Talk:List of bow tie wearers/Archive 2

photos not reliable evidence?

I'm sorry, Cavalry, but I've looked at your recent edits, and I'd like to know how a picture of a guy wearing a bow tie, a picture on the cover of Time Magazine, is not reliable evidence that the guy wore a bow tie at some point in his life. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have had no involvement in this article or the AfD discussions, but I would suggest that a photo is evidence that someone wore a bow tie at a single point in time. It is not evidence that they were "notable" for wearing a bow tie as many people wear bow ties solely for special occasions and others dress differently to normal if they know that they will be appearing on a magazine cover.

The scope of this list needs to be better defined. Is it an indiscriminate list of people who happened to wear a bow tie at least once in their lives, or is it a list of people who have had repeated references to their bow tie wearing from multiple sources (i.e. is it a fact that other sources have found worthy enough to note)? Road Wizard (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• It is not clear who we are talking about above. I suspect that the reference to Time magazine should be Life magazine. Anyway, if there's a problem with the sourcing for a particular entry, then it should be tagged rather than removed as I expect that it will not be difficult to find additional sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Colonel, I was not specific on purpose: it was rather a point about principle. It wasn't about bow ties, it was about evidence. And BTW, Wizard, if a guy has his picture taken for a magazine cover and he is wearing a bow tie, it's probably not an accident. I'm not going to wear one when Life, or Time, or Parade come knocking on my door. A picture taken on an occasion like that is almost by definition meaningful and notable, and I had really hoped that Cavalry, whose case I initially was sympathetic to, would have addressed this. But thank you both for responding. Drmies (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, magazine covers are generally produced to attract the eyes of potential purchasers. A single photo lacks context and it is impossible to determine whether the decision to wear a bow tie was made by the person being photographed or the person/organisation taking the photograph. Also, if the photo was taken in a real life situation, how can you prove it wasn't taken at the time of a formal dinner/reception in which the dress code demands the attendees wear a bow tie? At that point this list stops being a list of people who have worn a bow tie and becomes a list of people who have complied with a specific dress code when involved in a formal activity.

If the individual is notable for wearing bow ties then there should surely be a better quality source available than a magazine cover. If there is no other source then the presence of the entry on this article is called into question. Road Wizard (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a photograph, per se, is not sufficient evidence that bow tie wearing is associated with the individual; it can, however illustrate the point nicely. There are pictures of me in a tutu but that doesn't prove that when people think of tutus, they think of me!--otherlleft (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is a list of people who wear bow ties on a regular basis, not people who have ever worn a bow tie. Including a notable as a bow-tie wearer solely on the basis of a picture is a rather poor standard of evidence. As I have gone through many of the names here, I have had little problem finding sources that describe the person as wearing a "signature bow tie", "trademark bow tie" or other variations that show that this is a habitual practice for the individual, not the occasional option. I may well have worn a bow tie at my bar mitzvah, which is tragically captured in photos, but I would never call myself a bow tie wearer even if the pictures made it out to the public. A picture may usually be worth a thousand words, but in this case a sentence of a dozen words will be worth more than a picture of the person in a bow tie. I would fully support the removal of those entries whose sole basis for inclusion here is being caught wearing a bow tie in a magazine photo, once we have had a chance to add more definitive sources. Alansohn (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that a single photo shows much, perhaps the ability to tie them. I have an online acquaintance who wears a bow tie on his late father's birthday. Other than that, he only wears them when he goes to black tie or other formal events where such are expected or required. I don't think that such occasional wearings are grounds for inclusion on this list. It is a fashion fact, however, that these days most men only wear bow ties when they're "required" to do so, and that doing so when they are not is noticed by others (and more than occasionally commented upon, usually, in my OR experience, negatively by men and positively by women.) I suppose the rule should be (although there's no way to do so, it would take great OR) that those on the list are those who are greeted with "You're NOT wearing a bow tie!" on those days when they are wearing an ordinary necktie. htom (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of content during AFD

The recent flurry of edits removing content do not have consensus and so I have reverted. I have endeavoured to incorporate new content added by Uncle G since that time. The other edits seemed to be piecemeal restorations and so should be covered too. Extensive removals are improper while the AFD is in progress and, in any case, require discussion here since they are contested by several editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that, particularly while an AfD is in progress, consensus is important; however the AfD imposes an artificial deadline that can make discussion first, editing later difficult. At the very least, good faith edits should be commented upon on the talk page.--otherlleft (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the deletions, having been done, can greatly change the impression of the article being discussed. Those new to the discussion are seeing not the article proposed, but an article partially deleted by advocates for deletion. htom (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Christopher Kimball citations

