Talk:Noel Neill

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Neilll.jpg[edit]

Image:Neilll.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well?[edit]

If she isn't dead (and there's no evidence that I could find) the quote at the end is useless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.21.5 (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

dead?[edit]

According to the "Actors Compendium" Noel Neill died September 27th, 2013. [1]. I'm not able to provide other sources yet. Aristeides (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today the hosts of the "Actors Compendium" deleted the entry. Therefore it must have been a hoax. Aristeides (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Died?[edit]

Did Noel Neill die on July 3, 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BDDE:5790:5DEB:E757:4589:FEF7 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

Source --Danielvis08 (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article from a questionable source quoting a Facebook post? Not exactly a reliable source. I think we should wait for something from a major news agency. Plus, I've asked for page protection in the form of pending changes status. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both The Hollywood Reporter and the New York Daily News cite her friend/manager/biographer. Seems pretty clear. — Wyliepedia 23:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[2] NY Daily News is not ok? I do not agree. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. It's a very dubious source, always has been. In the same day with the UKs Daily Mirror and the National Enquirer. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
EW.
Why don't you just let us all know which news source will you not revert? Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search of her name reveals major entertainment trades reporting her death: THR, Variety, Entertainment Weekly... — Wyliepedia 23:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what THR is, but Variety often repeats what they find online without always vetting before adding it to their website, EW is not a reliable source. No major news outlets are yet reporting this, and it's been out there for over 24 hours. That should tell you something. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Winkelvi you have made four reverts in less than 24 hours at this article. You are involved in an edit was, the same one you accused two other editors of on their talk pages.You are not allowed to make a unilateral decision about which source is acceptable. A discussion and collaboration is what is needed here. I see you have a long history of edit warring by looking over youe block log. Do not even try and say that your mistaken view of some policy excuses your edit warring. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 23:35, 4 July 201

6 (UTC)

"THR" is The Hollywood Reporter. I think this is becoming a case of Winkelvi's "I don't like it" concerning sources. — Wyliepedia 23:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THR is Hollywood Reporter. Okay. Not a reliable source, either. IDLI doesn't apply. BLP and RS policies do. Still nothing reported on this alleged death by a major news outlet. When/if that happens, then it's a different ballgame. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're not going to see it in "major news outlets". They don't care about a woman who appeared in a TV show 60 years ago and had guest spots since because of it, which seems to be her main claim to fame. That's why all these reputable entertainment mags exist. As stated, someone close to her reported publicly announced it, despite previous hoaxes. — Wyliepedia 23:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following are all WP:RS and all somehow don't meet Winkelvi's arbitrary standard for inclusion:

Please explain how each of these fail WP:RS even though not a single one is considered unreliable for any other article on wikipedia. Helper214 (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead beyond doubt, now reported in Variety [3]. As some over-zealous admin has locked the article, Wikipedia once again looks out of touch with reality. WWGB (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Out of touch with reality"? Nowhere near close. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet. If she is truly dead, then Wikipedia will have it put into the encyclopedia based on reliable sources (and Variety isn't always the best when it comes to reliability and accuracy). We aren't news reporters and we aren't here to scoop anyone. There is no deadline. BLP policy still has to be followed and was done so in this case. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any supportive contradictions here from Winkelvi to disprove any verifiability from any sources given above. That said, as stated, this page is locked for a week so she will live on at least in the Wikiworld. I just hope no reputable news sources cite it as her still being alive. — Wyliepedia 00:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in arguing about this further, however, I do feel there are a few things that need to be pointed out for those who seem to be missing some of the finer points regarding policy and what was occurring at this article:

  1. The article is a BLP and BLP guidelines state that anything not verified by reliable sources must be removed immediately. There was nothing verified by a reliable source regarding the article subject's death at the time the addition of unsourced/unreliably sourced content and edit warring was occurring. We have to be extra careful with BLP articles, this one is not an exception.
  2. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news source. It is not our job to add content just because it's being reported or discussed online.
  3. We are not here to scoop anyone and there is no deadline in Wikipedia.
  4. If it turns out that Noel Neill's death has occurred and has been verified to be reported by reliable source(s), then it can be added to the article. Until then, there's no rush to get it done. That fact is based on the previous three points.
  5. I added very specific edit summaries citing policy, participated in article talk page discussion, and almost immediately requested pending changes page protection; I was forced to then ask for full page protection. By doing all this, I was hoping those edit warring at the article would get a clue. No one seemed to care and continued edit warring, regardless. This edit warring report was filed against an editor who left no edit summaries and surpassed the 3RR threshold in violation with BLP and 3RR policy.
  6. It seems that the only thing stopping the edit warring in spite of 3RR and BLP policy was having the page fully protected.
  7. What was happening at the article when the edit warring was occurring is against BLP policy no matter how you slice it.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you gave "specific edit summaries citing policy" but what you did was give dishonest edit summaries. Here you revert claiming "Unsourced - reverting per BLP and RS policy." yet what you are reverting gave a source of Yahoo news. That is not unsourced. Here you gave an identical edit summary even though in that edit a reference for NY Daily News was given. Once again, that is not unsourced. What you did was edit war and then after the fact you backpedaled and claimed the sources which you initially claimed didn't exist were in fact just unreliable (even though that also is untrue). Helper214 (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm not interested in arguing about this further" I bet not! Why is it in your view that the above news sources cited by @Helper214 which are used all over wikipedia in blp articles and non-blp articles are not reliable enough in your view to be cited at this article? You do not get to unilaterally decide which news source may be used. The disruption and edit warring by you winkelvi is quite amazing to see. The top of it all is that you have deemed even Variety in not a reliable source! You should really read over WP:OWN. I agree with Helper214's post just above. You can try and hide behind blp policy when you were being, disruptive, dishonest, and edit warring all at the same time. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 00:42, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the Boston Herald somehow fails Wink's made up standard for WP:RS too. Here it is anyway: Noel Neill, actress who played first Lois Lane, dies at 95. Ditto Houston Chronicle (here) and every other source appearing in the next hour. Helper214 (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, it doesn't matter anymore. We're beating a dead horse, no wait, it's not been verified as dead. — Wyliepedia 00:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above in my post above (see point #4): "If it turns out that Noel Neill's death has occurred and has been verified to be reported by reliable source(s), then it can be added to the article.". The thing too many of you seem to be missing is what's already been pointed out in my numbered points above as well as we aren't here to WP:WIN. We are here to write and maintain the integrity of an encyclopedia, nothing else. Most importantly, it's never wrong to be cautious with a BLP article, ever. The policies on BLPs exist for a very good reason. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not missing anything here. Please read over WP:WIN, WP:OWN, and stop causing so much disruption here. Good day! Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 00:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

I suggest removing the aveleyman.com one because they also list her as dying on July 4, 2016. BLP violation, right there. — Wyliepedia 00:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 5 July 2016[edit]

Noel Darleen Neill (November 25, 1920 - July 3, 2016) is an American actress of film and television.

  • Note to reviewing admin(s): Removal of FPP has been requested at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page as it seems to no longer be needed - reliable sources (Boston Herald and Houston Chronicle) are now reporting her death. Pending Changes status has, however, been requested to keep the riff-raff and trivia-type additions to a minimum. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pleonic (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The protection has been dropped to a semi. --NeilN talk to me 01:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cites[edit]

I have removed the Variety reference re: Neill's death per WP:OVERCITE as unneeded in the presence of two very reliable, major news sources (Boston Herald and MSN). Even if were not already an unreliable source, the Entertainment Weekly ref would be removed for the same reason. We don't need four sources that all say the same thing; having two sources from major news outlets verifying a death date is sufficient. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:45, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have to ask: how is Entertainment Weekly an "unreliable source"? Trivialist (talk) 01:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In comparison to major news outlets or in general? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Either. Unless they've changed recently, they've always been a reputable news source. Trivialist (talk) 01:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not in my experience. It's the same with People Magazine or US Weekly and depends on the content being added and to what type of article. And especially not when there are major news outlets that can be used instead. With the two types of publication in the balance, the major news source is always preferred over the type of publication that People/US/EW are (which equates non-indepth and often superficial reporting and celebrity sightings). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Has this issue been resolved? I can see a full obituary in BBC News now, so there really is no need to go anywhere near sources that are even considered questionable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Which Image is better suited for the article?[edit]

Closing as this RfC was initiated by a now blocked sockpuppet of de facto banned user Carriearchdale. The only !vote for the older photo was offered by the sock account, thus, making both that vote and the RfC invalid.

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.

