This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Owen Honors article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
"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:
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:
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)
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. λogos πraxis 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
More raunchy videos surface from Enterprise Will Beback talk 21:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
205.56.129.199:
I understand and empathize with your edit, of:
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)
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. λogos πraxis 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Owen Honors article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 4 January 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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.
"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:
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:
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)
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. λogos πraxis 19:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
More raunchy videos surface from Enterprise Will Beback talk 21:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
205.56.129.199:
I understand and empathize with your edit, of:
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)
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. λogos πraxis 19:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
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)