Talk:Ashley Callie/Archive 1

When was Callie born?
I have just made substantial edits to this page, and added as much information as I can find with regards to her life and death. I cannot find any reference to her date of birth. If you can find any, please add it. --GrahamDo (talk) 10:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw a tribute on SABC3 tonight, and at the end it said "1973 to 2008". I've added her year of birth based on that, but it would make the articles which stated she was 32 inaccurate. :( --GrahamDo (talk) 19:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't change her year of birth anymore. According to the tribute show on 3 Talk last night, she was born in 1973.  Still looking for month and day, though. --GrahamDo (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Forget the last comment. I found a reference to her exact date of birth! (http://www.respectance.com/AshleyCallie/) :) --GrahamDo (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Go have a look at http://www.respectance.com/AshleyCallie/ there it says Birth: Dec 30, 1976. Don't know how to change it G. :-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.54.202.30 (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's VERY strange! Last time I looked at THAT EXACT WEBSITE, it showed her birthday as 1973. Oh well, if the reference changed, the text that the reference supports must change as well. Updated. ;) --GrahamDo (talk) 10:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

more
Thereafter, she starred in a number of series, including Natural Rhythm.

...in a number of series" implies more than just Natural Rhythm. Thus, I believe you want to say: "Thereafter, she starred in a number of series, including Natural Rhythm and...."  Anne Teedham (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * She definitely starred in series besides "Natural Rythm", but you make a good point. I will find a reference to at least one other, so I can say "...including Natural Rythm and..." ;) Thanks for the suggestion! GrahamDo (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Found one! Uninvited Guest, reference: http://www.thetimes.co.za/PrintEdition/Insight/Article.aspx?id=712675.

At the service, people described Callie as both radiant and charming, and [said] that the ceremony itself was a celebration of her life:

I found it necessary to alter your sentence into the above because you are actually saying this: "At the service, people described Callie as both radiant and charming, and [described] (meaning: "said that") the ceremony [was] a celebration of her life."

Consequently, I think that you need to reword the latter part of your sentence into what I have written above. I dropped the said and altered the as into a was, thus changing things a bit. The wording of the two separate and independent thoughts is a difficult transition and probably needs other opinions. Anne Teedham (talk) 16:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That was one sentence I was having a hard time figuring out how to "de-passify." Very nicely done! :) GrahamDo (talk) 15:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image of driver of second car
I am sorry, but I feel that the image of the driver of the second car serves little purpose in this article, and probably will cause more WP:BLP issues than the image is worth. Therefore, I removed it. Additionally, I believe that the facts surrounding the accident should be discontinued for similar reasons. (Personally, I feel that the primary editor should exercise a more conservative approach to the driver of the second car by referring to him as the driver of the second car, rather than naming him.) I believe that the primary editor (of the article) may find a close reading of WP:BLP and WP:NOT two articles worth consulting. (I also removed a great number of wikilinks because Wikipedia does not have articles for those wikilinks, nor will some of those wikilinks ever reach status of Wikipedia notability requirement.  Anne Teedham (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have put back the photograph of Nico Pretorius, and named him again as the driver of the second vehicle. I honestly don't see a problem with him being named. There are no doubts as to whether he actually drove the second car - only whether he is culpable. Mentioning of his name is perfectly relevant. GrahamDo (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * GrahamDo, thank you for that thoughtful gesture on my talkpage. :)


 * Now then...on the matter of this particular photo (and name) &mdash;


 * In the WP:BLP lead paragraphs, it states: "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Prior to this statement it suggests that an editor should exercise great sensitivity in evaluating the introduction of matter into an article.


 * On a regional basis, the name of the driver of the second car may very well be known, be published widely, and be a matter of some interest. Yet Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mainstream magazine, tabloid, or newspaper.  In theory, Wikipedia would prefer that its articles transcend the common, general interests of everyday life (and its ups and downs), and would evolve instead into more scholarly areas.  Articles on Einstein and  Relativity are seen easily in this latter category.  Yet articles on current events are often more difficult to view from the perspective of sensitivity.


 * The driver of the second car is entitled to a great deal of conservative sensitivity when it comes to having his name (and photo) inserted into a global enterprise which desires to be encyclopedic in nature. The unfortunate event which brings his name into world attention is a local matter and he must come to live within his community with the outcome of that event.  Yet for the people of Beijing, Sinapore, or Las Vegas knowing his name (and seeing his photo) serves little purpose other than to besmirch the man for being involved in a horrific accident.  Does anyone need this kind of attention cast upon his character for all the world to see?


