Talk:Sally Struthers/Archives/2018

Legal Troubles
Not really sure that a simple DUI in Maine that was "sensationalized" in tabloid media (People / TMZ) and local news to that region constitutes its own section titled: "Legal Troubles". This smacks of "tabloid" and WP:recentism for its time. Struthers has had no other "Legal Troubles" enough to warrant an entire section; and certainly a DUI in Ogunquit Maine is far from a notable mention in this article. Removing due to undue in relation to the rest of the article. Maineartists (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I placed this topic here for discussion earlier in the year; and it seems to be picking up editorial opinion by way of major editing within the article itself. Once again, I will reiterate the above; and welcome an open discussion to its relevance to the BLP and article on the whole in hopes of consensus for removal; which I am advocating. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE I am finding myself more in alignment with Inclusionism as I learn more and more about Wikipedia.  All facts that can be proven true with reliable secondary sources are inherently relevant to any subject of any article.  If I am researching entertainers with traffic arrests in the last 10 years this is very relevant.  Triviality and its degrees should not up to editors because that can make a WP:NPOV vary hard to maintain.  We need to leave the value of a facts as much up to the reader as possible and endeavor that these facts are accurate and can be relied upon.  Simply because a fact isn't flattering or its presence is undesirable does not make it any less of a fact.  If it is poorly worded into a paragraph or section and does not fit there, perhaps it needs a home in a different location of the article, but it is still a fact and worth having because if it is true and verifiable it has a place SOMEWHERE in the article.  As in this example, good or bad fact is fact and each statement in the section is absolutely a fact supported by its source.  I would encourage that it could be written a bit less... newsy.  Has she published any comments on the issue since?  Did she learn anything in her experience she was quoted as saying?  Has she advocated against such things since or backed any fundraising efforts to help support the message?  Expansion of the section is what I would support, not removal, it is still a true fact and it did occur, exactly as written according to the sources. ---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 01:24, 21 April 2018‎ (UTC)
 * Hi, Darryl. Thanks for your .02. However: we are not voting here. There is no need to "oppose" in bold. Second, please sign your comments with (4 ~'s) so other editors know who has made the entry (I have done this for you). That being said: you have spotlighted it perfectly by asking questions that cannot be found outside of this one specific incident. Take for instance another occurrence that happened in Maine, not once, not twice, but three times and publicized extensively: Nancie Atwell, a well-known educator. Not only was it covered in the state papers, but it made national headlines: NYPOST, NY DAILY NEWS. When the topic of inclusion was brought to the BLP noticeboard, the consensus was to not include it for the exact reasons stated above. Ms. Struthers incident is far less in coverage and is the absolute definition of WP:recentism that did not further its coverage after the fact. Furthermore, Ms. Struthers has never had any other "Legal Troubles" before or after to warrant an entire section that would signify that this particular BLP has had trouble with the law. Which this article now represents and is WP:undue. We must adhere to WP guidelines; and just because something "can be proven true with reliable secondary source" does not mean it should be included. We are here to write good articles for WP, not gather and include as much information that can be found in secondary sources. A one-time DUI in Maine for the life of Sally Struthers is not "inherently relevant" to the subject of this article. It does not reflect past activity or future. If you can find any more information that does not cover the incident at the present time; and would justify keeping an entire section titled "Legal Troubles", then we can discuss keeping it. Until that time, the section should be removed until further sources that extend either the section or the incident can be found: per WP guidelines, not editorial point of view. Lastly: your interest in "traffic arrests in the last 10 years of entertainers" has nothing to dowith WP: WP:NOTNP and only supports your own opposition: "triviality and its degrees should not (sic) up to editors". Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I read WP:recentism. 2012 is not a recent event, nor is anyone updating it frivolously as it develops.  I also read WP:undue.  I do not find a sub-section under "personal life" containing fifty odd words in four sentences presenting the facts of an event placing any imbalance on neutrality or presentation.  It isn't trying to offset any other view, nor is it being promoted from any obscure minority.  For a personal note, Ms. Struthers and the plethora of work done in the major portion of her career was right smack dab in the middle of an era of my life.  When I see a photo of her or catch a clip of from a show she was in and hear her distinct and recognizable voice it triggers memories of times and places that I hadn't visited in a while.  I can not think of anything I have seen of her work that I didn't enjoy or at a minimum appreciate.  Your example in Nancie Atwell I find extremely hard to compare in both person and article.  