Talk:Uma Thurman

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Former featured articleUma Thurman is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 20, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
May 17, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 29, 2020.
Current status: Former featured article

/archive 1

Recent cuts

{SNUGGUMS and Tenebrae, Hillbillyholiday removed some content that should likely be kept. Willing to help? We will see how this goes, given the contested proposal at WP:ANI.

  • With this edit, Hillbillyholiday stated, "poor sources, too much irrelevant information." But as we can see, a solid source was included. The
    WP:Reliable source
    . And from what I know, when a subject has children, we note that they have children. We usually do not mention the names, but we do mention the fact the subject has children, and especially when the children are the result of a married couple.
  • With this edit, Hillbillyholiday stated, "poorly sourced and probably not worth mentioning." But as we can see, the first source is The Daily Telegraph, which is a WP:Reliable source. The Daily Mail removal was justified. Another source is the New York Daily News. Editors have different opinions on this source (the New York Daily News); so it's sometimes best to use a better source in its place. I will note that although the New York Daily News is published in tabloid (newspaper format), it is not a tabloid. Tabloid format is not the same thing as tabloid journalism. The content in question is about a stalker that Thurman dealt with. Worth mentioning?
  • With this edit, Hillbillyholiday stated, "oh for fuck's fucking sake...." He removed information about a custody battle. It was sourced to poor sources -- the Daily Mail and
    talk) 23:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Daily Mail and Perez Hilton most certainly shouldn't be used as citations. Custody battles are fine to include as long as they are credibly referenced. New York Daily News is probably a case-by-case basis. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah,
talk) 00:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Definitely include, and children's names are fine to mention as long as they're properly sourced and the parents haven't tried to conceal identities. Not sure what to say about stalking. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Snuggums except for mentioning the children's names, but that may just be my own personal dislike. The SF Chronicle definitely qualifies as a RS, however, as does the Telegraph. (By putting my AGF tendencies in high gear, I guess I can assume that the questioning of those sources' reliability arose from ignorance, in which case it shouldn't happen again.) The NY Daily News is a mixed bag. I agree with most of what Flyer22 Reborn said about it, but I'd suggest that it can be decidedly tabloidy at times (probably because it's competing head-to-head with the way tabloidy NY Post). Last I checked, the Daily News doesn't make up stuff out of whole cloth, but for potentially controversial sourcing about celebrities I'd prefer another source if one is available. RivertorchFIREWATER 04:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From looking at the edits, I don't think that content should be in the article. For the first example, the only content I could consider keeping is that she had two children from that first marriage. That she was pregnant was the reason she got married sounds like celebrity gossip. From the second example we've got
scandal mongering. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Yep. Kyohyi has it right. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that she has children with the man in question should absolutely be kept. We don't remove the fact that a subject has children. And if she states that she got married because she was pregnant, that is not simply celebrity gossip; it is her explaining why she got married, which is relevant. Regarding what SNUGGUMS stated about mentioning the names, see
talk) 15:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
And going back to the stalker matter, apparently a conviction was secured; so it seems that WP:BLPCRIME does not apply in this case.
talk) 15:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Concur with
Flyer22 Reborn
: If a conviction has been obtained it is absolutely pertinent. And children's names are allowed if public-figure parents or their representatives have released them to the media. There was an entire RfC in 2015 that confirmed this. Finally, if something non-libelous is properly cited to reliable sources, then it's not a BLP issue and the loophole does not apply.
And
WP:CIVIL is one of them.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Added the following with cites including a
WP:TONE
. Pertinent, court-documented and completely RS citing. There is no BLP issue anywhere in the following:

Thurman was stalked by Jack Jordan, a man with a history of mental illness,[1] from about 2004 to 2011.[2] He was arrested in October 2007, and the following May was convicted in Manhattan of one count of stalking and one count of second-degree aggravated harassment.[3][4] Sentenced to three years probation, he was arrested again in 2010 near Washington, D.C., on charges of violating a restraining order by attempting to contact Thurman.[1] He pleaded guilty in November 2011 after spending 11 months in jail in lieu of $500,000 bail, and was released with time served.[5][6]

