Talk:Amanda Kloots

Birthdate

The New York Times gave an age as of September 2020, and combined with the birthday month and day that both the subject and her husband have given, the Ancestry.com cite is now moot.

However, to say that there is a blanket prohibition and that we can never use Ancestry.com is incorrect. WP:RSP says re: Ancestry: "Some of [its] sources may be usable under WP:BLPPRIMARY, but secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred." Preferred, not required or mandated. In this case, the source used was a birth record, so no WP:USERGENERATED was involved. And since there was no secondary source that I could find at the time, a WP:BLPPRIMARY is allowed: "...secondary sources, where available, are usually preferred," but not mandated.

The same editor had noted to me Ancestry.com cannot be used because of WP:BLPPRIVACY. That's not so, since WP:RSP says in some cases this site is allowable. But also, WP:BLPPRIVACY is primarily about notable but private figures; Amanda Kloots is a highly public figure. And we're not giving a personal address but a birthdate, which is absolutely standard biographical information. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

BLPPRIVACY says to include full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. It does not draw a distinction between public v. private figures. This means that we should treat all subjects with this in mind, does it not? Furthermore, WP:BLPPRIMARY specifies not to use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth in any situation. KyleJoan^talk 16:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That same line of the policy also states we should not include "home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Unlike any of those other things, public figures' birth dates are standard to include. While this section doesn't explicitly make a distinction between public figures and private figures, that is a real-life distinction. Perhaps an RfC discussion is needed there to clarify explicitly. If I have time to initiate one, I'll keep you posted. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: if this ever made it to BLPN, I can say the standard is to remove with fire any birth dates sourced solely to primary sources not linked to the subject. This includes Ancestry, but anything of that sort. It is true that a lot of people are unfamiliar with our BLP norms, but experienced editors should try to familiarise themselves with them. While you're welcome to start an RfC if you desire, I'm confident that it will reach the outcome that results whenever someone tries to dispute such birth date removals. I.E. yes we do require good sourcing for birthdates and no it doesn't matter if the person is a public or private figure. The "real-life distinction" between public and private figures is likely to be seen as moot since there is an obvious response to that. If the birth date is such an important piece of information for this "public figure", WTF do you have to dig through the bottom of the sourcing barrel to find a source for it? (And yes from a BLP stand point, primary sources especially public records are generally close to the bottom of the barrel. Perhaps better than Daily Mail, but that's not saying much.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, as I said in my very first post, this is moot since I found two sources which, when combined, gave the birthdate. As for anything else, I quoted from policy/guideline above, so no need to repeat it. We completely agree that Daily Mail is bottom-of-the-barrel and neither I nor any other responsible editor would use it. Ancestry.com, for whatever else one might say, is a legit, well-documented site, so I wouldn't call it "bottom-of-the-barrel," though maybe we're just splitting semantics — I would call it "last-ditch," since it's better than the plethora of uncited birth claims I see (and remove). In any case, it's not something I think I've even ever used before in 15 years here, so there's not much danger of repeating this.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately you understanding of BLP appears to be piss poor which is what I find concerning. You're right that unsourced birth dates should be removed with extreme fire. You're also right that there are way, way, way, way, way too many of these. However it mystifies me why you then think that just because thereThere are also plenty of piss poor articles, which still violate WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY by sourcing birth dates to piss poor sources e.g. primary sources unlinked to the subject like ancestry.com, this makes it okay. No it's not. Those need to be removed with fire as well. It does not matter if there's no doubt that these details are true. That's missing the point of our policy. Any editor regularly editing BLPs needs to know this. The fact that this occurs so often is because too many editors seem to think birthdates are important information to include and they should go out of their way to find them. No they shouldn't. If the only sources they can find are primary sources than they already have a prima facie case that the birthdate isn't an important encyclopaedic biographical detail of that person. If they really want to continue, that's up to them but they need to ensure they find sources acceptable to Wikipedia rather than settling for unacceptable sources such as primary sources unlinked to the subject. (Again this is one area where the detail being true is only part of the equation and editors need to always remember that.) Wikipedia is not a book, a fanfansite or a database, and just because certain biographical details are significant in such works doesn't mean it is here. (It gets even worse when editors try to hunt down real names etc.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I misremembered what Tenebrae had said above and made some serious errors in my initial comment. I have struck out the offending parts of my comment and apologise unreservedly for my incorrect and unfair comments. I also made some minor corrections but the rest of my comment still stands without these portions.

I would perhaps add a reminder that BLP is policy and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources is an explanatory supplement to a guideline. Where RSPS seems to conflict with BLP, BLP should be assumed to take precedence pending further clarification.

Ultimately IMO it boils down to what I said in my initial reply. I've never seen "public figure" arguments take much significance when DOB matters arise on BLPN. IMO that arises from the obvious & common answer to complaints about our sourcing requirements. If such details are really so important for whatever claimed, then sources should demonstrate this.

P.S. Actually I'd go further and say that from my experience, the cases where these DoB concerns arise are often what can be called minor public figures. Often less famous actors or other less well known people who by nature of their work seek publicity on an ongoing basis and have fan-bases. It's hardly uncommon that someone seeks out a birthdate somewhere but it's never published in significant secondary sources or by the subject. It comes up less often with people who aren't really public figures probably for many reasons including that no one cares that much when some random scientist or whatever was born. Those convicted of crimes are one of the few areas where it does come up since dates of births are often included in court records.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

BTW, it's worth remembering that AFAIK, the RSPS guidance is supposed to be a summary of the previous discussions. Yet if you look at those 5 linked, BLP only seems to have been mentioned in 2 and 3 and both of them were very negative about the use of anything ancestry, even their records, in BLPs. Frankly the most recent discussion, 5, was very negative about ancestry point blank. Where birth dates came up in those discussions, it was mostly in relation to census records. Death dates did get a fair amount of discussion although the editor most in favour of their use exercised their RTV. But in any case, although I just pointed out in another discussion that unless we have BLP compliant information that a person is dead, we should assume BLP applies; it looks to me like a lot of that discussion related to cases where there is no dispute they were dead e.g. because it was covered in RS without the date or because of how long ago they were born. In any case, death dates fairly different from birth dates in terms of the concerns raised. Anyway my point is that I don't think that the RSPS guidance can even really be said to be an accurate summation of the linked RSN discussions. I think there are some more unlinked. I'm not going to look or trying to change RSPS since I don't consider it a big deal. As I said, what BLP says trumps what RSPS says. Really a properly advertised RfC (i.e. to BLPN or otherwise ensuring it received the attention of editors familiar with BLP) is the only way we can modify BLPPRIMARY to allow the use of Ancestry or other sources of birth records as the sole source for such details, when they aren't coming from the subject. Nil Einne (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Social media posts about grief and positivity

@Tenebrae @JDDJS: Since you're both in agreement and I am not, would either of you mind if I open an RfC to obtain more responses and–hopefully–a consensus on including this edit? KyleJoan^talk 16:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It's kind of you to ask, but of course you don't need to: RfCs are a valuable too available for any of us to use. Thank you for going to the trouble of doing so; I know it takes a while to do.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

And actually, I just noticed that I had read the first sentence in the paragraph and somehow didn't take in the second. The first sentence is notable; the part about grief and spirituality is not. It's the first part that got her national attention, and that national attention encompasses the whole of it, so the "grief and spirituality" point is redundant as well as being marginal. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with the second part being removed. The first part is an extremely important part of her notability though. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced. The phrasing of the information also contains issues. The description national attention is too Americocentric for a worldwide encyclopedia. Readers in Japan could easily say Kloots didn't receive national attention in their country. I also don't know how one would chronicle someone's death. The article makes it sound like Kloots regularly posts updates commemorating Cordero's passing as part of her career. I'll get started on the RfC soon. KyleJoan^talk 20:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I changed it to "received significant media attention while documenting her husband's struggle..." That removes your concern about it being too Americocentric and is a clearer term than chronicling. If you want to move the section to her personal life rather than her career, I won't object, even I disagree because it clearly had a significant impact on her career. Before her husband's illness, she was not at all a well known figure. Majority of the articles about her being made a regular on The Talk mentions her documenting Nick's struggle on instagram. She was first bought on the show as a guest to talk about it. I never oppose the start of an RFC and will always respect the consensus reached in one, but in my opinion, it would be completely absurd to not include it in the article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Digital fitness brand

We should probably include a sentence or two about her digital fitness brand. Here's a useful article about it [1]. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Forbes.com contributors are generally unreliable per WP:FORBESCON. KyleJoan^talk 20:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

First marriage

Apparently, Nick Cordero was her second husband, with a previous marriage ending in divorce. Here's an article she wrote about it: [2], however she doesn't mention any details about her ex, not even his name. According to this: [3] his name is David Larson, however, I doubt that is considered a reliable source. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the notability her posts

Should the following sentence about news reports mentioning her social media posts in relation to her late husband's COVID-19 journey be included in the article?

“ In 2020, Kloots received significant media attention while documenting her husband's struggle and eventual death from COVID-19 on Instagram. ”

References

KyleJoan^talk 04:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Strong include It clearly had a significant impact on her career. Before her husband's illness, she was not at all a well known figure. This bought her to a wider audience, and without, she would not currently even be notable. Majority of the articles about her being made a regular on The Talk mentions her documenting Nick's struggle on instagram. She was first bought on the show as a guest to talk about it. Here are just a few more of the extensive coverage of it: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] It was even mentioned in Cordero's obituary in NY Times [13] In my opinion, it would be completely absurd to not include in the article. In fact, I would go one step further and say that it should be included in Nick Cordero as well, though I will let this RFC play out before adding it there. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. Not only does the description significant media attention read like puffery, but celebrities receiving coverage for their social media posts is simply not encyclopedic content. The long-term, historical view of Kloots' notability encompasses her works and the marriage itself and not any of her documentation of either point. KyleJoan^talk 03:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• KyleJoan If you have a problem with the wording, you're more than welcomed to rewrite it. Also the idea that "celebrities receiving coverage for their social media posts is simply not encyclopedic content" is simply untrue. From Kim Kardashian to George Takei, plenty of articles contain sections on their social media usage. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• That's an invalid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The section in Takei's article clearly fails WP:DUE, while Kardashian's contains information on the money she generates from social media rather than its effect on her notability. The title of the section in Kardashian's also does not adequately summarize its content (e.g., a magazine cover, mobile game, cameo in a film, and makeup line). KyleJoan^talk 19:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• I am not claiming that we need to include because other stuff exists; I am just pointing that your claim that social media use by celebrities is not notable is not backed up by anything. And your claim that "The section in Takei's article clearly fails WP:DUE" is just your opinion, and one that is clearly not shared by the overwhelming majority of the hundreds of editors who have left it in and expanded on it for several years, and never even brought up removing it on the talk page. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Include per JDDJS. The only reason this individual is even notable is because of her husband's COVID diagnosis & subsequent death. Why do you think this page was only created a few weeks ago: [14]? NOTNEWS/RECENTISM clearly does not apply. She is hardly known for anything else, and this sentence needs to be in the lead. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If she is only notable due to her husband, then we should be proposing the article for deletion instead of including anything in it, no? It's also interesting that there is no mention of anything related to his COVID journey in the link you provided, and yet the article underwent a successful review in that state. In addition, it's confusing to read that NOTNEWS/RECENTISM clearly does not apply when her posts about her husband's death were recent occurrences that do not warrant an article on their own. So which is it? Does RECENTISM not apply or does it apply so greatly that this article should not exist? KyleJoan^talk 05:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

If you want to put this BLP for an AfD, be my guest. But why waste all your hard work on getting this article created? You do realize that the very first line of the first version of the page was: "Kloots was married to actor Nick Cordero from 2017 until his death in 2020." The proposed sentence is merely expanding upon this sentence in a clear and concise manner. It's really undeniable that her main source of notability was through her late husband. How else would she be notable? JDDJS is correct--how much coverage did she receive prior to her husband's battle with COVID? ( The Answer: Not a lot!) Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• I don't believe we should put the article for an AfD; I was addressing how your points suggested that you do. If that is the case, then why spend time wanting to expand on notability that's only inherited? If that isn't the case, then why keep insisting that she is not notable in her own right? KyleJoan^talk 19:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• You're completely misunderstanding WP:INHERITED. It means that being related to a notable person doesn't automatically make someone notable. However, people absolutely can be notable for their relationship to someone, if there is significant coverage of it. Tiffany Trump is only notable for being the daughter of the president, but we have an article for her. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• That's another invalid OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Tiffany Trump became notable in her own right in addition to being the child of a US president. Amanda Kloots became notable in her own right following her husband's death; she did not do so in addition to having posted about it. I also never said that Kloots' notability was inherited; I was addressing how Dr.Swag Lord Ph.d's point suggested that they believed that was the case. KyleJoan^talk 19:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Amanda Kloots became notable in her own right following her husband's death--you basically admitted that if it wasn't for her husband's death, she would not be notable--which is true. Posting about the events most definitely contributed to her notability. But don't take my word on it:

Extended content

NBC News: "Kloots made headlines for sharing her husband’s battle with coronavirus, from the Broadway actor's first hospital visit in March to his death in July." Today:"Kloots, who had been chronicling her husband's months-long fight with the coronavirus..." New York Times:"Amanda Kloots kept the world informed while her husband, a Broadway actor, lost a battle with Covid-19..." People: "Kloots...was thrust into the spotlight earlier this year while documenting her husband Nick Cordero's battle with COVID-19." WKYC: "Kloots... famously chronicled her late husband and Hamilton star's experience with coronoavirus on social media, helping shed light on the impact it can have on younger people." BuzzFeed News:"Through it all, Amanda has been sharing with her followers her journey juggling both the economic and health consequences of the disease on her family" Deadline: "Kloots’ husband Nick Cordero died in July at the age of 41 from complications of Covid-19. She chronicled his long struggle with the disease on Instagram throughout the ordeal." E News: "Over the next few months, family, friends and fans from the theater and fitness worlds—plus countless others who were discovering Cordero and Kloots for the first time—anxiously followed Amanda's updates as Nick started suffering complications." People: "Fans across the world, new and old, had cheered the Tony-nominated Broadway actor for weeks as he first went into the ICU in late March and eventually woke up from a medically induced coma. The supportive squad was led by Kloots, who gave constant updates on her husband — from white blood cell counts to new stem cell treatment."

• Practically every source in this article describes the significance of her social media posts. It's very central to her rise to notability. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• I said she became notable after her husband's death, not for it. Thank you for the sources, but less than half of them highlight the posts as significant to her rise to notability. Kloots having chronicled [her husband]'s struggle (Deadline Hollywood) and kept the world informed (The New York Times) are only enough to state in Wikipedia's voice that she did those things; neither source says anything about the significance of the attention she received. We can now also discuss whether the inclusion of the attention itself would give it undue weight, but I'd rather not continue bludgeoning this RfC. Feel free to respond and have the final word if you'd like. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 03:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• People can be notable for recent events. She clearly is. She has gotten a bunch of coverage now making her notable, but notable coverage of her before her husband's illness is scarce, and surely not enough for her to pass the notability guidelines. Just about every bit of coverage she gets mentions her husband's fight or death with COVID. Also, this coverage started back in March, over 8 months ago, and has been consistent, so it's not really even recent anymore, and the lasting impact has already been covered. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 17:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude per KyleJoan. ~ HAL333 06:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Strong Include- It is absolutely unbelievable anyone would suggest this should not be included. First as to the issue regarding afd, she has acting credits so the page is going to stay as having acting credits is a basis for inclusion within wp. This is a simple sentence with sources and should be included as much as any statements about a person. SailedtheSeas (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Include - We'd be burying our heads in the sand to not acknowledge in a single sentence all th media attention that gave rise to her notablity. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
• Include, because she became notable following her husband's struggle with COVID-19 and eventual death. Idealigic (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
• This entire RfC lacks validity as a serious attempt to address the concern it is supposedly focused on. The simple facts are that the overwhelming majority of the sources presently cited in the article make it entirely clear from their titles alone that it is Kloots' marriage to Cordero, his death from COVID 19, and her response to it that made her the subject of public interest. Adding a 'single sentence' isn't going to fix this. The article needs a complete rewrite, from lede to final paragraph, in order to properly reflect what the sources have to say on the subject matter. The lede fails entirely to mention any of this, and much else in the article - right down to the context-free Biden endorsement - gives every appearance of being written in a manner more concerned with creating 'notability' by cherry-picking than actually reflecting either what the sources consider significant, or what the subject herself seems to have considered important for that matter. As a biography it is a shoddy piece of work, and a prime example of how not to do things. Whether Kloots actually merits a Wikipedia biography at all on the basis of what the sources have to say about her is open to debate, but leaving that issue aside, neither the readers nor Kloots herself deserve to be presented with this prime example of biography-by-omission-and-spin. If you are going to write about Kloots, at least have the decency to treat her like a human being, not a collection of URLs to manufacture 'notability' from. Or stop pretending to be capable of writing encyclopaedic biographies entirely. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

RFC about including sons name

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This inclusion has not gained consensus; one of the stronger opposing arguments is that it adds nothing of relevance to the understanding of the article topic, an argument that has not been adequately countered by proponents. Per WP:ONUS, as well as WP:BLPNAME, it should be left out. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 03:33, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Should we include her son's name? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Include It's been well established multiple times that there is no policy preventing the inclusion of children's names if the parent(s) release it themselves. Kloots shows him on her social media everyday, with his name, and frequently mentions him by name in interviews. "Elvis Cordero" results gets over 25,000 hits on Google. Here are just a couple of references: [15][16] (I'm just including one of the dozens of People articles that mention him, with a bunch including his name in the title) [17][18][19][20][21]. There are plenty more, but you get the point. Also, the name has been uncontroversially included at Nick Cordero for months. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude per this RfC. Kloots' non-notable child's name is not relevant to a reader's complete understanding of her per WP:BLPNAME. KyleJoan^talk 19:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• That RFC (that technically wasn't closed) was about that specific case. This is different, as Elvis has received much more media attention than Benoist's child has, and that was clearly only a local consensus. And I would argue that it is important to understanding her because if you see her talking about Elvis on social media or in an interview (as she does, extremely frequently) you would be confused (especially considering that many people immediately think of the singer when hearing Elvis). JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:00, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Since this is a very lengthy RfC, I'm bringing up my comment below that directly addresses KyleJoan's point, in an effort to keep it from being buried in all this text. WP:BLPNAME does not mention children at all — it mentions "family members." Yet those pushing for exclusion based on BLPNAME or BLPPRIVACY say not one word about Amanda's non-notable living sister or, in the vast bulk of biographies, subjects' non-notable living parents. This blatant discrepancy suggests to me that those arguing "privacy" are not actually motivated by privacy concerns.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Include - In addition to JDDJS's comments, WP:BLPNAME does not require exclusion of children's names and leans towards include if relevant to discussion. While the child in their own right at this age can't make themselves relevant, their parents can and HAVE. Elvis is relevant because his parents made him so and especially after the father's death. Also while what one page does does not necessitate another page, the fact that the father's page includes the name supports notability at least until some small mind goes there and takes it off. Perhaps the best example is a politician's child that is not involved in politics. Generally their names are included, eg Barron Trump who has done nothing on his own to be named but is, and it's because of his parents. The fact is many pages include relatives names that I think are unimportant, but the fact that their is discussion about inclusion also supports that there is notability. Also, the referred to RFC above is irrelevant to this discussion unless we want one page to dictate to another. Let me give another example why one's relationship with another can make them relevant. Kaley Cuoco's first husband is not noteworthy of himself but is named on her page. He is relevant because of their relationship, same as Elvia with Kloots. If we applied the standard those that want to exclude Elvis, then Cook should not be on Cuoco's page as he is not important. SailedtheSeas (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Additional Comments: First, I do not believe an admin has weighed in, and there are people making statements as if they are the offical decider. They are not. No one person is the decider whether the name should be included and people need to stop saying it as if they are the judge because you are not. That is the reason for the RFC. Just because your opinion of the facts and guidance is one way or the other, is the reason for the RFC because WP looks for consensus.

