Talk:Danièle Watts

Birthdate and Birth Name

I meticulously researched this information and added it on the 17th and it was deleted as being "unsourced" by another user the next day. There was no place that I could see to add the source data but I will explain here how I got it. Rather long explanation. I am 100% sure that it is correct, and in fact I submitted it to IMDB.com - who require documentation of birthdates, places and names - and they accepted my edits.

I searched intelius.com for a "Daniele Watts" in Georgia since her bio lists her as being from Georgia. Found someone by that name, age 28, related to a Marvin Watts. I calculated that she was born in 1985 or 1986 if she is 28 now. Searched linkedin.com for a Marvin Watts in Atlanta, Georgia, found one who was getting a degree at Loma Linda University from 1981 to 1986 so I figured if this is her father she was born in California. Searched a database of California births for Daniele Watts (did not restrict the year) - there was one, a Daniele Lorise Watts born on 11/3/85 in Riverside County. I then looked on her facebook page and on 11/3/2012 she posted that it was her birthday. Oh, and after the fact, I found that she SAID she was born in California. The registry of California births is here: http://ec2-184-72-196-192.compute-1.amazonaws.com/cabiindex.php. If there is a way to add all all that source data to her page, please let me know and I will!

Oh, and that California birth index is based on official county records and contains births through 1995. I was raised in California and just to verify that it was accurate, a few months ago I made a massive list of everybody I'd ever gone to school with or knew was born in California and checked all the names - they were ALL there, and for the people whose birthdates I knew, they were always accurate.

Hannah955 (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2014 (PDT)

The above sounds like original research. Articles are not based on such detective work as your admirable skill in digging into primary sources to trace information about someone.. We look for reliable sources such as articles in newspapers or magazines, since our own detective work can too often turn up info about the wrong person. Edison (talk) 15:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Edison, thanks for explaining. I was getting increasingly frustrated that my additions kept getting reverted. I mean, I was beginning to wonder how ANYONE'S birthdate ever gets added on Wikipedia! I find it odd that you would consider newspapers and magazines reliable sources since they so often get things entirely wrong (for example, with Daniele Watts, a "reliable" media source referred to her boyfriend as her husband). But Wikipedia has its way of doing things. I suspect that Daniele Watts' DOB is NEVER going to get added to Wikipedia at this rate. But then, that might argue that her page should be taken down altogether since she's a minor celebrity at best and probably wouldn't have a Wikipedia page were it not for the recent kerfuffle.

Hannah955 (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2014 (PDT)

Your checking is not original research. Official databases, like California vital statistics, are published sources, and are quite reliable. The birthdate could be added under these circumstances, if nobody would challenge it. With living persons, there is the problem that many people do not want their birthdate published, so it will have to be kept out until the broad public gets to know it "officially" from the newsmedia... Kraxler (talk) 18:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It is original research because it is hard to be 100% sure that a named individual in a state vital records database is the same individual of interest. It is a primary source, and we want reliable secondary sources. We should refrain from adding bio data from state birth records, IMDB, census records, or Ancestry,com family trees, Facebook, or Spokeo. Edison (talk) 21:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

What would be a reliable secondary source - and how could you know that "reliable" secondary source did not get their information from the same primary source I used? I realize that it's possible that the Daniele Lorise Watts listed in the California birth records is not the actress Daniele Watts, but I have a really hard time believing that the following facts don't add up to certainty (or 99.9% certainty):

- a search of intelius.com for a Daniele Watts from Georgia reveals a 28 year old related to a Marvin Watts

- a Marvin Watts in Atlanta Georgia was getting his MSPH in southern California between 1981 and 1986

- Daniele was born in California (according to WIKIPEDIA - and this factoid has not been deleted from her page even though it has received much scrutiny in the past two weeks)

- the only Daniele Watts in the entire California Birth index (which is pretty complete through 1995 births) was born in southern California on 11/3/85 (making her 28 years old)

- Daniele says herself on her Facebook page that she was born on November 3.

