Talk:Willy Moon

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2015

please add:

Due to recent events in xFactor New Zealand 2015, many people believe that anybody that tries to copy or replicate Willy Moon's look/style is assumed to be a serial killer. Willy refers to his style as his own artistic and intellectual property, even though many artists before Willy have adopted this style.

to the end of:

William George Sinclair (born 2 June 1989),[1] better known by his stage name Willy Moon, is a New Zealand-born musician, singer, songwriter and producer. He is best known for his 2012 single "Yeah Yeah" which appeared on the 2012 Apple iPod commercial and peaked at number 26 on the UK Singles Chart. Magrantnz (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done You haven't provided a reliable reference. Though from what I know of New Zealand it could be true. -- haminoon (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2015

please add:

Due to recent events in xFactor New Zealand 2015, many people believe that anybody that tries to copy or replicate Willy Moon's look/style is assumed to be a serial killer. Willy refers to his style as his own artistic and intellectual property, even though many artists before Willy have adopted this style.

to the end of:

William George Sinclair (born 2 June 1989),[1] better known by his stage name Willy Moon, is a New Zealand-born musician, singer, songwriter and producer. He is best known for his 2012 single "Yeah Yeah" which appeared on the 2012 Apple iPod commercial and peaked at number 26 on the UK Singles Chart.

Reference: Shanks. (2015, March 15). X Factor NZ judges Willy Moon and Natalia Kills humiliate contestant on live TV. Retrieved from (WP:LINKVIO removed) NiciVampireHeart 10:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Magrantnz (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: First please don't link to YouTube videos that are uploaded by someone other than the copyright holder (see WP:LINKVIO). Secondly, no reliable sources have been provided, and third, I'm not sure your proposed edit is entirely in line with WP:NPOV. NiciVampireHeart 10:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Also the X-Factor NZ controversy is already covered in the article already. NiciVampireHeart 10:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC should the word "cunt" 'be prominently used in this BLP?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Is "cunt" as a single word quotation properly used in the BLP? Would use of "(offensive sexist pejorative)" or similar wording be a proper choice in this BLP? 16:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The subject of the BLP is accused of twice using the word "cunt" to a woman in a bakery. The argument made for use of the word inthis BLP is that Wikipedia is not censored.

I suggested that we simply identify the word as being pejorative, but that there is no need to use the word "cunt" here. So the issue is - does "notcensored" mean we have any affirmative obligation to use the word in a BLP? Does the word add actual biographical value for the reader? Does a WP:CONSENSUS of editors here affirmatively find the word "cunt" should be used in this BLP? Collect (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, of course the word adds "actual biographical value for the reader." It's a quote of what he said and there's no reason not to quote what he said. Saying, "he called a woman a bad word" really doesn't explain what happened. It just censors what happened, and there's a reason wikipedia doesn't censor. The word cunt is one of the nastiest in the English language, naturally a reader should be told the severity of what he said. There's no reason to "protect" wikipedia's readers. That's not what information sources do.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Before throwing around stuff like "the nastiest in the English language" bear in mind this was said by a New Zealander in New Zealand. -- haminoon (talk) 09:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• I conformed the expletive to the cited source ("c***") but retained Wiki-link to cunt—although even that may implicate Wikipedia:No original research. In any case, we must not fill in the blanks when relying on WP:RS. JohnValeron (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What the source states: "Worse was to follow in the bakery, Moon calling her a "c***" in front of stunned staff and customers. "This is a man who is supposed to mentor young people on national television and what he said was disgraceful," Ms Neal-Gailer said."

Note the "c***" is per the source[1]. The source does not say "cunt" and the Wikipedia MoS says we should not Wikilink words in a quote in any event. Where the source used does not use the intact expletive, Wikipedia can not properly use it. IMO, we can simply call it a "sexual vulgarism" or the like. Collect (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I thought there was a spelling mistake in the original, and had not seen this talk page. I think that the word cunt should appear in the page, after all he did not say c*** (I don't know how one would even say that".) I do not believe that Wikipedia supports censorship and I would further argue that the word cunt is in common usage even if people do not like the word. I note there are other sources that use the whole word. Brain696 (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If that is true, you've hit on a solution: simply cite to WP:RS that uses the actual word in its full, offensively misogynist glory, and change our article accordingly. Reader sensitivities be damned! JohnValeron (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A source doing just that has now been provided. As for reader sensitivities, that's the reason why wikipedia has a no censor policy. We're here to be neutral and state facts, not help kids get tucked in at night. Leave the sugar-coating for Entertainment Tonight.Cebr1979 (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Note to all - expect continuing vandalism on this page due to link from here: https://www.facebook.com/rageabc/photos/a.196766868707.159661.195235013707/10153206999043708/?type=1 -- Chuq (talk) 06:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Pop Dust" appears to quite fail the level of sourcing required. Collect (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is relevant and I don't see any reason not to use the word "cunt" when reliably sourced and relevant, without hesitation. However, I have a hard time seeing how this bit of road-rage really belongs in an encyclopedia profile. Looks like the type of routine celebrity gossip that is best avoided. CorporateM (Talk) 09:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not encyclopedic. It should be removed entirely. AIRcorn (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Remove Now that it's been reduced to a single, standalone sentence, this seems absurdly trivial. Either provide context to demonstrate why the incident is noteworthy, or get rid of it entirely. JohnValeron (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. There is nothing notable about swearing at someone. -- haminoon (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree too. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the word "cunt" in an article, if sourced, but this incident does not seem important enough for inclusion in the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Remove And now these sections have became too small, we can merge early life with personal life. Regards. VandVictory (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2015 (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.

open letter

I propose that this phrase: "pointing out to Moon the incident happened in front of two young girls." be either removed, or reverted to its earlier incarnation: "pointing out to Moon the incident happened in front of two young Asian girls." I believe the current wording misrepresents the open letter. -- haminoon (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary and should be removed completely. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I originally took out the "Asian" because I don't see how their ethnic background is relevant - my interpretation is that this was in the letter only to allow the addressee to better recall the incident, not to make any particular point. I have no particular opinion on including this or any detail, or, to be honest, even the article... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead

I guess there are two questions here from the recent edit war. First should the lead mention his sacking from x factor at all? And if it does how should it be presented? The two versions can be seen in this dif. AIRcorn (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe it as a war. What I believe to be a neutral assertion is that Moon is better known for his recent dismissal from X Factor New Zealand than for his musical output. This belief stems from the fact that the former has attracted worldwide headlines, whereas the latter has not. The disparity between the two is, at the time of writing, absolutely huge. I do not believe that I am alone in never having heard of Mr Moon prior to the X Factor contretemps involving Mr Moon and his wife. --Omniconsumerproducts (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:Edit war is just a term used here to describe the situation when two or more parties revert each other over edits. I meant to link it above but forgot. It doesn't really matter whether you or I knew of them before this incident. There are a lot of biographies on here where I don't have a clue who the person is. It doesn't make them non-notable for their achievements and someone must have heard of them or the article wouldn't exist in the first place.

There are three policies here that spring to mind. First and most importantly is the WP:BLP one. Basically articles on living (or recently deceased people) are subject to more rigorous sourcing requirements than almost any other article (medical ones are arguably stricter). Claiming someone is more notable for something based on the number of headlines would fall foul of that policy. The second is WP:weight. How much coverage should one incident get in relation to others. This is important in the lead as we really have a small amount of space to fill. The last is an essay WP:recentism. Editors tend to contribute events as they happen, but it is important to think about the bigger picture. It may have dominated the local press last week, but is the X factor tirade going to be even remembered in a year or two. Nothing much there now with current Kiwi outrage focusing on a couple of schoolboy rowers, although even that's getting lost in the cricket.

As to the article I could probably be swayed to a sentence mentioning the sacking, but would object to it being painted as a major reason for his notability. AIRcorn (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thing is, the sacking is almost certainly what Willy Moon will be remembered for in, say, five years time. i.e. if asked to name one of his songs, I think people would struggle. If asked what he and his wife did on X Factor New Zealand, most people (from that demographic) wouldn't struggle. It's imperative that the sacking is mentioned and it is - at present - his most notable 'achievement' in the public eye. This may well change, but currently it's a major reason for his notability. A casual stroll through the web confirms this. --Omniconsumerproducts (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

why?

is this article protected and why is he listed as a producer?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.28.233 (talk) 08:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)