3 ms·
Wikipedia isn't a primary source, and it needs to be verifiable. So by definition it's not exposing any information you can't find in other public sources. Wh
by avar 3y ago
Wikipedia isn't a primary source, and it needs to be verifiable.
So by definition it's not exposing any information you can't find in other public sources.
Whether it's notable and something that should be included is another matter.
In any case, I'm saying that if you look at the articles for Madonna, Bono, Jenna Jameson, Marilyn Manson etc. you'll find their real name displayed prominently.
We can't form our own opinion in this case, as the GP is deliberately keeping the specific article in question hidden.
But in general this seems like a thing two editors could reasonably disagree about.
- ghaff 3y agoIt's probably the case that "outing" a micro-celebrity or someone who isn't really especially well-known is sort of obnoxious. But, yeah, for especially well-known people in the spotlight (often by their own choice) there's no particular right to keep their legal name a secret.