Wikipedia talk:Privacy of article subjects

Exclusion criteria too wide

This proposal is well-written, but I don't think "Situations where the true name is not already well known by the public" or "Articles about living individuals of marginal notability" are sufficient cause for exclusion, by themselves. What if, for example, it was published in an academic journal read primarily by specialists, regarding a writer who operates primarily in that specialist community? You have the case of porn actors in mind, but the wording is broad enough to apply to writers, poets, and even online personas who operate under pseudonyms, for which a "plausible safety concern" is not reasonable and a real name and/or location may be of interest. I think the only reasonable criterion for exclusion is a plausible safety concern. Deco 00:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Deco here. (You stole my thoughts!) "What is not forbidden is permitted". A person's real name is obviously encyclopedic, so the question is, in what situations should we deny readers interesting (and quite possibly useful) information? Obviously one in which someone's safety is possibly in peril. To put it shortly, scrap all the justifications for inclusion, and leave in only the safety-based rule for exclusion. --Rhwawn talk to Rhwawn 00:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a person's real name "obviously" encyclopaedic? --bainer (talk) 14:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

WP:BLP already deals with this. Further, Florida state law, where the servers are, makes privacy a matter of law, not of wikipedia rules. WAS 4.250 03:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal, though, rather perniciously, IMHO, would surely tend to proscribe that which Florida laws do not proscribe; it is, I think, substantially more restrictive than that which should be required by Florida state law, just as is our fair use policy in some ways more stringent than it need be under United States copyright law, perhaps justifiably (notwithstanding my disfavoring of this proposal, I mean not to speak to the merits but only to the substantive legal issues). Joe 14:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea

Let the biography policy and local Florida law (for the servers) cover it. To use one person as an example: Natalie Portman. It's not her real last name, which is secret. The media has never to my knowledge disclosed this. However, *IF* such knowledge were notable as meeting WP:V, WP:RS, and was covered by good sources, where anyone can find it out as a matter of public record (legal court cases' public records, news stories, etc.) than it shouldn't be any harm. We would only be covering what is already reported public knowledge and Wikipedia would be at no fault liability. Another example, actor Steve McActionfilm, huge Hollywood star, goes on a sex and drugs rampage, and gets arrested/detained. The police, courts, and media report that Steve McActionfilm, born/real name of Stephen James McReallastname, was arrested, then we should go ahead and make note of his real name--by his own actions and society's it's become a matter of record, notability, and should be included in a complete encyclopediac record of him. rootology (T) 16:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, is the fact that hiis real name is such-and-such notable, or the act that he broke the law? I just saw this and am very middle-of-the-fence about it - torn between not being censored and notability, but I'm not sure about the notability is the thing. Karwynn (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]