 * Take a good, hard look at the anguish on that man's face and recall the sadness which his family now endures....


 * I really believe that you need to ask yourself: "Would GrahamDo like to see his own face splashed in 'Wikipedia' if he suddenly found himself in a similar set of circumstances?"


 * Accidents happen.


 * There is no need to make the living live ever-after in hell. Anne Teedham (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * WOW! That was an amazingly well thought out response, and quite emotional as well. Myself, I tend to be quite an arrogant ..., and my first reaction (to be absolutely honest with you) is "There's no such thing as bad publicity." Then again, I'm never really been in such a position, so I could never actually know. Something tells me, though, that were he to be found guilty, you would not have a problem with his name and image being included in the article.
 * The court case is of interest to anyone who would be interested in Callie and how she died - which probably does not include people in Beijing, Singapore or Las Vegas, unless they are ex-patriots or otherwise have some interest in this actress. Anyone interested in the court case would no doubt want to know who the suspect was. Anyone who wants to know who the suspect is would benefit from knowing what he looks like. I know I did, and battled for days to try and find a photo of the man!! Therefore, if we can find one that paints him in a more neutral light/pose, I would be very happy to substitute it!
 * The best I can come up with is that Nico Pretorius may well need his own article; it's just that I don't have nearly enough info on him to warrant it, yet, and also I'm not sure he's notable outside of the Ashley Callie case. Of course, if he's acquitted, the article will be updated to reflect that. This would serve to publicly exhonerate the man - in that case, I'm sure he would want his aquittal published as widely as possible!
 * Another point that I think bears making is I think the inclusion of his name and photo serves to re-inforce the neutrality of the article. Just a couple paragraphs up, we read about how certain people think Callie herself was to blame for the accident, and that she was drunk. Then we read the blog posting by the anonymous victim. If I remove Pretorius' photo and name, then it might look like I support the former allegations (Which I do not, necessarily, which is besides the point anyway), and to be fair I'd have to remove those references as well.
 * GrahamDo (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You and I disagree on this issue strongly.  Have you noticed on the image upload file page  that the image will be deleted by Wednesday, 26 November 2008?  Wikipedia image-copyright guardians have placed you on notice because someone has determined that that image does not qualify under the WP:NFCC standard. (Actually I am surprised that no one placed a similar notice here at the talkpage.  I have seen that done elsewhere.)  Upon this issue, I am an ignorant novice, but I could refer you to a battle I noticed on a similar User's desire to illustrate his article.  The outcome of his battle was against him.  The subject of his image was a two-time convicted felon who had cost the US Government twenty years of anagonizing court battles over a widely-publicized political scandal.  In all fairness, when there is a strong disagreement in principal over an issue, editors can request a WP:RFC.  When this happens, Wikipedia jackals descend upon an article and rip it to pieces over more than the requested comment.


