Talk:Kelly Loeffler

Personal life (re record residential Atlanta real estate deal, Update
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)


 * 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)
 * 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 &#124; 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, 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)
 * 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)