Talk:Brian Austin Green

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Saved By The Bell?[edit]

Why is he listed as a Saved By the Bell actor? Does anyone have more information about this?

According to the article for Good Morning, Miss Bliss, he was in the original pilot for the show. (Saved by the Bell was a re-working of GMMB, and the GMMB episodes were later retconned as part of the history of SBTB, given a SBTB title sequence in syndication and everything.) Unfortunately, the article doesn't cite a resource for this information and I actually came to the Brian Austin Green article to see if it had more info about it. Apparently not. I hope we can find out, I'm absolutely curious now! Fieryrogue 20:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really now, does this guy deserve an entire page...let alone a mention? Please deleted. Schatzberg (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I note that half your activity so far has been questioning the relevance of obviously proper article and calling for their deletion without cause but a simple reading of the policies of the project might alleviate all or most of your concerns regarding Mr. Green. - Dravecky (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conerns at all, just validity of many of these articles, including many of which you have contributed to. Thanks for checking out my work, I'm flattered. Schatzberg (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Reese[edit]

There's no article for his character Derek Reese 70.51.9.124 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Warning needed?[edit]

I just saw that his character dies in the second last episode of the Sarah Connor Chronicles... shouldn't people be forewarned that there is a spoiler in this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.40.132 (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great question. The simple answer is that Wikipedia does not use Spoiler warnings, as such (see: WP:SPOIL). The better answer is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - not a movie review (which is read, presumably, by people who are trying to decide whether they should see the film) or an Internet chat page. Thus, Wikipedia is held to a standard of being both complete and neutral. That said, in recognition that folks sometimes trip on more than they wanted to know, editors often call attention to information that gives away a surprise or important plot piece with subheadings (like "Plot" or "Ending"). EBY (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic partner link?[edit]

I linked here from Megan Fox's page... I noticed that Mr. Green's linked domestic partner in the body text and bio box is shown as a professional soccer player. Is this a case of vandalism and should it be changed? 99.234.13.123 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sons[edit]

He does have two sons, but not from Megan Fox alone. He has one son from a previous marriage. He has another son from Megan. Could this perhaps be changed? ToriJana (talk) 05:36, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BLP[edit]

Nothing at WP:BLP in any way gives a blanket provision against the RS-cited names of public figures' children. Exact birth dates aren't necessary. But names are a standard found in any encyclopedia. Also, WP:PRIVACY has nothing to do with this — that's about editors' privacy and not outing them. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems per this that non-notable children's' names should be excluded from articles for the protection of their own privacy. A child's privacy should be respected, as it is not their choice to be put into the spotlight, unlike their parents, etc. And it even states such here. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really seeing a blanket prohibition against the names of celebrities children. The first link seems to be to a 2009 discussion, and if anything from those six-year-old postings were incorporated into policies/guidelines, we would see them in those policies/guidelines. The BLP link says, in part,

The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced.

