Talk:Kelly Loeffler
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kelly Loeffler article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
A fact from Kelly Loeffler appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 January 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
Personal life (re record residential Atlanta real estate deal, Update edit
In the December 2020 thread Personal life (re record residential Atlanta real estate deal), there was an argument about an estate name and WP:BLPPRIVACY, Peter Gulutzan + Elle Kpyros wanted to remove, Reywas92 + Muboshgu wanted to keep, result was: it was kept. Now Bishonen has removed the estate name with edit summary = "Personal life: Wikipedia is not in the business of leading crazies right to politicians' doorsteps. Please don't re-add the name of the estate." If there is no argument this time from the pro-keep editors, then we can consider this ended at last. However, the related WP:BLP talk thread Proposed change to WP:BLPPRIVACY header -- about removing "and using primary sources" -- failed due to further opposition, which I suppose still exists. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Restored. This is widely reported and can in no way constitute a privacy violation. Reywas92Talk 14:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really have an opinion on the privacy angle, but I'd offer that this seems like a rather trivial fact to include (the name of the estate). We can just say she bought a house for X amount or whatever, but it's probably an unnecessary level of detail to say the name of the house. Marquardtika (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Your latest revert links to WP:BLPRESTORE. It begins with "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard". The name of the home is neutral information. Then "and based on high-quality reliable sources". The New York Times, Business Insider, the Associated Press, Atlanta Magazine, etc. are high quality and reliable sources. This is full of crap to say this information has to be removed when there is no basis whatsover to suggest including this widely, reliably, independently sourced information violates BLP. WP:BLPPRIVACY mentions "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern", and "postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons". None of this prohibits the name of the home. Reywas92Talk 23:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really have an opinion on the privacy angle, but I'd offer that this seems like a rather trivial fact to include (the name of the estate). We can just say she bought a house for X amount or whatever, but it's probably an unnecessary level of detail to say the name of the house. Marquardtika (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- You've convinced no other editors that this material needs to be in this article. What encyclopedic purpose is it serving to the reader? Bishonen brought a legitimate WP:BLP concern here, and you have not addressed it or built WP:CONSENSUS to include this material. Instead you've reached 3RR. The WP:ONUS is on you to convince other editors that this material should be in the article. Marquardtika (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Don't give me this nonsense BLP crap. Absolutely no part of this policy prohibits this. It is NOT legitimate that including the widely published name of the house will lead her getting murdered. The name will not send people to her home. It is certainly encyclopedic with many reliable sources talking about it. Reywas92Talk 23:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- You've convinced no other editors that this material needs to be in this article. What encyclopedic purpose is it serving to the reader? Bishonen brought a legitimate WP:BLP concern here, and you have not addressed it or built WP:CONSENSUS to include this material. Instead you've reached 3RR. The WP:ONUS is on you to convince other editors that this material should be in the article. Marquardtika (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- Of course I didn't suppose the name of the house appeared only in Wikipedia. It may well be widely reported. How is that a reason for Wikipedia (which is widely read) to actively help nutcases with those easily accessible semi-automatic firearms to kill yet more people? And what exactly is the interest of the name of the house to any readers other than homicidal maniacs? To the ordinary reader, it's piddling trivia. Please remove it again. Bishonen | tålk 15:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC).
- That is utter insanity to think that Wikipedia is enabling murder by including the publicly known name of a building. If this is how you think, this belongs somewhere centralized not here, because this is clearly not a prohibited BLP violation. It's not like typing "Descante" into Google Maps drops a pin on it right away either. Sources include [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], and if all of them thought it worth including this "trivial" fact, then there's no need for us not to for such an imaginary reason. Perhaps it's piddling trivia the names of her mother and father, the sorority she belonged to, what type of plane she flies, her religion, etc. Reywas92Talk 17:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- The building is not just publicized in these sources but also a central theme directly talked about in connection to the BLP here. Include.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- That is utter insanity to think that Wikipedia is enabling murder by including the publicly known name of a building. If this is how you think, this belongs somewhere centralized not here, because this is clearly not a prohibited BLP violation. It's not like typing "Descante" into Google Maps drops a pin on it right away either. Sources include [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8], and if all of them thought it worth including this "trivial" fact, then there's no need for us not to for such an imaginary reason. Perhaps it's piddling trivia the names of her mother and father, the sorority she belonged to, what type of plane she flies, her religion, etc. Reywas92Talk 17:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
- BLP concerns are a bit of a stretch, but the nickname of the mansion isn't relevant to the subject. Exclude. VQuakr (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Unconvinced on the BLPPRIVACY angle, but seems trivial. Exclude. What's the name of her car, and her bike, and her phone? Whatever they may be, they're not encyclopaedic. Folly Mox (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm in favor of exclude. It's interesting to see that judgments about what counts as an encyclopedically noteworthy fact is creating dissension (even heated). It doesn't rise to the level of an encyclopedically worthwhile fact or anywhere close, in my judgement. Novellasyes (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
- The BLPN thread has been archived. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)