Talk:Pippa Middleton

Just ridiculous

What is she? The other Boleyn girl? Well, no... not yet, anyway. I have seen far more meritorious people/events lacking their own entry - and she gets it? Based on WHAT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.119.120 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, on Wikipedia:Notability; and see also here. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest revisiting the deletion nomination. She is a complete and utter nobody and i dont see why she should have her own page while the only reason she has one is because she is related to Kate Middleton, period. Notability is a huge issue here - not everyone woh has made it to page six in some newspaper should get their own wikipedia entry. Just because a lot of people visited her page because she was mentioned in connection to her sister doesnt meet the notability criteria. There are other factors going into it. CarrieBee (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

75.252.178.145 (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you would need to open a new cfd, CarrieBee. However, per Wikipedia:Notability Pippa Middleton has undoubtedly "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", where "Significant coverage" means addressing the subject directly in detail, "more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material". "Pippa Middleton" (with quotation marks) today gives 991,000 google hits, and I don't feel that more than a third of a million Wikipedia page visits during April helps the non-notable case. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

@CarrieBee, she's not a complete and utter nobody; I mean, neither she nor her sister have really done anything notable. But she's a member of a family that apparently is notable enough to have their own article, so I guess she's as notable as any other member of the family. @Moonraker2, views to an unnotable Wikipedia page doesn't make the subject notable. If the page was put up, and the subject isn't notable, the views come after the fact. If the subject isn't notable it shouldn't be a page, whether it's popular or not. The family is notable, but she individually is not. It would be good if she had a section devoted to her on the family's page, but not a page devoted to only her.Greenhplover (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Lelegirli, 30 April 2011

the word organize is misspelled.

Lelegirli (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No its not, in British English, organise is spelt with an s--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Some popular forms of British English do use an -s- instead of a -z- in "organize", but more traditional British English (including Oxford English) uses a -z-. I am old-fashioned English and always use a -z- for "organize", "realize", "antagonize", etc. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Lelegirli, you started your sentence with a lower case letter, which is incorrect. You also spelt mispelt as "misspelled" which is the American spelling, so I assume you are from the USA and probably unaware that anything else exists beyond that country. But just to let you know that there are differences between American and British spellings, and both are acceptable on Wikipedia. See here: WP:AmE. Childrens do learn. 82.152.209.221 (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As Wikipedia was originally an American initiative, U.S. English is preferred, but there is an exception for specifically British topics.95.49.244.248 (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

You might as well argue that as the US was originally a UK initiative, UK spelling is to be preferred. Ericoides (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion Point

I think we have some serious BLP issues here. As it currently stands the lead says Her fame is partially due to public admiration for her buttocks.[3][4][5] Further down it says After the wedding, a facebook-page and a website dedicated to her buttocks were created,[3][4][5] and she was referred to as "Her Royal Hotness"[37][38] Is this appropriate? It sounds like tabloid trash. StAnselm (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what her current fame is mainly based on: comments on her butt and how hot she is. There is no BLP-issue if all newspapers from UK to NZ report on it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I support removing it from the lead. Having it there puts undue emphasis on a point so minor that it receives only one sentence in an otherwise lengthy article. So a Facebook fanpage for her rear end was created. So what? Trivia doesn't belong in the lead.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Google Pipa Middleton, and that's what you get: her dress and her butt. There is nothing else that makes her notable as of now (apart from being the sister of Kate). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A simple Google search on her returns no results highlighting her butt. (I feel ridiculous even typing that.) Her coverage is 99% being Kate Middleton's sister and her role as maid-of-honor and probably 1% (if not less) talking about that Facebook page as an amusing bit of trivia that, in the end, is entirely irrelevant. Per WP:LEAD#Relative_emphasis, it doesn't belong in the lead.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what google you are using. I see this. "Royal Hotness" and butt are right there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that she's getting press for her appearance, but that first search listing proves my point: even in an article talking about her looks, the minor reference to her butt's appreciation is simply the Facebook page (and what doesn't have a Facebook page at this point?). A more general mention about getting press for her physical attractiveness is what belongs in the lead based on the coverage, if something like this has to go in the lead. Not to mention, I see two other editors that have removed the claim from the lead, so I'm obviously not the only one that thinks this is an issue.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 02:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Good; so change it to something about her dress and her looks if your concern is merely with the word "buttocks". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I took out "buttocks." Will re-arrange the refs accordingly. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I was changing it myself, but unfortunately I edit so slowly that there always ends up being a conflicting edit.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The page is so lively that it seems to have taken on a life of its own. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

While we're at it about trivia, how is shooting an X number of gamebirds in one day and carrying haggis into a pub important? And how is it part of a "career"? Just wondering... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Those sentences are about lifestyle and not about career. The new "career" header looks to me like the problem. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Better, but I still don't see how... — y'know, I've carried haggis into a pub once (in Scotland, damnit!), like, maybe 20 years ago. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

acxtually not her buttocks, her hips (see hip to waist ratio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.190.133 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have removed this lecherous nonsense from the article. We are a serious encyclopedia writing a balanced biography of a living person. We are not a tabloid newspaper recording this week's celebrity tittle-tattle, much less an aggregate of what teenage boys are masturbating on this internet this week. Try writing for www.chickipedia.com if you want to cover buttocks and hotness.--Scott Mac 18:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How is it lecherous of it's true? If you Google her, pretty much what you get is... her buttocksor her dress. That's the only thing she's notable for. If you don't believe that's appropriate to discuss, then you've basically ruled out the only thing she's notable for.69.96.227.242 (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)Greenhplover (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Not "lecherous". Major part of the media-coverage about her. WP:NOTCENSORED Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is nothing to do with censorship. It is simply not an important facet of this subject's life that a bunck of folk created a leering facebook page last week. We're an encyclopedia not a reportage of Internet obsessions with women's booty.--Scott Mac 23:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Atleast they're not making her the butt of any jokes. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No its wikipedia that is the butt of jokes due to addition of such low quality facebook crap asserted as a fantastic uncensored notable encyclopedic addition. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scott MacDonald and Off2riorob. Commenting on Pippa Middleton's anatomy is sexist, immature, tacky, and what's more unencyclopedic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scotty Mac but LOL @ " We are a serious encyclopedia writing a balanced biography of a living person." That's the only joke I see here! Ideally people like myself and Scotty Mac would like wikipedia to be a serious encyclopedia sticking only to solid encyclopedic topics but the sad fact is that it is not a serious encyclopedia, why else do we have List of Power Rangers episodes, Pancakes!, Ivy Bean etc which I tried to get deleted, but with no avail.. We should be a serious encyclopedia and remove all of the obvious crap that exists but people like their cruft which makes it impossible to do so. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Should Coat of Arms be removed?