The only requirement for removal is proper sourcing. In these cases, the sources are RS publications from the likes of Time, Inc., or an entertainment channel from NBCUniversal. And honestly, the names of a subject's children is a standard part of any biographical reference, which suggests an academic and ethical standard for inclusion. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While you may have point, it does state, within what you've already quoted: "However, names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." Their children are not notable to the standard definition. Simply being the sons of Brian Austin Green, regardless of their maternal biology, does not claim them as someone notable. That would be as if saying Cody Walker was notable enough simply by being related to the late Paul Walker, does it not? livelikemusic my talk page! 22:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I think we're reading this, both in good faith, in two different ways. Yes, we agree, the children are not independently notable. The way I'm reading it, though "names of family members who are not also notable public figures [as these are not] must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced". And the sourcing in this case really is impeccable.
I understand your larger issue, which is an admirable concern for privacy. While I think the ethical biographical standard is to include names, how about this compromise, to address that: We remove the years of birth? (I might be away for the next 15 minutes or so). --Tenebrae (talk) 22:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm back. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must also point this out: "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." While they are directly involved with the article's topic, we still have to decide if the inclusion of names adds significant value to the article. Removal of birth year would be more confidential, but I'm sure there will be plenty of editors swarming to re-instate the information, along with the names. The only time their names are even mentioned is if there are family outings, new expecting children, or if the parents in-question are separating in their relationship. Yes, both sides of the argument are in good faith, and I don't dispute that. While I do understand the need to be as correct in the encyclopedia, as this is, I also take notice of the privacy for younger children, especially considering the recent attention being given to protect the privacy of children from the public's eye — a.k.a. the No Kids Policy, both in print and in photograph. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you and I and I'm sure others can help keep the years out by having this on our watchlist, so there's that.
I'm really unsure about how proper it is for an encyclopedia to censor itself based on an advocacy campaign. There are advocacy groups pressing for all sort of things, such as terminology on abortion-related pages, or place names in the Middle East. I believe an encyclopedia has to be neutral about such things.
And if you look at biographical books, or entries in the respected Marquis Who's Who, they all give children's names as standard biographical information. I'm sure many actors also don't want their own birth dates in Wikipedia, citing privacy concerns and employment concerns. I'm surprised people don't ask for the removal of their mothers' maiden names, since that's a common identifier with online security and such. But these are all basic components of biography, whether in a Robert Caro book or Who's Who.
So I'm hoping we can find a middle ground that address privacy concerns without sacrificing an encyclopedia providing basic, core biographical information. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think, as a common-ground, I'm willing to settle on removal of the DOB's, for now. But I still believe there has to be something more effective, and maybe, that's something that should be brought up at Biographies of Living Persons for further consensus. livelikemusic my talk page! 23:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair, on both counts. I'm not sure an encyclopedia should keep from giving the name of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's daughter, for instance, but discussion is always good. Years out! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to interrupt your fine discussion here, but I'd like to give some input. I think you are heading down an extremely slippery slope by removing birth dates of celebritiies' kids. And please understand that I've just read the relevant policies and guidelines that address this matter, both directly and indirectly, especially BLP. When information about the names and even birth dates of celeb kids are very widely disemminated by both local, national and even international media and print outlets, it's perfectly acceptable, and even expected, to include it in the WP article(s) of their parent(s). And no policy or guidelines says it can't be done, assuming it's properly sourced. And keep in mind perhaps an even more important point; that the parents themselves release this information to the media... in interviews, on their social media accounts, and elsewhere! Most of these celebrities essentially announce it to the world when they give birth to a child. They want to share this information with the world; they choose to do it. In any case, if mainstream reliable sources report the names and birth dates of the children of celebrity, it should absolutely be included in the article imho. Look at Angelina Jolie's article as a great example. It contains solid content about the kids' names and birth dates. In fact, look at Megan Fox! The names and birth dates of her two kids with Green are included in the article; and they are well sourced. In fact, that content about their kids should be pasted in to this article. It's well sourced, of course. If there's no reliable source, then nothing about a celeb's child should be included; not even their name. But if it's reliably sourced, I say get it in there and attach the source(s). Again, I think it's a gigantic step to start removing birth dates, and especially names, of celeb kids if they are reliably sourced. One final note, the reference included above that says "names of family members who are not also notable public figures must be removed from an article if they are not properly sourced." clearly is saying that it's fine to add the content, but it better be sourced or it's gone. The key word in that sentence is "IF". I not only think you should add back the birth years you removed from this article, but you should also include the full dates of birth just as they're included in the Megan Fox article. It should just be pasted into this article, sources included. Thanks for listening. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you — from Who's Who to Biography.com to any book biography of a Lyndon Johnson or a Charlie Chaplin, it is absolutely standard to include such basic biographical data about children. But sometimes for the sake of consensus, especially when dealing with people who aren't professional journalists or academics, it's best to compromise on this article or that. I have found that dealing with people at WikiProject:Biography without such background can be frustrating. The information remains in the footnoted sources, so the censorship at least is limited. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. If there's a strong objection to having the full birth dates included, then there should be a talk page discussion held, and very good reasons presented addressing exactly why it's a problem in that particular instance. The reasons should be very legitimate, such as the celebrity parents have stated they do not want their kids' dates of birth published. However, if it's just a few editors objecting, it should not be an issue and the content should remain. We need to be realistic about this- if the information is widely disseminated and published by mainstream sources, especially major media outlets, then it's doing a huge disservice to this project to not include it. The word "censorship" as you mentioned is very scary and that's what it is when you remove relevant information that is properly sourced. Again, if even the parents themselves have announced the birth of their child to the world, which is precisely what happens in most cases with celebrities, then it should absolutely be in the article. It is very common, even expected, for a celeb to tweet a birth announcement (or on other social media), or to reveal it in an interview, or even to issue a press release about it. So, removing even the year of birth is even more troubling because it completely eliminates the context since readers will then have no idea how old the child is, unless they follow media reports on their own. So, please, I would ask that you not just restore the years of birth of the kids to this article, but include their full birth dates, per the sources. That information can be taken directly from the Megan Fox article. Thanks again for your feedback. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any editor, including you, can make those changes. I have to note that in this case, it might create an edit-warring situation with another editor who wanted to remove both the names and the years. I wanted to include the names and at least the months and years, if not the specific dates. I agree with you that the other editor's version seems extremist to me when taken in the context of every professional biographical resource, and that this stance flies in the face of standard biographical practice by authors and academia. But we compromised, as often is the case on Wikipedia in order to keep peace. No one gets everything they want in a compromise, but both sides get enough of what's important to them. Again, you can make the change, but be aware that it may trigger a long, drawn-out fight involving other extremists. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your thoughts. I see absolutely no legitimate reason why this information should not be included. As you mentioned, it is not only standard content for a celebrity article, it also expected to be included when reliable sources are available. Further, there are absolutely no policy or guidelines violations, including BLP, since the information is widely published and of course announced by the parents themselves. I'll simply add the information about the children from the Fox article. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 01:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are both featured articles, and both include the names and birth dates of their children. As the featured articles page says, "Featured articles are considered to be the best articles Wikipedia has to offer, as determined by Wikipedia's editors. They are used by editors as examples for writing other articles." So those two articles never would have been given Wikipedia's highest honor if they contained any BLP violations. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you completely. If you read my exchange with the other editor — who was acting in good faith, albeit based on a misunderstanding of standard biographical practice — you can see the kinds of arguments one finds oneself up against. This isn't the first time I've run across this, and sometimes fighting even for what's right just takes it out of you, especially when a couple of such editors gang up (which was not the case here; the other editor and I had a mutually respectful discussion and reached a compromise).