Talk:Derek Goldby

Contributions by 78.149.120.249

It seems likely that contributor 78.149.120.249 is the person to which the article refers himself, given the personal, non-academic and non-verifiable tone of his contributions. These contributions have since been edited or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil pye (talk • contribs) 11:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've trimmed your final paragraph somewhat, given its relatively weak sourcing, and given that this article is covered by WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

... and an unregistered editor has now removed it entirely, ho hum. Perhaps we could compromise on just mentioning what work Goldby did during this period, without commenting on its success or problems or otherwise, unless additional sources can be found that discuss the problems? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Now then. Over on my talk page, the unregistered editor has said that they are in fact Derek Goldby, and have also helpfully suggested an additional source, namely this piece in the Guardian, which doesn't mention any conflicts with cast. Oh, and the unregistered editor has also mentioned this issue at WP:BLPN.

I'm a bit reluctant for us to have the information about cast conflicts, etc., in the article, based on something in The Stage which, seemingly, only one person here has access to. Thoughts, please...? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree it would be better to have the article mention purely factual information, and I shall revert and re-edit the unregistered editor's changes to reflect this. What is verifiable is that Goldby worked in drama schools in London after the 1990s, and directed in Fringe and off-West End venues. The Orange Tree Theatre classes as off-West End. The Pleasance Theatre and Bridewell theatres as fringe. It is also verifiable through the article in The Stage dd May 2011, and the former's print publicity that there have been cast changes to the production of Autumn and Winter, and through the latter's that an intended production of The Clinic has been cancelled.

This flags up three questions:

1. There's a question in relation to WP:BLPN. Looking at the history of this entry, we see several edits to it by unregistered users who contributed nothing else to WP (and who later revealed themselves to be Goldby himself), who included highly non-neutral and uncited data, often of a promotional tone. Goldby himself then censured the article when verifiable information was added that he apparently did not want; cf his comments at Demiurge1000's talk page. This goes against WP:BLP.
2. The second questions is a wider WP standards question: for entries on theatre productions, often little more than the venue's publicity output exists. Should this be cited as a source?
3. Thirdly, re: the contested paragraph, what to do when academic discourse discounts earlier printed references? While The Guardian article cited (as well as, I imagine, several other reviews) mention Goldy as director, subsequent sources have brought to light the contested Intellectual Property/Ownership question of his direction. I refer to Kingston University's Theatre and Performance Research Association's annual conference in 2011 on Failures, at which this was discussed as a case study, as well as audience Q&A/talkbacks at the venue's that made reference to it. Neil pye (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be suggested for semi-protection?Neil pye (talk) 10:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply. In no particular order;

• One specific IP address has self-identified as being Goldby. We're not going to make any assumptions about whether the other IP addresses were Goldby or not.
• Yes, I will consider requesting semi-protection for the article if there are more problems. (Or, you or anyone else are free to request it at WP:RFPP at any time.)
• However, at the very least, the latest edit by the IP editor was to remove weakly sourced negative information about a living person, which you (User:Neil pye) have now added to the article three times. You cannot do this - please stop. We don't want unsourced promotional drivel like what was in the article previously, but nor do we want unsourced or poorly sourced negative information. It has to be strongly sourced - WP:BLP is very clear about this. Until better sources are identified, this material cannot go in the article.

The question here is what stongly sourced material entails in this case, and whether a theatre's own publicity material counts as such. The conflict seems to come down to 2 facts:

1. Goldby maintains no cast changes took place on Autumn and Winter, whereas it is evident from comparing print publicity from before and during the play's run that cast names have changed. This is also evident by comparing the casts mentioned at this and this link with this one, for instance. It seems obvious that for whatever reason, Goldy himself wants, in retrospect, to deny this cast change has happened. This is in line with the article's history of heavy (self-)promotional content.

2. Goldby maintains the production of The Clinic was not cancelled, when, again, comparing publicity for the venue in case disproves this.Neil pye (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• "audience Q&A/talkbacks" are not in any way acceptable as sources for articles about living people.

I agree. A reflection of one such conversation can be found here. It should be noted this is an audience member's blogpost.Neil pye (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• What was written in The Stage, contrary to what I said before, is now something that none of us commenting here currently have access to. So in effect, anything written about that is now from your recollection of what was written in it. This is not acceptable as a source for an article about living people.
• In Wikipedia we report what independent, reliable published sources have already said about a subject. It's possible that this case reveals flaws in that approach, or flaws in the thoroughness of the quality press in reporting on theatre. But that doesn't change our policy. It's possible that on 7th May you knew, as a primary witness to events, material that the Guardian didn't know when it went to press two days later (and still hasn't corrected on its online version). If so, then we still go with the Guardian's version of events, not your version of events. Doubly so when the disputed version of events has the potential to cause harm to living persons.

Yes, I believe this case does reveal flaws in that approach, but agree we should abide by WP policy. Although I have been witness to multiple discussions, in and outside academic contexts, which contest Goldby's ownership and claim to credit of the particular production after the quoted sources were published, an online source or a source which does not go against WP:OR is as of yet unavailable. Goldby's insistence on deleting such information in an article which has a history of high (self?)promotional content is understandable, but also perhaps in breach of WP:POV.Neil pye (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• You can probably find me a reliable independent source that tells me that certain theatres are "off-West End" and certain theatres are "fringe". And there are reliable independent sources that tell us what theatres Goldby directed for, and when. But it is WP:SYNTHESIS for us to put these facts together and mention them in the article about Goldby in Wikipedia's voice. We don't do that - we only narrate the facts that way if there is an independent reliable source which makes that point. Otherwise, we merely add the information about Orange Tree Theatre being "off-West End" (if such a statement is reliably sourced) to the article about the theatre itself; and if someone reading the article about Goldby wants to know what sort of theatre the Orange Tree is, they click on the link to its article.

I would suggest using WP's own classification for this: [1].Neil pye (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• I'm very interested in the Kingston University source if it's a published academic paper or similar. However, we also have to consider the question of WP:WEIGHT - is this esoterical intellectual property dispute something that's central to Goldby's notability and career, such that it's widely discussed in sources that mention him? Or is it principally of academic interest?

I wonder if this goes against WP:OR.Neil pye (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• The article in its current state is very badly sourced, and this needs further work (it may need removal of material that's only based on hearsay or on publicity output from theatre venues).
• The IP self-identifying as Goldby has suggested the deletion of the entire article, on my talk page. Whether that is possible or not, is a little unclear. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I would agree actually. Given the article's heavy dependency on publicity output from venues, 'hearsay' or 'in conversation with'-type sources, the history of this article as a platform for, as you call it, 'unsourced promotional drivel like what was in the article previously' and the questionable notability of the subject (a director who works in educational institutions, fringe and off-West End venues, albeit some of them abroad) I would suggest deletion of the entire article.Neil pye (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I've asked for a fourth opinion. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

And a few more, since this seemed an interesting opportunity. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at your questions, I would argue he's notable enough for an article, but it needs better sources than this.Martin Gray89 (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Berthold Brecht's A day in the life of the great scholar Wu

This play is not on the list of Brecht's work, so I can't figure out what is the source work of this translation. Anyone know? -- kosboot (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)