Talk:Charles Karel Bouley

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

"WP:NAMES" redirects here. For naming conventions in general, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions. For usernames, see Wikipedia:Username. The objective of this Manual of Style (or style guide) is to provide guidelines for maintaining visual and textual consistency in biographical articles. Following these guidelines is recommended, but not required. Maintaining consistency allows Wikipedia to be used more easily.

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography.

The opening paragraph should have:

Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)); Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death);

Ethnicity or sexuality should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities and/or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability. What the person did; Why the person is significant. JoyDiamond (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.JoyDiamond (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Article as of February 2010

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies:

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography.

The opening paragraph should have:

Name(s) and title(s), if any (see, for instance, also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles)); Dates of birth and death, if known (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death); What the person did; Why the person is significant. His parent's name hardly constitute a biography!

The issue of Karel's firing is old news and is especially not appropriate in the opening paragraph.(see above) It is covered extensively in another section of the article. That he is the only openly gay radio host to again be broadcast in San Francisco is note worthy.

The Tony Snow quote is incomplete. The entire quote should be used instead of taken out of context.

Using Karel's name is no way an indication of a personal relationship. That is just silly. Millions of people have listened to Karel and all referred to him as "Karel", ( and probably would not recognize "Bouley") so it is perfectly appropriate in an encyclopedia. His pen name is Charles Karel Bouley, used when he is writing, not performing. The KXRA site, the KUDO site the Rrazz room, Cobb Club, and formerly KFI and KGO all refer to him as "Karel" his stage name. Please see above discussion about the origin of his name.These are two entirely different venues, albeit the same person but not persona. Please see the previous discussion concerning this, I particularly like the reference to Prince! Karel has many personae, some of which I am honestly not fond of at all. I have not spoken to Karel in over a year. Accusations of my writing as a "fan" have been previously thoroughly discussed and put to rest. In a sincere effort to void an "edit war" I would appreciate any input.JoyDiamond (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I want to avoid any edit warring as well - but...you are still playing the same songs here, Joy. The name thing is what it is. Please stop fighting it. His name should be "Bouley" in this article because that is the Wikipedia standard for articles - period. He is nowhere near as famous as Prince (or Cher - an example you used months ago), he has a work out where he uses his last name, his columns with the Advocate and his blogging with the Huff Post are all with his last name used. It is what it is - he is not only known by "Karel" everywhere he goes and his last name will be used here. End of subject.

The Snow quote is what he wrote on the Huff Post page before it was removed and then remodeled. It should also stay as is because of that *and* because it is placed in a section that is about controversy.

His firing from KGO may be "old news" to you and to Karel, however, it is now one of the major things he is known for, because (1) it made major news, and (2) he is a minor celebrity at best. If he were a big name such as Mel Gibson, the firing incident might be overshadowed by his previous career. But even Gibson, with his recent comeback, is still being haunted by some of his worst acts - as evidenced by recent interviews he's had. The fact remains that Bouley will likely be known for quite some time to come by the Joe the Plumber incident - at least until he does something to supercede it. He hasn't achieved that as of yet.

As far as his parents' names in the biography section - countless articles in Wikipedia include parents names, this is nothing new. Aside from that, your comment "hardly constitutes a biography" is a <shrug> for me, because Wikipedia is not on a deadline. The section may not be complete today, but leaving it as it is leaves room for more to be added and hopefully encourages other editors to add more (albeit encyclopedic and referenced) material later. It's fine the way it is.

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you peruse the references for this article, you will find that in almost all instances he is called "Karel"

Referring back to the previous discussion: you will also find that there is agreement with this position:

"He meets the notability standard for Wikipedia, which is all that matters. If he consistently used only the name of Karel, that is what the article would be called,in order to facilitate people seeking information on him. We are, after all, editing an encyclopedia in the hope that it is as useful and accurate as possible.SeaphotoTalk 20:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)"

People (especially Radio fans) seeking information on Karel are highly unlikely to use Bouley, or much less have an awareness of his last name. In performance, he consistently ONLY uses Karel. If it is good enough for the LA Times, Billboard, The Daily Breeze, Brad Kava, etc. and ALL his radio stations, I believe it is sufficiently notable for use in Wikipedia. This is not an issue to be decided by either one of us.

The Snow quote is incomplete. It does not contain all that was removed from the Huff Post. I shall try to obtain the full and accurate quote.

I have moved his parent's names back to "Biography". You made an excellent point.

Thank you. More to follow. JoyDiamond (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Joy - you really need to let the thing about his name usage go. The Wikipedia standard is clear. why you keep beating this non-issue horse is beyond me. His name, when referred to in the article, will remain "Bouley"; that's just the way it is. Wikipedia is not meant to be a fan webpage provider for "radio fans", it's an encyclopedia. This has been explained to you more than once (as evidenced by Seaphoto's comment above that you provided and didn't say what you seem to think it said). Karel has his own webpage and the article in WP about him is not, and never will be, an extension of it. If you do a Google search for just "Karel", the article comes up right away. There is no confusion, and anyone "seeking information on Karel" can find it just fine on the internet. Further, listing #2 when you do a Google search is the Huff Post - which, BTW, uses "Charles Karel Bouley" - *not* "Karel" - in the listing. That alone shows your argument regarding his name is not a clear-cut or as confusing to "fans" as you are presenting here. For the good of the article and WP in general, please move on to something else.

Oh, and in the future, please stick with the norm for responding on talk pages. It's not necessary to create a new section to reply to other editors, just indent and continue on in the same section. It's better for continuity of discussion and less confusing for anyone coming in and reading mid-way through a discussion. New sections are really meant to be for new items and thoughts to discuss - a new "chapter", if you will. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Has this discussion been resolved? If not, one possibility is to call him "Karel" when referring to his radio persona, and "Bouley" when referring to other aspects of his life. From the discussion, this seems to have been how he divided his own identity into "Karel" and "Bouley." It's true that celebrities project different personalities when they're in public. An extreme example of this might be Sacha Baron Cohen pretending to be Borat, Brüno and Ali G to elicit various responses in the people he is interviewing. Perhaps "Karel" is what Bouley becomes when he is on the air, and otherwise he is Bouley. You know more about him than I do, so I'm not sure if there are any obvious problems with this idea. --AFriedman (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

New Chapter

"...We should assume good faith until demonstrated otherwise. The best thing if you see something that upsets you is give it a little time - there are a few of us watching this article and are ready to step in if something egregious is done. A lot of the tension is from the quick back and forth and rapid successive edits that are hard to follow. Let a little time pass by, collect your thoughts, verify your references, and then edit in the calmest manner possible." That is the road to Wikihealth Grasshopper LOL.[[User:Seaphoto| 03:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There are decisions to be made, but not unilaterally. No editor has the right to say to another "end of subject." Good faith and Respect need to be shown from one editor to another. NPOV needs to be adhered to and unsubstantiated personal opinions are not acceptable in any Wiki standard. Removing another editor's comments from any talk page is another violation of Wiki standards. Seaphoto's advice is as good now as it was a few months ago so now I shall calmly follow it. More later. JoyDiamond (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what comments do you think I removed? I removed nothing. What's more, I have no idea what "decisions" you are referring to. Why are you bringing up NPOV? When has NPOV been violated in the recent past? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"Cleansing" of the article

Once again, it appears that JoyDiamond is attempting to cleanse this article of that which is negative in regard to the article's subject and his career and is still trying to push POV. In the lede, she has once again removed the thing that Bouley is now best known for: being fired from KGO in 2008 due to the Joe The Plumber incident. She has removed a statement which I backed up with a reference and added items that don't belong in the section she placed them. She has started edit warring again in this article (see the latest edit from her here [1]). I would like input from other editors on all of this, please (especially those who are well versed in the past history of the article and the attempted cleansing that has been tried by both Joy and Bouley himself). I would also like it noted that JoyDiamond isn't as far removed from Bouley as she has previously stated and that there remains a definite conflict of interest. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note in the history section that SkagRiverQueen is claiming to "cleanse" the article. Most statements by Skagriverqueen above are her personal opinion and blatantly untrue. On what basis does her claim to know what "Karel is best know for" substantiated? What happened to "Good Faith?"

This is what I wrote, apparently while she was typing the above:

In the real world, old news is just that, something to line the bottom of the bird cage with. I have spoken to dozens of people on the internet and not ONE of them remember the Joe the Plumber incident. It is of so little importance, It is not even mentioned in the Joe the Plumber article here in Wiki. Unlike you, the American public has a very short memory. Karel is still well know in SoCal from his stint at KFI, reference has been added. Unsubstantiated "Strong personal opinions" have no place in an encyclopedia. Decisions will be made by administrators and the biography of living persons notice board and they will be notified.

Editing with a consistently negative point of view is not what NPOV stands for. I will not engage in an edit war with you. As FeralDruid said "no matter what I say, you're going to argue..."

I will not go there again.JoyDiamond (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are referring to above, Joy. I am not claiming to cleanse the article - I am saying that *you* are again attempting to cleanse the article by removing things that are factual and referenced and a part of Charles "Karel" Bouley's career history.

• According to the reference I provided (and you removed), Bouley was a struggling stand-up comic before going into broadcasting. That particular item was in the article for a long time - but you have again removed it (and the reference). Why are you removing referenced material?
• It is a fact that one of the things he is now best known for is the Joe the Plumber/firing incident. When it occurred, it was all over mainstream broadcast news. There was print news about it. People blogged about it. It was all over Usenet. Currently, it's *still* all over the internet. If you think no one remembers it happened and it's "old news", you're fooling yourself. His fans still talk about it on his Facebook page. Heck, even Bouley himself has made hay with it on YouTube and his own website and in his blogs and articles. He wrote a "song" about the incident, recorded it, and put it up for the world to see (it's still available on the internet, you know). Right now, it's one of the main things he is known for - that is a fact - and he's one of those keeping it alive! The fact that it happened and he is best known for it should be replaced in the lede because it's (a) interesting, (b) encyclopedic, (c) referenced truth.
• Among whom is Bouley "...still well know in SoCal from his stint at KFI"?
• "Unsubstantiated "Strong personal opinions" have no place in an encyclopedia". Mmm-hmm. And neither does personal agenda, POV, and editing when there is a definite conflict of interest still in existence.
• "Decisions will be made by administrators and the biography of living persons notice board and they will be notified" Notify away. It would be a good thing to get some other veteran editors here to give input about what's been happening to this article over the last couple of days. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 08:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In general, it's advisable to use the talk page or at least an edit summary to explain any rationales for removing sourced (or unsourced) material. Here, I'm finding it difficult to follow what was removed/reenstated and why. --AFriedman (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010 Continued

Hello Everyone, I see emotions a running a bit high again concerning this article. Here are my recommendations.

• First, if you plan on making any substantive changes to the article, lets hash it out here first. The edit war that is brewing will result in another lock, and it may not be your version that prevails.
• Please try and group your edits together as much as possible. You can copy the article over to your user space and polish it there, posting your changes when you are satisfied. There is no urgency - it might be better for a variety of reasons to take some time and carefully consider any change.
• Try and be civil to one another. Practice a bit of WikiLove.

Happy Editing!--Seaphoto^Talk 05:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your perspective, Seaphoto. First, I'd like to make it clear that *I* will not edit war over this article ever again. It's unproductive, and it hurts the project. Second, I completely agree that substantive changes to this article, including the ones JoyDiamond has already made, need to be brought here, and, if necessary, consensus needs to occur. That means that all parties making those changes need to be committed to bringing them here - will that happen? I have my doubts - but hope I am wrong. It needs to be said that there is no deadline in Wikipedia - just as you said, there is no urgency. That being said, I will not stand by and watch anyone try to hijack this article by pushing POV, personal agenda, and sanitization of the text (which, I believe, is already happening). Lastly, I have no problem being civil and making certain to remain disengaged from any battle possibilities. Whether or not everyone else concerned does the same is up to them. As with all things, time will tell. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's identify and discuss the issues in the article

It seems that the main issues in this current round of editing are:

1. The use of Karel vs. Bouley in the article. It appears that he is largely known by the one name, and I would have no objection to it's use throughout the article, similar to Prince. As in that article, it is limiting stylistically, but not a lot can be done about that.
2. Should the KGO firing be mentioned in the lead. Yes, at this point. He is best known for his work on KFI and KGO, where he had a significant audience; indeed it is this work that first established his notability. While his departure from KFI was not unusual - the station tinkers with it's schedule on a regular basis - the termination from KGO is. A Google search of Karel with KFI and then KGO gives a quick snapshot of this. Ben Fong Torres confirms this here [2]
3. "A struggling comedian". Struggling is a bit POV'ish, and I can see the arguments on both sides. Until they reach comic success all comedians are struggling, no? Not a big issue in my opinion.
4. If there are any other specific factual issues, please list them here. If they cannot be resolved through discussion on this page, we can ask for an administrative review. Dispassionate discussion will support your position much more than accusations.--Seaphoto^Talk 16:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for outlining the issues here for discussion, Seaphoto.

• Changing his name from last to first will be an exception to content policy is a big change that really should have consensus. I want to further add that according to WP:CONSENSUS, policies and guidelines *already* reflect established consensus, and their stability and consistency are important if the community is to have confidence in them. Usurping established policy upsets community faith. Above, although not a formal consensus vote, there already was a consensus in the "Karel to Bouley" section. If this goes to a "vote", we will need more editors to chime in on this - editors who are completely unbiased, editors who are also administrators, editors who are familiar with making such changes and not making them. I want to make it completely clear that *no changes* from Bouley to Karel should take place in the article until consensus is reached. As well, a period of time should pass so that any and all who wish to vote and/or comment are allowed to do so. IOW, consensus building doesn't take an hour or two to accomplish. Remember, there is no deadline in Wikipedia. Lastly, if working toward consensus on this *does* occur, it needs to be done correctly and fairly and according to policy. Now, beyond getting a consensus on this issue, I think I've been clear about why his name should be as it currently is in the article (aside from already established policy) - he uses both "Charles Karel Bouley" (which isn't even his real, legal name anyway - "Karel" is, I'm fairly certain, something he adopted on his own at some point in his life) and "Karel" interchangably *and* he is no where near as well-known as, say...Prince or Cher. Outside of his radio listeners (and don't forget, local, AM radio isn't the same as national TV, film, or print-publication and he is no longer on a 50k-watt powerhouse like KGO), he isn't well-known at all. In fact, to those who read his blogs or his occasional articles in the Advocate, he is "Charles Karel Bouley".

• His firing appearing in the lede. Yep, it definitely should. The KFI stint - feh. I really don't think the KFI stint is something he's *well known for*. After all, it was a morning gig, and KFI being an AM station, they didn't have the 50k night-time watts that would have given him the wide, inter and intrastate audience he had at night with KGO's 50k night-time watts. IOW, his larger, usual, established San Fran/NoCal audience wasn't listening to his KFI stint, because they can't hear KFI's signal from there during the day. I don't think KFI should be included - especially if it keeps the current wording "most well known for" (or whatever it currently says), and should stay in the main body of the article. Ledes are for the synopis about the subject and what they are most well known and intantly recognizable for, not tidbits.

I have striken the aformentioned statements I made about KFI, because for some reason unknown to me and my addled brain, I was thinking of his time at KNX, not KFI (and KNX isn't even 50k-watts). My error. Oy vey. ;-) But, moving on with the time at KFI - Bouley's time there as a *solitary* radio talkhost was not really notable; in fact, he was fired from that job because of low ratings (IIRC). It was his time there with Andrew Howard when they were on the air as Karel and Andrew that was notable. So...if that is all to be noted in the lede, I think it should stay as it is right now in the article. 21:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Stuggling" may be POV-ish, however, it's a fact (he *was* struggling in the industry at that time), and when the statement was there, it had a reference that specifically said, "struggling". It may not be complimentary to Bouley, but bio articles aren't meant to be completely complementary, they are meant to convey the facts - good and bad.

• Yep - administrative review may definitely be in order here. Especially if things continue the way they have been over the last couple of days with this article. "Dispassionate" is good to a point, but when arguing to keep or delete or add or not add to Wikipedia, it never hurts for one to be passionate about their reasons behind such. Remembering to comment on edits, and not editors, is what should be concentrated on for the good of the article and the good of the project. But - if edit-warring does continue, I will be most certainly concentrating on the one implementing it and taking appropriate action.

I realize you are trying to concentrate on specific edits and editing issues, however, at some point in time soon, there does need to be discussion on Joy's conflict of interest where the sugject of this article is concerned (and, when you think about it, COI actually *is* an editing issue). If need be, I will place another COI template on the article (in order to get others involved and have the matter investigated/discussed as per policy on COI). And, of course, having an administrative review done could also include the question of COI.

Thanks.

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not advocating changing the article to "Karel" which would be a significant change. Just that the usage within the article is an acceptable variant to the monolithic use of Bouley, since it is a stage name and not simply a given name. Just to be consistent, if we are saying he is best known for the KGO incident (which I believe), then using his radio stage name in the article would be appropriate.--Seaphoto^Talk 19:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying - however - you're talking about doing something that is against content policy, Seaphoto. In addition, if what you are proposing does get changed, that change will then invite confusion amongst other editors who may come along, read the article, see that "Karel" was used out of accordance with policy, and then edit every instance of the use of "Karel" back to Bouley (I know I would if I saw it). What will then be created is a major pain editing-wise of having to go back and edit what was edited out of good-faith and adherance to policy. And then...how does one decide how many times "Karel" can be substituted for Bouley without it being overuse of the name? Personally, I think allowing "Karel" to be used rather than Bouley in such a manner is just asking for trouble. Why make it all more complicated than it needs to be? I mean, isn't that exactly why editing policy is made in WP - in order to *avoid* problems and confusion such as that kind of change would invite? IMO, a change like that would be unhelpful, confusing, and completely unproductive. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point. I think you are correct under WP:SURNAME, though that can change in the future if he switches over to using Karel for his online journalistic efforts as well as his radio performances. Even now, it is not a completely clear call, since Karel is the name he is most widely known by, but the example of the Huffington Blog is persuasive.--Seaphoto^Talk 21:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only the Huff Post, but The Advocate, his currently out-of-print book, and everything else where he writes (other than on his own website). His Facebook fan page gives "Charles Karel Bouley" as his admin name and his own Facebook page states...

...you got it - "Charles Karel Bouley". Personally, I see this whole thing as a no-brainer. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Until edits can be discussed with all interested parties, I have restored the last edit-warring revert implemented by JoyDiamond so that she can discuss her changes first along with her rationale for them. In my understanding, doing it this way follows the bold, revert, discuss cycle and is more productive to the editing - and subsequent discussion - of this article. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring

In light of JoyDiamond's latest revert and angry edit summary in this article, I left the following on her talk page:

You stated less than 24 hours ago that you were not going to edit-war at the Bouley page, yet, you *are* edit warring. In fact, this is day-two of you choosing to edit war there. In case you are not familiar with what edit warring really is, you might want to read WP's article on edit warring. Reverting the same thing several times is edit warring - it also puts you in danger of violating 3RR. Please - rather than just reverting stuff you don't like or agree with, talk about it first on the talk page. Please don't just blindly revert and plase don't shout in your edit summaries or use edit summaries to vent anger/frustration. If all of this unproductive and unhelpful behavior continues, I will have no choice but to get an administrator involved again (and you can believe that even though they haven't made themselves known yet, there are admins already watching what's going on at the Bouley article). Please, just stop this uncivil, uncooperative behavior and work within WP's policies and guidelines. If you don't, you are putting yourself in danger of being banned and having the article locked from editing once again. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

HMMMMMMMMM In the last few days Skagriver as made 27 edits and I made TWO! Despite her redundant explanation of Edit warring, I cannot see for the life of me how it applies! On second thought it is obviously untrue, as are many posts.

I see a neutrality box as been added. Thank you. Discussion of Skagriver's negative POV's is way overdue.

Seaphoto thank you for your input. If only BOTH of us would follow it.

I am not angry.

I will not play her game.

Please get an administrator involved.

Please do not chastise , insult or threaten me again.

If this is not possible, I suggest the article be locked again.

Peace! JoyDiamond (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you really don't seem to be grasping what edit warring actually is. I suggest you read the article and description on WP's article on edit warring to get a clear picture of what it is and what it isn't. Editing an article 27 times over the period of a couple of days is not edit warring. It's just editing. Continually reverting and leaving unproductive remarks in the edit summary is edit warring. Of the two examples I just gave, you have been doing the latter - ergo, you have been edit warring. And please - stop commenting on editors, and keep your comments focused on edits and content. Commenting on editors is not productive, commenting on content and edits is. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Gay Activist

I see there has been back and forth on the subject if Karel should be mentioned as a Gay Activist in the lead. I think that is a fair description, as he went to court to change the law regarding domestic partners - this is documented on the [|bio] at the Huffington Post. Rather than reverting back and forth, lets discuss it here first.--Seaphoto^Talk 02:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think that he would need to more-consistently take an activist role for us to mention it in the lede. Just being out and highly-visible shouldn't qualify.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Karel not a "Gay Activist He generally avoids gay topics on his radio shows. He has stated many times that although he "blatantly" gay, he is not popular in the gay community. The lawsuit was about what was right, a civil right, which Karel has also said many times. Sarek is absolutely on the mark.TY JoyDiamond (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion "Name"

Charles Karel Bouley

Thanks for your note. First off, I am of the opinion that we should treat BLPs similarly to how we treat other Wikipedians. The same ideas about civility ought to apply to BLPs that apply to Users. Not everything in a BLP is going to be flattering. No evidence that Bouley is a threat to society and that a flattering article about Bouley will hide the danger he poses. So perhaps it's better to err on the side of generosity when writing about him--so long as all the important content remains in the article. For example, this wouldn't mean deleting content about major aspects of his life, such as his firing, but perhaps we could write about this subject more carefully and be especially careful to represent his POV.

>Bouley does not put on another persona when he is on the radio.

Well, let's look at the articles about some other people whose real names are different from their stage names:

Mark Twain--always called "Twain" in the article, even when referring to his personal life Sean Combs (Puff Daddy/P Diddy/Diddy)--he had multiple stage names, like Bouley seems to. (Unless Bouley legally changed his name to add "Karel" as a middle name?) Combs is always called by his surname in the article. Prince (musician)--always goes by "Prince" in the article, in similar fashion to Mark Twain in the article about him. Changed his stage name at one time to a name that did not catch on, which is barely mentioned in the article. Sacha Baron Cohen--Called by his surname, except in a few places when the article refers to the characters he plays. The question becomes fairly complicated for Karel/Bouley. Karel/Bouley does not claim to put on another persona when he is on the radio. However, the part of his life in which he is "Karel" is major and significant, and is clearly delineated from the rest of his life. For example, when people are hiring him for a radio show, they seem to be hiring "Karel." If he introduces himself as "Karel" on-air, people may well be thinking of him as "Karel." However, he's known as "Bouley" in other places. This seems to be someone who is perhaps often referred to as "Karel" in his notable activities, but not always. A more notable person such as Mark Twain is always called "Twain" in the article about him, even though his real name was "Samuel Clemens." Also, if he calls himself "Charles Karel Bouley", this is not the same as being "Charles Raymond Bouley", so some aspects of his stage name have crept into how he is called in other venues. There is perhaps a middle ground in WP:Surname between always calling someone by their surname and always calling someone by their stage name, and this person may be there. (I think I may disagree with you that there's no gray area in WP:Surname, particularly when people are known for multiple notable activities in which they may use different names. This may be the case for Karel/Bouley.) Maybe the article should be redirected to "Charles Bouley" (is "Karel" anywhere in his legal name?) as per "Sean Combs", and warrants a couple of references to him as "Karel" and the rest as "Bouley" as per "Sacha Baron Cohen".

>the referenced statement "struggling stand-up comic"

"Struggling" is a statement that takes one position about his life without giving the readers the facts to evaluate this position--even if a reliable source describes him this way. It may be more neutral to describe what specific jobs he had as a stand-up comic. For example, if he did not have a full-time job for a specified period of time, it is more informative to say it that way. Or, if he performed in small venues that were not very lucrative, perhaps it's most informative to mention the venues and either link to them, or describe their size. If his comedy routines were not well attended at first, perhaps it's better to give figures about their attendance.

On that note, I've recently encountered a not-too-different situation in the biography article for Avraham Qanai, that I'm not completely sure how to handle. An IP address from Albany, New York (where Qanai lives) recently removed some unflattering information about this person. I reverted the IP once, but don't want to do that again because I think the text that was deleted should be thought about more carefully. I don't blame this User even if he did have what Wikipedians would call a conflict of interest--there seem to have been POVs about the text that was deleted that were conspicuously absent from the article. It might have been better if the IP address from Albany had added text that clarified things, but not everyone has the writing skills to do this. As seasoned users, we also forget that it takes a while for many new users to learn the culture of Wikipedia, and that not everyone is prepared to become the regular contributors we are. (User talk:CordeliaNaismith has a number of recent posts from new users with questions about Wikipedia's culture, if you want to remind yourself of this. But I digress, and Joy is a seasoned user anyway.) Anyway, I'm curious what you think re: what's happening in the Qanai article.

Also, I saw the "feast of tabernacles" discussion and I definitely agree with you--I strongly feel that article should be kept. --AFriedman (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoyDiamond (talk • contribs)

Article content

A summary of the disputed issues, and my most recent thoughts about them.

1. "Karel" vs. "Bouley": What to call him. I've never heard of this person before editing the article. Given that he calls himself "Charles Karel Bouley" in many notable places, he probably shouldn't be called "Karel" in most parts of the article. However, I am not sure whether he should occasionally be called "Karel" when referring to his radio show, and don't feel I know enough to make any further comment. I would also like to know if "Charles Karel Bouley" is his legal name--apparently, it was not his name at birth. If "Karel" is not part of his legal name, perhaps the entire article should be renamed "Charles Bouley." What are other people's thoughts re: posting on WikiProject California and WikiProject Radio about this, to get some independent opinions?
2. His firing: A major turning point in his life and a notable event in the history of radio, therefore I think it belongs in the article.
3. "Struggling": Joy, do you have more specific information about what Bouley was doing at this stage of his career? SRQ does not. To me, "Struggling" seems better than no information at all, especially if it was a descriptive word from a reliable source. However, I still think there are better ways to write the article if more detailed information is available.

Is there anything I've left out? It seems to me that the sum total of these issues is not a huge deal in terms of content. --AFriedman (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The questions discussed above are answered in the archives. I will pull them if needed at a later time. Grief is exhausting... JoyDiamond (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

8 March 2010 Comments

Taking one line, out of context, is not appropriate and again skews what was actually said. The quote is not from Karel's "press kit" but from another reliable source. The claim that Karel was "struggling", when he was making a perfectly good living was never said by either Karel or Andrew and is discussed in the archives. It was ONE journalist's opinion and not repeated in any other sources. Further discussion of Karel's name, will be included at a later time. I asked my sister, who has met Karel, and she had no idea who "Bouley" was, despite listening to him for several years on KFI. On that subject, why was the reference to KFI removed? Also several items in Karel's early career were removed some time ago by another editor.

Again my intent here is for accuracy and truth. The "good, the bad and the ugly." Using a part of a quote out of context is again demonstrating a lack of NPOV, the long standing negativity shown by the other editor. I find it amusing that the fact that Karel was "twice" named "pinhead by O'Reilly has been removed again. Being named a pinhead is a negative thing, so why not leave it in as accurately sourced on Green 960 website?

As for his firing been in the "lede", I checked several other celebrities who have been involved in scandals and none was mentioned in the lede. It does need to be included and is at significant length later in the article. I still need to retrieve several things from the archives. Since my sister's death, my time here on Wiki is limited. Will get to it ASAP. Despite the claim there will be no "edit-war" it seems to me nothing has really changed. It is very discouraging. JoyDiamond (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The only person edit-warring here is you, Joy. Please stop putting blogs in as references. Wikipedia does not generally accept blogs as reliable references - especially for BLP articles. In order to include a blog, you have to make sure it meets certain criteria. The ref you included for the alleged Bouley quote is from Hot Air; the person who wrote the blog material is someone named "Allahpundit". Do you seriously think that someone who calls themselves "Allahpundit" (not his real name) can be considered a reliable source? I have told you countless times that you can't use blogs as refs and you continue to put in blogs as references. Doing so and then shouting "edit war!" is not going to change the fact that for a BLP article, blogs are out. For more information, please see the following article, Wikipedia:Blogs as sources. I am now going to revert what you once again included today as well as the blog reference. Please don't return the other portion again without a reliable reference. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

SRQ, you know quite well that it takes at least two people for an edit war. You can't claim that only the other side is edit warring and not you. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I get the crux of what you are saying, Sarek - but it's not completely true to the matter here. Some like to set the stage, actually start the warring, and then suddenly run away, leaving the other party - who was only defending the fortress - holding aloft the only spear in sight. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Rather than violate the 3R rule, I would like to implement Seaphoto's excellent suggestion that "if you plan on making any substantive changes to the article, lets hash it out here first." Taking one sentence out of context in a significant quote violates the general rule of "truth in editing." The entire quote needs to be included. Since pseudonyms are commonly used, it does not negate the validity of the source. I also suggest SRQ may want to more carefully read her suggested source regarding blogs, i.e. "There is, however, an important exception to sourcing statements of opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs (see: WP:BLP#Sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source)" There are several other criteria in which a blog may be used, altho there is no consensus on this particular Wiki page. I sincerely am requesting civility in communicating here. I did not "shout" anything and it is my understanding that one editor may make "suggestions" rather than giving orders "countless" times to another editor. I look forward to input from others and appreciate SarekOfVulcan's comment. JoyDiamond (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You appreciate his comment toward me because you think it exhonerates you, Joy. But don't make the mistake of thinking he's on your side because of what he said to me - he's on the side of the project, not you (or your methods) specifically. Wikipedia isn't meant to be a battleground. But do know that there are administrators watching here, and believe me, they have seen what you've done in the past and will take all of that into consideration when blocking you from editing should you make the mistake of continuing with your intended, somewhat covert (and drawn-out), edit war.

But, back to the article: I know what the article on blogging says about blogs as references - I read it before I recommended it to you. What I see above is that you are trying to look for a loophole to thread your intentions through - you've done it countless times before with this article. There is no specific policy regarding the use of blogs as references but the use of blogs as a reference is generally understood to be a very bad idea and does the article no good at all. I have to ask you this: if you care about the content of the article as much as you say you do, why do you appear to be so desperate to put in questionable content with questionable references? You seem to care more about cleaning up Bouley's reputation through this article than about the article itself. And that shows me even more strongly that you have an agenda here as well as a conflict of interest. If you cared more about the project than your POV, you wouldn't be fighting so hard to put in poor and unreliable sources. What's more, if you note, I never said the rest of the comment shouldn't be there (although putting in so much could be seen as undue weight), I said that the reference you provided wasn't up to Wikipedia standards. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I am very aware of SarekofVulcan's strict stance on neutrality. There are no "sides." To quote you "the past is past." Truth and accuracy are not "cleaning up." I welcome any further inquiries. POV is indeed an issue here and it is no longer mine.JoyDiamond (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it you still have a COI, your POV is still an issue. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And we are still seeing blogs as references...

Why are blogs still being used as references for this BLP article? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blogs as sources From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is a failed proposal. Consensus in its favor was not established within a reasonable period of time. This page in a nutshell: "Blog" is just a technical description of a website's structure and layout. Like any source, a blog may be appropriate to use as an article reference as long as certain conditions are met, some of which are specific to blogs.JoyDiamond (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that particular proposal failed, but we do need to abide by the accepted guideline at WP:RS which states: Self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources. Barnabypage (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

TY for your input Barnabypage. Since Karel has "foot-in-mouth" disease, he is carefully monitored and the Huffington Post blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. JoyDiamond (talk) 22:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What "newspaper"? The Huff Post is a blog site, not a newspaper. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Joy, as SkagitRiverQueen says, the Huffington Post is itself a blog-type site rather than a newspaper, so it doesn't automatically qualify as an exception to the blog exclusion. Having said that, to the best of my recollection reliable-sources discussions on Wikipedia have tended to see it as one of the more reliable blog sites, and it does have a large staff including "blog editors", so it's possible there is some editorial oversight. Since I'm new to this article, would you mind pointing me toward the specific assertions supported by Bouley's Huffington Post blog? Barnabypage (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ya! With Thanks to Feraldruid : http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2007/huffington/report0912_p1.asp The entire quote is there. You also might want to check out "The Huffington Post" here on Wiki. "News" in the 21st century ; )

JoyDiamond (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Out of necessity, Karel has been assigned his "own" editor, he stated recently on his program. JoyDiamond (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

And you know this because...? (what I'm essentially asking is if that is public knowledge) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

When one states something on the public airwaves as stated above, one must assume it is public knowledge.JoyDiamond (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well...the statement *now* says that he stated it on his show, but when you first posted the statement, the source of that information hadn't been specified. Based on how the statement read before you doctored it, I'm sure now you can understand my confusion and subsequent query. And, BTW - as has been stated to you previously, when someone has already responded to something you've stated on a talk page, it's actually considered dishonest to then change or refactor your comments (since it makes the questioner look silly for asking about something that appears to have already been stated). You really should revert it back to the way it was before you changed it, Joy (all in the spirit of editor civility and honesty, of course). Oh, and one more thing...you wouldn't happen to remember the date he made that staetment about having a copy editor and all, would you? It might be interesting to listen to it from his podcast archives. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One should check the history before one fallaciously accuses one of "doctoring."JoyDiamond (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies - for whatever reason, I read it differently the first time around. But, once again...do you happen to know when he made that statement on the air? The date would be good. Like I said above, it might be interesting to listen to it from his poscast archives. I look forward to getting that info from you. Thanks in advance. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, as you know my sister just died and I cannot remember the date of a casual remark made during that very difficult time. As AFriedman suggested, using "Karel" occasionally, when referring to his radio show is a good one. Radio stations are hiring the name "Karel", not Charles Bouley. As has been discussed before, repeating "firing" throughout the article is redundant and un-encyclopedic.JoyDiamond (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Radio stations are hiring the name "Karel". So what? The Charles Karel Bouley article isn't his personal resume. "Firing" isn't being repeated "throughout the article". Until he does something that becomes more nationally well known about him than his firing from KGO, his firing will continue to be the thing he is most known for. There is nothing wrong with having it mentioned in the article more than once. Your agenda here is even more abundantly clear and your COI = POV = sanitizing the article. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy and truth

"Cleansing" of the article is not my intent. Having gone back read the article from day one, there is a definite pattern of negative edits, some of them very subtle. I made mistakes during my early edits. I have been thoroughly chastised and apologized. My intent is accuracy and truth regarding Charles Karel Bouley as it is with anyone else. He sometime only opens his mouth to change feet. He has been fired more than once. He says terribly insensitive things. He has proved he can get in enough hot water himself without someone adding even more negative enhancement. I am an objective person. I have learned a lot about wiki policy during my years here altho I cannot quote chapter and verse. I strive for what is right. To quote another editor, he is an impossible "peacock." At NO time have I taken direction from Karel concerning my edits here and never will. I have no control what Karel does here or anyplace else. I have changed the lead (lede?) to encourage readers to read further. His firing from KGO is covered extensively further down in the article. I have taken AFriedman's excellent suggestions and appreciate the input from several other editors. Please refrain from reverting without discussion here as has been suggested. Good Faith please. If there is any further question about my COI with Karel, I hope this dispels that. If not, ask. Peace and Happy Editing. JoyDiamond (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If "cleansing of the article is not [your] intent", then why do you keep bringing it up - even when no one has mentioned it for a while? There is no "definite pattern of negative edits" - but there is a definite pattern of you removing anything new you see as too negative because of your COI and POV. You made mistakes in your early edits and you continue to make the same mistakes. If your mistakes were things such as typos, that would be one thing, but your "mistakes" are things that you have been told not to do, that are against policy, that are against WP standards. Stuff that you should know better about - but refuse to "get" it. Nobody who's serious about editing this article and serious about editing WP in general cares what Bouley does with his feet or his mouth or how much hot water he continues to get himself in or how much of a "peacock" he is. As a WP editor, your first concern should be about the project, but it clearly isn't. It is now - and has been since the day you started editing - about Bouley and how this article makes him look. Your statement "more negative enhancement" followed up by "I am a objective person" is just more evidence that you are too close to Bouley personally to be objective in editing this article - IOW, your COI "slip" is once again showing. Reverting things without discussing doesn't mean reverting things without checking with Joy first. There was discussion on the changes made - it's no one's fault you weren't around to get in on the discussion. A good portion of your cleansing and peacock-termed edits have been reverted. You made some huge changes without discussing them first. Edits that were made over the last couple of days were miniscule compared to what you have done overnight. If this doesn't stop, I will have to take the escalating issue of your subjective editing, POV, and COI to the appropriate noticeboard for comment. Because, frankly, it's really getting out of control. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No one has mentioned it??? Perhaps you missed this:

JoyDiamond (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall saying "no one has mentioned it". Of course I've seen the tag, Joy - in fact, the day it was placed, I was preparing to put up the same tag myself. Do you know why it was put there? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Short memory. Read your last post. The tag was placed because of negative edits and perceived "peacock" edits. Wikipedia: Avoid peacock terms From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This page documents an English Wikipedia style guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. In Wikipedia articles, forgo unsourced or unexplained peacock terms that merely promote the subject of the article without imparting verifiable information. Examples include describing people as "important", "main", or "among the greatest" in their field, without explaining why. When using these terms, make sure you have sources to support them, and that the reader understands why the person or subject is so regarded.JoyDiamond (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) The tag was placed there for a number of reasons, but none of them had to do with "negative edits". I didn't ask you why it was placed there because of my memory, I asked to see if you understand what it means. I look forward to the day that you finally "get it", Joy. In fact, you will likely enjoy editing Wikipedia much more once you do.