  1. ^ a b Black, Caroline (December 1, 2010). "Uma Thurman Stalker Jack Jordan Arrested for Second Time After Contacting Her New York Office". CBS News. Retrieved August 28, 2017.
  2. ISBN 978-1618933539
    .
  3. ^ "Uma Thurman 'stalker' tells of his affection". telegraph.com. May 3, 2008. Retrieved April 29, 2017.
  4. ^ Segal, David (May 7, 2008). "Uma Thurman's Fixated Fan Found Guilty of Stalking". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 28, 2017.
  5. ^ Yaniv, Oren (November 22, 2011). "Uma Thurman's stalker is now a free man". New York Daily News. Retrieved April 29, 2017.
  6. ^ Serpe, Gina (Dec 17, 2010). "What Smoking Gun? Uma Thurman Stalker Pleads Guilty, Finally Freed". E! News. Retrieved August 25, 2017. Updated November 23, 2011.
It's still a BLP issue, this guy is
not a public figure so we need to be cautious about what information we include about him. Even if he's convicted, the crime itself is only marginally notable because it happened to a celebrity. So we're including some damning information about a non-notable person, in a barely notable event. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes and no. Or, rather, no and yes. If I were writing or rewriting the article, I'd omit his name because I tend to come down on the side of privacy for non-public figures, especially ill or otherwise vulnerable ones, and I don't believe that providing his name enhances our readers' understanding of the topic (which should be our primary objective in editing this article). However, that is my own editorial discretion, and reasonable people may disagree. I do not believe that including the name creates a BLP violation. RivertorchFIREWATER 18:23, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point of correction: By any legal and journalistic standard in the U.S., where this occurred, he is indeed a public figure. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tenebrae: That's a clarification, not a correction. I'm well aware it can be argued that anyone who has been named in articles published by mainstream publications is a public figure. (I've dealt with that firsthand, both as writer of the first stories to name the arrested parties in pending criminal cases and as an editor having to make the call in parallel situations.) I'm also well aware that this is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of news stories, and our standards are not necessarily the same. For the purposes of our articles, the definition of "public figure" is whatever community consensus decides it is. So let me clarify, in turn. My preference is to err on the side of privacy, if possible, when writing about people who did not seek to become public figures but whose notoriety results from factors beyond their control, such as illness or happenstance. (It's not always possible, of course, and we shouldn't ever sweat it for naming a name that has already been widely disseminated in reliable sources. That's why I said there was no BLP violation.) Your preference may be different, and that's fine, but I also said that "I don't believe that providing his name enhances our readers' understanding of the topic (which should be our primary objective in editing this article)". For me, and I hope for most of us, that's a good measure to use when deciding whether to name a name. Will readers better understand Thurman's history of being stalked by our telling them her stalker's name? I'd say not. We don't indiscriminately add every kernel of known information to an article just because we can. It has nothing to do with WP:BLP and everything to do with judgment—a distinction that is too often lost around here. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rivertorch: I think we're actually in agreement on essentials — and may I say I am overjoyed to meet a fellow professional with an informed opinion, as opposed to laypeople working on personal beliefs and "gut instincts." The whole point I'm making is that this isn't any clear BLP violation since a) he is a public figure (one definition, from M-W's law dictionary: "an individual or entity that has acquired fame or notoriety or has participated in a particular public controversy") and b) as you know, the ultimate defense against libel is truth, so Wikipedia is not at any risk whatsoever of publishing anything libelous in the paragraph I inserted. This comes down to a matter of editors' opinions as to whether the name is useful, and that's fine. But that's completely different from any notion that the paragraph is any BLP violation.
As to whether the name belongs, we can certainly agree to disagree. I don't think withholding historical basics such as names and dates is good for an encyclopedia; vagueness is the enemy of accuracy and context. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this re-addition by Tenebrae and this removal by Kyohyi, perhaps that is including a little too much stalker material, but I'm thinking that the stalker aspect should be mentioned given what this source I noted above states; it was an important case for Thurman and he was convicted. I don't see the need to mention his name.
talk) 18:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
So, except for maybe including his name and stating that he had "a history of mental illness," I think that Tenebrae's additions was fine. And in defense of including the name, the aforementioned source I included notes, "The trial attracted widespread attention because Ms. Thurman testified, along with her mother, Birgitte, a former Ford model known to friends as Nena, her father, Robert, a professor of Indo-Tibetan studies at Columbia University, and her brother, Dechen." So this a well-known case, just like the
talk) 18:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I think a pointed difference between Taylor Swift, and this case, is that the criminal for Swift had a certain level of notoriety as a radio show personality. This guy doesn't have anything. (or rather nothing is presented, I don't follow celebrities so I could be wrong) The less public the personality the greater responsibility we have to their privacy, even if they are criminals. I'm not opposed to some information on the stalking case, but we should limit it to the subject of the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a journalist and author for nearly 40 years and someone who has written my share of biographical articles in newspapers and magazines, I am genuinely flabbergasted at how any responsible encyclopedia writer/researcher could not include the high-profile stalking of a subject, whether it be a celebrity or simply a public figure like a politician or a major CEO.
Killing of Cecil the Lion? We're not "protecting" anyone by such whitewashing — and, as well, we have a higher duty to aggregate pertinent, public, historical information. No serious biographer would ever ignore the perils Thurman experienced in this regard, and the course she took to resolve it. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
We're not a newspaper, we're an encyclopedia. And if you bring up Cecil the lion, I'm was against naming the dentist there as well. We have a duty for privacy for all living people. The details of the stalker aren't pertinent to Uma Thurman, the person's non-notable, and likely to stay non-notable, BLP doesn't recognize involuntary public figures. You can add information about the case without going into the details of the criminal, and I've said as much above. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, I re-included material about Thurman having children with Hawke and her custody battle with Busson. When it comes to Thurman winning the custody battle, reliable sources are repeating the

