Talk:Owen Honors

Notability

I knew nothing about this man when I created the article, I was hoping that if I created it more would come. It was almost immediately proposed for deletion. I believe he's notable, besides his current investigation, for being the captain of the world's largest naval vessel. Has to count for something. --71.110.71.74 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The article was proposed for deletion: that is quite different. Where it a speedy deletion you wouldn't be allowed to remove the deletion tag. I still think that the only claim to notability he has at this time is the currently ongoing investigation. At List_of_USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)_commanding_officers only 8 (counting Honors) have articles. Most of the search results on him are for this event only. While the Enterprise itself is notable, this notability is not transferred to it's CO. Jarkeld (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked the Proquest news archive and found only two brief quotations from him prior to this event. Per WP:MILPEOPLE, the subject would not appear to qualify as notable simply due to commanding a carrier. Even if the coverage of this matter continues through to an administrative action, the article would still probably fail under WP:One event. My guess is that the current news event will either resolve itself quickly or drag on while fading away. Either way, it doesn't seem likely to be memorable in five years. I'm a little to reluctant to AfD it so soon, but if one more person expresses a concern I'll go ahead with it.   Will Beback  talk  10:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, I knew nothing about the guy this morning. But, it took me four minutes to find him in an Article in Newsweek from 2008 where he discusses the American involvement with the breakaway Georgian republic. Two separate occasions where he is discussed in national media; doesn't this put notability to rest? I am obviously bonded to the article, having started it, but I want someone who actually knows something to be able to pick up the torch. --71.110.71.74 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You're probably seeing the same short quotations I saw. They aren't about him, they are simply quoting him about naval deployments. Just being quoted occasionally in the media due to an official capacity doesn't make the person notable. Again, see WP:MILPEOPLE or WP:PEOPLE for the notability guidelines.   Will Beback  talk  11:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

My two cents: Keep it.
LP-mn (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Why?   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I came to Wikipedia to look for him, and was surprised to spot this debate. If this guy doesn't qualify as a notable military person, then there is something wrong with the policy itself, and it should be rewritten/expanded. In any event, my interpretation of WP:MILPEOPLE would have him qualify under section 6 anyway, as the commanding officer of a principal US aircraft carrier, which certainly saw combat missions during his tenure.
RBHendrick 01:22, 4 January 2011 (EST)

I support AfD based on WP:One event but being realistic, there will be a storm of others who start new articles on Honor's as the media continues to cover the investigation. Due to the nature of the investigation and the DADT being front and center in the media/military currently it's likely to attract a lot of attention over the coming days, and (forgive my editorial) the leftist attack dogs will be all over honors as a homophobe, sexist, etc. and their numbers are significant here on wikipedia. So with that, I would suggest keeping this discussion active and ultimately waiting a few days before actually taking action so its not just replaced immediately with another article. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and nominated it for discussion. Those discussions last seven days. My guess is that the coverage will have ended before that, but if it turns out there is more to the story then the subject may have greater notability then it now appears.   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It was proposed for deletion 11 minutes after it was created. Seems like this pattern happens a lot: something emerges in the media, someone puts it in Wikipedia then someone proposes it should be deleted almost right away. Often the story is just beginning to emerge and gets quite huge and therefore notable. Seems like proposals for deletion shouldn't be added for at least a week or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.48.138 (talk) 01:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this the same Wikipedia that has articles on American Idol contestants and on Survivor contestants? Logophile (talk) 04:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Would Be Pointless

This individual has now been mentioned in the international news media and that will undoubtedly expand. His actions are thus, by definition, newsworthy. Understanding his background is of value. The existing article seems to be helpful in that regard.

While I appreciate that there may be those who would wish to protect this individual by eliminating coverage of his actions, it's really quite pointless, because the general news media will cover this story far more comprehensively and perhaps more pointedly. Censorship is not going to save this person from being accountable for his actions.

There will undoubtedly be various opinions about this person's actions. It has already been reported that he has been relieved of duty from commanding an aircraft carrier. That, in and of itself is extraordinary. As well, the US Navy's prior actions (or inactions) on this matter and more recent actions on this matter illuminate the organization's point of view with regards to this sort of activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcbrewster (talk • contribs) 06:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Owen Honors is definitely a controversial "who's who" on many levels, & as he seems to be at this point a "contemporary humanities studies 'lightening rod,'" & media (anti-?)hero, his entry should be kept. As soon as I became aware of the recent news coverage & had a chance to read through some of the popular reaction, I zoomed over to wikipedia to get his bio and other basic orientation info--- that's what wikipedia is *for*. Please keep! (could someone fix the picture?) Thanks:) Will6iam (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an adjunct to news stories. WP:NOT. If we editors decide to keep an article it's because we think it has lasting notability. The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't list naval captains or Pokemon creatures. WP does, but there are still limits. No one thought to write an article abut Honors before December 2010. The article appeared just because of a news story which I predict will disappear from news pages in a day or two.

This isn't a judgment of the subject's worth. Nobody is given command of a capital ship without a record of excellence. The problem with "one event" biographies is that they are hard to balance. In this case the subject had a long, successful, non-notable career, followed by a short media frenzy. Going by weight, we'd devote 90% or more to the frenzy part, which doesn't make for a good biography. We could move it to "2010 USS Enterprise video controversy", but that's not a good solution either. Is anyone beyond the subject's immediate circles going to write about this in five years? I don't think so, and that's one reason I've nominated it for deletion.   Will Beback  talk  12:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE NOTE:
If you want to give some input to the proposed deletion, this may be _A_ place to make your comments, but it is not _THE_ best place to do so. Instead, go to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Owen_Honors.

