I was very upset by a question in a new quiz and wrote to an editor with my objection. My objection was over-ruled, but I was advised that I could raise the topic in the forums, so here goes.

Is it OK to use the name of a missing child currently under police investigation as an answer in a quiz?

The child named in the original quiz is missing and police are still looking into the matter. This child could still be alive and living under a different name or they could be a pile of bones at the bottom of a ravine or anywhere in between these two possibilities.

That's a difficult one. FT doesn't accept questions/quizzes on serial killers any more, after objections from a relative of a victim. It is Funtrivia, so I can quite understand this, and there are many other quizzes that could be written for people's entertainment.

I suppose something along the lines of 'In which country was 3 year old John Smith vacationing when he went missing' isn't too bad, so long as people stick to the facts and don't offer any speculations about what may or may not have happened to him. However, this is an entertainment website with the emphasis on fun, so I'd personally steer clear of using anything like this. I don't think there ought to be a hard and fast rule though. I think sometimes in life we come across things we might think are offensive or tasteless, and if they're not actually doing any harm it's best just to move on to the next thing.

I've just tracked down and done the quiz I assume you mean and I agree that the question concerned is, how shall I put this, at best somewhat strange and at worst downright tacky.

The quiz is about missing people, most of them known to be dead, and in some cases of historical interest. The question to which lonely-lady refers involves people who went missing/died at sea and three of the answer options are three such people, one of whom died five hundred years ago and two who died in the nineteenth century. The fourth answer option is the name of a small British child whose disappearance in 2007 is a cause célèbre in the UK and for whom police are still searching. Almost any name could have been used, anyone whose death/disappearance was within the framework of the question - but using a child's name, any child's name but especially one who could still be alive, does seem tasteless and not what I would expect from FT.

I know the question that is being referred to, and I didn't have any problem with it. It wasn't graphic or sensationalized or anything like that. Mentioning her disappearance was relevant to the quiz, and the fact that she disappeared is indeed a fact. There are other facts on this website that are not entirely pleasant. Usually if this sort of thing is handled maturely, it can be accepted here.

I don't remember all of the question's interesting information, but I don't recall that it made any speculation as to her current whereabouts or what happened. What I recall was that it simply recounted a few basic facts of the case. No worse than any of the other questions in the quiz.

Of course no one can tell you you're 'wrong' to be upset or offended by it, but we often have to go with a "How much would it offend most people?" approach to more sensitive topics. There would be a lot of content here that would need to be removed if we tried to make sure absolutely EVERYONE was ok with every single question. "Would this be acceptable to say on the evening news?" is sometimes a good question to ask about something that may be offensive, and in this case, yes you certainly would hear about it on the news.

Do feel free to voice your concerns to an editor or in the forums; any such inquiry will be taken under consideration. But sometimes the decision is made to keep it. I stress that it wasn't just the one editor who over-ruled the objection in this case, it was discussed amongst the editing staff.

I don't object to what was said about her but her inclusion in the question was really, really strange. If the question had been about her, or even about the disappearance of children in strange circumstances that's one thing - but to make her the answer to a question which purports to be about something else entirely, that's quite another. That's one reason why I hate "Not" questions - the answers don't have to be related to the question at all. Nothing in this particular question was written in an objectionable way but nonetheless using that child, or indeed any child, as an answer to a question of that sort was gratuitous.

Maybe it's a geographical thing. Across the Atlantic the loss of one small English child may not seem such a big deal but over here the loss of that particular child is a very big deal indeed, emotions run high about her disappearance and the possible reasons for it and it really isn't all that long ago.

As I told the editor that eventually passed the decision down to me, I feel old now.

This leaves such a nasty taste in the mouth. The poor parents of the missing child have had their lives dragged through the mud to have their daughter's name reduced to a throw away answer to question on drowning?

Is it that much trouble to edit the name in the quiz to "Lizzie Borden" or "Adolf Hitler" instead of one still under police investigation and potentially alive?

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the name. (Incidentally, which quiz does the name appear?) It's not reducing the daughter's name or disrespecting the daughter or the family in any way.

I do not believe that it would be the right thing to do to post a quiz name here.

So, Buddy, let's assume that you had a three year old daughter who went missing. No one knows how but it's assumed that she was abducted. Then a few years later, when you're still desperately searching for her, when police forces across Europe are still looking for her, and when you still have no idea what happened to her then someone sticks her name into a quiz that people do "for fun". The question isn't about her, it's not even about missing children, but her name is just stuck there. It could be anyone's name, it could be the name of someone who died a hundred years ago, it could be the name of Jack the Ripper, Lizzie Borden, anyone now long dead whose name wouldn't cause offence to anyone still living. But no, it's the name of a child whose disappearance is really quite recent and who many people, including her younger siblings, still actively grieve over.

FT refuses to accept quizzes about serial killers because the families of victims have complained. Fair enough. But now it's accepting the gratuitous inclusion of the name of a missing child in a question which purports to be about loss/death at sea but which is twisted by using the word 'not' so that any answer would do. And as any answer would do, why make use of a child?

I guess to me I perceived it as the question being about her, not a gratuitous inclusion in a question about something else entirely. Since the interesting info ended up being about her. Maybe I'm not recalling all the details of the question.

I think anyone would be confused by the question GG. It seems to be all about people lost overboard/dead at sea... but then it asks which one of the options was not lost at sea. And that's it. The question isn't about her but somehow, there she is. Please take another look. Putting someone else in, from a century or more ago, would be more in keeping - but sticking in the name of a child still listed as missing is bizarre.

