Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:58, 7 February 2015

Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 February 2015. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep (withdrawn by nominator).

Cooperative editing, please

It seems it's time to discuss content edits here rather than having to redo and undo changes that are poorly thought out. My hope is that a particular editor will chose to discuss rather than continue to rewrite practically everything copy-edited. The article was in extremely poor shape until a couple of days ago: filled with lousy prose, tabloid fodder, and unencyclopedic content. It's now starting to come into proper shape, but I'm sensing a lack of letting editors change things for the better. No edit wars, please. How about working together? If that means discussing edits, so be it. Doing so would be better all around and cut the appearance of disruption and warring. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

First, WP:AGF—the reason you're here is the reason I'm here. (Did you read my reply?) Second, I make changes only as I feel they are needed—again, the same motivation I presume you have—and I must assume mine are no more nor less "thought out" than are yours. Fair warning, then: I am going to fing a better way to write "being involved" per my explanation here. —ATinySliver/ 04:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Marriage

We don't have any reputable source saying that the only reason they're married is because of the Georgia proviso, though. There are hundreds of sources only calling Gordon her husband with no further explanation. And there are sources that say they had a ceremony. And Brown herself states they are husband and wife, so I think we need to leave it at that. What are your thoughts, ATinySliver? You've been super awesome with cleaning this article up. --Kbabej (talk) 22:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. This was why I felt an invisible comment pointing only the editing readers to the appropriate passage—as opposed to something visible to all readers—made sense, because the prose itself outlines and cites the potentially contradictory legal status of their relationship. (Edit: my thanks for your kind words! Humbly, though, I'd like to think I'm only part of a process that includes you, Winkelvi, Tenebrae and several others. We've taken an article that until recently was a redirect and made it into something worthy.) —ATinySliver/ 22:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, an invisible comment is perfect. --Kbabej (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason why the Georgia proviso should be mentioned. Doing so smacks of WP:SYNTH, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite right, and it isn't—it was in the edit summary only. The invisible comment reads "<!-- See passage/citations below. -->". . —ATinySliver/ 23:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

"Contrary to numerous reports"

@Winkelvi: with this edit, you removed a "news-like item" that was matter-of-fact and devoid of speculation with data that introduces rumor into an encyclopedia (even if only to shoot it down). This is a WP:SENSATION vio, IMO. —ATinySliver/ 23:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not introducing rumor into the article at all. The rumor was widespread by reputable and reliable sources. The content addition addresses the fact that there were rumors, which is a progression of events. Not sensation, not a vio. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:SENSATION: "Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking ..." Especially in the article of a still-living person, I'm very strong on this point. I'll ask for new eyes. —ATinySliver/ 23:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how mentioning that rumors and speculation took place in the media -- even in reputable media -- comes anywhere close to violating the policy. If we engaged in rumor and innuendo in the article, THAT would violate said policy. What's written there now isn't even on the same level. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I have requested additional opinions. —ATinySliver/ 00:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I was invited to weigh in here. Is the question at issue, whether there should be any mention at all of the "dead" rumors? I think they absolutely have to be mentioned. They are so widespread that we can't just pretend they don't exist. I think the way it currently is in the article - "despite the rumors" - is just perfect. If the situation hasn't been resolved by the time the semiprotection expires on Feb. 9, just let me know and I will extend it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinion appreciated. —ATinySliver/ 01:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment, but I find this too morbid and distasteful to discuss. Whether it falls within our guidelines for figures in this field is possibly another matter, but I leave it to those who feel more comfortable here. . DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention. —ATinySliver/ 01:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Relatives in infobox

The infoxbox content on relatives has now officially jumped the shark, in my opinion. WP:IBX states the purpose of an infobox is for "allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance"; we are to "exclude any unnecessary content." Naming in the infobox what relatives are in Brown's family tree (or anyone, in any bio article infobox, for that matter) is one thing. Stating which person is a cousin however many times removed is unnecessary in the infobox. It certainly doesn't aid the reader in a better understanding of the article subject, which is one of the criteria we use in determining the difference between trivia and valuable content to be included. I really think the familial rankings in the infobox should go. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:40, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No argument from me. —ATinySliver/ 01:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll ditch the explanations and leave them as relatives. Makes sense. :) --Kbabej (talk) 01:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Subsection

With the amount of attention that Bobbi's recent accident is having, would it be pertinent to add a subsection to her 'Adult life' section? It could be broken up by date, and then at the end have the " Contrary to numerous media reports that she had been taken off life support and was declared brain-dead, on February 5 Brown's family denied the claims and asked for privacy." I feel like that is what a lot of people will be scanning the article for. But it's also not a ton of info. Thoughts? --Kbabej (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd hold off for the time being, as this article is likely to continue undergoing significant changes in the days ahead. —ATinySliver/ 02:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverts

Please show me the same courtesy. Injuries suffered by Brown indicates she was the subject of the "possible altercation" and I'll attempt a rewrite for clarity. —ATinySliver/ 02:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It's trivia, it's gossip, it's not encyclopedic. At this point it a "possible altercation" and is not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia article - especially a BLP. I hope this isn't an attempt at WP:SYNTH by trying to tie this "possible altercation" to the bathtub incident. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It is an active police investigation. Whether "possible" or confirmed is irrelevant, IMO. —ATinySliver/ 02:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is sufficiently verified to include. TMZ seems like a very shaky source. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong, it appears they would rather be sensational than right. If it gets reported by a mainstream source (not citing TMZ as their source), then we can add it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Related. TMZ isn't a notable nor reliable news organization. If it's re-added with any personal information, such as any identifiable individuals, the user will be blocked and the content deleted from record. Thanks :) seicer | talk | contribs 03:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles