![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Due to my COI I don't want to edit the article, but I just want to make you aware of it because I just noticed it
GorillaWarfare. It is a
textboard.
Psiĥedelisto (
talk •
contribs) please always
ping!
21:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Online anonymous communitiesas well. Psiĥedelisto ( talk • contribs) please always ping! 22:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
In his citizenship petition,
published publicly in The Manila Times by a lawyer of his, (see last page) Watkins doesn't claim Ron at all, but rather another son, Sam Watkins. I think the number of his children is a matter of some debate, and we shouldn't state it as 1. What do you think,
GorillaWarfare. Perhaps at least one
or at least two
. This is going to sound rather brash but I don't even think he knows how many there are.
Psiĥedelisto (
talk •
contribs) please always
ping!
20:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Typically the number of children (e.g., 3); only list names of independently notable or particularly relevant children. Names may be preceded by a number to show total children and avoid implying that named children are the only offspring. For multiple entries, use an inline list. For privacy reasons, consider omitting the names of living children, unless notable.I think Ron Watkins satisfies the "particularly relevant" clause as he is mentioned by name several times in this article and in reliable sourcing. There's not a great solution for the issue of accidentally implying he is the only offspring, other than maybe writing "unknown" or something similar... though that kind of falls into implying that Jim Watkins himself doesn't know how many kids he has, something we shouldn't imply in-article without a solid source. I suppose we could remove the parameter entirely and just leave Ron to be mentioned in-article, if folks think that's a better solution.