Should a coat of arms created for Kate Middleton be included, and fully described, on her sister's page?--Scott Mac 22:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Why is this included? This is the coat of arms created for Kate and really has nothing to do with Pippa. No sources are discussing Pippa's heraldry. Indeed, the two cited for the arms - one does not mention Pippa at all, the other in passing says "only Kate and Pippa can use this". I'm not disputing the fact that Pippa could use these - but does she? has she? We are not an heraldic encyclopedia. At best this is worth a footnote that she's entitled to use the arms created for her sister.--Scott Mac 18:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia. Such unencyclopedic nobility-nosing has no place here. BLP articles are not playgrounds. Hans Adler 18:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

NPOV! Heraldry is also serious, and commoners use coats of arms as well as aristocrats. We should not jam sincere desire for knowledge. That would be gormless -- LeoDavid (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Are there sources to show that this heraldry is pertinent to an understanding of the subject? Does she use it? Has she commented on it? This is a bit like putting a tartan banner on everyone with a Scottish surname - just because tartan geeks might be interested and they are entitled to wear it.--Scott Mac 19:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wise ruler as always. She might use it, and because it's a part of her sister's royal arms and each acorn spring is a symbol for each sibling, she will do. -- LeoDavid (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Will she? Can you give me some evidence? A source?--Scott Mac 17:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I find this rhetoric worrying. Heraldry is an integral part of tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles, and I see no reason to look for arguments to exclude it from this one. The statement "only Kate and Pippa can use this" was true before the royal wedding, but now Kate has her own newly impaled arms and only Pippa can use the spinster form of the Middleton arms. Whether she does actually use it is an academic point. It is the right to do so which is of interest to a herald. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally i don't think it merits inclusion if she doesn't use it. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Whether she does use this is an academic point? Eh? We don't include academic points on articles unless sources show they are a significant part of understanding the subject. There is absolutely no source doing that here. We are WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. We are not an encyclopedia of heraldry. We include heraldry where it is significant and not where it isn't. Here there is no evidence of significance. This coat of arm was create for and because of Kate, and it belongs on her article. Even if she's not currently entitle to use it, its creation is entirely about Kate not Pippa. Of course, that may change, but we don't do future speculation either. The fact that her sister got a coat or arms made, which (by "academic point") Pippa is entitled to use (but never apparently has) is at best trivia. It merits a sentence of a footnote a best - not a lengthy illustrated description of the coat of arms.--Scott Mac 17:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(stumbles on the stage with a white face) But, but, ... but if we cannot plaster the article with the usual insignia of the superior type of human it will look like the biography of a commoner! And everybody will notice that it's not even a proper biography! (falls off the stage) Hans Adler 17:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment I agree that is pointless to include if she doesn't use it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

@Scot Mac: so, the coat of arms is trivia, but your silly article on a dog (Otto Middleton) is, of course, no trivia! -- LeoDavid (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Kate Middleton's family gets coat of arms, to notice: her family, not only Kate. Thus, the graphic representation is a spinster-coat of arms, today only Pippa Middleton is allowed to use this. -- LeoDavid (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scott Mac and Hans: no evidence of significance. I've removed the coat of arms rubbish again. Bishonen | talk 19:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC).

Since when is a coat of arms rubbish??? The decision to remove a picture with the coat of arms is quite POV. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"Mr. and Mrs. Middleton and their children took enormous interest in this design and, while its purpose is to provide a traditional heraldic identity for Catherine, as she marries into the Royal Family, the intent was to represent the whole Middleton family together," said Thomas Woodcock, Garter King of Arms and Senior Herald in England who approved the design. All three of Michael Middleton's children will be entitled to use the coat of arms and Kate's brother James will pass on that right to his descendants." citation. -- LeoDavid (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Nothing new here. The family were interested in the arms designed for Kate. The other kids are entitled to use it. Yes, yes. It is worth a sentence to say that, maybe. Nothing more.--Scott Mac 20:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

LeoDavid has been notified of imminent 3RR breaching. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Straightforward brazen. The children took also enormous interest in the design, because they're entitled to use it. Everything else is laughable, but it's okay, there's a club of know-it-alls ;-) LeoDavid (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Scott Mac created a few hours ago the article Otto (Middleton family dog). This article on a simply family dog is, of course, more important than the coat of arms of the family. -- LeoDavid (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say they took enormous interest because they are entitled to use it. Interpreting "enormous interest" from a lifestyle piece to mean anything significant is quite a stretch. If they were enormously interested because they were able to use it, why aren't they using it? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Lord Wisenheimer, how do you know? Please note, that the coat of arms of the Middleton family primal exists since a few days ago. -- LeoDavid (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

How do I know what? I've said just the opposite, I've asserted that we don't know because the source doesn't reveal it, in response to your statement "The children took also enormous interest in the design, because they're entitled to use it. " which isn't what the source says, so maybe you should look in the mirror and ask your question "Oh, Lord Wisenheimer, how do you know?". --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

When I mentioned "Lord Wisenheimer", I was referring to your last question: "If they were enormously interested because they were able to use it, why aren't they using it?" Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen. -- LeoDavid (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Still the same problem, we don't know because we don't have a source to say different. So "I know" in so far as from the WP:V point of view, it is indistinguishable them not using it (and not having a source for that) and them using it but having no source to verify that. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Responding to Rfc- It seems to me that until more information is available as to Pippa's use of the coat of arms, a short statement about her right to use it is sufficient. We don't know yet whether or not she will ever use it- so most of this debate is mute. We don't know yet if this is significant information about her- yes having the right to use a coat of arms is significant, but not worth spending time discussing unless it is actually used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightenbelle (talk • contribs) 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with most of the above. The children were interested because they or their descendants will be entitled to use it. They are not entitled while their father is alive surely? Except with a mark of difference. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am no expert on heraldry which is why I have refrained from commenting here, but I can say that when the article did contain the information (such as this version) it showed a design which was unique to Pippa Middleton. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Kindly note that Kittybrewster is wrong: in british commoner heraldry, only sons need a mark of difference while their father is alive, and spinsters don't, because daughters normally can't pass on the right to use it to their descendants. By using a lozenge, it's indicated that it's a woman's coat of arms. -- LeoDavid (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw my comment. Because Pippa is English and English heraldry is far sloppier than Scottish heraldry. I don't know what British heraldry is. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am entirely with the supporters of the heraldry section. It is interesting and is no less encyclopedic than the coats of arms included in tens of thousands of other Wikipedia articles. Those wishing to remove it do not seem to me to have a balanced view of the question. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

WARNING

Floquenbeam has said in the most recent edit summary "I'll block the next person who reverts that particular section back in, and/or back out, until consensus is reached." - everyone please bear this in mind Exxolon (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That edit summary makes no sense at all, as it clearly aims to preserve whatever status quo exists at the time, whether the section is in or out, and I do not think a responsible admin could justify that position. I can see no consensus for removing the whole section. I shall restore at least an image of the arms, which perhaps no one will object to. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the the admin in question was way out of line with the ban threat. If there is no consensus to remove it, it should have stayed. In any case, adding the picture is a good idea. StAnselm (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Affirmation. -- LeoDavid (talk) 06:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I object. I am not convinced this is relevant. This is not a royalty/nobility article. Hans Adler 06:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

You do know Zara Phillips isn't royalty or nobility, don't you? And yet she as an "Arms" section. But what about the illustration as we have it? I think it's a great compromise. StAnselm (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Adler: Kindly note that you're all wet! A personal coat of arms, thus it is lozenge-shaped, doesn't mean royalty or nobility. -- 78.34.165.158 (talk) 07:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

78.34.165.158, you are right. A coat of arms without supporters is that of a gentleman and not a nobleman. Thank you for the support for including this one as an image, but could we please eschew the name-calling aimed at Hans Adler? Moonraker2 (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. No offense meant ;-) 78.34.165.158 (talk) 08:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your concern about my health, but please see WP:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable if you don't want to be blocked. The difference between nobility and other people is that for nobility a coat of arms can be considered relevant even if it is not actually used in practice. For other articles that is not the case. And that's precisely the situation we have here: Some people try to push a coat of arms into the article even though we can't know at this stage whether the subject will ever use it. This is just part of the general pattern of decorating the article with templates and trivia to hide the fact that it is not a biography. Hans Adler 18:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actual RfC responses regarding Coat of Arms inclusion

• Keep The first reference makes clear that, 'A version of the coat of arms, which can only be used by Kate or her sister Pippa...'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

