This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DJ Clayworth (talk | contribs) at 20:37, 23 September 2009 (→OTRS). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:37, 23 September 2009 by DJ Clayworth (talk | contribs) (→OTRS)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Biography Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
 | BBC Unassessed | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 27 July 2006 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on 10 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Pre-nominal honorific
I understand that the recent discussion militated, in view of concerns as to courtesy, in favor of our not using the surname only formulation (i.e., Hawkins). I am concerned, though, that such discussion contravenes, as noted by others, not only our extant practice but such practice as codified in the MoS, viz., at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names (which provides, in pertinent part, that after the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only and that first names or complete names should be used to disambiguate between siblings).
Of course, it is quite fine to suggest that we ignore the MoS (in view of concerns as to the perception outside the United States of the dropped honorific), but I'd think those who suggest that common practice ought to change might do best to raise the issue at, inter al., Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style, toward the production of a consistent format.
There are only two instances, I think, that would be affected by our returning the article to the MoS-preferred version, so this is a rather insignificant issue, but it's important, I think, that the issue be raised in order that those who raised valid concerns might express them on a meta-level. Joe 06:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. --Maxamegalon2000 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand how you're suggesting we might ignore the MoS. Are you suggesting that the use of honourifics, or the use of the full name, are contrary to it? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes (perhaps the shortest sentence ever I've written here). At the very least, I'm suggesting that we ought not to indulge a subject's concern about the exclusive use of a surname where our practice across thousands of articles, as codified in the MoS, is to use surnames exclusively. It may be that our common practice is disfavored by many as disrespectful, but the issue ought not to be disposed of in individual biographies; consistency, of course, is essential across the project. Consider Bill Gates, as adduced by others. There are a few references to Bill Gates, but the overwhelming usage is simply as to Gates.
- See also, to pick three biographical subjects from disparate vocations and of different nationalities, the articles apropos of German Formula One driver Michael Schumacher, the Indian politician Abdul Kalam, and the Brazilian songwriter Tom Zé. There are certainly articles that use the given name-surname formulation passim, but those articles do not reflect extant practice.
- The Jim Hawkins formulation, IMHO, seems rather awkward, and its propagration should this article grow would render the text unwieldy. The larger concern, though, is as to the departure from that which is common practice and that which, IMHO, is wholly appropriate encyclopedically (we are not, of course, Britannica, but their practice in this respect is instructive). Joe 21:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- I see your concern, and yes, it would be unweildy were the article to grow. However, it's not strictly contrary to use the first-last construction as the MoS indicates that, after the first mention, subsequent mentions may be by surname only. It doesn't indicate either way which is preferred, just that both are options. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- True, but I construed that may to be an imperative should be, with the form used only to indicate that an editor should not think it inappropriate to refer to a subject only by his/her surname, which understanding I think to be consistent with the idea that the MoS serves to codify extant practice. You are, though, correct that the letter of the MoS does not prefer one version to the other, and I think that for an article such as this (in which subsequent mentions number but two), the current form is altogether fine. I do, in any event, encourage those who partook of the previous debate here and concluded that the surname-only formulation was impolite or inappropriate to raise their concerns elsewhere (perhaps at WP:VP); even as I'd be inclined to dismiss those concerns, I think it better that an encyclopedia-wide standard be developed (or a discussion about extant standards be had) than that we incur repeated objections to the surname-only use by, for example, biographical subjects. Joe 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I wonder if it perhaps is a bad idea to follow a rule that would be unwieldy were the article to grow, which seems to me to presume that the article will not be growing soon, or that there is an article length at which different styles are applicable. Ought not an article strive to be encyclopedic in tone regardless of its length? --Maxamegalon2000 05:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd tend to agree on the one hand. On the other hand, there's also the school of thought that we should do what makes for a good article in the now, also taking into account the context of the larger encyclopedia. As it is now it doesn't look out of place either in the article alone or in the context of the rest of the encyclopedia. I suspect that something like this is behind the non-committal language of the MoS on this point: editorial discretion can be exercised. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Just follow the Manual of Style. :-) We cannot modify articles in this manner based upon the subject's preferences. First, it would be a lot of work, time that could be spent improving articles or writing new ones. Second, while we have different styles for different articles, when possible, there should be standardization. Third, upon seeing the article, users who are unaware of the subject's preferences will keep changing the article according to the Manual of Style unless there are big html comment warnings at the top of the article and the top of every section (if you edit a section instead of the whole page, you would not see the warning). Even then, someone is bound to miss them from time to time. Fourth, while I strongly support people's right to privacy, even if they are famous (I supported the deletion of the article on AfD), it is inappropriate to have subjects dictate how their article should look. Therefore, I think that the Manual of Style should be followed in this case. -- Kjkolb 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As noted in the article and edit summaries, Jim Hawkins is against an article about himself existing on Misplaced Pages. He is also active on Twitter trying to get this article deleted.