--Tenebrae (talk) 03:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were right on the money when you alluded to "a misunderstanding of standard biographical practice". That's exactly what I was thinking as I read your discussion with the other editor. While I appreciate their well-intended passion for improving this project, they unfortunately misinterpreted the guidelines and polices they linked to, particularly with regard to content about kids of celebrities. They also inappropriately based part of their objection on what was merely a discussion from many years ago. I realize that just because some other articles do something a certain way, it doesn't mean it's right or that it should apply to any or all other articles. However, in this case we are talking about very standard content that is even included in featured BLP articles, which are supposed to be used as excellent examples of how to edit other articles. Anyway, thanks for all your great work. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the consensus that we made here being reverted? It was made to respect privacy and you even, Tenebrae agreed upon it. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any changes whatsoever to what you and I discussed. And I said to our fellow editor that while I personally agreed with him, I was advising against making changes that would result in discord. You can read for yourself what I wrote. --Tenebrae (talk)
Well, now they're edit-warring the issue and making light personal attacks in their edit summaries, which are inappropriate. livelikemusic my talk page! 21:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to revert 2605:A000: since you've brought up an objection and so we need to discuss the edits here. --Tenebrae (talk)
Well, I reverted them again and issued them a warning about the potential of an edit-war on their part. If they revert again, we may be forced to report them to the appropriate noticeboard and I've also requested some discussion on this topic, and will be opening the discussion to other BLP editors. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone to his talk page and explained that the appropriate thing would be to discuss the issue. That's step one. If no consensus can be reached among the three of us, there's always mediation, RfC, lots of other avenues to reach consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given their [unfounded] dislike of me already, I have having serious doubts about how this discussion could ultimately turnout. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure if we go into this positively, in the same sense of mutually respectful give-and-take, that we can have a constructive discussion. You and I disagree, and yet we still found a middle ground. Fingers crossed. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can only hope! Otherwise, we may have to see RfC or may even need to take the discussion [once again] to the BLP main page for a final consensus and decision on this matter. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it'd be an admin board or some other general Wikipedia discussion center — no one project can decide for all of Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Livelikemusic, you are mistaken to say "Why is the consensus that we made here being reverted?" Actually, there was a discussion between two people, you and Tenebrae. Clearly, anyone can read the full discussion and see that Tenebrae disagrees with your position and only agreed to a compromise to avoid arguing with you about it. However, as stated clearly above by both Tenebrae and myself, you are misunderstanding what the rules are regarding the inclusion of names and birth dates of celebrity children. The discussion above makes clear this content is perfectly acceptable when it is reliably sourced, as it is here. Featured BLP articles like the Pitt and Jolie articles, and all the others, include both kids' name and birth dates, and those articles are the highest standard of quality. So please explain how featured BLP articles can contain this information, but this article cannot? The bottom line is that there is absolutely no policy disallowing this content. In fact, it is standard content when reliably sourced. BLP policy says if there are solid sources, it can be included. If not, it must be removed. The names and DOBs of these kids were not only reported widely by major media, but also announced by the parents themselves on social media and elsewhere. Unless you can provide a policy that forbids this information, it must be restored based on the reliable sourcing. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I agree with your reasoning. Yet as you've seen, some editors (not speaking of livelikemusic) will unilaterally remove anything they personally consider private, and then we're all edit-warring again. Sometimes the best thing is to reach a compromise, discuss the overall policy issue in a larger forum that just this one article, and then makes changes based on any consensus there. In the meantime, compromise between two strongly held points of view is an honorable thing. It really is. Because nothing is set in stone — we can always revisit any article after getting numerous editors to weigh in on policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And if you read it, there was an agreement (a.k.a. consensus) to a common-ground to remove the DOB to obtain some privacy for the children. You continuing to revert constitutes an ignorance of consensus and an edit-warring kind of nature. And might I recommend not pushing the boundaries on personal grounds as given your discussion and your edit summaries; both Tenebrae and I were not in an argument, we were having a civilized discussion trying to reach a potential decision on an issue on a good faith manner. And to mention an editor and their intentions is against Wikipedia policy; you are to discuss their EDITS, not the editor themselves. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An agreement between two people regarding a content dispute is by no means considered a consensus, particularly when subsequent editors disagree with that agreement and cite Wikipedia policy showing why. Your personal opinion about the privacy of Green's and Fox's children is, quite frankly, completely irrelevant. While I appreciate you had a friendly agreement with another editor, that editor disagrees with your position and, most importantly, we follow Wikipedia policy here. Nothing in your reply addressed the specific points and questions I asked you. So, again, you will need to show relevant policy that prohibits this reliably-sourced content, and also explain why featured BLP articles include dates of birth for children. Editors can not remove valid content simply because of their personal feelings about childrens' privacy. I will ask Tenebrae to please reply also with his thoughts. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 22:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors had a discussion and a decision was made and agreed upon, and within the agreement, it was stated that any change against that decision should rightfully be reverted, and if required, discussion reopened on the talk page. And considering your decision to ignore what I've said completely, and your disregard for personal attacks against an editor who has assumed nothing but good faith this entire time, and ignore the mutual decision gained between two editors who shared a mutual respect of each other, I am choosing to move this issue to the appropriate noticeboard, as I will not be made to felt as if I am being cornered by one editor, who seems to have a potential vendetta against myself. This is not a classroom, and I will not be made to write a twenty page essay of someone demanding a respond from me, just to be continually cornered and made to feel as if their words are irrelevant or not equally as important as everyone else's in said-discussion. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Annnnnnd this is pretty much what I saw happening ... hence my feeling that a compromise was the least disruptive and upsetting way to go for now, while the policy behind this contentious issue gets worked out. This isn't the first article where this disagreement has come up, and a compromise is better than days or weeks of edit-warring and time- and energy-consuming noticeboard discussions or RfCs.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it's obviously that our mutual compromise, which we found quickly and respectfully, is not going to be abided by, as comments and words become twisted around, and some are baited into an argument. At this point, it only seems fitting that a RfC be made, or even a noticeboard report. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, you have failed to address any of the relevant policy issues or provide any policy that prohibits this info. You seem not to understand that a decision made by two editors is not binding by any means. It's fine if no other editors object, but once someone else objects, and bases it on policy and clear evidence that the content is permitted e.g. featured BLP articles, that "agreement" no longer applies. Now please address why Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, and all the other BLP featured articles contain childrens' dates of birth, but this one cannot? And also please provide any relevant polices that forbid it. And, please, leave out the personal attacks and lectures and focus on the matter at hand. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This issue will be brought up at the appropriate noticeboard, as further discussion here will not be had [on my part] until administrative authority can be brought in. livelikemusic my talk page! 22:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you several opportunites to provide policy proof and to explain why BLP featured articles contain the DOBs of the children of celebrities. You have refused to do so. Tenebrae clearly disagrees with your position and merely agreed to a compromise to avoid battling you on it. But we cannot allow one editor to force the removal of important content that is permitted by policy and reliably sourced. Therefore, it will be restored. I am very confident that no noticeboard decision will disagree with my or Tenebrae's position about this content being permissable. If they do, then many featured articles will have to have similar content removed, and I'm sure that's never going to happen. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, your advice to Livelikemusic on his talk page with regard to this BLP issue was excellent. You said, "I do wish, speaking as a professional journalist and editor who uses Wikipedia as a source of reference footnotes, and who has written biographies professionally, that I could persuade you to see how other encyclopedias and reference works handle family. I think seeing how ethical, professional sources do it can only help provide perspective." Fortunately, we have clear examples here on Wikipedia how family content is handled, and the policies that guide it. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 01:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP[edit]

NAMES & DATES OF BIRTH OF CHILDREN PERMITTED IN ARTICLE
The policy on biographies of living persons clearly leaves the inclusion of details of family members up to the discretion of the article's editors, as long as the information is well-sourced. All editors seem to agree that there are reliable sources, and the overwhelming majority of editors favor keeping full names and dates of birth of the children in the article.--Aervanath (talk) 20:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per the discussion above, in order to maintain some compliance with the biographies of living persons stance on including names of relatives and related-subjects within an article, it was mutual decided to remove the DOB's of the children of Brian Austin Green in order to maintain some privacy for the children. However, it has been disputed that both the full-names and their DOB's should be included. Which is the best route to take in this matter? Options are (based on discussions and sides above:

  • A — Maintain full-names and DOB's of the children
  • B — Maintain first name only and remove DOB's of the children
  • C — Remove DOB's and names of children livelikemusic my talk page! 23:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the BLP discussion above regarding this matter. Livelikemusic is doing nothing more than injecting his/her personal opinions about privacy with regard to the children of celebrities, as evidenced by their statement, "it was mutual decided to remove the DOB's of the children of Brian Austin Green in order to maintain some privacy for the children." He also said, "A child's privacy should be respected, as it is not their choice to be put into the spotlight" Clearly, this editor does not understand that it is not his/her decision to "maintain some privacy" for someone else's children. We follow policy and reliable sources. As you will see from the above discussion, the editor has continually refused to provide any policy disallowing this reliably-sourced content. Further, the editor has failed to answer why BLP featured articles, the highest quality articles on Wikipedia, include the names and birth dates of celebrity children as standard content, yet this article is not allowed to do so. Examples of BLP featured articles that include the names and DOBs of celebrity children include Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 23:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC) 00:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but option C (Remove DOB's and names of children) is a direct violation of BLP policy. WP:BLPNAME says, "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced." Therefore, option C is not only ludicrous, but also invalid. 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC) 03:31, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the IP and Tenebrae; names and birthdates are perfectly fine to include if reliably sourced. "Privacy concerns" are entirely moot if reliable sources provide names and birthdates of children regardless of notability (or lack thereof), especially when the parents themselves announce their births. One could perhaps simply go with birth year or birth month if desired, but not giving names when mentioning children is simply vague and unhelpful for readers. I lean towards A, but am also fine with B. First names at the very least should be given. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to including the month and year of birth, and leaving out the day. (Although it's prominently mentioned in the sources.) So the current option C (Remove DOB's and names of children) needs to be removed since it clearly violates what BLP allows, and should be replaced with "C — Maintain full-names and month and year of birth of the children". 2605:A000:FFC0:44:78F7:B694:89AB:994E (talk) 04:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Snuggums on everything they have said. If their DOB is reported in reliable sources then there is no reason to exclude them. I do think that in most cases giving the day and month is probably unnecessary (I can't see why a reader would really care most of the time), but their birth year would nearly always be something worth including -- but again only if reported in reliable sources. -- Shudde talk 04:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I read the long discussion in the previous thread prior to reading this one. I fully agree with the IP editor, Tenebrae, and Snuggums. If the names and DOB information comes from good sources, then it should definitely be in there. The birth of these children was reported all over the place on TV and in print. While it was very nice that two of you agreed to find some middle ground, a couple editors talking for two hours without input from anyone else isn't consensus. I just read the policy about consensus and the section WP:CONLEVEL says that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." Also, it's vital that editors keep their personal thoughts about privacy out of it. So yes, I say the names and birthdates should be in the article. Lootbrewed (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree that option C is "a direct violation of BLP policy" and "not only ludicrous, but also invalid". WP:BLPNAME says, "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced," True. It then goes on to say: "subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." I read the second part to mean that editors may very well agree that names (and DOB:s) of children, siblings etc are best left out. "They have two sons, born in 2012 and 2014" is enough in my opinion (I generally think that names of non-notable family are best left out of these articles). We CAN insert names and DOB since we have the sources, but we don´t HAVE to, BLPNAME allows both solutions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to consider the nature of encyclopedia and reference works. "[E]ditors may very well agree that names (and DOB:s) of children, siblings etc are best left out." That's fine, of course. And I think we all agree that we should have all valid reasons for what we feel. So the question is: Why do some editors feel that way? That's a critical question. I believe we hit a roadblock if editors who feel that way don't give a reason. Otherwise, it may give the appearance to some of Wikipedia:I just don't like it.
That said, I'm a believer in compromise among editors with strongly held views, whether I agree with the other editor or not. In this case, I would suggest as compromise the example of Who's Who, which gives the name and "(b. 1999)" or whatever the year may be. I would also note that Biography.com, like many other professional biographical sources, generally gives full birth dates, and while I would agree with that, I also believe compromise can head off weeks-long, enervating discussions.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My personal "Why" is my general feeling that "That person shouldn´t have to have their name in WP just because they´re related to that person." Not exactly based in WP Policy, but I think "subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." hints at "don´t include names just because we can (and have reliable sources)". That said, consensus seem to be elsewhere (at least in this discussion), and I don´t think any solution editors decide on here will be very wrong. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I'm gratified by the collegial nature of this discussion. WikiProject Biography doesn't always tend to be this way, and I applaud my fellow editors.