(2) It's really unneccssary for you to quote large sections of WP articles and policy, Joy. Just put a redirect in place (that's what the highlighted stuff you see is), and the person reading the talk-page content can go there themselves. Reposting what's already in the encyclopedia is not only redundant, it's wasting bandwidth. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

More succinctly it is all about POV.JoyDiamond (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmm-hmm. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of accuracy and truth, the quotation marks around a quote (in the "Radio talk-show host" section) that didn't exist in the ref provided were removed. The ref was placed in the appropriate spot alongside the ref that actually *did* have that quote in it. "Nation's first", however, really isn't necessary, as the phrase "first openly gay" addresses it in the same manner. "Nation's first" is kinda undue-weightish - it's unlikely that anyone is going to read the article and think they were the first openly gay radio hosts in Albania, after all. Also, let's all please try to keep snarkiness out the edit summary comments as the "Use of edit summaries in disputes" section of the Edit Summary information page outlines. Anything else is just not helpful nor is it productive. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nation's should stay in - otherwise the implication is of a world first. As an aside one should be very wary of describing anything as the first! Barnabypage (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that "nation's" should stay - I find it bordering on being peacocky, expecially when combined with "first", which I believe, makes it almost advertisement-like. I do agree that describing anything as "the first" is bad form - and actually would rather see a disclaimer such as, "believed to be the nation's first" (but then that could be challenged as being too weaselly). What to do? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How about the first openly gay talk-show hosts on a major U.S. radio station - that clarifies that it's a national rather than a world first while not resembling either peacocks or weasels. Barnabypage (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think that solves the animal kingdom problem perfectly. ;-) Good collaborating with you. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of truth and accuracy, the "exact" quote from the LA Times that actually *did* have that quote in it should be used, with or without quotation marks. It did *not* exist in Andrew's obituary ref which was the reference provided and removed. Thank you for moving it to the appropriate spot. One word is not undue weight. "First openly gay" does not *clearly* address where in the *same* manner as "nation's first openly gay", it could be Ireland from whence he has broadcast. Quotes should not ever be edited within the quote without indicating by ... If you will kindly please show me how to do a redirect, I would be happy to do so. I made no "snarky" remarks in edit summary, to what are you referring?JoyDiamond (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not important to have exact quotes in articles from newspapers and books and other written sources - the point here is for editors to write their own stuff - even paraphrasing is better than exact quotes. If someone wants the exact quote, they can go to the reference themselves and read what was said. Exact quotes in WP are really not to be used unless it's a verbal quote and overuse of quotes is discouraged. Using exact quotes - and lengthy portions of quotes - borders on copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Quotations and Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources for further explanation. Also, because of what I was reminded of in re-reading that article, I am going to again pare down the Tony Snow quote back to where it was. If the reader wants to see more, they can go to the reference. Also, as stated previously, because the section is about Bouley's controversial statements - and the section of the quote there previously is the section that was seen as controversial - it's the controversial part that should be quoted. More is really unneccessary - and truthfully, with the Timberlake song reference in the added portion, it makes Bouley look even worse (since you say you are concerned with positive/negative balance in the article). If you look closely at what he said, Bouley initially said (paraphrased), "of course I don't want to wish ill on Snow", and then followed up with the Timberlake song reference he essentially said (paraphrased again), "but Snow really does deserve the cancer because of what he's done". --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

When to use quotations When editing an article, a contributor should use quotations when: dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors. (e.g. Using "Coulter stated that '[w]e need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' crème brûlée. That's just a joke, for you in the media.'",[2] instead of writing in the passive narrative voice of the an article that Coulter called for the killing of a Supreme Court Justice.) With Karel's controversial statement, as Coulter's above, the bulk of the statement needs to be included. Karel intended no ill will as Coulter did not advocate murder.JoyDiamond (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Blockquote restored, another added

Turns out, I was incorrect that the blockquote of the Tony Snow comment was discussed previously on this talk page - I looked through the archives and couldn't find anything on it. I do believe, however, that having the quote in the blockquote format looks better. In fact, I also changed the Joe the Plumber statement to be in blockquote format as well. Since the format for blockquotes has already been established for more than a year, removing the blockquotes should not occurr without discussing it here first. Of course, I'd be interested in seeing any comments on the blockquotes, so, if anyone has them, please bring them here. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the blockquote format is cleaner and easier to read than the previous italics within the paragraph. I would keep that change.--Seaphoto^Talk 22:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Seaphoto, I am frankly surprised at your agreement. Do you have any precedence for this change? Can you show other articles where this is utilized? I do respect your opinion but emphatically disagree with this one. "Cleaner" is three straight paragraphs as is usual in other articles.

The blockquotes are unnecessary, interrupt the flow of the article and are visually annoying. Furthermore, in searching many other similar articles, I could find no precedence for this. Just another part of the invidious editing here. I did find that Howard Stern's "Nappy Headed ho's" comment was not included in either of his articles, nor were any blockquotes used, interesting, since it was such a "big deal" in the national press. I do look forward to other comments from editors although when I try to implement them they are generally summarily dismissed.JoyDiamond (talk) 23:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition Main article: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons 'When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm' The blockquotes *do* overwhelm the article.JoyDiamond (talk) 23:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Joy Lots of BLP articles feature blockquotes of the subject saying something notable. I did a very quick search off the top of my head with Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt,Isoroku Yamamoto (I am watching The Pacific tonight), and those are the names that popped into my mind first), and all had that style, so I don't think that their use in this article is without precedent. The reason you didn't see that form in the Howard Stern article(s) is that he didn't say it. Try Don Imus where you will find not only the quote you spoke of, but in the same blockquote format.

On a separate matter, my condolences on the passing of your Sister, I know how hard the loss of a sibling can hit you, especially when they are young.--Seaphoto^Talk 23:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much Seaphoto, it is a life changing loss. Gotta love ya even when we disagree. My Bad, wrong guy, Don Imus. Off the top of my head, besides Howard Stern, I checked "John & Ken" Barack Obama, Ryan Seaquest and Bill Ballance. No blockquotes are used. BTW, the Bill Ballance article is pathetic and deserves editing. I would do so but I have this stalking problem :-(. JoyDiamond (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Joy - Just because you don't see it in random articles you happen to pick, that doesn't mean precedence hasn't been set, and it doesn't mean that putting quotations in a blockquote format can't or won't be used in those articles in the future.

One more thing - you don't have a "stalking problem". I have better things to do in life and Wikipedia than follow you around (and, frankly, I don't have the desire or time). If you don't knock off the with incivility and personal attacks, however, I will be taking this to a higher Wikipedia authority. This is your last warning. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines for using block quotes are clear enough - WP:MOSQUOTE. I'd venture that quote formatting is the least of the problems to be dealt with on this article. Barnabypage (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnaby you are absolutely right. Nitpicking is an ongoing problem in this article by many parties. Mea Culpa

The guideline *is* very clear: Block quotations

Format a long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) as a block quotation, which Wikimedia's software will indent from both margins. Neither quote is four lines, not even close. I always appreciate your input.

SRQ, I do have a stalking problem and at no time above did I mention you.JoyDiamond (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't - but it's obvious who you are talking about. There's no one else in WP that you reoutinely complain about but me. My warning stands.