 * I think you have incorrectly determined that the driver of the second car is a suspect. He is not a suspect; he is an unfortunate fool who perhaps made a colossal mistake.  I doubt seriously that his action was willful and intent upon doing harm.  I believe that you should re-examine everything discussed so far, re-evaluate your opinion, and remove the image before I request a RFC.  I really do not believe we need other opinions at the moment, do you?  Anne Teedham (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm sorry. The word suspect is inappropriate. And I agree that he probably did not intend to do harm. That'll be proved or disproved in the court case, I'm sure, but I doubt anyone believes he intended to do harm. The thing is, culpable homicide is a crime, which intent is not a condition of. I still feel it's very important to have a photo of him up, but having thought about it the photo (Not the wording, just the photo) does paint him in quite a bad light. He does look very sad and a little humiliated, and that's probably not fair. Would it be acceptable to you for us to remove the photo (But keep all the text, including him being identified in the opening paragraph of "Court case") until such time as a better one can be found? When that happens, we can discuss it again. (P.S. your attempt to threaten me was a low blow and un-called for. Besides, I wouldn't have requested a peer review in the first place if I didn't want other opinions of the article, would I?) GrahamDo (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just realised - my edit summary when removing the photo was "It's sad." I just need to make sure you realise I meant the photo itself is sad (And not the decision to remove it)! :p GrahamDo (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Graham, I can see how my words may have offended you and I apologize for the manner in which they were conveyed. It was not my intention to announce a threat, but rather to suggest that you and I needed a third opinion,.... or more. I took a look at the WP:RFC commentary and noticed something about a third opinion. Please accept my apology for using the terminology of RfC when I ought to have said third opinion. Please do not take things so personally to heart. There are people around here who will go about these things much more insensitively (and aggressively) than I. I hope you will remember me as a person who disagreed with you and who offered a solution in an attempt to get to an objective opinion. I will disappear now; and from time to time, merely look over your progress. Thank you. I learned something from this discussion. Anne Teedham (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I must admit I was a little "put out" this morning by what I perceived to be a threat. It definitely came across to me as "Remove the image, or I'll request an RFC, and YOU DON'T WANT THAT!" :P I appreciate your explanations, and I now believe that wasn't your intention. It just goes to show that tone is next to impossible to convey in a text-only medium. No harm done - I'm sorry I took it badly. I also looked through the RFC process and the Third Opinion Process, and I considered it. But at the end of the day, I really saw your point about the photo. It honestly doesn't make the man look good AT ALL! I still think we need a photo of him, but maybe after the court case someone will release a more "neutral" one.
 * I honestly appreciate your input and all the work you've put into the article. It's nice to have another eye or two, and the vast majority of your suggestions/changes I've agreed with whole-heartedly! Please don't leave with bad feelings. You are most welcome to pop into the article whenever you like, and participate in discussions on the talk page! And please keep copy-editing my writing style as well (Just please discuss CONTENT changes). If you don't want to anymore, I'll understand too. I'm copying this message onto your talk page, in case you've removed this article from your watchlist. Thanks again for all the assistance! GrahamDo (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested opinion: Name the driver of the second car?
User:Anne Teedham asked for my opinion.

On whether the driver of the second car should be identified by name… I’m not 100% sure, and would err on not naming him.

It is certainly OK to link via reference to the newspaper articles that name him.

The driver of the second car is named in multiple newspaper articles, but I would not call them secondary sources with respect to the driver of the second car as they do not comment on him per se. This counts against naming him, as per the spirit of WP:BLP.

Complicating this is the fact that the situation is currently developing. As per WP:NOTNEWS, I think this counts against using the sources to justify naming him, in favour of waiting a few months and taking a historical perspective.

A general criticism that also goes against naming the driver of the second car is that the subject’s death has become out-of-proportion compared to the biography section. The subject is not notable because of the details of her death (or, I hope I am agreed with here, because the accident sources don’t satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO). Her death is a small part of her life, and the court case is a tangential section.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SmokeyJoe. You make some pretty good points.
 * As I've already mentioned above, I think the court case is an important part of the biography. But no, I do not disagree with you in saying Callie is not notable because of the circumstances surrounding her death. ;) Her death and the court case just serve to round the article out. In fact, when this is all over, I plan to condense the existing "Court case" section to a few quick lines saying "X was charged with culpable homicide in the case of the accident. The court case was postponed on y different occasions (on a [date], b [date], and c [date]). It was finally heard on d [date], and he was  ."
 * I do like your idea of waiting until the case is resolved before naming him, but as a reader, I would still find myself asking "Who?!" all the time as I was reading through the section, especially if I was a fan of Ashley Callie (And she was pretty popular in SA, particular among daytime TV viewers). It was for the same reason that I searched high and low at the time for a photo of him, because I couldn't find anywhere that would actually show me what the guy looked like!! I still think people just reading the article would want to know who was charged in connection with her death; people who would be perhaps too lazy to click on any links to read the actual articles. I also still believe that mentioning his name at the beginning of the section and never again is a nice compromise, as it lets people know WHO he is, but then shifts focus from him to the case itself.
 * You know what? I actually can't understand why it should be such a big deal, whether he's name is there or not. I thought it should be there, because it's of interest to readers of the article (and yes, "it's interesting" is not a reason to keep or remove content, but surely that's the biggest reason people look things up on Wikipedia anyway? Because it's of interest to them?). I can't understand why that would in any way, shape or form violate the spirit of Wikipedia's policy (or even the letter thereof), but apparantly I'm in the minority. Just remove the $%@#ing name already!! GrahamDo (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested opinion: Regarding the fair-use image of driver of second car
The image of driver of second car (Image:Nico Pretorius Callie Accident Accused.jpg): It fails foundation mandated policy on non-free content. It is little more than a picture of a person. It does not significantly add to understanding of the driver of the other car, let alone an understanding of the subject of the article. It therefore fails Non-free content criteria “8 Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” and should be deleted.

In simpler terms, "illustration" is never a good enough fair use rationale.

