Wikipedia:Trivia/Archive/2003

Are trivia items of use?
Moved from Village pump on Saturday, September 13th, 02003.

As a general question, are trivia items of interest? As a specific question, while some would dislike it, is the trivia item in the history of edits for George W. Bush interesting, useful to this project and appropriate for this project? (partisans, kindly note that I voted neither for nor against the gentelman - I'm not qualified to vote in US elections - it was of interest to me solely as a piece of trivia which some may find of interest).


 * Could you give some examples of what exactly it is you want to add? Angela 02:30, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)


 * For GWB I entered an initial entry "During one of the inaugural balls he raised the arms of one of his daughters who was wearing a sleeveless dress, inadvertently exposing her breasts. At least one network failed to notice and skip this and it was broadcast live." For GHWB, one would be "Found travel in the presidential limo boring, so he would play a game called 'lighting up' in which he caught the eye of people he was passing and watched their face light up". That one from the Bravo TV reruns of the TV series "West Wing", so it appears there is at least some interest in presidetial trivia. For any President, Secret Service names for them and family members, pet types and names. Assorted humanising factoids of various sorts about the person rather than the office. The initial one for GWB may not be appropriate and useful here, while the general trivia items may be. Hence the two part question.JamesDay 03:45, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I would say that things as trivial as that dont belong on the main article page. Besides you might try showing us a source for those rather far fetched anecdotes. You also might try putting some other work in and developing an identity here, that we may get to know your work and trust you in your claims. (We do get crackpots here.) --&#25140;&#30505sv 04:08, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC) P.S -- was it Jenna?


 * I agree that the main page wasn't the best of locations. I don't recall the hair color of the daughter, so I can't say whether it was the daughter who happens to have the same name as an actress. For at least a short time, you'll find a little more information about me on my user page. Please feel free to post a message to the identities I've claimed if you doubt the accuracy of those claims. You're in the wrong country for West Wing trivial - it's a very widely watched US TV show in the US, which broke the record for most Emmy's won in a single season. In the rebroadcasts I'm watching it includes trivia about the Whitehouse during each episode, between the fiction and the ads, presented by well known people who worked there during the administration concerned. That's the source for the lighting up item.JamesDay 20:31, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Firstly, anything that goes on Wikipedia should be verifiable (see verifiability) and encyclopedic. If a anecdote is verifiable, presented in the wider context of their life,  and reveals something about the character or personality person concerned, or that's fair enough.  On that basis, I would find it very difficult to see how an anecdote about the accidental exposure of a breast adds anything to the GWB article - it sounds like an embarrassing but trivial incident that could have happened to anyone, it's just that he had the misfortune to do so while there were cameras.


 * Some stuff that might be considered tacky gossip is sometimes relevant, particularly if it has been widely discussed. For instance, it's entirely relevant to the article on Rob Lowe to mention his videotaped escapades, George Michael's article to mention his arrest, or for the article on Britney Spears to discuss the focus on her virginity - or to take a non-celebrity example Alan Turing's sex life.--Robert Merkel 04:24, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * However, looking at those articles, Lowe's and Michael's articles should have more material on their professional careers - George Michael is one hell of a pop singer. --Robert Merkel 04:28, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Back to Presidential Trivia, I think trivia that can be verified is permissible in their article. I think many readers may find these anecdotes even more entertaining than the professional information.


 * Verification of the item about Bush and arm raising is somewhat difficult, since I observed it on a live TV broadcast I wasn't recording. The broadcaster will have a tape and others will have observed it but the only way to verify it is to present the item and solicit a request for other observers or evidence. It's inherently hard to substantiate personal observations, yet I'm reluctant to accept that a lack of very wide observation means things didn't happen. A note that the evidence is currently limited seems to be of value, though.JamesDay 20:31, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think that a lot of things classified as trivia are interesting, and see no reason to exclude them. However, I think that information should be included only if it can be verified from publically available sources. If the thing about Ms. Bush (whichever one it was) was just something that someone noticed on television, without being reported in the press, I don't think it should be included. After all, anyone could say that they saw something on television, and unless the television programme is available to buy on video or is otherwise accessible to the public after it has been broadcast, there is no way to check that they're not making it up. Someone could say that you just imagined it. Wishful thinking, perhaps. ;) The question that needs to be answered in this case and in similar cases is: is it a matter of public record that it actually happened? -- Oliver P. 02:00, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Shall we have a separate presidential trivia page?
As for SS names for presidents and their family and pets, perhaps a seperate article should be considered if the list is long. The list could be referenced in the See also: section of the article. Just my $.02... &mdash;Frecklefoot 16:59, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Is there reasonable consensus that a presidential trivia page would be of interest and appropriate?JamesDay 20:31, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)