Talk:Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pre-nominal honorific

I understand that the recent discussion militated, in view of concerns as to courtesy, in favor of our not using the surname only formulation (i.e., Hawkins). I am concerned, though, that such discussion contravenes, as noted by others, not only our extant practice but such practice as codified in the MoS, viz., at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names (which provides, in pertinent part, that after the initial mention of any name, the person may be referred to by surname only and that first names or complete names should be used to disambiguate between siblings).

Of course, it is quite fine to suggest that we ignore the MoS (in view of concerns as to the perception outside the United States of the dropped honorific), but I'd think those who suggest that common practice ought to change might do best to raise the issue at, inter al., Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, toward the production of a consistent format.

There are only two instances, I think, that would be affected by our returning the article to the MoS-preferred version, so this is a rather insignificant issue, but it's important, I think, that the issue be raised in order that those who raised valid concerns might express them on a meta-level. Joe 06:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --Maxamegalon2000 17:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how you're suggesting we might ignore the MoS. Are you suggesting that the use of honourifics, or the use of the full name, are contrary to it? — Saxifrage ✎ 19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes (perhaps the shortest sentence ever I've written here). At the very least, I'm suggesting that we ought not to indulge a subject's concern about the exclusive use of a surname where our practice across thousands of articles, as codified in the MoS, is to use surnames exclusively. It may be that our common practice is disfavored by many as disrespectful, but the issue ought not to be disposed of in individual biographies; consistency, of course, is essential across the project. Consider Bill Gates, as adduced by others. There are a few references to Bill Gates, but the overwhelming usage is simply as to Gates.

See also, to pick three biographical subjects from disparate vocations and of different nationalities, the articles apropos of German Formula One driver Michael Schumacher, the Indian politician Abdul Kalam, and the Brazilian songwriter Tom Zé. There are certainly articles that use the given name-surname formulation passim, but those articles do not reflect extant practice.

The Jim Hawkins formulation, IMHO, seems rather awkward, and its propagration should this article grow would render the text unwieldy. The larger concern, though, is as to the departure from that which is common practice and that which, IMHO, is wholly appropriate encyclopedically (we are not, of course, Britannica, but their practice in this respect is instructive). Joe 21:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your concern, and yes, it would be unweildy were the article to grow. However, it's not strictly contrary to use the first-last construction as the MoS indicates that, after the first mention, subsequent mentions may be by surname only. It doesn't indicate either way which is preferred, just that both are options. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but I construed that may to be an imperative should be, with the form used only to indicate that an editor should not think it inappropriate to refer to a subject only by his/her surname, which understanding I think to be consistent with the idea that the MoS serves to codify extant practice. You are, though, correct that the letter of the MoS does not prefer one version to the other, and I think that for an article such as this (in which subsequent mentions number but two), the current form is altogether fine. I do, in any event, encourage those who partook of the previous debate here and concluded that the surname-only formulation was impolite or inappropriate to raise their concerns elsewhere (perhaps at WP:VP); even as I'd be inclined to dismiss those concerns, I think it better that an encyclopedia-wide standard be developed (or a discussion about extant standards be had) than that we incur repeated objections to the surname-only use by, for example, biographical subjects. Joe 04:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if it perhaps is a bad idea to follow a rule that would be unwieldy were the article to grow, which seems to me to presume that the article will not be growing soon, or that there is an article length at which different styles are applicable. Ought not an article strive to be encyclopedic in tone regardless of its length? --Maxamegalon2000 05:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree on the one hand. On the other hand, there's also the school of thought that we should do what makes for a good article in the now, also taking into account the context of the larger encyclopedia. As it is now it doesn't look out of place either in the article alone or in the context of the rest of the encyclopedia. I suspect that something like this is behind the non-committal language of the MoS on this point: editorial discretion can be exercised. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Just follow the Manual of Style. :-) We cannot modify articles in this manner based upon the subject's preferences. First, it would be a lot of work, time that could be spent improving articles or writing new ones. Second, while we have different styles for different articles, when possible, there should be standardization. Third, upon seeing the article, users who are unaware of the subject's preferences will keep changing the article according to the Manual of Style unless there are big html comment warnings at the top of the article and the top of every section (if you edit a section instead of the whole page, you would not see the warning). Even then, someone is bound to miss them from time to time. Fourth, while I strongly support people's right to privacy, even if they are famous (I supported the deletion of the article on AfD), it is inappropriate to have subjects dictate how their article should look. Therefore, I think that the Manual of Style should be followed in this case. -- Kjkolb 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Twitter

As noted in the article and edit summaries, Jim Hawkins is against an article about himself existing on Wikipedia. He is also active on Twitter trying to get this article deleted.

Jim, any editing of this article by yourself is a conflict of interest edit, and should be avoided. If there are any issues that violate WP:BLP then they should be flagged up.

My personal opinion is that the article should stay, as it meets WP:N. It does need work, particularly re WP:CITE but that is not a reason to delete the article. It is not acceptable to encourage other editors off-wiki to vandalise or blank the article. Such action is only going to lead to block of increasing length. Mjroots (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Case against deletion

Hawkins is a public figure, a celebrity, albeit a minor one. In addition the article was subject for delection in 2007 for his same reasonings and the case was rejected then. Why not just revert article to 9/5/09 before vandalism camapign started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.88.229 (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence that Hawkins is a celebrity and therefore justifying the wikipedia page on him comes from a quote from Lt Col Mike Carver, Chairman of Shropshire Horticultural Society on this year's Shrewsbury Flower Festival website news pages (http://www.shrewsburyflowershow.org.uk/live/dynamic/News2ShowArticle.asp?article_id=8F172D87-8DB0-4BD8-B52A-CD49077DA0ED&id=0 "Shrewsbury Flower Show 2010 - Jim Hawkins to compere in Marches Food Hall"] where he says:

We are delighted to have the support of such a high profile presenter in the increasingly popular Marches Food Hall. I know that Jim will inject lively debate and humour into the proceedings.

There's also some interesting other facts about Hawkins on this page that we haven't been able to verify before - "Experienced presenter and broadcaster, Jim has lived in Shropshire for seven years and is a keen advocate of the work of Severn Hospice by volunteering there. He enjoys cycling, playing the guitar and photography in his spare time".Ksg8295 (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

De-PRODDed

I've removed the PROD template as the reason given, in my opinion, was not a valid one.

@Jim, I'm not on facebook (no wish to be either), so will have to communicate via this page. If there are inaccuracies in the article about yourself, please communicate them with corrections, and links to where the info can be verified. The correct info can then be added to the article. This is how Wikipedia works. As a broadcaster on a BBC local radio station you have reached the threshold of notability for an article on Wikipedia. The fact that you dont want an article on Wikipedia is neither here nor there. What does matter is that the article is verifiable and meets WP:BLP. Mjroots (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In Reply to Mjroots (talk): Jim can not reply due to being banned from editing. Which shows how stupid this is getting. Because he is banned, he cannot correct the mistakes in this article. If Jim can be unbanned from editing, he will make these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.37.153 (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

IP bans are generally short to start with. Once the ban expires he can come here and tell us what is wrong with the article, show us were we can verify that info and it can be corrected. Yes, this may mean that the article is wrong in the short term. Jim may request that he is unblocked on his talk page, giving reasons as to why the block should be lifted. An admin will look at the request and accept or decline it. Mjroots (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Mjroots. Jim will by liaising with someone to get correct information on here and thus it will be correct soon. Therefore hopefully this matter will be resolved soon. --77.96.37.153 (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Good. I don't want the article to be wrong any more than Jim does. However, the way Wikipedia works is not by summarily deleting info claiming it is "wrong". Show us were we can find verifiable info and it will be incorporated into the article. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

True does not equal notable. I don't think it is necessary to mention that someone has switched on Christmas lights. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You refer to:

In 2008, he accepted an invitation to switch on the Christmas lights at Ironbridge and another to officially open a new cycle path, part of the Telford Way improvements in North Shrewsbury.

which, I believe, confirms his (currently disputed) notability. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Lessons for the future

I'm writing this section to try and draw some lessons about Wikipedia out for future. If you edited, or even looked at, this article in the last few days then I would recommend trying to think about what this incident means for Wikipedia.

Two of the underlying principles of Wikipedia are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Simply put that means information that is not well referenced does not belong on Wikipedia. I know there are plenty of articles that are not well-referenced, but that doesn't remove the principles.

These principles should have governed how we reacted when someone complained about inaccuracies in an article. Unreferenced information can always be removed from an article. On receipt of a complaint that's the first thing we should have been done, and it doesn't need an admin to do it; re-inserting it without references could reasonably be treated as vandalism and dealt with. If we had done this immediately, most of this problem would never have happened. Wikipedia's reputation for accuracy would have been helped, not hindered.

I hope everyone reading this takes this to heart. If we removed unreferenced information, Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia, and we wouldn't have the stress levels we do. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully the AfD will be allowed to run its course for a full week. The issues raised are not confined to just this article but a vast number of WP:BIO articles.

I would also hope that an admin would take a look at the edit history of the article before I placed the {{unref}} tag on the article. In view of what has been said by Jim Hawkins off Wiki I'd suggest it would be a good idea that the article is semi-protected for some time to come. That will prevent IP Vandals adding unreferenced/untrue/libellous stuff to the article. As the article was totally unreferenced before I placed the tag on it, removing the info would have meant blanking the article, which I was not prepared to do. Sure, there was stuff in there that didn't belong, but there was also stuff that did. Compare the article now to how it looked last night, it is miles better now.

Jim, I know you disagree about the article's existance but if it is kept (which I hope it is), we at Wikipedia will try to ensure that it is accurate, and meets policies such as WP:V and WP:BLP at all times. Nothing currently in the article has not been published before. You stated to me when I phoned you this morning that you don't want "personal infomation" such as where you were born and went to university in the article. Yet you are quite happy for your employers and others to publish the very same information. What is the difference? Mjroots (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically you are right that removal of all unreferenced information would have meant blanking, but it took me about five minutes with Google to find enough references to write this version. I think that has to be the way to go if we get a situation like this again. What we should definitely not be doing is protecting an unreferenced version of an article where the subject has asked us to remove it. Doing so would probably leave us open to WP:BLP legal issues.

I would agree that if we get a similar complaint, and absolutely cannot find reliable sources to write something, then the article should be blanked. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To me, this is a much better article. Hopefully Jim agrees. In my comments I never meant to come across naive in any way :) I just understood how Jim had felt about this.

I'm glad to see this resolved. If only it was done in the first place like 3 years ago!

Well done to the people who contributed to this article! I think its now something for Jim to like :) TwitterUser: Ravenatic. --77.96.37.153 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Note that Hawkins is again:

Anyone following me a Wikipedia 'editor'? Can you think of something outlandish and improbable to post on the page about me? If so: go ahead

and again asking his followers to vandalise this article. I've just reverted an edit by one of them. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, they'll keep on coming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.123 (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Hawkins realise that he's going to get some of his loyal followers banned for his 'cause' especially when he tells them openly the falsehoods to put on his page: "RT @kevbland: In 2004 Jim Hawkins was elected Emperor of the Micronesian Island of Guam < Get to it, @ladyofsalzburg!" (so blue-star-notes = ladyofsalzburg). Yetanotherone78 (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is indefinitely semi-protected, so there won't be any drive-by IP vandalism. We admins have our banhammers and we aren't afraid to use them. If necessary, the article can be indefinitely fully protected to ensure that WP:BLP is adhered to. At this moment in time, I believe that policy is being adhered to in this article. Mjroots (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You have 'banhammers'?! 'BANHAMMERS'?! *crying with laughter* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.110.223 (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2 2010 vandalism call

Hawkins has made another call for vandalism of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hawkins justified his repeated calls to vandalize wikipedia when questioned about it recently on formspring:

Why do think its ok as the employee of the BBC, known for its integrity and fairness, to advocate and orchestrate vandalism of a website you dont happen to like? How would you react if someone urged others to vandalise the Seven Hospice website?