The only connection in the above information that I found at all tenuous was the linkedin profile for Marvin Watts - I was not certain he was actually her father. But even without that link, there is some pretty compelling evidence for her being the Daniele Lorise Watts born 11/3/85 in Riverside County. Not arguing so much as trying to get a feel for how rock-solid Wikipedia's sourcing is. Not yet convinced that it is. Hannah955 (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2014 (PDT)

For reference, the policy WP:BLP says "Avoid misuse of primary sources Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Edison (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Relationship status?

News articles disagree as to whether Brian James Lucas is her boyfriend or husband. Because of the conflicting information, I took the unusual step of getting the relationship information directly from a primary source, Brian James Lucas's verified Facebook profile.[1] His verified Facebook profile states that the relationship status is an "open relationship", so that's what I included in this article. --JHP (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Facebook is not a reliable source. Look for an article somewhere in a reliable source to verify the information. Edison (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"famous for"

Sorry but that's bullcrap. Her bio on Wiki only sprung up after the incident. It is completely obvious that it is the incident that makes her famous. She cannot be "famous for her role in Django" as that detail was only found out after the incident and because the role is insignificant enough that she doesn't appear in the top 100 roles in that movie. 78.0.249.246 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a semantic difference between "best known for" and "famous for." I decided to create the page because she has also acted on many television series. I don't think the "incident" was a publicity stunt, but either way, that's not the point. She is notable as an actress.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: What defines an actor/actress as being notable? Could it not be argued that one needs to obtain a leading role in order to stand out from all the other minor characters and extras? -Xnomel (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

TMZ article

The TMZ article just quotes people who claim to have witnessed Watts having sex in public. Something that negative doesn't belong in an article, when it's just based on hearsay published in a tabloid. If the police made a statement about it, or news organisations provided photos (ugh), then it would work. After all, it wouldn't be factual without specifically saying "TMZ quoted anonymous 'eyewitnesses' who claimed…" or something of the sort. —innotata 21:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That's why the stub I created focused on her acting career, with a short passage about the "incident" in her 'personal life' section. I removed the TMZ reference because it seemed unnecessary. There is no need to trash her Wikipedia page or her talkpage...Zigzig20s (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The police provided an audio. You removed any mention of it. The audio directly conflicts with her account of what happened as it shows that a) the officers merely asked her for an ID, b) she then became aggressive and verbally attacked the officers, asked "don't you know who I am", told the police "that they ought to speak with her publicist", phone her dad, and said she was stopped because she was black. All of those are reported by media (non-TMZ). Why did you remove all mentions of anything but her own claims? Do people get to choose the truth? 93.136.58.4 (talk) 06:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Several people edited that section and added/removed info. However, I think this article should focus on her acting career, not have a huge section about every single detail about that incident. It needs to be trimmed.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. —innotata 06:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That information wasn't in the sources that were provided previously. (The police just released the information.) So I'm glad you added the sources.

I am concerned, though, that this is an undue amount of negative information. We have extensive policy on this, and for a reason. So I'll ask for more opinions. —innotata 06:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, all these details you added (whoever 'you' are, as your IP address has only been used to edit this page today) are not useful, because the Buzzfeed article you used as a reference has a quotation from an LAPD spokesperson saying, "At this point it was not released from LAPD, so I do not know where the audio came from." So it's not valid.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that! (I'd assume good faith here, people are welcome to edit from IP addresses, and the IP editor might just not have noticed that on Buzzfeed—I didn't.) Anyway, I've asked for help covering this from Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, as I'm way out of my depth, and hopefully other editors can establish whether she's notable as well. —innotata 07:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like for the TMZ source to be re-added as that has the actual audio of the incident. 24.97.201.230 (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, this is Watts' version of what happened: https://www.facebook.com/wattsdaniele/posts/682727425137030 24.97.201.230 (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but nobody knows where the audio comes from, so it could be fake. It is simply not valid as long as it has not been identified.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking out the BLP/potentially libellous stuff while it's being discussed. The default is to not include during discussion, not include. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If the IP wants to add their suggested material, we can find some consensus about how to include it neutrally, without sensationalizing the incident further, or not include it. Leaving it all in the article without clear consensus is not helpful.