You didn't include a link to the discussion and I don't have time motivation to go look for it.  With all due respect to Ms. Atwell, she is not in the entertainment business with decades of recognition in the public eye.  If you can successfully remove the same section from Caitlyn Jenner then my opposition to removing it from Ms. Struthers' article, which was a statement of opinion as bold as it may be, would be recanted entirely. --->   Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I do not believe that you truly grasp the meaning of WP:recentism as it applies to inclusion within a WP article. The very point that the incident was in 2012, and was covered only at that time as an isolated event: meaning that it was insignificant enough to not warrant further press, is the very definition of recentism: it was a news spike that throws the entire article off balance: "article imbalance" and is recentism as a negative. Please re-read the lede: WP:recentism and its surrounding points. They apply 100%. If you need further help understanding, please visit the Teahouse; they will gladly help. Second: regardless of a BLP being an entertainer, politician, public person, et al, they are still all: BLPs at WP, and the same rules apply. Your points are all personal opinion and desires toward your usage of WP as a newspaper not an encyclopedia. The very fact that her life long devotion to ChildFund and her being a spokesperson for International Correspondence Schools in the Activism has only received a few lines at best; and yet one DUI in Maine received its own section with equal weight clearly shows that it does not belong and is tabloid. The references for the incident are duplicates within the press (2 of which are tabloids); and was only covered within a few days. Sorry, your case has not been proven withing the guidelines for WP regulations. Your own wishes are failing in this discussion. Last, your references to a fatal multiple-vehicle collision involving Caitlyn Jenner is not recentism. It lasted from February 2015 to January 2016; and involved several other well-known persons and extensive media coverage. It is something that the BLP is now known for. Maineartists (talk) 17:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I understand now the inability to connect the two BLPs (Atwell / Struthers), since my explanation was not clear. Yes, you are correct, the Struthers incident is not recent (2012); however, it should not have gone into this article to begin with due to its recentism at the time; since it was not allowed enough time to see if it was significant enough with further news and media coverage to warrant inclusion (which it did not, now that it is 2018). Much like the Atwell article, which was significant and was her 3rd criminal arrest for theft, the consensus was: wait and see if there was more coverage. Until that time: do not include, it is not what the BLP is known for enough for inclusion. Maineartists (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Vandalism? One might be reticent when one enters into what appears to now be an edit war for personal reasons other than wanting to create a good article at WP re: WP:ILIKEIT. It's difficult to gain consensus when traffic for the page itself is non-existent; and opposition cannot challenge within the guidelines of WP regulations. But you are correct: I will let it alone here; knowing that this is not good writing, not relevant to the BLP and the article's weight, and Tabloid news - not encyclopedic content. Maineartists (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse discussion copied / moved here per request
Long time editor - first time Tea Houser. I'd really like some sound advice and not personal opinion; based on WP policy for writing a good editing on a BLP within the guidelines and content structure based on similar articles. I brought the subject topic to the BLP noticeboard and received no response. Furthermore, the BLPs Talk Page is so poor on traffic, that this is the only topic even brought to it for discussion. Receiving a productive and constructive multi-voiced discussion on this page is next to impossible. I refuse to enter into an edit war; but I feel strongly that with the BLPs notability, this one topic Legal Troubles is not only undue weight (since they have never had any other "legal troubles" to warrant an entire section), but is more tabloid than encyclopedic; and was recentism for its original inclusion. I am sure some editors will say that without consensus, this topic is dead in the water and I should just leave it be; and perhaps I should. But I feel that it is not good writing, and has more cons than pros for a WP article on a BLP. Especially in keeping with other BLPs minor media run-ins that are not mentioned due to non-notable reasons. "Legal troubles" just does not imply a one-time DUI in Ogunquit Maine. I have already removed the overkill citations that included tabloid media. Thank you for your time and attention. I appreciate it. Maineartistsn (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the Teahouse, . I agree with your assessment, and have removed that section of the article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, Cullen328 . I really appreciate your weighing in here and also taking the initiative to remove what I have always thought to be wrong for the article. Best, Maineartists (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)


 * thanks for bringing this up, I learned a lot trying to reply. U|Cullen328 I see you took care of business, citing WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. Well done. Could you critique my analysis?
