Jump to content

Talk:Jim Bartels

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

Notability and BLP issue

[edit]

I wonder if this figure is really notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Being known for a controversy is not necessarily the best demonstration of notability. He may have been a descendent of a more notable Hawaiian figure from history, but just being related to someone from history does not make one notable. Has the figure done anything noteworthy enough to not make this so unbalanced. It seems insensitive to his memory and to his family for this article to stand alone if the man was most notable for resigning a board membership over a controversy. There are a number of examples I can make such as the Prop 8 controversy over an artistic director. This would be a BLP violation if he were still a living person but may still be since the other figure mentioned is still living. Per WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. "--Mark Miller (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC) Has the figure done anything notable too Wikipedia standards that does not involve a small scandal at a local level?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is. He was the curator of Iolani Palace and headed the final restoration process of the palace, and helped First Lady Vicky Cayetano restore Washington Place into a museum. His fame and career span thirty years. That is his main notability not the throne incident or his ancestry or his brief marriage to a Kawananakoa. He was a respected historian and Kupuna of the Hawaiian community and one of the most well learned and gifted Hawaiian historian of his lifetime and consulted about Hawaiian history when making the documentaries Conquest of Hawaii and Hawaii's Last Queen, in which he appears in. He is not globally recognized as Neil Armstrong or Queen Elizabeth II is, nor does he need to be, but he is notable in his own right. It is high time he had an article and I found it unexplainable that Wikipedia has nothing about him up to this point. I have only covered the ice tip of this man's notability in the brief paragraphs I have written here about him. I had only intended to create a stub article but wrote a bit more. The article is small and brief at this point but has so much potentials for expansions. Also the throne incident is neutral to a point and follows what the source says about the incident. No one is casted as a victim or anybody as an aggressor. Both Bartels' and Kawananakoa's resignation were voluntary, Bartels chose to resign and was not the victim of Kawananakoa's actions. The paragraph we have mow merely reports what happened without taking side, --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should apologize for some of my responses to your allegations. Some of fixes you made made it more neutral. Thanks for that. Should have used "incident" not scandal, my bad; I think I meant to get across the idea that it was a big deal. Your right, I searched and found no Hawaiian news reporter calling it a scandal. The age (which is no longer accurate) and fragility of the throne shouldn't be specified, you're right and it was too close of paraphrasing too. The additional sentence was unnecessary but it allow the reader to know both Bartel and Kawananakoa resigned, although I don't feel it is worth it to argue for its reinclusion since a reader can just look at Kawananakoa's article to know she resigned too shortly after the incident.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bartels also appeared on the documentaries The American Experience: Hawaii's Last Queen (1994) and Conquest of Hawaii (2003).[1][2] – I am going to double check on your allegations with an administrator and possibly find a reliable source,--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Imdb is not allowed here. Found reliable source for first movie.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me sourced things I claimed in my response: He was the curator of Iolani Palace and headed the final restoration process of the palace, and helped First Lady Vicky Cayetano restore Washington Place into a museum.

He was a respected historian and Kupuna of the Hawaiian community and one of the most well learned and gifted Hawaiian historian of his lifetime

I believe you owe me a specific apology for accusing me of "Your words dishonor the memory of Mr. Bartels and his place in the Hawaiian community".[1]. You are getting out of hand and I am warning you, there are limits to the attacks I will take from you. I have tried to give you AGF but you continue to throw that back with accusations of bad faith.
Sorry. I apologize for my comment. What I said there was not professional.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this may need to be nominated for deletion based on the lack of notability to Wikipedia standards. I think this may be a local personality and that their notability is limited as a curator of a museum and historian, that appeared in two documentaries. I am not sure if this qualifies as notable in an encyclopedic manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure if you want. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a concern with the above links. You stated that the subject is briefly mentioned "probably". Are you saying you are not sure if the above links mention the subject or not? ""Here is my concern using the criteria for notability:

From WP:SIGCOV

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

  • "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[3]
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
  • "Sources"[4] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[5] Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[6]
  • "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[7]

If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.

I don't believe this subject has significant coverage. I believe the reliable sources are very limited and just from the above seems to be almost all newspaper coverage and does not pass the criteria for multiple sources. The last part of this I believe is also a concern that there may be a presumption of notability due to what one believes to be significant coverage is one particular medium.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, after a review of the above links I am convinced this does not pass notability. the many of the links are doubles of the same story and only one is detailed about the subject himself. The Google book search only resulted in a single page on my browser and the scholar search only showed three. I believe this is a nomination candidate for deletion.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I closed that AFD as the nominator per guidelines as it appeared to me to be a clear support with reasonable discussion to convince me that the article may meet borderline notability. While I still support deletion, going forward I only ask editors to please watch for NPOV and copyright issues and that the sources clearly support the claims. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The American Experience" Hawaii's Last Queen (TV Episode 1997) at IMDb
  2. ^ Conquest of Hawaii (TV Movie 2003) at IMDb
  3. ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.
  4. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
  5. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
  6. ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
  7. ^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jim_Bartels&oldid=1198414114"