Talk:Dawn Wells

To the Person that censored my last discussion post...

You DO realize that you validated my argument right? I would advise ANYONE that strolls through here to read all the previous posts regarding "reckless driving/marijuana/pot" and decide for yourself who has an agenda. As was mentioned before, consensus DOES CHANGE, but consensus can depend on how many people vote at any given time. I personally think this is a "kangaroo court" and now an anonymous passerby has been censored. I intend to go to Craiglist Rants & Raves of all the major cities and encourage EVERYONE to read this discussion so that they can see how obvious it is that Craiglist administrators/editors gang up against people to change public opinion. Have a nice day.76.246.235.134 (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good grief. =//= Proxy User (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "censor" your post, I closed the discussion because it wasn't at all to do with improving this article, and had already degenerated into pointless name-calling. That comment, like your rant above, seems to be nothing but sour grapes because consensus was overwhelmingly against including the incident. This argument has raged on for more than a year with a vast majority of editors making consensus clear. There's nothing more to see here, unless there's some kind of new argument. If you'd rather not register an account and actually try and improve the article, have fun at Craigslist. Dayewalker (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I recently added an archive box and I will archive most of the dated comments in the near future. Off2riorob (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Article is missing an important event in Wells life

I'm talking about her arrest after receiving a marijuana delivery. Life is not always pretty and Wikipedia is not censored (WP:NOTCENSORED). This fact of her life is well documented in other media. I understand you if you retort "consensus has decided" in favor of censor--but that is wrong, no matter how many editors wish to go on doing so. With your help we can add this fact to the article in a simple, neutral way that properly meets Wikipedia's WP:BLP; no need to draw attention to it, just include it. Readers can then read all the good things Wells has done in her life which are in the article, and reach a verdict themselves without us trying to influence them. (Personally, I have always been impressed with how Wells handled this situation with great dignity.) Remember, here at Wikipedia, it is the article that is important, not the person the article is about. —Prhartcom 15:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that the choice to omit the information amounts to censorship. There is a fairly lengthy archived discussion that is very specific in the points of view presented by those who wished to include the information and those who wished not to. I don't wish to repeat all the same points I've already made there, but I think one of the key considerations is that to mention something just because it's supportable by a source or is well documented, does not make it relevant, and at the end of it all, she was left with nothing other than a traffic infraction. From an encyclopedic standpoint, a traffic infraction is not something that needs to be reported. I think WP:UNDUE is applicable here. I don't agree with your final sentence "Remember, here at Wikipedia, it is the article that is important, not the person the article is about." The most important thing is the project itself. We make all kinds of choices on all of our articles based upon what best serves (or disserves) the project. The article and subject are both secondary to Wikipedia itself. Rossrs (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well absolutely, I agree with you, the entire Wikipedia project is the important thing, which is the sum of the individual articles, many of which include articles on persons who have had unpleasant experiences, each of which are normally given their proper mention. I remember once when I was editing the Linda McCartney article, and dealing with another editor who said, "I erased all the drug references, they are unnecessary in description of such a woman." Hmmm. Clearly that person had decided the article about her should depict only the happy things and should hide all the ugly things, and then history might remember her in a better light. That editor was wrong, and consensus agreed. Other editors knew that when readers familiar with her history visited her page they would notice the glaring omission and would rightly suspect someone was hiding something. No doubt consensus would agree here too, except for the fact that you are here ready to revert. My wish is that you would be honest with yourself and with others like me, and admit that you have been placing the importance of the subject above the importance of the article, and decide that a respectful mention of all the notable facts of Wells life, even a "traffic infraction", deserve their proper mention in this article. —Prhartcom 17:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Please restrict your comments to the topic. You don't know me, so you have no business suggesting I "be honest" or that I'm "ready to revert" or that I have to "admit" anything. Very inappropriate - I believe this is the first time we have ever interracted. I've said elsewhere that I don't care about Dawn Wells as an individual but as a living person any depiction of her must fall squarely within policies such as WP:BLP. It has nothing to do with celebrity worship. I should have been clearer in my comments about "the project itself". I was not suggesting that the project be measured by the sum of its articles, although I can see the validity in that viewpoint. What I meant was that we must protect Wikipedia from anything ranging from external criticism to legal action on the part of living people that are discussed in Wikipedia articles. "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid". We are not obliged to report anything. We choose what to include and what to omit in all articles and we often err on the side of caution especially with living people. That's been the general thrust of earlier discussions, and is the general thrust of my viewpoint on this subject. To make it personal by assuming to define my motivation, (and incorrectly too) serves to diminish and dismiss my point of view and fails to assume good faith. Please don't do this. Convince me that the relevance of the event outweighs every other consideration, and I'll be prepared to reconsider my viewpoint. Rossrs (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that she was arrested for marijuana possession, even though the charges ended up being reduced, is notable. But the problem is there are too many celebrity-worshippers here, ready to delete any reference to something negative that might blemish their images.—Chowbok ☠ 17:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Same goes for you Chowbok. Can you offer anything to back up your assertion that there are "too many celebrity-worshippers here, ready to delete any reference to something negative that might blemish their images"? That's not supported by the comments made in this and earlier discussions and as you were involved in those discussions, there's no excuse for you misrepresenting the viewpoints expressed by other editors, including me. You need to back up such statements with something factual, otherwise please don't make such a reply to me. Please stick to the topic. Rossrs (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The reply wasn't to you. Look at the indent levels. That said, I didn't think references were required for talk pages.—Chowbok ☠ 00:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