talk) 21:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

talk) 18:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I have no personal opinion on the matter as long as any inclusions have legitimate references. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should focus on it from a more Uma Thurman perspective. Like "Uma Thurman was the victim of stalking from period x to y, the perpetrator was convicted for period z, and was re-arrested/convicted again at time R." (details filled in with reliable sourced content). --Kyohyi (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"history of mental illness" both provides context in general and also shows that the stalker is not an inherently evil person but a victim himself. It's of benefit to the man to show him more fully and not as a cartoon. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 02:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Is an RfC really necessary? While I'd prefer not to include the name, I don't object vehemently. And yes, his history of mental illness should be mentioned regardless of whether we mention the name. I'd actually prefer that we name the illness(es), if there's a reliable source; "mental illness" is rather vague. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:36, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not have an RfC, but if Kyohyi or someone else can't agree to Tenebrae's proposed content, minus mentioning the name, we might need to. Stating "majority rules" on the talk page without an RfC does not always work.
talk) 05:48, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not particularly inclined to share personal details, but as someone who has suffered from mental illness I don't think we're doing them any favors by telling the world about it. If they want to talk about their mental illness it's another story, but it shouldn't be us as a third party spreading it to the world. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I totally see where you're coming from. I think there's a flip side, though, and that is that keeping hush-hush about mental illnesses may help perpetuate the stigma associated with them. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More power to them iff (that's intentional, not a spelling mistake) they are the ones who bring it to light. But it is not for third parties to decide that. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is, if it's part of the public record and it's pertinent to an encyclopedic understanding of the situation. I take medication for clinical depression, a mental illness, as do many people I know in the arts and media community, so, no, I do not see a stigma in it any more than I would if I had to take cholesterol medication. It is a judgment-neutral health issue, and stigmatizing it is just plain wrong. In this particular case, it contextualizes the stalking and makes clear that he's not some terrible criminal, which is certainly the implication without mentioning it.
And once someone has made headlines in publications like the Daily News, websites like that of CBS News, and a Time Life book that altogether reach millions of people, in addition to the documented public records, we're shutting the barn door after the horse has been let out, as the saying goes. We're not "protecting" anyone since this is all very public, and we'd simply be whitewashing the encyclopedia, which is supposed to present neutral, pertinent facts.
Maybe we do need an RfC, since while I'm all for removing things cited to the Daily Mail and other tabloids — I even agree with the problematic Hillbillyholiday on that — I can see that we're bending too far the other way when we're censoring pertinent public facts cited to impeccable journalistic sources and presented in a neutral way.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it's even remotely pertinent to an encyclopedic understanding of the situation. The US has laws like HIPPA for a reason, wider society disagrees with third parties discussing and sharing people's medical information. Just because the media chose to release certain information doesn't mean we have to, we're not their parrot. And it's not whitewashing to respect the privacy of a non-notable person, we can present the situation without getting into their personal details. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
HIPAA has nothing to do with this whatsoever. The information is it's part of a widely disseminated public record about a public figure. I've explained how and why it's pertinent, whereas your argument is simply
WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. But your personal feeling is at odds with journalistic and legal ethics. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with documenting part of a widely disseminated public record about a public figure, whereas whitewashing is antithetical to an encyclopedia's mission. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Go read
WP: LPI) This isn't my personal feeling, it is our duty to limit the information in our articles based on how they are relevant to the subject. This person is only relevant to Uma Thurman because of their stalking conviction. Not due to their health condition. I brought up HIPAA, to show the seriousness of revealing people's medical histories, and to demonstrate that there is a clear harm in doing so. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
