Jump to content

Talk:Joe Halderman

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

Who is he?

[edit]

Is this "Joe" Halderman the same as the CBS newsmagazine TV producer Robert "Joe" Halderman [1] who was just indicted for trying to blackmail [David Letterman] about his having sexual relations with female staff members? If so, than an entry should be created. Famous people like Bill O'Reilly and now David Letterman have entries and wiki about their having sex with staff members. Halderman will rightly be recorded in history for trying to illegally profit from it. --Knowsetfree (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC) (Edit added to add signature which was inadvertently left off)[reply]

The same man. He is notable in his own right, not just because of the attempt to blackmail Letterman. The arrest is mentioned in the article. cat yronwode, not loged in 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

There are BLP notability issues here. The article only establishes WP:BLP1E while trying to add some other facts to make it appear not so. This article was only created because of the event. Along with Stephanie Birkitt (who is otherwise rather non-notable, though she has nonetheless had a long-lived article→an article I would think would be long gone if anyone had just nom'd it for AfD), should be merged into one article about the crime / extortion / surrounding events / history. Then the huge wart growing on Letterman's page could also be cut down to a reasonable (i.e., not "undue weight") size, with the extra info going on the appropriate page. Comments?

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joe Halderman is notable in his own right. Any film and television writer, director, and producer of his stature and career-length should have an article at Wikipedia, and the fact that he was nominated for an Emmy Award would virtually guarantee that his bio would withstand any attempt to delete it as non-notable. I would vote a stong keep.
You have also proposed eliminating the long-standing page on Stephanie Birkitt.
  • Stephanie Birkitt is notable. She appears regularly on a top-rated television show. I think that her bio would withstand attempts at deletion per non-notability. I would vote to keep.
cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this calls for a "strong keep": Halderman is credited for ONE thing on IMDB. Hardly sounds significant in terms of prolific "writing, directing, and production." You consider this to be significant "stature" in terms of writing, directing, and producing!? It's interesting that given how much of a "stature" he supposedly has, all the third-party reliable sources on his page (nine of them) were published with in the last 72 hours! The other nominees in the same category (who should be "virtually guaranteed" an article because of their significance) were Peter Van Sant, Michael McHugh (producer) (NOT the Australian judge), Michael Vele, Michael Epstein (producer), Jonathan Yellen, Nancy Dubuc, Dierdre O'Hearn, Jessica Yu, Susan West, Sally Jo Fifer, Cara Mertes. One for eleven—with a totally uncited article to boot! So such a nomination for "Exceptional Merit in Nonfiction Filmmaking" is a "virtual guarantee" of significance? I don't even know what to say. Gotta take a step back and look at this objectively....
Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reading additional facts presented in the article as well as the included references, in my opinion Notability has been clearly established for this article.
1. Andrea Mackris precendent with Bill O'Rielly extortion It has been well established here on wiki by the article on Andrea Mackris that such a person deserves an article on Wikipedia. What's good for Bill O'Rielly must be good for David Letterman. And in Letterman's case, the extortion was for actual sex between a boss and underling, and in O'Rielly's case it only involved allegations of non physical "sexual harassment".
2. Corruption in Big Media The alleged extortionist was a member of "Big Media". We have been receiving news from a small segment of society which controls media. It is far beyond ironic that Halderman produced a crime show, and then he is accused of extortion with respect to a TV boss having sex with an underling. Society has been learning about crime - who commits it, what it is, etc. from someone accused of trying to extort one of the most powerful men in media. At the same time, Halderman had been the boss of, and was living with, at least one of the same girls for which Halderman was alleging Letterman was having sex with. Wiki readers want an independent source of news besides Big Media. Wiki readers should not suffer having wiki content censored by any who's actions would be aligned to downplay articles about hypocrisy, or crime, intertwined with the presentation of news and facts by Big Media.
3. Changes in the Political Stance of Letterman's Show. There are too many angles to this story. The article quotes sources as saying that a fairly recent change in Letterman's focus away from "make fun of everybody" on political issues towards being partisan. Wiki readers have a right to know about facts which influence the talking heads in the big media.