There is currently a proposal to replace the old image on the left and currently on the article, with this new image to the right. To vote on which image you prefer, place your support if you would like to see the new image inserted or oppose if you prefer the old image. It would be helpful if you could include your reasoning for or against the change. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

new version
old version
  • Comment - For future reference, an RfC can be called anytime when there is a content dispute which simple discussion fails to resolve. It shouldn't really be a first resort, rather a second or third depending on circumstances. In these cases what is generally needed is a wider opinion that is backed with policy based arguments and sources. In this case, it may be useful to call the RfC and get some outside readers and editors opinions for the image, however, unless there are any copyright violations concerning either image this RfC is mostly a popularity contest. I'd also like to mention that in general RfC's are not closed based on the number of votes but on the merits of the argument. It is merely co-incidental that in many cases the more popular vote is also the better founded one. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: An RfC usually runs for thirty day, for the purposes here though I think it would be best to call this one for one week. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your thoughts below. Sorry for the improptu nature of this RfC, consider it formally informal. If I have incorrectly moved your comment, please feel free to fix, I took some care in moving the comments. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survey of Opinions[edit]

SUPPORT: The new image is a vast improvement over the original. RJ4 (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE: The older image looks best in my opinion. An alternative idea would to get a more recent photo if possible. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'SUPPORT the newer photo. It is decidedly better and preferable over the previous which is too wide for an infobox photo, too dark to see her features, and not cropped in a manner that focuses on the individual in the photo. The new photo is a cropped version of the previous that has been lightened/brightened so you see the article subject clearly. It's really a no-brainer that the newer version is not just better, but is more in line with the MOS on infobox images. For reasons unknown to me (and I won't speculate as to why) Fouetté has decided edit warring over the infobox photo is a worthy endeavor. The old, poorly lit, badly cropped, inferior image is now back in the article. The improved, cropped photo that is more suited to the infobox is my choice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Now that you are changing your statement, I do need to address the change. You say something about the "old" image displayed is too wide for the info box". The two images are displayed on this talk page to choose between the images. The old image came out of the infobox (it had been there for some length of time!) I am sure it can be fit right back in there where it came from before you removed it. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 08:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one that edit warred after BRD was begun, the discussion was active, you were told of the discussion, but preferred to edit war to get it back to your preferred version. I am going to call ad admin for help to start one of the rfcs so we can really discuss the matter fairly. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE It should be pointed out that this RfC was set up improperly. Rather than starting an RfC and getting new comments, the previous discussion comments were turned into an RfC - leaving old commentary that I would never put into my !vote comments and causing my !vote to appear as if I'm trying to bicker rather than support a choice. I appreciate that the editor who started the RfC did so at the request of another editor commenting here, and do recognize it was his first time setting up an RfC. First timers frequently make mistakes in the execution of an RfC, so some leeway can be given. But I do want it understood that my comments above are not typical for me in an RfC as they are not in line with usual procedure. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Feel free to edit your comment to represent yourself as you would on a formal RfC. There's no rule against amending your comment on an RfC as you see fit, and I for one, am not going to make any such enforcement of a rule, so;
    I hereby grant special consideration to be given to the fact that I have moved the comments without seeking the advice of the original commenting parties, as such, I hereby release all rights to those comments back to their original owners.
    Now you have legal backing to amend your comments as well :). Mr rnddude (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

We need to reach a consensus. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 05:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's unnecessary to reach a consensus on everything, especially when it's an edit that helps the reader better understand the article subject and is an obvious, overall improvement that enhances the article. The current photo is decidedly better and preferable over the previous which is too large for an infobox photo, too dark to see her features, and not cropped in a manner that focuses on the individual in the photo. The new photo is a cropped version of the previous that has been lightened/brightened so you see the article subject clearly. It's really a no-brainer that the newer version is not just better, but is more in line with the MOS on infobox images. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you unilaterally decided all this without even considering what other members may think about your change. Wikipedia has no deadline, so there is always time to have a discussion on a matter such as this. Hopefully some more editors will stop by in the next day or two so that we may collaborate and discuss the matter rather than one editor making unilateral decisions. Please see WP:OWN. Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 06:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I know that RfC's aren't always needed, unless you come to a solution between yourselves, this informal RfC should hopefully resolve it for you. I won't vote, but am happy to close a week from now, unless solved earlier. Feel free to ping me if you want to have it closed early if you do solve the issue ahead of time. I have the talk page now on my watchlist, feel free to discuss. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your assistance Mr rnddude Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant 07:43, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, hope to see a resolution soon. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  • Oppose I want the original photo not the cropped one. It looks better. Zpeopleheart (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Noel_Neill&oldid=1207145065"