Talk:Chelsea Clinton

Baby

Just to explain why I made my edits - this is really not a big deal, but the NY Times article entitled "Chelsea Clinton Says She Is Expecting" accurately reported what she actually said: "Marc and I are very excited that we have our first child arriving later this year." The other source given was a weaker source, a Washington Post blog, which was the one taking journalistic liberties, not me. Also, the edit ("she was pregnant") is grammatically awkward and could be misinterpreted as saying she no longer is which eventually will be the case, but not now. So that is why I think we should not put words into her mouth, even though they obviously are true, and follow the better source. I don't really have any problem with saying she is pregnant, but think "she and her husband Marc were expecting their first child" is what she announced and what the better source, the Times, accurately reported, so what we should say. It's not clear to me why the wording was repeatedly changed - maybe the source I provided wasn't looked at. Tvoz/talk 06:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME

See the following regarding releasing the name of the baby: [1]. More to come shortly. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

See [2]

See [3].

See WP:BLPNAME.

-- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand this conversation, the new baby's name is released ALL over the internet in newspaper publications at this point. Why is it not on the wikipedia article? The links provided by Winkelvi are primarily discussions about other people with more private family lives. Jooojay (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A baby of celebrities is notable for one thing: being born. That's not enough to make a non-notable minor child notable. Wikipedia isn't a tabloid, a newspaper, or a magazine, it's an encyclopedia. We have a responsibility to raise the bar, not lower it. Adding the name of a non-notable minor child doesn't enhance the reader's understanding of the article subject, therefore, it doesn't belong. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Examples cited do not support arguments for suppression of the Chelsea's daughter's name because in this case the name was announced by the parents -- not the tabloids. Here is a Washington Post article with the baby's name in the title. How hot is the sun? (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Examples cited most certainly do support keeping the name out. I guess you need to read them again. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi is correct—it's standard that details of children are not included as the details are unimportant news-of-the-day space fillers. Gushing over the sex, name and birth-weight of a baby is fine in general, but it has no encyclopedic value. There are exceptions for cases like Barack Obama where even the family dog may be named, but the general rule is that interesting but unimportant details such as address, phone number, names of children are not included. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Removing the name is utterly wrong. The name was released by the parents, has been widely reported in top-notch reliable sources, and is in no way an invasion of anyone's privacy. This is a misinterpretation of BLPNAME. Further, it can be said that it does contribute to readers' understanding of the subject of the bio, in the choice of middle and last names - there has been much press coverage and disquisitions about the choices made by the baby's grandmother and mother regarding their surnames, and how Clinton and Mezvinsky decided to name their child is notable in that context. - this isn't "gushing". There are no relevant examples or policy supporting its removal. Specifically: example 1 above is about an unnotable list of controversial celebrity baby names,which has nothing at all to do with this; example 2 above is about baby names that were not released by the parents, irrelevant here; and example 3 refers to material that is not well-sourced and is specifically directed at material that might be considered defamatory, again irrelevant here. None of these arguments have anything to do with the subject at hand. And finally, indeed this is an encyclopedia, and as has been pointed out elsewhere, an encyclopedia biography should include information like names of children - which you will find everywhere here. I have no idea what bar is being referred to as needing to be raised. This information is appropriate to be included and consistent with Wikipedia biography style. See, for example, Jenna Bush, Caroline Kennedy, Susan Ford, Amy Carter, Lynda Bird Johnson Robb, Julie Nixon Eisenhower - to name several President's daughters with articles here naming their children. And please don't cite WP:OSE because it's also irrelevant to this. This is unsupportable and ridiculous, and without consensus, and the name needs to be reinstated.. Tvoz/talk 03:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It's had consensus over and over at various articles as well as the BLP Noticeboard. Names and other identifying information on non-notable minor children are to be left out of articles. Especially the names and identifying info on babies (who have done nothing notable other than being born -- one "notable" event does not a notable individual make in Wikipedia). The name and birth date stay out. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:59, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The date is an entirely different matter - that is usually omitted primarily for privacy concerns. You are quite wrong about consensus here, and didn't bother to comment on the contradicting articles cited above, among dozens of other articles that list the names of offspring. You are the one edit warring, by the way - BLP policy refers to removal of damaging material - it does not give you leave to unilaterally decide that you don't like having an offspring name listed and repeatedly take it out. Making unilateral decisions is not the way things work here, as you well know. By the way, as you also ought to know, notability guidelines are referring to the creation of articles about an individual, not the inclusion of facts in another one. I think you need to reread both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BLP - BLP is about including defamatory or damaging material that is unsourced. It is not a reason to leave off a well-sourced fact that is consistent with our biographies all across the encyclopedia. Tvoz/talk 05:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Winkelvi refers to the "we" in the decision making process. I want to see the link to the exact conversation thread regarding the debate over the Chelsea Clinton baby name. Otherwise like all other Wikipedia things, no consensus was reach at this point. Two editors opinion on how to read the historical context of citation is not consensus, especially since it is not exactly the same scenario. I would also like to point out, almost every politician has their children named in their Wikipedia articles.Jooojay (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Any of you are welcome to take this to the BLP Noticeboard. Until then, because this is a BLP article and policy is clear (as well as the consensus in numerous previous discussions on this very subject), the name and all other identifying info should stay out. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC) Template:BLP noticeboard