WP:MOSQUOTE - within MOS - is discretionary and not a hard-line or even a bright-line rule, but a guideline. Precendence in other articles using blockquotes shows that less than four lines is perfectly acceptible. Moreover, there is nothing that prohibits the use of less-than four lines of a quoted verbal statement in blockquotes. There is nothing wrong with having blockquotes in this article - nothing at all. And so far, two of us agree on that. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Will someone besides me please tell Joy that it's not okay to just change content or formatting back the way you want it to be when that content or formatting is in discussion on the talk page? Really - I'm tired of repeating myself to her. Maybe a reminder about edit warring or a primer in consensus building or collaboration is order? Someone? Please...? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocking any one editor on this would not be sufficient, so I've protected the article for 3 months.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't thank me -- you were reverting someone else's edits and claiming they were Joy's. It was that or block you, and it was a close call. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

She changed her nym - Joy was the one who reverted it all back and she was edit warring. Okay? --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Struck the assertion above, but it was still close whether or not to block for edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Skag River Queen has blatantly violated the 3RR. There was not yet a consensus. I asked to have the article protected. Main article: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons 'When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm' The blockquotes *do* overwhelm the article.SRQ made a unilateral decision to change TWO quotes instead of the one under discussion. BRBDocOfSoc (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look in the mirror before you start accusing others of violating 3RR. Nope, there was no formal consensus, but there were two veteran editors who stated the blockquotes should stay (Seaphoto and I), and one inexperienced editor who stated they shouldn't stay (you). The informal consensus was not in favor of removing the blockquotes. Because there was still a discussion occurring on the talk page, you had no right to just go in and revert back before the discussion was over. Rome wasn't built in a day, and there is no deadline in Wikipedia. The blockquotes come nowhere near "overwhelm[ing] the article". I made no "unilateral decision", I made the decision to edit boldly along with restoring what had been there for over a year; you made the decision to edit war. Now, the article is locked again. Personally, I'm glad because I believe that for now, it's a good thing (and I also think it's really curious that you are trying to take credit for the article being locked). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Skag River Queen has blatantly violated the 3RR. There was not yet a consensus. I asked to have the article protected a MONTH ago. Main article: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons 'When writing about controversies in the lead of the biography of a living person, notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm' The blockquotes *do* overwhelm the article. SRQ made a unilateral decision to change TWO quotes instead of the one under discussion. In addition the blockquotes make the article look choppy. BRBDocOfSoc (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) Why are you repeating what you already said? (2) You asked that the article be protected a month ago - so what? That isn't why it was locked again tonight. (3) Again, please stop quoting large sections of WP policy and wasting bandwidth with it. (4) The blockquotes neither overwhelm the article, nor do they make it look "choppy". You're gonna have to come up with something more credible and actual to persuade anyone that the blockquotes shouldn't be in this article. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered when exercising editorial judgment." To place such undue emphasis sensationalizes the article re OLD NEWS, making it of tabloid quality. I would have rather the both of us been blocked than the article. That would have left the possibility of someone without a negative POV and intent to harm to reasonably edit the article. To personally make changes because of the violation of the 3RR and unilateral decisions *before* blocking it would have been the better decision, you said it was close, and you are humanDocOfSoc (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) "Tabloid quality" - not even close. If that were the case, the experienced editors who work regularly to keep tabloid sensationalism out of any WP article (me being one of them) would have taken care of that a long time ago here if it were the case. I do recall, however, that you and the subject of the article have tried to make this article into a Karel fan page on more than one occasion in the past... (2) You would rather be blocked? Good grief - why? (3) I don't have a "negative POV" nor do I have any intent to harm this, or any, WP article. (4) What "undue emphasis" are you referring to? Right now, the article looks pretty balanced to me (and obviously to others who watch it - because no one has tried to make substantive and huge changes in the article but you. (5) "Old news"? Yeah - kinda funny how that's true. Encyclopedias often do have "old news" in them. It's acttually one of the things that make encyclopedias worth reading. Again, the Bouley article doesn't exist to make Bouley look good through only having recent or current content - that's what his own webpage and Facebook pages are for. Even as things change in Bouley's career - and his gigs come and go - the article will continue to reflect pretty much everything that's already there. (6) Here's a tip you can pass on to your friend Karel from me: tell him that if he does something noteworthy that's productive, positive, has a long-lasting effect, and surpasses his Joe-the-Plumber on-air f-bomb tirade, then it'll probably get put in the lede. Until then, his most well-known act to date will remain the JTP incident (and pondering this some more, I bet Mickey Luckoff doesn't think it's "old news" - especially with the FCC's threat of a 1/3-of-a-million $$ fine for each f-bomb Bouley dropped). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

"Best" known change

I would like to propose a change from "best", a superlative, to "Particularly well known" for his Joe the plumber comment. Also nowhere in the lead/lede does it indicate that it was inadvertently broadcast. Comments? Suggestions? Treading very carefully here ; ) Thnx. DocOfSoc (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bouley is best known for his work on KGO..." I think the "best" sounds more like it applies to his KGO work than the use of obscenity. Also, I think if you change it to "particularly well-known," it actually becomes stronger because it implies that he is well-known, while "best known" only implies that whatever follows (i.e. his work on KGO and his firing) are the most notable things about him. As for indicating it was inadvertent, I don't have any objection (though other people might; let's wait for more input). ctzmsc3|talk 03:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, maybe just "well known"? Living in L.A. as I do, he is actually better known as half of the first gay couple" on air, and their antics. In the interest of full disclosure, in case anyone has missed it, I am acquainted with Karel, the good the bad and the ugly, so my POV is very carefully monitored, including in my own head. OK guys? ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 05:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure how to quantify it, but my sense is that outside of LA and the Bay Area, the Joe the Plumber incident is what he is best known for, as it attracted national attention in the US. The question is, do we weight the lead in favor of local vs. national notability? I am leaning toward keeping the incident in the lead.--Seaphoto^Talk 05:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the "Joe the Plumber" article, here on Wiki, doesn't even bother mentioning the incident, it doesn't seem to be that notable. I talk to *lots* of people in my travels, and the general reaction is "why would we be bothering to talk about such old news" or generally they don't recall it at all. Incidentally, Airports are great places to start conversations with people from all over. I fly a lot. Also, he was a pretty big deal while on KFI and that has been minimized and perhaps should be included in the lead. I respect your opinion, Seaphoto, more input please, also on "best" vs "Well known". Anyone else want to chime in? DocOfSoc (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have no objection to weaving his role at KFI into the lead as well, that too is notable. As far as the incident being mentioned on Joe the Plumber's page, it affected Karel far more than Joe the Plumber. --Seaphoto^Talk 15:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

HI Seaphoto, you said KFI in the lead was ok, and then you took it out. You want to "weave" it back in? Or shall I weave differently ? DocOfSoc (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It has be woven...LOL...--Seaphoto^Talk 18:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously a basket case LOL TY!DocOfSoc (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

food for thought

Michelle Malkin, an American conservative, blogger and author, has stated she thinks "He is what is wrong with America." worth including? DocOfSoc (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Malkin also thinks there was nothing racist about the Japanese internment camps in the US during WWII. I don't particularly care what she thinks about Bouley.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OMG! Never heard of her. TY for the info. Trying to cover the bases. ;-) DocOfSoc (talk) 13:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Bouley's name

I reverted the reference for this as it doesn't pass WP:RS. A birth certificate or even his own site would do if he states his real name on it. As for the blog reference added in the lead, I also removed that as blogs usually aren't dependable as is the case in both of these instances. Comments? --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Will this do? http://www.radiokrl.com/radiokrl/Home.html DocOfSoc (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Article history

Am going thru article's history to see what has been deleted or changed by previous editor. Essentially, a lot of facts were deleted, generally interesting or positive items. General info, not "fan like" is what I am seeking and finding.DocOfSoc (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Karel, again?

Recent edits by 108.0.209.72 originate in Long Beach. Point of origin, and the content of the edits lead me to believe Karel is once again editing the article. Please watch for additional Long Beach edits. -FeralDruid (talk) 05:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Karel announced on his radio show about three weeks ago that he knew he was not allowed to edit his article. As far as I know, he has not and there were a few changes I know he would not have made.. He stated earlier that it could be "one of his staff or one of the other half million people in the nations's 36th largest city."  ;-)

I would, at a later date, like to discuss the use of Karel's name. As that is the name he is known by most people who have heard of him at all, it merit's further discussion.