No, but if you're going to poison the well by painting the other side of a discussion with a wide, irrelevant, incorrect brush, you should be prepared to back it up. That's one of the reasons I hated to see this topic come back up again, the side of this discussion that favors inclusion always seems to come back around to personal comments and false assumptions about the motivations of other editors. I don't know why this topic inspires such anger. Dayewalker (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree the well was poisoned, but I don't think by me. I'll point anyone to the archives, where I initially tried to discuss this in a reasonable fashion and was repeatedly attacked. Of course nobody's going to say "I just worship famous people and I feel the need to protect them from blemishes", but that doesn't mean that's not the motivation for some of the editors here. The hysterical reaction that I initially encountered can scarcely be explained otherwise.—Chowbok ☠ 01:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, I'm sorry to say that you are absolutely right. These people are clearly demonstrating that it is their motivation for keeping this unpleasant yet factual event out of this article. Yet they can't see they are doing that. This is bad for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not censored. I went to the archives and expected to see some revelations, but it was the same bullish behavior. I saw that your arguments were reasonable, yet you were faced with the same aggressiveness that I was shown today (which they denied). Their best defense to this whole subject is, "We've had this conversation before!" They're going to have it again. Anyway, I already told them they are wrong, just ignore them, don't watch this page. —Prhartcom 02:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(OD) We have had this exact same conversation before, about four months ago most recently, and a few weeks before that, and six months before that and so on. There has been some unfortunate behavior on both sides of the discussion, but that doesn't change the clear policy-based consensus, as seen in the last discussion in the archive. Dayewalker (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I just read Miss Wells' personal statement on this matter.[1] That's remarkable, and if it is true I now respect her even more. By the way, Wells obviously considers this event in her life notable, if embarrassing (naturally) as she devoted an entire page of her website to it. Now, if we were "allowed" to add this event that occurred in her life to the article, we should certainly mention the points she brings up here. —Prhartcom 17:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been held several times in the past both here and at the BLP noticeboard, please check the archives for those discussions. We've only had five posts on this topic today, and we're already into discussion about the personal motivations of editors. Those are completely irrelevant to the notability of the information in a BLP. Let's please stay on topic. Dayewalker (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the personal motivations of editors is unimportant, getting the article right is important. Right now this article is missing something important. So are we agreed that this event should be added? —Prhartcom 18:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Consensus is still firmly against adding this information as undue, please check the archives. Just because this is your first day to come to the article doesn't mean this is the first time this has been discussed. If you want to start yet another discussion on the topic, go ahead, but please familiarize yourself with the previous discussions first.

If my tone is a little short here I apologize in advance, but this issue has come up before, and it's always the same arguments, and always rebutted the same way. Dayewalker (talk) 18:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

For further details, almost the entire previous archive [2] deals with this issue, and the consensus to not include it in the BLP. Dayewalker (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter if this is my first day to this article (it is also my last day, don't worry). The decision to omit this information is wrong. Editors who valiantly strive to keep unpleasant facts out of Wikipedia articles (and who make themselves unpleasant while doing so, which is why I am leaving now) are clearly less interested in accuracy, completeness, and factual history. My apologies for stirring up the hornet's nest. —Prhartcom 18:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rossrs and Daywalker. And, btw, there is no call for anyone to represent that opposing opinions are from censoring "celebrity-worshippers". That is a bad faith accusation that has no basis in fact, as does the charge that there has been anything nearing unpleasantness here. This is all about undo weight and WP:BLP policy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yep. Once again, the discussion ignores wikipedia policies, prior comments and discussions, and a longstanding consensus in favor of comments and accusations about the motivations of other editors. Dayewalker (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

[S]he who speaks the most and brings the most friends to the debate wins. That is the way of THIS topic. There are two click-able items on the welcoming webpage of Ms. Wells' own site, one to info about her as Mary Ann, one to the aforementioned statement. That's 50%. Google reflects that of the top 7 searches starting with "Dawn Wells," BEFORE her biography comes "arrested." Now, years later, she remains more famous for the arrest than anything else. Searches 3 and 5 and 7 all are about the arrest. "Mary Ann" and "Gilligan's Island" don't make the top 10. So much for the real world. Consensus has its place, but here, on this topic, it is a synonym for bullying.75.4.195.159 (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's talk policy.

Okay, so people who are arguing against inclusion of Ms. Wells's arrest keep pointing to WP:BLP. Can somebody tell me what specifically there says to exclude it? Because I don't see it.

I do see this: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Notable, relevant, and well-documented: the arrest passes on all three counts.

I also see: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Reliably sourced, true, and relevant: again, this incident easily passes.

So somebody enlighten me here as to exactly what part of BLP they are reading.—Chowbok ☠ 06:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a massive discussion about this only recently where there was a large vote comment after and there was a strong consensus to keep the content out. Were you involved in that discussion? You were, your name is all over the archive like a rash. If you have so soon forgotten what the discussion was in regard to and what the consensus was, please re-read the archive. Off2riorob (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I did just read that, as a matter of fact. I see lots of people referring to BLP, but nobody actually quoting anything relevant, or pointing to a specific part of it. So I repeat my question to you: what justification do you see in BLP for leaving this out?—Chowbok ☠ 13:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To the group: Please answer Chowbok's question. Point to a specific statement in WP:BLP that allows for the exclusion of notable, factual information. Please keep in mind Ms. Wells indicates this is notable and reliably sourced on her own website. If you cannot, no problem. As I stated before, with your help we can add this fact to the article in a simple, neutral way that properly meets Wikipedia's WP:BLP; no need to draw attention to it, just include it. Readers can then read all the good things Wells has done in her life which are in the article, and reach a verdict themselves without us trying to influence them. —Prhartcom (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Chowboks question has been well answered, asking it again is tedious, read the archives. Off2riorob (talk) 14:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to the specific point in the archives where my question is answered? I don't see it.—Chowbok ☠ 14:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this a joke? Please don't waste editors time, your issue was well discussed and well resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, Off2riorob clearly can't answer the question. Anyone else? —Prhartcom (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob: Should I interpret your answer to mean "No, I don't see a place in the archives where people referred to a specific part of BLP"?—Chowbok ☠ 18:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(OD) Rob has pointed everyone to the archives, where this discussion has gone on many times, and always been overwhelmingly in favor of keeping this material out of the BLP. If you'll look at the last discussion in the archives, which resulted in an easy-to-read last-gasp cattle call of votes, most editors were in favor of not including the material not strictly because of the BLP rules, but moreso because the event is given undue weight in relation to what the results of the traffic stop turned out to be. Dayewalker (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