So much OPINION and misstatements are being thrown around. Whether the child's name should be included is an opinion, and the purpose of the RFC is to gain consensus whether the child is notable enough and material enough to the article. Just because one person says it's not is not the measure which is why there is this RFC because there is an obvious disagreement. People keep throwing out WP links and say you can't do this when that is not what the links say. The below mentioned Biographies of living people says nothing that matters to this discussion. BLPPRIVACY says nothing about minor children despite it being restated over and over. It states that full names and DOBs can be included if they've been widely published by reliable sources or by sources linked to the subject, but there is nothing special about minors so stop repeating that because the guidance is for adults and minors equally. So Elvis could be 50 years old and the same weighing of the facts and guidance would be needed.

Saying that the child's name adds nothing of substance is a person's opinion while other's have a different opinion. Just because you say it does not make it so, which again is the reason for the RFC. The argument regarding WP making the info public is irrelevant because the measure is whether the info is already widely published and WP does not make it more so.

As to some facts. The info is widely out there- name and dob. The child has conservatively over 2M google hits, with many pictures, at one years old. I'm many decades older and don't have even a fraction of that. Whether it should be DOB or YOB is debatable as in my opinion it meets the criteria of having many sources, but WP guidance says to err on the side of the YOB. The fact is Elvis DOB has been widely reported and potentially could be justified, but a compromise for this insanity could be to just have the YOB which is in multiple RS publications including USAToday, People, Today Show, and many more. IMDB has the name and YOB which is linked right from WP so not having it on WP protects nothing unless you want to remove the IMDB link.

I think everyone needs to put there passions aside for a moment, calmly think about it and stop trying to act like the authority so as to win the argument. Allow the RFC to play out and gain a consensus of opinion and stop trying to put your own opinion out there as the standard and fact. Lastly, please stop arguing as if you are the judge, because you are not. Consensus is the judge. SailedtheSeas (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of an RfC. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Enlighten me, and I find it interesting that an ip user that has been active for one week is the expert with 40% of contributions are to this Rfc. There is no rule to not include a child's name, but instead guidance. If you doubt this please see this child included as the result of a Rfc. In fact there have been multiple Rfc's as to whether to include a child's name, so explain how I am fundamentally misunderstanding. The guidance is based upon the facts and the facts are in dispute and how these facts apply is based on one's opinion and the consensus opinion is what carries the day. Your opinion is that the child's name does not add to the page while I believe it does. There, we are tied. I again implore people to stop claiming to be experts and the final judge as to what is to be included because as the above example shows dispite repeated statements that a minor cannot be included, the fact is they can be. SailedtheSeas (talk) 15:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

For your enlightenment, I've been active on Wikipedia for around ten years. As I have explained at the SPI you have just opened on me because I have made comments in an RfC (a request for comment) you didn't like. If you aren't prepared to countainance that people can have good-faith disagreements with you over the content of an article, I can only suggest that you might do better to take your talents (and your accusations against others) elsewhere. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

First, thank you for making my point that this is good-faith disagreement over article content which was exactly my point above. You are the one that made this personal by your comment directed at me when I made no comment directed at you. I questioned the biographies of living persons you referred to and asked what in it applies to this discussion to which you have not replied. And yes, I opened a sockpuppet inquiry because you became active 7 hours after the Rfc and 2 of your 5 contributions during that 7 day period were on the Rfc. If you are not a sockpuppet, then I apologize, but it's not because you disagree; it's because of [WP:Duck]. At the same time, I hope that everyone will move back to center, and simply make their argument about the content and stop saying that how they see it is how it should be. I personally have made no such argument. As to your suggestion for me to go elsewhere, this is America and I will go where I please thank you very much. SailedtheSeas (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

No, you made it personal when you told people in a request for comment to '"stop saying" things you disagreed with. If that isn't a fundamental misunderstanding of what an RfC is for, then I don't know what the heck would be. And no I didn't 'become active' to post on this RfC. I became active on Wikipedia something like ten years ago - from what I recall, to correct in an error on the Supermarine Spitfire article. Dynamic IPs tend to change rather more frequently than once per decade. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Include - As Kloots already presents him many times on her social media activities, there is no reason to exclude his name. Also, there is no problem with the policy, So his name can be include. Rondolinda (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Include - This is basic biographical information, and these are not private citizens but public figures who announced their child's birth and name to the media. Aside from the horse having left the stable, the toothpaste being out of the tube, the subject by making a media announcement obviates any privacy concern.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude. WP:BLPPRIVACY takes precedence: this is an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine, and minors who are not notable in their own right deserve not to have their names and birthdates up on one of the top 5 internet sites and broadcast by Google. Parents' social media posts can be hidden or deleted; Wikipedia is far more permanent and easier to find. I've taken the specifics and the Instagram post out again as contrary to policy and to good practice. (I hope the specifics aren't also in the infobox, I keep forgetting about those.) Yngvadottir (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Exclude per Yngvadottir above, and per the Wikimedia Foundation's resolution on Biographies of living people [22] The name of the child adds nothing of substance to their understanding of the subject of the article - which is Kloots herself, not a non-notable child - and the inclusion of a non-notable individual's date of birth is grossly inappropriate, per WP:DOB. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing at the linked Resolution:Biographies of living people says one word about not including children's names, and I find it disingenuous for this anon IP, against whom a sockpuppet investigation has been launched, to falsely claim it does. Any professional biographer knows that the basic details of a highly public figure having children —of a highly public figure a huge milestone in their lives — are a standard part of the biographical record. To give just one example: Read any biographical book. Professional biographers adhere to standards of ethics and best-practices, and someone with no training in this but just a personal opinion really should not make pronouncements about things being "grossly inappropriate" that any professional can tell is untrue.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Is the concept of "respect for personal privacy" not something you are familiar with? The WMF seems to think that Wikipedia contributors should be. As indeed do the Wikipedia contributors who wrote WP:BLP: "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private", "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons". This child isn't 'involved' in anything, beyond being born to someone about whom there is a Wikipedia article. And as for sockpuppet investigations, we've both been the subject of complaints (yours for alleged 'edit warring'), and since neither of us is a sock or an edit-warrior, that is irrelevant to this discussion. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

First, let's note there is a sockpuppet investigation against you. As for "we've both been the subject of [a sock investigation],' the malicious one that you/User:KyleJoan filed against me was dismissed out of hand. Really, every time I think you've hit bottom, you go lower. The fact you have to do this says you cannot make a viable case based on the facts.

One of those facts is there is no privacy issue whatsoever when the parents themselves announce the child to the news media. Nick Cordero and Amanda Kloots put it out to the press, and countless print, digital and broadcast outlets picked it up, exactly heeding the parents's wishes. We're not here to right great wrongs and criticize the parents for making a parental decision that is their right to do. The fact is, the child is a recurring part of the parents' media record.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is a sockpuppet investigation against me. One which will be closed as the nonsense on stilts it clearly is. As you've just noted, "malicious sockpuppet and 3RR complaints"[23]] are a thing on Wikipedia. And as for "the parents' media record", I can't see that mentioned in WP:BLP, but whatever. This is an RfC. I've made my comments. You don't have to agree with them. How about seeing what others have to say on the subject? 165.120.15.66 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I would wait to see what admins say before claiming the sock investigation "will be closed as ... nonsense." And the notion that every word an editor uses in a debate must appear verbatim in a particular policy/guideline is, to use your own term, "nonsense on stilts." A term like "media record" is a concise way of saying they (now she) has announced Elvis to the press, talked in detail about him in media appearance, posted on social media about him continually since literally the day he was born. Is that better? It seems wordier to me. You put up a righting great wrongs argument to suggest the parents were wrong for announcing the child's birth to the media, as countless celebrities do. That's simply an appeal to emotion, and not an argument based on logic or the kinds of professional biographical standards to which any encyclopedia or biographical reference should keep.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I bow to your superior knowledge regarding the outcome of sockpuppet investigations: [24] 165.120.15.66 (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

This gets weirder by the minute. The person who filed the sockpuppet investigation against me has just been blocked - for sockpuppetry. [25] 165.120.15.66 (talk) 20:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude while we can include the names of non notable children on the odd occasion, we have a very high bar for such inclusions. I'm unconvinced from the evidence presented above that that bar is met. While I'm not sure it matters, I'm also unconvinced her child can be considered a "public figure" even despite the reasonable amount of celebrity media/"gossip" coverage. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC) 21:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a point about an incendiary word in the post above: It's only "gossip" when it's unconfirmed claims made by anonymous sources. It's not gossip but actual fact when the parents themselves announce the child's birth to the media. Whatever merits you argument may have, using the term "gossip" is a misleading appeal to emotion, and in this case factually incorrect.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I struck that part since don't give a screwy fuck about the gossip angle. My point is that when I looked, it appeared to me that most of those 25k sources were stuff like People, Hollywood Life etc. These are source known for their coverage of celebrity farts, who's banging who, what dress someone wore, someone's new hairstyle/hotbod/whatever etc. Even when these's no question that their claims are true, they are by no means the sort of sources we expect for something which is supposedly important. There seems to be minimal coverage in other sources like New York Times. Again, call those sources whatever the fuck you want, I don't give a fuck. I was just trying to give a name to those sources, I don't follow them so I have idea WTF people call them other than "gossip" media or tabloid media or to some extent, the sexist term "women's mag". And I even included the double quotes to point out gossip may have been the best description but AFAIK it's a common name for such media. The fact remains most of the coverage seems to be in those sources which cover celebrity minutae in details we never should. Yet this is a baby who you claim is a "public figure" Nil Einne (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, re-reading your comments you never explicitly said the subject's child was a public figure. However, if you aren't making that claim, I'm not sure why you bring up "public figure" at all. I'm fairly confident that everyone here is who is concerned about BLP, mostly cares about the child's privacy. Their mother is obviously still covered under BLP as well, but if this was just about the mother, there may very well be a different outcome. However the child is also covered under BLP, and so we need to give due consideration as to whether the level of coverage of this child, in quality reliable secondary sources, has reached a level that it's unreasonable to exclude the information. Whatever the mother and father when he was alive, may have done, whether they may be public figures doesn't change the fact that the child is directly affected by our coverage, since it is him that we are directly naming etc. So even if the parents have less right to privacy because because they are "public figures" rather than "private citizens", if the child is still a "private citizen" rather than a "public figure", than they surely still have the same right to privacy that all "private citizens" do. While there may be a small number of babies who are/were clearly public figures e.g. Prince George of Cambridge, they also tend to be notable since being a public figure at such a young age tends to make you notable. That's why brought up the coverage aspect as the only route I could see where an argument could be made that the child was a public figure. But IMO, from what I saw from a quick search, it's not in the sort of sources we would expect if the child was truly a public figure. Nil Einne (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: "not in the sort of sources we would expect if the child was truly a public figure." I see the name in major mainstream magazines and mentioned in network and major syndicated broadcast outlets. A Google search for "Elvis Kloots" turns up more than 320,000 hits, starting with NBC's Today show, which is as mainstream and middle-America as anything can get: https://www.today.com/parents/how-amanda-kloots-son-elvis-deal-nick-cordero-s-death-t195563. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude per WP:BLPNAME and sourcing the name to her Instagram post does not meet WP:BLPSELFPUB. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Factual point: There was both a secondary and a primary footnote. It's misleading to suggest there was only only a primary footnotes. WP:PRIMARY allows a primary cite to bolster a secondary cite.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Factual point: an embedded copy of the primary post was put in that secondary source. Opinion: That still doesn't overcome WP:BLPNAME concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

None of this is about BLPNAME or BLPPRIVACY. If it were, people would be saying we need to remove the names of a subject's living parents, at Elliot Page, for instance, since the parents are not the subject or independently notable. But nobody's doing that. Because it's not really about privacy or non-notable individuals. It's about self-appointed censors trying to prove they know better than the parents regarding what's good for the child. And the factualness of an encyclopedia suffers for that.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring that whole casting aspersions thing here and there,[26], WP:WABBITSEASON[27] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

One can deflect and call my statement "casting aspersions." Or one can address the actual, concrete, stated discrepancy between what some editors claim and what they practice. The living parents of a subject are not, by and large, independently notable. So why are editors making "privacy" claims being inconsistent? --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Concerns for the privacy of children are simply higher than for adults. See [28] I don't know what world you are living in if you don't recognise that. Keep beating that horse.[29] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You linked to an opinion essay! Which is neither policy nor guideline! Anyone can write an essay advocating any point they want to. What world do I live in? One in which I debate in good conscience and don't make deliberately misleading arguments by trying to claim that an opinion essay holds any policy or guideline weight whatsoever.

The fact is, all your purported claims about "privacy" also apply to the non-notable living parents of a subject, and no one in your camp says one word about that. Aside from the fact that when parents ballyhoo their children to the media that the parents themselves don't consider it a privacy concern, the discrepancy that I note points to what I perceive as the real motivation behind your argument. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I've already made it clear that the scrutiny on waiving the presumption of privacy should be higher for children,[30] and parents cannot simply waive this through some social media post that gets repeated by popular culture media. You've been fighting the battle for this kind of cruft for at least 6 years.[31] Good luck on overcoming WP:ONUS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Really? The Today show, part of NBC News, is "popular culture media"? It is literally a news organization. The venerable theater magazine Playbill is "popular culture media"? Theater wishes it were popular culture. And these are just two examples of how professional organizations work. For someone with no experience or background but instead a "righting great wrongs" crusader mentality to say journalists and biographers are doing it all wrong and that you know better is just remarkable.

Parents do have control over their children's privacy. And these parents literally released the proud news of their child's birth to the media. And incidentally: "some social media post"? Try dozens of social-media posts. Your arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Have you sat down and watch Today (American TV program)? It's a morning talk show with lots of fluff intermixed with news. Theatre, one of the major arts & entertainment fields, is part of popular culture despite your attempts to dismiss that. Playbill reports on that. So it's a completely appropriate label. Enjoy finding that consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Your POV observations are just proving my point that you're reacting personally and emotionally, not objectively and professionally. You personal opinion about Today is meaningless. The actual fact is that it is under the news division and must adhere to NBC News' journalistic standards — which despite that Trump supporters may believe is as high as just about anyone's in the business since, aside from plain ethics, a major news organization has a lot to lose if its journalistic standard of fact-checking and accuracy are not high. So, yes, Today is a mainstream news program, not some "popular culture media," and it gives Elvis' name ... because the parents themselves released it to the media

And while this is beside the point, theater is considered a fine art. Here is a literal textbook definition: [32]. Playbill, which also gives Elvis' name, is not part of the "popular culture media" you personally disdain.

A layperson's person "gut" opinions are fine, as far as they go. But they don't override common, accepted professional standards that an encyclopedia should adhere to.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Pop culture media. Examples: [33][34][35][36] Despite your arrogant attempts to delineate theatre, it is a part of popular culture. WP:WABBITSEASON Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and did Trump win the election? I literally gave you a textbook saying that theater is widely and for hundreds of years considered a fine art or a performing art, and not pop culture. Playbill is not a pop-culture magazine. Arthur Miller's The Crucible is not pop culture. And so on. Debating with someone showing willful ignorance is frustrating.

And to the larger point, not only has Elvis' name and related information has been disseminated widely by the parents themselves to the media, but it is mentioned and discussed in mainstream news sources like the aforesaid NBC News. There is no privacy concern by the parents themselves, and attempting to censor a pertinent biographical fact that appears in mainstream news sources reaching millions and millions of people is both futile and against the very purpose of this encyclopedia.

And really? "Yawn" as an edit-summary? That's both uncivil, which you don't care about, but says everything anyone needs to know the kind of person you are.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Your comments throughout this RFC are disruptive WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. I heavily suggest that you refactor or remove all comments about the editors that disagree with you and conjectures about their motivations before an administrator does it for you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

And here it comes, whenever their arguments don't hold water — the threats. If you truly believe NBC News' Today show and the venerable theater magazine Playbill are not RS, then take it to the RS noticeaboard and see what editor there tell you. The only person being argumentative is someone who would take indefensible positions like that. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Straw man. No one is arguing their reliability. They do not overcome WP:BLPNAME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME in no way forbids mentioning the names of celebrities' children. The point of it is privacy concerns. There are no privacy concerns by the parent when they announce the child to the media. You hubristically think you know better than the parents. You don't. I don't, either. They made the choice, and Elvis' name appears in broadcast, print and web media that reaches untold millions of people. Your attempt at parent-shaming is fostering a censorship and whitewashing mentality that makes WIkipedia less useful. And it's futile, since the name is out there to millions and millions of people.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME - "When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories." Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I can cherrypick and WP:WIKILAWYER same as you. There are entire news stories about Elvis, so to claim that his name only makes "brief appearance[s]" is yet another untruth.

His parents announced his name to the media. There were news stories when he turned 1. He is a public figure in his own right. There is no privacy issue when the parents themselves make announcements about him to the media.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

"other than news media" Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

"brief appearances." Entire articles have been written about Elvis.

And if you're suggesting that policy states we can't include anyone's names unless we're citing academic journals, I would like to see you try to argue that at RSN. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

12/11/2020 - Does anyone know why the page was locked?

Been building up her acting credits and was going to put them on this weekend, but find the page locked. Does anyone know why they did this? SailedtheSeas (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Note: SailedtheSeas has been blocked indefinitely for suspected sockpuppetry. KyleJoan^talk 20:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It's because of a false 3RR report filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tenebrae reported by User:KyleJoan (Result:No violation, page fully protected for a week ). I'm very disappointed in User:KyleJoan.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

SailedtheSeas The lock has since been reduced to semi protection, so you should be able to edit it now. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Fully protected for 5 days

I apologise for lowering to semi-protection, that was an error I've just been told about. I meant to just shorten the period of full protection and never meant to shut out IPs. But this is getting a bit silly, what with SPIs and the ANI thread, so I've reinstated full protection as was always my.

I realise that this is the wrong version for some and I understand fully the BLP issues, having warned editors before about full dates of birth and names of children. But this one doesn't seem cut and dried and should be capable of resolving by RfCs and I don't think any damage is done by protection.

Any requests for further changes in protection should be made at WP:RPP, and I don't mind if another Admin changes it. Doug Weller talk 19:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"digital fitness brand" and other issues relating to emphasis in the article

From the article: "[Kloots] also launched a digital fitness brand, containing videos of exercise classes taught by her". Sourced to womenshealthmag.com [37] and BuzzFeed [38]. I see no particular reason to doubt this, but does it really merit inclusion in the article? Neither of the sources cited have much to say on the merits of the 'brand', and the first source is of questionable merit, given that most of what it has to say in the piece cited relates not to the 'brand', but instead to Kloots' participation in a 'Women's Health Live' event run by the owners of the website being cited. This looks like promotional fluff to me. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It's just one sentence. It's something sourced that she does, and has received coverage on. I don't see any problem with including.If itwas mentioned in the lead or had more than just one sentence about it, I would agree that it would be too much. But one section noting something she does and is the main focus of her personal website doesn't seem like a problem to me. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It is a sentence sourced to a an article which mentions "her own online fitness business" in passing, while promoting her participation in an event organised by the business that owns the source. That is outright promotional, and accordingly shouldn't be cited as a source at all. Which leaves BuzzFeed, telling us that Kloots was launching "a subscription service for her videos". The words 'digital fitness brand' don't appear in that article, and accordingly shouldn't be used - it is nothing more than marketing-speak. Kloots does online fitness videos. So do lots of other people. Wikipedia isn't obliged to promote them, regardless of what else brought the video creator to public attention. And yes, this is a single sentence - one being used to pad out a sparse 'career' section which gives every impression of being written to imply that Kloots meets Wikipedia notability criteria for reasons beyond her late husband's unfortunate death, and the media attention generated by her reaction to it. And while I have every sympathy for Kloots, I don't think that sympathy excuses this sort of article padding. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

We include not notable jobs on notable people's all the time. On Bryan Cranston, we say "Cranston was ordained as a minister by the Universal Life Church, and performed weddings for $150 a service to help with his income. He also worked as a waiter, night-shift security guard at the gates of a private LA community, truck loader, camera operator for a video dating service, and CCTV security guard at a supermarket." On Clint Eastwood, "Eastwood held a number of jobs, including lifeguard, paper carrier, grocery clerk, forest firefighter, and golf caddy." I have no problem, with replacing 'digital fitness brand' with "a subscription service for her fitness (or exercise if you prefer) videos". JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in substantive biographies concerning individuals who unambiguously meet Wikipedia notability criteria, it is entirely reasonable to include content on other aspects of their life. That isn't the case with the Kloots article though. The issue which brought her to public attention (her husband's death) is covered in a single sentence, while the rest of the article concerns matters that clearly wouldn't satisfy the notability requirements for a Wikipedia biography. The more I look at this article, the less I am convinced that the sources cited justify its existence. Note how the lede describes Kloots as a 'television personality'. The article body notes that she has appeared as 'guest co-host' on a 'daytime talk show', but provides no further evidence that Kloots has so far appeared on TV at all. Again, this seems unduly promotional, and/or further padding. An article on an actual 'television personality' ought surely be able to support the claim with something more substantive, indicating an ongoing TV career which justified the term being applied. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

She has already been announced to be a permanent co-host of the Talk starting in January. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Which doesn't make her a 'television personality'. Just someone with the potential to become one. Where are the sources to justify Wikipedia describing her thus now? And why does the lede consider this to be of such significance, while making no mention at all of the reason that the sources being cited all indicate as making her noteworthy? 165.120.15.66 (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

She became "a television personality" the moment she was hired. That's literally the job. You can't redefine common terms to suit yourself.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the one (re)defining common terms. Either find appropriate sources which justify the present-tense description of Kloots as a 'television personality', or remove it. 'Television personality' isn't a job description. You won't find it in an employment contract. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You are absolutely redefining the term, according to the Macmillan Dictionary here: "TV personality ​NOUN, DEFINITIONS: "a person who appears on TV a lot and is famous for that reason." As I said, the second she was hired to co-host The Talk, a fact that put her face and name out to millions of people through print, Web and broadcast news outlets, she became a television personality.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm pretty neutral about whether her fitness videos warrant inclusion, but do agree that the phrasing of the material isn't appropriate. The Women's Health ref may only mention the videos in passing, but the article from BuzzFeed News–a reliable source per WP:RSP–seems to highlight them in a more or less substantial way, so I'm not terribly opposed to a dry, bare mention without the description digital fitness brand. Maybe something like "Kloots posts fitness and workout videos online"?

MOS:ROLEBIO says that the lede should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources, and I have not found one RS that describes her as a television personality. The guideline also says to emphasize what made the person notable, so 165.120.15.66 is right in that Kloots cannot be notable in a role that she has not held (i.e., her co-hosting work at The Talk does not begin until January 2021). I don't doubt that sources are going to begin to describe her as a television personality (or television host) in the near future, but at this time, the role should be removed from the first sentence. KyleJoan^talk 02:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

The verbatim term does not have to be used for someone to be a television personality. Here is the Macmillan Dictionary definition: "TV personality ​NOUN, DEFINITIONS: "a person who appears on TV a lot and is famous for that reason." As I said, the second she was hired to co-host The Talk, a fact that put her face and name out to millions of people through print, Web and broadcast news outlets, she became a television personality. She has a regular television job, and she's not an actress or a pundit but hired to be herself, her own person. A TV personality. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, the article does not suggest that Kloots has appeared on television "a lot". She was a guest co-host on a talk show. It isn't entirely clear whether this was a single show, or for a week, but either way, it is a short period as a 'guest'. And the suggestion that she is 'famous' for appearing on television is self-evidently false, since the source being cited for her appearance (along with more or less every other source being cited in the article) emphasises the death of her late husband, and her response to it, as the reason she is being written about. And no, you can't be famous for something that hasn't happened yet, so her future employment as a TV presenter doesn't justify the description. Or if it doesn't, and 'TV personality' just means 'someone who has appeared on TV in a non-acting role' or whatever, it is of no consequence, and doesn't belong in the lede. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

RE: "something that hasn't happened yet": It has happened. She signed a contract. TV personality is now her job. If you sign with an accounting firm and they don't require you to start for another two weeks, you're still an accountant.

And her signing on to co-host a major syndicated talk/panel-discussion show was covered by media encompassing multiple millions of readers/viewers. That's fame.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia bases article content on what the sources say, and not on the spin a contributor tries to put on them. Find a source that suggests Kloots is 'famous' for anything other than her response to her husband's death. Or come to that, find one that even assumes that the reader will know who she is without having it explained to them. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, here's one of a few thousand or so articles about Kloots being named as cohost of a major talk show, that doesn't even mention her husband or COVID. https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/the-talk-amanda-kloots-elaine-welteroth-new-co-hosts-1234843491/. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

What you have there is a piece regurgitating what the show producers have to say about their new co-host. Puffery. They clearly aren't going to offer any sort of impartial opinion on her 'fame'. In fact, they don't seem to be offering one at all. If she is 'famous' for something, find an article that discusses her doing it. Not just a statement that she's done it once, or another that you think indicates she's going to be, but one which indicates how being a 'TV personality' has made her famous. In a real sense, not the Andy Warhol 15-minute one. This is an online encyclopaedia (or at least aspires to be), and shouldn't be basing descriptions of individuals according to the standards of tabloid journalism. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sakes, this is absurd. The article did what a piece of reportage is supposed to do: Report an event, with the who, what, when, where and how, as appropriate. That's literally was journalism is supposed to do. Yet you denigrate it. From what professional perspective do you denigrate a piece of very ordinary journalism that did its job? And the respected and venerable trade magazine Variety is tabloid journalism? Your statement is a blatant falsehood. And your definition of fame is not one just bizarre: Virtually no article exists for anyone saying, "We officially declare this person famous." Asking for such a thing is simply remarkable. If having one's name and face disseminated to millions in a continuous way is the definition of fame, then you and I are in different realities.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup. I'm from a reality where appearing on a TV talk show for an episode or so doesn't make you a famous 'TV personality' '. One where you can't be famous for things that haven't happened yet. One where encyclopaedias don't read like gushing Variety puff-pieces. But whatever. We clearly aren't going to agree. How about addressing more substantive issues, like why the lede doesn't even mention the events that brought media attention to Kloots in the first place? 165.120.15.66 (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Facts are important. Here are some: Being a guest-host nine times this year on a major network daytime talk show is not "appearing on a TV talk show for an episode or so." RE: "[Y]ou can't be famous for things that haven't happened yet": Signing a contract with one of the world's biggest media corporations, CBS, is something that has happened. Your denialism of what it means to be the announced cohost of a major television program feels extremely disingenuous. And for anyone to call a straightforward Variety recitation of facts "a puff piece" betrays an extremely uninformed opinion about journalism. I'm beginning to think you're pulling my leg or baiting me, since the things you're saying are just so unbelievable.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

KyleJoan I'm confused. What exactly do you feel Amanda Kloots is notable for? You're arguing against including her social media coverage of her husband's illness and death. You're saying she can't be notable for being a co-host of the Talk because that hasn't started yet. You're saying we should only cover her fitness brand in a limited fashion. So what exactly is she notable for in your opinion? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see the same question answered too. Almost all the substantial sources for anything which might indicate notability for Kloots emphasise her response to the death of her husband as the reason she has come to public attention - and yet this is only briefly mentioned in the article body, and not at all in the lede. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

In my view, at this time, she is notable for being a former Broadway performer (or actor or dancer) and for her marriage to Cordero. I've already stated my view on the attention she garnered for posting about his COVID journey and subsequent death and its relation to the long-term, historical view of her notability, but if I could offer OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments as well: Cardi B garnered attention as a former stripper, yet this material is excluded from both the first sentence and the entire lede; Harrison Ford garnered attention for being "discovered" while working as a professional carpenter, yet this material is excluded from both the first sentence and the entire lede, and in fact, the article makes no mention of such attention. KyleJoan^talk 02:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

If you sincerely believe that either Kloots' former Broadway career or her marriage to Cordero would constitute sufficient grounds to meet Wikipedia notability criteria, I can only suggest that you haven't understood them.

This entire article is clearly constructed to give the impression that Kloots meets Wikipedia notability guidelines for her career, while citing sources which almost without exception indicate that she is notable for other reasons. What I am having difficulty understanding is why Wikipedia contributors would wish to do this. What exactly is the point of downplaying the media attention that Kloots has received regarding her response to her husband's death? Given that anyone looking for information on Kloots will probably already be aware of this, and if they aren't would surely be entitled to be told about it, as an appropriate and balanced representation of the coverage she has received in the sources being cited. I am going to assume good faith and take it as read that their isn't undeclared COI editing going on here (the editing history would make that seem fairly unlikely anyway), but all the same, it looks to me almost as if the article is being skewed (quite possibly unintentionally) in a manner which is more likely to further Kloots career than to actually inform readers about the events that the sources cited consider significant. This isn't the way encyclopaedic biographies are supposed to be composed. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I find it remarkable that anyone can speak about the integrity of the article when advocating the whitewashing of pertinent, publicly available personal-life information that the subject itself has indicated is not of privacy concern. One can't have it both ways: We're either a professional-standard encyclopedia or we're just a place for untrained hobbyists to argue over their personal opinions of what a biography should be. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

What you find 'remarkable' is of no significance to article content. So how about answering the question: why does this article contain so little on the one subject that almost every citation title indicates is of significance? Why should the readers not be told that Kloots has largely been written about because of her husband's death, and her response to it? How is this omission remotely justified? 165.120.15.66 (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, if my professional, trained experience is of no significance, then your uninformed opinion is worth even less.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Um, what? You are apparently editing under a pseudonym. I have no idea who you are. And likewise, you have no idea who I am. Making claims about relative professional experience rather pointless. And in any case, there is no Wikipedia policy that says that 'expert opinions override all others' in regard to decisions regarding the appropriate balance of an article. Particularly when the self-proclaimed expert won't answer a simple question of direct relevance to the point currently being discussed, and instead seems intent on dragging it off-topic. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant; anyone can see my level of copyediting, or the condensing of wordy passages to a few succinct phrases, for example. But no matter. By your very own comments, you show you have no training or expertise in biography. If you were applying for a job at a magazine or a biographical reference publisher, the interview would not last five minutes: You are unqualified to write for a professional organization. Yet you act as if you're qualified to write someone's encyclopedia biography, despite no grounding in journalistic practices, standards or ethics. If you're not a lawyer, you wouldn't represent yourself in a trial. If you're not an electrician, you wouldn't rewire a house. And you're not a professional journalist or biographer, yet you make uninformed pronouncements. It's like some Trump supporter making uninformed claims about Constitutional law or epidemiology. Except here it's being done to an encyclopedia.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Off topic. See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not. It was a direct reply to a comment you made. And seeing as how User:KyleJoan has just quoted one of my responses to you, the connection between you two is all the clearer.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Clearly I should not have responded to your irrelevant off-topic assertions regarding our respective qualifications. I shall no longer do so. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

KyleJoan Having a couple of ensemble roles is not even close enough for notability. Just being married to a Broadway actor is also clearly not notable. She is clearly notable for two things: her social media coverage of her husband's illness and eventual death and for being announced to be one of the new hosts of the Talk (people can be notable for things that have been announced but hasn't happened yet, which is why we have a page for Iman Vellani, despite her having no significant edit credits yet, but she's been announced for a major role). Also, I have absolutely no idea what you're getting with your otherstuff argument. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 05:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

My OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments illustrate that Cardi B and Harrison Ford are not respectively described as a former stripper and a carpenter in the articles' respective first sentences and ledes even though those roles are discussed in the bodies. I'm neutral about whether she is notable for having been announced as a future co-host of The Talk, which is why I never addressed that point. In any case, there's still no RS that describes her as a "television personality". Regarding her posts, as I've suggested multiple times, I disagree that they are part of the long-term, historical view of Kloots' notability, so I'm going to stop bludgeoning the discussion now. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 05:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your comments regarding Cardi B and Ford completely miss the point. They relate to minor details hardly discussed by the sources cited in their respective biographies. The sources cited for Kloots almost all discuss her husband's death, and her response to it. Such sources clearly consider it of great significance and thus it belongs in the lede, and needs greater emphasis in the article body if a Wikipedia biography is justified by the sources at all. As for your personal opinion regarding her potential career path, it has no relevance here. We go by sources. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Further evidence of just how skewed this article is can be seen from this single-sentence paragraph: "Kloots endorsed Joe Biden in the 2020 United States presidential election". On its own, it looks like inappropriate partisan trivia, possibly added by a Biden supporter. On looking at the source cited though, [39] it becomes clear why Kloots offered her support for Biden, and why it might even be relevant to a biography on her. She wasn't just endorsing Biden, she was doing so in response to Twitter comments made by president Trump regarding COVID 19, which she saw as "beyond hurtful" to those who, like her, had lost family members to the disease. An understandable personal response from someone who has just lost her husband gets transformed by Wikipedia to a random context-free 'endorsement'. If a biography of Kloots is justified at all (which I'd have to suggest is open to debate, predictions about her future career notwithstanding) this isn't it. It needs a complete rewrite, reflecting appropriate content in a neutral manner, and not cherry-picking random 'facts' from sources which emphasise something else entirely. 165.120.15.66 (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Kloots' memoir source.

The sentence "Kloots is also set to release a memoir, co-authored with her sister, titled Live Your Life in June 2021" is sourced to a people.com webpage which prominently contains the following text: "Products in this story are independently selected and featured editorially. If you make a purchase using these links we may earn commission." [40] To my mind, that makes the use of the source questionable. If it isn't strictly speaking an advertisement, it certainly gives the impression of being promotional, and as such inappropriate as a source. Could a better one be found? One that didn't appear to have a financial stake in promoting the memoir?

(Note: as I have made clear elsewhere on this page, I think there are issues with the balance of this article, and I am of the same opinion regarding the phrasing here, I am not however questioning that for now. Instead I am asking for opinions regarding the sourcing) 165.120.15.66 (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)