4. Multiple Notability One editor complained that Halderman is "only credited by one" imdb listing. That's one more than the rest of us, but the cites clearly show that he has been a central force in shaping the media which shapes the minds of people in this country. He is notable for shaping our minds, and then notable for blackmailing Letterman, and then also notable for shacking up with a subordinate employee - an act which would get people in many non-media jobs fired and sued. Not to mention an act for which Halderman allegedly extorted Letterman. Wouldn't be surprised to find even more notable aspects of Halderman, but we have enough for an article right now. --Knowsetfree (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I wouldn't consider it "well established" based on one pretty weak article, given that 6/7 people on its AfD claimed it was flawed based on WP:BLP1E and should be moved or merged. That's definitely not a "well established" example, and regardless of the 6/7, still in no way would I frame that one article being "precedent" for overruling the real consensus at BLP1E.
(2) This is some tangential logic based on trying to demonize "Big Media" (I'll admit I don't like "Big Media" either, but it's spurious and fallacious logic in this context) and say that if we don't keep this article named after "Halderman" it will somehow be tantamount to "censorship ... by Big Media?" What? I was just calling for a rename to be in line with BLP1E, not a removal of the info? Perhaps re-read my comments.
(3) Exact same as (2)... could have been included in it, but makes your argument look more fleshed out to add it as a separate number.
(4) Multiple notability? I like that logic, he's got "one more IMDB reference than the rest of us." My point was all these sources stating he is "so" notable are all published in the last 4 days! Show me the money! Show me where all these "notable" contributions are, with some sources that aren't primarily on this event!
Textbook (again) WP:BLP1E, Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a more extensive list of his television writing and production credits. I think his notability is more than adequate for a keep and have voted my beliefs at the AfD page. cat yronwode, not logged in. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 23:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad I missed that AfD. Seems everyone thinks his big claim to notability is an "Emmy nomination" for producing one thing (read: not writing or directing). Nobody really pays any attention to the bit of research I did which makes it blatantly clear that such a nomination has nothing to do with notability:
The nominees: Peter Van Sant, Michael McHugh (producer) (NOT the Australian judge), Michael Vele, Michael Epstein (producer), Jonathan Yellen, Nancy Dubuc, Dierdre O'Hearn, Jessica Yu, Susan West, Sally Jo Fifer, Cara Mertes. One for eleven
Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 02:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Hold on, I've just read through that AfD. That was an inappropriate non-admin close. There was way more policy on the one side of the argument, even if it only had support by a couple editors (plus my comments here, as a third). We don't consider producers inherently notable for producing, they have to pass WP:CREATIVE (or another such policy). Just like police aren't notable for arresting people→they would have to have some particularly significant arrests. One Emmy, based on the evidence I have provided, does not by consensus establish notability in any way. If I went through all the other nominees (i.e., not just for this one semi-obscure award), I would come out with thousands of articles which wouldn't exist (and you would have to agree, non-notable). How do I go about getting this one relisted?
To Peace and Passion:
Regarding notability issues: You said, "Seems everyone thinks his big claim to notability is an "Emmy nomination" for producing one thing (read: not writing or directing)." This is untrue. You have your facts wrong. Please re-read the article and consult the refs. He wrote, directed, and produced the film that was nominated for an Emmy. He has also written and / or directed, and / or produced television specials, and he has produced many episodes in longer news shows. In other words, you are factually in error.
Regarding the amount of "policy" versus the amount of "support" evidenced on the AfD page: Because policy is open to interpretation, during an AfD discussion, the consensus system is primarily a measure of the "support" an article has in terms of compliance with policy -- and this article evidently has support by those who do think it accords with policy.
Regarding whether the AfD was brought to an improper close: I contacted the person who closed it -- User:Tim_Song -- and he said that if you had any questions, you should contact him.
cat yronwode, not logged in. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joe Halderman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Halderman&oldid=1202547100"