Jump to content

Talk:Geoffrey Owens

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.119.197.4 (talk) at 17:23, 5 September 2018 (He works at Trader Joe's). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cleanup

This article is poorly written and focuses more on Owens' character on "The Cosby Show" than it actually focuses on Owens himself. Rhythmnation2004 15:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who gives a darn what a moron like you thinks? 66.232.72.61 05:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Elvin[reply]

You post irrelevant insults like that and HE's the moron??? Get a life. Smurfmeister (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

This article is the expected result for Geoffrey Owens, perhaps. But there is an independent filmmaker named Geoffrey Owens, as well. Should that be split somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artythesmarty (talkcontribs) 19:34, 25 April (UTC)

He works at Trader Joe's

Should this be noted in this article?
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/31/cosby-show-actor-geoffrey-owens-spotted-bagging-groceries-at-nj-trader-joes.html
San Francisco Bay Area Native 22:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the public reaction to the article by other celebrities, activists and general social media virality of this event - during Labor Day weekend no less - is extremely noteworthy. There are plenty of sources to cite besides Fox News: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-shaming-of-geoffrey-owens-and-the-inability-to-see-actors-as-laborers-too https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/nation-now/2018/09/02/fox-news-shames-cosby-show-actor/1182006002/ https://www.essence.com/celebrity/social-media-defends-cosby-show-geoffrey-owens-bagging-groceries/ https://www.thewrap.com/fox-news-criticized-for-report-on-former-cosby-show-actor-bagging-groceries/ https://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/celebrities/article217740410.html Kire1975 (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that it's noteworthy enough to mention. However, should it actually be included in the "Career" section? My thinking is that the "Career" section is normally for the career for which the person is notable in the first place, and not necessarily every instance of employment. By some definitions of "career," employment outside of one's actual calling or life's work is not part of one's career. A person's employment outside of their notable career is, I think, more often described in an "Early Life" section if it occurred before their career, or in a "Personal Life" section if it occurred during or after their notable career. I'd like to move the mention of Trader Joe's to this article's "Personal Life" section, and not have a separate subsection for it, either. How do others feel about that? --DavidK93 (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it could be part of a Personal life section, since personal life is about personal relationships. This job cannot be placed in the Early Career section, since he is not in the early career. I agree that not every time a person gets paid is encyclopedic, but in this particular case, this job certainly meets Wikipedia's notability standard. BarbadosKen (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be also noted that he has since left the job at Trader Joe's due to the unwanted attention he received, according to The Boston Globe. Melonkelon (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless WP:BLP has been rewritten recently, Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. Why is there a section of this biography dedicated to this nothingburger? Is it a significant part of his life story? Is it meaningful? Is it anything more than tabloid news? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 01:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely because it is not tabloid. The story is in multiple WP:RS, and he has addressed it himself. BarbadosKen (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Where it has been reported is not what makes it tabloid news. In what universe does having a whole section of this biography about this incident satisfy WP:PROPORTION and WP:BLP? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your position is supported by Wikipedia policies. That's what WP:RS is all about, and is the guideline for as editors to use in determining what is "tabloid" and what is "not tabloid". BarbadosKen (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on your comments here and on the talk pages of other articles, I wonder if you understand how WP:BLP works. You also might want to review WP:PAG—BLP is a policy, but IRS is a guideline. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 05:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Trader Joe's section is tabloid-like information that isn't encyclopedic and does not help elucidate the subject's accomplishments or otherwise, despite it being published in some RS. It should be removed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this guy was regular tabloid fodder and this piece was only featured in tabloid type media outlets, that'd be one thing. Instead, it became a major news item (definitely notable). I think putting under the non-acting work section works. four tildes.

Edit request

In the Trader Joe's paragraph, the last line says "he quit his job." Could we change it to "he no longer works there."  ? Reason being he is likely looking (or has found) other work. There's no OR in that change; whether he's looking or not saying "he no longer works there" is true either way. (That's how he phrased it in the article as well). Thanks. 198.60.5.253 (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]