Talk:Jack Kent Cooke

Fair use rationale for File:Cooke jack.jpg

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

“Kent”

Back in his day, there were no shortage of radio and tv stations that said Cooke adddd the "Kent" to his name, just because he liked the sound of it. Someone please find a source for this. I would do it, but I just remembered I hate the WMF and Wikipedians.

Deletions

An editor has repeatedly deleted (admittedly, longer-than-they-needed-to-be) text supported by ample RS coverage re the felony arrest of Cooke's daughter. Writing as his excuse that the material is not about Cooke. Well -- of course, as in normal in such sections -- the entire section is about Cooke's wives and children. That's perfectly appropriate. And this series of incidents -- the alleged felony, as well as the later felony charging, the court court appearance, and the hate crime probe -- are all heavily covered ... internationally, in fact ... by the Washington Post, ABC News, People, New York Daily News, New York Post, Fox News, The Daily Beast, The Times, International Business Times UK, The Kansas City Star, The Times of Israel, Arutz Sheva, Tablet Magazine, "Jacqueline Kent Cooke, Daughter of Redskins Owner Jack Kent Cooke, Charged After Anti-Semitic Assault," W Magazine, "Daughter of Former NFL Team Owner Arrested for Assault Following Anti-Semitic Rant," The Western Journal, "Daughter of ex-Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke arrested after alleged anti-Semitic assault," WJLA, "Daughter of late Redskins owner could face hate-crime charge over alleged glass-purse attack," Canoe, "Jack Kent & Suzanne Martin, Jacqueline Cooke’s Parents: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know", Heavy and others, in full articles devoted to it. The deletions were not appropriate, and lacked consensus as well. --2604:2000:E016:A700:1188:984B:A470:78F1 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

It still feels WP:UNDUE. The incident is, ultimately, a saucy but inconsequential high society item that doesn't affect Cooke himself, since he's dead and all. If his daughter were a notable person, then it's fine to include. in her article, but we wouldn't include this for the same reason that we don't add Jaden Smith news items to Will Smith's article. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

At wikipedia, we don't go by what it "feels" like to one editor. (And here -- that one editor, in the face of the very heavy international coverage devoted to this series of incidents, is saying that one sentence is undue ... which "feels" odd. It is not undue, because it is one sentence, where there are dozens of articles, in RSs, covering this series of incidents. The assertion that we don't mention such facts because they relate to immediate family, not the subjecty of the article, is at odds with countless wikipedia articles, including this one, including in this very section. You can't be serious. Wikipedia doesn't care whether an editor thinks an article is saucy or not saucy. Whether it is a high society item or the opposite. Whether Cooke is alive or dead. You're simply making all of those "tests" up. They have nothing to do with wikipedia standards. The reason this is appropriate here is laid out above: a) this series of events is heavily reported on by many RSs, including high level RSs, with entire articles devoted to them, in a number of countries; b) the one sentence is not at all "undue"; just the opposite; c) there is no requirement that Cooke be alive (one of many odd, invented criteria); and d) you are editing against consensus -- which is flatly not allowed, as you have now reverted multiple editors. 2604:2000:E016:A700:1188:984B:A470:78F1 (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, it is undue. I don't care one bit about the sourcing. Plenty of things that don't belong on Wikipedia articles get news coverage. The issue is that it's an incident that doesn't affect Jack Kent Cooke himself, and is a case of WP:NOTNEWS. And where is this "consensus" that you're talking about? There's the another anonymous editor and you. I'm really not getting where this hostility is coming from. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@2604:2000:E016:A700:1188:984B:A470:78F1: Since I don't see this discussion going anywhere, I'll let more editors chime in at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Noticeboard#Does a crime of a non-notable daughter belong in the article of a deceased person?. Feel free to chime in. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: The Notability Noticeboard has been closed for several years and is inactive.

Shouldn't this information be on a page devoted to her than on Cooke's page? Especially since the incident occurred more than 20 years after his death...Shabeki (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

BLP Violation

Wikipedia content is based on policies and guidelines. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it should be included. Although the reference to Ms. Cooke's alleged assault appears to be in violation of WP:NOT policy (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a newspaper) and WP:UNDUE (Haberkorn has also been charged in the incident), that is not the main issue. Clearly inclusion of this information is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME and must be removed. Ms: Cooke has not been convicted of any crime. CBS527^Talk 01:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)