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)

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)