Talk:Paul Atherton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Paul Atherton Heathrow Homeless

More information Extended content ...
Close

Paul Atherton - More recent press coverage - May 2020

Paul Atherton – Resonance FM – 30 Minute programme – Interviewed by the Southwark Group of Tenancy Organisations - 8th May 2020 – On Mixcloud https://www.mixcloud.com/Resonance/southwark-covid-a-housing-response-8-may-2020/

Paul Atherton – My World, now yours – Letters from Lockdown Series – Tortoise Media - Slow Journalism by Award Winning Journalists – Wedensday 13th May 2020. https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2020/05/13/members-letters-from-lockdown-paul-atherton-audio/content.html?sig=8pWLDm9yVCe36s4iUHsNZSl8JtUOGRt8YNvisxwD7I0

Paul Atherton - The other epidemic: how coronavirus triggered a surge in mental illness – New Statesman – by Emily Bootle - Wednesday 19th May 2020. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/health/2020/05/other-epidemic-how-coronavirus-triggered-surge-mental-illness Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

@Itsallnewtome: The talk page discusses ways to improve the article. It is not a repository for material that does not qualify for inclusion in the article.
Not one of these three latest items is useful here. The first two provide no RS information. The New Statesman article is not ABOUT Atherton--it is about the interaction of COVID with mental illness. Atherton (who is Black in articles about race, adopted in articles about adoption, disabled in articles about disability, homeless in articles about homelessness) turns up briefly (starting in the 6th paragraph) of a New Statesmen article about mental illness based on a self-descrbed history of panic attacks and depression. None of this evanescent coverage over the years has established GNG notability as a representative of one of his multiple characteristics. And none of the interviews a few weeks ago (for articles about homelessness and COVID) resulted in wider or deeper interest in Atherton as a homeless advocate. And none of it relates to his notability -- as a filmmaker.
If you have material related to Atherton that can be used to improve the article, please bring it to the talk page. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
More information Extended content ...
Close
As I've stated ad nauseum @HouseOfChange:, by Wikipedia standards, coverage inside the article doesn't need to meet the level of General Notability WP:GNG but applies WP:NNC "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it..The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles."
The definition of Notability for people WP:BIO "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary." and clearly Atherton achieved that for WP:Creative
With Notability established, as wikipedia states under WP:Basic "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
Your argument that the information isn't related to Atherton as a Film Maker would only apply if he was known for a single thing.
But Atherton's notbaility is established by the FIVE film works he has collected into a National Film Archive BFI, his diary being collected into the premanent collection of a Museum, Museum of London & his acceptance as a Fellow of the RSA
But, as there's no question that this new, news coverage (since March 2020), is in depth and with nearly every article having Atherton's photo attached to it, then WP:Sigcov would apply "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." one wonders why it wouldn't reach the level of GNG anyway? The subject of the article is Atherton, not his films.
Why would you consider Tortoise Media or Resonance FM unreliable sources?
Even if you consider them primary rather than through a publication but self-published by Atherton , they should still be considered under WP:BLPSELFPUB
"There are living persons who publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:
it is not unduly self-serving;
it does not involve claims about third parties;
it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
the article is not based primarily on such sources."
As you rightly point out, all the submissions above and in the article to date support the fact that Atherton was fostered (NOT adopted), been affected by racial problems and is Homeless, yet there appears to be little or no mention in the article of these facts even though they clearly all come from more than one RS (in addition to Primary sources). As a social campaigning film-maker and this being a biography, anything that is related to him is surely relevant, if not applicable to his career either in the Early Life or Personal sections of the biogrpahy?
So from evidence that he's been asked to lecture at Brunel University to writing for Bristol University to being requested to submit his input on a variety of subjects by Tortoise Media, these things should all be considered.