And Dayewalker doesn't answer Chowbok's question either. So to summarize: Concensus has decided to go against WP:BLP, the relevent text of which Chowbok has cited, since no one in this group can cite any relevent text from it that supports their view. Now WP:UNDUE is a good argument; I agree that this event is small compared to the rest of her life. What about WP:N? I believe Ms. Wells herself has indicated that this event is notable. Therefore, the right thing to do would be to include it, but seriously, it should be a tiny mention, perhaps no more than two sentences. —Prhartcom (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I apologize in advance for being brief, but we've had this discussion many times before, and the consensus has always been clear. The fairly recent longform discussions in the archive show this, and revisiting this issue every couple of months with the same arguments is not productive. If you disagree with the consensus, please file an RfC as suggested in the last discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that nobody actually has a policy-based reason for leaving this out, if nobody can give me one. Continually pointing me to the archives is pointless since my objection also covers the previous discussions.—Chowbok ☠ 18:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Pretty amusing that when I say that people are leaving out the info due to of a misplaced concern for the celebrity's image, everyone's outraged... but when I ask for the policy basis for the omission, I receive... silence. Almost as amusing as an editor removing the latest addition with a remark to discuss it on the talk page, while ignoring the actual discussion on the talk page. This is kinda pathetic.—Chowbok ☠ 17:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with the current consensus, then take the advice given and file an RfC, or other case somewhere else for more attention. If consensus changes, it changes, and I'll be the first one to post the new information when that happens. Until then, ignoring an entire archive of discussion and overwhelming consensus just because you want someone to explain a policy to you is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Dayewalker (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And once again, a non-response response. I'm asking a pretty specific question here, one that hasn't been answered to my knowledge. I'm not asking anyone to explain the policy, I'm asking somebody to explain how that policy applies in this case. Is this really so hard? It's not me who has the hearing problem. (It's also hard to see how consensus can ever change when discussion attempts are basically met with "shut up and go away".)—Chowbok ☠ 18:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of editors who have commented on this issue have found it to be undue weight. Dayewalker (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

I've applied "pending changes protection" to the article. This means that IP editors and non-autoconfirmed editors will need to have their edits reviewed and approved before their edits are applied to the article.

I've done this because the article is a WP:BLP and there have been repeated attempts to add uncited claims to the article.

I also note from the discussions above that there is a long-standing consensus regarding this information: consequently I regard attempts to ignore this consensus with some concern.

TFOWR 00:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The claims that should be added are well-cited. That anon editor didn't add the cites, but they would have been added were the information allowed to remain.

I love how sacred "consensus" is on this article. Not only can't the article be changed contrary to consensus, we're not even to discuss the consensus, as shown by the silence above.—Chowbok ☠ 02:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason repeated attempts to discuss consensus are met with brief summaries is because this has been discussed before many times. The archives is full of them, including a near-unanimous consensus to leave the material out of the article six months ago. After the first five or six times the discussion came up, it crosses into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Dayewalker (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Chowbok, that's not right. Nobody's stopping you from discussing this - how could we? - but you seem to overlook the fact that most comments addressed WP:UNDUE more than WP:BLP. Your focus on BLP is selective and no matter how much that is discussed the undue element doesn't go away. I've commented on this each time it's been raised, and I don't know what you expect people to say, when they've already stated their opinions clearly several times. Don't try to portray this as a conspiracy of silence just because other editors feel the topic has been exhausted, and also remember that as much as you implore a further explanation, nobody owes you one. It's all in the archives and it's not like you haven't had your say. Rossrs (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it UNDO?

Years later, it's 50% of her OWN self-promoting website. My instincts tell me that loyal fans - that is "fans" as in the root word fanatics, will contact her through her website and pled with her to remove her account of the incident (or see her memory besmirched on Wikipedia! – That’s just humor to make a point, let that knot in your panties loosen up a bit. Come on. Life will go on if a mild accurate account of the arrest is included). JFK had multiple extra marital affairs, people are interested in that fact. In Clinton’s day, people were so interested that he went through impeachment because of his outside-of-marriage-activities. In Mary Ann’s case, it is all the more interesting because it allegedly has been her co-star, Gilligan, supplying her marijuana for years.

BLP:

No one answers Chowbok’s questions on any of the “reasons” why this information is blocked, that is, “answer” in the sense of saying anything other than rhetoric. WHY MUST THIS INTERESTING EVENT BE EXCLUDED FROM WIKIPEDIA WHEN THE SUBJECT’S OWN WEBSITE DEVOTES SPECIAL ATTENTION TO IT? Because those guarding her memory, unlike her, can’t deal with a least brief mention of the truth? But in that vein, are we as loyal citizens of Gilligan’s Island duty-bound to protect our virgin queen? Grow up. Let the truth be included.

If Mary Ann writes a biography, the excerpts released by the publisher will assuredly include the arrest while in possession of marijuana, and those facts will be the ones that bring attention to her book. The most worn pages of her biography will be the pages discussing the arrest and the aftermath, unless it turns out that she was in a long-running threesome with Mr. Howell and the Skipper. Oh, by the way, why do I refer to her as “Mary Ann?” Because I am being disrespectful; much like the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of you are to Chowbok and anyone else who disagrees with you. No amount of charm or politeness on my part is going to win a single one of you over. You need to rise above the digs and the rhetoric and improve this article because the exclusion of this information of significant interest to the vast majority of people hurts Wikipedia. If you can’t get over sweet Mary Ann getting her adorable little button nose dirty, or you can’t rise above me being disrespectful, you surely won’t elevate yourselves to include the facts simply because it is, editorially, the right decision.