You please read
WP: LPI
more closely. It says itself, "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has no more status than an essay." Anyone can write one of those. I could write an essay talking about public figures.
As this discussion has demonstrated, including with a legal dictionary, the stalker is a public figure. You can believe anything you want as a layman, but just like Trump supporters not believing in science, science doesn't care.
Your entire argument is
Killing of Cecil the Lion, which is absolutely unreasonable and un-encyclopedic. It's time for an RfC. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Tenebrae, let's imagine you had a biography here. Now how would you feel about your dating history, every dealing with the courts, and all your mental health issues being laid out for all to see as the top google reault? --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hillbillyholiday: Couple things: First, by personalizing it you're making an emotion-oriented argument that has no place in neutral intellectual discourse. Second, you're presenting a false dichotomy: Neutral presentation of pertinent, court-documented criminal activity that significantly affected a subject is not "your dating history." I have never advocated for "dating history", and you and I and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz are actually in agreement that in terms of unmarried couples, only longterm committed relationships, confirmed by the subjects or their representatives and cited to RS publications, should be included.
Third, I'm a public figure — not a celebrity by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever, but still a public figure, which is one reason for not using my real name — and I have no feelings one way or the other about anything that is accurate, pertinent and neutral on the Wikipedia article about me — or indeed any published article about me. If I were convicted of a crime, damn straight I would expect it to be in my Wikipedia article — presented simply and neutrally. Otherwise I would be the most self-centered, unprofessional journalist imaginable. I have a journalist-author friend who is a higher-profile public figure and who was hit with child pornography charges; he's pleaded not guilty and he isn't even advocating to have the arrest removed from his Wikipedia article. So to answer your question: That is how I would feel.
I've given a lot more personal information in this discussion than I think I ever have on Wikipedia. I'm hoping it provides some context for laypeople who aren't professional editors / researchers / writers and are approaching these issues emotionally.
And before anyone asks: I volunteer on Wikipedia both out of a sense of duty, given my skill set, and, when between deadlines, for relaxation ... which should tell you how committed I am to accuracy, good writing and context. We're on the same side there. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebrae, regarding this, yeah, but it's not consistent. Notice that I mentioned above that I excluded the children's names? If we are going to include "Luna," which is a nickname and not the child's legal name, the other children's names should be included as well.
talk) 03:04, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for discussing. Luna is the common name, so my thinking was to go with that in prose and the full name in the footnoted quote from the parents' representative. But if consensus is to include the full name in prose, while it's not my preference, for the reason I've given, I'll certainly go along with it.
If the parents or their reps released the other children's names to the media, then yes, I believe you're right, we should include them — just as we include Blue Ivy in the
Beyonce article and North in the Kim Kardashian article. I'll go take a look at the cites; was busy fixing cite formatting just now. I mean ... last name first in standard footnoting, right? Magazine and newspaper names are italicized! Oy!   :)   --Tenebrae (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Saw the cite for the first two kids. That's a tough one: CBS News is highly reliable and respectable, and does name the first two children. In any normal biographical reference or any other encyclopedia, there wouldn't be any question but that we'd include the names — children's names are a basic part of any subject's biography. But things aren't always done normally or up to outside encyclopedias' standards here sometimes, so I would say let's look for sources where the parents or the reps name the first two kids, or something equally impeccable, and try that first. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tenebrae, I'm not stating that we should include the full name; I was just pointing it out. And as for retaining "Luna" and not including the other children's names, I just don't see the point. It can leave readers wondering why one child's name is mentioned, but not the first two children's names. And I'm not keen on inconsistency.
talk) 17:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I would say that since CBS News, a highly responsible organization, named the first two children, who are probably preteens by this point, that the parents have no strong objections. It's not like a tabloid claiming a baby's name based on anonymous "sources." What do other editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