  Are you doing a poll or what? Hans Adler 18:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I am responding to the RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I see. Funnily enough, I had completely forgetten that this was supposed to be an RfC. I have taken the liberty of adding a new heading directly above your response. I hope that's OK, otherweise just revert. Hans Adler 23:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as almost-unique to the subject. This is not a device that can be used by hundreds or thousands of people per the Scottish tartan/plaid comparison someone made above, it is distinct to a handful of people and is relevant to the articles for those people. Whether they choose to use it or not isn't a convincing argument, considering we include a lot of information in biographies that their subjects don't use, birth names being one that comes to mind. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Commment since when did an RFC require a bolded sentiment at the front? It's "request for comment" are not the above this "actual RfC responses" comments on the matter in hand? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It improves readability on a high-traffic page with multiple concurrent threads. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't ask what the utility in bolding sentiments was, the comments above this are valid comments on the subject and are every bit a part of the discussion as those without bolded sentiments. There is no reason to discount them merely on the basis of form --82.7.44.178 (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Remove No evidence that it's actually being used, and as such is trivia fluff. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) aA
• Keep: heraldry is notable, and new heraldry is unusual and interesting. I found it rather over the top when a whole expansive section of the article was devoted to the arms, and the relevant thread above was to do with whether to keep that section or not. What we seem to be talking about now is the small illustration with a caption, which is interesting and in my view gives the article a lift. Moonraker2 (talk) 10:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • This was to do with the expansive section, I don't think anyone is bothered by the small illustration. I'm personally indifferent. I assume from this you support the removal of the larger section.--Scott Mac 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Without question heraldry is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. A coat of arms awarded by a ruling monarch can certainly be verified and reliably sourced. I guess I don't understand the issue here as to why, acording to Wikipedia policy, this should not be included. All I see is a bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT which, of course, doesn't count. SeanNovack (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course heraldry is notable enough for Wikipedia - and it is verifiable. What's a question is whether a coat of arms created for her sister ought to be included on the article of all other family members whether they use it or not. Your view on that would be appreciated. It has nothing to do with IDONTLIKE IT - which is actually an overused way of rejecting arguments you don't like without actually answering them.--Scott Mac 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
• Keep per Techno, moonraker2, seannovack. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear. Keep what?--Scott Mac 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep the arms. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but there are two sets being discussed here. The small box with the arms (as currently on the article) is not seriously being contested.--Scott Mac 15:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD is needed

Forget the merge stuff, this article needs to be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Except that it's already passed two AfD's as a Keep - Happysailor ^(Talk) 19:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Holy smokers, what's with this Middleton craze? GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The last decision keep was on 30 April 2011. -- LeoDavid (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, she easily passes the relevant guideline. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Any further deletion discussions at this point would be disruptive.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Business material

I cannot quite believe this, but I have just been accused of disruption [5] and reverted [6] for moving the following information from the 'Early Life' section, over to the empty section on Business interests in the Middleton family article.

In the mid 1980s, when her two eldest children were at a pre-school and the family was living at Bradfield Southend, Middleton's mother set up 'Party Pieces', a company which began by making party bags and which now sells party supplies and decorations by mail order. By 1995 the firm, run by both parents, was so successful that it moved into a range of farm buildings at Ashampstead Common.

The charge is that I am surrepticiously trying to merge this article piece by piece, in apparent subversion of the discussion above. Is there anybody here apart from the reverter who is going to try and defend this position? Because if people are going to play this sort of game, instead of simply assuming good faith and consider that this was a simple case of placing the information where it is most relevant, I can equally start flinging about accusations that the editor reverting is seeking to retain material here which has barely anything to do with the subject, in a tendentious attempt to make this article appear as if it has more content about Pippa than it actually does.

If I've simply been remiss and somehow missed in the extensive coverage everyone argues exists on Pippa, that somewhere someone has written about the effect on the pre-school age Pippa that this decision by her mother to set up a business, and then move it, had on her, such that it warrants noting as part of her 'Early Life', then I will of course most humbly apologise for this error. MickMacNee (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe it presents an important aspect of the subject's background and, as such, belongs here. Whilst that view is arguable, what is clear-cut is that there is a merge discussion in progress and, with absolutely no mandate for a merge forming, you have unilaterally started the process. For that reason, I reverted it and notified you that I considered it to be disruptive. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I said anybody but the reverter. Your view was already clear with your rather spurious warning for disruption and the blind revert. I suggest you simply wait to see if anyone else agrees with you, as I'm already pretty irritated by your blatant failure to assume good faith. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is moot. The material was advertising for a private company, coatracked into an article where it is at best marginally relevant. I have removed it as such. Hans Adler 20:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

With only minor changes, that is part of the article which I put there when I was creating it. I believe it belongs here, because Pippa M. now works for 'Party Pieces', as explained in a later paragraph, and the removal of the information detracts from the reader's ability to follow her career, such as it is. I do not see why it should be called "advertising". Hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles mention the names of companies, when people work for businesses, especially family businesses, their biographies can't do without the information. Almost every entry for a business man or woman in Who's Who or the Dictionary of National Biography includes one or more business names. That is also not "advertising".

I do not wish to line up with the accusation that anyone is doing anything surreptitious. However, copying material to another article is one thing, copying it elsewhere and deleting it here, damaging the flow of the article, isn't something I support, and I shall join RichardOSmith in reinstating what was deleted. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how removing this stuff damaged the flow of the article. I now see that the article never actually mentions the parents' occupation otherwise, and that should of course be fixed. I would do it myself, but I don't know if we have sources indicating that the parents are still running the company. With that information, it should be no problem to replace the second paragraph of the Early life section by a single sentence in the first. That will do more for the flow of the article than this irrelevant stuff. Encyclopedias don't go into excruciating details about parents of barely notable people unless there is something really remarkable to say. Hans Adler 06:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder, could we please have no sneers about "barely notable people"? Two Afds have found PM to be notable, and that is the answer to that question. I do not find the details in question "excruciating". The notability of the parents will I suspect be determined by other Afds, but in any event some details of the family business in which the subject of the article works are essential to an article such as this. Moonraker2 (talk) 06:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the article survived two AfDs only proves that it wasn't possible to get it deleted. It does not prove that she meets our notability standards (although I would not go so far as to say she doesn't), and it certainly doesn't prove that she meets them more than narrowly. As to "excruciating": When the article on a barely notable party planner tries to go into the same level of detail as the article Early life and career of Barack Obama does for the current US president, then someone has clearly lost sight of proportions and of the relative importance of the subjects. This is just the usual cruft that accumulates in pseudo-biographies of people about whom there is practically nothing interesting to say. Hans Adler 09:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This claim is a Mantra. It's all water under the bridge now. -- 78.34.165.158 (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Hardly. The article is still a pseudo-biography. Which is generally considered to be forbidden by WP:BLP. Hans Adler 13:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we get over these deletion wars now?