Although I wouldn't use a still missing child in a quiz myself, I do agree that, as long as nothing is sensationalized, there is nothing inherently wrong in the child's inclusion in a quiz. Wishing to censor anything that might be offensive to someone is a slippery slope down which I would hate FT to head.
And I would also say that the case in question still receives periodic press in the U.S., with pretty much universal sympathy for the child and her family. It's a tragedy, and I hope we'll one day have an answer to what happened.

If you're going to mention something like whether or not to use a name, then I'd think it would be OK to post the quiz. Not doing so would be like saying "There's something wrong with a quiz but I'm not going to say which quiz it is". There's nothing wrong with posting the quiz, especially if you're going to bring something up that's part of the quiz. What's so wrong about posting the quiz?

So because the child in question may be alive, it is OK to use her name?

If the child in question were dead, her name would not be there in deference to the feelings of her family?

FunTrivia already censors potential offensive quizzes, questions, and postings. Any name could have been used. There are many other long dead (due to time involved) missing people who could have been substituted.

I found more than that one question offensive. But right now, I'm not in the right frame of mind to share more than that.

One thing that might change my opinion is if I knew which quiz it was. For one thing, I thought it was a quiz that was related to that. I don't have all the details, and my opinion may change. Use the PM system if a person must but I really want to know which quiz it is, so I have a better understanding.

As the editor who put the quiz online I would like to comment.

Going missing is unfortunately far more common than is widely supposed and in the U.K. dealing with cases of missing persons apparently takes up 14% of police time. According to the source given below:



The majority of cases are cleared up fairly quickly. However, apparently about 1,800 are found dead evey year, which is appalling. From time to time, the media (or sections of the media) latch on to a particular case and treat it as 'Missing Person #1 case' as if it were the only case that mattered. In some such cases the 'red top' press displays a zest for lurid speculation. In this case they created such a hue and cry that the person's name has become quasi(?)-sacrosanct and apparently can't even be given in this thread, though it's perfectly all right for the media to speculate about him/her to their heart's delight. This strikes me as a very odd state of affairs indeed.

Here's the link to the source I mentioned:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19360824

The actual question and I.I. were matter of fact and did not include lurid or unnecessary or tasteless detail. The People Category already has bans on new quizzes on two area. Obviously, if a member of the family or a close friend were to compain the question would be removed but the player doesn't fall into either category.


Editor, People Category

Bloomsby, I wouldn't object nearly so much if the question was actually about missing children. I am not nearly as sensitive as some about such issues and really don't know if I would have agreed carte blanche to bar quizzes about serial killers if this had been my site. But it's not and I respect Terry's decision in that regard.

However, this question was not about missing children, it's not about that missing child or missing child cases in general with examples. It is written quite deliberately about people lost at sea, either overboard or murdered or just plain unknown cause. It consists of a sentence or three about that, then asks which of the names listed were not lost at sea - and into the mix it throws the name of a missing child. It's that which strikes me as totally gratuitous. It didn't need to be the name of a child, not that child, not any child. The point of a question like that is surely to explain who the other three references are because the exception could be anyone or anything; you could stick anyone's name in there and it would make just as much sense. But using a small child's name just for the sake of it... please, it's totally unnecessary.

The reason I'm not giving the name of the child is that this forum gets into Google searches and I don't see why we should add yet another item to the already long list of references that are already there. The quiz will be in that list already which is bad enough.

flopsymopsy: Would linking the quiz (not the name of the child, of course) be any better? Also, I'm not sure if I mentioned this, but since I didn't know the quiz, I didn't know it wasn't about missing people. That is why I think it is important to have linked the quiz. (As an aside, I seem to be the only one who doesn't know what quiz this is.)

Well, actually, the quiz IS about missing people. So having the incorrect answer be a missing person, and one of whom some at least of the players will have heard, is not really all that gratuitous.

The quiz author was keeping within the theme of the quiz, all the while giving a good hint by using the name of a fairly famous missing person who was not lost at sea. I can't easily think of another name that would fit those criteria which was not used elsewhere in the quiz.

And I think the point bears repeating that there was no nasty speculation in the quiz info, but a respectful sentence or two reporting the bare facts.

It is not the same thing. Lonely Lady has explained her reason for concern. Does it really matter which quiz it is?

There are all sorts of famous missing people who weren't lost at sea whose names could have gone in there. There are several famous people who pretended to be lost in the sea but later turned up safe and sound. The list of possibilities is endless. But he chose to include the name of a three-year-old whose loss is still quite recent and there was no need for it.

Rest assured Flopsy, it is not a geographical thing. Sadly, insensitivity and poor taste are not confined to one area.

Yes, because as I mentioned, knowing the quiz contents may help better understand the issue at hand, may help change my opinions. Additionally, it seems like she's just keeping stuff to herself in a wrong way (sort of like "I know something you don't know but I'm not going to say what it is"). Also, a lot of people here--if not everybody else--knows the quiz, and it seems like I'm the only one left out.
Besides, let me change the question around: Does it really matter that she keep the quiz title to herself? I feel like that's saying I need to accept people doing or not doing something even I don't know understand why, yet they don't need to accept what I am doing or not doing even if they don't know understand why.
What about identifying the author who wrote the quiz or the date it went on-line or something else useful so I can better understand what is going on?

I just checked my PM and the quiz title [ link removed] was provided to me.
I understand where other people are coming from. I'm not nearly as convinced as I was before that the name should stay there. I can understand why people want it changed, and it really is thanks to having been provided with the quiz title.