You must be a Wikipedia person; there are two inaccuracies in your question. Am I going to tell you what they are? No.

I love how precious you people get about something that's such a fundamentally bad idea. This word 'vandalism', for example. Creating an article on Wikipedia involves posting some information that may or may not be true. What you choose to term 'vandalism' involves ... posting some information that may or may not be true. And the difference would be ... what, exactly?

http://www.formspring.me/jiminthemorningKsg8295 (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Consensus over facts

As I see it, the facts are these:-

1. Jim Hawkins was born in 1962.
2. The twitter account "Jiminthemorning" is the personal twitter account of Jim Hawkins
3. If fact 2 is accepted as true, it meets WP:SPS, and can therefore be used to verify the day and month of his birth.
4. Consensus is that in this case, notwithstanding the post against OTRS2368175 at the top of this section, we can use both sources together to verify his actual date of birth
5. Consensus is that his actual date of birth should appear in the article.

I believe this to be a fair and reasonable assessment of the situation per the above discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As you can imagine, I don't agree. In fact, I see two editors arguing for inclusion of the full date, and three editors who require better sourcing for the day/month (me, Jonathunder and Mattgirling). I'll be posting a question at the BLP/N noticeboards in a few minutes to get the opinion of outside editors interested in BLP issues. --Slp1 (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Said discussion is at WP:BLPN. Mjroots (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

My god, do you people have nothing better to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.110.223 (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Slp1

Slip1 says above "If you get support that these twitter deductions can be used in this article, I will abide happily by the decision." and "I've already said that I will happily abide by any decision about this made at the WP:BLP/N or WP:RSN boards". Discussion at BLP/N was closed by an uninvolved editor, w1th the note that "The source is acceptable…"; yet Slp1 has again just removed the DoB, with a false claim of consensus. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Bearian (talk · contribs) is clearly an uninvolved editor in the matter. The source has been deemed acceptable barring a better one being available. Therefore we should be able to use it in the article despite the subject's wish for the article not to exist. I suggest that Slp1 reverts the deletion and accepts the closure result. Other than that, the next step is probably WP:RFC. Mjroots (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm about as uninvolved as you can get, having added only "in England" to this article for the benefit of others like myself who aren't on that side of the Atlantic. And I think adding this gentleman's full DOB to the article based on a few tweets about how he liked his fish and chips on his birthday, it being Lent and all, is complete bollocks. We have the year; it's enough. Let's move on. Jonathunder (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you, Jonathunder, for your intervention. I came here as an uninvolved admin myself, and I find it curious that my, your and Mattgirling's opinions on this page are ignored while misquoting Bearian's opinions is fine. He actually said, "The source is acceptable, but we should find better sources"] (not "barring a better one being available".) The consensus here on this page and on BLPN has been clearly against the inclusion (5/2) (Off2riorob, I, Jonathunder Mattgirling and 66.127.52.47 oppose and only you two support,) and BLP is clear that the dob should be not included given the subject's objections too. I cannot believe you are both still trying to pursue this trivial matter. Amen to Jonathunder. Time to move on. --Slp1 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions - which are no more than that - have not been ignored; but your justifications have been refuted. It was you who gave an undertaking to abide by the decision which you have now ridden roughshod over. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, once more, that there is no consensus that these twitter posts should be used to support the full date of birth this article, either here or at BLPN. In fact, consensus is clearly against it. There's no breaking of undertakings here. That's my last. --Slp1 (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I cant believe you arent using the subject's own words confirming his birthdate as a trusted source. It seems ridiculous. Plus your ideas of consensus are clearly very different to many others of us. Hawkins must be laughing like a drain right now at us arguing amongst ourselves over clear stated facts. Ksg8295 (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yer not wrong there, mate. But that's nothing new, I've been laughing at you people for years. Slp1 seems quite sensible. Wondering how he got sucked into all this. (Still laughing, by the way.)

For the third - now fifth - time: yes, I am indeed laughing like a drain. I've been laughing like a drain at Wikipedia for a while, mostly in public, and now I'm absolutely hooting. Wondering how KSG8295 got him/herself sucked into something as fundamentally wrong-headed, but hey, I suppose everyone needs a hobby. - - Thing is, it just gets funnier. The last time I posted that yes, I am indeed laughing like a drain, Mabbett deleted it on the grounds that 'this is not a forum'. Scuse me? Isn't this the DISCUSSION page? Or does discussion have a different meaning for ... well, him, as everyone else seems happy to discuss? That's a belter; a discussion page is not a forum for discussion. Good work, people, keep it up. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.240.123 (talk) 11:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} Just delete the bloody thing and mind your own business

Jim Hawkins

132.185.240.121 (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Declined. See previous AfDs. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hugely amused that anyone writing on a site which can never be trusted as accurate can even type the word 'liar'. However, if you were paying attention, you'll observe I never said you got my birthday wrong. I said it was none of your damn business. Other 'facts' on the page, however, are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.123 (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability beats truth every time. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Hawkins, assuming that you are he. Wikipedia is committed to getting the facts in this article correct if there are any errors. Unfortunately, suggesting that people vandalize the page isn't the best approach, but there you go. I think you already know about some of the methods to flag mistakes, but here is a very useful page WP:BLPHELP that might provide some good places to start. One important step is to confirm you are who you say you are: if you can log into your User:Jimhawkins64 account that will be a good beginning. The next thing that would be very helpful would be if you could list the errors you notice here. --Slp1 (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would I want to have a Wikipedia account? And why should I list the errors on the page? It's your responsibility to get it right, not mine to correct you. jh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.110.223 (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You do have a Wikipedia account - jimhawkins64 see your complaints about the article on September 29, 2009Ksg8295 (talk) 00:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you had a WP account we would have some way of knowing that we were actually speaking to Jim Hawkins rather than somebody pretending to be him; this would obviously affect how much focus, weight and attention we give to these posts. However, at this point it probably makes little difference. Our responsibility is to make sure that the article is well-sourced and accurately reflects the reliable sources written about Mr. Hawkins. I will certainly check personally to ensure this is the case. It is certainly possible that those sources contain errors. But if Mr. Hawkins is not actually willing to identify what and where those errors are, then we are sadly at an impasse. There's not much we can do without more information and we are not mindreaders, unfortunately! I sincerely hope you will reconsider, either now or later. --Slp1 (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You could always email me or call me, my work mobile number is widely available. If you can't find it: 07809 598113. And of course there's something you can do. I, the subject of the article, am telling you it's inaccurate. Therefore surely the only responsible course of action is to remove the article. jh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.110.223 (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As every sentence has a source, you might want to call them and get them to issue corrections. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So you're happy for inaccurate material to be ... oh, hang on, it's Wikipedia, of course you are. Silly me. jh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.110.223 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not happy for inaccurate material to be included. But I have checked every sentence and all the information is supported by the citations given. Just so you know, as part of the process I deleted a sentence and modified others to get closer to sources given. But having done that I am stuck unless you are willing to identify where the problems are, either here, via WP:OTRS, or by getting the sources to make correction. I won't be phoning you, as I live in Canada, but could send you an email if you like and would be willing to specify the inaccuracies that way.

I understand your desire to have the article deleted. If you wish, I will nominate the article for deletion again, though obviously I can't guarantee the outcome. Those awards make it harder, unfortunately. --Slp1 (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins: People's Hero Hawkins has tweeted a viral campaign for his show a number of times over past few weeks. It says he is the people's hero, a voice for those who can't be heard and other superlatives. It takes a while to load but has to be seen to be believed. This is a man who demands privacy one minute and craves attention the next!

"OK, this is the last time I'll share this one with you (but feel free to RT!): bear with this and watch carefully! http://en.tackfilm.se/?id=1272549419646RA35" http://twitter.com/jiminthemorning/status/13908067419 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodsticky (talk • contribs) 16:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)