An article in The New York Times, published today, focuses directly and fully on her. For those who are not American, the NYT is regarded as the US' newspaper of record. I believe this should satisfy anyone looking for reasons that she does not pass WP:GNG... but I could be wrong. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not her notability but the damage we are doing through this pseudo-biography. Almost everything that is written about her is too trivial or too inappropriate to mention in a biography, or would create the problems described under WP:NPF if included. We don't have to have an article on a topic just because it's notable. We have thousands of extremely notable topics that we cover in a related article for organisational reasons. Hans Adler 09:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite a few things written about Dame Edna Everage are also too trivial. Who cares? Of course, crudely nonsense will be returned -- 78.34.165.158 (talk) 13:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing damaging or in violation of WP:BLP. Deleting something because one person thinks it is "too trivial" is a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is not in alignment with the purpose of Wikipedia. Somebody someplace seems to think it is a topic notable enough for inclusion in major newspapers worldwide, so we write about it here. Are there "better" or "higher value" topics to write about other than this? Probably--but that doesn't matter. Wikipedia editors are free to add to the encyclopedia as their enthusiasm, interests, and knowledge fit. While it's true that we don't have to include every topic that could pass the notability bar, on at least two specific occasions (plus the merge discussion above), WP:CONSENSUS has decided to keep this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Or let's be consistent and put the Sun's Page 3 photos on our main page under the fair use clause. Just because a lot of former newspapers have evolved into entertainment publications doesn't mean encyclopedias must follow the trend. We are not about making money, so we don't have to follow the tabloids' trend. Our integrity in this respect is precisely why on most topics we come first on Google, and not the Daily Mail. Hans Adler 18:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph, who have covered most of what's in that piece 3 times already, is also a newspaper of record. While the NYT piece is evidence that she gets coverage, it contains absolutely nothing new - and as such, per the actual guideline, it's not adding anything at all to the largely weak arguments made already. The article even starts with the line: "She has uttered barely a word in public and given precisely one interview". Does that sound like someone who Wikipedia should be hosting borderline biographies on, based largely on the tittle tattle and trivia scraped largely from the gossip sheets? The job of a paper of record like the NYT is to interview the notable people, so that they can act as the reliable secondary sources upon which Wikipedia's tertiary biographies are based on. This piece however turns that completely upside down - their piece here is infact just a sort of review and round up of all the tabloid attention, and thus is arguably bordering on being a tertiary source in itself, and thus useless to Wikipedia. Infact, if one was being overly suspicious given some of the things they've picked up on like the Tatler award and that Sykes quote, one would wonder if the writer didn't just come to Wikipedia instead of doing their own research for even this piece of regurgitation, which would just about cap off this ridiculous idea that Wikipedia biographies supposedly reflect the real world coverage as a tertiary source. MickMacNee (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that since this subject has barely uttered a word and only given one interview, but has managed to have such widespread coverage, then that's a reason to have the article, not to delete the article. That said, I don't know any place in Wikipedia policies or guidelines that state that a person has to give an interview to be notable and included in this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are not proscriptive. I don't know of any policy or guideline that states I cannot use this article to write all about her ass because I am fascinated by it and it got lots of media coverage. It doesn't make it any less of a clueless thing to be doing. You'll find the basic principles in WP:BLP though. While Pippa is not a private person, she has as much rights as anyone else not be to be written about by Wikipedia as if she were public property and is truly notable, when there is absolutely nothing of any substance to be said, except what has been focused on/speculated/made up, by tabloids. Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is not a tabloid. It's an encyclopoedia. That is actually supposed to mean something. Or it used to. Maybe she'll read the article and be so disgusted that people think it's an accurate, fair, balanced representation of her life, that she'll be forced to give more interviews just so it can be made to look less shit. Is that the agenda here? Or are you really going to claim in all seriousness that this piece of rubbish is the sort of thing you would really get, if a truly notable person really had been the subject of "widespread coverage" that was actually in depth and significant, and from reliable sources. MickMacNee (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please get a WP:CLUE. If you are unable to respond to the points made, then don't get involved at all. MickMacNee (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I have responded. You simply do not like the article and it is clear from your comments. Being rude to me won't make me change my mind and think you're right.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You didn't respond in the slightest. If you actually read WP:CIVIL, then you'll realise that when someone replies to a post of yours with the level of depth and reason that I did, and then you respond with a snarky link, then it's you who's being rude. I will repeat, if your sole conrtibution here is to claim I simply 'don't like' the article, then thanks, but no thanks, you might aswell have stayed silent as far as convincing me or anyone else that you've anything serious to offer, let alone can actually address the points made. MickMacNee (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Mick MacNee, would it please be possible to eschew the name-calling? I do not agree that the article is "this piece of rubbish", and I find that lacking in civility to those (including me) who have written it. The reference to "a truly notable person" suggests that PM is not "truly notable", as if there were a difference between "notable" and "truly notable", but there isn't. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant truly notable as in notable according to the objective standard, rigourously defended through logical argument. Not as in 'enough people managed to blindly assert it was notable for it to be kept in Wikipedia'. The fact you don't see it as a piece of rubbish is I'm afraid, the heart of the problem. You really think that this a quality biography? You think that what you've helped to write here really passes not only the BLP policy, but all common sense ideas about what makes a well rounded, balanced, non-trivial, non-tabloid, encyclopoedia article claiming to document someone's life? If you really believe so, then by all means put it up for Good Article status, or even Featured status. Believe me when I say that achieving those standards is, with a bit of elbow grease, an achievable task for article on someone who is truly notable and really has had lots of in depth coverage in reliable sources. For something like this however, not so much. And on Wikipedia, there's nothing incivil or even rude about telling people the truth I'm afraid. MickMacNee (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Good article status is quite feasible for this article. The main difficulty would be stability, given the interest in the topic and the youth of the subject, but it might be stable for six months or so, to qualify. Note that a GA is not required to be long or comprehensive, "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.". Colonel Warden (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's as stable as it's going to get. 10 edits a day, comprising trivial changes and necessary BLP reverts. It frankly wouldn't pass GA if someone like Raul was doing the assessment. Take a look at the career section. Never mind comprehensive, it has just one line that can remotely be described as factualy describing what her 'career' even is. One line! Sure, GA allows short articles, but that's taking the mick if one is claiming its broad in its coverage. Infact, why is all the socialite trivia, hearsay & Tatler accolade even classed as part of the Career section? It's Personal Life if anything. MickMacNee (talk) 22:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Much of that is agreed, MickMacNee, and I previously removed the "Career" heading as I felt the same way about it. Plainly, PM is not notable for her career, which is trivial. Essentially, she is notable for her fame, which relies largely on her connections and allure. The 1920s would have called her an It girl. I suppose you are chafing under that, MickMacNee, but there is nothing new under the sun, and you cannot expect a "serious" article about a serious career which isn't there. An article about a notable It girl is bound to be full of what Dr Johnson called "froth". Moonraker2 (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've zero objection to the idea that someone can be notable for being an it girl. The only issue for me is the complete lack of significant in depth coverage of her as one. And as it turns out below, just giving a simple factually correct representation of what coverage that is out there is apparently a challenge. And even for it girls, there will be aspects of their lives that are 100% trivial. MickMacNee (talk) 23:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Better pics

We should move on from these inmature edit wars on her notabilty and concentrate on improving the article where it lacks most. So, anyone having pics of her with higher resolution? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The sort of people who are willing to take pictures and give them away to Wikipedia do not hang around waiting for talk page requests like this before they upload them. And if you want to add free pictures you haven't taken yourself, you can do what everyone else does and search for them on the appropriate licences, although I can guarantee that's already been done by several people already, many times over. Until someone takes one and donates it, or finds a free one, we are going to have to make do with what we have. And it's not like it brings down the overall quality is it? A low quality pic that doesn't really show her true likeness and looks like it was taken from far away and without her knowledge rather fits the theme of the whole biography quite fittingly. Of course, if her likeness was even a tenth as iconic and notable in the world of fashion/society etc as has been claimed, fair use of a sufficient quality non-free image could be claimed, but the coverage that would actually support that idea simply doesn't exist either. MickMacNee (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for better pictures, as and when someone donates them, but in the mean time pictures are not essential and I think what we have will do for now. Moonraker2 (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Personal life" should be removed

This article is full of items of trivia, spun from passing mentions is highly unreliable sources, pastiched in by weasel wording and very poor original reseach. I have removed some of the worst offences, only to have them reinstated. You simply can't responsibly do this on a BLP.

The following ought to be removed:

1. "In 2009, Middleton took up tobogganing on the Cresta Run at St Moritz, with the multi-millionaire Trevor Baines as her instructor". The source (which is not about her at all) actually says in passing "Baines has also taught beginner tobogganists on the Cresta Run in the millionaire-playground of St Moritz – including, he claimed, Pippa Middleton". Even the Scotsman newspaper is not actually claiming this is true, and even if she did taking a lesson, that does not equal saying that an important fact is that she "took up tobogganing" (which implies an ongoing interest) in 2009.
2. She is also a good shot and in 2008 shot twenty-three game birds in a day in Scotland. Middleton actually said "my modest 23 wasn’t so good actually and I found the partridge quite disconcerting, they are so small,’ - the Daily Mail may call this a good shot, but they are hardly an authority on shooting. Basically, we are stating as a fact, something the subject has denied. In any case, this source is not suggesting that a pertinent fact about Pippa is that she's keen and regular shooter - which is what we are implying.
3. For several years on Burns Night, Middleton has carried the haggis, accompanied by bagpipes, into a pub called the Old Boot Inn at Stanford Dingley in Berkshire. Trivial in the extreme. A one line example in a tabloid is not a basis for stating this as a pertinent fact.
4. She was reported in 2010 to be dating the City trader and former England cricketer Alex Loudon. This is borderline. But "was reported" is weasel wording.
5. After her sister's wedding, The New Zealand Herald reported that she and Loudon were "all but engaged" What the fuck? The New Zealand Herald did not report this, it said "she is reportedly engaged". Which means they are simply repeating something reported in some unspecified place. Hearsay of the worse order. And what does "all but engaged mean anyway". All we've got here is that someone (who knows who, and who knows if they have a clue) said it, and the NZH repeated it. This is waaaaay below verification for a BLP.

Basically, absolutely nothing here stands up to scrutiny, and all of it is unfit for inclusion in a BLP.--Scott Mac 23:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The sources are not "highly unreliable", and there is no "original reseach". I see nothing "below verification". In dealing with an It girl article, such "trivia", if you insist on the word, are almost inevitably at the heart of it. Little that is about a "serious" career can be said. The subject is notable mostly for fame, not for professional excellence. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

If there's biographical material about her social life, fine. But you can't trawl passing mentions in newspapers, carelessly taken them out of context, and give the impression that proper biographical information exists. This is utterly unacceptable. --Scott Mac 23:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I think you have made some valid points above about what can be relied upon in the sources, but I do not agree that the whole section is contrary to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I shall work up a revised version and perhaps it will address your concerns. If I may say so, the extreme rhetoric of "full of shit" is not helping this discussion. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The 'Sunday newspaper' referred to in this story is the Mail. Bearing that in mind, can we please drop this pretence that for BLP articles, that paper, and anything else like it, is not anything other than completely unreliable. And fwiw I totally support this removal, I hadn't even realised half the stuff Scott has uncovered here. So much for this being a potential GA. MickMacNee (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scott MacDonald's criticisms under (1) and (2) and have corrected those passages as suggested under a new header, "Sports". I don't agree that the Daily Mail is "completely unreliable" but do accept that references to papers like the Times, the Telegraph, the Independent the Guardian and the New York Times are preferred when available. I think we can leave out (3) for now. As Scott MacDonald implies, (4) needs rewording and (5) needs a better citation. Moonraker2 (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You are trying to make bricks without straw. Tabloids record that she want shooting one - so bloody what? You want to turn it into a biographical item! Most of the "sources" are just reheating trivia. If there are not proper biographical sources you can't write a biography - stop trying.--Scott Mac 01:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Pam Sykes? Who is she? What are her qualifications? Why is her opinion notable? You can't just pick up a nice quote and use it. Can you demonstrate that Pam Sykes's opinions of Pippa Middleton are noteworthy.--Scott Mac 01:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This whole article should've been deleted, but does anybody listen to my wisdom (-it past 2 afds)? nope. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay, you have lost that argument.

Scott Mac, thank you for the question about Plum Sykes. In this instance, her main qualification is that she is one of the few British authors who is an insider in the world inhabited by PM (the 'New York Times calls her a "society writer" on the page linked below) so her assessment is an informed one. As to whether it is notable, it has certainly been quoted in more than one place - here are some links to just a few of the pages which quote that passage: Daily Telegraph; New York Times; People; Yahoo; Daily Mail.

I'm taking out the "is full of shit" in this header, I don't think it helps our discussion here. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember that. -- LeoDavid (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a single part of this section that is not discussing the article's content directly. Slapping this template here was completely unjustified. MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 $5M offer to appear in an adult film

When a person is offered more money than most families make in their lifetimes for one scene in an adult film because of an appearance in a notable event, that is a notable fact. The fact itself is reliably sourced, and it was included as a two sentance addition to a section in the body of the article. It appears that the fact is notable, that it was reliably sourced, and that it was not given undue weight in the article. The only reason I see it was deleted was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I will not add it again without discussion here, but please gove your reasoning (as per Wikipedia policy) why it does not belong. Thanks! SeanNovack (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Because it has nothing to do with Pippa Middleton and everything to do with a publicity stunt by some adult film makers. This type of thing happens periodically, celebrities are made these offers (always publicly - with a press release) and there's no reason to believe they are realisticly expected to accept them. If there's a public reponse from Middleton, then you can probably include that. Until then, put it in the article on the film-maker under "publicity stunts".--Scott Mac 12:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

And they have chosen their timing well. The way the tabloid press works, they first write someone up until nobody wants to read about them any more, and then they write them down again. Apparently that phase has already started with the improperly published party pictures. All of this has rarely if ever any connection to the person themselves, although some of the subjects have an interest in being in the media. (This one probably not so much, as her relatives may not be amused.) Hans Adler 12:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This content is self promotional soapboxing and coat-racking onto a living person that is far away for anything to do with this offer - add it to the Vivid article as it is about them not this subject. Its a disgusting suggestion for an addition to this WP:BLP. - and from someone who has reviewer status.Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not hell-bent in getting this included and would be fine if it were not. I was asking a legitimate question about Wikipedia policy from an established editor and administrator about something that appears at first blush to be completely legitimate (leaving aside the subject matter and just going by policy). I've already stated that I wouldn't re-add it and that I was looking for the reasoning why it was being removed. From the bitey tone of some of the responses and summaries I'm reading though, I strongly suggest people take a very deep breath and assume good faith, especially with established editors that are not frequent contributors to the article. SeanNovack (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You are far from the first editor adding tabloid rubbish to this article, and some of it is actually still in the article. So patience is wearing a bit thin. Not your fault, of course, but it explains what happened. Hans Adler 13:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It isn't about good faith, it is about poor judgement. We are handling BLPs, and we need seasoned editors, admins and reviewers to have care and good judgement about what goes in - otherwise we smear living people with gossip and salacious trivia. I think we are just all a bit taken aback that someone with reviewer rights thought for a moment that this was suitable material.--Scott Mac 13:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Be aware that this is being reported in very reliable sources on this side of the pond, the Chicago Sun-Times [7], Minneapolis StarTribune[8], New York Daily News [9] and many others. This may well be "tabloid rubbish", and "self-promotional soapboxing", but it is getting a lot of ink in reliable sources over here. I've already had comments on my talk page about this and now my reviewer's status is suspect because of a reasoned question? I asked for specific Wikipedia policies and still haven't received an answer. WP:BLP has strict rules, yes, but when that many reliable sources report an event I feel the response I've received is a serious overreaction. My addition was factual and completely NPOV, and yet somehow it is judged as "disgusting" and dismissed as "poor judgement". Like I said, I could care less if it is there or not, but people really need to tone it down. Quote specific policy, not opinion. SeanNovack (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about a reasoned question, if you had asked here first that would have been preferable indeed. - You added it to a BLP and published it via Wikipedia to the WWW - you though it was a correct thing to add to a BLP - it clearly wasn't and it had to be removed....nuff said. Sadly your comments are a reflection of one of the current mistakes users have the idea about wikipedia that they can add anything they find that has a citation. All leading to the reasoned thought that if you would add this yourself you would also accept such additions from unconfirmed accounts to other articles about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What belongs in an article is not determined solely by policies, but by good judgement. It isn't a case of "everything verifiable goes in unless someone can show me a rule against it". The demand for a rule here simply demonstrates your inability to make good calls. But if you want a policy, see WP:NOTNEWS. Just because something is reported in a newspaper doesn't make it encyclopedic. And the fact that 50 other newspapers pick it up doesn't change that. See WP:OTTO. Newspapers regurgitate stories that sell - and seven days later everyone forgets them. Now, if Pippa responds to the offer, then the story might have legs. But that's highly unlikely. for now, this is a story about publicity seeking and opportunism by the film company, the identity of the celebrity used is incidental, and will change next month. --Scott Mac 14:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

“ Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. (from WP:NOTNEWS) ”

First off, thank you for that policy quote. Simply including that policy in your original reversion edit summary would have saved a lot of questions. Second, and with all due respect, what belongs in an article is based on consensus and policy. I believe I asked politely for a policy, as opposed to making a demand. I'm trying to stay polite, but I'm brushing up against a lot of very hot tempers and again I urge everyone to tone it down. Scott, your continued personal attack on my "poor judgement" and my "inablilty to make good calls" is not appreciated. If I made a mistake, then by all means I'm happy to admit that and move forward. I did not edit war, I asked for comment. I did not insult, I urged restraint. I can certainly accept, given the policy that you cite, that there is a valid reason for not including this fact and to be frank I don't care enough to argue it. Thank you for that. However, the way in which you handled this situation was ham-handed at best, and I would expect an administrator to know better. Calm down. SeanNovack (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone with reviewer rights should not have to be asking such questions with regard to BLP. I am calm, but I'm seriously considering whether you should have those rights.--Scott Mac 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll just add my voice to those here saying that this content should definitely not be included. As Scott MacDonald says above, it's nothing to do with Pippa Middleton; it belongs in the Vivid Entertainment article if anywhere, not here. Now, if she were to actually accept the offer, that would be notable and worth mentioning; but I think it's safe to say that's not even remotely likely to happen. Robofish (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scott Mac on this matter, but I agree with him more than Off2riorob and Robofish do. As Scott Mac says, "otherwise we smear living people with gossip and salacious trivia". If Robofish were right and this material "belongs in the Vivid Entertainment article", it would still be gossip and salacious trivia and PM would still be smeared. If SeanNovack did make a mistake, it seems clear it was made in good faith, but given the suggestion by two other editors that the material can be included elsewhere in Wikipedia I am surprised by the focus and depth of criticism aimed at SeanNovack. To say "Someone with reviewer rights should not have to be asking such questions... I'm seriously considering whether you should have those rights" is surely to threaten the loss of reviewer status. Aimed at someone who has done his best to discuss the question and to listen to others, this strikes me as pretty aggressive. For the avoidance of doubt, my own view is that this affair is no more than a stunt and is best not included anywhere. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a threat. His reviewer right has since been revoked.--Scott Mac 00:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I find that very harsh treatment. It still seems to me to have been a threat, except that it was one which was carried out. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Moonraker. I appreciate the sentiment. It was a good-faith edit and I was shocked at the animus it produced to the point that I made an AN/I report on it [10]. I volunteered to surrender my reviewer rights if the community judged me in the wrong. My report boomeranged and so those rights were revoked. SeanNovack (talk) 02:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sean, and I withdraw the criticism of Scott Mac in my last post. Still, the whole thing is unhappy. There is a humourless intensity here which in my view does far more harm than good. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It was that exact sentiment that I was hoping to address in the AN/I. Put simply: I was asking for reasoning/clarification on why my edit was deleted, others here thought it was self-evident and that I was in the wrong for asking. The situation obviously blew up quickly, and after the AN/I rather than continue to try to beat a dead horse I thought it better to simply drop it. Losing reviewer status isn't going to cause me to slit my wrists, and I don't live and die by what is on Wikipedia.

I felt the fact was notable. If you read my exact edit [11] it fit into the section nicely, given the fact that the sentence before addresses job offers she would be "getting hurled at her" because of her appearance in the wedding, and this offer was made for that stated reason. Having seen the fact reported in several reliable sources I decided to add it in, but I was very sloppy in my sourcing and didn't pay attention to the fact that I was putting in a redirect from the CNN site that went to some gossip site (I also saw it in my daily perusal of the Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis StarTribune, FOX News, New York Daily News, Kansas City Star, as well as the aforementioned CNN).

I made a mistake, and it can be argued (though I disagree) that it was in adding the fact in the first place. Usually there is a policy of editing boldly (as I said: the fact that it is "being reported" is verifiable in multiple reliable sources and the language was written in an NPOV way that fit the section around it, thus satisfying WP:BLP) and if there is an issue discuss it - which I was happy to do rather than edit war. I will accept the fact that on an article that has had significant vandalism it would be more prudent to ask on talk before making an edit, but I feel there was a serious overreaction here.

I'll pay better attention to my sourcing in the future, and when working on BLP's I'll be sure to address potential edits on the talk page before adding them. That's my take-away. My hope is that the people who edit here regularly will in the future be more likely to engage and explain (Which is how this thread did in fact start, but quickly degenerated. I'd have appreciated a simple "you may want to check that source". It was my mistake and my responsibility, but when a person has their fly open it's polite to mention it to them) rather than make pronouncements about an editor's judgement. I can't do anything more about that, but at least I know which editors to avoid in the future. SeanNovack (talk) 13:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

When someone quotes the WP:NOTNEWS policy, they are always wrong. They are always misapplying it. The Sun-Times article cited is a reliable source, giving biographical information:

While a friend of Pippa’s says she was understandably “freaked out” by the alleged pitch for her to pose nude, she is also likely to decline any and all commercial offers — strongly influenced by advice from Buckingham Palace.

“She will never knowingly do anything to embarrass her sister or Prince William,” said someone-in-the-know.

That's not a statement about an adult porn producer, that's genuine biographical information about the subject of the article. And it invites more penetrating questions, such as how does Buckingham Palace discourage her from commercial involvement?

I say SeanNovack was right to include this reference. And I say that in what I've followed of the Great Pending Changes Debacle, I have never seen any statement before this that reviewers are required to throw out perfectly good Sun-Times articles because they sound unflattering. I've seen statements in that discussion ranging from "PC is a quick check for vandalism" to "do what you can to keep out libel". Due in part to the failure to establish exactly what PC is for, it has since been inactivated per an RfC, and so I don't see what it had to do with this discussion.

I would further say that Wikipedia should continue to include all reliably sourced information, including Fair Use reproduction of the topless photos discussed in a recent AP wire.^[12] We are academic researchers looking to set down the available facts about every topic, and we should cover the facts as diligently about those associated with British royalty as we would about those associated with Gaddafi or Saddam Hussein. We are not sycophants looking for favor from wealthy Western elites. Wnt (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The idea that we publish topless paparazzi photos under the fair use clause is so far outside the acceptable range (even ignoring the obvious fact that they are extremely unlikely to fall under fair use in the first place) that I can only interpret this comment as asking for your reviewer status to be revoked because you hope to turn this into momentum against pending changes. As I am not an admin I can't help you with that myself. Why don't you ask Jimbo? I think he will be very happy to oblige you. Who knows? With some luck you might even be indeffed as an obvious BLP time bomb. Hans Adler 20:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave the indeffing to Jimbo, but the above post is either a troll, or an amazing sign of cluelessness. Reviewer rights removed.--Scott Mac 21:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear - you have crossed the Rubicon here. Without any policy in place about what reviewing is supposed to be, you claim unilateral authority to decide who has these rights based on what they believe policy should be. You have taken a free encyclopedia that was supposed to work without censorship and without bureaucracy, and you're trying to turn it into someone's public relations agency.

Just for mathematical completeness, is there someplace where someone can contest the removal of reviewer rights? Wnt (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, Wnt, I agree with Scott Mac about this issue, but it seems to me your main "offence" was to make a reasoned argument for a different interpretation of policy. The removal of reviewer rights looks like a punishment for holding a point of view which is open to discussion, and not for an action in mainspace. I see no reason why you can't complain at ANI, but per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Discuss with the other party I suggest the first thing is to open a conversation with Scott Mac on his talk page to establish what has happened and why and to ask him to reconsider. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Pippapedia

There was a large double-page spread about our subject in the Evening Standard today in which they compiled lots of facts in what they called their Pippapedia. There's lots there including some nicknames like Panface and P-Middy. I like the cheese on toast bit myself. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Good god. It's like parody of a Wikipedia biography. Fences&Windows 23:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

removable

I still don't understand why some of this stuff is in here. I'm guessing it's considered "harmless" as it doesn't mention buttocks or porn... so I list it

• A skier, in March 2008 she joined her sister Kate and Prince William for a skiing holiday in Switzerland.

She went on vacation!!! Really?

Source: look.co.uk

• She has also tobogganed down the 1,212-metre (3,976 ft) Cresta Run ice skeleton racing track at St Moritz

Source: FHM (wtf?)

What makes look.co.uk and FHM good sources for this BLP? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup, these should go. They are not reliable sources.--Scott Mac 08:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Question how is FHM not considered a reliable source? I'm not saying I'm a subscriber or a fan...--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

External link

It's amazing that people are opposed to mentioning what was considered "teenage boys drooling over her" or some such — but the external link is a slide-show basically serving that purpose... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}--Scott Mac 08:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

*sigh* Yes, normally, I would, but for some strange reason, I feel the need to ask for permission. Understandable? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Understandable. I was close to doing it myself when I removed the spamblog link that was also there, but felt that it was borderline. I also agree with removing mentioning ski vacations and statements by random multi-millionaires who claim to know her. Hans Adler 09:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture Scandal

I see no reason why my two sentences about her picture scandal need to be removed, especially since they are well sourced from The Telegraph, Fox News, and CNN and contribute to the article maintaining a neutral point of view in that it doesn't only portray Pippa in a positive light. Per Wikipedia:Avoiding_harm#Neutral_point_of_view "The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources)." The information I presented in my edit seen here was well sourced and fairly represents (without bias) significant information that has been widely covered by reliable sources, and thus should be included on the page. --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep it out. We're not a gossip rag. It isn't encyclopedic...it is just gratuitous sensationalism. It is an insignificant view so that the jackals you named can sell copy....they make money from it which is why they are carrying it. We are not the news. This wouldn't be in a respectable encyclopedia which is what we strive to be.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

What does WP:NOTNEWS have to do with this? I am not asking for an entire article devoted to the scandal - just a few well-sourced sentences about the scandal. If major news sources such as The Telegraph and CNN are covering it, it is obviously more than just "gratuitous sensationalism" - you could argue that about any negative thing said about a person in any news source. However, the info is well-sourced and highly covered and in the interest of maintaining a neutral POV on this article, I see no reason why such information should be discluded simply because some people don't like it. (Please note: In the interest of WP:AGF I want to clarify that I am not saying that you specifically just don't like it, but that seems to be the basis of arguments against this information's inclusion - that people don't like the information so they don't think it should be included, regardless of the quality of sources or the maintenance of neutrality on the articles). --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep it out. It is trivial, tasteless and detracts from the article as if there is some sort of scandal. Nasnema  Chat  06:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep it out. Not encyclopedic, not least because it's a natural consequence of the situation. Of course the "prince marries commoner" story is followed by paparazzi photo stories about the commoner's family. Some related reading: Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and, for its interpretation in this context, von Hannover v Germany. These pseudo-newspapers are breaking the law because it pays. But as they are routinely doing so it's not even worth noting except perhaps as an example in an article that discusses the problem. No particular relevance to the subject. Hans Adler 09:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact the photos were published may have no particular relevance to the subject but a widely reported official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission ([13], [14]) by the Middleton family and any judgement (and potentially law suit) that follows (and is reported in reliable sources) could be considered noteworthy and relevant - Basement12 (T.C) 11:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No. That's no more relevant than getting a parked car destroyed by a drunk driver or anything similar, i.e. not encyclopedic at all. Once they get to the last instance or something it might be worth mentioning, but not now. Hans Adler 14:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that greatly depends on whether the drunk driver is four national newspapers read by millions. But I do agree (and was trying to make the point before) that inclusion or not depends on the outcome of/fallout from the complaint - Basement12 (T.C) 14:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Charter '08 was illegal, but we still cover it. Wnt (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad example- Charter '08 could be considered as an historically significant move against a repressive regime (I emphasise the word could) which brought reaction from a number of governments across the world. If Barack and Angela start commenting on photos of a scantily clad Pippa Middleton then we may as well give up on writing an article on her as the world is almost certainly doomed - Basement12 (T.C) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Include, but rework. The edit includes sources that say some interesting and biographical things, such as that MI5 may already be involved, and that the purple party bra picture might have been worth $10 - $50K. There can be no doubt that these pictures are relevant to Pippa Middleton, how she is perceived in society, and above all... how she regards her 'friends' in the future. Unfortunately, a lot of things are said as rumor and speculation - we want to restrict what we say to those things which are presented as true by a reliable source. And it is necessary to avoid ambiguity, such as the term "topless photo" where what is meant is a picture in a bra or bikini. There is a real topless photo going around, which looks like it's by someone with a really long lens who caught her changing on a yacht, but it's important to make that as clear as can be accomplished using reliable sources without WP:OR. We don't want something that gives the impression she got drunk and showed off her lovely figure at a party. Wnt (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the guideline for biographies of living people says that they should be written conservatively and an important principle is do no harm. So somebody might have a long-distance shot of her topless. Big deal! PatGallacher (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about a long-distance shot of her topless. This is about photographs of her in a bra leaked to the press by friends, which the Middleton family responded to by taking legal action, resulting in the removal of the images from circulation. The do no harm principle states "The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources)." [emphasis added] This information is reliably sourced by The Telegraph, BBC, CNN, and Fox News. I see no policy-based reason to keep it out. It doesn't matter if it reflects negatively on Pippa or anyone else; the fact is it's a big deal because the Middleton family responded, legal action was taken and the pictures removed. Multiple reliable sources confirm this. Where is the policy-based reason for keeping it out? Because even the page about avoiding harm backs up my position here. --Zoeydahling (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Zoeydahling, you say "It doesn't matter if it reflects negatively on Pippa or anyone else", but it does matter. If something "reflects negatively" on someone, then it damages his or her reputation, and if it does that while they are alive it is defamation. (That's one reason why the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy refers to "living persons": the dead are not protected by the law.) As the policy says, "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." That policy does not exclude true and accurate reporting of a subject's own negative actions, but the information we are talking about here seems to fit fairly neatly into what the policy says. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not necessarily defamation just because it reflects negatively on someone. The problem is that here obsessive monitoring of a person turns totally innocuous things into something that is presented as a scandal by certain popular media, even though very obviously it is no such thing. There is nothing wrong with saying that George W. Bush was responsible for torture and for wars that were unrelated to their official stated purposes. Although slightly more personal and not directly related to politics in the strictest sense, it's also very much OK to say that the doctoral thesis of Germany's previous defence minister was shamelessly plagiarised. But it's very wrong to invade someone's privacy for no good reason at all, and there is absolutely no excuse for an encyclopedia to follow the unconscionable mass media that are doing so. Hans Adler 09:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your later comments, Hans Adler, although in this discussion I think it's more a question of interpreting policy than of moral correctness. Your "not necessarily defamation just because it reflects negatively on someone" is wrong in the UK context, although it would be correct under other legal systems. The lead of the English Wikipedia article on defamation says today "the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image." I find that muddled, but "a statement... that may give an individual... a negative image" is broadly correct in English law. The essence is "damage to reputation", and in England that can be caused by as little as a gesture. Moonraker2 (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Reading a bit further in the article, the UK has actually the normal restrictions in place: "Allowable defenses are justification (the truth of the statement), fair comment (whether the statement was a view that a reasonable person could have held), and privilege (whether the statements were made in Parliament or in court, or whether they were fair reports of allegations in the public interest). [...] A defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth." The lead of that article also says: "Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person." That's precisely what paparazzi and the media are doing here. And while they are making money with it, we are not and have no justification to risk proceedings against the WMF for publishing unencyclopedic stuff. Hans Adler 00:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia would have no chance of claiming any privilege. In practice, if you are sued for defaming someone in England, claiming justification of any kind carries a high risk. You need to satisfy the jury that the person who claims to have been damaged is in some way at fault. If you can't do that, you end up paying two lots of costs, as well as damages, of course, which are driven up by the adverse publicity of the failed justification. Curious that the defamation article deals with "public disclosure of private facts", which is really another subject, but we broadly agree here. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I never said that Wikipedia was immune to censorship by various means (though the U.S. is waking up to the abuses of international libel lawsuits from Britain, and taking actions to exclude them). The issue is, if there's some valid belief that the article must be censored, then it should at least be done so openly, not misrepresented as some natural consequence of Wikipedia policy or journalistic ethics. The regime may want a "spontaneous demonstration of support"; I want the international observers to see the machine guns at our backs. But before we conclude that things have gone that far, I think we should ask why it is that the American media - even the British media - seem willing to report on these things, if they are supposed to be "libel"? Wnt (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• Keep it out. It is neither scandalous nor encyclopedic. It does not reflect poorly on her (perhaps a reason to include it) but on wikipedia. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it does not reflect poorly on her, but it does reflect what life is like for someone in this situation. Isn't that the whole purpose of biography, to let people know how it is to be there? Wnt (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Not for living people, and certainly not for barely notable living people. From the lead of WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: [...]." Regard for the subject's privacy doesn't just mean that we don't install a webcam in her bathroom. It would be pointless to regulate that in the policy as it's criminal anyway. Hans Adler 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hans Adler that we need to apply the BLP policy so that we do not treat living subjects as the tabloids do. Perhaps the key words are "conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy". As ever, I part company with him on "barely notable". We do not measure notability in degrees, notable is notable. In any event, the BLP policy must surely apply to the treatment of all living people, whether they are notable or not. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The main point I wanted to make with "barely notable", and which I didn't make well, is that while many politicians and pop stars have a symbiosis with the tabloid press and feed it information just to be mentioned more often (even if it's sometimes negatively), we have no reason to believe this is the case here. The subject's privacy is being invaded by the press just because she is reasonably attractive and her sister married someone important. Hans Adler 21:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Keep it out of little significance and in violation of WP:BLP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

• It may be helpful to international contributors to address this not in terms of the law of libel but the legal protection of personal rights. In the US such thinking is necessarily framed by the US Constitution, and the 1st amendment right to freedom of speech (borrowed of course from the English 1698 Rights Act). In Europe the balance of judicial interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights has tended to place higher importance in this context on the article 8 right to privacy and family life. To get right away from Pippa Middleton, take the hypothetical case of a film star whose (ex) sexual partner seeks to sell a story (with recordings to verify it) about her sexual preferences. The attitude in the US is that freedom of speech is paramount, and that it is up to her to buy him off. In Europe priority tends to privacy; though countries vary the French courts would not permit it and that is the current approach in the British courts. No matter how boring, inadequate, and unsatisfactory our activities in the bedroom the courts say that is between us and our partner. And if a woman chooses to sunbathe topless, if she has a reasonable expectation of being hidden from public gaze photographs ought not be published. It's no good talking about rights as an absolute concept here. Wikipedia needs to be sensitive to the conflicts (and the temptation to say the servers are in the US so US law rules will not do in an encyclopedia that is and aspires to be international). It isn't enough to say that Wikipedia is only covering the controversy if in doing so it is necessary to explain what the story is about. The BLP principles of proportionality and balance are needed, and the question of whether it really belongs in an encyclopedic biography of the person. AJHingston (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, here's the part I'm having a problem with. It seems that everyone is responding to the idea that we include that pictures of Pippa were released in the press, with no acknowledgement that this is not a matter of talking about the pictures; it is a matter of talking about that the pictures were released and her response to it.

Look at Kate's article: "Catherine's status as the undeclared girlfriend of William brought her widespread media coverage in Britain and abroad and she was often photographed on her daily outings. On 17 October 2005, she complained through her lawyer about harassment from the media, stating that she had done nothing significant to warrant such publicity.[37]" This sentence has remained in Catherine's article and is from 2005, before she and William were even engaged, so it's hard to claim that she was any more of a private figure than Pippa, who has appeared in one of the most watched weddings in the world. Either way though, the article includes that inappropriate pictures were taken of her, the Middleton family took action, and the picture-taking was reduced. How is this any different from posting in Pippa's articles based on a number of reliable sources that inappropriate pictures of Pippa were released, the Middleton family responded with legal action, and the pictures were removed from circulation? Once legal action was taken I believe that we are well-justified in mentioning it in her bio.

Other examples of even more extreme cases might be seen in Tiger Woods, where allegations of infidelity are posted based on claims in the National Enquirer. It was later backed up by reliable sources and Tiger responded, thus making it worthy of an entire section of his article. You might also look at Rob Lowe's article, which talks about his sex tape scandal. Now it may have just been gossip had it been reported in tabloids, but it was widely reported in reliable sources, and then Rob made a statement about it. Once a person makes a statement or takes legal action of some sort in response to a controversy, it is no longer a matter of the press invading their privacy. It becomes a matter of verified public interest and something that in the interest of WP:NPOV should be covered, since we are not here simply to portray Pippa, or anyone else in a simply positive and/or negative light. We are an encyclopedia, and should cover all facets of the subjects of our articles.

And based on the examples I provided, I am having a hard time with the argument that it's just press invasion of her privacy and shouldn't be included in her article. It is past that stage. The Middleton family has taken legal action. Precedent for this type of inclusion has been shown above. It seems like no one here is responding to the entire issue at hand; just that they don't like that pictures of Middleton were released, and in spite of the repercussions, they believe that it does not deserve mentioning on this page. That just reeks of bias to me and I would appreciate if the people who believe that this story does not deserve inclusion would address the legal repercussions resulting from the pictures, not just the pictures themselves. Because as I read through the comments, the rationale for removing the sentences about the pictures seem to stem only from people’s personal views about the pictures. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It's trivia, so it would at most be suffered in a biography, but never required. In BLP articles such trivia should not be suffered at all, per WP:BLP: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." The point where we start to mention such trivia is where they actually affect the subject's life. In this case the sources would support saying that there is currently a media circus about her that invades her privacy, and I guess the article should say that. But the details of this media circus are entirely unsurprising and have no place in a conservatively written biography. Hans Adler 03:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And how do you determine what trivia is/is not? Once something becomes widely covered by a variety of reliable sources, doesn't that take it away from the realm of trivia? And once something so drastically infringes on someone's rights that they take legal action, that results in information (in this case the pictures) being taken out of circulation, doesn't that take it out of the realm of trivia? Who gets to decide what is trivia here? With a number of sources covering the scandal and the subsequent legal action, coupled with the precedent set in numerous articles, including that of her sister's, how is this a case of non-notable trivia? BLPs should be written conservatively, but they should also offer an unbiased, neutral view (per WP:NPOV) of the major points of the subject's life, and with the information I have provided above, I hardly see how this could be anything but relevant and worthy of inclusion. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Excessive details about the personal lives of subjects who don't go out of their way to make these details public, and which stand in no reasonable relation to the subjects' importance, are always trivia. WP:BLP is very clear that we don't victimise victims further. We don't routinely exacerbate privacy violations by reporting about them. For that they need to reach an encyclopedic dimension. The general problem with the Middleton articles is that somehow every scrap of information looks noteworthy because compare to everything else it isn't really worse. That's because the Middleton's aren't actually notable and the articles are policy violations. It's not an excuse to fill them with privacy-invading trivia. Hans Adler 03:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)