Jim, any editing of this article by yourself is a conflict of interest edit, and should be avoided. If there are any issues that violate WP:BLP then they should be flagged up.
My personal opinion is that the article should stay, as it meets WP:N. It does need work, particularly re WP:CITE but that is not a reason to delete the article. It is not acceptable to encourage other editors off-wiki to vandalise or blank the article. Such action is only going to lead to block of increasing length. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Case against deletion
Hawkins is a public figure, a celebrity, albeit a minor one. In addition the article was subject for delection in 2007 for his same reasonings and the case was rejected then. Why not just revert article to 9/5/09 before vandalism camapign started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.88.229 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
De-PRODDed
I've removed the PROD template as the reason given, in my opinion, was not a valid one.
@Jim, I'm not on facebook (no wish to be either), so will have to communicate via this page. If there are inaccuracies in the article about yourself, please communicate them with corrections, and links to where the info can be verified. The correct info can then be added to the article. This is how Misplaced Pages works. As a broadcaster on a BBC local radio station you have reached the threshold of notability for an article on Misplaced Pages. The fact that you dont want an article on Misplaced Pages is neither here nor there. What does matter is that the article is verifiable and meets WP:BLP. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- In Reply to Mjroots (talk): Jim can not reply due to being banned from editing. Which shows how stupid this is getting. Because he is banned, he cannot correct the mistakes in this article. If Jim can be unbanned from editing, he will make these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.37.153 (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- IP bans are generally short to start with. Once the ban expires he can come here and tell us what is wrong with the article, show us were we can verify that info and it can be corrected. Yes, this may mean that the article is wrong in the short term. Jim may request that he is unblocked on his talk page, giving reasons as to why the block should be lifted. An admin will look at the request and accept or decline it. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for the reply, Mjroots. Jim will by liaising with someone to get correct information on here and thus it will be correct soon. Therefore hopefully this matter will be resolved soon. --77.96.37.153 (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good. I don't want the article to be wrong any more than Jim does. However, the way Misplaced Pages works is not by summarily deleting info claiming it is "wrong". Show us were we can find verifiable info and it will be incorporated into the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Removal
Does anyone know what the "incorrect" information that Mr Hawkins keeps complaining about actually is? There's a lot of stupid stuff in the article right now, which we can remove, (as I've just done) but if any of the 'non-stupid' stuff is incorrect why doesn't Mr Hawkins just tell us?
He's probably working against himself, as the more he publicizes the problem the more people are going to come to Misplaced Pages to add dumb stuff. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- This is being resolved and a more correct and decent article will be posted soon. Also, it should not be up to Jim himself to fix the article. I'm pretty sure you agree. If that were the case, we'd have all sorts of personal adverts cropping up ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.37.153 (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- We're not asking Jim himself to fix the article. However, he is the one who knows better than anyone where there are inaccuracies. All we are asking is for a pointer as to what is wrong and where to find info that proves the claims. Not too much to ask, is it? Mjroots (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, but at the same time - Because theres no reference to the info (or wasn't) then none of it can be deemed reliable. Anyway, drop of topic. It is being resolved. --77.96.37.153 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, so I removed everything that wasn't referenced, which is what should have happened long ago. What happened to the Misplaced Pages principles of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I cant put right the inaccuracies as my account has been blocked. Please delete this article. This proves everything that is wrong with wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimhawkins64 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, whoever you are, please sign talk page contributions with your username and the date/time, by putting four tildes at the end like this. ~~~~. They will be converted to your username and the time.
