Talk:Paul Johnson Calderon

Picture

Does anyone have a picture of Paul Johnson Calderon that we can upload to the infobox in the article? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

heir really?

i dont think paul should be considered an heir because his family dont own any business and no one know's if his mother has him in her will (though it's most likly the case), also most people consider the term heir (or heiress) often in the media as someone from a greatly wealthy family who own or control a business (such as paris hilton in hotels&real estate, casey johnson in band-aid and the new york jets ect.) but would you consider kim kardashian an heiress just because she along with all of her siblings will most likley inheirit their millioniare parents wealth, i wouldnt and i dont think many others would either. same goes for nicole richie paris' ex bff even though her celebrity father is as rich as rick hilton (hundreds of millions) would you still consider nicole a heiress like her best friend? i think paul like kim and nicole should just be kept as socialites or celebutantes not heiresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.193.141 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with that, and you are stating a personall opinion , not wikipedia policy. We should, however, according to policy, try not to refer to people as "heir"s. Kim Kardshian inherits more than Paris Hilton, Paris is barely inheriting any money, she has earned most of it herself. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

true that paris has been cut off by her billioniare grandfather but she will inherit alot from her millioniare father (rick had $380m in 2003) and she's the oldest of 4 so she'll likley recieve around $100m perhaps when that time comes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.243.118 (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Remeber it does not have to do with "wealth" or an amount being inherited. Paul Johnson Calderon's main source of income is a trust fund from his mother, so he is an heir. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Heir??? Heir to what, pray tell? It's totally unsourced. I'm taking it out. (I suspect either he, or a friend of his, put that in this Wikipedia entry)Betathetapi545 (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sober living facility

"Calderon, speaking from a sober-living facility, said he ended their friendship because he felt that he couldn’t associate with her while dealing with his own alcohol addiction." from this ref.

"Calderon, who is apparently in a sober-living facility right now, says Biden's had a history of erratic behavior, including alcohol and Adderall addiction." from this ref.

Please read entire articles before removing them. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was scanning for "Johnson" when I should have been looking for "Calderon", thus my confusion. I am concerned about the reliability of these sources though; they both seem to be gossip columns and within gossip columns, there is often unencyclopedic information . -- John Reaves 06:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see (1, 2), the New York Post is considered RS in the noticeboard discussions. The Gothamist also is RS it seems, but with more caution in comments (1, 2). AFAIK, the NYPost is definitely RS, but a discussion on the Gothamist might deserve to be started again. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliability depends on the fact cited, not just the source. The New York Times is generally reliable, but we might not use them as a source for an article about quantum mechanics because they don't have the expertise to cover that subject very well. Jehochman ^Talk 09:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: I am sure that those sources can figure out where Calderon is living at the time. Moreover, you seemed to WP:CENSOR the article of anything remotely controversial, despite that the facts were sourced. The article is now down to stub size. Can we please discuss why these things were removed? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry. Please use caution in adding content not to use any questionable sources especially for any negative facts. Jehochman ^Talk 18:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jehochman: The sources have been discussed on the RS noticeboard and considered legit. The New York Post and HuffPo are both regularly used on articles. I do not see why they were removed. Can you please explain? EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Any source can be reliable for some things and unreliable for others. The Huffington Post is a perfect example. Some of their content is actual reporting written by professional journalists with editorial control and fact checking. Much of their content is opinion pieces and unsupervised blogging. The tone of pretty much all the sources is gossip and personal opinions. That includes the two sources now in the article. I am amazed that any editor familiar with the importantance of our BLP policy would advocate building an article from these horrible sources. Where is the significant coverage of this person in independent non gossip sources? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was wrong to suggest that everything stay, but I'm still weary of removing all controversial things like that, especially if there's an element of WP:VERIFY (2 sources mentioned the facility he was staying at). Just kinda felt like it was a reaction to the legal threats, but I was not AGF and that was my bad. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If gossip source A says something and gossip source B says the same thing, that doesn't make it acceptable for a BLP. Maybe B copied A or both got the gossip from unpublished loudmouth gossip source C. Or D. Gossip is nothing but vile gossip. We need reliable sources here, and have NONE. Why, pray tell, EvergreenFir, is this person notable? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit CRYSTAL is suggest that about the sources. But whatever, I'm not gonna fight on this. Just didn't like what I perceived as whitewashing. Is this person notable? No idea. Delete the page if they aren't. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, it does not take a crystal ball to read a source and conclude that the source is unreliable gossip. All it takes is mature editorial judgment. Have you read the sources, EvergreenFir? I have. If you have "no idea" whether or not this person is notable, then please explain why you are editing this BLP? I do not support deleting. I support redirecting, as redirects are cheap and the name is a plausible search term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I am here because it pinged on my radar when I saw it vandalized while patrolling the user creation log. But this is becoming off-topic if I'm just here to justify my actions. In the spirit of NOTFORUM, I'm done talking unless it's about improving the page. You are welcome to talk with me on my talk page if you want to though. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirect?

If we are going to stub this article do we really need it at all? The usual practice with non-notable reality show cast is to redirect them to the show's article, in this case High Society (2010 TV series).--ukexpat (talk) 16:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- John Reaves 14:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely but one attempt to redirect was reverted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I reverted it. I'm fine with redirect now. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)