Since my sister's death, my contributions will continue to be very limited until I I get through the shock of this horrendous change in my life. Thanks. DocOfSoc (talk) 08:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mensa Membership and speech

I removed the above section, as I could find no source for it other than his own website. A Google search for "Mensa Convention Bouley" did not generate any supporting data, nor did "Mensa Convention Karel". . I am not sure how relevant it would be (for example, the article on James Woods doesn't mention his membership, although the one on Geena Davis does), but if membership is substantiated is may be worth a mention. The membership directory is available on to members (which, alas, I am not), so some additional research is needed to provide a source.Seaphoto^Talk 01:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think membership of Mensa can fall under the guidance of WP:SELFPUB. The information is not that controversial, or suspected as untrue, and Karel can be considered an expert on himself so an independent high quality source is not really needed. The same principle would apply to an interview as evidence of personal information (such as religious beliefs that would otherwise be tricky to find sources for). Fæ (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that both point number 2 (it involves a third party (Mensa), and point number 3 (it involves claims about events not directly related to the subject, the Mensa Convention) from WP:SELFPUB apply here. In fact, an argument can be made about point one (it is unduly self serving) if one claims to be a genius. There is no urgency to include this kind of information in the article without documentation. As an aside, I just did a quick search for Mensa Convention Speaker and the results included a number of notables, including Mike Tyson (!), so there are resources to explore in the quest to verify this assertion.Seaphoto^Talk 04:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I have to say, I'd go for the opposing view on this one. Covering the points - #1 being in Mensa is not the same as saying you are a genius, in fact the IQ levels are not even at "gifted" and may mean you are just quite good at puzzles which does not seem all that self-serving to me, #2 there is no "claim" being made here about Mensa (if he was saying Mensa were rubbish this criteria might apply) so there is no third party that would be damaged, #3 I'm not sure I understand your point, the subject here is Karel, not the Mensa Convention and the claim being made is about Karel rather than Mensa. If the issue were a little more contentious I would suggest using the WP:RFC process to validate the interpretation either way, but this probably seems a bit heavy-handed for this one. Fæ (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

First, as a former member, let me clarify something about Mensa. It does not mean you claim to be a genius (altho some do). All it really means is that you take certain tests exceptionally well. Period. I qualified as a kid and there is NO way I could document that. Karel's membership was probably 25 years ago and he spoke at a Conference over 10 years ago. I also did an extensive search. This is not for self serving purposes. He mentioned it on the radio and there is a blog on Green 960 where he is being attacked unmercifully by the usual homophobes and haters, generating a certain amount of urgency. I am going to boldly post and breathlessly await your response Seaphoto.  :-) TY fae for your input. DocOfSoc (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. FYI, as usual, he has No Idea what I have added in the article. We simply don't communicate anymore. DocOfSoc (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Clearly we disagree on this point, and the fact that there is upheaval on a blog is not persuasive to me regarding urgency. There will always be nonsense on some corner of the Internet, but our jobs as editors is to, as much as possible, keep it out of Wikipedia. That said I don't feel strongly enough that it warrants reversion at this point, but will be open to hear what other editors have to say if they want to weigh in.Seaphoto^Talk 06:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sea I see your point. OTOH, few former members of Mensa could document their membership. But, having been bombarded with hate my first two years on Wiki and being discounted, I continue to combat it in other forums. Maybe I should change my name to Don Quixote ;-) Hate hurts. Off to other windmills DocOfSoc (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

New edits

Corrected misinformation, previously discussed. Reconstructed inaccurate sentences. References document the correct info DocOfSoc (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You are fooling no one. You have been Banned. Please cease and desist.

"A blocked user may have certain privileges revoked, such as the ability to publish content or communicate with other users, or they may be completely unable to access the service in question. Blocks can apply to individual user accounts or ranges of IP addresses." DocOfSoc (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Duck! Having made IDENTICAL, previously discussed, edits to the CKB article, Banned editor has outed herself, using little known (previously discussed) knowledge in her edits, the usual, very subtle belittling words, and incorrectly changing his and his father's name again. She again removed his book, using her old out of print argument, although it is referred to later in the article and still available. Biographically, he still wrote the book. To go back to the "peacock" and "Fan like" arguments is ludicrous, this was settled years ago. I just want NPOV, fair and accurate editing, as I do in my other articles. Period. DocOfSoc (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not whomever the other editor thinks I am. Having been watching this article quietly for months, I can boldly state that the other editor has obvious problems with ownership of this article. It's continually being edited poorly by this editor and then reverted back to the inferior version when improvements are made. Edit warring over this article, or any article, is disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia and deters others from wanting to take part in collegial editing. The other editor has now also violated 3RR. This article belongs to Wikipedia and its readers and should be treated as such and with respect, not as a personal fan page to be defended where it then becomes a battleground. 70.197.112.192 (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Please edit, as much as possible, in one session

It is confusing and time consuming to have to go through a dozen or more edits in a short period of time to see what changes have been made. Please use the preview button as much as possible and group all your edits into one package so that your edits can be easily noted and evaluated. If that doesn't work for you, copy the article into your user space and work on it there until you are satisfied, and then copy and paste it here. This is especially considerate when there is a lot of back and forth over small items, as seems to be the case again.

On another, related point can we try and maintain civility here? 70.197.112.192, since this is your first time editing, please read wp:agf. And for everyone, keeping snarky comments out of the edit summaries will help maintain a better level of discourse. Remember, we are trying to build the best encyclopedia possible, and not engaging in a contest. Otherwise the article will have to go into semi or full protection again, and as a matter of principle I don't like to see that. Thank you for your cooperation! Seaphoto^Talk 16:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

This isn't my first time editing Wikipedia, just my first time editing this article. As I said before, I have been watching the article for some time. For the record, your request for editing in one block is something that other editors argue against. There were no "snarky" comments made by me in either the edit summaries or on this talk page. It's an obvious fact that the other editor has ownership issues with this article. Doing a quick perusal of her other edits in other articles, it's obvious she has ownership issues in those articles as well. Stating someone has ownership issues isn't about the editor, it's about the disruptive nature of those ownership-driven edits that in the end are bad for the article and Wikipedia. If the other editor can't edit this or any other article with the understanding that others have a right to edit as well, then she shouldn't be here. As it says under the "Save page" button below the edit summary, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here". Editors who do not understand this or who don't want to understand this are disrupting Wikipedia by turning it into a personal battleground. The other editor has now violated 3RR once again and is at 5RR. Edit warring is unproductive and essentially boils down to selfish desires, not the good of the encyclopedia. For the good of the article and Wikipedia, maybe it is time for this article to be locked again. 70.197.159.65 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You may as well have signed your name. You may deny it, but you cannot help giving yourself away. Your critical style of wording is far too familiar to too many editors. I do not have "ownership" issues. I have accuracy issues. Your attitude of your edits always being superior has already been noted by other editors. Language is not a contest, it is a matter of correctness. I have not violated the 3RR (exception: reverting banned editor) and you have just picked up edit-warring where you left off before being banned DocOfSoc (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes you have violated 3RR. You have violated it several times over. If you truly care about this article and Wikipedia you will stop the edit warring that is stemming from your need to control articles and their content. I just did a quick once-over of your past edits and talk page comments, and it's pretty apparent you don't want to discuss anything unless it is in your personal interest or you stand to win. Wikipedia isn't about winning, it's about building an encyclopedia. Because I care about Wikipedia, I refuse to argue further with someone who won't AGF and sees sockpuppets and conspiracies under every rock. Wikipedia isn't a social networking site and it isn't about editors. When you decide to start helping build the encyclopedia rather than selfishly tearing it apart until it meets and satisfaties your needs, I'll be happy to discuss things with you. 70.197.4.120 (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC) 70.197.4.120 This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
The next time you make a personal attack, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.34.64 (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is looking pretty odd. This really does look like the work of a certain banned editor, and that would mean an indefinite ban instead of the lengthy one imposed already. Don't sock... Doc9871 (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

SRQ, your writing "voice" is fairly distinctive. I don't know how you're managing to geolocate to Texas, but really, this is not cool. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)