3 replaced http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/
source | link

This is relevant to the question http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/31738/does-emma-watson-have-adhdhttps://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/31738/does-emma-watson-have-adhd

I don't dispute that this is a claim made by an notable source, and that Emma Watson is a notable person.

However, questions of this kind make me uncomfortable. If Watson herself has chosen to publicly confirm or deny that she has such a diagnosis, I suppose that might make an appropriate answer to the question (though in some sense it might not be verifiable unless she also chose to release medical records). But if this is an issue that Watson does not choose to discuss publicly (which I think most people would agree is her right), I don't think it is an appropriate topic for investigation on this site - it smacks of invasion of privacy. This is Skeptics.SE, not Paparazzi.SE.

Such questions might be appropriate for a public figure whose health or mental state is of direct relevance to many people (e.g. a head of government). For an actor, I don't think so.

Should we have a general ban on questions of this kind, which involve personal information about specific individuals, or other guidelines or requirements?

(Note that Should there be stronger notability criteria for claims about living people? is not a duplicate - it focuses on statements alleged to have been made publicly.)

This is relevant to the question http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/31738/does-emma-watson-have-adhd

I don't dispute that this is a claim made by an notable source, and that Emma Watson is a notable person.

However, questions of this kind make me uncomfortable. If Watson herself has chosen to publicly confirm or deny that she has such a diagnosis, I suppose that might make an appropriate answer to the question (though in some sense it might not be verifiable unless she also chose to release medical records). But if this is an issue that Watson does not choose to discuss publicly (which I think most people would agree is her right), I don't think it is an appropriate topic for investigation on this site - it smacks of invasion of privacy. This is Skeptics.SE, not Paparazzi.SE.

Such questions might be appropriate for a public figure whose health or mental state is of direct relevance to many people (e.g. a head of government). For an actor, I don't think so.

Should we have a general ban on questions of this kind, which involve personal information about specific individuals, or other guidelines or requirements?

(Note that Should there be stronger notability criteria for claims about living people? is not a duplicate - it focuses on statements alleged to have been made publicly.)

This is relevant to the question https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/31738/does-emma-watson-have-adhd

I don't dispute that this is a claim made by an notable source, and that Emma Watson is a notable person.

However, questions of this kind make me uncomfortable. If Watson herself has chosen to publicly confirm or deny that she has such a diagnosis, I suppose that might make an appropriate answer to the question (though in some sense it might not be verifiable unless she also chose to release medical records). But if this is an issue that Watson does not choose to discuss publicly (which I think most people would agree is her right), I don't think it is an appropriate topic for investigation on this site - it smacks of invasion of privacy. This is Skeptics.SE, not Paparazzi.SE.

Such questions might be appropriate for a public figure whose health or mental state is of direct relevance to many people (e.g. a head of government). For an actor, I don't think so.

Should we have a general ban on questions of this kind, which involve personal information about specific individuals, or other guidelines or requirements?

(Note that Should there be stronger notability criteria for claims about living people? is not a duplicate - it focuses on statements alleged to have been made publicly.)

2 replaced http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/ with https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/
source | link

This is relevant to the question http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/31738/does-emma-watson-have-adhd

I don't dispute that this is a claim made by an notable source, and that Emma Watson is a notable person.

However, questions of this kind make me uncomfortable. If Watson herself has chosen to publicly confirm or deny that she has such a diagnosis, I suppose that might make an appropriate answer to the question (though in some sense it might not be verifiable unless she also chose to release medical records). But if this is an issue that Watson does not choose to discuss publicly (which I think most people would agree is her right), I don't think it is an appropriate topic for investigation on this site - it smacks of invasion of privacy. This is Skeptics.SE, not Paparazzi.SE.

Such questions might be appropriate for a public figure whose health or mental state is of direct relevance to many people (e.g. a head of government). For an actor, I don't think so.

Should we have a general ban on questions of this kind, which involve personal information about specific individuals, or other guidelines or requirements?

(Note that http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2954/should-there-be-stronger-notability-criteria-for-claims-about-living-peopleShould there be stronger notability criteria for claims about living people? is not a duplicate - it focuses on statements alleged to have been made publicly.)

This is relevant to the question http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/31738/does-emma-watson-have-adhd

I don't dispute that this is a claim made by an notable source, and that Emma Watson is a notable person.

However, questions of this kind make me uncomfortable. If Watson herself has chosen to publicly confirm or deny that she has such a diagnosis, I suppose that might make an appropriate answer to the question (though in some sense it might not be verifiable unless she also chose to release medical records). But if this is an issue that Watson does not choose to discuss publicly (which I think most people would agree is her right), I don't think it is an appropriate topic for investigation on this site - it smacks of invasion of privacy. This is Skeptics.SE, not Paparazzi.SE.

Such questions might be appropriate for a public figure whose health or mental state is of direct relevance to many people (e.g. a head of government). For an actor, I don't think so.

Should we have a general ban on questions of this kind, which involve personal information about specific individuals, or other guidelines or requirements?

(Note that http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2954/should-there-be-stronger-notability-criteria-for-claims-about-living-people is not a duplicate - it focuses on statements alleged to have been made publicly.)

This is relevant to the question http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/31738/does-emma-watson-have-adhd

I don't dispute that this is a claim made by an notable source, and that Emma Watson is a notable person.

However, questions of this kind make me uncomfortable. If Watson herself has chosen to publicly confirm or deny that she has such a diagnosis, I suppose that might make an appropriate answer to the question (though in some sense it might not be verifiable unless she also chose to release medical records). But if this is an issue that Watson does not choose to discuss publicly (which I think most people would agree is her right), I don't think it is an appropriate topic for investigation on this site - it smacks of invasion of privacy. This is Skeptics.SE, not Paparazzi.SE.

Such questions might be appropriate for a public figure whose health or mental state is of direct relevance to many people (e.g. a head of government). For an actor, I don't think so.

Should we have a general ban on questions of this kind, which involve personal information about specific individuals, or other guidelines or requirements?

(Note that Should there be stronger notability criteria for claims about living people? is not a duplicate - it focuses on statements alleged to have been made publicly.)

    Tweeted twitter.com/StackSkeptic/status/698192912568475649
1
source | link

Claims involving personal information about notable people

This is relevant to the question http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/31738/does-emma-watson-have-adhd

I don't dispute that this is a claim made by an notable source, and that Emma Watson is a notable person.

However, questions of this kind make me uncomfortable. If Watson herself has chosen to publicly confirm or deny that she has such a diagnosis, I suppose that might make an appropriate answer to the question (though in some sense it might not be verifiable unless she also chose to release medical records). But if this is an issue that Watson does not choose to discuss publicly (which I think most people would agree is her right), I don't think it is an appropriate topic for investigation on this site - it smacks of invasion of privacy. This is Skeptics.SE, not Paparazzi.SE.

Such questions might be appropriate for a public figure whose health or mental state is of direct relevance to many people (e.g. a head of government). For an actor, I don't think so.

Should we have a general ban on questions of this kind, which involve personal information about specific individuals, or other guidelines or requirements?

(Note that http://meta.skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/2954/should-there-be-stronger-notability-criteria-for-claims-about-living-people is not a duplicate - it focuses on statements alleged to have been made publicly.)