To give my own feelings of why names and at the least birth years should be included is that a biographical subject's family members — from the the nature of their names, to the points at which a notable person had a family — is a standard piece of any serious professional / academic biography. This is as true of entertainment figures as of political figures: Charlie Chaplin's numerous biographers, for instance, detail his many children, most of whom are not independently notable; and among more modern examples, a biography of Angelina Jolie or Madonna or Rosie O'Donnell would be woefully incomplete without background on their children, which tells us much about the subjects. I believe a dispassionate reference source has a purpose to give pertinent information without censorship, and when the parents or their representatives themselves announce their children to the world, then by definition they have no issue with the information being public. (I think that with those public figures who specifically do not give out this information that an argument can be made for more circumspect content. But that does not seem to be the case here.)
Overall, I think, since few of us on Wikipedia are professional biographers or academics who write biographies, that we obviously should look to other encyclopedias and similar reference sources to see how they handle public figures' children. That would show us the practical and ethical real-world standard. Otherwise, I think we're going on untrained gut feeling, and that may not be the best way to construct a reference work. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with Gråbergs regarding his reading of the portion of WP:BLPNAME that says "subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". The main part that precedes it says that "The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject" can be used if it's sourced. So I firmly believe the part about discretion and relevance is talking about only those who have, or had, a loose, brief, or otherwise non-encylopedic connection to the subject, such as a girlfiend or ex-girlfriend, an extended family member like a cousin or uncle, or someone else outside the immediate family. But it by no means would be referring to immediate family members, who certainly must be part of a subject's biography, assuming good sources are available. Can you imagine if Wikipedia simply removed all references to a subject's children in every biography. I believe that is exactly what the policy is talking about when it says "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". Obviously, it's relevant to a reader's understanding to know about the subject's children and when they were born. But what the policy is asking is, is it relevant to a reader's understanding to know about the ex-girlfriend, the cousin, the longtime business partner, or whomever the person is. My goodness, how can any reader have a complete understanding of a biography subject if we ever leave out the names or even birthdates of their children, essentially pretending that they don't exist. And if we don't include the birthdate information, the reader will not only not know how old the children are, but will not know when they were born along the timeline of the subject's career. As Tenbrae said, we must understand and accept how a "standard piece of any serious professional / academic biography" is written. Any well constructed biography includes the name and birth information of children, if it's available. Therefore, not only must names of children be included (full names if sourced well), but also at least the month and year that the child was born, so readers will know at the time of reading what age the child is. Lootbrewed (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I feel that in cases like this, with kids that haven´t been noted for much more than existing, "They have two sons, born in 2012 and 2014" fulfills "reader's complete understanding of the subject" well enough (and my personal ideology is satisfied). I´m not arguing for not mentioning children (or siblings) here, I hope I didn´t give you that impression. There is a difference with for example Angelina Jolies children, there is a narrative there (I´ve seen SNL-sketches on that subject). The policy says "MAY be part of an article", not "must" or "should", so I don´t consider it a solution against policy. However, Brian Austin Green is not some barely notable person where we could only find the names of his children in a blog, so inclusion is clearly not against policy either. Consensus seems to favor inclusion, so that´s how we should do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But it is not necessary for the kids to be noted for more than existing. The point is that a subject's kids are a vital part of their biography. I think Tenebrae's two statements just about say it all: "a biographical subject's family members — from the the nature of their names, to the points at which a notable person had a family — is a standard piece of any serious professional / academic biography" and "a dispassionate reference source has a purpose to give pertinent information without censorship, and when the parents or their representatives themselves announce their children to the world, then by definition they have no issue with the information being public." So far, I think we have pretty clear consensus that including the names and at least some part of the birthdates - either the full DOB, month and year, or year only - is the way to go. So can we narrow down what DOB information we think is best? Lootbrewed (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A or B - I don't see the point of not having their names or DOB. Those are simply a matter of public record. It's not like their Social Security numbers. What, is someone going to steal their identity or something, based on info that is available on People.com? —МандичкаYO 😜 16:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (A.)   I basically agree with Wikimandia (the editor who commented directly above me). My only difference is I support specifically option (A.), but neither (B.) nor (C.).
    Richard27182 (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A If there are RS out there that include this info then I don't see a problem with including it here as well. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A, per arguments above. If reliably sourced, such information needs to be added. We're an encyclopaedia. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 00:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A. The information is out there in reliable sources and there is no compelling reason to exclude it. Calidum 00:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A This is standard in Wikipedia articles. Louieoddie (talk) 07:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brian Austin Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Brian Austin Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Austin Green. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DOB of children[edit]

The closing summary of the above RfC is evidently based on a misreading of BLP policy, unless the policy has recently changed. WP:BLPNAME states: The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. Nothing there about birth dates, which are dealt with under WP:DOB: [If] the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source. BLP policy in general stresses the presumption in favor of privacy. I've removed the children's exact birth dates (leaving the year), since this information is not essential to an understanding of the subject, nor are the children individually notable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Austin_Green&oldid=1202449485"