.
Furthermore, whilst she did inadvertently publicise the property, it was an unintended consequence of her attempting to not publicise it. The article says "It was only about the use of my name attached to the photo", so we should use common sense that she didn't want to publicise it.
Given that this phenomenon's name is widely used, with no exact synonym, I think it would be inappropriate to list exact location data to Barbra Streisand's house (or anything that would infer the location, such as the 'camera location'), on the files page.
Let me say again, the image should stay, but the exact location data should be removed.
It could be overkill to remove parts such as the name "Streisand Estate, Malibu", as that could cause The Streisand Effect Sequel. But I think to protect a living person, parts such as 'camera location' and 'object location' coordinates attached to the image should be quietly removed. They should be removed as the house gained notoriety after she moved in and has said herself that she didn’t wish to publicise the exact location of her house alongside her being named as living there.
I think another good idea is to hold this exact location data in some private Wikipedia database that only admins have access to; and should, for example, Barbra Streisand no longer live there, the location data is then put into the relevant places for public view. If so, it should be called something like The Dataplace or The Wherehouse
Nice puns, but I see no reason to retain that information to admins if it is scrubbed, and as said above enwiki does not have the jurisdiction to regulate other projects, such as Commons, where most images are stored. You can research their policies on location data, and as for structured data, I'd rather have us follow the existing Wikidata's Wikidata:Wikidata:Living people#Statements that may violate privacy. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Definition of "intentionally publicised"
In the discussions above, I have seen frequent mentions of the same residences, and whether they should be affected by the proposal. Rather than reply individually, as a whack-a-mole, I'll just put them here in one place. The addresses to the private residences mentioned have been intentionally self-published, as they are listed on their official websites. Self-publication in this manner should deem its inclusion permissible. This shouldn't include real-estate websites or land registry databases etc. A common-sense approach should be applied as the following are clearly "intentionally publicised":
But we should probably write this “if it’s on the official website” part specifically into the policy, as I feel it is one of the most appropriate markers. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi all. The DYK community is currently preparing for a future RFC for how we can more consistently implement BLP policy at DYK review/promotion. We aren't currently discussing the issues, just gathering evidence and formulating questions. Any thoughts on the preparation side and the RFC construction would be helpful to us. It may be that those intimately familiar with BLP policy will have a question that should be asked at this RFC. You may comment at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Future RFC on BLPs at DYK. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
In reading through MOS:ETHNICITY, the degree to which one's ethnicity is in the article at all is based on whether it's relevant to their notability or "of defining importance," like whether they are Jewish-American, etc. And, ethnicity should be omitted if it is not clear (e.g., Copernicus)
So, She was of Native American, Jewish, East Indian, Swedish, and other European ancestry; one of her grandparents was of African descent, born in Madagascar. Despite her own identification of her race as "American,"[4] she was perceived to be African-American by others.[5]" should be worded to "one of her grandparents was of African descent, born in Madagascar[4] and she has been perceived to be African-American by others.[5]"
This is relevant to the article, but not that she is partially "Native American, Jewish, East Indian, Swedish, and other European ancestry". Is that right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
In addition, in the 1910 census both of her parents are said to be mulato (mix-race better term now) and in 1900 census both were said to be Black.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
My take now is that it should say "one of her grandparents was of African descent, born in Madagascar[4] and her parents were described as Black and mixed race with Black heritage. - with citations for the census records. That makes it clearer than "she is perceived". I am going with that unless anyone thinks it needs to be discussed more.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
When does academic or political criticism fall under WP:BLPPRIMARY?
A couple sub-questions here,
When is criticism relating to the subject's work (or their politics, etc) considered information about the subject? My understanding is that such criticism generally does fall under BLP, even if the criticism focuses on the work rather than the person, since the two are strongly associated. What about criticism of, say, the administration of a president - is that a gray area?
How do we determine whether a piece of criticism is a primary source? Would this come down to whether the criticism is based on the author's own original arguments, or summarizing those of others?
