Talk:Geoffrey Owens

Cleanup

This article is poorly written and focuses more on Owens' character on "The Cosby Show" than it actually focuses on Owens himself. Rhythmnation2004 15:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Who gives a darn what a moron like you thinks? 66.232.72.61 05:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Elvin

You post irrelevant insults like that and HE's the moron??? Get a life. Smurfmeister (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation

This article is the expected result for Geoffrey Owens, perhaps. But there is an independent filmmaker named Geoffrey Owens, as well. Should that be split somehow? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artythesmarty (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 April (UTC)

He works at Trader Joe's

Should this be noted in this article?
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/31/cosby-show-actor-geoffrey-owens-spotted-bagging-groceries-at-nj-trader-joes.html
San Francisco Bay Area Native 22:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I think the public reaction to the article by other celebrities, activists and general social media virality of this event - during Labor Day weekend no less - is extremely noteworthy. There are plenty of sources to cite besides Fox News: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-shaming-of-geoffrey-owens-and-the-inability-to-see-actors-as-laborers-too https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/nation-now/2018/09/02/fox-news-shames-cosby-show-actor/1182006002/ https://www.essence.com/celebrity/social-media-defends-cosby-show-geoffrey-owens-bagging-groceries/ https://www.thewrap.com/fox-news-criticized-for-report-on-former-cosby-show-actor-bagging-groceries/ https://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/celebrities/article217740410.html Kire1975 (talk) 09:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's noteworthy enough to mention. However, should it actually be included in the "Career" section? My thinking is that the "Career" section is normally for the career for which the person is notable in the first place, and not necessarily every instance of employment. By some definitions of "career," employment outside of one's actual calling or life's work is not part of one's career. A person's employment outside of their notable career is, I think, more often described in an "Early Life" section if it occurred before their career, or in a "Personal Life" section if it occurred during or after their notable career. I'd like to move the mention of Trader Joe's to this article's "Personal Life" section, and not have a separate subsection for it, either. How do others feel about that? --DavidK93 (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be part of a Personal life section, since personal life is about personal relationships. This job cannot be placed in the Early Career section, since he is not in the early career. I agree that not every time a person gets paid is encyclopedic, but in this particular case, this job certainly meets Wikipedia's notability standard. BarbadosKen (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

It should be also noted that he has since left the job at Trader Joe's due to the unwanted attention he received, according to The Boston Globe. Melonkelon (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless WP:BLP has been rewritten recently, Wikipedia isn't a tabloid. Why is there a section of this biography dedicated to this nothingburger? Is it a significant part of his life story? Is it meaningful? Is it anything more than tabloid news? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Precisely because it is not tabloid. The story is in multiple WP:RS, and he has addressed it himself. BarbadosKen (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Where it has been reported is not what makes it tabloid news. In what universe does having a whole section of this biography about this incident satisfy WP:PROPORTION and WP:BLP? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think your position is supported by Wikipedia policies. That's what WP:RS is all about, and is the guideline for as editors to use in determining what is "tabloid" and what is "not tabloid". BarbadosKen (talk) 04:37, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Based on your comments here and on the talk pages of other articles, I wonder if you understand how WP:BLP works. You also might want to review WP:PAG—BLP is a policy, but IRS is a guideline. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The Trader Joe's section is tabloid-like information that isn't encyclopedic and does not help elucidate the subject's accomplishments or otherwise, despite it being published in some RS. It should be removed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If this guy was regular tabloid fodder and this piece was only featured in tabloid type media outlets, that'd be one thing. Instead, it became a major news item (definitely notable). I think putting under the non-acting work section works. four tildes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.197.4 (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

It was initially tabloid-only reportage, hence why I RPPed it last week when the "story" was solely the photo. Now that it's became part of the regular story itself, it is certainly notable enough to be included in his biography. The question really is is it part of his career? I'd say it should go in his personal life, following the pattern I've seen of say an actor who has written a book, but isn't known as an author. I don't know if there's guidance on BLP for this issue, but that's what I've seen, know OSE etc etc. Should be a sentence or two, not a subsection though. JesseRafe (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. A Wikipedia article's "Career" section is not meant to relate the person's employment history, but rather the work they have done as part of a professional pursuit, in this case acting. So his work as an actor and as a teacher of acting is relevant to his career. His work as a Trader Joe's cashier is relevant to his life but not to his career. --DavidK93 (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Since the Trader Joe's job has landed him an acting job, that removes any doubt that it belongs in the career section. BarbadosKen (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

That's an opinion that you hold, not a matter of fact. There is no consensus for that change which would be a significant departure from the norm for BLPs. As such, please give an actual reason for your desire to move the material and respect the BRD process. JesseRafe (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? The Trader Joe's job directly led him to an acting role, which is part of his career. BarbadosKen (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I should add that it is not an opinion. It is fact that is published in WP:RS. BarbadosKen (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I should add that words mean things. It is NOT a fact that an RS published "[this] removes any doubt that it belongs in the career section". That is your opinion. Please read WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS as already requested. JesseRafe (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I must say that I am confused. I do not understand your reasoning why you think the paragraph about his work at Trader Joe's belongs in the personal life section. The personal life section is for personal relationships. Others have stated that they do not believe that the work at Trader Joe's belongs in the career section because the career section should be for activities for which the biographical subject is known for. Now that the work at Trader Joe's has directly landed him an acting role, it seems that this particular objection is no longer relevant, leaving me confused why you think the work at Trader Joe's belongs in the personal life section. BarbadosKen (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It goes in the personal life section per BLP guidelines. Please do not move it again until a consensus is reached per BRD guidelines. Further, per WP:CRYSTAL we cannot say in the encyclopedia that this directly or indirectly "landed him an acting role"... Is he on set? Did they film? Has it aired? No, it's an offer. We can say he was offered, but BK continues to confuse his opinions with incontrovertible facts, they're not the same. JesseRafe (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hold it -- at the moment, you are the only one who is against including this paragraph in the career section. All others who were opposed gave reasons that are no longer applicable. If you are not going to discuss your opposition, then the discussion will have reached its end. BarbadosKen (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That's obviously untrue if you read this talk page. Also, you have not shown that you understand the guidelines for BLPs or how consensus works. Or WP:CRYSTAL. It's not about your opinions about the matter, but the Wikipedia guidelines and policies that dictate how this information is displayed. JesseRafe (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

That's not true. I remain opposed to including a paragraph about Owens working at Trader Joes anywhere in the article. Again, I refer you to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, particularly WP:PROPORTION. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Please answer the specific question "Why are you opposed to having the paragraph included in the Career section"? What part of WP:BLP would that violate? I cannot see a clear answer to that question in any of your posts. BarbadosKen (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Is there any information about how many months or years that he's worked at Trader Joe's? San Francisco Bay Area Native 06:52, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

In the Trader Joe's paragraph, the last line says "he quit his job." Could we change it to "he no longer works there."  ? Reason being he is likely looking (or has found) other work. There's no OR in that change; whether he's looking or not saying "he no longer works there" is true either way. (That's how he phrased it in the article as well). Thanks. 198.60.5.253 (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Request for comments: Working at Trader Joe's

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

There's an overall consensus for inclusion, with "Yes" arguers citing the wide coverage as per WP:NPOV and impact on his career, which is inadequately rebutted by the claims of "trivia" by those arguing for removal, with some saying "No" merely arguing for a shortening of the paragraph. The 80 word version before removal also addresses some of the concerns by the "No"s in that it is shorter and focuses much more on the career changes resulting from the event (and less on the "trivia"), and I'll be restoring that as per the outcome of this RfC. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

---

Is it consistent with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:PROPORTION) to include a 140-word paragraph about Owens' employment at Trader Joe's supermarket?[1] — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• No. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - since the topic has been widely reported in WP:RS, and Owens himself addressed it, there is no reason not to cover it in the article - although that's not necessarily an endorsement for each and every one of the 140 words counted. BarbadosKen (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes He's been out of the spotlight for years, and then suddenly he's everywhere after being spotted working at Trader Joe's. Many news sources have covered it, many celebrities have talked about it and it even resulted in him getting a significant acting role. While I won't be opposed to a rewrite, it must be included in the article. JDDJS (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
• No One sentence or two at most. He hasn't been out of the spotlight, he is acting with the same degree he also has been, guest roles on numerous TV shows. People act like he was the star, he was a guest/recurring role on Cosby too, not some huge fall from the spotlight, he was barely in it. Allow me to interpret Malik Shabazz in that neither he nor I are saying this shouldn't be in the page, but it shouldn't be such a huge section of the page. It also has no business as its own section or in the Career section as per the above discussion. JesseRafe (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• How exactly do you propose trimming it? I already cut down on some of the wordiness of it. However, I don't really see how it can be made any shorter. JDDJS (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

• • • It's just pretty detailed. After this drops out of the news cycle, info about the location of the TJs and person who took the photo etc and some of the response will seem less essential in the eyes of history. Don't have a track changes draft ready to go. JesseRafe (talk) 15:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I cut it down a little more. Unless you want to argue that Minaj bit isn't important, I can't see how you could cut it down anymore than this. JDDJS (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks, good work. I trimmed it a bit further. I think we could lose the Minaj donation, did he accept it or did she just offer? JesseRafe (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

While some of the trimming was OK, some was too much. Unfortunately, it seems to have now triggered an edit war. BarbadosKen (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it didn't. You started an edit war. Take some responsibility for your actions. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. 140 words is fairly short. This has received SIGCOV (continuing from release to present), and apparently the coverage of this event has actually led to the subject receiving an acting job in NCIS - [2] - so clearly significant in the career of the subject. Removing the section, or trimming, would violate NPOV/PROPORTION - as much of the coverage of the subject's later (recent) career is focused on this aspect.Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. It's a big story. Needs more than 140 words. Kire1975 (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) 140 words is fairly short, as noted above, also covered widely in RS and by subject himself. 8 paragraphs and block quotes are too much though, IMO. ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Seems like appropriate content, especially as it led to wide publicity that landed Owens an acting job. Bennycat (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
• No - of course it isn't consistent with WP:BLP, it's tabloid journalism, the story originated from a tabloid. So what if sources jumped on the gossip and sensationalism bandwagon, this is an encyclopedia, not a repository for insignificant and trivial information. Leave the whole paragraph out, christ, what's next, are we going to report his t-shirt had stain marks on the front. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• No - per Isaidnoway, M Shabazz and JesseRafe - trivia having nothing to do with his career (which is the reason for the article). Only the 'new job' has any significance. Vast numbers of performers do other jobs between work - so what? Pincrete (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• No _{(Summoned by bot)} - as others have said, it has nothing to do with the subject's notability and is basically just trivia, if even. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Could you please better frame the question? Is the question at hand about whether the paragraph should be trimmed? or should it be eliminated? If trimmed, what specifically is objectionable and should be shaved off? BarbadosKen (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2018 (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.

What to say about the Trader Joe's job

The above section seems to have the consensus that the paragraph is warranted. I am opening up this section for those who would like to discuss what material to place in the paragraph, and what material to exclude from the paragraph. BarbadosKen (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Trimming of TJ's paragraph

Three editors instituted a clean, neutral, and direct version of the events that covered all the necessary parts. One editor continues to insist that frivolous details need to be included and is edit-warring without any discussion. This editor seems to be WP:ICANTHEARYOU on a variety of issues and is loathe to even discuss their opinions on the talk page rather than just knee-jerk reverting, but then is just as intractable about getting any policy support for those views when they do make an appearance here. Starting another new thread here, because previous discussions got nowhere and are various degrees of embedded. JesseRafe (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)