Don't remove all sources

Please don't remove all sources while this is being discussed for possible deletion. Of course the page will be deleted if others think there are no sources/references. This is ridiculous.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If the only sources available are those discussing the 'incident', the article is going to be deleted anyway. I suggest that rather than edit-warring over sources that don't establish her notability by the relevant Wikipedia guideline, you spend your time looking for some that do - i.e. sources giving the required in-depth coverage of her acting career. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read the sources. They mention her role in Django and other films/TV series.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Mentions in passing aren't going to establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't help to much to either a) avoid BLP violations and b) establish that she's notable by only using sources about the LAPD incident for her overall biography. —innotata 14:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You have removed the sources again. I don't want to edit-war, so I don't know what to do. It surely makes the page look weaker during the AFD process if you remove her coverage from [[The Guardian], The Independent, etc. Yes, sources can be used to prove that she acted in several films and TV series, even when that is not their main topic.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll give the sources a look. A lot more have developed in the last 8+ hours. This sort of thing usually leads to a couple nice articles about the individual themselves. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like editors are deleting everything, and there are some BLP concerns unless til this leads to something more notable. Very busy and tired, so shall just make a copy for future reference and see what happens. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The two sources 1- http://blackgirllonghair.com/2013/02/django-unchained-actress-daniele-watts-on-natural-hair-and-working-with-kerry-washington/ 2- http://ktla.com/2014/09/15/lapd-officer-defends-actions-in-questioning-of-django-unchained-actress-daniele-watts-audio-released/ that I had used for where Watts was born and the cities she lived in growing up have been deleted by someone. I should remove those sentences since they're no longer sourced, right? 12.30.109.2 (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
(I'm talking about the Early life and education section only) 12.30.109.2 (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

NBC News covers latest [2]. Civil rights leaders have asked her to apologize to police. Her notability is too tied up in this one negative event that would overwhelm the article as being the most notable and broad coverage she has received (much more notable and broad coverage than her acting career has generated). I don't see how this survives AfD as it would violate our BLP or neutrality policies if it exists. At some point if her notability is substantial where this one event is dominant and can be mentioned along with over, equal or more notable events, then it could remain. If it survives AfD on BLP issues, then the above is NPOV, reliable source reference. Hopefully it will not as civil rights leaders have quickly removed it from the news in no small part to protect her from what happened to the minority women in Tawana Brawley rape allegations and Crystal Mangum (which after some more research I plan to AfD to redirect to Duke lacrosse case). --DHeyward (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"Short films" list

Short films shouldn't be included in this Wikipedia article. 12.30.109.2 (talk) 06:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 06:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That's like making a list of Youtube videos she's appeared in, no? For example, she appeared in a 10-minute short called Room in LA which apparently was only released in Switzerland. I have never heard of it and I don't think anyone else has either. Is it standard to include "short films" in actors' Wikipedia articles? 12.30.109.2 (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if she's notable, it's worth including. It should be properly sourced, though. —innotata 14:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that they should be added back. It was sourced through IMDB. If editors who want to delete the page remove most information and their sources, it simply is not fair and makes the page looks weaker.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What makes a short that the masses will not be able to view or see notable? What would make the actors within these shorts notable? -Xnomel (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the short films be given their own section? Lumping them all under "Films" gives the impression she was in that many feature films (but I'm not sure how this is normall handled). —innotata 22:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Should every single bit of work be listed? Is this not what IMDB is for? Is there a point to duplicating what is listed on IMDB? -Xnomel (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sources on the mandatory-identification incident

You never really understand anything until you look at the primary sources directly, and when I see some of the comments above and some of the edits made I'm not sure people understand what she said.