A note to "98.226.104.170" & Dr.K.

"98.226.104.170":

If you're going to delete a chunk of the Article, then the least you can do is to register, log in, and participate in a discussion about it. I'm going to re-add in the text you deleted on:

21:43, January 3, 2011 98.226.104.170 (talk) (3,640 bytes) (deleted everything about previous Enterprise captains and other officers as irrelevant to this article) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

If you disagree, then before you delete it again, TALK about it!
I for one consider who his immediate superiors were at the time, and now, to be VERY relevant to the issue at hand.
LP-mn (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with LP-mn. who considers that who the ". . . immediate superiors were ... [is] VERY relevant to the issue at hand." I extend that insight, to say that if Video-hankyPanky conduct was tacitly supported or approved by superiors, then the "issue at hand" grows boundlessly, into concerns not of an errant individual, but an inquiry into whether a conspiratorial cabal, of so-called leaders and officers, did exist. To think the video production could have happened all at the hand of one mastermind, even one skipper, does beggar credulity a bit.
.
.
Dr.K.:
I do not understand the claim that you made on your edit of:

15:03, January 5, 2011 Dr.K. (talk | contribs) m (12,327 bytes) (→Controversial videos: Removed career details and names of officers peripherally related to the videos per WP:OR and WP:BLP. There is no reliable source connecting these details. If you find one then include it.) (undo)

Most of the sources are from the US Navy's own Official Bios! Those few that are unreliable are so mentioned in the footnotes. If you have problems with those few, edit out the problem sources, NOT the entire text. A sincere effort was made to find relevant information about the current status of the then superior officers. If you don't like the sources, find better ones, but do not delete the entire section.
Again, I am going to restore the text. Please look closer, and use a scalpel, not an axe.
LP-mn (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

An alternate solution comes to mind: Previous editors have already deleted a special subsection on his superior officers. (I can't quickly find that edit.) What about if a section entitled "Command of 'MED 06' & 'MED 07' deployments" was made? Would that be "better"?LP-mn (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a classic case of WP:SYNTH. Synthesizing info from various sources to reach a new conclusion. It is unacceptable. If you find a *single* source analysing the superior officers the way you do and making a big deal out of their careers and where they are/were deployed and calling such info relevant to the case of the videos then including this info in the article would be fine. But going around to gather various sources trying to prove by implication (the verb "implied" was actually used until I removed it as SYNTH) who was where and who knew what and at what time is definitely not ok. The way it stands now is simply a bad case of WP:SYNTH and a WP:BLP violation. Finally rest assured it is not about me, so no need for mentioning my screen name on the sections above. If you disagree we can escalate this to the original research noticeboard ORN. We also have to be careful per WP:BLP to use only the best methods to present info in this article and not speculate about the issues surrounding their promotion. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 01:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

And I just saw the edit summary of your reversion:LP-mn (talk | contribs) Controversial videos: Restored most of Dr.K.'s edits... Q.: Did that qualify as vandalism. For your information this qualifies as a personal attack. Per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA I suggest you avoid comments like this in the future. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also please read WP:BLP. When you want to publish information affecting living people you need to provide strong evidence from a reliable source that what information you are trying to add is relevant and not just your own WP:SYNTH. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

More videos

More raunchy videos surface from Enterprise   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A note to 205.56.129.199:

205.56.129.199:

I understand and empathize with your edit, of:

13:22, January 5, 2011 205.56.129.199 (talk) (8,851 bytes) (False material was deleted. appropriate true content was put in its place.) (undo) (Tag: blanking)

I myself have gradually made close to a 180 degree shift (call it a 135 degree turn maybe?) regarding my opinion on Owen Honor's actions as XO. The problem is, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be summaries of FACTS, not opinions. Yea, we can make arguments as to if an inference or a deduction is a fact, and we can argue over if a source is authoritative enough, but these are just fringe issues. Your edits were blatant statements of opinions. I and others may empathize with them, but that does not grant you the moral authority to delete relevant sourced information. Sorry if your toes are stepped on. I think the entire situation stinks myself. One good career sunk. I'm afraid that the argument over how and why will continue.
LP-mn (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Original research noticeboard

I have referred the matter to the original research noticeboard Are the career details of the superior officers of cpt. Owen Honors a BLP vio and covered by WP:SYNTH?. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:EVENT... focus on the event not the person

Another WP:EVENT situation. The "XO movie night" scandal has made the news and is notable, not Captain Owens himself. Therefore, I would suggest that a new article be created, focused on the scandal and not the person. Now, even with this focus, such an article would logically contain a short bio section about Captain Owens and his career prior to the scandal, so the info here would not be totally lost. The current title: "Owen Honors" should be made into a redirect, pointing to the scandal article (or even specifically to the bio section of that article), so people searching his name will still get to the correct article. Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The future coverage of this person/event seems most likely to concern the knowledge and actions of the superior officers. Those would more directly concern the videos rather than Honors. I concur with this suggestion.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)