Jump to content

Talk:James Middleton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability

[edit]

Is this subject really notable enough to have his own article? Contaldo80 (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear me. It isn't a game of happy family where we need the entire set. I imagine <redact insult> mummy and daddy middleton articles will be added next —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.177.221 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IP, I've edited your comment to remove the insulting nickname - please read WP:BLP. Exxolon (talk) 22:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a member of the Royal Family, a celebrity or clearly a successful businessman. I can't see why he should get a wiki page. (86.31.33.45 (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Contested deletion

[edit]

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --208.176.119.50 (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC) he is important because his sister is the future queen of england.[reply]

That would demonstrate why she is important but reflects nothing of his importance84.93.177.221 (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should NOT be deleted. I actually came to Wiki to read about him and saw the deletion sign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prwagner3 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User_talk:Zoeydahling#James_Middleton

[edit]

I have decided to copy this disucssion from my talk page onto this page, since it seems relevant to the general pool of editors for this page:

I have reverted your expansion - please be aware that tabloid newspapers are not reliable sources. Ironholds (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information I added under "Public Image" seems to be contested on the talk page, but regardless, the early life info holds. It comes from Pippa and Kate's pages and I see no reason why it should not be included on James'. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, because the mail, express and star are not reliable sources. If you wish to consider including information from reliable sources, do so, but adding unreliable information to a BLP is something that ends badly. Ironholds (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So is your argument that the Early Life information should also be deleted from Kate and Pippa's pages as well, then? --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please mind directing me to a page that shows consensus that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source? I have seen it contested on various talk pages and I would like to know if that is something consensus has been reached over or is simply a matter of personal opinion? Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the part with the google info had other sources backing it up other than those you expressed issue with. In addition there is plenty more recent coverage re the drag and nudity. above the people suggest mail and other sources to back it up which is easily doable here Nirame (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide other sources and remove the mail references. Ironholds (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It says no where the mail ones should be removed when other sources confirm the info is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 16:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading the link you provided, it does not claim that The Daily Mail is never a reliable source, just that it is sometimes not a reliable source. Furthermore, the consensus seems to be that the Daily Mail can be used when other sources back up the claims. The "Early Life" section as I had written it was backed up by sources such as: wargs.com, The Telegraph, Hello!, News of the World, the Party Pieces Website, & The Scotsman. Therefore I am having trouble with your claim that the entire section needs to be reverted because of the use of a few Daily Mail links, especially in light of the link you yourself provided regarding the Daily Mail as a RS. Therefore, I think that that section can reasonably be restored to the way I posted since it lines up with your information regarding the Daily Mail.
Furthermore, the section about "James Middleton gay" being a popular Google search was not sourced at all by the Daily Mail and therefore I don't understand your claims that it should be deleted. The cross-dressing information appears to be mainly sourced by the Daily Mail, but corroborated by ctv.ca and seems to be available in other sources. Until those other sources are added, we may be justified in removing the cross-dressing section, but it seems to me that the rest of the article as I had written it holds up. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well said. sadly the article is now locked for 3 days and just happened to be locked 1 min after the contested info was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 16:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Content from the Daily Mail as with similar papers requires looking at in the light of day - it is basically a WP:RS but saying that - much of what it writes is not the type of titillating commentary that you would like to find in any decent life story. - oops, don't mind me I thought this was the article talkpage, excuse me. Off2riorob (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but then how is what was written in the Early Life section "titillating commentary"? It was simply fact-based information, verified by other sources (as mentioned above) regarding his early life. I don't see how anything in there, as I had typed it, really fell into BLP-violation territory, and thus am having difficulty understanding why the page was locked in protection of that information. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it is perfectly relevant in the article as it illustrates the different backgrounds and cirumstances compared to the new in laws and demonstrates media interest in all of their lives and how far the press looks into them as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 17:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You would have more success blogging it than attempting to publish such fringe titillation here. Finding some trivia in a low quality source is not a reason to repeat it forever and publish it here on wikipedia and so forever to the world - sexual speculation is pretty much a no no here. This subject is not a notable self declared cross dresser so we don't add all that titillation - we don't sell trivia and titillation here we write life stories about notable people.Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere did it describe him as a cross dresser merely that he had worn dresses and those one were borrowed from pippa and kate. Kates wedding dress alone has its own article him sharing her atire is of note to many as indicated by the coverage. Nirame (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage - smoverage. If the WP:BBC report it get back to me. Hey were not saying he's a cross-dresser or gay or anything but ..... is not of interest here - wrong speculative location. WP:BLP requires a conservative approach to what we assert about our subjects. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wholeheartedly agree, there are higher standards for inclusion in an article than a couple of tabloid reports. The BLP policy demands that we be careful about this, particularly when it comes to marginally notable individuals. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources

[edit]

For some reason, it seems necessary to remind some editors over and over what the Wikipedia phrase "reliable source" means. It does not mean 'this was published in the New York Times'. It does not mean, 'the story was written by Pulitzer-prize winning Linda Greenhouse'. It does not mean 'this story explains XXXX better than any other such article'.

When looking at a reliable source, you first have to look at how you intend on using the information from the source. It can be from a reputable company, and a reputable journalist, and even on a topic that they are an expert about, and if you misuse it, the information is *not* a reliable source.

Daily Mail is an example of a newspaper that loves to titillate. Most items from Daily Mail will come with POV problems, even if they are factually accurate, which they may not be. If the story is full of "so-and-so, friend of the family, says ...." then you can probably assume its not a Wikipedia Reliable Source.

In Wikipedia, we have to stick to reliable sources, neutral viewpoints, and also for articles about people, we have to avoid defaming them, per WP:BLP And remember, we're working on an encyclopedia here, not a tabloid. We have a different goal. I hope this info helps. -- Avanu (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kate and Carole confirmed james was in the photos so that was confirmed by the family directly. Him wearing his sisters dresses and others for fancy dress and confirming that he has done so. How is it defaming him by showinf jovial behaviour and wearing fancy dress?Nirame (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about defamation. We are writing an encyclopedia article not a "list of things tabloids published in order to sell papers". That something is verified does not make it encyclopedic.--Scott Mac 18:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, encyclopedic content is definitely the number one thing we should be striving for. The other stuff is important to note though. -- Avanu (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Important to note"? Why? Hans Adler 19:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, besides being encyclopedic, which is a super vague all-encompassing term, it needs to meet the guidelines Wikipedia has established (WP:BLP, Notable, reliable sources, etc). Encyclopedic for Encyclopaedia Britannica might mean something that it does not mean here. In general, the articles marked "Featured Article" are best at displaying what people mean by encyclopedic. -- Avanu (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? That was not the expected explanation why attendance at a wedding makes conjectures about someone's sex life fair game for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I understood you to have claimed that "the other stuff" (= salacious speculations and rumours) is "important to note". Is that not what you meant? Hans Adler 21:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic = whatever it means, other stuff = Reliable sources, Verifiability, Notability, etc. I was talking about guidelines for content, not content itself. -- Avanu (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*blush* Sorry, too many new (for me) accounts in this thread. Your intended meaning is clear from your first post in this section. All my fault. Sincere apologies. Hans Adler 21:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Mail is not a source that can even be relied upon to be factually accurate most of the time. It is most definitely not a source which meets the Wikipedia RS standard for biographies - namely a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. To paraphrase a recent comment by Jimbo after they printed a story about a Wikipedia recently which was completely wrong, he asked: "I wonder how often we link to the Daily Mail as if it is actually a source for anything at all? The number of times we should do so is really quite small – for most things they are just useless"." [1] As has been noted, much of their content is more often than not attributed to 'family friends' etc - and should be nowhere near Wikipedia. The times we could use it are obviously just to support talking about something they have said as the Daily Mail. i.e., on such and such a date, the Daily Mail reported that such and such said.... However, given its general focus on tabloid trivia, the times when 'such and such' will be a named authorative person and the topic something which we would have an article on, is going to be miniscule, and if it is something worth including, it's pretty likely a more reliable source has also picked it up. In the very rare times that they have an exclusive on something we might be interested in, other reliable sources will normally check and repeat the claims, and then we can repeat that those claims were reported on. MickMacNee (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit protected

[edit]

