3 ms·
A whole slew of reasons, but mostly because it's private, sensitive, and could have legal implications (in the cases of foul play, for example). I'm not sure wh
by dvt 6y ago
A whole slew of reasons, but mostly because it's private, sensitive, and could have legal implications (in the cases of foul play, for example). I'm not sure what Wikipedia has to do with anything, as it's never been the arbiter of social norms, legal procedures, or even common decency -- much like reddit, its army of online sleuths often gets facts painfully wrong (sometimes with dire consequences).
- ceilingcorner 6y agoI wish the Personal Life section of Wikipedia didn't exist. It feels wrong and invasive, even for celebrities.
- cantrevealname 6y agoWikipedia has a cause of death section for almost every deceased person. In your opinion, should Wikipedia remove cause of death from biographies? Remove them until legal implications are resolved? Remove some of them but not all of them? (I very much doubt that you think that all entries for cause of death should be removed, like how President John F. Kennedy died for example.) So where are you drawing the line?
- dvt 6y ago> As I mentioned, Wikipedia has a cause of death section for almost every deceased person. Again, my question is "so what?" -- Wikipedia doesn't dictate social norms. I gave you a few reasons why cause of death may not be mentioned. Like mothers often say, if Wikipedia jumps off a bridge, would you?