 * Sticking strictly to WP core content policies as I understand them, I am struck by the triviality of that two-sentence article section devoted to an isolated - albeit reliably sourced and verified - factoid. It is unimportant. I might flag the sentences while addressing in Talk, just before deleting. Once upon a time x did Y. So what? Adds nothing to knowledge of article subject.
 * Relevant WP policies I would choose would not focus exclusively on WP:BLP, as these will be irrelevant at time of subject's death. But see first example of that BLP Policy page, section WP:PUBLICFIGURE: "Is the divorce  important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so ...". I would say the isolated incident in question is not important to the article.
 * The template "Importance section" usage note reads: "sections in an article that is about a clearly notable subject should themselves be of encyclopedic merit and both relevant to the topic of the article and non-trivial (i.e. "important" in the context). " I am tempted to add it now.
 * But consider, in addition, the several relevant WP content Policies noted on WP:NOT, which will apply even after the death of article subject. These include WP:NOT: "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Many more to choose from on that page, but I see a senior editor has done the right thing already. Perhaps his comment or this content may be useful on the Talk page of that article for future reference, perhaps not. WP:UNDUE certainly covers life after death, but I fear content may yet reappear in future without some closure on article Talk page. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with much of what you say, . However, we cannot "lock" the article to prevent future editors from trying to add this incident. Perhaps a very brief mention of the incident might be appropriate if the article was expanded, so that it does not constitute due weight. Consensus can change, as can the structure and comprehensiveness of an article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , that makes sense. I don't see it happening in this particular case (unless Sally takes a serious turn for the worse beginning in her wild and crazy seventies), but a valid point. Thank you for your thoughtful response and presence here. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 05:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

All these points are exactly what I attempted to raise on the Talk Page, but since it garnered no traffic, it fell on only one opposing editor's ears that wanted the tidbit included based on personal WP:ILIKEIT views. I have always agreed that: "yes" if the article was vastly expanded and covered much more of the BLP's life and career, perhaps a DUI might warrant a single mention during her Ogunquit appearances in Maine; but even so, the category in which this falls within the WP spectrum does not constitute viable inclusion. Thank you for bringing up these policies that should alleviate future need for entry. Best, Maineartists (talk) 12:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My original involvement in this succession of events of removing a section from an article was because proper procedure was not followed. In addition I do not find the reasoning of doing so as sound or entirely accurate.  I appreciate sincerely the invitation to be included in this conversation and now understand how you bypass an opposition to an interpretation and that a lack of attention after a period of time equals a consensus in my favor.  Where is the inclusion of my input not just to procedure but that the information is validated by reliable sources and should remain in the article in some lessnewsy form?  Not one word of mine has been recognized or addressed with any rebuttal to my points or concerns other than pointing at WP:UNDUE.  When I read WP:UNDUE it is referring to giving a theory or opinion with slim or no reference held by a small or minute minority a representation or position greater than its overall support.  It does not address "triviality" or "tarnishing" but rather giving promotion to an ideal that has been loosely interpreted and has a lack in factual basis and general acceptance, especially when in an opposition or contradiction of the article itself.  Anything else I have had to say on the subject is on the talk page where it belongs, and has been ignored entirely.  My motivation to continue my goals here has been terribly soured by this.  I spoke up for unbiased neutrality, accurate information, proper process and at a minimum open discussion.  It seems I am still doing so. --->   Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't forget my acknowledged, reasoned objections, citing specific content policies and standard operating procedures. and, may I respectfully request you reconsider my penultimate suggestion above, to copy all this to article Talk page. Optionally, then close here (not generally needed at Teahouse).  Thanks to all three of you for your interest.  -- Paulscrawl (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC)