Talk:Uma Thurman

/archive 1

Recent cuts

{SNUGGUMS and Tenebrae, Hillbillyholiday removed some content that should likely be kept. Willing to help? We will see how this goes, given the contested proposal at WP:ANI.

• With this edit, Hillbillyholiday stated, "poor sources, too much irrelevant information." But as we can see, a solid source was included. The San Francisco Chronicle is a WP:Reliable source. And from what I know, when a subject has children, we note that they have children. We usually do not mention the names, but we do mention the fact the subject has children, and especially when the children are the result of a married couple.

• With this edit, Hillbillyholiday stated, "poorly sourced and probably not worth mentioning." But as we can see, the first source is The Daily Telegraph, which is a WP:Reliable source. The Daily Mail removal was justified. Another source is the New York Daily News. Editors have different opinions on this source (the New York Daily News); so it's sometimes best to use a better source in its place. I will note that although the New York Daily News is published in tabloid (newspaper format), it is not a tabloid. Tabloid format is not the same thing as tabloid journalism. The content in question is about a stalker that Thurman dealt with. Worth mentioning?

• With this edit, Hillbillyholiday stated, "oh for fuck's fucking sake...." He removed information about a custody battle. It was sourced to poor sources -- the Daily Mail and perezhilton.com. But from what I know, we usually include custody battle material. Looking on the Internet about this specific case, I see that we can replace these poor sources with this The Daily Telegraph source and this News.com.au source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Daily Mail and Perez Hilton most certainly shouldn't be used as citations. Custody battles are fine to include as long as they are credibly referenced. New York Daily News is probably a case-by-case basis. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, SNUGGUMS, I obviously agree about the Daily Mail and Perez Hilton. What about the children material? Include, right? But without mentioning the names? And is the stalker material relevant enough to include? I'll Google it and see how prominent it was. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Definitely include, and children's names are fine to mention as long as they're properly sourced and the parents haven't tried to conceal identities. Not sure what to say about stalking. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Snuggums except for mentioning the children's names, but that may just be my own personal dislike. The SF Chronicle definitely qualifies as a RS, however, as does the Telegraph. (By putting my AGF tendencies in high gear, I guess I can assume that the questioning of those sources' reliability arose from ignorance, in which case it shouldn't happen again.) The NY Daily News is a mixed bag. I agree with most of what Flyer22 Reborn said about it, but I'd suggest that it can be decidedly tabloidy at times (probably because it's competing head-to-head with the way tabloidy NY Post). Last I checked, the Daily News doesn't make up stuff out of whole cloth, but for potentially controversial sourcing about celebrities I'd prefer another source if one is available. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

From looking at the edits, I don't think that content should be in the article. For the first example, the only content I could consider keeping is that she had two children from that first marriage. That she was pregnant was the reason she got married sounds like celebrity gossip. From the second example we've got WP: BLPCRIME concerns, coupled with gossip. And the third is a legal battle, it might be noteworthy that there is one, but again the excessive detail to who leveled accusations sounds like gossip. Broadly speaking I agree with the removals. Though I think there might be information that could be salvaged, but it should be written conservatively and have high quality reliable sourcing to back it up. We should make sure we're not scandal mongering. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Kyohyi has it right. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The fact that she has children with the man in question should absolutely be kept. We don't remove the fact that a subject has children. And if she states that she got married because she was pregnant, that is not simply celebrity gossip; it is her explaining why she got married, which is relevant. Regarding what SNUGGUMS stated about mentioning the names, see Talk:Brian Austin Green#RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP, but I'm not tied to mentioning the names. Regarding the stalker, I considered WP:BLPCRIME, which is one reason I asked, "Worth mentioning?" As for the custody battle, that should be included as well. We can include the fact that she has a child with the man and that they were engaged in a custody battle without sensationalizing the issues. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

And going back to the stalker matter, apparently a conviction was secured; so it seems that WP:BLPCRIME does not apply in this case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Concur with Flyer22 Reborn: If a conviction has been obtained it is absolutely pertinent. And children's names are allowed if public-figure parents or their representatives have released them to the media. There was an entire RfC in 2015 that confirmed this. Finally, if something non-libelous is properly cited to reliable sources, then it's not a BLP issue and the loophole does not apply.

And user:Hillbillyholiday has no right whatsoever to make an edit summary saying, "oh for fuck's fucking sake...." You can't pick and choose which rules you like and are personally acceptable, and WP:CIVIL is one of them.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Added the following with cites including a Time Life book, The Washington Post and CBS News. Made language more encyclopedic WP:TONE. Pertinent, court-documented and completely RS citing. There is no BLP issue anywhere in the following:

Thurman was stalked by Jack Jordan, a man with a history of mental illness, from about 2004 to 2011. He was arrested in October 2007, and the following May was convicted in Manhattan of one count of stalking and one count of second-degree aggravated harassment. Sentenced to three years probation, he was arrested again in 2010 near Washington, D.C., on charges of violating a restraining order by attempting to contact Thurman. He pleaded guilty in November 2011 after spending 11 months in jail in lieu of $500,000 bail, and was released with time served.

It's still a BLP issue, this guy is not a public figure so we need to be cautious about what information we include about him. Even if he's convicted, the crime itself is only marginally notable because it happened to a celebrity. So we're including some damning information about a non-notable person, in a barely notable event. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes and no. Or, rather, no and yes. If I were writing or rewriting the article, I'd omit his name because I tend to come down on the side of privacy for non-public figures, especially ill or otherwise vulnerable ones, and I don't believe that providing his name enhances our readers' understanding of the topic (which should be our primary objective in editing this article). However, that is my own editorial discretion, and reasonable people may disagree. I do not believe that including the name creates a BLP violation. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 18:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Point of correction: By any legal and journalistic standard in the U.S., where this occurred, he is indeed a public figure. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: That's a clarification, not a correction. I'm well aware it can be argued that anyone who has been named in articles published by mainstream publications is a public figure. (I've dealt with that firsthand, both as writer of the first stories to name the arrested parties in pending criminal cases and as an editor having to make the call in parallel situations.) I'm also well aware that this is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of news stories, and our standards are not necessarily the same. For the purposes of our articles, the definition of "public figure" is whatever community consensus decides it is. So let me clarify, in turn. My preference is to err on the side of privacy, if possible, when writing about people who did not seek to become public figures but whose notoriety results from factors beyond their control, such as illness or happenstance. (It's not always possible, of course, and we shouldn't ever sweat it for naming a name that has already been widely disseminated in reliable sources. That's why I said there was no BLP violation.) Your preference may be different, and that's fine, but I also said that "I don't believe that providing his name enhances our readers' understanding of the topic (which should be our primary objective in editing this article)". For me, and I hope for most of us, that's a good measure to use when deciding whether to name a name. Will readers better understand Thurman's history of being stalked by our telling them her stalker's name? I'd say not. We don't indiscriminately add every kernel of known information to an article just because we can. It has nothing to do with WP:BLP and everything to do with judgment—a distinction that is too often lost around here. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rivertorch: I think we're actually in agreement on essentials — and may I say I am overjoyed to meet a fellow professional with an informed opinion, as opposed to laypeople working on personal beliefs and "gut instincts." The whole point I'm making is that this isn't any clear BLP violation since a) he is a public figure (one definition, from M-W's law dictionary: "an individual or entity that has acquired fame or notoriety or has participated in a particular public controversy") and b) as you know, the ultimate defense against libel is truth, so Wikipedia is not at any risk whatsoever of publishing anything libelous in the paragraph I inserted. This comes down to a matter of editors' opinions as to whether the name is useful, and that's fine. But that's completely different from any notion that the paragraph is any BLP violation.

As to whether the name belongs, we can certainly agree to disagree. I don't think withholding historical basics such as names and dates is good for an encyclopedia; vagueness is the enemy of accuracy and context. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this re-addition by Tenebrae and this removal by Kyohyi, perhaps that is including a little too much stalker material, but I'm thinking that the stalker aspect should be mentioned given what this source I noted above states; it was an important case for Thurman and he was convicted. I don't see the need to mention his name. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

So, except for maybe including his name and stating that he had "a history of mental illness," I think that Tenebrae's additions was fine. And in defense of including the name, the aforementioned source I included notes, "The trial attracted widespread attention because Ms. Thurman testified, along with her mother, Birgitte, a former Ford model known to friends as Nena, her father, Robert, a professor of Indo-Tibetan studies at Columbia University, and her brother, Dechen." So this a well-known case, just like the Taylor Swift assault case is widely known. And "a history of mental illness" could be argued as context. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think a pointed difference between Taylor Swift, and this case, is that the criminal for Swift had a certain level of notoriety as a radio show personality. This guy doesn't have anything. (or rather nothing is presented, I don't follow celebrities so I could be wrong) The less public the personality the greater responsibility we have to their privacy, even if they are criminals. I'm not opposed to some information on the stalking case, but we should limit it to the subject of the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

As a journalist and author for nearly 40 years and someone who has written my share of biographical articles in newspapers and magazines, I am genuinely flabbergasted at how any responsible encyclopedia writer/researcher could not include the high-profile stalking of a subject, whether it be a celebrity or simply a public figure like a politician or a major CEO. Time Life, one of the most respected journalism and publishing institutions on earth, included the convicted stalker in a book, and all the coverage in outlets such as The Washington Post and CBS News, among many others both in the U.S. and abroad, makes him a public figure by any journalistic standard. The dentist who shot Cecil the Lion is a private citizen who became a public figure — are we not going to name him in Killing of Cecil the Lion? We're not "protecting" anyone by such whitewashing — and, as well, we have a higher duty to aggregate pertinent, public, historical information. No serious biographer would ever ignore the perils Thurman experienced in this regard, and the course she took to resolve it. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

We're not a newspaper, we're an encyclopedia. And if you bring up Cecil the lion, I'm was against naming the dentist there as well. We have a duty for privacy for all living people. The details of the stalker aren't pertinent to Uma Thurman, the person's non-notable, and likely to stay non-notable, BLP doesn't recognize involuntary public figures. You can add information about the case without going into the details of the criminal, and I've said as much above. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

With this edit, I re-included material about Thurman having children with Hawke and her custody battle with Busson. When it comes to Thurman winning the custody battle, reliable sources are repeating the New York Post on that; per a past discussion I had with Rivertorch years ago, and per above, I know that Rivertorch does not like the New York Post, but it appears that it's correct on this matter. I left out the drama details of the custody battle. I did not add material about Thurman marrying Hawke because she was pregnant; this is because I did not come across a good source for it. And I left out the stalker material until we can agree on wording for it. I left out the children's names, and removed Luna's name for consistency, but anyone is free to re-add the children's names. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, Rivertorch, Kyohyi and Tenebrae, what version can you agree on for the stalking matter? Kyohyi, can you agree to include Tenebrae's addition as long as it does not include the stalker's name and the "he had a history of mental illness" part? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion on the matter as long as any inclusions have legitimate references. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think we should focus on it from a more Uma Thurman perspective. Like "Uma Thurman was the victim of stalking from period x to y, the perpetrator was convicted for period z, and was re-arrested/convicted again at time R." (details filled in with reliable sourced content). --Kyohyi (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"history of mental illness" both provides context in general and also shows that the stalker is not an inherently evil person but a victim himself. It's of benefit to the man to show him more fully and not as a cartoon. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Kyohyi, Tenebrae's proposed content above is like what you suggest. The only thing to keep removed is the stalker's name and the "he had a history of mental illness" part. Tenebrae makes a good case for keeping the "he had a history of mental illness" part. And I noted above that the "a history of mental illness" part could be argued as providing context. So it seems that we should start an RfC on the matter next. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Is an RfC really necessary? While I'd prefer not to include the name, I don't object vehemently. And yes, his history of mental illness should be mentioned regardless of whether we mention the name. I'd actually prefer that we name the illness(es), if there's a reliable source; "mental illness" is rather vague. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather not have an RfC, but if Kyohyi or someone else can't agree to Tenebrae's proposed content, minus mentioning the name, we might need to. Stating "majority rules" on the talk page without an RfC does not always work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not particularly inclined to share personal details, but as someone who has suffered from mental illness I don't think we're doing them any favors by telling the world about it. If they want to talk about their mental illness it's another story, but it shouldn't be us as a third party spreading it to the world. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I totally see where you're coming from. I think there's a flip side, though, and that is that keeping hush-hush about mental illnesses may help perpetuate the stigma associated with them. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

More power to them iff (that's intentional, not a spelling mistake) they are the ones who bring it to light. But it is not for third parties to decide that. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is, if it's part of the public record and it's pertinent to an encyclopedic understanding of the situation. I take medication for clinical depression, a mental illness, as do many people I know in the arts and media community, so, no, I do not see a stigma in it any more than I would if I had to take cholesterol medication. It is a judgment-neutral health issue, and stigmatizing it is just plain wrong. In this particular case, it contextualizes the stalking and makes clear that he's not some terrible criminal, which is certainly the implication without mentioning it.