IF YOU WANT TO PLAY THE ROLE OF EDITOR, THEN TAKE ON THE BURDEN OF DOING THE JOB WITH THE PRIDE OF MAKING UNBIASED EDITORIAL DECISIONS. If you are simply a Mary Ann worshipper, then join her fan club, bow towards Gilligan’s Island seven times a day, and burn incense before her golden image; but don’t pretend to be an editor with the slightest degree of integrity.

Years later, HER ACCOUNT OF THE INCIDENT is told only through the words of her lawyer. She refuses to give a personal account. I find that fascinating. Even O.J. spoke personally when he denied murdering his ex-wife. Hell, in his case, he spoke DIRECTLY to the Judge in front of a live TV audience, even though he had four of his lawyers standing right next to him. Mary Ann, on her own website, still hides behind the unsigned words of her lawyer (I highly recommend reading his words. If the presentation/spin upon the events is not hysterical to you, you have not yet developed the critical thinking necessary to be an editor (well, anywhere but on Wikipedia; interestingly, a place I do not have the right to edit the Sacred Page of The Virgin Mary Ann).

The CONSENSUS is that Mary Ann is MORE WIDELY KNOWN for the arrest while in possession of marijuana than anything else she has ever done. It's not only the top single reason that anyone searches for information on her, variations on arrest/marijuana/drunk driving are the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the any searches about her.

BE BOLD?:

“Be Bold” and edit says Wikipedia’s founder. But the bullies on this issue say, if you are “bold,” you will be sent messages to stop editing, and we will block you from editing anything about Mary Ann as her page is “protected.”

I can go to the Wikipedia page of Wikipedia creator and founder Jimmy Wales and edit anything I chose on his page, but not so Mary Ann. I can even go to the page about that other “Mary” - you might have heard of her, she gave birth to Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior - and edit anything and everything.

What credibility can any editor of Wikipedia have when its founder’s page can be edited, pages of living and revered religious and historical figures can be edited, but editing of a 1960s’ short run ensemble cast sit-com bit player’s page must be reviewed and “approved” by self-proclaimed “editors,” aka B.O.G.I, the Bullies Of Gilligan’s Island.

Included PROMINENTLY in the article on Wales is the dispute as to whether he was actually THE founder, and even an account of how he edited his own Wikipedia page to re-write history by excluding the co-founder, how he was exposed in the national media about this “editing,” how he attacked others through Wikipedia editing, and how he, under pressure, allegedly apologized. There are DOZENS of references and links to the details of these events, although disputed by Wales himself, and all embarrassing to him. Wales has had to live with his own hypocrisy; God himself must live with numerous challenges (on Wikipedia) to his very existence, and, on Wikipedia, God and Christians must live with the alleged inconsistencies in his Living Word - The Bible (according to the editors of Wikipedia); but Mary Ann? Her memory must be protected from the truth.

The editors “protecting” The Virgin Mary Ann remind me not of the little children who cover their ears when another child tells them about sex, as they cannot bear to think that their mother “did that;” but rather, they are the children who chase down the child speaking the truth – that their mother had sex – and beat the ever loving crap out of him. That will teach them not to say such things! If you don’t want to read the truth about Mary Ann, don’t read that page, but must you cut out the tongue and gouge out the eyes of all who want to read the truth?

Pick up a mirror and look at what you are doing. There is NO EDITORIAL INTEGRITY in your position.

I’ve found it easier to get my newspaper editor to run a cartoon depicting Mohammad than Chowbok and others seem to have had with these “editors.” I have an advantage. He’s not afraid to discuss the facts and the issues. He will answer questions concerning the facts supporting his position. You ain’t going to get that from the “editors” here.75.4.195.159 (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Terrific essay. This really puts the "consensus" editors (Dayewalker, Rossrs, Wildhartlivie, Off2riorob) in their proper place. I think it's time to revisit whether "consensus" is really the majority. None of their arguments are truly supported by Wikipedia policy. We're tired of hearing them pretend they are not protecting the subject of this article at the expense of the article. By the way, the funniest part of this recent discussion is when I pointed out that the consensus editors answer every argument with "We've had this conversation before!" and then a few minutes later Dayewalker responded with...you guessed it: "We've had this conversation before!" —Prhartcom (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I respect this unnamed administrator but I have analyzed this article yet. However, much of what this admin says for his other edits make sense. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFences_and_windows&action=historysubmit&diff=374504147&oldid=374478013 Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I was asked to look at this by Crohnie on my talk page. I am surprised that there is not even the briefest mention of this noteworthy incident, which has plenty of coverage in reliable sources:[3] The WP:UNDUE argument is weak, especially in light of the inclusion of trivia like "In November 2009, she appeared at the Denver Foundation's Christmas Wish Celebrity Auction." Whitewashing biographies is a bad idea. Someone's widely covered arrested should be mentioned in their biography. It did impact her life, it lost her a Girl Scout's speaking engagement for one.[4][5] We should of course include her side of the story, which she gave in an interview to Entertainment Tonight when she admitted reckless driving.[6] I am going to post this to the BLP noticeboard to get more input. Fences&Windows 15:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Fences' talk page mentioned above is here and the Administrators' noticeboard discussion is here. Sweet. —Prhartcom (talk) 16:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to say - it's the BLP noticeboard (not the Admin noticeboard). Anyway; as per my comments there - the conviction seems notable and adequately covered (on a par with her charity work). It can be adequately covered in 1 or 2 sentences (max) in the personal section. The previously archived discussion centered on an inclusion that was unduly weighted for her biography - I don't think that negates any sensible, neutral, sourced addition. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible addition

i do not edit wikipedia anymore. If you want to add this performance of Dawns Wells on Vegas Season 1 Ep.11 . She played Millie Farmer in episode "Serve, Volley and Kill" Mws72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Shall we add this, and allow the interested readers to click and find out more, imo this is a good compromise.

