# Talk:Brien Taylor

Seems I remember that he was profiled on 60 minutes before his career took a downturn.  That would be somewhat interesting to pursue if correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 

This section was quite a bit too rich in light of WP:BLP. We have way too much about about the person's activities and issues after his baseball career was over. What people do after they retire from the activities for which they are notable is peripheral. Sometime it's OK to include details about their family, hobbies, or whatever later in life, but its not important either, and it's OK to not include them, and let's not Herostratus (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Herostratus, no, his [redacted] is a big part of his biography, and has been written about extensively. Removing it renders the biography incomplete. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
You have to include refs for any allegations, even here (WP:BLP opens with "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" [emphasis in original] and later says "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts."). On that ground I edited your comment, you can restore if you add a ref here ("It was in all the papers" is not a ref).
On the merits: so what if it was written about extensively? WP:BLP expressly prohibits dumping on people even if you happen to feel like and can dig up refs.
Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity... 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; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment... Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether... even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject... Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability [emphasis added]... Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care
Whether not having this material renders his biography "incomplete" is a matter of opinion, since what a complete biography should include is a matter of opinion. Maybe his biography is "incomplete" if we don't include his hat size and fifth grade detention record, but since all that is a matter of opinion, let's have the presumption be in favor of not following this person around for the rest of his life and making him miserable, hmmh?
Leave the poor guy alone for goodness' sake. He's just a little guy, a private citizen. You're a great big website, your page comes up first in a google of his name, and will long persist, and so you largely define how how the world sees him. How would you like it? What'd he ever do to you?
On the basis of presumption of privacy I've restored my redaction.  Ball's in your court. If you want to take it to the BLP Board, I'd prefer the material stay out until a decision is made. Herostratus (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Herostratus, you are badly misunderstanding the "presumption in favor of privacy". You're now redacting the fact that Taylor has a criminal record from my comment? In what way is that a BLP violation? BLP says "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." That's what is happening on this page. A multitude of sources cover his criminal history and they are documented with what they say. It is highly relevant to his notability. Please self-revert. This is silly. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Buidhe, please have a look and comment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree with Muboshgu. At this point, his [redacted] behavior has garnered enough media attention that arguably it is part of his "notability". I think what the BLP is trying to avoid is not secondary coverage like we have here, but digging up PRIMARY court filings and such which do not contribute to notability. buidhe 17:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Muboshgu as well; this is relevant, well-sourced, not sensationally-written, and it's not something incredibly minor like a traffic ticket. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Addendum: I think the "misdemeanor child abuse" thing can be left out; it doesn't have multiple sources, isn't a felony, and is lacking followup (was he convicted? charges dropped? we don't know). NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof, I'll have to check into that one. I'm not remembering off the top of my head. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree this was an improper redaction given Taylor is a public figure per WP:BLPPUBLIC and his troubles are covered by prominent reliable sources like the New York Times. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Would others like to weigh in on this reversion? Taking out a huge chunk of the article for seemingly no reason is utterly ridiculous. Outside of maybe a sentence or two I don't see any reason for this wholesale removal. Wizardman 15:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Wizardman, it all seems relevant to me, though I agree we could probably trim a sentence here and there. Particularly the detail on the signing bonus demands. This article doesn't make it clear, but Van Poppel and Taylor were the start of the trend of top picks getting huge bonuses. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)