As I've stated elswhere, as you are acting dicatatorially here as you've yet to engage other editors into the conversation, I'm merely showing good faith by bringing to your attention to the information I discover to extend the content of the article as I have been accused (not evidenced) of being a COI (on the basis that I've researched my subject in detail and only interested in this subject) and therefore can't edit the article myself. What you do with it, is clearly up to you. But anything that meets Wikipedia Guildines should surely be considered? i.e. Anything whether RS or Primary articles that include Atherton's contirbution, that can provide more detail and depth to the article about his life, should be published here.Itsallnewtome (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Paul Atherton talking about himself at Resonance FM, where "Absolutely anyone can broadcast" is not a source of RS information. Paul Atherton writing about himself does not become fact-checked RS because Tortoise Media publishes it in a collection of what are essentially "letters to the editor" written by paying members. And I call your attention to the provision concerning self-published material, "it is not unduly self-serving."
Atherton's FRSA does not confer notability. Some people get FRSA for notable achievements. But not 30,000 people. "FRSA" is a fundraising tool of the RSA that many nonnotable people apply for and pay to receive. (E.g. this paedophile who got an FRSA but had to give it back when he got caught.) Looking back at the state of this Wikipedia article in 2018, full of WP:OR and WP:PROMO, it seems likely that Wikipedia's misrepresentation of Atherton's work was useful in getting him his 2018 FRSA.
Atherton's notability rests ONLY on having films in two major collections. He is notable ONLY as a filmmaker, squeaking in only under WP:Creative 4d, with a generous allowance that two collections amount to "several." (The article has been AfD'ed 3 times, with the three results "No consensus", "Delete", and "No consensus.")
Other editors are welcome to express an opinion. I am not being dictatorial by expressing my own. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@HouseOfChange: Pleased you acknowldege that Atherton is notable and therfore this debate is only about the content of the article.
As I've just evidenced that the content of the article doesn't need to come from RS, I'm not sure why you would then bring that up again though, especially when you're not explaining why the content I provided shouldn't be considered under Wikipedia guidelines, which is the only real question here?
There is clearly much confusion on Wikipedia in respect to the FRSA award (as has been disccussed here earlier), as it appears in the main to be recognised as an award here but no definitive decision has been made about it. If you want to challenge that thinking then you'd need to do that elsehwere as the talk-page of this subject is not for that debate. The man you cite who was convicted of paedophilia had also been awarded a CBE and the two are discussed in the article as having equal significance.
Equally you're making assumptions not in evidence by saying what you think in respect to his participation to the RSA. It is clear from Atherton's work (from his very first production Silent Voices) that everything he's done is campaigning, not-for-profit and affecting social change and one would have thought easily evidenced for the acceptance of the FRSA.
In your point you also put a lot of weight on how people perceive Wikipedia in the 21st Century (especially here in the UK, where it's no longer considered that useful, as not even our Quiz Shows would consider it accurate, it's one of reasons I was keen to edit this article as so few British wikipedians seem now to be doing any editing at all) but yet again you've not evidenced anything.
But you also leave the question open to whether Atherton's appointment to the FRSA was a notable achievement - there's no evidence to the contrary? And the fact that the CEO of the organisation Matthew Taylor supported his Paul Atherton's Greatest Londoners Exhibition at Gallery@Oxo would suggest he may well have been. But as I say, there's no evidence either way, unless you have some that's not been pubilshed here? But what we definitely know is
"Fellowship is only awarded to those who can demonstrate that they have made SIGNIFICANT contributions to social change, and support the mission of the RSA" Royal Society of Arts
Again as I've stated ad nauseum a Diary is not a film - however it is recorded. The entry on the Museum of London cleary states the piece as a Video-Diary, this is not a film, but a recording of Atherton & his son's life experiences. It would be the same as suggesting a written diary is a book. There's a reason the texts are called by two different names.
Taking actions that I can't challenge in a balanced way, is dicatatorial. You, as the expereinced wikipedian editor are the only peson to have made siesmic edits to the article. It is in essence just us two with an interest in this subject, therefore there's a power imbalance here that you're not attempting to reddress for encyclopaedic accuracy.
I've noticed you've taken out images from the aticle that have been online for over a decade, so clearly not in Copyright breach, made subjective opinions about the content of the article with no support from any other editors, but make those edits anyway and when I challenge them, you use your power of experience and time here, to ignore them, mainly because so few editors are interested in this article (again the absence of British editors is a huge concern when looking at cultural understanding of a subject and its content accuracy) What have you addeed to this article? Everyone can see what you've taken away, but you can't speak about encyclopaedic accuracy or neutral point of view if your decision making is biased towards content removal.