(
talk) 17:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

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.

Should this four-sentence passage, or a version of it, or none of it be included in the article?

Thurman was stalked by Jack Jordan, a man with a history of mental illness,[1] from about 2004 to 2011.[2] He was arrested in October 2007, and the following May was convicted in Manhattan of one count of stalking and one count of second-degree aggravated harassment.[3][4] Sentenced to three years probation, he was arrested again in 2010 near Washington, D.C., on charges of violating a restraining order by attempting to contact Thurman.[1] He pleaded guilty in November 2011 after spending 11 months in jail in lieu of $500,000 bail, and was released with time served.[5][6]

--20:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenebrae (talk • contribs)
  1. ^ a b Black, Caroline (December 1, 2010). "Uma Thurman Stalker Jack Jordan Arrested for Second Time After Contacting Her New York Office". CBS News. Retrieved August 28, 2017.
  2. ISBN 978-1618933539
    .
  3. ^ "Uma Thurman 'stalker' tells of his affection". The Telegraph. UK. May 3, 2008. Retrieved April 29, 2017.
  4. ^ Segal, David (May 7, 2008). "Uma Thurman's Fixated Fan Found Guilty of Stalking". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 28, 2017.
  5. ^ "Uma Thurman's stalker is now a free man". New York Daily News. November 22, 2011. Retrieved April 29, 2017.
  6. ^ Serpe, Gina (Dec 17, 2010). "What Smoking Gun? Uma Thurman Stalker Pleads Guilty, Finally Freed". E! News. Retrieved August 25, 2017. Updated November 23, 2011.
To say it had "nothing to do with Thurman" is, first, untrue, as she took the extraordinary step of taking the stand in the trial, and b) to say that a man stalking a woman is an issue all about the man and has nothing to do with the woman strikes as remarkably sexist and a denial of the trauma the article subject experienced. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that "nothing" was an over-reach. However, I do not appreciate being accused of sexism. My point was this: The proposed passage above is all about Jordan, his actions, and his consequences. It says nothing about Thurman's reactions, and I don't think it should. (Would we really be so callous to include a sentence about the trauma it caused her or her awful experience on the stand?) It is my personal opinion that the proposed passage, and others like it, only empowers and emboldens criminals like Jordan. Therefore, I think it is entirely unnecessary and inappropriate, and I voted accordingly. Kerdooskis (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude I tend to agree with Kerdooskis and am not sure why anyone would see that as sexist (I would think it was the opposite). This is an article about Thurman and her life. The quoted passage is all about Jordon:
He was arrested...
He was arrested again...
He pleaded guilty...
Only the first short sentence mentions Thurman and it gives no indication of any lasting relevance. It screams of tabloid gossip.
I had to search through the history to find it and discovered this paragraph was in the relationships section.[1] How anyone could think stalking is a relationship is worrying and just makes me more certain that this passage does not belong in the article. AIRcorn (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 17:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I rarely have anything to do with these articles, I am only responding because a RFC was called. Therefore I don't know or follow what other celebrity articles say about similar issues and if there was an RFC on the Tawlor Swift paragraph I might very well !vote to exclude it as well. I am sure you are familiar with the other stuff exists arguments. This is not really about her because she is the victim here. The incident was out of her control and she was in no way active in it happening. Not to mention that the entire passage is about him. Also an RFC was called asking if that particular paragraph should be included, so I judged it on the merits of that paragraph. That someone could write an improved version of it or put it in a better spot is great, but I am not going to give my implicit support to something that seems clearly undue and off topic in its current form, without any idea on what its final form will take. AIRcorn (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 18:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
About the Taylor Swift material, I remember seeing (in the New York Times, for example) secondary source commentary about how Swift's composure while testifying was an important step forward in the trial process in such legal cases (how, for example, she put the harasser's attorney on the defensive during cross examination). That makes the information more about Swift herself, and more in the realm of something that attracted secondary source attention that went beyond the harassment itself into societal impact. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, I don't think anyone sees this stalking case as super notable. It's not like John Hinckley's stalking of Jodie Foster. Most of us are simply arguing that it's relevant enough to include in Thurman's Wikipedia article.