And once someone has made headlines in publications like the Daily News, websites like that of CBS News, and a Time Life book that altogether reach millions of people, in addition to the documented public records, we're shutting the barn door after the horse has been let out, as the saying goes. We're not "protecting" anyone since this is all very public, and we'd simply be whitewashing the encyclopedia, which is supposed to present neutral, pertinent facts.

Maybe we do need an RfC, since while I'm all for removing things cited to the Daily Mail and other tabloids — I even agree with the problematic Hillbillyholiday on that — I can see that we're bending too far the other way when we're censoring pertinent public facts cited to impeccable journalistic sources and presented in a neutral way.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that it's even remotely pertinent to an encyclopedic understanding of the situation. The US has laws like HIPPA for a reason, wider society disagrees with third parties discussing and sharing people's medical information. Just because the media chose to release certain information doesn't mean we have to, we're not their parrot. And it's not whitewashing to respect the privacy of a non-notable person, we can present the situation without getting into their personal details. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

HIPAA has nothing to do with this whatsoever. The information is it's part of a widely disseminated public record about a public figure. I've explained how and why it's pertinent, whereas your argument is simply WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. But your personal feeling is at odds with journalistic and legal ethics. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with documenting part of a widely disseminated public record about a public figure, whereas whitewashing is antithetical to an encyclopedia's mission. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Go read WP: LPI, they are not a public figure. (FYI, WP: NPF links to WP: LPI) This isn't my personal feeling, it is our duty to limit the information in our articles based on how they are relevant to the subject. This person is only relevant to Uma Thurman because of their stalking conviction. Not due to their health condition. I brought up HIPAA, to show the seriousness of revealing people's medical histories, and to demonstrate that there is a clear harm in doing so. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

You please read WP: LPI more closely. It says itself, "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has no more status than an essay." Anyone can write one of those. I could write an essay talking about public figures.

As this discussion has demonstrated, including with a legal dictionary, the stalker is a public figure. You can believe anything you want as a layman, but just like Trump supporters not believing in science, science doesn't care.

Your entire argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and you're projecting your own personal feelings and uninformed biases onto Wikipedia in order to whitewash pertinent, truthful facts reported in extremely RS sources and even a Time Life book. You said yourself you'd have censored the name of the dentist in Killing of Cecil the Lion, which is absolutely unreasonable and un-encyclopedic. It's time for an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, let's imagine you had a biography here. Now how would you feel about your dating history, every dealing with the courts, and all your mental health issues being laid out for all to see as the top google reault? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hillbillyholiday: Couple things: First, by personalizing it you're making an emotion-oriented argument that has no place in neutral intellectual discourse. Second, you're presenting a false dichotomy: Neutral presentation of pertinent, court-documented criminal activity that significantly affected a subject is not "your dating history." I have never advocated for "dating history", and you and I and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz are actually in agreement that in terms of unmarried couples, only longterm committed relationships, confirmed by the subjects or their representatives and cited to RS publications, should be included.

Third, I'm a public figure — not a celebrity by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever, but still a public figure, which is one reason for not using my real name — and I have no feelings one way or the other about anything that is accurate, pertinent and neutral on the Wikipedia article about me — or indeed any published article about me. If I were convicted of a crime, damn straight I would expect it to be in my Wikipedia article — presented simply and neutrally. Otherwise I would be the most self-centered, unprofessional journalist imaginable. I have a journalist-author friend who is a higher-profile public figure and who was hit with child pornography charges; he's pleaded not guilty and he isn't even advocating to have the arrest removed from his Wikipedia article. So to answer your question: That is how I would feel.

I've given a lot more personal information in this discussion than I think I ever have on Wikipedia. I'm hoping it provides some context for laypeople who aren't professional editors / researchers / writers and are approaching these issues emotionally.

And before anyone asks: I volunteer on Wikipedia both out of a sense of duty, given my skill set, and, when between deadlines, for relaxation ... which should tell you how committed I am to accuracy, good writing and context. We're on the same side there. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, regarding this, yeah, but it's not consistent. Notice that I mentioned above that I excluded the children's names? If we are going to include "Luna," which is a nickname and not the child's legal name, the other children's names should be included as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. Luna is the common name, so my thinking was to go with that in prose and the full name in the footnoted quote from the parents' representative. But if consensus is to include the full name in prose, while it's not my preference, for the reason I've given, I'll certainly go along with it.

If the parents or their reps released the other children's names to the media, then yes, I believe you're right, we should include them — just as we include Blue Ivy in the Beyonce article and North in the Kim Kardashian article. I'll go take a look at the cites; was busy fixing cite formatting just now. I mean ... last name first in standard footnoting, right? Magazine and newspaper names are italicized! Oy!   :)   --Tenebrae (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Saw the cite for the first two kids. That's a tough one: CBS News is highly reliable and respectable, and does name the first two children. In any normal biographical reference or any other encyclopedia, there wouldn't be any question but that we'd include the names — children's names are a basic part of any subject's biography. But things aren't always done normally or up to outside encyclopedias' standards here sometimes, so I would say let's look for sources where the parents or the reps name the first two kids, or something equally impeccable, and try that first. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I'm not stating that we should include the full name; I was just pointing it out. And as for retaining "Luna" and not including the other children's names, I just don't see the point. It can leave readers wondering why one child's name is mentioned, but not the first two children's names. And I'm not keen on inconsistency. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say that since CBS News, a highly responsible organization, named the first two children, who are probably preteens by this point, that the parents have no strong objections. It's not like a tabloid claiming a baby's name based on anonymous "sources." What do other editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion 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.

---

Should this four-sentence passage, or a version of it, or none of it be included in the article?

Thurman was stalked by Jack Jordan, a man with a history of mental illness, from about 2004 to 2011. He was arrested in October 2007, and the following May was convicted in Manhattan of one count of stalking and one count of second-degree aggravated harassment. Sentenced to three years probation, he was arrested again in 2010 near Washington, D.C., on charges of violating a restraining order by attempting to contact Thurman. He pleaded guilty in November 2011 after spending 11 months in jail in lieu of $500,000 bail, and was released with time served.

--20:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs)

• Include as written -- The incident is a significant biographical event in the life of the subject, a celebrity, including her taking the stand at trial. The information is truthful and cited to impeccable sources including a Time Life book, CBS News and The Washington Post, so no BLP issues of libel are present whatsoever. The stalker was convicted, twice, so no BLPCRIME issue is present. And under legal definitions and journalistic ethics, the convicted stalker is a public figure written about and photographed in books, newspapers, magazines and TV news worldwide. The passage is written with complete neutrality and no excessive details. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Omit or shorten. I came here because I saw the RfC notice. It's pretty common for celebrities to be stalked, and even though it's reliably sourced, it seems to me to be WP:UNDUE to devote that much text to it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• Include, whether or not it's shortened. I would have worded this RfC differently. As seen above, there was consensus to include the material. The dispute was about whether or not to include the stalker's name and the fact that he has a history of mental illness. While one editor argued that we should be sensitive with regard to the stalker's personal details, others argued that the stalker having a history of mental illness provides context; it shows that the stalker might have had an underlying medical issue for his behavior. Furthermore, all of this is already public. Very public. I don't feel strongly either way about including the name and the mention of the stalker's mental state, but I don't see that the name needs to be included. As for whether or not to include any of it, yes, some celebrities have been stalked, but this was an important and widely reported case for Thurman, with Thurman testifying and the stalker being convicted. So I don't think it's proper to exclude the content in its entirety. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Include, except for name. As I noted above, I have some mixed feelings about this. The full proposed wording certainly meets BLP, so that's absolutely not an issue. That said, I have doubts about the encyclopedic value and the ethics of naming people who become public figures by virtue of circumstances beyond their control. It's hard to tie that strongly to a policy, although I suppose one could make an argument for ISNOT. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 04:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Include, but shorten and specifically omit name. I agree with rationale of Flyer and Tryptofish above regarding name and undue respectively. The article is about Thurman, this is a detail albeit an annoying/worrying one for her. Pincrete (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• Include, except for name. He is non notable, and shouldn't be included in bio article. scope_creep (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
• depends include if (and to the extent that) it (seems to have) upset her. As far as I'm concerned that doesn't need to be sourced from Time magazine. I'm sure we have some fans here who know her well enough that they can infer from her social media if it really bothered her. May be tricky if she didn't want to admit it on social media or in interviews. In that case: she prefers to ignore it and i feel it's in line with the policy on bios's of living persons to weigh that into the attention it gets on her wp page. I'm not at all a fan btw. PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:16, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand you. You're suggesting that we should determine whether to include content based on our reading of social-media posts as to whether the subject of an article was "really bothered" by being stalked? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Preferably from reliable sources. The question is not to what extent it was covered, but to what extent it affected her. That should determine how relevant it is to her bio. PizzaMan (♨♨) 01:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• re-write with an emphasis on Thurman, and omitting private information, and unnecessary detail of the perpetrator. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude as celebrity stalking is quite a common phenomenon. It has nothing to do with Thurman and everything to do with her stalker, and this is not his page but hers. Kerdooskis (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

To say it had "nothing to do with Thurman" is, first, untrue, as she took the extraordinary step of taking the stand in the trial, and b) to say that a man stalking a woman is an issue all about the man and has nothing to do with the woman strikes as remarkably sexist and a denial of the trauma the article subject experienced. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit that "nothing" was an over-reach. However, I do not appreciate being accused of sexism. My point was this: The proposed passage above is all about Jordan, his actions, and his consequences. It says nothing about Thurman's reactions, and I don't think it should. (Would we really be so callous to include a sentence about the trauma it caused her or her awful experience on the stand?) It is my personal opinion that the proposed passage, and others like it, only empowers and emboldens criminals like Jordan. Therefore, I think it is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate, and I voted accordingly. Kerdooskis (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Exclude I tend to agree with Kerdooskis and am not sure why anyone would see that as sexist (I would think it was the opposite). This is an article about Thurman and her life. The quoted passage is all about Jordon:

He was arrested...

He was arrested again...

He pleaded guilty...

Only the first short sentence mentions Thurman and it gives no indication of any lasting relevance. It screams of tabloid gossip.

I had to search through the history to find it and discovered this paragraph was in the relationships section.[1] How anyone could think stalking is a relationship is worrying and just makes me more certain that this passage does not belong in the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Kerdooskis and Aircorn, how does stalking have nothing to do with Thurman when it happened to her? She was stalked. She was concerned enough that charges were pressed. She was concerned enough that she testified. This all happened to Thurman. That the proposed text focuses more on the stalker than on Thurman is something that can be easily remedied. Let's look at the Taylor Swift sexual harassment case by comparison; it states, "In August 2017, Swift won a trial against David Mueller, a former morning show personality for Denver's KYGO-FM. Four years ago Swift had informed Mueller's bosses that he had assaulted her by groping her at an event. After being fired, Mueller accused Swift of lying and sued her for making him lose his job. Shortly after, Swift counter-sued for sexual assault. The jury rejected Mueller's claims and ruled in favor of Swift. Swift thereafter cleared her social media accounts, and announced that she would release her sixth studio album, Reputation, on November 10, 2017." And that is more of a "he said, she said" case, and yet we include it. In Thurman's case, we know beyond a reasonable doubt that she was stalked. Like Swift, Thurman was deeply affected by the matter. To categorize this as simply tabloid gossip, or to base its exclusion on someone placing it in the Relationships section (something that should not be done again), is silly. For wider input, I'll go ahead and contact the WikiProjects that this talk page is tagged with so that their members may weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I rarely have anything to do with these articles, I am only responding because a RFC was called. Therefore I don't know or follow what other celebrity articles say about similar issues and if there was an RFC on the Tawlor Swift paragraph I might very well !vote to exclude it as well. I am sure you are familiar with the other stuff exists arguments. This is not really about her because she is the victim here. The incident was out of her control and she was in no way active in it happening. Not to mention that the entire passage is about him. Also an RFC was called asking if that particular paragraph should be included, so I judged it on the merits of that paragraph. That someone could write an improved version of it or put it in a better spot is great, but I am not going to give my implicit support to something that seems clearly undue and off topic in its current form, without any idea on what its final form will take. AIRcorn (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Aircorn, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is an essay (as I'm sure you know), is clear that an "other stuff exists" argument can be valid. I find it valid in this case, for reasons I and others have given above. As for rewriting, we can see above that rewriting is one of the options; the RfC states "or a version of it." As for the rest of what you stated, except for the current proposal focusing more on the stalker than on Thurman, I'll simply note that I disagree; I really don't have much more to state on the matter and it's better that this section doesn't become WP:Too long; didn't read. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