As for "unduly self serving" Atherton has spoken out about the Heathrow Homeless and succesfully assisted in getting them into emergency accomodation, Fund raised for grassroots Homeless Street Organisations, battled for those fighting against the DWP (Department for Work and Pensions}, assisted in attempting to change the media narrative about poverty, in fact, as you've already pointed out, no publicity Atherton has received is about him, he merely becomes the spokesperson for the subject, whether it's adoption/fostering, poverty, race or homelessness - so exactly what do you think is self-serving here and then what makes it "UNDULY" such?Itsallnewtome (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
You are welcome to reach out to other editors -- to request more eyes on the article, or a broader decision about whether to add the material about Atherton's homeless advocacy, file a request at WP:BLP. To complain about my behavior, file a report at WP:ANI. In either case, you are more likely to get more help and more eyes on your request if you keep your remarks brief and focused on one point at a time.
Because this article has had few eyes on it, over many years it became a perfect storm of amateur SYNTH and PROMO. I have been trying to bring it in line with Wikipedia policy for BLPs.
Several photos you mention were uploaded by people who did not have the right to upload them as "Own work." I submitted the question of each photos to editors more experienced than I am for them to decide if they should stay or go. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
OK @HouseOfChange: Let's address this one point at a time. Let's begin with my last question:
"As for "unduly self serving" Atherton has spoken out about the Heathrow Homeless and succesfully assisted in getting them into emergency accomodation, Fund raised for grassroots Homeless Street Organisations, battled for those fighting against the DWP (Department for Work and Pensions}, assisted in attempting to change the media narrative about poverty, in fact, as you've already pointed out, no publicity Atherton has received is about him, he merely becomes the spokesperson for the subject, whether it's adoption/fostering, poverty, race or homelessness - so exactly what do you think is self-serving here and then what makes it "UNDULY such?"Itsallnewtome (talk) 10:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Until/unless RS start talking about Atherton as an advocate for homeless people other than himself, he will not be wiki-notable as an advocate for homeless people. Atherton's career of writing and talking about himself seems "unduly self-serving" in the context of his public record of seeking attention at every opportunity -- from Bumbum train to Olympics dancing, to his multiple "shows," his Instagram/Twitter, his latest hashtag "campaign" etc. etc. His claim to a reporter that he has panic attacks, etc. becomes much less credible in the context that the reporter was writing a story about COVID and mental illness, and if Atherton wanted to be interviewed and quoted he needed to claim some connection to the reporter's topic. The often-repeated story about how somebody's mistake ten years ago caused Atherton to become homeless (not clear how that event caused him to remain homeless for ten years even when receiving government benefits) is another example of Atherton's writing about himself being "unduly self-serving" and less than a credible RS about his history. I am a volunteer editor who is interested in building an encyclopedia. If you want to raise points for wider discussion, raise them at BLP or ANI, not by pinging me. I have wasted enough time over the past year responding to Gish gallop arguments. If you disagree with my editing, reach out to other editors for their opinion. 15:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
That didn't address the question at all. In fact that is all pure speculation on your part without a single shred of evidence to support any of it, but even then, still not answering the question.
If you're genuinely interested in encyclopaedic benefit - then clarity, research & facts are key.
If you'd watched Atherton's speech for Mary O'Hara (cited above) then you'd already know the answer to the question about his decade plus of homelessness, you'd know it started as a Credtifle error (which is a systemic problem here in the UK), a variety of issues around DWP problems (which are all well known), legal trickery with Local Authorities (which is again well reported) and a journey through many Homeless initiatives here in London, that information is also replicated in the recording of him delivering this information to Bob Blackman in the House of Commons which all go to clearly prove you have no serious interest in this subject at all. You've raised RS again, which once more, has no relevance to this question either.
The question was HOW was it self-serving and all you've done here is said "it is" with no evidence whatsoever of what it served and then not extended that, to how that leads it to being UNDULY such, the key adverb in the Wikipedia policy.
From this, it's clear to any reader that you have no genuine interest in this subject at all and are just on Wikipedia to be a destuctionist (at least in this instance).
The last time I reached out to another editor @4meter4: on my TalkPagefor assistance you claimed I was WP:Canvassing until they pulled you up for WP:Bite & to be WP:Civil That is not the beahviour of someone that looks for breadth, depth and understanding of a subject and is assisting other editors in improving an Encyclopaedic article. Itsallnewtome (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