- Now, please have a look at the article as it is now and tell us exaclty what is incorrect about it. As far as I can see everything in it is taken from the BBC Radio Shropshire pages about Jim Hawkins. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Jim, you can't edit the article as you are a new account. Apart from that, you really need to read WP:COIN which explains all about conflicts of interest. Generally this means that you should not edit an article about yourself (with a few exceptions). If there is anything you are unhappy with in the article, this is the place to discuss it. Basic info such as real name, date of birth etc will not be removed from the article. Also, negative info will not be removed because it is negative, but it will need to be verifiable to remain in the article. This is the way that Misplaced Pages works. Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- If date of birth is such an issue why does Hawkins tell people what it is? A quick search of Google and you see HE wrote in HIS BBC weight-loss web-log that his birthday was on the first day of Lent in 2006: http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/content/articles/2006/03/06/fat_losers_09_feature.shtml which makes his brithday 1st March: http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/lent/index-lent2006-hf_en.htm. (I would add this to the article but am unable to) Kelkag-force (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good work - I've added it. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- If date of birth is such an issue why does Hawkins tell people what it is? A quick search of Google and you see HE wrote in HIS BBC weight-loss web-log that his birthday was on the first day of Lent in 2006: http://www.bbc.co.uk/shropshire/content/articles/2006/03/06/fat_losers_09_feature.shtml which makes his brithday 1st March: http://www.vatican.va/liturgical_year/lent/index-lent2006-hf_en.htm. (I would add this to the article but am unable to) Kelkag-force (talk) 09:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- See my user talk page at User talk:Arthur Rubin#Jim Hawkins, BBC Radio Shropshire for some of the comments. He didn't tell me what information was incorrect, other than the record label. (It should also be noted that the awards site is a better reference for the awards than BBC, but that keeps getting deleted.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Jim, you can't edit the article as you are a new account. Apart from that, you really need to read WP:COIN which explains all about conflicts of interest. Generally this means that you should not edit an article about yourself (with a few exceptions). If there is anything you are unhappy with in the article, this is the place to discuss it. Basic info such as real name, date of birth etc will not be removed from the article. Also, negative info will not be removed because it is negative, but it will need to be verifiable to remain in the article. This is the way that Misplaced Pages works. Mjroots (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Trivia
True does not equal notable. I don't think it is necessary to mention that someone has switched on Christmas lights. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You refer to:
In 2008, he accepted an invitation to switch on the Christmas lights at Ironbridge and another to officially open a new cycle path, part of the Telford Way improvements in North Shrewsbury.
which, I believe, confirms his (currently disputed) notability. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Lessons for the future
I'm writing this section to try and draw some lessons about Misplaced Pages out for future. If you edited, or even looked at, this article in the last few days then I would recommend trying to think about what this incident means for Misplaced Pages.
Two of the underlying principles of Misplaced Pages are Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. Simply put that means information that is not well referenced does not belong on Misplaced Pages. I know there are plenty of articles that are not well-referenced, but that doesn't remove the principles.
These principles should have governed how we reacted when someone complained about inaccuracies in an article. Unreferenced information can always be removed from an article. On receipt of a complaint that's the first thing we should have been done, and it doesn't need an admin to do it; re-inserting it without references could reasonably be treated as vandalism and dealt with. If we had done this immediately, most of this problem would never have happened. Misplaced Pages's reputation for accuracy would have been helped, not hindered.
I hope everyone reading this takes this to heart. If we removed unreferenced information, Misplaced Pages would be a better encyclopedia, and we wouldn't have the stress levels we do. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hopefully the AfD will be allowed to run its course for a full week. The issues raised are not confined to just this article but a vast number of WP:BIO articles.
- I would also hope that an admin would take a look at the edit history of the article before I placed the {{unref}} tag on the article. In view of what has been said by Jim Hawkins off Wiki I'd suggest it would be a good idea that the article is semi-protected for some time to come. That will prevent IP Vandals adding unreferenced/untrue/libellous stuff to the article. As the article was totally unreferenced before I placed the tag on it, removing the info would have meant blanking the article, which I was not prepared to do. Sure, there was stuff in there that didn't belong, but there was also stuff that did. Compare the article now to how it looked last night, it is miles better now.
- Jim, I know you disagree about the article's existance but if it is kept (which I hope it is), we at Misplaced Pages will try to ensure that it is accurate, and meets policies such as WP:V and WP:BLP at all times. Nothing currently in the article has not been published before. You stated to me when I phoned you this morning that you don't want "personal infomation" such as where you were born and went to university in the article. Yet you are quite happy for your employers and others to publish the very same information. What is the difference? Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Technically you are right that removal of all unreferenced information would have meant blanking, but it took me about five minutes with Google to find enough references to write this version. I think that has to be the way to go if we get a situation like this again. What we should definitely not be doing is protecting an unreferenced version of an article where the subject has asked us to remove it. Doing so would probably leave us open to WP:BLP legal issues.
- I would agree that if we get a similar complaint, and absolutely cannot find reliable sources to write something, then the article should be blanked. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- To me, this is a much better article. Hopefully Jim agrees. In my comments I never meant to come across naive in any way :) I just understood how Jim had felt about this.
- I'm glad to see this resolved. If only it was done in the first place like 3 years ago!
- Well done to the people who contributed to this article! I think its now something for Jim to like :) TwitterUser: Ravenatic. --77.96.37.153 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
OTRS
The link in the edit summary:
user has complained otrs:3648175 the we have his birthday wrong. Please don't combine multiple sources to come to a new position like that, it can be misleading and fails verifiability
is unusable to me and many others, because it requires a password. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- OTRS is used for private correspondence with individuals selected to respond to such issue. See WP:OTRS. It is not available to the general public for privacy reasons, only certain users such as myself have access to it. The content of the ticket is really not an issue, what is important is that an unverified claim has been challenged. If you have any other questions you can ask me here or on my talk page, or you can ask anyone else with OTRS access. A partial list of such admins is on the linked policy. Chillum 16:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for confirming what I wrote: the link is unusable to me and may others. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits
- Frankly I believe that any request to remove information from a BLP should be complied with if the information is unreferenced. It's just good encyclopedic practice. Misplaced Pages would probably be better if we applied that rule to all articles, but we aren't yet well-referenced enough for that to be practical. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- I tend to agree; if he had the dates of Lent 2006 wrong, it shouldn't be held against him. Although combining an objective fact (the actual date of Lent in 2006) with his statement that his birthday fell on the first day of Lent is not a WP:SYN violation, it still could be inaccurate. It's not correct to call his day of birth unverified from his statement, but combining it with the year from another source may be questionable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- If not for the person in question saying we got his birthday wrong I would think this is a reasonable interpretation. Arthur is right that the cited facts do not exclude the possibility of inaccuracy and I have no reason to think this person would make something like this up. If his birthday is a matter of public record then we will eventually find it, if it is not then it should not be in the article. We should be careful not to play detective to find facts that are not otherwise published. I have no problem with the information regarding his statement about lent being there, let the reader make their own interpretation. Chillum 19:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- The "worked out" DoB was re-inserted into the article complete with a {{fact}} tag. I've reverted the edit and inserted an edit note into the infobox, quoting the otrs number above. I agree that currently it looks a bit messy, but we'll have to live with it for now. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's an embarrassing thing to have in an encyclopedia. Let's get rid of it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good call. We'll probably only have to wait until 2012 for a confirmation of his DoB. He'll turn 50 then and it's bound to be mentioned somewhere. OK, it's WP:CRYSTAL but it's not in the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- And by that I include the reference to the "first day of Lent" statement. We already have strong indications that it is wrong (yes, even though he clearly said it - even local radio hosts make mistakes) and if we include everything that he is documented as having said the article will look a mess. Some facts are just better not being mentioned. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do we? Where? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think DJ Clayworth is referring to the OTRS ticket, the details of which are not available to us. We'll just have to accept that according to JH he was not born on 1 March 1962 until we can either prove that he was or confirm a different DoB. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- The recently removed text made no claim that he was born on 1 March 1962; it said that he wrote that his birthday was on the first day of Lent in 2006; which is verified. It is no different to us reporting, say, had he written that he was the reincarnation of Samuel Pepys. It is a claim which he made, not us. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- ..and it's verifiable, which is what Misplaced Pages is all about. Let it stand; it's the closest verifiable information we've gotten to his{{fact}} age. tedder (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it's verifiable that he said it, but we also have a strong indication from the subject that it's wrong. What kind of idiots are we that we quote something the subject said while believing it was a mistake? It is not helpful to anybody. Not all information belongs on Misplaced Pages, and information that is likely to be misleading certainly falls into that category. Geez, guys, you wonder why the subject doesn't want an article here? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- The recently removed text made no claim that he was born on 1 March 1962; it said that he wrote that his birthday was on the first day of Lent in 2006; which is verified. It is no different to us reporting, say, had he written that he was the reincarnation of Samuel Pepys. It is a claim which he made, not us. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 07:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think DJ Clayworth is referring to the OTRS ticket, the details of which are not available to us. We'll just have to accept that according to JH he was not born on 1 March 1962 until we can either prove that he was or confirm a different DoB. Mjroots (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Do we? Where? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- And by that I include the reference to the "first day of Lent" statement. We already have strong indications that it is wrong (yes, even though he clearly said it - even local radio hosts make mistakes) and if we include everything that he is documented as having said the article will look a mess. Some facts are just better not being mentioned. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Good call. We'll probably only have to wait until 2012 for a confirmation of his DoB. He'll turn 50 then and it's bound to be mentioned somewhere. OK, it's WP:CRYSTAL but it's not in the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The lent quote is from the same source that is saying we got the birthday wrong, the subject itself. The source used for the "lent" birthday has corrected itself. You can't call something verifiable because a source has said something when that same source has retracted that claim. All that aside joining the two sources to come up with new information is not the same thing as finding a source that says something. The article is better with no birthday than it would be with the wrong birthday. The year of birth is verifiable and that is plenty. Chillum 13:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Has he retracted that specific claim? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, he has stated that the date which was the first day of Lent that year is not his birthdate. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- Has he? Now could you answer my question? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- I thought I just did. What was your question again? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
- ^ Hawkins, Jim (2008-12-15). "Jim Hawkins Diary (15 December 2008)". BBC. Retrieved 2009-09-10.