Can be seen wearing a bow tie at http://americastestkitchen.com/default.asp (upper left corner) and http://www.americastestkitchen.com/meetthecast.asp and http://www.powells.com/authors/kimball.html (linked at Christopher Kimball and http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5023839 and http://slate.com/id/2089461/ (also linked at the article about him)

Kimball is Cook's Illustrated's founder and editor in chief, and as host of ATK, he sports the standard-issue ATK apron, granny glasses, a doofy bow tie, and helmet hair. (You could practically land a Cessna in his part.) The point is hard to miss; no one is supposed to envy geeky Chris Kimball—even though Chris Kimball, in real life, is genuinely enviable: He has a $25 million-a-year publishing business, a Vermont hobby farm, complete with 40-tree apple orchard, and a townhouse in Boston's trendy South End.

htom (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On http://www.cooksillustrated.com/magazine/ , too, since someone has added a citation needed reference again. He wears them on book tours, too; met him tonight. We talked more about bow ties than cooking! htom (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you are mentioning these sources here instead of adding them to the article? --Orlady (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

[embarrassed] I'm not sure how to "properly" add them, and keep forgetting to look it up. htom (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mo Rocca

Mo Rocca was added to the list without any sources. I've Googled around and determined that he often wore a bow tie on TV, is remembered for it by interviewers and bloggers, but may be trying to dissociate himself from bowties. I deleted the info from the article. For future use (if someone gets better info), here's the deleted entry plus a couple of reference links (view the source code to see the links):

• Mo Rocca, former correspondent for The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

--Orlady (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians who wear bow ties

I suppose we could divide that into a list of always, usually, sometimes, and tie-my-own for formal wear. I'm probably in the usually group. htom 04:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

i can't beleieve i didn't see this earlier. did you do it? is there a category, userboxes and all ? by now you've probably guessed, i'm in the 'always' category.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

and I find it hard to believe that I missed your reply. I haven't seen a userbox, and don't know how to make one. We'd have to add "only clipons" and "only pre-tied" and "never", I now know. These days, when I wear a tie, it's usually a bow. Not always, but often enough that people greet me with the "You're NOT wearing a bowtie!" line. htom (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaming, again

In addition to #rename above, a discussion of renaming this article can be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination). Uncle G (talk) 12:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Rephrase lead?

Currently the lead says:

This is a list of notable bow tie wearers, real and fictional people for whom the wearing of a bow tie is, in itself, a notable characteristic.

I'll propose changing it to:

This is a list of notable bow tie wearers; real and fictional, notable people for whom the wearing of a bow tie (when not in formal dress) is a notable characteristic, in addition to their primary notability.

htom (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The prior was my attempt at improvement; I wholeheartedly support your suggested additions. If the lead is worded clearly enough perhaps a fifth deletion attempt will never occur!--otherlleft (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm going to edit my own proposal, and ask for other comments, please.

This is a list of notable bow tie wearers, real and fictional; notable people for whom the wearing of a bow tie (when not in formal dress) is also a notable characteristic.

I know you're all involved in the AfD, but still. Going once!

Looks OK to me. Occuli (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's less clunky.--otherlleft (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bored, I've made the change. htom (talk) 20:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Les Nessman citation

Problem with a recently added footnote: the BBC web page in question is an entry on h2g2, an online resource whose content is created by site members, membership being open. As such, like many blogs and open wikis, I'm not sure it could be classed as a reliable source. -- Molotron 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know that. I'll remove it. -- Noroton (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Gomez Addams

Should Gomez Addams really be included here? His appearance in the movies with a bow tie is insignificant in the character's history, first as a cartoon and then on television. His inclusion could very well be the sort in inconsistency that the deletion debates refer to. I strongly recommend removal.--otherlleft (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked up an old cartoon. He's wearing a necktie in 1962 (nauseated look on his face; looks a lot like Christmas as we look through a big picture window he's sitting by; caption: "Suddenly, I have a dreadful urge to be merry."). Two films and a mixed history don't cut it for me. Let's lose this one. -- Noroton (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Harry Smith is debatable

Why is Harry Smith listed as a notable bow tie wearer? This is not intended to be a list of people who have worn bow ties on occasion, but those who are notable for doing so. Lets try not to follow the downward spiral of trivia, okay? JBsupreme (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

But in the article that is used as a reference he explains the reason why he was then wearing a normal tie, to quote -

Another difference: He's not even trying to keep the bow ties that were a trademark during his days at Channel 7. The bow ties were "a very big issue" back in 1987, he says. Charles Osgood was already established as the bow-tie-wearing CBS personality, and a network bigwig told Smith that he couldn't wear them, too. "What do you mean?" Smith remembers asking. "I've been wearing them my entire adult life."

"We can't have two guys wearing bow ties," Mr. Bigwig responded.

"I was ready to quit," Smith recalls. "I went back to see my wife in Dallas. 'This is the way it starts,' I said. 'This is the way they take control of your life.'" Smith stayed with the job. "I wear them off the air," he says. "I've made an adjustment to life without bow ties."

This shows that they were a trademark of his and also if you check this google news archive search - [1] - a lot of articles mention this as being a trademark of his. I think this clearly justifies his inlcusion on the list. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Keep. -- Noroton (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "dubious" that JBsupreme had added to the entry. The source is a solid reliable source: it's an article about an interview with Harry Smith by an alternative weekly paper in Denver (where he had worked on local TV before he went to the network).

Significantly, the story about Harry Smith is an excellent example of why the "trademark bowtie" is a notable topic. Smith had worn a bowtie as his trademark before going to the network, but was required to shift to a long necktie because the network did not want to have more than one on-air news personality wearing a bow tie. (I guess that, in effect, if Smith had retained his bow tie, it would have infringed upon Charles Osgood's trademark.) --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Observation, totally original: recently, Osgood is sometimes not wearing a bow tie on Sundays, and Smith is sometimes is wearing them in the morning. Not often, in either case. Perhaps they're trying to "shift the brand"? (And the question that pops into my head is "if so, is it them, or the company, doing so?") htom (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Next deletion debate

Will the next deletion party be better advertised? SpinningSpark 19:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please invite me to the next deletion party. -- Noroton (talk) 20:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There were invitations? I must have mislaid mine. Me too, please, I'll bake a cake! htom (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll only attend if it's a white tie event. In the meantime, I'll be busy sewing several tuxedos together.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind me, just watchlisting, or more appropriately , signing up for the deletion party mailing list. Digital^NinjaWTF 21:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

AGF, chaps. Discuss improving the article, idle chatter is for IRC :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm totally serious, and I think this is certainly related to improving the article. I was aware of the AfD only because someone was nice enough to put a message on my talk page. I think this subject is appropriate. -- Noroton (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for standards

In order to ensure the notability of the subjects of this article, I would suggest that any bow tie wearer who does not have a Wikipedia article about him already should be removed from the list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There sure need to be standards, and I think they exist already. Take a look at Wikipedia:CLN#Advantages_of_lists point number 14 to see what I mean.--otherlleft (talk) 03:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, on a different note, I would like to suggest something else. Some of the bow tie wearers here are cited as being bow tie wearers only because there are photographs of them wearing a bow tie. I don't think that is sufficient evidence to identify them as habitual bow tie wearers. They may in fact be habitual bow tie wearers, but we can't make the leap from "this photo shows the man wearing a bow tie" to "he must wear bow ties commonly" without delving into original research. Instead, we need to find a source that says he habitually or characteristically wears bow ties. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with that. I think it will mean three fewer deletion nominations over the next nine months, so we'll only get, say, four rather than seven. I think this can be made explicit in the text of the article at the beginning of the first list. Something similar to this has been done for some list of scientists who oppose mainstream global warming theory (I don't remember the exact name of the article now), and Category:Terrorism and Category:Terrorists do something similar. Also, see Category:LGBT people. I think maybe some category of gay people does something similar. So there's plenty of precedent for it, although it's unusual. I'd put it in a sentence or two within parentheses. Something like:

(The following people or fictional characters are both notable and known as habitual bow-tie wearers. For each individual, a reliable source should be cited to show the individual habitually wears bow ties.)