((restart indent)) This is the article talk page, intended to discuss improvements to the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop contributing here unless you're going to engage in a productive & collaborative manner. As suggested by you I will reach out to other editors who can bring userful and reasoned debate to improve and conntribute to the article. Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

|}

Edit requests

Edit requests can help to improve articles, especially when they are simple and limited to one item at a time. From WP:COIREQ: “The best edit requests...

  • are concise and to the point
  • are worded neutrally
  • include supporting sources, and a clear explanation of why the change must be made
  • are not controversial or confrontational“ HouseOfChange (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
What happens when the edit isn't that of the COI but another Editor, as in the above case? In that instance, as is clear to all, the edit was HoC's, I (as the suggested COI) simply advised they correct it as it was factually inaccurate and I evidenced such with fifteen supporting sources. As you will read, I even asked HoC directly why they would make an edit that they then wouldn't defend, as it made no sense to me - but they provided no answer. So hoping other editors can assist. Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 11:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
My intention above was to help Itsallnewtome formulate edit requests for this article. Another helpful practice would be to provide a sentence or paragraph that would be a useful addition to the article, or a useful replacement for a sentence or paragraph currently in the article. HouseOfChange (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Again, other editors, as you'll read above this was proferred and indeed HoC said they would correct. The confusion in this instance came about because HoC reversed the entirety of their own edit, after I'd invested much time and effort correcting and then defending it for them. How do you resolve a situation like that? Thanks Itsallnewtome (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Please propose an edit you prefer to what is in the article. If you want to complain about me, take it to ANI and be sure to include lots of diffs rather than expecting people to wade through pages of history to figure out what you object to.
  • 22:04, 2020 May 24 HouseOfChange ‎ 13,124 bytes +1,651‎ →‎Personal life: Atherton interviewed in spring 2020
  • 11:23, 2020 April 7‎ HouseOfChange ‎ 13,606 bytes +19‎ →‎Personal life: improve based talk page
  • 14:08, 2020 April 3 HouseOfChange 13,590 bytes +925‎ →‎Personal life: More recent article
  • 13:59, 2020 April 3 HouseOfChange ‎ 12,665 bytes +833‎ →‎Personal life: add article about eviction and debate concerning rehousing
  • 13:42, 2020 April 3 HouseOfChange ‎ 11,832 bytes -182‎ Undid revision 948899487 by 82.32.88.240 (talk) Remove uncited claim Tag: undo
Those are diffs for my recent edits and edit summaries. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Apologies to any other editors who didn't see this as being self-explanatory. HoC has confused matters. My comments here obviously related to the two subjects above this one i.e. "Paul Atherton Heathrow Homeless" & "Paul Atherton - More recent press coverage - May 2020" It would seem churlish to repeat the content as it's already here." Itsallnewtome (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Times Radio

Could an editor please tell me how to best address a limited link. Atherton has appeared on Times Radio twice now. However the listen again links are only available for 7 days (the most recent one ends today Saturday 15th August 2020 at midnight)

This was his origainl appearance on Kait Borsay's inugural show on Friday 3rd July 2020 (link now dead) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/radio/show/20200703-3441/2020-07-03

And this was his second appearance on Sunday 8th August 2020 (still live until midnight Saturday 15th August 2020) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/radio/show/20200808-3457/2020-08-08

83.216.90.182 (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia biographies condense the most significant facts about somebody's life and career. There is zero chance of adding links to audio of radio interviews unless independent RS talk about those interviews. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
More information Extended content ...
Close

Misuse of the talk page

I am concerned that the talk page is being misused to display and preserve multiple links to Atherton's writings or media mentions of Atherton, material that would never rise to the level of being part of an encyclopedia article.

Use the talk page to post links to independent RS with material we might use for this bio--not as an annex of Paul-Atherton's-mom's refrigerator, where even his smallest creations live showcased forever.HouseOfChange (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI