Jump to content

Talk:Carlos PenaVega

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

Change of last name

[edit]

I think it's necessary that we include a change of last name to "Pena-Vega" as stated on their twitter pages and media sources. His name should be altered to "Carlos Roberto Pena-Vega". Miss.Indecisive (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Known primarily by his original name, so a move to "Penavega" would not be appropriate, no. On my end, I'm wondering if this should be a "Jr." – was he primarily credited as "Carlos Pena Jr.", or just as "Carlos Pena"? If the latter, then the article should be moved to that title. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He looks to be best known lately as Carlos PenaVega according to his IMDb credit list which is likely accurate and that is how IMDb chooses to title his entry there. The article name matches only his credit on Big Time Rush (TV series), but he used Carlos Pena before that and Carlos PenaVega after that. WP:COMMONNAME looks to have changed to Carlos PenaVega. WP:IDENTITY applies if WP:COMMONNAME not clear. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 December 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 11:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Pena Jr. → Carlos PenaVega – Since 2014, he signs as "Carlos PenaVega". His films, social networks and IMDB page are credited as PenaVega. Tom O'Meara (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Child's name

[edit]

Yes he has a son, and yes there are sources that give the son's name, but we don't normally include non-notable minor's names in articles unless it it "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." His son's name has no relevance to this article. See WP:BLPNAME and stop adding his son's name.; Meters (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Names and birthdates of children

[edit]

Per WP:BLPNAME "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." I see no reason why the names are required to understand the subject of this article.