How's that? -- Noroton (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The scientists you were thinking of were probably List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. Another example could be List of Hmong Americans must be both notable and Hmong. Another is List of industrial engineers, which tries to deal with non-notable additions with hidden text. SpinningSpark 17:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that an image is nothing more of an indication of wardrobe at that moment, and I don't think it's acceptable for fictional characters any more than it is for real people. As to independent notability, I think it would be difficult to find a person who is known for wearing a bow tie and absolutely nothing else, but should such an example appear, I don't think he or she should be excluded from this article on that basis. Granted, it's likely that such for such a person to achieve exclusively bow-tied notability might make them notable enough for an article, but hey, WP:CRYSTAL and all that. This ramble in a nutshell: it's so unlikely that someone will be notable for no other reason that wearing a bow tie, but if they are they should be included in this list.--otherlleft (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed due to source problems

This section can be used to list individuals who have been or should be removed due to questionable sourcing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Victor Wilson, executive vice president for student affairs at the College of Charleston. Not only was the source just a link to the college's home page (with no reference to Wilson himself), but I have actually found two pictures of him wearing a long tie and none of him wearing a bow tie. See [2] and [3]. If he is ever re-added to the list, it should be under "Other educators" rather than under college and university presidents, since he is not the president of the college. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Fictional characters

The first subheading of this section is For comic effect. Its lead sentence:

Some fictional characters always sport bow ties, never any other kind of neckwear. In some cases this may be meant to confer a certain fussiness, pomposity or prissiness

Thereafter the "comics" subsection begins:

Bow ties are often put on characters in comics and cartoons perhaps to convey a sense of outlandish fun or humor

These examples are likely part of the reason that this article has been branded original research despite the large number of references. If I had my druthers I'd remove the fictional characters entirely, but at the very least the heading and lead sentences described above should be rewritten or verified. Probably one solid source about bow ties as humorous symbol in popular culture would do it.--otherlleft (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I wrote 'em, and I agree -- those two or three lines represent original research. Fictional characters and real people are both mentioned in fashion commentary and other articles about bow ties where lists of notables come into play, so the fiction and cartoon items themselves are justified for inclusion in the exact same way. Possibly a line like that, with a footnote would be appropriate at the top of each of these sections, but it should be footnoted, just as everything else is. -- Noroton (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I revised the text of the fictional characters section to remove all statements regarding the reason for depicting these characters in bowties. Also, I sorted the fictional characters between characters portrayed by actors and characters drawn by artists. Please check to make sure I didn't mess up (and fix my errors if I did...). --Orlady (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done; I've moved Ducky Mallard to Actors, though.

archivebot?

Any objections to Miszabot being asked to archive this page?--otherlleft (talk) 03:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I support that. -- Noroton (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I also support. shirulashem (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominees

A section for dropping leads to people who might be on the list.

Harry Freeman. Different person than this Harry Freeman. I found this reference while looking for information about Victor Wilson at College of Charleston. I'm not sure that this Harry Frhe's notable, which would disqualify him, but this is the kind of reference we need.

... Periodically the College of Charleston asks alumni, faculty and staff to nominate the person they feel best represents the qualities of leadership and citizenry that were characteristic of the founders of the institution. The president and Board of Trustees then award

the Founders’ Medal to those individuals whose accomplishments and dedication to the school best exemplify those qualities. Last February, two distinguished alumni, Harry Freeman ’43 and

Gordan Stine ’44, were awarded the medal. After having received his BS in biology from the College, Freeman earned his PhD from Stanford University in 1951. Known by generations of CofC students during his 29 years of teaching for his ever-present bow tie, smile and sage advice, Freeman also advised many students, including hundreds who are now physicians. Outside of the classroom, Freeman served as past president of the South Carolina Academy of Science, South Carolina Biologist Association, Leconte Scientific Society (local), Charleston Natural History Society, Stanford Natural History Society and Pi Kappa Phi Alumni Corporation.... --- http://www.cofc.edu/marketing/documents/spring05.pdf (page 8 of the pdf, left side)

htom (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good article status

In the last AfD more than one editor mentioned the possibility of nominating this article for good article status. I am by no means a significant contributor to this article, so I wanted to know what others thought of the idea.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 12:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Can a list even be a good article? I would think that featured list might be possible, though. htom (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Lists are definitely more likely to achieve recognition as featured lists than as good articles. Having been involved in a bunch of featured list discussions, I think this list could qualify. It would, however, take a lot of work to bring it to Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Specifically, I see (1) a need for consistency in the way entries are documented, (2) a need for consistent reference formatting, and (3) clean-up of writing style in the intro. I think it's do-able, if someone wants to try. --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't think it was that close - thanks for your opinion!--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 17:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'd be willing to lend a hand. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

---

I see that Orlady has been churning away at improving this article (even finding a reference for Les Nessman after all this time!) and I was reminded of the possibility of nominating this list. I've been looking over the featured list criteria, and one that popped out is for the list to be a sortable table. Since this list is heavy on prose I don't know if that would be relevant in this case. Any thoughts?--otherlleft 21:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice job improving that awkward sentence in the intro, Otherleft.

As for FLC, not all featured lists are sortable tables. I think the biggest challenge this list would face in getting to FL status would be inconsistency in descriptions for the entries, Also, I think a few non-notables have crept onto the list. --Orlady (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-notability on lists is a tricky one, since persons without articles are permitted to be listed if they are known for wearing a bow-tie. I spose it's all in the sourcing. Once I finish with my present project of link-moving I will see what I can do about the inconsistency. Can you point to any that you think should be the model?--otherlleft 01:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

One of the criteria for inclusion here is supposed to be notability. Redlinks may be OK, because not having an article does not necessarily mean that a person is non-notable, but this list should not include people with no particular indication of notability, such as a university's assistant director of admissions or somebody's high school principal. --Orlady (talk) 02:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only is it important to be faithful to the inclusion criteria for this article if the article is to be a viable candidate for featured list, but this was a critically important consideration in rescuing the article from WP:AfD and deletion. The individuals on the list must be notable for some reason that has nothing to do with bow ties and known for their wearing of bow ties.

As for lists being sortable tables, that is not a mandatory requirement of the featured list criteria. Rather, sortability is requested "where helpful." Some examples of FLs that do not use wikitables are List of birds of Cuba, List of dinosaurs, List of Connecticut tornadoes, Nicknames of Houston (one that I nominated for FL), and List of Texas Aggie terms. --Orlady (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the question about the tables - I was hoping that was the case but wasn't sure. As for the list members, I agree with using a very scrupulous standard for evaluation of the references. If we come across an individual for whom that is a sole defining characteristic, we can talk about it, but I don't think such a person really exists!--otherlleft 04:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon characters

This seems to be a section that encourages OR. I removed Hokey Wolf (citation was to an image, and not a free one either) but I left in Tom for the moment despite his only reference being to the Tom and Jerry article in the hopes that the reader will find some notable mention of his bow tie in those references. What I learned there is that he didn't always wear it, but what I didn't find was any evidence of a reliable source mentioning it. The reference as it stands isn't acceptable, but can anyone help find a better one? Could this be the cat's last life?--otherlleft 04:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Peter Eisenman

I propose removing him from this list. The two references used are 1) a picture of him when he happened to be wearing a bow tie and 2) his write-up on a furniture website. No mention or picture of him in a bow tie is made at the Peter Eisenman article. I found this reference, but it's only incidental. I don't see any reliable evidence that he's known for his bow tie.--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 22:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep him. This source, cited in the article, says "Known as an eccentric, Eisenman is often seen in a bowtie and a sweater with a small hole." That should be sufficient for inclusion in the article. Moreover, the photo in the Wikipedia article seems to be an exception. I don't know anything about this guy, but several photos I've seen of him in various online sources include bowties -- those kinds of photos are good corroboration. --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that source . . . it's an article on a furniture store web site. I wasn't able to find anything more solid than that, and it just seems pretty shaky to me. Any particular reason you think it's reliable?--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 23:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again, eh? This article's history demonstrates how much easier it is to remove content than it is to research a subject and document the findings. To wit: The user formerly known as Noroton added Eisenman to the article in January 2007. It was tagged as "citation needed" until I added the photo link as a ref in November 2007. In November 2008, Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry deleted Eisenman's name (along with a bunch of others) for inadequate sourcing. Over the next few days, several of us worked to restore -- and find additional sources for -- everything that "Chase me ladies" had deleted. It was in November 2008 (while the article was at WP:AfD for the 4th time) that someone found that profile of Eisenman on a furniture store website and added it as a reference. Now you want to delete his name again, in guise of improving the article. I hope this isn't a preface to the another AfD. If you are genuinely interested in taking this article to featured list status, please work on improving the references, not removing the names of certifiable bow-tie wearers.

There's no doubt that Eisenman is a bowtie-wearer. I've added a third and fourth ref to the article that substantiate what the other sources indicate. These weren't hard to find, and there are plenty more pieces of evidence online. For example, this page says "the American architect Peter Eisenman, suitably attired in bowtie and braces, walked into an Iowa wheatfield..." I hope this is the last time that I have to document this guy's bowtie-wearing. --Orlady (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no motive other than improvement, and I apologize for rubbing a still-sore wound. I brought this to talk precisely because I know how hard some of these additions have been worked on, in fact, and I wouldn't want to remove any that weren't suspect. (I see you have not agreed with all of my choices there, and that has encouraged me to proceed with more caution.) I did a Google search for "Peter Eisenman bow tie" and found the book referenced above, but didn't see those others; you're quite good at finding sources! Please understand, my reason for asking is so that the question is not raised at a featured review. --~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 04:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

WSJ

I'd like to get ahold of this article to see if I can pull any other interesting tidbits out of it to use. Please consider this a notice that, if you know someone with access, I'd like to talk to them.--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 20:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Pee Wee Herman

I left a section with two paragraphs in a row starting with a reference to a "fashion commentator," a situation I will try to fix when I have time to think about better wording.

On Pee Wee Herman, I'm thinking that the citation about his theater exploits seems a bit out of place when talking about the Style Guy's overall opinions about bow ties. Granted it confirm's the bow tie wearing, but moving it down to the character's entry on the list would make it flow better.--~TPW 21:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Style in the comedians section

We have names that range from being listed on their own, like Charlie Chaplin, to those with significant explanatory text, such as Mark Russell. Some of the entries require more justification than others, but I would like to suggest some minimal guidelines:

• It's not necessary to note that each of the individuals is a comedian - it should be assumed since they're listed in the "comedians" section.
• Nationality
• Medium or media (film, stage, etc.)
• text to place the bow-tie wearing in its notable context (i.e., "when playing the character of Jim Jones,") if appropriate

This talk page doesn't get a significant amount of traffic, so I'll give it some time before I start moving things about, in reference to my other suggestions as well as this one.--~TPW 16:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, no entry would appear on the list without some sort of brief identification of the person's claim to fame. Consistency is desirable, but rigid consistency isn't. Charlie Chaplin's nationality is not relevant here (he was an Englishman who spent much of his career in the United States and was known far beyond those two countries), but the nationality would be worth including if the person is a comedian who was highly celebrated in his home country but little known elsewhere,. Similarly, since it is desirable to include at least one noun when describing a person, the word "comedian" should not be banned from the "comedians" section of the list. --Orlady (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are good points, and I don't mean to suggest that anything rigid be established, just guidelines for establishing a consistent look and feel. I definitely agree that having a noun to describe each entry is good form, but I also think that using the word "comedian" can easily become overly repetitive. I'll play around to see if I can find a mix that satisfies both of those concerns.--~TPW 18:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Quotes in the article

TPW asked me to comment here about quotes in the article. Generally, the best thing to do for quotes is to include them as garnish rather than main course. Any quotes that are aiding in exposition should be changed into paraphrase and summary texts. The best quotes in the article are of the form of actual statements that are made in conversation. (e.g. "We can't have two guys wearing bow ties.") Keep those. The long blockquote in the "Attention" section is of dubious purpose as it, first of all, repeats a lot of information in the article and, secondly, does the job of exposition which is what the text is for. Quotes are for reporting unique statements that were made, not for driving ideas.

A way to deal with the quotes might be to incorporate them directly into references. Most cite templates have a quote= field that works well.

As for the first cquote in the lead, arguments could be made both ways for whether that one should stay. I think I like it as long as many of the other expository quotes are subsumed into references.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a section on "why a bowtie?"

Its suppose to be "in" right now. But as a wearer I hear the occasional sarcastic "nice bowtie." But some like Justice Stevens are unable to tie a four-in-hand so he ties the bow PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That (content and discussion) is supposed to be over in Bow tie, at least as I understand it. This is the list of those who are notable who wear bow ties. As I'm not notable, I'm not in the list, but I'm a bow tie wearer too. htom (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Rep. Donald Payne, Jr.

I did not find any written source about Rep. Donald Payne, Jr. (D-NJ) as a bow-tie-wearer but he is caught on a photo taking his oath of office in one (and the picture in his article contains also one photo him wearing a bow tie). Cassandro (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

He looks like he might be a candidate for future inclusion in the article, but he doesn't qualify yet. In a Google search, I found some online forum comments on his bowties, but no reliable sources. --Orlady (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I am are just posting it here on the talk page. :-) – Cassandro (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

:-) --Orlady (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Christian Herter

Just making a note. A new "candidate": former Sec. of State and Mass. Gov. Christian Herter. Cassandro (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Bruce Bowen

He always wears a bow tie on Sports Center. Here's an interview where he talks about it: http://www.nba.com/spurs/bruce-bowen-talks-bow-ties — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.160.130.14 (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)