• - On October 18th 2008 Wells was arrested in Idaho as she was driving home from a birthday party. She later pleaded guilty to one count of reckless driving and was sentenced on Feb 29th 2008 to 6 months unsupervised probation.[7],

[8],[9] [10] Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an insignificant event in the context of the article and the subject's life and should be omitted per WP:UNDUE. Yworo (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Specifically what part of UNDUE applies here? —Chowbok ☠ 18:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. " Yworo (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to bow to that policy if it really does cover this - but I'd prefer to see a very short neutral entry. It is topical and as notable as other aspects of her personal life within the scope of this biography (IMO anyway). But, as said, it's not the end of the world if it stays out. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, it says "disproportionate". That doesn't mean it shouldn't be included at all, just that it not be given prominence.—Chowbok ☠ 19:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that mentioning the arrest or conviction is undue; I would be unhappy with mentioning cannabis, as she wasn't convicted for possession etc. Rob, the date - Feb 29th 2009 - should be 2008 ;-) TFOWR 18:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We should mention the marijuana as that is the most notable part of the story and the reader will have already heard of it. As well, we must mention that, despite what the reader may have heard, all of those charges were dropped. I concur with what Slp1 proposed and what Errant also supports, below (copied from BLPN):

In February 2008, Wells pleaded guilty to reckless driving and was fined, sentenced to five days in jail, and placed on probation for six months as part of a plea agreement in which other drug and alcohol-related charges were dropped.[11] Wells and her attorney stated that marijuana found in her car belonged to others.[12][13]

—Prhartcom (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You would do well to accept the compromise, I don't think there is any consensus support for your desired addition, better a compromise than nothing. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should not be "compromising" the content of sources, Off2riorob. I suggest less mealy-mouthed wording which actually relates to the events described in the source. 90.207.76.207 (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors should make compromises and editorial judgments all the time. As it is disputed content with BLP undue issues regarding the drugs, to insert it you would need a clear consensus to include and I don't see that at all, and at all the previous discussions it was rejected. As I said, the compromise is a good offer and I think its inclusion is good for the subject and good for the project and good for the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What's with the threats? (Shines light in face) "You would DO WELL to compromise..." —Prhartcom (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Its not a threat at all it is a good compromise offer, if you don't want to accept it you are welcome to seek consensus for your desired addition. Off2riorob (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Prhartcom, BLP consensus seems pretty clear; which is that, in general, where the subject is not convicted of allegations they are not reported unless substantial or particularly notable. I do not agree with SLP's suggestion for this reason (if I stated I did I apologise for the confusion - it was not my intention) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I AM happy that we're finally seeing reason and no longer censoring Wikipeida. Of course it's not true that "there isn't any consensus support for my desired addition" as we've heard from many who do, just not in this particular paragraph. OK, should we request an official tally? Please reply below if you feel we should or should not mention the marijuana. —Prhartcom (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should not - no conviction as required Yworo (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Should defer to: a wider discussion at the relevant noticeboard. TFOWR 20:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Should accurately reflect sources per WP:WELLKNOWN. 90.207.76.207 (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Defer to WP:BLPN if that goes stale then No because there was no conviction on it so it would be against policy as stated above. --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Should not - consensus on the drugs seems very clear on BLP/N at this time. Prosecution is a separate matter. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Should not refer to the marijuana as there was no conviction. The sentence as suggested by User:Tmorton166 is concise and sticks to the facts, but it still reads to me as giving undue weight because anyone reading it could think "big deal, she got a driving conviction". It does not establish relevance and that's been my main concern, but User:Fences and windows has mentioned that she lost work in the form of speaking engagements as a result and that's an aspect that I had not previously considered. Perhaps the addition of this information would place the incident into a better context by demonstrating the impact it had on her. This could be achieved with a short phrase or sentence at the end of Tmorton166's suggested version. My issue with this has always been that the marijuana should not be included, but exclusion results in a very meagre sentence. That's why I've objected on the grounds of undue. If the relevance is demonstrated, I don't have any further concerns about undue. By the way, Prhartcom, please don't dismiss the views of dissenting editors as censorship, and try to assume some good faith. The editors that have disagreed with your viewpoint have given reasons, and you're attributing a motive to those editors that I honestly don't think has ever been there. Rossrs (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'm usually a BLP hawk, but I really think that it is fine to mention the cannabis, though carefully, obviously. The main reason is because Wells herself has done so in several media outlets. e.g. [14][15][16] as well as on her own website[17]. And it was the focus for much of the coverage, after all.

  So how about "On October 18th 2008 Wells was arrested in Idaho as she was driving home from a birthday party. She later pleaded guilty to one count of reckless driving and was sentenced in February 2009 to 6 months unsupervised probation.[18] [19]. A charge of marijuana possession was dismissed after a third party confessed that pot found in the car belonged to him.[20][21]" --Slp1 (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Slp1's on the right track, just above. Brief coverage is appropriate; it should not be allowed to engulf the article or get beyond a short paragraph. The above is missing the heater controls issue and that should be mentioned. My take is that this amounts to the friend leaving a roach in the ashtray, and it swelled from there. The real-world impact of her losing the speaking engagement warrants mention, too. This is about the actress, not sweet little Mary Ann from Kansas — who, of course, would never blow a joint, or anything else. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Should not refer to the marijuana as there was no conviction, no trial, no nothing except dropped charges. Very strong support for excluding this trivial bit of nonsense from this biography. Absolutely no reason to include it as it is not important to a full understanding of her career. Read her statement. Something like this could happen to anyone, sadly, and it does not and should not reflect upon her biography in any way shape or form.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, well that settles that, we should not mention the marijuana. It's an honor to have you weigh in, Jimbo.

Thanks to everyone for their time and energy on this so far. Apologies for my lapse in good faith. I agree with Jack; we should mention the heater controls; that is her primary defense, and the lost speaking engagement, that was probably the primary impact on her life. For the record I once again want to say I believe Miss Wells is an incredible lady. Anyone care to write the paragraph, then? —Prhartcom (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, but now that we all seem to be on a similar track, I would welcome your contribution if you would like to do it. If it's not perfect we can keep working on it until it is. I guess the lesson here is, when in Idaho drive very carefully, and if it's a little cold in the car, don't fiddle with the heater controls. Better to shiver until you get home. Rossrs (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you Rossrs, I would be honored.