And per WP:BLPPRIVACY we should not publish the exact birth dates of the children either. The parents may have released the information, but the privacy issue is with respect to the non-notable children. We cannot infer "that the subject does not object to the details being made public." They have not consented to the publication of their personal information, and the article is not damaged by not mentioning the exact dates. Meters (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recurring issue, but an RfC in 2015 reached consensus that when the parent themselves or their representatives announce it to the world and the media, then it's whitewashing not to include this. The parental announcement to the media is consent. Many celebrities do magazine cover stories with their children's birth announcement. Note: Some, like Kristin Bell, do not make such announcements, and so we respect that and not give the information. But there is no blanket prohibition on this.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And WP:BLPPRIVACY does not say a word about non-notable children, so I'm a little perplexed why anyone would claim it did.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2019 (dUTC)
Here is the RfC consensus at Talk:Brian Austin Green#RfC: Names and DOB's of children in a BLP: "NAMES & DATES OF BIRTH OF CHILDREN PERMITTED IN ARTICLE: The policy on biographies of living persons clearly leaves the inclusion of details of family members up to the discretion of the article's editors, as long as the information is well-sourced. All editors seem to agree that there are reliable sources, and the overwhelming majority of editors favor keeping full names and dates of birth of the children in the article." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the failure to include the personal information of subject's children whitewashing is a gross overstatement of the results of that RFC.
Um, perhaps you should reread what I actually wrote. I did not write that the policy specifically mentioned non-notable children. I wrote that the privacy issue concerned non-notable children. I am concerned about the publication of personal information about non-notable children of the subject of the article. We generally don't list such information. I am perplexed that you would claim to be perplexed that I mentioned "non-notable children". Do you think that non-notable children do not qualify as immediate family members as discussed in the policy? The policy states that for borderline notable subjects we should err on the side of caution and not list full birth dates. Non-notable children are not even borderline notable, so why would we list more information. for them?
And I am well aware that there is no blanket prohibition on listing such information. I even quoted the policy stating that above. I am not saying that we cannot add the information. I'm challenging its inclusion in this article on BLP grounds. WP:BLP is a policy. An almost four-year-old RFC in one article does not override it. Just because we can include information does not mean we must, or even that we should include the information. Again, I see not reason why the information is "relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" in this article (or the other (or the other parent's article)..Unless there is consensus on this talk page that the information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject of this article, and thus should be included in this article, it should stay out. That's what the policy says. Why do you think the children's names and exact birth dates are relevant to completely understanding their parents?
Yes, this issue has been raised multiple times. The appropriate place for discussions attempting to clarify or modify the BLP policy would most likely be Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons, not an article's talk page. See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 45#Children's names and birthdates from just a few months ago for example. user:IJBall said It is general practice not to include the names and exact DOB's for the minor offspring of our WP:BLPs, unless the offspring is themselves somehow independently notable. Now, that is subject to editor consensus at the various articles – but at the vast majority of BLPs I watch, the consehat inclunsus is usually to exclude such info as per WP:MINORS and WP:BLPPRIVACY. WP:MINORS (specifically WP:NONAME) is germane to our discussion: "This applies to someone who is incidental to an article, but significant enough to mention even without identifying them, such as the minor children of celebrities. Do not name or otherwise identify the person, even if good sources do publish the name, when a more general description will suffice." Meters (talk) 04:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NONAME and WP:MINORS are the same essay. Any Wikipedian can write an essay giving any opinion they want. And I think trying to quote an essay as if it were policy, is ... well, I find it questionable. IJBall's opinions are his own, and that discussion you linked to does not reach consensus to change the RfC result.
You question the term "whitewashing."I'm a longtime journalist, editor and biographer, and I can say with ethical and professional certitude that the birth of children is a major milestone in any biography, certainly of famous public figures. No legitimate biographical book would exclude this. The idea that Wikipedia would hide this information about, say, Kim Kardashian and Kanye West's children — what else would that be but whitewashing?
When the parents themselves, as in this case, proudly announce the name and birthdate to the media, then I find it troubling that anyone say they know better than the parents themselves.
I'm also dismayed that you disregard an RfC consensus because you, personally, disagree with it. So where are we left? Doing yet another RfC? Or going with what I quoted, which is consensus? Or are you planning on going through Wikipedia and summarily, unilaterally, deleting this information? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Meters: It's been a week and I haven't heard from you. This needs to be discussed, since your edit goes against RfC consensus and is not supported by policy. (Essays are not policy.) I'm not changing it to a version that does follow policy until we've had a reasonable opportunity to discuss this. I'm happy to ask for an outside mediator, if you think that would help. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't respond because you still have not bothered to give a real answer to the critical question I asked to see how you can justify that this meets the criterion for inclusion in the policy: "Why do you think the children's names and exact birth dates are relevant to completely understanding their parents?" Since IPs are still adding this info I'll return to this and get this dealt with.
I knew that WP:NONAME and WP:MINORS are the same essay. WP:MINORS was mentioned in the quote of a recent thread I found on this on Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. I said " WP:MINORS (specifically WP:NONAME) is germane to our discussion" Again, you should actually read what I wrote. Or are you going to claim that you, an author, journalist and editor, read it but didn't understand? I did not quote an essay as policy. It is a fairly well respected essay that shows up in discussions on the appropriate talk page, which is why it came up. If you misconstrue any quote as policy, that's your problem. If you inferred that I meant it to be taken as policy, you were wrong.
As for your claim to be "a longtime journalist, editor and biographer", you may be, you may not be. People claim to be all sorts of things in while attempting to influence content in biographies. I've seen claims to be the person in question, their spouse/lover/ex spouse/parent/child//sibling/grandchild/agent/photographer/teammate/best friend/bar buddy/childhood friend/biographer/whatever. If you wish to out yourself by telling us who you are and where you are published (National Post? National Enquirer? Back 40 Monthly Advertiser? some volunteer newsletter?) that's up to you. I'm not asking you to out yourself. In fact, let me be clearer, please don't tell us. It is not a good idea to out yourself on Wikipedia, and whether you are a longtime journalist, editor and biographer is irrelevant to this discussion.
It is irrelevant what a "legitimate biographical book" would include. That's not what Wikipedia blps are. Wikipedia has policies on what can and cannot be included. I've quoted the relevant policy.
I'm not disregarding the RFC because I disagree with it. Again, read what I wrote. "WP:BLP is a policy. An almost four-year-old RFC in one article does not override it." I don't know what the policy was when the RFC happened. I don't know if the policy was changed because of it. That RFC was not in the correct place if it was intended to change policy, it did not reach a wide audience for something that you claim overrides policy (and I note that one of the named account supporters is now banned for WP:UPE and a second is indeffed for sockpuppetry, including with an IP that also supported this RFC). And finally, the close of the RFC by user:Aervanath does not appear to change policy. It simply says that the inclusion of the names and birth dates of the children is supported in that article.
Your claim that it is now policy to include non-notable children's names and birth dates in their parents' bios is simply incorrect. I've already quoted the policy.
Calling the removal of non-notable minors' personal information article whitewashing and claiming that I am editing against policy is verging on a personal attack.
Whether there are other wikipedia articles that include non-notable children's names and birth dates is irrelevant to this discussion. Whether I intend to go looking for such articles to change them is irrelevant to this discussion. Whether I remove this information from any such article I happen to notice is irrelevant to this discussion.
I will raise this at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons Meters (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've been away and have not had time to respond until now. I've gone to Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. And it is in no way an attack to say someone's editing is against journalistic and academic norms, or that citing essays, which anyone can write about anything, as if they had any significance is acting in bad faith. To suggest as you do that there is a blanket prohibition on this information is simply inaccurate.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you seem to be be misreading or misinterpreting what I wrote. I did not say there was a blanket prohibition. And yes, saying that I edited against policy and whitewashed an article is a person attack in my opinion. It is relevant what other academic or journalistic standards are. We edit by Wikipedia's standards..This was raised at the appropriate venue and it's clear what the consensus was. There is not point continuity the discussion here. Make any comments at the policy page thread. Meters (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia standards says if the information is relevant to full understanding of the subject. No responsible professional would ever say the names and birthdate of a high-profile subject's children is irrelevant to full understanding of the subject. So your personal, layperson's gut "feeling" of what's necessary trumps every objective, academically taught biographical norm?--Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but why, when this is standard biographical content according to any serious and responsible biographer? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BLPNAME: subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. The names and birthdates of the children here are not relevant to the complete understanding of the subject. I know we'll disagree, but that's fine. SportingFlyer T·C 00:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ambiguity there is part of the the issue. To any professional, those details are not only relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject, they're critical to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. It's like a scientist saying, "Man-made global climatic change is real," and a non-scientist politician saying, "Well, my gut says it's not." I think we'd all agree that more objective language there would be helpful in avoiding such prolonged discussions at every single bio page. Thoughts?--Tenebrae (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big time rush

[edit]

I’m sorry sorry I don’t have time today but I’m not feeling too good now baby I’m just not home I’m 173.18.178.185 (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carlos_PenaVega&oldid=1204573563"