As the article is protected for a few days - take this time to seek and present your desired additions here - add the {{edit protected}} template and clearly state your desired addition and other users will comment in support or with reasons against the desired edit. One way to move towards consensus acceptance of your desired addition is to present it here for discussion prior to requesting the addition so as to test the water for support. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Readding the "Early Life" section

[edit]

While the "Public Image" section is being contested above, I see no reason why my edits to the "Early Life" section of the article in this revision were reverted. The information is encyclopedic and backed up by sources other than the Daily Mail. It is in no way "titillating" or inappropriate for an encyclopedic article and I would like to request that that section be restored. Since the article is up for an AfD nom., I think it is important to make sure editors have the chance to improve the article, and that section at least is one way to do so. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please repost your desired edit here in this section - clearly for all to see, I had a look and from your post was unable to see your desired addition - please post your desired addition clearly here including the external support for it - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Zoeydahling 23.233.31.176 (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the section I was referring to: --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing anything - edit requests are only granted by administrator in my experience when they are so clearly presented here as to be an easy cut and copy into the article from here including the citations and when WP:consensus is clearly supportive of the addition. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm confused by what you mean. I posted below the section as it was in my edit. If you look below there is a section here that matches exactly with the section I typed entitled "Early Life and Education" and it includes everything, with the sources. It would be an easy copy/paste for an admin. So I am not sure what you mean by your comment; I would appreciate if you could clarify please? --Zoeydahling (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a reflist, so that users can investigate your desired edit, the best is if you present it as open and explanatory as possible. If you want users to support your desired addition I recommend you present it to them to easily evaluate. Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education

[edit]

James was born in 1987, the youngest child and only son of Michael Middleton (b. 23 June 1949) who was then a British Airways flight dispatcher,[1][2] and Carole Goldsmith (b. 31 January 1955), who was a former flight attendant.[3][4] His father's family came from Leeds, in Yorkshire, and one of his great-grandmothers, called Olivia Lupton, belonged to a business family active in Leeds for generations.[1][5] Carole Middleton's mother's family were labourers and miners from County Durham.[6] His elder sisters are Catherine Elizabeth (born 1982) and Phillipa Charlotte (born 1983).[1]

Prior to James' birth, his parents were based in Amman, Jordan, working for British Airways from May 1984, to September 1986, where eldest sister Catherine went to an English language nursery school,[7] before the family returned to their home in Bucklebury, Berkshire.[8] Inspired by the birth of her son James in 1987,[1] Carole set up 'Party Pieces', a company which began by making party bags and which now sells party supplies and decorations by mail order. By 1995 the firm, run by both parents, was so successful that it moved into a range of farm buildings at Ashampstead Common,[9][10] and since then the Middletons are reported to have become millionaires.[11]

James was educated at St Andrew's School, Pangbourne, followed by Marlborough College. He started a degree in English at Edinburgh University[12] in 2006 but left after one year as he was more eager to start his own business. He now lives in a Chelsea flat, reportedly purchased by his parents for £780,000 in 2002, with his sister Pippa and his black cocker spaniel puppy Ella.[13][14]

  1. ^ a b c d Joseph, Claudia (22 March 2009). "Revealed: Secrets of the Middletons' money". Daily Mail. Retrieved 4 May 2011.
  2. ^ The Leeds connection in Yorkshire Evening Post
  3. ^ Ancestry of Kate Middleton at wargs.com, accessed 4 January 2011
  4. ^ Claudia Joseph, The intriguing story of the woman who gave Kate her looks – and family wealth, in Daily Mail (21 November 2010) , accessed 4 January 2011
  5. ^ The Leeds connection in Yorkshire Evening Post
  6. ^ Christopher Wilson, Kate, the coal miner's girl in Daily Mail (22 December 2006) , accessed 4 January 2011
  7. ^ Rayner, Gordon (7 March 2011). "Kate Middleton family photos reveal her time in Jordan". The Telegraph. Retrieved 11 March 2011.
  8. ^ "Profiles – Kate Middleton". Hello!. August 2001. Retrieved 9 August 2008.
  9. ^ Party Pieces Princess in News of the World (21 November 2010) , p. 4
  10. ^ About us at partypieces.co.uk, accessed 19 February 2011
  11. ^ Generation why-should-I? on The Scotsman (11 June 2008) , accessed 4 January 2011.
  12. ^ Levy, Geoffrey and Kay, Richard (1 September 2009). "How many MORE skeletons in Kate Middleton's closet?". The Daily Mail. Retrieved 3 May 2011.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ^ Zoe Brennan (27 Apr 2011), "The very ambitious Mr Middleton", Daily Telegraph
  14. ^ "5 Things You Didn't Know About James Middleton". US Weekly. 28 April 2011. Retrieved 3 May 2011.