While driving home from her birthday party celebration on October 18th 2008, Wells was observed swerving across the roadway and was subsequently arrested by Idaho police. Wells pleaded guilty to one count of reckless driving and served six months' unsupervised probation. Prosecutors dropped three other misdemeanors. In a statement, Wells admitted swerving only because she was reaching for her car heater controls, and has admitted losing several jobs because of the incident.

—Prhartcom (talk) 03:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

nb: the fauxnews link includes "Mary Jane" in the title, so it will result in that word appearing in plaintext in teh references. Just sayin' ;) Jack Merridew 04:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Almost a faux pas. Too bad Fox News couldn't just stick to the heater controls, like we're doing! Prhartcom, I think that addresses the key points very well. My only suggestion would be to remove the sentence,"Prosecutors dropped three other misdemeanors" because it's an oblique reference to the "MJ incident" that we've decided not to mention, and anyone reading it who doesn't already know would wonder why we aren't speaking plainly. I think we should either speak plainly or not at all, and in this case most people are leaning to the "not at all" on that particular point. That would solve the problem identified by Jack at the same time, and I would absolutely support your suggestion. Just my thoughts, so let's see what other editors say. Rossrs (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you see my reply to Jimmy at BLPN? The significance of the weed is that the media went "bonkers" over this because she's "Mary Ann". They dragged her through the mud to sell papers and glue eyeballs to advertisements. *That's* what needs covering; that she's a victim. We certainly don't want to repeat the muckraking; rather we should be seeking sources commenting on the conduct of the media. And we certainly don't want to be speaking in "Camel code" in the article text. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't but now I have.... the "Trial by Media" angle is different to what has been suggested before, and it looks like this discussion isn't done yet. Has anyone seen any third party reporting on it from that view and condemning the media? I suggest that we work with Prhartcom's suggestion and get that right, minus the MJ ref, and continue to discuss the media aspect with the view of either adding it (or not) pending further discussion. It would be a shame to hold back what's been achieved so far. Rossrs (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no need to mention three dropped anythings. The press angle is likely OR and opinion and even if true would more belong on an article about the way the press operates than here. Keep it short and uninvolved with respect to weight. Off2riorob (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's why I asked if there was any 3rd party reports condemning (actually, it wouldn't need to be condemning, it could be merely commenting upon) the media reaction, so as to avoid OR, but I disagree that it would belong only in an article about how the press operates. It may be a suitable example in that type of article, but if there's 3rd party commentary on the impact this had on Wells, that would relate directly to her and would be relevant to her article. Rossrs (talk) 09:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you will find any supporting reliable, and still think that it would be about the press and not relevent here. "She was only attacked in the press because of her acting role and the press wanted to sell lots of papers" hmm... no not for me. I also think there is still a fair bit of resistance to including this trivia at all as it is unrelated to the issue that makes her notable.

• - On October 18th 2008 Wells was arrested in Idaho as she was driving home from a birthday party after being seen swerving across the road. She later pleaded guilty to one count of reckless driving and was sentenced on Feb 29th 2008 to 6 months unsupervised probation.[22] [23]. In a statement, Wells admitted swerving only because she was reaching for her car heater controls.[24],[25], [26], [27]</ref> Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd be surprised too if there was a reliable 3rd party account of the coverage, rather than the event. I agree there's resistance to including this, but if someone suggests an angle that hasn't been discussed, it's fair to discuss it. There must be another source that can be used in preference to the Fox News article. The list of sources at the bottom of the article is short, and I'm not sure we want a link that prominently displays "Mary Ann of 'Gilligan's Island' Caught With Marijuana in Car". Unfortunately the CBS article is brief and doesn't explain the situation as well as the Fox story, but I think we could manage with using just that source and the link to Wells's statement. Unless another one can be found. What do you think? Rossrs (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is easier if it is an issue, to trim the title, I have done that. Looking at it again all the detail is in the CBS citation so there is no real reason for keeping the fox citation so I also don't mind if it is removed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I took a look and all I could find was this, which I've never heard of before. Anyone have better luck at finding any other sources? Oh, and can we collapse the long comment above in the other section? [28] The soapboxing is necessary anymore, is it? (Additional note; After a comment below I think I should add that the IP is blocked as of yesterday in case that makes any difference.) Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If it bothers you, add this line to your stylesheet:

body.page-Talk_Dawn_Wells #ipcomment {display: none;}

—Chowbok ☠ 20:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we truly discussing ways to spin this so that we portray Miss Wells as the victim? If we do that you're going to hear me questioning motives again. We DO NOT do that. We present the facts of the case, that's all, and they appear in the article next to the facts of the other things she has done, then the reader reads them all and makes conclusions on their own without our nudging. Okay?

Thanks to Jimbo we now know to refrain from mentioning the marijuana, but as Off2riorob has already pointed out, the reader can click on the link to read more. At that point they will see that word, so obviously our responsibility to refrain from mentioning the marijuana has ended by that time. Therefore, I wouldn't worry about it's mention in the web articles that are outside of Wikipedia (forgive me if I misunderstood you and that was not your concern). As for the article's title that we publish in Wikipedia, I see now we shouldn't mention the marijuana in the "title=" tag as I have accidently done above, we must shorten the title text as Off2riorob has suggested.

Did you guys see the YouTube video that I included as a reference? Watch it. The more I see of Miss Wells, the more I really like her. (Note: she mentions "losing several jobs" in that video; that is what supports our including that same text in our new paragraph.)

Here is the improved text that removes the "prosecutors" sentence discussed above and snips that one article title. What do you think, is it ready for publishing? Thanks again to all of you.

While driving home from her birthday party celebration on October 18th 2008, Wells was observed swerving across the roadway and was subsequently arrested by Idaho police. Wells pleaded guilty to one count of reckless driving and served six months' unsupervised probation. In a statement, Wells admitted swerving only because she was reaching for her car heater controls, and has admitted losing several jobs because of the incident.

