That was exactly my point. If someone is primarily known as a geologist, their sex life has no relevance to the article.
On 3/30/07, Travis Mason-Bushman travis@gpsports-eng.com wrote:
On 3/30/07 1:24 AM, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
People tend to give more attention to controversy and accusations, which unless that's what a person is primarily known for, should be kept to a
reasonable
size within the article.
They should be omitted entirely unless that "controversy and accusations" can be shown to have a reasonable basis in fact or public interest, or that controversy is what the person is primarily known for. It is far too easy to create "controversy and accusations."
Example: If geology professor Jon Dough is accused of adultery in divorce papers, does that fact belong in his Wikipedia article? What does it add to our knowledge of Dr. Dough's work in geology? What does it add to our knowledge of the universe that some geologist's wife accused him of sleeping around, and thus wants Splitsville?
The answer, of course, is nothing. It's not relevant to his life and work as a geologist and there's no public interest in what his wife said in a court document in yet another divorce case.
It might be an accusation and it might be "controversial," but should we be in the business of simply repeating every single accusation ever made about every person? Is that really a "biography" or is it simply a scandal sheet?
-Travis Mason-Bushman
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l