On 7/13/06, David Boothroyd
<david(a)election.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In my view the
principle is clear: if a person meets notability for a biographical
article, then the whole of their life is notable even if on its own
it would not qualify them. For example, Bill Clinton is not a notable
saxophone player - he would not qualify for an article based on
having played the saxophone - but it is reasonable to mention this
fact in his article because it is a significant part of how he was
perceived.
The difference between Clinton's saxaphone playing and this situation
is that the mention of the former is not harmful to Clinton; and the
difference between a politician whose career is ruined by a scandal is
that it'll have attached itself to his name, whereas in GLF's case,
that appears not to be the case.
Wikipedia doesn't benefit from including the information about GLF,
but he will be harmed if we do. Therefore, we ought not to. Fairness
is as important as accuracy when writing about living people, if not
more so.
How does Wikipedia not benefit from including the information? If
Wikipedia biographies are to be accurate articles, they should not
selectively exclude facts deemed inconvenient. When I buy a biography
written by a reputable historian, if it has a section on a politian's
life after office, I expect that section to be accurate and reasonably
complete. For example, if 10 years from now Clinton gets arrested for
drunk driving, I would expect a biography written after that to mention
this fact. I would expect no less of Wikipedia articles.
-Mark