A lot of that is probably going to be primary sources, and even though parsing when a source is primary or secondary can be difficult, I think a lot of it still deserves a cautious approach. Additionall, something like an interview or a published article from a partisan think tank should probably not be given nearly the same weight as a published book from a reputable, non-partisan publisher. The best sources would be giving overviews of the criticism rather than the criticism itself, although that's not going to be possible in a lot of situations. Any "praise" or "criticism" section should be viewed with a fair amount of caution regardless of sourcing, see WP:CSECTION. I also think there are a lot of problems with most "political views" sections, including BLPPRIMARY and overuse of interviews rather than secondary sources commenting on those views. That article you cite looks like a hot mess. I think more than 50% is "praise" or "criticism" and the rest is mostly "political views" with only a small "biography" section. There look like more "political views" sourced to a single citation than the entire text of his actual biography. May be helpful to leave a message on the talk page if you are going to do major work because I could imagine that would be a contentious article with passionate editors who have worked on it. – notwally (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
The inclusion of praise and criticism requires commentary from secondary sources about the praise and criticism, rather than the primary sources, unless it is an expert of the subject of the criticism or praise. Say ocean again (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Do biographies of living people need categories supported by the text
I just had this note connected with an edit reversion. "Undid revision1231303175byJohnpacklambert(talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry. This is just plain wrong practice. If we cannot be bothered to mention something in the text of an article, it is too trivial to categorize by. Categories are supposed to lead people through somewhat similar articles. A minimum expectation is that the information be mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC) I recently had 4 articles I had edited get revered. This is the general tone of the edit summaries. "Undid revision1231303175byJohnpacklambert(talk) It is standard practice to include all such categories for professional athletes. Abbott played for 18 professional teams and they can't all be expected to be mentioned in this article. His teams are easily verified via the external links at the bottom of this article." I am sorry, this is just ludicrous. First off, external links are not always reliable sources, so just using them to push categories directly is problematic. Beyond this, categories are supposed to link something that means something. They need to be "defining". If playing for a team was so non-defining to a person that we do not even mention it anywhere in the text of the article, not even in a table, we should not categorize by it. This makes me think that at some level team played for becomes to close to performance by performer categories. I am sorry, but we should not be categorizing anyone by 18 different teams played, especially with the amount of other categories sports people are placed in. At least not when we do not even mention in any way all 18 teams in the article.
*This article is 16 plus paragraphs long. The various external links that are said to support the categories for things like playing with the Winston-Salem Warthogs, not mentioned at all in the text, are not all reliable sources. With living people I would think that we would need the thing mentioned in the article to place in a category. With this level of teams it is heading very close to performer by performance level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems very obvious that for any topic, moreso for BLP, a category must be supported by sourced material in the body. In this case, for a player across a dozen some teams, this could be easily done by a simple list of those teams not otherwise called out in the article. — Masem (t) 13:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree that, for a categorization to be considered “defining”, the basis for the categorization should be substantiated in the article text. This is especially the case for BLPs. If a factoid about a person is too trivial to even mention in the article text, that factoid is “non-defining”. Blueboar (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely a good point, even if the person played for a team, if most sources do not associate that player with that team and is only relegated to a statistic, then it's definitely not a defining category. It's data for Wiki data, but not the category system. — Masem (t) 14:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks to me like most sources for Major League baseball players treat their career about the way our articles do. They generally only mention major league teams. They are much more likely to mention college play than minor league. Especially in summary style and leads. I am wondering if we have some minor league teams where none of the players in the category have any mention of that team in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Kurt Abbott and Jim Abbott are two such articles. Jim Abbott's article literally says he played in no minor league games. So whatever his connection with the 4 minor league teams mentioned in the article, including single-A (4th tier baseball) Hickory Crawdads, he seems not to have actually played in any games for them. Kurt Abbott only has 1 of the minor league teams he played for mentioned. It appears there was a decision to limit MLB players info boxes to the MLB teams they played for and to exclude the minor league play from the box. Evidently because minor league play is not considered important (let alone being on a minor league roster so little time you do not play).John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Request to create an article that I was planning on creating
I received a request on my talk page to create a page for an academic in a field I'm very familiar with. I have created a few pages that are on topics this person is closely associated with, which is how they found me in the first place I'm sure. They are one of many academics I was hoping to one day create a page for, and have been collecting relevant sources as I stumble upon them. I do not know this researcher in person, and have never contacted or been contacted by them besides my talk page. Now that I have received a request, is there anything I should do to avoid COI accusations if I do ultimately try to publish a page in the future? I'm not getting paid, obviously. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 17:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
GeogSage, I don't think that would be a WP:COI, but you could use the WP:AfC process or make a note of the request you received when you create the page, such as in an edit summary or on its talk page. I would also suggest you let the other person know they should avoid leaving personal information like their email address on talk pages. Using Wikipedia talk pages may be the best way to communicate with them anyway so that you cannot be accused of having established an external relationship with them through off-Wiki discussions. – notwally (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Thank you for the advice. If I can get enough solid sources to make the page, I will proceed as I had intended before the request, and note the request in the talk page. If I get a reply from them on my talk page, I'll be sure to mention it is not good practice to share their personal contact information on talk pages. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Can RT bio be used for living people
I’m trying to add Emily Alyn Linda birthday to her wiki page. Her birthday was listed as May 6, 2002 on Rotten tomatoes but my edits get reverted I also found article from her at age 9 when she says her birthday is May 6 from Smashing interviews. I also talked to user: Laterthanyouthink (talk) and he said IMDB is not a reliable source, but I remember an earlier talk page discussion about RT bios where the editors concerned agreed that it was acceptable for DOB. I have added some notes and other sources on the talk page of the article, so you can use those sources and/or discuss it further there. Tnays20 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:RSPS states: There is consensus that Rotten Tomatoes should not be used for biographical information, cast and crew data, or other film and television data, as it is sourced from user-generated and user-provided content with a lack of oversight and verification.Schazjmd(talk)23:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
The Black Box: Writing the Race - new book by Gates.
The Black Box - new book by Gates. He discussed it on the Brian Leher show on WNYC on 2 August 2024. Published February 2024. Stephengeis (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