About the Taylor Swift material, I remember seeing (in the New York Times, for example) secondary source commentary about how Swift's composure while testifying was an important step forward in the trial process in such legal cases (how, for example, she put the harasser's attorney on the defensive during cross examination). That makes the information more about Swift herself, and more in the realm of something that attracted secondary source attention that went beyond the harassment itself into societal impact. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I don't think anyone sees this stalking case as super notable. It's not like John Hinckley's stalking of Jodie Foster. Most of us are simply arguing that it's relevant enough to include in Thurman's Wikipedia article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think The New York Times, a respected and objective source as opposed to your or mine or anyone else's POV, is saying otherwise. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

• Include but shorten. The article should say that she was stalked and describe during what periods, and mention that the stalker was convicted twice. The other details aren't about Thurman and don't belong in her biography. Perhaps if there are other details about Thurman's involvement then those might be included. For example maybe she testified or said something particularly noteworthy to the media. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
• Trim it. Doesn't need to focus so much on the perpetrator. The first sentence is all that's absolutely required. Beyond that, it becomes increasingly undue with every sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I think just saying she was stalked, without trial and conviction information, makes it seem less than notable. As with anything, context is important.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate, do you think we should exclude the conviction aspect? I ask because the first sentence doesn't include the fact that he was convicted. The testifying and conviction aspects separate this from a lot of the celebrity stalking cases, which is why I think the material should be included. How do you feel about the mental illness aspect? This is also in the first sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I personally would not have included the stalker's name or emotional state, but I tend to take a more minimalist view than most editors, especially when it comes to BLP. I think the convictions could be argued either way, but dwelling on them to such an extent doesn't seem like a good idea. I think we should be focusing on Thurman, not the man who stalked her. I'm a little surprised, but we don't seem to have an article about celebrity stalking. Maybe that would be the best place to discuss notable cases. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Include in full. Arrested, sentenced, arrested again. Persistent, notable incidents of stalking over a decade is a notable event in Thurman's life, yes. TheValeyard (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• Mostly cut This is an article about Thurman, not stalkers. Any significance for Thurman is the fact that she was stalked, not all the judiciary comings and goings and bail expenses and so forth. I say cut it to the bone, and mention only that she was stalked and that he was convicted, perhaps with the date. I would also support the omission of the stalker's name, on grounds of unwarranted fame/notoriety. Cpaaoi (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

One could make the same argument to leave out John Hinkley Jr.'s name from the Ronald Reagan article, to use just one of numerous examples. These are public figures who went through court completed court proceedings, in this case with a guilty verdict. I believe whitewashing of highly public history goes against our primary duty.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

John Hinkley Jr is WP:OSE. I am aware that this person underwent court proceedings and was found guilty; that is what the RfC is about. And I still don't believe the specific identity of the man is of much interest, nor all the Perry Mason judicial detail. Because this is an article about Uma Thurman, and while it is notable that she was stalked, the stalker and his sorry tale are not notable. Cpaaoi (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

• Include, except for name - He was arrested twice so IMHO there is some form of notability here, As he has a mental illness I personally think it's unfair to name him - Hard to explain so I shan't even try but hopefully you kinda get my point here, Anyway include apart from his name. –Davey2010^Talk 12:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• Exclude name per
  • WP:BLPNAME preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context
  • WP:BLP1E the named perpetrator is definitely not notable enough to have an article
  • WP:TMI Is the inclusion some thing or event the subject is widely known for? What is its connection to the topic's notability? the answer is almost certainly no
  • Summary - definitely omit the name and then ask the question, "what remains if you omit the name of the non-notable?" - the answer being that all you can say is the (famous celebrity) subject of the article was stalked. That's TMI. this piece of info neither sets the subject apart in any way (from the multitude of celebrities who get stalked, nor does it contribute to an understanding of the topics for which the subject is notable. Suggestion: Exclude Edaham (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

In response to the above, WP:BLP1E is irrelevant since it concerns solely the creation of articles: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met [...]". It has nothing to do with notability of people mentioned in articles.

RE: WP:BLPNAME. This also does not apply since the policy states it is often preferable to omit a name that "has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations" [as in undercover cop]. The stalker has not only been named by news organizations with millions of viewers/readers, but is both named, with a photograph in the Time Life book footnoted above on this page. Millions of viewers/readers and a book by one of the world's biggest and most renowned publishers factually does not equal "not widely disseminated".

WP:TMI is purely a judgment call, which is why it's an explanatory supplement and not a policy or guideline. Opinions on whether this is something Thurman is widely known will vary — given the wide media coverage and the fact she took the stand, a rarity for celebrities, my feeling is that she is as known for having been stalked as Ozzy Osbourne is for biting the head off a bird in a business meeting, which is something separate from his music. WP:TMI brings up points for consideration; it does not forbid naming a public figure who had significant impact in a subject's life.

As for mentioning the mental illness, I can certainly go along with those wanting to leave it out. The only reason I suggested including it was to indicate that the stalker wasn't an evil person, simply someone suffering a disease. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2017 (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.

Apropos of the close:

Thurman was the target of a stalker from about 2004 to 2011. He was arrested in October 2007 and, following a trial in which Thurman herself took the stand, was convicted of stalking and harassment charges the following May. Sentenced to three years probation, he was arrested again in 2010 on charges of violating a restraining order by attempting to contact her. He pleaded guilty in November 2011 after spending 11 months in jail in lieu of bail, and was released with time served.

• Name of stalker and mention of mental illness removed.
• Thurman taking the stand is included.
• Specific charges changed to "stalking and harassment" and specific amount of bail deleted.
• Locale of second arrest deleted.
• Thurman already was the grammatical subject of the sentence.

This addresses each point of the close. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It's been 11 days without comment, let alone objection, so since it matches all the points of the RfC close, I will add it to the article now. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Maya Thurman-Hawke

redirects here, but this page contains no information about her, not even her name. That should only be the case if "Maya Thurman Hawke" is a pseudonym for Uma Thurman. Since she's starring in a major BBC miniseries, shouldn't she have her own page by now anyway? Serendi^podous 08:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Did it myself. Serendi^podous 18:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Serendipodous, non-notable children's names are sometimes redirected to one of the parents' Wikipedia articles, usually in a section about the child. This article already mentioned the child, but not by name until you added the name and the brother's name. Per what is stated at Talk:Brian Austin Green#RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP, we usually don't add the names of non-notable children. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I created her article. So now if she's not notable it will have to go through AfD. Serendi^podous 00:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox model ?

Template:Infobox model ? 64.175.40.194 (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Uma not Hindu name

I thought I wouldn't modify without discussion.

Although it is right to say that Uma is a Hindu name and an aspect of Parvati, her dad (who I met at a retreat in India) is Tibetan Buddhist, not Hindu.

I would expect that Uma is named after the Tibetan Wealth deity Uma Devi. Uma Devi is an import originally from Hinduism,but she is a Tibetan Buddhist deity with forms and attributes of Tibetan Buddhism. She's a fairly obscure deity but she is included in some Nyingmapa health practices and maybe in other schools too.

I should point out also that Hinduism imported plenty of stuff from Buddhism. So it's not clear what the origin of the name is, but in this context, it is Tibetan Buddhist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigocat (talk • contribs) 19:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

You are right. Wikipedia should not imply that Uma Thurman or her parents adhere to Hinduism. It should not imply that her parents intended her name to be of Sanskrit origin or to have any connection whatsoever to any Hindu deity. If the etymology is to be included, it should be sourced to a publication that discusses it in the context of Uma Thurman. The two citations provided in the article make no reference to Uma Thurman, so they are utterly unacceptable. See WP:BLP for an explanation as to why Wikipedia should carefully treat sensitive claims such as those about religious views or name choices. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The paragraph describes the origin of the name – nowhere does it claim that Uma's parents are Hindus, not does it mention anything about religious views. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

No, but it implies it. That much is obvious to at least two people. If an adherence to Hinduism is not to be implied, why mention her name being shared by a Hindu deity? Who made this connection anyway? A Wikipedia user? Surtsicna (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I now see that the article used to say that her name had Buddhist connections, but the source cited there is no longer accessible. This was replaced with a reference to Hinduism; the reference is accessible and says that Thurman was "named after the Hindu goddess of beauty". So which is it, Hindu or Buddhist? Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

She stars as the President of the United States in the romantic comedy Prime Series ‘Red White and Royal Blue’. 211.30.39.85 (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

As it says, twice. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)