Wikipedia talk:Divulging personal details

/Archive1 (discussion surrounding one case in Nov. 2004)

What about people who have retired from public life and do not wish their former public identity to be associated with their current private identity? I'm thinking of the recent case of the creep who was publishing private information about retired pornographic actresses. Is there any legal obligation to keep a private citizen's life private? Moral obligation? (I believe so.) We have a policy that permits instant banning of anyone who exposes another editor's identity in a potentially harmful way; should we extend this to non-editors? &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 20:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Do celebrities get to decide to be un-celebrities? I'm not sure it would be appropriate to self-censor for "moral" reasons when the information would be easiliy available elsewhere.  (Which would be a requirement for inclusion anyway - original work to determine a celebrities other name would not qualify for Wikipedia.) -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  20:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Celebrities who are no longer celebrated, nor even notorious, may well be, in fact, non-celebrities. i know that there have been cases where newpapers have published information about long past events (very public events, at the time) that people long out of the spotlight want to keep hidden, and been sued for invasion of privicy, in some cases US courts have held such info "no longer newsworthy" and allowed the suit, in other cases the decision ahs been the reverse. i don't think there is a clear line in the case law.

I would say that where the info is 1) not easily found, even if verifiable; 2) not particualrly relevant to the encyclopedic content of the article; and 3) plausibley increases the risk of stalking/harrasment; that information shuld be deleted or not included. Beyond this rather fuzzy standard, i'm unsure. DES (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Here are some examples and issues that I don't have definitive answers for. I know of instances where people use pseudonyms yet also seek publicity, namely ROMATH/alt.romath, Vonbluvens, and Ashida Kim. Two of the articles were nominated for deletion at the request of the subjects, and one was deleted. If they want publicity under a pseudonym are they in a position to demand the privacy of their real name? Can they dictate the content of their articles? In another case, Chuck Munson (he goes by his real name), did not want the name of his blog, year of birth, or city to be included, even though he listed all of this info on his own blog and on forums. Can an individual's information that they intentionally publicize still be considered private? Specific home addresses, phone numbers, identification numbers, etc, are not encyclopedic, even if verifiable, IMO. But what about date of birth? Wife's name? For prominent individuals these are usually known, but more obscure people may feel that to be private information. Another issue is that these subjects became editors of Wikipedia (if only of their own articles). The use of personal details to harass editors is always a matter of serious concern.  Cheers, Willmcw 08:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say that information that the person choose to publish in another forum cannot generelly be considered private -- possibly if the other forum has a very  narrow circualtion (a neighborhood or club newletter or some such, but not a blog) that might not count a publication in this sense. I think that addresses and contact info for a buisness or institution might be encyclopedic, but i can't see how these are at all likely to be for an individual, even when verifiable. DES (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)