Personal Life

[edit]

How is the one sentence in the article "He now lives in a Chelsea flat, reportedly purchased by his parents for £780,000 in 2002, with his sister Pippa and his black cocker spaniel puppy Ella." trivial? It's about his personal life and is only one sentence so it's not given any undue weight. Further, there is precedent for using "reportedly" when discussing the cost of something (see John Carpenter, David Beckham) since cost is not usually stated outright for the public. Further, your point about Otto is moot. Making an entire article devoted to a dog to prove a WP:POINT is one thing; including one mention of a dog in one sentence about James' personal life is hardly worth removing the entire section for. If it is reliably sourced there's no reason a dog can't be mentioned in a larger article about the notable subject, whereas with Otto an entire article was created. I fail to see the parallel here. I think I addressed all of your points as far as why you removed the section Scott MacDonald, so hopefully we can have a civil discussion here with anyone else who cares to weigh in about why this sentence was so offensive to the WP:BLP policy that it needed to be removed. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't read the page WP:OTTO. If you did, you'd have seen that Ella was given to a friend of James'. The story about Otto and Ella belonging to the Middleton family was a HOAX. And that's the basic problem, that the sources being used on this article, and the little tit bits (like the price of his home) are all coming not from proper biographical sources but from asides in celebrity gossip columns, which are notoriously unreliable. Much of the information in this article needs removed as unreliable, trivial, and having undue weight.--Scott Mac 08:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTTO is a long essay and I see nowhere that indicates Ella does not belong to James, just that there is no proof she ate an earring. And the fact of the matter is, I did not see anyone trying to add that Ella ate an earring in this article. All I see is a sentence indicating that she is James' dog. Can you please explain to me how one reliably sourced sentence about his personal life is given undue weight? It was sourced by Us Weekly and The Telegraph. And regardless, if you have issues with certain parts of the sentence, remove those pieces or ask for better sourcing; but to say the whole section needs to be removed is silly. Many BLPs have sections about their personal lives, and I see no policy-based reasoning as to why such a thing cannot be included for James.
Furthermore, I see no reason why the information about the picture scandals was deleted. The information was reliably sourced. It's no longer just a matter of pictures being released; the Middleton family took legal action and the pictures have been removed from circulation. That was reliably sourced by The Telegraph, Fox News, and now the BBC is covering it. That makes it relevant to the James article and not just gossip and therefore belongs in this article. Just because something doesn't reflect positively on the subject does not mean it should not be included. Do no harm states "The "do no harm" principle does not justify the removal of relevant negative information about a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Thus, they must represent fairly and without bias all significant views and information (that have been published by reliable sources)." The information added is in keeping with the WP:NPOV policy as it is reliably sourced and relevant to the subject, since the family replied with legal action, and thus should be included in the article. Please stop removing content simply because you don't like it. We need to ensure a well-rounded encyclopedic article about James, and something that is as well-covered and sourced (again, not just that there were pictures, but the reaction/response to it) is rightly included in this article. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point that WP:OTTO shows is that doggy stories about the Middletons have been shown to be crappy. They are full of false sources and journalists repeating gossip from other newspapers. Maybe James does own Ella, maybe he doesn't. But we simply can't trust newspaper sources at this level of trivia. They simply regurgitate unreliable hearsay and repeat things they read in other papers. Unless you know that James has given information to the newspaper, or you've some idea of the newspaper's source, you've got nothing reliable and certainly nothing notable.--Scott Mac 08:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So your point is that because one story about a totally unrelated dog that was blown out of proportion by the press is reason to believe that James does not own a completely different dog, about whom not stories have been posted regarding some pearl earrings? That is just ridiculous and frankly seems to be a case of original research. I have a reliable source that says James owns the dog. And are you really asking me to do my own original research to find out if the source speaks with James regularly? Should I just call him up and ask?
And either way, what about the rest of the sentence merits its deletion? Besides the fact that you don't like it and clearly don't like the article's existence, as you have stated many times that you do not think it should be here. It seems like you are doing your best to get rid of any reliably sourced information to make this article seem as short as possible. Plenty of other articles cover where and with whom the subject lives; take for instance: Rob Lowe, Candace Cameron Bure, and Bristol Palin. BLPs for notable people from all walks of life include the same kind of information I am attempting to add. I am going to go ahead re-add the information, and unless you can find me a policy that says otherwise (which means we will have a lot of editing to do on a lot of other articles), a reliable source that disputes my claims, or a consensus of uninvolved users who feel otherwise, I would appreciate if you did not remove the information again. It is a disservice to this encyclopedia when people do not allow reasonable, non-conentious, reliably sourced information to be added, and I think it's only fair that users be allowed to do so. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And reverted. Get a consensus before inserting. But this is wholly unsuitable material for a BLP. We don't do newspaper salacious trivia and the Daily Mail is NOT a reliable source here.