So far as I can tell, news coverage of the incident began from the couple's Facebook postings. Daniele Watts made an eloquent and impassioned posting:^[3]

"Today I was handcuffed and detained by 2 police officers from the Studio City Police Department after refusing to agree that I had done something wrong by showing affection, fully clothed, in a public place..."

which was backed up by her boyfriend's account,^[4]

"Today, Daniele Watts & I were accosted by police officers after showing our affection publicly. From the questions that he asked me as D was already on her phone with her dad, I could tell that whoever called on us (including the officers), saw a tatted RAWKer white boy and a hot bootie shorted black girl and thought we were a HO (prostitute) & a TRICK (client). This is something that happened to her and her father when she was 16. What an assumption to make!!! Because of my past experience with the law, I gave him my ID knowing we did nothing wrong and when they asked D for hers, she refused to give it because they had no right to do so. So they handcuffed her and threw her roughly into the back of the cop car until they could figure out who she was. In the process of handcuffing her, they cut her wrist, which was truly NOT COOL!!!..."

What some sources characterize as a "debunking" of her story is:

• A TMZ article with what they call "pictures that look like sex",^[5] except that if you actually look at those pictures, in the bottom one the two are not even next to each other, and in the top one her boyfriend is kissing her, has his arm around her waist, and she is wearing pants and a top. This is exactly what she said!

• An apparently covert police recording^[6] which hears her giving an impassioned argument no less articulate and moving than her comments on Facebook, and entirely compatible with them.

Now so far as I can tell, the "civil rights leaders" who have been reported to have called on her to apologize in innumerable news articles are "Project Islamic Hope President Najee Ali, Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable President Earl Ofari Hutchinson", and nobody else with a name I can find, though apparently there were three.^[7] I don't know if these two were specifically sought out by the couple to act on their behalf, but so far I doubt it - their statement is simply that they joined in a cause, perhaps after the New York Times reported on it.^[8] The fact that two people join in a crusade that grew up out of social media, then changed their minds, really has very little meaning.

They are not just two people, but civil rights organizations that also included the Compton Chapter of the NAACP which was contacted directly by Daniele Watts herself. -Xnomel (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What I take as the core issue here is that, in 1970s America, people were proud to live in a country where you couldn't be stopped and demanded to show papers like in Russia. And this right has been jealously defended by the ACLU. Nonetheless, in specific commentary on her situation, apparently the police have rejected the ACLU's position:^[9]

There is also the issue of they were right to think police suspected she was a prostitute. For some in Los Angeles this appears to be a key issue,^[10] yet I don't think the boyfriend's comment about it makes the allegation so definitively as they make out, nor do I believe that the audio recording can prove that he didn't think this was the objective of the officer's questioning. The most fundamental issue is simply that from the moment that an unseen person (perhaps) made this assumption about her, she is being stopped and expected to disprove this allegation or else be taken away in handcuffs. And it appears that for black Americans, this business of being stopped and made to prove they're on legitimate business has gotten really, really, really annoying. Wnt (talk) 11:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the ACLU doesn't advocate withholding identification during a stop. Identification is not unreasonable nor is it incriminating. SCOTUS has held that identification during investigatory detentions is valid. It is the reason why fingerprints and photographs (and soon DNA) is done at arrest without a warrant and without consent. The fact they held her at the scene was more of a favor to her as the jail can hold her for ID just as easily as the officer - all without being arrested. Read the ACLU's guidance for Californians as to what is lawful and what is not. It's similar to a Terry stop. Here's ACLU [11] It's not racial and ID is done on virtually all investigatory detentions for wants and warrants. The computer age, not race, is what makes it possible. She was not required to show ID (and generally not required unless driving). It appears that during the investigation, the officers already decided they weren't going to arrest her and just needed her name to complete the investigation, otherwise they would have taken her to jail as it's a waste of time to just hold her at the scene, identify her, then take her to jail. The only way she would have gone to jail after ID is if she had a warrant. --DHeyward (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

While I support advocacy on these issues, I don't support doing it on Wikipedia. No OR in this article please, and while I'm not sure whether or how much we should cover the LAPD incident, we need to consider proportionality. It would do nobody (including Watts) any service to use Wikipedia for an in-depth analysis of any sort, as far as I can tell. —innotata 22:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored, amirite?? So that means you do not cover up the LA Police arresting a famous black Actress just because she is Black. I agree with Wnt (talk), you need to expose how racist police are in America. You need to expose the phony "Civil Rights Leaders" who are talling her to apologize for the shameful cowards that they are. "Senior editors" and "Administrators" should not have the power to get to choose what gets covered up and what stays on Wikipedia. "No racism to see here, move along." I guess??? 107.191.108.78 (talk) 01:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Full protection?

Really? In any event, please add a full stop and a {{cn}} after the final, rather self-serving, sentence in the career section.--ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Major character in Weeds?

The conclusion of the AFD was that she was a major character in Weeds? Eight episodes in the final season as a love interest for a character constitutes "major". I'd bet that she wasn't on screen for more than 30 minutes. Massive LOL RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD protocol states that should any questions or concerns over a AfD closure arise, they should first be asked on the talk page of the closing editor. You might wish to talk to DangerousPanda if you disagree with the result and intend to take the process further. LRD 23:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Through the discussion, 8 episodes in a major well-known TV series was considered "significant" - as such, it was one of 2 "significant roles", which therefore hit the lower threshold for WP:NACTOR the panda ₯’ 09:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Should the LAPD incident be included at all?

The admin who closed the deletion request (quite reasonably), DangerousPanda, said that "The 'crime' certainly does not lead to any form of notability, and without any formal arrest or conviction should not even BE in the article". I'm inclined to agree, but now that the article has been kept, there should be a proper discussion of this. Is the LAPD incident worth including in Watts' article, and would doing so be in line with policy? —innotata 22:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Admins", Wikipedia needs to STOP CENSORING this SCANDAL of LAPD RACISM. What are people going to think when they see that the entry on this Black actress completely erases police misconduct?? They are going to think Wikipedia is racist and I think they would be right… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.191.108.78 (talk) 21:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If the incident lead to the creation of the page and most did not take note of her prior to the incident should the incident not atleast be noted? There are plenty of other actors/actresses with far more prolific and successful careers that are not listed on wikipedia. If the incident is what sets her a part - then it should be noted. -Xnomel (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Xnomel: I definitely agree that there are more notable actors and actresses without articles; the thing to about that is go create more articles. If she is notable (in the Wikipedia sense and generally speaking), it is not for the LAPD incident, but for roles in television. That's the conclusion of the deletion discussion, and as the person who started it, I agree.

I'm pretty sure that the main thing we need to consider is whether including this incident is important enough in an overall bio of Watts. Do you think so? Any reasons why? —innotata 05:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Innotata:I was drawn to this page due to the incident and am willing to bet most that have viewed the page so far came as a result of it as well. I believe that due to the coverage of the incident it should atleast be noted - not covered in full detail. One or two lines that do not lean to one specific side over the other, cite some sources, then allow the reader to draw their own conclusions and beliefs about the incident itself. I personally know of nobody that knew who Daniele Watts was prior, nor anyone that cared about any of her roles. -Xnomel (talk) 06:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

On October 21, 2014, Watts was charged with lewd conduct. Her arraignment is set for November 13.

• http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Django-Un-279951752.html
• http://abc7.com/news/django-unchained-actress-daniele-watts-charged-w--lewd-conduct/359862/
• http://www.tmz.com/2014/10/21/django-actress-daniele-watts-charged-lewd-conduct-sex/
• http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/10/21/django-actress-daniele-watts-charged-with-lewd-conduct/

but I guess none of this should be mentioned unless she's convicted? 206.71.251.131 (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If formal charges have been filed I do not see why it should not be added. There are plenty of articles that include accusations with no formal charges. Xnomel (talk) 06:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Why aren't her lewd conduct charges listed in here?

Considering the case is going to trial now and that her, and her boyfriend's, earlier claims of racial profiling have been widely and thoroughly discredited it seems only proper to include a section covering the incident and the outcome of the trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.26.192 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)