Wikipedia:Dirty laundry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained primarily for historical interest. Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason."
If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.


Wikipedia needs a policy on dirty laundry. YOU can help formulate this policy.

Should we mention the youthful indiscretions of famous people, or not? How about not-so-youthful indiscretions?

My POV on this: Richard Wagner held contemptible views, and appears to have been an obnoxious person. At the same time, he wrote remarkable music. We should only report facts (when there is consensus) and opinions (where there is controversy). Wagner's views are a matter of record, their obnoxiousness an almost universal opinion about those views. Similiarly with the fact of his composition of his works, and the almost universal opinion that they are great works of music. All of these are significant facts and opinions about Wagner, and thus fitting encylopedia material. Similar reasoning applies to the other cases: just report the facts and opinions.The Anome

Tell it all. Give readers the chance to realize that no one is perfect. You can't make an informed opinion when information is withheld from you. Wikipedian's NPOV will probably show the bad points in a moderate and inoffensive way. User:TomCerul

It's a matter of emphasis. We can certainly talk about the contemptible moral actions of famous people, and should not withhold such information, but this shouldn't occupy most of the article, because these are not the facts we consider most important about these people. Derrick Coetzee 17:44, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We should only include "dirty laundry" if it relates to why is this person is important. If it did not have significant impact, then it is just trivia. For example, did Wagner's views on Judaism influence his contemporaries? Did it inspire later generations? Did it affect his music? There are plenty of anti-semites who do not have Wikipedia entries. Matthew Simoneau 20:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

VERY IMPORTANT Don't put it in the intro! Put the dirty laundry stuff farther down in the article the less signifigant it is. If its real important, maybe in the 1st paragraph after the intro, but never in the intro! I can't stand when people do that, its completely unfair. Sam [Spade] 21:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We need to make sure that any "dirty laundry" is presented with proper respect to it's authoritivenes, too. There's a difference between talking about Martin Luther King Jr.'s adultery, which is documented, and most of the checkout line tabloid accusations of most celebs. That being said, I think it is important to cover all of the documented attributes of somebody, good and bad, so a certain amount of dirty laundry, treated respectfully, is a good thing. Unfortunately, such things are more value judgements than quantifiable rules, although concentrating on dirty laundry can be called a NPOV violation. --Wirehead 23:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Richard Wagner was a hit-and-run driver.
  • Martin Luther King, Jr. used to gas while having dinner with friends.
  • Sun Myung Moon is a terrible musician.

So what?

Do you want Richard Wagner to teach you how to drive? Do you want Martin Luther King, Jr. to teach you table manners? Do you wan Sun Myung Moon to teach you everything about classical music but you are afraid to ask?

Come on, if they were not the kind of person required by the society to do something right, the thing they had done wrong was not worthy to mention. You may argue Rev. King, a servant of God, was not supposed to fuck other people's woman. OK, possibly true. You may argue Rev. Moon, another servant of God, was not supposed to be caught by a pilice. I think you may have a point. But what about Richard Wagner? He was nothing but a musician. If you don't ask him how to run your business, if you don't ask him how to keep your country's budget under control, if you don't hire him to build a space rocket, why do you care about his racial view?

So what? He was nothing but an entertainer who died over 100 years ago.

People are nuts when they go witch hunt. -- Toytoy 14:43, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Notability and notoriety are a big thing here. Wagner's antisemitism made him a darling of the Third Reich, while King's adultery had no further consequences. One has to be careful and selective with dirty laundry. JFW | T@lk 11:11, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Food for thought: MLK, Jr.'s adultery might be looked at as notable because it has been exploited as such. i.e., while he was alive, King's enemies tried to smear him as a Communist and an adulterer; now the Communism charge is mostly forgotten but the adultery is still waved about. Both charges, both the one with little factual basis and the one that did have some, were used in the same way. Wouldn't that give them similar notability? -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All interesting notable dirty laundry should be mentioned, but its clear that Richard Wagner anti-semitism should be promenently mentioned, as it relates to his fame, but his (hypothetical?) hit-and-run driving should not be given prominence, as it does not. Wirehead is right that one needs a basis beyond tabloids for the dirty laundry. Various early rumors about Clinton which were made up by conservatives is a similar non-tabloid example; although I doubt it currently gets much mention next to the real Lewinsky (sp?) affair. MLK's gas should definitely be include. Whats the point of an encyclopedia anyone can edit if it doesn't tell me that MLK gassed in front of guests.  ;) - 134.214.102.33 14:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/r/Wikipedia%7EDirty_laundry_2869.html"