Jump to content

Talk:PJ and Thomas

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Moved to mainspace by Bi-on-ic (talk). Nominated by Daniel Case (talk) at 05:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

    • At the former discussion, the one response was "limited reliability for non-BLP, entertainment-related subjects" since apparently it does have a gatekeeping process.

      Now, the question is: do we consider the hook fact BLP or not? I'm (understandably at this point) going to take the latter position since the hook fact isn't that they're gay; that's well-established by the article and they have said so more than once. I consider the hook fact "entertainment-related" since it's that they're the first gay couple to host a show on this particular network. Daniel Case (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      This discussion is now moot. I found an article in Country Living, a Hearst magazine whose reliability as a source is beyond doubt, saying the same thing, so we'll use it instead. Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. PopSugar is not the only reference source for the first gay couple hosting statement. It is mentioned in multiple sources cited throughout the article.

In fact, this was the main part of the program's advertising, the fact that it was the network's first-ever show with gay hosts. It was heavily promoted by HGTV for that very reason. Also, one of the reasons behind the Out magazine interview, which is not only a credible source but also has the highest circulation of any LGBTQ publication in the US.

And the claim that all citations are 'queer magazines & websites' is not true. For instance, the UNHCR article about their activism or Cleveland Daily Banner about their property development projects. Bionic (talk) 06:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sammi Brie: I have removed some of the questionable sources (i.e., the redlinks). Is that enough? Daniel Case (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: Yes. Letting the rest of the original review stand. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel Case: There's still a "clarification needed" tag from 2020 that needs to be resolved. Can you do this so the nomination can move forward? Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the source that was verifying the information for the clarification needed tag, and could not find the information the tag wanted clarified, so I removed the text. Another editor can add it back in if another source is used to verify it. Readding tick. Z1720 (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

content removal

[edit]

I've removed quite a bit of just puffery that literally I wondered if it had been added by their publicity rep. Please let's discuss before adding it back. Also agree with @Theleekycauldron that the ad stuff is also puffery. This is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. WP is not social media. valereee (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bi-on-ic, this is not only incorrect but is a surprising assumption of bad faith in the face of the fact that not only did I leave an explanation in the edit summary but I ALSO opened a talk discussion. It's been removed again; the onus is on the person who wants to keep the information in the article to start discussing and persuade others. Let's talk. valereee (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you sure did remove a lot! Almost half of the article, without any consensus or proper explanation. What you referred to as 'bs' and 'stuff' are sourced content. And labeling another Wikipedian someone's 'rep', which is totally untrue, is definitely WP:ABF.
And there are no signs of WP:PUFF in the article. Bionic (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the onus is on the person who wants to keep the information in the article to start discussing and persuade others May I ask you to refer the WP:PG about this claim?
This is edit-warring rather than following WP:BRD. Since you are the one here who has a problem with the content backed up by multiple reliable, independent sources, Per protocol you go on the talk page to discuss your edit and try to reach compromise/consensus with other editors. Bionic (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not edit warring. Someone else removed the content the second time. And for the ad stuff, three different people have removed it. valereee (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS for the policy. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. valereee (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And going to the talk page is exactly what I did, immediately after I removed that content. valereee (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the self-congratulatory stuff that was sourced to interviews with them, which I do consider puffery. We generally report what other people say about someone. We generally do not report what they say about themselves unless there are good reasons to do so.
I didn't label you. I said that 'literally I wondered if it had been added by their publicity rep'. Then I saw that you were a likely well-intentioned editor who hadn't created a lot of articles from scratch and realized you probably were just a fan. valereee (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'just a fan'?! again you're labeling me as a WP:SPA which is not the case. I'm not a fan this is not a blog or fan club. I'm here to contribute to WP. This is an attack on my character. Bionic (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no offense intended, happy to strike. valereee (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are not 'self-congratulatory' they're explanatory. It's relevant to the section. And there are countless interviews mentioned in the articles where the person is discussing their projects. How is that puffery? Bionic (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the self-congratulatory stuff that we don't need quotes for. The info is in the article. We don't need quotes from them to back it up:
'showing America what the city has to offer and the type of homes that are in this area. it's something that we feel very strongly about and we’re honestly just humbled to have this opportunity.' 'It's something we’ve both always been interested in. PJ has a degree in construction management and has been flipping houses for years, it's a lifelong passion.' 'Once the opportunity presented itself, we were excited to be husbands on TV and having the gay community be excited about the show.' 'when we first met at a mutual friend’s get-together in 2009, I was not out and PJ was in a relationship. I had come across modeling photos of him on MySpace two years prior. Following PJ's breakup, a Facebook friend request started our dating. About a month and a half into our relationship I came out to my family and in December 2014, on PJ’s favorite holiday, Christmas, I proposed to him.' 'I had grown up envisioning me proposing to my husband, so, on his birthday, one of his presents was his ring. he was totally surprised.' 'We love this idea of popping the question twice!'
Then there's the stuff that sounds like it's from the PR rep:
Originally planning for a destination wedding at a beach, the couple eventually decided to get married right after same-sex marriage became legal in an intimate ceremony at their house, surrounded by family. An intimate ceremony at their house, surrounded by family. :P That is not encyclopedic writing.
The couple revealed they were contemplating different options of parenting including foster care, adoption and surrogacy. Speaking to Out, they stated, 'For some reason, our hearts kept coming back to fostering. There are so many children already in the world who need a good, loving home, and I think that really spoke to us.' That doesn't sound self-congratulatory to you? :D At any rate, we just don't need all these quotes from them. They adopted their foster kids. 'Nuff said. valereee (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm aware of Other stuff exists but Featured/Good articles are WP's superior articles and we see sometimes even extensive usage of quotes from interviews. Bionic (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article was run through the copyvio detector and the result was a decent score.
There are no excessive quotations from copyright material or reproducing of texts from the sources. Those quotes are simply necessary for context. Bionic (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What context do you feel these quotes provide? valereee (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sections is about them becoming the first gay couple to host an HGTV show and the interview explains that process. The other section is about their adoption process as a gay couple.
How can it be puffery when it's totally pertinent and needed for context.
You removed the entire "Personal life" section! That's what it is. Explanation and description of one's personal events. Bionic (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They adopted their foster kids. Nuff said.?! That's your reasoning? Where did the kids come from? fell from the sky? Bionic (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that belongs. I've added it back. valereee (talk) 18:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't social media. We don't need to know all their thoughts. If someone else comments on their thoughts, it might be worth including. valereee (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are all your assumptions and personal views. your premise is faulty. Bionic (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bionic: No, it's not – stories demonstrate a need for inclusion when they are verified and analyzed by reliable, secondary sources. Routine feel-good stories with no analysis don't always make the cut, and I agree that there was absolutely excessive puffery. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument is flawed. You are basing your arguments on personal feelings rather than on the policies and when you're referring to the policies you're cherry picking statements to prevent an editor from improving the article and adding sourced content which is not constructive.
  • You haven't cited any guideline that firmly supports your views and proves that the interviews are a violation of WP:PUFF. Bionic (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You've said the content needed for context, but you haven't given me any explanation of what context you think the content was providing. I'm just not seeing how knowing they chose "an intimate wedding at their house, surrounded by family" rather than a destination wedding helps us understand the subject of this article. That is the point of content: to help the reader understand the subject of an article. valereee (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the 'personal life' section is about! Do you expect an Edward R. Murrow report? It's an article about internet celebrities & people in show business. And personal life should in fact cover the turning point & stages of their life. If it was WP:NOTNEWS and unencyclopedic you were right. Bionic (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does the fact they at first planned to have a destination wedding and then decided to have 'an intimate wedding at their house, surrounded by family' tell the reader about them? valereee (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just that sentence. you almost removed the entire section. Bionic (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bi-on-ic, Okay, great, so that sentence can go? Let's go to another: What does "showing America what the city has to offer and the type of homes that are in this area. it's something that we feel very strongly about and we’re honestly just humbled to have this opportunity" offer the reader? valereee (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PJ & Thomas vs. the McKays in wikivoice?

[edit]

Their brand is PJ & Thomas, but I'm thinking in the encyclopedia we should refer to them as the McKays? valereee (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this change, if anyone disagrees, let's discuss! valereee (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not so sure I agree, valereee. I could only find one source that exclusively uses the McKays for general referencing – parkerclay.com, the company blog – and both of the Out magazine sources use the two interchangeably. Everything else either went for PJ and Thomas or was primary/unusable. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if we should look at this as two things -- one is the brand or franchise, the other is the two people? Neither of these two people is probably notable enough themselves, but the brand/franchise is notable enough. valereee (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they're influencers – they are notable in no small part because they built a brand about themselves. There's not much separation of professional and "personal" (as far as the brand goes) to be had when your notability consists largely of broadcasting your life out loud to convey an image about yourself. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and of course if we're talking about one or the other, we have to use the first name because that's how we'd differentiate in any article. But using the first names of both when we're talking, for instance, about them adopting their children...I think the McKays adopted children. PJ and Thomas didn't, not in wikivoice, IMO. Am I being clear as mud? Not enough coffee yet. And @Theleekycauldron what the heck are you doing up lol... valereee (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@valereee: Maybe we're just going past each other on this one – I dunno, I think WP:COMMONNAME spells out that we should go with what's recognizable for readers. The sourcing we have points to PJ and Thomas, even when it's not strictly necessary and "McKay" is available for one or both. Plus, they did make adopting kids a huge part of their brand, no? As for what I was doing awake at 4:30am – yeah, I've completely wrecked my sleep schedule without the structure of school. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I used to do that when I was your age...I'd get my days and nights completely turned around. Hm on adopting kids being part of their brand...still, the franchise didn't adopt the kids. We've got the franchise and the bios in one article. Which is fine, that's often necessary when one or the other isn't as notable but both are worth discussing. But still...the franchise didn't adopt. The couple did, and they're the McKays. IMO. This is the kind of thing that will shake out eventually, though, so I'm not going to make a huge argument about it at this point like I am about the quotes in the other section. valereee (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@valereee: gotcha, we'll leave it here for now – and I'm with you on the puffery, it should go. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't work like that. You can't 'boldly' make extensive changes and then demand other editors to devote their time to you, to persuade you, and then ask them to convince you and prove otherwise or else it's gonna remain how you want it to be?!
You could have presented your proposal and discussed it first before removing 80% of the article. Bionic (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's exactly how WP:BRD works. You Boldly make your change. Someone Reverts it. You Discuss. In this case I even put D before B and R. Which is going above and beyond. valereee (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Someone reverts it. You discuss it BEFORE reverting back again stating, you must not restore your bold edit. Bionic (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't revert PJ&Thomas vs. McKays. valereee (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The content removal. It was done not by you but it's not WP:BRD when the edit is reverted. Bionic (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure I'm following...are you thinking that other editors are required to come in and discuss before reverting if they think the original edit was correct? They actually aren't. You can ping them here, though, to see if they'd be willing to discuss their thinking. But they aren't required to show up. @Bbb23 @Theleekycauldron, Bionic is interested in your input here (actually more in the above section, I think), if you are willing. valereee (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to revert it. Per WP:BRD the bold edit & mass removal must not be restored until consensus is reached.
Let's table this for now and discuss this before any more back-and-forth edits. Bionic (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't do it. It's edit-warring. Seriously, I am telling you this in your own best interests, do not revert to your preferred version. valereee (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping @Bi-on-ic to make sure you see this. valereee (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about my preference. It's the WP:BRD guideline.Bionic (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bi-on-ic, your understanding is incomplete. valereee (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WP:BRD you must not restore your bold edit. You discuss it first to reach a consensus. Bionic (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what we are doing here: discussing. It doesn't mean you can restore to your preferred version but I can't. In fact, I am in a better position to do so because I did not make the last revert. I strongly advise that you do not revert to your preferred version. valereee (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I restored Valereee's edits that showed up on my watchlist as Bionics were pretty puffy and poorly sourced. I suggest getting consensus here before restoring any material. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly refuse to engage in edit warring. But it's apparent that some are not willing to follow the actual guidelines e.g. WP:BRD and just want to have their way and that's not me. This is having things done according to your personal preference & decision. Bionic (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think BRD works the way you think it does. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bi-on-ic, you have actually already edit-warred. But you seem like a well-intentioned editor who is simply struggling with policy. It's a very steep learning curve here, and other more experienced editors do want to help you. But you're going to have to listen. valereee (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PJ_and_Thomas&oldid=1207087957"