talk) 00:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
With all due respect, I think The New York Times, a respected and objective source as opposed to your or mine or anyone else's POV, is saying otherwise. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include but shorten. The article should say that she was stalked and describe during what periods, and mention that the stalker was convicted twice. The other details aren't about Thurman and don't belong in her biography. Perhaps if there are other details about Thurman's involvement then those might be included. For example maybe she testified or said something particularly noteworthy to the media. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim it. Doesn't need to focus so much on the perpetrator. The first sentence is all that's absolutely required. Beyond that, it becomes increasingly undue with every sentence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think just saying she was stalked, without trial and conviction information, makes it seem less than notable. As with anything, context is important.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 22:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I personally would not have included the stalker's name or emotional state, but I tend to take a more minimalist view than most editors, especially when it comes to BLP. I think the convictions could be argued either way, but dwelling on them to such an extent doesn't seem like a good idea. I think we should be focusing on Thurman, not the man who stalked her. I'm a little surprised, but we don't seem to have an article about celebrity stalking. Maybe that would be the best place to discuss notable cases. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include in full. Arrested, sentenced, arrested again. Persistent, notable incidents of stalking over a decade is a notable event in Thurman's life, yes. TheValeyard (talk) 23:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly cut This is an article about Thurman, not stalkers. Any significance for Thurman is the fact that she was stalked, not all the judiciary comings and goings and bail expenses and so forth. I say cut it to the bone, and mention only that she was stalked and that he was convicted, perhaps with the date. I would also support the omission of the stalker's name, on grounds of unwarranted fame/notoriety. Cpaaoi (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One could make the same argument to leave out John Hinkley Jr.'s name from the Ronald Reagan article, to use just one of numerous examples. These are public figures who went through court completed court proceedings, in this case with a guilty verdict. I believe whitewashing of highly public history goes against our primary duty.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John Hinkley Jr is
WP:OSE. I am aware that this person underwent court proceedings and was found guilty; that is what the RfC is about. And I still don't believe the specific identity of the man is of much interest, nor all the Perry Mason judicial detail. Because this is an article about Uma Thurman, and while it is notable that she was stalked, the stalker and his sorry tale are not notable. Cpaaoi (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
In response to the above,
WP:BLP1E
is irrelevant since it concerns solely the creation of articles: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met [...]". It has nothing to do with notability of people mentioned in articles.
RE:
WP:BLPNAME. This also does not apply since the policy states it is often preferable to omit a name that "has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations" [as in undercover cop]. The stalker has not only been named by news organizations with millions of viewers/readers, but is both named, with a photograph in the Time Life
book footnoted above on this page. Millions of viewers/readers and a book by one of the world's biggest and most renowned publishers factually does not equal "not widely disseminated".
WP:TMI
brings up points for consideration; it does not forbid naming a public figure who had significant impact in a subject's life.
As for mentioning the mental illness, I can certainly go along with those wanting to leave it out. The only reason I suggested including it was to indicate that the stalker wasn't an evil person, simply someone suffering a disease. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2017 (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.