--Scott Mac 02:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you reverted despite the fact that you have no real reason to despite your own personal beliefs about the article? Despite the fact that there is well sourced information from the Telegraph NOT the Daily Mail? Despite the fact that you are the only one reverting, despite admittedly having a grudge against this article? I am following policy, including WP:RS. You are breaking policy by asking for original research. Please stop reverting unless you can get consensus that this does not belong in an encyclopedia. I have made a very strong case for it and your case consists of the fact that you don't like it. By all means, ask for a RfC if you are soo convinced I am wrong. But in the mean time, you are diminishing the ability of Wiki editors to improve articles by reverting their well-sourced, within-policy changes. Can you please give me an actual policy or even logic-based reason that this information should not be included? Can you respond to what I said in my previous comments? Can you do anything other than just reverting information that is relevant and well-sourced because you feel like it? Simply imposing your will upon others will not reach a consensus. It detracts from people being able to edit productively. And information that is well-sourced to (among other places) The Telegraph deserves mention on this page. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in WP:RS to suggest that articles should be filled with trivia just because it's 'verifiable'. On the other hand, WP:BLP makes it very clear that BLP articles must be written conservatively and not like a tabloid. Hans Adler 03:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I have shown numerous cases where such information is included and is not considered trivia there. It is not like a "tabloid" to state that he lives in a flat with his sister and dog any more than it is to state that Bristol Palin "In December 2010, Palin purchased a five-bedroom house in Maricopa, Arizona, a suburb of Phoenix, for $172,000 in cash, according to Pinal County property records.[70]" or that Rob Lowe "Lowe married makeup artist Sheryl Berkoff in July 1991; they have two sons: Matthew Edward Lowe (b. Sept 24, 1993), and John Owen Lowe (b. Nov 6, 1995). They live in Santa Barbara, California." Why is it only tabloid nonsense if the information is on one of their pages (or one of the many others), but not on James or Pippa's pages where the information is verifiable and relevant and hardly salacious gossip? --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out those other BLP violations. (I have never heard of them, but I assume they are still alive.) I will look at them tomorrow. Obviously, from the existence of trivia and BLP violations in some articles it cannot be concluded that they are allowed but only that those articles need attention. Hans Adler 03:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those are three random articles I picked out of a hat. If those mention things like where a person lives, with whom, and how much their place of residence cost in the personal life section, as many other articles do, I am having a hard time with your argument that this is simply a matter of a few poorly written articles. It seems to me that the consensus of Wiki editors has been to include that sort of information, having deemed it non-trival and not in violation of BLP. Can you please point me to where this sort of information has been determined to be in any such violation? Because if not, as I said, it would seem that the wide consensus of Wiki editors is that the information is noteworthy enough for inclusion, and thus following that consensus, I do not see why it should be excluded from this page. Again, if you have a source that says that sort of information is in violation of BLP policy, please let me know. Because I do not see how, once the info has been published by multiple reliable sources, it can any longer be claimed to be an invasion of a person's privacy, especially where precedent has shown that people across-the-board agree with that sentiment. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case you missed it, there is currently a huge drive to fix the problem that we had thousands of completely unsourced BLP articles, which was a huge policy violation. Yes, there are thousands of other policy violations in Wikipedia. No, that doesn't mean that they are all somehow OK. Why don't we take this discussion to WP:BLP/N if you don't believe me? Hans Adler 03:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not a case of an unsourced BLP. In fact, none of the articles I mentioned above were unsourced. The sentence in question here was actually well-sourced by three different sources. You are not addressing the actual addition. You are not addressing my points about WP:RS and precedent across the wiki. By all means, if you think it is merited, take this issue to WP:BLP/N. I would be interested to see what editors who don't have clearly stated biases against the James and Pippa articles think about including well-sourced, reliable information for which there is clear precedent. --Zoeydahling (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a classical WP:OTHERSTUFF type argument. You are arguing for a policy violation by pointing out that there are numerous other policy violations that haven't been fixed yet. If that was a valid argument, it would be impossible to fix any policy violations that someone is in love with. Hans Adler 10:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is ok in my opinion and contains no trivia or other facts with privacy concerns. I removed the "his parents are millionaires" sentence for triviality. If there are real numbers about Party Pieces which give the actual value of the company that could be included. Of course that Chelsea flat stuff was rubbish as Scott and Hans made it very clear. Adornix (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument. You claim that we can't call the Middleton's millionaires, despite many sources that they are, without a concrete number, while at the same time claiming that the concrete value of the apartment James lives in is trivial? Can you please explain the logic there? And I would appreciate if you could give your own reasoning why the sentence in question should not be included, in light of my arguments above, because all Hans and Scott have argued is that they don't like that James has an article and that anything they don't like should not be included. I am still waiting for a policy-based reason why the info should be discluded, and would be very happy if a party who did not have a publicly stated bias against this article's existence could explain it to me. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to wait until a reliable source that we know will have checked things out publishes the factoid in question. Currently this is just (probably unchecked) information being regurgitated by various media sources. A professional biographer writing a book on this subject (or that of the Middletons in general) would take a different approach to that of a journalist writing a newspaper article on this topic. Which standard should Wikipedia aim for? That of the journalist or that of the putative biographer or something in-between? Carcharoth (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really to hold ourselves up to the standards that everything included in the entire wiki for a BLP must come from a book? No where in WP:RS does it indicate anything of the sort and if we held ourselves up to that standard, we would have very few articles on living people since there are a finite number of biographies published. And furthermore, that suggests that books can never have facts wrong, which is of course not true.

As far as the information in question being trivial and not proper for this BLP, I have four sources: 2 from the Telegraph[2][3], 1 from US Weekly[4], and 1 from Sydney Morning Herald[5] which all report the same thing. How many sources are needed before this information becomes non-trivial? It's obviously been widely reported and the arguments for disclusion have not cited anything to the contrary.

Furthermore, this was brought up at BLP/N, which was archived before any real consensus was reached, but with the argument that these are all BLP violations, including the price of the home and the DOB of minor children. I want to follow-up on that here because the discussion appears to have been archived while I was away. We have precedent on this wiki for the highest standard that articles can meet, through featured articles. I have looked through a number of featured articles for BLPs and if you look at Angelina Jolie#Children, you will see not only the DOBs of her minor children, but their place of birth and a number of other details. Reese Witherspoon#Personal life includes the DOBs of her minor children, as well as a detailed history of her romantic life, which according to editors on this talk page would seem to fall under "trivial" and "tabloid-esque." However, she too has achieved featured article status. And finally, look at Jenna Jameson#Personal life which discusses the very thing in question here: the price of someone's place of residence. Her article has also achieved FA status and includes this information in her personal life section. And if you look at Eric Bana#Personal life you will notice it discusses the price he paid for a car; hardly a far off discussion from the price of a flat. And to argue that these articles are all examples of BLP violations while clearly prevalent across the highest standard of articles Wikipedia has to offer seems to be a reasonable argument that the information I am including is trivial. Again, how is any article ever going to improve if people who simply don't like it shut down any information that is clearly within policy and precedent.

And just because I know someone will say this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, let me just point out: There is a clear section on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that discusses precedent, meaning that if something is seen widespread across the wiki and not otherwise negated in policy, it is acceptable to look at "other stuff" as precedent for usage in the article. "Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not. In cases such as these, an "Other Stuff Exists"–type of argument or rationale may provide the necessary precedent for style and phraseology." Since these are "minor details" I fully think I am justified in using this argument here, where we have a number of featured articles, which are once again held to the highest standard of Wikipedia articles, for including this information. I believe I have clearly met WP:BURDEN in showing why this information should be included here and I anxiously await the reply of someone who can dispute these claims with something other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT to show why this information should not be included. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Seems that the arguments are strongest in favor of a merge. Interested parties should feel free to complete the merge. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't a merge be appropriate? Its hardly as if this article is going to be rapidly expanded and I think he fails notability as a businessman. .♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:30, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support a merge (thought this should be a discussion, not a vote). It will need some thought, though, with attention paid to how to structure the family article and a look at the number of links that exist for each family member and what links exist for the family as a whole. There are plenty of examples, though, of stubby biographies ending up being redirected and merged elsewhere, and that is perfectly possible here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per a number of editors at the AfD, this should be merged to Middleton family until such time as James is notable for more than being his sisters brother. Mtking (talk) 07:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. A merge can easily be reversed when and if circumstances warrant. To date, I think BLP1E argues against independent notability. He's famous (to a small extent) because he made a speech at his sister's wedding. We don't appear to have enough information about him to write a proper biography. If he remains in the public eye, which seems possible but not certain, surely more details will emerge making a proper biography possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Jimbo. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I argued for deletion at the AfD because he's not notable on his own, but there is no reason he cannot be included as part of the Middleton family. — Coren (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support currently just about all the content on this individual is derivative from other articles and repeated there. His background is gleamed from that of his sister, Party Pieces and the wedding. The rest is passing mention is gossip columns and non-authoritative sources. A merge loses nothing.--Scott Mac 13:21, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - someone made a comment earlier that merging all the Middleton stuff might create a massive Middleton article, and that because of size considerations, things would have to be split off. Are there any issues with that? -- Avanu (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the Middleton stuff is duplicating itself anyway. If size issues emerge later then there's nothing to prevent a split at that time - unlikely to be a problem at the moment.--Scott Mac 15:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"immediately after AfD's are closed". That's false for a start. The AFD was closed on May 11, its now 23 May.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I should have checked the dates rather than trying to rely on my memory. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words Qrsdogg, you actually think the James Middleton article should be merged into the Middleton family article, you just think the subject was brought up too soon after the AfD was closed. Is that correct? And you may also want to re-read the close of the AfD, part of which is quoted by Mtking below. I think it is fair to say that many of those who said "merge" in the AfD (including me) anticipated that a merger would be proposed "shortly" after the AfD closed, if not immediately, and the closing admin seemed to recognize that (while being careful not to encourage or endorse any particular action or result.) In fact, by my count it took eight days before that happened, which is longer than I expected, and on Wikipedia, eight days is nearly an eternity. Neutron (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin did say that "this does not preclude further discussion about what to do next on Talk:James William Middleton" a clear sign that he did not see a Merge discussion as a problem. Mtking (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There seems to be some clear bias against having articles on the various members of the Middleton family on this wiki. Editors have fought tooth-and-nail to get any relevant info in this (and Pippa's for that matter) article that might improve the article or show further notability. The article clearly meets WP:N and he is the subject of profiles for his multi-award winning business, so this is not a case of 1E. I see no reason why this article should be merged; instead I think editors should be allowed to improve upon it without being rapidly reverted. For instance, he could also potentially be considered notable for the picture scandal and the subsequent reflection on Catherine and her family; instead editors refuse to allow that information to be included. Paris Hilton on the other hand became famous for a sex tape (noted in the lede of her article) and that contributes to her notability. To sum up: James appears to be notable for multiple things (not simply being Catherine's brother) and the article could better reflect that if editors were allowed to contribute according to the same standards that all other articles are held up to. --Zoeydahling (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merge proposal 2012

[edit]

This article was merged and redirected to Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge on 4 June 2011 based on the discussion above. Clearly, community consensus was reached, and action taken. On 16 July 2012, Trains in Space (talk · contribs) chose to recreate the article. It does not appear to me that anything has changed since last June to change the community consensus, and I don't believe there is any reason to contravene that consensus. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of Supports above note that the consensus can change if he remains in the public eye, and more information is available to add. Clearly Mr Middleton has remained in the public eye and generates considerable news stories. If have already expanded some details in his bio, and there is more that can be added around his business and his personal life. Trains in Space (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus above was also that the existing news stories, that arise simply because of the British press' fascination with anything "royal", amounted to inherited notability. Middleton's business activities were considered insufficient in themselves to merit inclusion. The continued attention to Middleton still arises from his royal connection, and not from any inherent interest in him. The "added details" to which Trains in Space alludes include a note that Middleton appeared alongside his sister at the Queen's jubilee (notable?) and a lengthy section on his ancestry, which is simply a duplication of Duchess Catherine's ancestry (which, being siblings, would be identical, no?) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also extra information on his business affairs- new companies established for example, and more stuff can be added on that (his Cake's business has been in the news independent of his Royal connections). It is still a work in progress in that regards. His personal life has also been of interest in news stories Trains in Space (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me fairly strongly that, even were the subject of the article not independently notable (which I think is a pretty dubious claim) this is a natural break out article from Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and a merge there would be a mess. This is as much an issue of content management and common sense as a debate about individual notability.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - once the duplicated information from the Middleton family article is taken away, we're left with a very thin article about a cake maker who is the brother of the Duchess of Cambridge. This was all discussed last year and since then no more interesting information has been found other than fairly dull mentions that he "appeared with his sister at Wimbledon", etc. I mean, if this was Tatler Little Black Book, perhaps that would be of note, but on Wikipedia he's just another member of the family. I would propose it be redirected again and any additional noteworthy information since be added into the family article. Bob talk 19:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Miesianiacal (talk · contribs) has effectively weighed in on this discussion by restoring the redirect that had existed before Trains in Space came along. I believe this discussion has reached the tipping point. Trains in Space subverted the consensus process in the first place by recreating this article without seeking consensus to do so. Since consensus had already been reached to redirect the article, that should have been the end of it. While it is true that consensus may change, the only way to ascertain that is to open a new discussion. Since TiS chose to recreate without a prior discussion, he has violated the standing consensus. Had this article been deleted at a AFD discussion, xer recreation of the article would have been seen as vandalism and speedily deleted. The redirect should stand, until a new consensus can be reached for it not to stand. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James or Middleton?

[edit]

In a couple of areas he is referred to as James and in other areas he is referred to as Middleton. Which is to be used for consistency? Simply south...... fighting ovens for just 7 years 20:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed per WP:SURNAME. After the first mention of the subject's full name, they should be referred to by surname only or a pronoun unless talking about several people with the same surname in the same section. HelenOnline 09:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added & removed info

[edit]

Added in the fact that he is dyslexic & in a relationship with British actress Donna Air (if anyone feels the latter is too tabloid-y, feel free to revert). Removed the paragraph beginning *prior to his birth*, as this is about him, not where his family lived before he was even conceived or where Kate went to nursery school. Also removed the paragraph on Party Pieces as this is an article on him, not his parents & their business. If anyone feels that's really important, I think a more simple *His parents are the owners of the business Party Pieces* would do, but I still don't find it all that relevant to James Middleton. Removed double info about his additional businesses as it was repeated twice just a paragraph apart. Changed title from *Early life & education* (he's 25, for Pete's sake, how much earlier does it get?) to *Personal life*. ScarletRibbons (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It stays a redirect until consensus changes

[edit]

This article as WP:BRD, stays a redirect until notability can be confirmed. So far on unsourced passing comment has been added of notability since the last outcome, everything else pre-dates this consensus. And as its a trivial unsourced addition, it embodies no notablity on the subject. Murry1975 (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James William Middleton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

[edit]

There are no other businessmen named James Middleton. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 September 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: pages moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– The British businessman and brother of the Princess of Wales is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and has much more long term significance compared to the other James Middleton (political organiser). All others on the dab page either use Jim, Jimmy or have a middle name. You can look at page views here. cookie monster 755 07:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Boomf

[edit]

Boomf needs to be merged into this article as soon as possible, per the AFD discussion. Uhooep (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Middleton&oldid=1218564409"