If it is judged that the driver of the second car is to be named in the article, and if a free image were available, then use of the free image would be OK.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Rfc:Is naming second-car driver appropriate
''[ This discussion is now closed. I removed the tag on Feb. 20. The discussion lasted for a short period of time; however the request was in place for a month. The name of the driver was removed early on in the discussion, and it seems as if consensus would be satisfied if the name remained removed unless circumstances dictated otherwise. With regard to the second issue about the 'anonymous comment', it seems as though there are not sufficient comments in order to draw any clear conclusion. Consequently, the 'anonymous comment' remains in the article for now until someone else pursues the matter in greater depth. Hag2 (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)]''

1. There appears to be a strong disagreement over printing the name of the driver of the second vehicle. In addition, the details regarding the pending court cases have been suggested to be irrelevant news, rather than encyclopedic matter. Please offer an opinion. I (as well as a few others) have stated my opposition above. Hag2 (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been more than 7 days, and no comments have been made. What is the accepted length of time for an RFC to be in effect, and when would you say this tag could be removed? GrahamDo (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, GrahamDo. According to the Instructions: "To prevent a buildup of stale discussions, RFCs will be automatically removed from the lists after a period of thirty days. If you wish to extend the discussion, replace the timestamp with a new one so that it expires in an additional thirty days." --Dixie Hag2 (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose inclusion as seems unnecessary and blp tricky. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The name of the second driver should be left out. If someone wants to they can follow the links and find out. Additionally, I've removed the somewhat inflammatory and unnecessary boxed quote of someone on a memorial forum. I don't think the boxed quote thing is really standard style for articles, can't we just use blockquote? Avruch  T 21:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose it adds nothing to the article since it's just some random anonymous person. It doesn't matter to the reader that he was called "Joe" or "John". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Favoring non-inclusion for now but not very strongly. On the one hand the name adds very little to the article. On the other hand, I don't see the argument to not include the name as very strong either. From a Do-No-Harm perspective the name is already all over the internet and in multiple easily available reliable sources. It may make sense to wait and see if the details of the case become widely reported as the legal issues progress. If they do, then inclusion may be worth it. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. His name is of no more importance than mine to a biography of Ashley Callie.Toby Ornott (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, what? That's pretty clearly false. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe it is? He just happened to have traveled along the wrong road at the wrong time of night.  Is this mischance so important to a biography of a dead South African starlet that his name needs to headlined in an encyclopedia which prides itself in believing that its articles are more than the common everyday tabloid?  Why not print the name of the stupid bartender who gave her the booze?  His name is probably just as important as the drunk driver's (and this "drunkenness" has not yet been established by review).  As you said, "it's all over the internet..."  So, does that mean that Wikipedia should print what gossip mongers crave?Toby Ornott (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

2. Can folks also comment on whether the anonymous forum post by the person who blames the subject for her drunk driving should be included? Particularly since someone else has been charged with causing the accident? I don't think car accident victims typically get testimonials on Wikipedia, and it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. Avruch  T 13:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do me a favor. Read what I wrote above. Read your comment. Read my reply to your comment. Then ask whether your most recent reply makes any sense in that context. You might notice that my above remark was not an argument necessarily for inclusion of the name. The comment is that his name is clearly far more relevant than your name. It doesn't require wanting the name in to see that and shouts of "oh! no! tabloidism!" in response doesn't help matters at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The name was removed on the 31st.  Since it was not visible when I read the article, I felt no desire to know his identity.  Identifying him as the "driver of the second car" was sufficient.  If he is found quilty, then perhaps his name would be more important.  However, he really is not notable. ThsQ (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I agree.  It is far from encyclopedic.  It's inclusion is a dangerous precedent.  It is anonymous.  That should immediately eliminate it from inclusion.  Should we include in a biography an anonymous confession from a love-sick extraterrestrial for his sins with a Hollywood star?  Who is to say that I did not write it.Toby Ornott (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whose to say you didn't write it? Erm, the fact that's is referenced in a variety of reputable, third party sources? Honestly, if I could find the name of the bartender who served her that night, or what she had for breakfast that morning, and it was well referenced in third party sources, I would put it in the article! A biographical article should contain every shred of information that is possibly available surrounding the subject of the biography! (And while not the reason for her notability, her death and the aftermath thereof counts as being related to the subject) GrahamDo (talk) 07:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Although it is signed anonymous, the victim identifies itself: "i wish you could see me try and walk with all the metal in my leg."  The quote should be reduced to a single sentence, and someone should find the person.  A good reporter will eventually undercover this.  Or discount it.  If the latter, then it should not be included. ThsQ (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is it anonymous? If it is a "fact that it's referenced in a variety of reputable, third party sources", why hasn't someone attributed it to a real person?  Unless every passenger in the car had similar injuries, it would seem easy to find out who said it.  It's ridiculous to provide it as "anonymous".  As one person stated above: "I don't think car accident victims typically get testimonials on Wikipedia, and it doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me."  I agree completely.  As long as it is anonymous, I oppose.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JiggleJog (talk • contribs) 14:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Quote styles
On the issue of the excessive "stylising" of quotes, I had a look at the Quote box2 template, and I can honestly say that those examples look a little too "gawdy" for my tastes. Then, I tested just a straight, but it looked far too plain. There are only two quotes in the entire article, both of which speak directly of who Callie was, so I wanted them to stand out. cquote2 was the one that looked "nicest," for me. If anyone feels really strongly that it's too much and a simple would suffice, and consensus can be reached, I guess I'll just have to get used to it. :) The article belongs to Wikipedia after all, and not GrahamDo. GrahamDo (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Try working with this&mdash;

the coding is:. You can realign "right", "left", "center"; and increase box width from 10% to 80%. You can also add various other coding such as for a smaller Dr Zweledinga Pallo Jordan if you prefer a difference in typeset. Or add coding for a different background color. You can even use the at the end of Jordan's name for an appropriate footnote reference [5].

It is less obtrusive. Your current use of cquote is very demanding, far more than the quotes deserve. Anne Teedham (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll put it in for awhile, and try and get used to it. Maybe it will grow on me. :) GrahamDo (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed the box for the quote at the memorial service. It greatly interferred with the article's visual impact.  Also, it was unnecessary.  There is no need to "highlight" the remarks. Obtrusive...gawdy...good words: they describe the use of those sorts of box displays. JiggleJog (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple changes
I made many alterations to the manuscript. Those include: de-wikifying dates (because Wikipedia no longer encourages date-wikis); and removing red links. Although Wikipedia vacillates on the subject, I do not. A manuscript with multiple red links looks bad. Wikifying subjects can be done easily. There is no need to wikify a subject unless an article exists. If an editor elects to "red link" an article, then an editor should write the corresponding article ASAP. Wikipedia provides no guideline as to how long yet says, "...editors are encouraged to write the article first, and use the wikiproject or user spaces to keep track of unwritten articles. Articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles... or every chapter in a book...." The red links in this article have existed since November 2008. In my opinion, that is too long. Moreover, many of the linked subjects will never become Wikipedia articles. If an article is placed in Mainspace, it should LOOK as close as possible TO COMPLETION, or remain in Userspace. This article looked like a mess.

Another area of concern is: quoting. There is no need for the dramatic presentation of the current quotes. Yes, they are interesting. But they do not deserve the stylistic use of the Quote Box. Furthermore, the quote by the anonymous person should be limited to one or two thoughts, less than 30 words. Not a monologue. Placing such remarks in both a Quote Box and in length over-emphasis their importance. Yes, the feelings of the anonymous person are significant, but that significance should not attempt to provide NEGATIVE POINT OF VIEW.

This brings me to another point: the name of the second driver. There is sufficient discussion here on the talkpage regarding the name and the length of the details of the accident. The principal editors should pay greater attention to those remarks. WP:BLP is the guiding prinicple. Naming the second driver and emphasising these details is against WP:BLP prinicples. Personally, I think that these details should be limited to one or two sentences. As a pervious editor suggested, "Wikipedia is NOT tabloid news." Hag2 (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The current revision of the article after your changes is fine with me. You can proceed to de-link dates if you really must. (Although as per my comments on the discussion page for this policy I continue to disagree with that policy) The quote box you removed from Pallo Jordan is also OK, as that's not exactly the most important quote in the article. ;) Quoting Kate Turkington's comment and the anonymous blog posting IN ITS ENTIRETY is, I believe, necessary to the article. The former emphasises sadness at the passing of such a great person, and the latter emphasises the intense emotion (on both sides) surrounding her death. My opinion on naming the driver of the second car still stands. I believe his name would be of encyclopaedic interest to anyone who knew anything about Ashley Callie, as well as anyone who just happened to stumble across the article, where it was the first they'd ever heard of her. GrahamDo (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)