Talk:Jihad Dib

Regarding children names

So i keep adding the children's names and they are repeatedly removed; however, nowhere have i been shown wiki policy that bans this practice and there are plenty of other articles where the names of non-notable children are listed. So why can i not add these and why am i the one being threatened with being blocked when others that are removing the content are reverting for no acceptable reason?--58.106.235.75 (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

We are building an encyclopedia of notable facts and people. Just because a fact is in the public domain does not mean we must report it. The gold standard for adding names of non-notable family to an article is "such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". You have failed to explain in any way how reporting the names of Dib's children enhances our knowledge and understanding of him. Including three routine names of non-notable people does nothing to better the article. Dib's brother, on the other hand, is worthy of inclusion as he too is notable. WWGB (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@WWGB: But you have not shown that it is illegal (according to wiki policy) to add these names. Can you show me where it says explicitly "you are not allowed to add the names of non-notable children"? I think you are exaggerating the opposition to such inclusions when really there is no argument to stop me from my edit. I find that some of the most notable politician's articles on wiki (e.g. Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, David Cameron) have the names of their children. Now if such articles (that would be much more heavily patrolled on wiki) add their non-notable names, who are you to strike a lone course and oppose an articles edit that garners much less scrutiny. Again, i would like you to show proof that my edit is clearly illegal (according to wiki policy)—not your interpretation of the law, that contradicts much more prominent articles. Otherwise, i will add my edit again and if my actions must be judged before other editors then i am more than confident in defending them.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and to answer your question "how reporting the names of Dib's children enhances our knowledge and understanding of him"? I could very well answer that knowing that he has 2 girls and 1 boy enhances our knowledge of him—as compared to only knowing he has 3 children. I could also say it tells us they have Arabic names, which would imply that their father has a strong sense of Lebanese-Muslim identity (which is relevant to his history)—likewise, this enhances our understanding of him. This is why unless you provide explicit rules that oppose my edit, i don't see why i should be held by your interpretation of ambiguous wiki policy.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 04:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have or need a "rule" for every situation. I do not need a "rule" to determine whether I should include Dib's shoe size, or his favourite food. It's just stuff that is not "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". I have nothing more to say on this topic; you have no consensus to add disputed material. WWGB (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@WWGB: That wasn't a convincing response. I answered how it was "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject". I answered how much more notable articles allow it. All you can respond with is your own opinion/preference that contradicts many prominent articles, then notifying me that you "have nothing more to say on this topic," followed by a veiled threat that i have "no consensus to add disputed material." That is weak reasoning and unless you really have nothing more to say then i will add my edit again and if you are inclined to take the issue further then i will be more than happy to defend my edit.
BTW: we are talking about children, not shoes sizes or food. There are plenty of non-notable children in other articles, but i doubt we have such a precedent with shoe sizes, food...Please try not to use irrelevant analogies.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Just chiming in to say the WWGB is clearly right on this issue: there is no reason to include his children's names, and for non-notable people we err on the side of privacy. Frickeg (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Frickeg: Well that's expected that you would so unequivocally support him, seeing as you also reverted my exact same edit. So can one of you please finally explain why such names exist on other very prominent articles? Are yous the only editors who revert such edits & then why only for this single article? Perhaps more importantly, why do the vast majority of articles include the names of non-notable spouses? Until these questions are answered i don't see how "WWGB is clearly right on this issue".--58.106.235.75 (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I reverted this one because it's the one that happened to be on my watchlist. As for spouses, if you can't see the difference there I begin to worry. Dib's children are minors. The standard of privacy is higher for them. Whenever I notice non-notable, living children, especially minors, mentioned in articles by name, I remove them. You will notice WWGB has actually gone and done the same thing. Frickeg (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Frickeg: Okay, good. So now we have established that this has nothing to do with notability, but rather privacy? Then why have yous been banging all along about notability, rather than privacy? So this is the differences between adding spouses names but not childrens names? If this is the case, could you show me the wiki policy for this? Because that sounds all good and well, however, what may be expected within the legal frameworks of our societies may differ to wiki rules.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Where did I say it had nothing to do with notability? That's part of it too. If the children were notable, we would mention their names. Like how we mention, say, Larry Anthony in Doug Anthony's page. For your information, I quote the entirety of the documentation at Template:Infobox person: "Only if independently notable themselves or particularly relevant. Number of children (e.g. three or 3), or list of names if notable, in which case, separate entries using {{Plainlist}} or {{Unbulleted list}}. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of children of living persons, unless notable." Dib's children are not independently notable, and not particularly relevant to his biography. A number will suffice just fine. I am, I might add, completely bemused by this apparent crusade over something so tiny. And if you're quibbling over the word "consider", well, I have considered it, and so has WWGB, and we have advanced reasons no longer to include their names. You have not advanced reasons for your point of view, only that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Absent other points of view, I think we're done here. By all means try and get some more input from other places if you want to (WT:AUP might be a good start, or WT:BIOGRAPHY). Frickeg (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@ Frickeg: Finally, some explicit policy. Yes, now i agree with you and WWGB. Sorry for the inconvenience.--58.106.246.244 (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

@ WWGB: I have sent our dispute for resolution here.--58.106.235.75 (talk) 06:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)