It's no longer being discussed there. HiLo48 (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

\ Are you really serious? Names of children of notable people are usually reported in their bios, if there is coverage about them in reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Prove it. HiLo48 (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The baby name issue is no longer being discussed because a decision made by consensus, the childs name in this article or articles like this did not violate WP:BLPNAME or any other rule. Jooojay (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × HiLo48) This is not a productive line. It is certainly commonly done, so long as some editor takes an interest in "encyclopedic completeness". The more famous the person, the more likely this happens. As an example, the children of Isaac Asimov are named. No footnoted citation is provided, but this isn't a big deal: Asimov certainly named them in his writings frequently, and there are chapter long biographies of Asimov, and obituaries, and the like (and there is no requirement to footnote sources), and one of the children made the news for reasons other than "child of somebody famous". No details about the the children's personal lives are provided, you'll have to use Google for that. Similarly, the daughter of Beyoncé is named. No one is gnashing their teeth over whether "Blue Ivy Carter" is going to wish to distance herself down the road from her distinctive name, her parents, her baby cries being recorded and publicized without her consent, and so on and so on. Because it's absolutely ludicrous to do so. Choor monster (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus was not reached, nor was it actually sought. The discussion was closed with no consensus or decision noted; the BLP MOS policy per BLPNAME stands. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Consensus only applies to people discussing actual policy, not getting it all wrong. You were blatantly misapplying WP:BLP1E and the like, and when this was explained to you, you responded with WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT. WP:BLPNAME does not apply here either, as I explained carefully to HiLo48 just as the discussion was closed.

The closing was certainly appropriate: two editors getting it wrong and then several others just jumping in wondering what possible issues there could be. Choor monster (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you please stop the nonsensical application of policies? Enough already. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Translation: "Can you please stop the application of policies that don't support my case."

There was no consensus in the other discussion. The closing comment was WP:DROPTHESTICK. I don't think it was very helpful. It wasn't obvious who was meant to drop the stick. Maybe all of us. But I had certainly been quoting relevant policy. The common response was "But that doesn't apply here", when I had clearly demonstrated that it did. Then there's the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, repeated above, with no evidence. We know that has no value. Action needs to be evaluated against policy on every occasion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wedding menu

Wedding guests were offered a vegan menu and gluten-free cake, as well as beef. Is Chelsea a vegan? If not, I'd say this sentence is not notable. If she is, the sentence should be put in the context that this is either her or her husband's diet. As it stands, it's not really encyclopedic. How hot is the sun? (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME does not apply here, line by line

Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.

• Actually, CCM is not being "discussed" at all, let alone in terms of a single event. She is mentioned, being a highly relevant bit of her mother's bio. I believe this is different enough to matter, but if not, note that it merely says "Caution should be applied". Not, do not name.

When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context.

• Totally irrelevant here. Even so, in such an extreme case, policy is merely "it is often preferable to omit it", not obligatory policy.

When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories.

• This is just a weight issue, but apply WP:SNOW: her name will get more than a "brief appearance" over time. It will appear again and again.

Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value.

• The daughter is of course directly involved in the article's topic.

The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons.

• A presumption is something to apply when you otherwise do not know what the situation is. In this case, we absolutely know what the situation is regarding privacy of the name: it does not exist whatsover. The parents and grandparents have made their decision, and this decision has been very widely reported. Had there been no reports, or just one or two minor reports, we'd be obligated to make the presumption in favor of privacy. But as I mentioned, this does not apply in this situation.

The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

• That's right, the name may certainly appear. It boils down, once all the BLP concerns are properly satisfied, to editorial discretion. If you are claiming this sentence from policy is relevant, you are agreeing that there are no BLP issues.

However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

• They are properly sourced.

---

Choor monster (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU CHOOR MONSTER! Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I disagree with some of your interpretation. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Someone start an RfC for Christs sake.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 23:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Do we really need one for this minutiae? I don't think so. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:26, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there much difference between minutiae and trivia? HiLo48 (talk) 01:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Minutia can apply to tangible things (like the tiny spots on the back of her head). Trivia's just for info (like how she has tiny spots on the back of her head). InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, September 30, 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to, but it seems like the path of least resistance to come up with a consensus on this issue.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We do not need an RFC on this - it is a waste of time. It's been discussed here, it's been discussed at BLPN, and it is blatantly obvious if anyone bothers to read this encyclopedia or has worked on almost any BLP here that we include well-sourced names of children. This is tendentious, bullying, and a gross misinterpretation of policy. There is nothing in this information that the subject of this BLP could possibly object to, as she is the one who released the name to the public on Twitter, as reported in the highest quality sources possible. We had more than one citation originally to try to stave off this nonsense - someone removed the second one, but we could have posted dozens of excellent sources. Dozens. I am not going to waste my time to satisfy a few editors who like to disrupt. There is no policy violation and no consensus among the editors of this page to not include relevant, sourced material. Enough. Open the page, please, and censor the people who keep removing it on bogus grounds. Tvoz/talk 06:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Putting Charlotte in the infobox was a mistake

The name does not belong in the infobox, according to long-standing Template:infobox person consensus. Winkelvi's edit summary was incorrect/incomplete, but his reversion of my edit was absolutely correct: both children counts and names are allowed. Infobox use of names, however, for children, parents, other relatives, have to be notable. (This does not mean they have an article yet, just that they meet WP:GNG and all that.)

We have all agreed Charlotte is not notable, so there's absolutely nothing to discuss on this matter. My apologies for ignorantly jumping the gun. Choor monster (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this post. You are right, of course. I disagree, however, that "We have all agreed" that the kid is not notable. Many on your side of the broader debate were foolishly excited and did go as far as to suggest the kid is notable on its own right and could be President one day. (Well, of course it could. At least no-one could argue that it was born in the wrong country!) The appalling, excited, emotional, non-policy based arguments on your side of the debate caused a lot of problems on this issue. It didn't help your case at all. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection

I have fully protected this article so that a consensus can be worked out. Please discuss this at the relevant WP:BLPN listing. Let me know if a consensus is reached that all will adhere to, if you want the protection lifted. If protection expires and there is no resolution I would be perfectly happy to block anybody who adds or removes the disputed material. I would obviously rather it did not come to that. --John (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have the impression that a consensus has been reached, that some editors don't want to admit that a consensus has been reached, but nevertheless, there was no edit-warring after the previous protection expired. You may have looked quickly over the Edit History and seen numerous reverts in a row earlier today, but that was actually a different dispute, unrelated to BLP, and it was completely, amicably resolved, as per my explanation in the previous section of this talk page. Choor monster (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@John:Agree. There is no editwarring at this point and consensus is obvious. The last revert by Choor monster of my mistaken edit was correct. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I don't see any edit-warring happening recently, and there's a pretty clear consensus--as well as VAST precedent--that goes in one direction. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

While there is no edit warring currently, there is no consensus on this nor is there "vast precedent" in just one direction. This will likely need to go to a higher level as there is no agreement/consensus possible at this point. Bullying and rude/uncivil behavor doesn't make for consensus. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 20:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop flogging a dead horse. That's not "rude" or uncivil, but there is a point in which you need to stop. There is no "higher level" BTW. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• WP:CONSENSUS distinctly does not require unanimity. As Cwobeel said, please stop beating this dead horse. Consensus, precedent, and the reliable sources are all aligned against your view, Winkelvi. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• • The "consensus" I was referring to was regarding the discussion regarding BLP on BLPN. That discussion is essentially dead. However, there is a second meaning of "consensus": what ought to be in this article, and that discussion hasn't actually happened yet, because we've been having the first discussion. There could be other reasons to agree to leave the name out. In fact, some of the editors over on BLPN have been trying all sorts of arguments on BLPN about why the name doesn't belong, with many arguments that have nothing to do with BLP policy. These are distinct questions, and mixing them together is quite unhelpful, and doing so on BLPN is simply annoying. Choor monster (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus on this matter. There is much abuse (see dead horse comment above), misrepresentation and lying. Oh, and being annoyed, which I have never seen mentioned in policy. HiLo48 (talk) 23:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is consensus (though not unanimity, which isn't required) it's just that you disagree with it, and wish there wasn't. As for "much abuse", that's not true--unless you count people proving that you're wrong as "much abuse." LHM^{ask me a question} 23:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I and others, disagree with you, on both matters. Consensus is achieved by high quality argument. I have already pointed at the dead horse comment above. Such comments never help. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you and ONE other person disagree with myself and MANY other editors at BLPN. Please stop misrepresenting that discussion. And you DO keep beating this dead horse, which is simply a turn-of-phrase, and in no way a personal insult. An example of a REAL personal insult might be, say, repeatedly accusing someone of lying, when you know they aren't doing so. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a good thing nobody did that then, isn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As you well know, you've done it multiple times during this discussion. And then you complain about "much abuse." It would be humorous if it weren't son tendentious. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I said you lied. You did. That's a very different thing. HiLo48 (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I didn't. I participated in proving your policy claims absolutely incorrect. You're mad about that, so you continually insist that I'm "lying." LHM^{ask me a question} 00:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Go back to the point where I made that accusation. Discuss it in that context. I was a little "mad" that someone should resort to such appalling misrepresentation, even though I find that those who disagree with me seem to do it often. I'm not mad now. I just know what makes sense, and am disappointed to find people so reluctant to properly discuss things here. Too many seem to think that making an absolute statement in complete contradiction and without mention of some points that others have made is good debating technique. It's not. It's just confrontational, and rarely leads to consensus. That's why we have no consensus on this matter. HiLo48 (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

People have tried to explain to you how your interpretation of BLP regarding the names of famous people's children is incorrect. But you simply refuse to listen to any reason on the subject. 01:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lithistman (talk • contribs)

I'm trying hard to think how "you simply refuse to listen to any reason" is not at least the tiniest bit personal and abusive. HiLo48 (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

← John, may I ask what prompted you to protect this page again? There was no edit warring after it re-opened, just an exchange about a minor edit to the infobox which was withdrawn when the reasoning for the revert was stated. There most certainly is consensus here on the matter of keeping the name in the text of the article as is done everywhere in the encyclopedia. This has already been discussed on BLPN. Two editors taking an outlier position here does not mean there is no consensus here, and we all know that consensus does not mean 100% agreement. There is vast precedent all over the encyclopedia for this, there are excellent reliable sources, and there is consensus to include. Do we really have to go through the whole thing again, just because one editor says he's having "fun" complaining about it, and another has a grossly wrong interpretation of BLP (read above, too many times to post diffs) which previously led him to immediately revert as if this is defamatory material? You protect a page when there's severe edit warring - there was some a few days ago, but notably when the previous protection was lifted, neither of the two editors who think the name should be out removed it, even though they had opportunity to do so. So I thank them for their restraint in not removing the name again, which perhaps means that they accept the reality of the consensus here, or at least that they did not wish to edit war and risk block when clearly the policy that allows 3RR (defamatory material on a BLP) was not applicable - so why has it been protected again? I reiterate what I and others said above: there was an exchange about the infobox, and it was amicably and quickly resolved, without edit warring. Perhaps you misread that exchange as a continuation of the problem, but I choose to see the lack of removal of the name as a tacit acceptance that although they disagree, there is no consensus or policy or BLPN support for their position, and so they left it alone while repeating their objections here on Talk. They can pursue this where they like, but my understanding of this situation is that it is at the discretion of the editors on a page as to whether they wish to include well-sourced non-defamatory public material such as this, and the editors here have agreed it belongs here (as did many on BLPN, by the way). Please open the page. Tvoz/talk 02:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: More than one editor in favor of putting the non-notable minor child's name and identifying information in the article has said "consensus does not equate unanimity". That said, it should also be reasonable to accept that consensus against the inclusion doesn't equate the majority, either. There were several editors as BLP/N who said the name should stay out. But, for some reason, contrary to the reasoning noted above, the consensus among those editors is being ignored. The "consensus" crowd here has been rude, dismissive, disruptive, uncivil, non-collegial in use of the shout-down tactic. Then there was the input of the non-notable minor's name in the infobox. My guess is that is all part (or maybe all) of the reason why an administrator saw fit to lock this article for a period of time. And, frankly, since Wikipedia is not on a deadline, I fail to see the urgency to edit this article. Leaving it alone for a while certainly will do no harm. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's simply no need for protection: no edit war, consensus established (both at BLPN and through long-settled Wikipedia practice), and thus no need to protect the article. And for the record, demonstrating that your odd interpretation of BLPNAME is wrong doesn't make people who demonstrated that "rude, dismissive, disruptive, uncivil, [and] non-collegial." People have tried to explain to you why your view of policy is seriously flawed. You just keep insisting that everyone's wrong and you're right. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

While you and others insist my interpretation of policy is "odd", there are others who think it's on the mark. That's why there really is no consensus yet. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 03:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48 does not equal "others." There is OBVIOUS consensus, and vast precedent, for keeping well-referenced children's names mentioned in the articles of their parents. Wishing those facts away won't work. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Tvoz, the "fun" I was having was not in "complaining". It was the pleasure of shooting fish in a barrel when faced with some of the appalling arguments presented in favour of keeping the name in the article. And here's my next shot into that barrel. I'm intrigued by your argument that the fact that we are no edit warring proves that we accept that there is consensus. Has it crossed your mind that it might be because we are behaving correctly? HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

LHM, there is no consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You keep saying that over and over and over. It doesn't make it true. Two editors railing against consensus does not invalidate that consensus. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, but no-one's railing. Oh, and WP:IDHT is somewhat personal and insulting too. HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It's just making it plain what you're doing. You have no policy-based reasoning, but you now just keep saying "no consensus" in the face of clear consensus and long precedent. It's a glaringly obvious case of WP:IDHT. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A wise Admin taught me once that it's a good strategy to try to avoid the word "You" in posts when there is a disagreement. I don't always remember, but whenever I do I find it's good advice. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)