—Prhartcom (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't support user Phartcom's offer, what jobs? No, we are presenting the bare story and that is plenty, two citations is also plenty to support the content that we have, there is no need for four citations, my main concern is the addition weight User Phartcom' s offer adds to the article, making this trivial issue overly reported in her life story, in which t is actually a trivial irrelevance. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree. First adding the youtube.com was not discussed plus youtube is usually not acceptable due to copyright concerns. We don't need the Fox dif since the CBS one says what we want it to say. I have to say I go with Off2riorob suggestion above but with removing the fox dif which he agreed was ok to do. That one says what everyone seems to agree to. Prhartcom remember this was just a minor traffic violation. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"what we want it to say" — ORLY? Jack Merridew 07:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, Jimmy's opinion is not law on this; then we have Rob offering to redact the Fox News article title, and Crohnie wanting to collapse the anon's post. I did further looking, and found the vid of Wells on The View. She spoke at length on this, and it mentioned losing the speaking gig with the Girl Scouts in Florida and that the "Idaho Film and Television Institute", where she'd been for the birthday party and is the President of, lost $75,000 in funding for their Spud Festival. And http://www.idahofilminstitute.org/ is now a parked domain, and may well be a dead project. It's not exactly climate change science to see that these might all be due to the media going, as Jimmy said, "bonkers". I didn't advocate saying this absent some sourcing; I said we need to look for them. Jack Merridew 18:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to have a look but I don't think you will find and and as I said, I don't personally think that position would be very relevant here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I, personally, never have much cared what you think. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Almost there

I really thought you people would like the YouTube ref, but apparently it was "not discussed". So how about this then:

While driving home from her birthday party celebration on October 18th 2008, Wells was observed swerving across the roadway and was subsequently arrested by Idaho police. Wells pleaded guilty to one count of reckless driving and served six months' unsupervised probation.In a statement, Wells admitted swerving only because she was reaching for her car heater controls. —Prhartcom (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Prhartcom, I preferred your previous version (minus the dropping of 3 misdemeanours as I mentioned). I think the loss of employment is what makes this more than a trivial event. It would be trivial if it happened to me, but to someone who makes a living out of the goodwill she's built up over time, it has a much greater impact. It relates directly to her notability. But, if this is a version you can live with, I'll go along with it, so that we can get something on the page. @Crohnie - I don't see a problem with You Tube as a copyright violation. Almost all of the sources we cite are copyrighted material. It's only when You Tube is used as an external link without any real purpose, that it becomes a copyright issue. It doesn't matter if it wasn't discussed, because we can discuss it. Rossrs (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is an issue with any use of Youtube, even for a reference. We cannot link to any Youtube video unless is it verifiably posted by the copyright holder. Yworo (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

....because You Tube doesn't own the copyright. Yes, that makes sense. Thanks. Rossrs (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see now that does make sense. And I agree about the notability of the lost jobs. I did locate another reference, if we can agree to use it. Wells was to speak at a West Palm Beach event for the Girl Scouts of America, but that speaking engagemement was cancelled and it was reported locally there. But we may not be able to agree to add a third reference to this new paragraph. Let's let this sink in for at least a day to give everyone a chance to look at it. Here is the proposed new text. Should we use this or the previous one above? Thanks everyone.

While driving home from her birthday party celebration on October 18th 2008, Wells was observed swerving across the roadway and was subsequently arrested by Idaho police. Wells pleaded guilty to one count of reckless driving and served six months' unsupervised probation.In a statement, Wells admitted swerving only because she was reaching for her car heater controls, but lost a speaking engagement because of the incident.

—Prhartcom (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to doubt Dawn Wells' word that she lost other jobs too, but if that is really the issue, then it can be written that she said she did. Anyone would be upset when arrested and unfairly charged, but Dawn Wells is a celebrity. The tabloids are what hurt the most. Dawn Wells doesn't complain about having to pay her lawyer, a fine, or giving up her personal time to explain false stories. She lost jobs, not just one speaking engagement. I can’t believe that you aren’t including her comments on how the tabloids blew a minor thing into a crazy story. Something should be said about the tabloid feeding frenzy that hurt her emotionally and financially. How can you not include that this traffic stop was blown all out of proportion?75.4.200.146 (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You meant "October 18th 2007".75.4.200.146 (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to the IP address above for catching the error in the date; good call. I'll acknowledge the other comments after they get a username and lend a hand.

Dear editors, tomorrow I will add the paragraph as it stands immediately above. Thanks to everyone! —Prhartcom (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I saw where you were given a "shining star." I have disagreement with that. Are you telling me that I have to get a username, and then lend a hand again, i.e., after already catching that typo? For that I will receive an acknowledgement from the likes of you? Let me back up for a second. You are NOT a shining star. You, sir, are brilliant. You are a hard charging editor with opinions, but one open to compromise. There should be more editors like you. It's a deal.75.4.200.146 (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(I replied at their talk page. —Prhartcom (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC))

I made some comments about this on Crohnie's talk, and she suggested they should be here, so here are copies:

I've made the observation that all this press coverage has resulted in a) Dawn Wells losing work, b) the demise of http://www.idahofilminstitute.org/ (you understand that what's at that site now is not what was there? the domain has been 'parked' and is now a traffic-directing thing run by others.), c) the SpudFest her institute ran was discontinued in 2008. That car was a "company car", the Institute's, or possibly one Teton Toyota just loaned them. The students have said "Bye Bye". Jack Merridew 16:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too focused on this issue, but I've seen sources commenting on this; I've just not bothered saving the links or posting them. She pled guilty to the minor traffic vio, but that's not all this was; it was damaging to her. It cost her reputation points, and killed her institute and festival. In short, the media fucked her over, contrasting the image of her and pot with 'good girl' Mary Ann. It was also damaging to Idaho's economy; the State government was offering rebates to film and tv productions that came to Idaho to shoot stuff; they want some of the big production budgets spent in their state. The institute was about building-up a skilled local workforce, which would be employed by production units (and probably about collecting tuition fees). It is not possible to cover any of this damage without mentioning the weed. The vids show students of the institute doing some rap stuff and thanking the supporters of the foundation. They certainly look like stereotypical pot heads ;) She's said it was a company car, that others had been driving it earlier that day, that someone came forward and said 'my stuff'. There's nothing wrong with covering all of this if sources can be found and it's done in a neutral and respectful manner. The boredom rays must be pretty intense in Driggs, Idaho, now that the whole institute and SpudFest have been blown away. Jack Merridew 19:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This traffic stop had major impact on her because of the media circus. Her Institute and Festival were wiped out, she lost work, and her state, Idaho, potentially lost millions in influx to the local economy. Jack Merridew 01:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See: http://web.archive.org/web/20080425055605/http://www.idahofilminstitute.org/ Apr 25, 2008

They never came back. Jack Merridew 01:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See: http://web.archive.org/web/20051120065135/http://idahofilminstitute.org/ Nov 20, 2005

Idaho Film & Television Institute

A vision of education, technical training and economic development in Southeastern Idaho.

What happens to A Dream Deferred?

Jack Merridew 01:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC on driving incident

Should the section about the Reckless driving incident be included in this biography of Dawn Wells? Isaidnoway (talk) 09:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(Note on background: has been extensively discussed above, in the archives, and at WP:BLPN [29], [30], [31], [32], the section was removed in March 2018 and then re-added in November 2020. I removed the section and was then reverted. RfC started for a formal consensus)

Survey

• No - it's WP:UNDUE for a BLP. A traffic citation is not notable, a significant life event, or relevant to understanding the subject of the article. TMZ is a poor source for a WP:BLP, and quotes attributed to her in that section are unsourced. And the mention of the Bob Denver incident should be removed too per WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Yes - This is much more notable than all the puffery in this article. TMZ is a reliable source, and we can source the quotes. I agree that the Bob Denver thing should be removed, however.—Chowbok ☠ 19:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• No. The level of WP:UNDUE is almost comical. The personal life section has two short sentences about a former marriage, one sentence about financial troubles, and then two full paragraphs about being fined and put on a short probationary period for reckless driving. This information does appear in other articles, but always because there is some additional claim to notability. The Jacqueline Mars article covers reckless driving as the incident led to a death, Howard Rollins reckless driving is covered due to multiple instances, jail time, and him losing an acting role over it, Jake Lloyd's reckless driving is covered as it involves driving without a licence and resisting arrest, and forms part of a larger narrative around a Schizophrenia diagnosis. Here, there's nothing. Awoma (talk) 12:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• No - agree with others that this section is WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia does not need to record every minutiae associated with a biographical figure.—Myasuda (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• No - Also concurring with other, this seems to fall pretty squarely under WP:UNDUE, maybe if the article had more content and this was a sentence or two in paragraphs it would be fine, but it's definitely given undue weight. --Goldman60 Talk 00:57, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• No - As presented definitely undue. Worth at most 2 sentences and as done with paragraph simply overdone. As it ended up only being a traffic incident versus a criminal conviction it does not belong.SailedtheSeas (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

Looking through the archives and multiple times this topic has been brought up, it seems clear to me that there has long been a wide consensus that this section should not be included. However, it persists, in part due to the lack of any proper RfC. Hopefully whatever the outcome of this RfC can be accepted as final, and this dead horse can be left alone! Awoma (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Health issues

Am curious as to why no mention of her health issues.

Nor of the $197,000 raised through GoFundMe to also help pay medical bills.

Or am I missing something? 2600:8800:785:9400:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I just tried to add the link to the "Help Dawn Wells" GoFundMe page (which is "no longer accepting donations.") But when I "saved" the change, I was told that the gofundme.com domain is on the Wikipedia blacklist. I wonder why the blanket ban, even for closed efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almadenmike (talk • contribs) 23:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You make an interesting point Almadenmike. I found a citation that includes information about the money raised two years ago for her health issues. I don't believe that we need a link to gofundme for a valid citation. Here is the citation: https://www.ksl.com/article/50075526/gilligans-island-star-dawn-wells-dies-covid-19-cited Jurisdicta (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Birth date

In this interview with KTLA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQM2OQydsbo she is said to turn 82. Since it was more than a year ago she couldn't possibly have been born in 1938 and been 82 at the time of her death. Either she was 81 when that interview was made or she was born in 1937 and was actually 83 at the time of her death. Which is correct? DrKilleMoff (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Potential WP:OWN violation

Just a heads up to all, please note that User:Aloha27 is potentially violating WP:OWN on this article. RegardsIceFrappe (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Says the editor who has refused to take advice to take his/her edits here for discussion after being advised to do so.   Aloha27  talk  13:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Says the editor who made FOUR reverts within 22 minutes in blatant violation of 3RR to enforce your preferred version. I love your hypocrisy. Wikipedia is not a battleground. I highly suggest you re-read 3RR, 5 pillars, and WP:OWN. In any case, you will be sanctioned shortly for 3RR violation. IceFrappe (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You reintroduced content in which content was deemed to be WP:UNDUE in a previous discussion. You were advised to bring your concerns to this talk page at that time to reach consensus on the matter. You chose not to. Good day to you.   Aloha27  talk  13:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not "reintroduce" anything. In any case, WP:UNDUE is about brevity/length. No one is advocating using half the article to describe Wells' arrest in minor details. However, citing WP:UNDUE is not a "get out of jail free card" that justifies the censorship and suppression of any and all mention of Wells' arrest from reputable sources. Nor is it an excuse to remove mention of her dementia diagnosis last June. Again, read WP:OWN. Make no mistake, you will be appropriately sanctioned for your tendentious editing. Regards IceFrappe (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

For those curious as to just what the other editor is referring, please see: here Regards,   Aloha27  talk  17:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)