Apropos of the close:

Thurman was the target of a stalker from about 2004 to 2011.[1] He was arrested in October 2007 and, following a trial in which Thurman herself took the stand, was convicted of stalking and harassment charges the following May.[2][3] Sentenced to three years probation, he was arrested again in 2010 on charges of violating a restraining order by attempting to contact her.[4] He pleaded guilty in November 2011 after spending 11 months in jail in lieu of bail, and was released with time served.[5][6]

  • Name of stalker and mention of mental illness removed.
  • Thurman taking the stand is included.
  • Specific charges changed to "stalking and harassment" and specific amount of bail deleted.
  • Locale of second arrest deleted.
  • Thurman already was the grammatical subject of the sentence.

This addresses each point of the close. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 11 days without comment, let alone objection, so since it matches all the points of the RfC close, I will add it to the article now. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ISBN 978-1618933539
    .
  2. ^ "Uma Thurman 'stalker' tells of his affection". The Telegraph. UK. May 3, 2008. Retrieved April 29, 2017.
  3. ^ Segal, David (May 7, 2008). "Uma Thurman's Fixated Fan Found Guilty of Stalking". The Washington Post. Retrieved August 28, 2017.
  4. ^ Black, Caroline (December 1, 2010). "Uma Thurman Stalker Jack Jordan Arrested for Second Time After Contacting Her New York Office". CBS News. Retrieved August 28, 2017.
  5. ^ "Uma Thurman's stalker is now a free man". New York Daily News. November 22, 2011. Retrieved April 29, 2017.
  6. ^ Serpe, Gina (Dec 17, 2010). "What Smoking Gun? Uma Thurman Stalker Pleads Guilty, Finally Freed". E! News. Retrieved August 25, 2017. Updated November 23, 2011.

Maya Thurman-Hawke

redirects here, but this page contains no information about her, not even her name. That should only be the case if "Maya Thurman Hawke" is a pseudonym for Uma Thurman. Since she's starring in a major BBC miniseries, shouldn't she have her own page by now anyway? Serendipodous 08:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did it myself. Serendipodous 18:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
talk) 22:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Well, I created her article. So now if she's not notable it will have to go through AfD. Serendipodous 00:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox model ?

Template:Infobox model ? 64.175.40.194 (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uma not Hindu name

I thought I wouldn't modify without discussion.

Although it is right to say that Uma is a Hindu name and an aspect of Parvati, her dad (who I met at a retreat in India) is Tibetan Buddhist, not Hindu.

I would expect that Uma is named after the Tibetan Wealth deity Uma Devi. Uma Devi is an import originally from Hinduism,but she is a Tibetan Buddhist deity with forms and attributes of Tibetan Buddhism. She's a fairly obscure deity but she is included in some Nyingmapa health practices and maybe in other schools too.

I should point out also that Hinduism imported plenty of stuff from Buddhism. So it's not clear what the origin of the name is, but in this context, it is Tibetan Buddhist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigocat (talk • contribs) 19:28, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Wikipedia should not imply that Uma Thurman or her parents adhere to Hinduism. It should not imply that her parents intended her name to be of Sanskrit origin or to have any connection whatsoever to any Hindu deity. If the etymology is to be included, it should be sourced to a publication that discusses it in the context of Uma Thurman. The two citations provided in the article make no reference to Uma Thurman, so they are utterly unacceptable. See
WP:BLP for an explanation as to why Wikipedia should carefully treat sensitive claims such as those about religious views or name choices. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The paragraph describes the origin of the name – nowhere does it claim that Uma's parents are Hindus, not does it mention anything about religious views. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it implies it. That much is obvious to at least two people. If an adherence to Hinduism is not to be implied, why mention her name being shared by a Hindu deity? Who made this connection anyway? A Wikipedia user? Surtsicna (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I now see that the article used to say that her name had Buddhist connections, but the source cited there is no longer accessible. This was replaced with a reference to Hinduism; the reference is accessible and says that Thurman was "named after the Hindu goddess of beauty". So which is it, Hindu or Buddhist? Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

She stars as the President of the United States in the romantic comedy Prime Series ‘Red White and Royal Blue’. 211.30.39.85 (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it says, twice. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uma_Thurman&oldid=1218263186"