Talk:John Clark (English actor)/Archive 1

Archive 1

To "e" or not to "e" - What's in a name?

An anonymous contributer has added a caution that an Australian actor with the name of John Clarke (with an "e") might cause confusion. A careful glance at the International Movie Data base (IMDb) will reveal that there are almost 50 members of the entertainment world with the John Clark name without an "e", and over 30 with an "e'". Lest some kind of unnerving precedence is caused by leaving it in, this caution has been removed JohnClarknew 20:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witness influence

Anonymous editor 70.127.238.66 seems to object to the inclusion of a disfellowshipped member of the sect in this story, which is told fully at the website johnclarkprose.com and is part of the court record. The point being that the unnamed party had been a family friend and not an assistant. Perhaps 70.127.238.66 will expose him or her self, sign off properly, and reveal his or her interest in continually editing the information. JohnClarknew 17:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

"Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases."

Just because it's on your blog doesn't make it a good thing to put in a biography. Large portions of this entry read like the subject defending various elements of it.

References 9, 10, 11, & 12 are all from the subjects own blog and do not qualify as third-party sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.96.60 (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

People Magazine story

Ref 10 is another unsigned (of course) reference to a People Magazine story just after the s**t hit the fan. Far be it for me to remove it (POV). However, let it be noted that it is largely made up prior to available court records, there are quotes from people I have never met such as rival producer Arthur Cantor, nobody thought the kid was my son's, and the Green Card scam, enabled by Lynn and our son, was unknown at that time since it was against the law. [1] And Nicolette married the plumber. Sensationalist press is a poor source for verifiable facts. Hopefully, the story will just RIP, along with some of the participants. Personally, I have never been interviewed for a properly researched story at this late date, nobody's very interested. JohnClarknew (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel sorry for celebrities on account of stories like that. However we're not in a position to dissect truth from fiction. The two alternatives would be to remove People Magazine as a source, or to attribute the story to them. I think the latter would be the least complicated, something like "According to People, ..." That would allow readers to judge the veracity on their own.   Will Beback  talk  09:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So subject editing is considered a Conflict of Interest under Wiki guidelines and there's even a tag for it, says the Honorable Memphisto. Now how about making a tag indicating "This page was created and edited by a publicist for the subject to push a book/film/album or career". And/or "This page was edited by a fan/agent/manager/lawyer/accountant/pastor/relative/friend of the subject." Fair? Make sense? Too, what we want to see is third party reference, because they MUST be reliable, and we trust their readers to recognize veracity when they see it. Of course. Readily available are People Magazine , TMZ , National Enquirer and Page six, all excellent references, especially for biography pages of notables. For fear that irony is missed here (a common failing among Americans), I only wish to point out that this is a problem worth thinking through. Come now, fellow Wikipudlians, have at it! Anyone want to remove the tag? JohnClarknew (talk) 01:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That same "COI" tag is also used in cases where publicists, managers, friends, and other people with known conflicts of interest are editing an article. It's not just for autobiographical editing. You may also remember that concerns about autobiographical editing were raised four years ago, and nearly got the article deleted:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Clark (actor/director). At the same time, an editor posted to your talk page with a link to the guideline on autobiography: Wikipedia:Autobiography.[2] I suggest you read that, and a section of WP:BLP: WP:BIOSELF.

As for sources, the lives of actors and directors tend to get covered in celebrity-oriented publications. We should use the best available. I don't see the National Enquirer or TMZ being used here. People magazine has a better reputation than those.   Will Beback  talk  02:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If memory serves, Will, the issue was not autobiographical editing, but notability. To my mind, autobiography should be encouraged, not discouraged, and labeled as such. Autobiography produces interesting facts not otherwise likely to be knowable. It also is capable of outside regulation. The list I gave is not possible to regulate. Any compromised editor ever own up to being linked to their subject? I'd guess not. I'm moving the tags to the bottom of the page. JohnClarknew (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Further tagging prompts me to delete them, and substitute the autobiographical tag, which covers the concerns raised by other users. Please discuss here, before making changes. That's policy. Thank you. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly encourage people to write their autobiographies. But Wikipedia is not the place to do it. If you were to write an autobiography and post it on a website then we could use that as a source. You could give your account of the issue written about in People, for example, and then we could cite your website for a contrasting view.

One of the tags you removed is {BLP sources|date=March 2009}. That tag concerns the lack of sources, which is different than the COI/autobio matter. It should be restored.   Will Beback  talk  20:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please point out missing sources. I would rather correct the problem, than provide unsourced material. And thanks for the advice re. my writing an autobiography. I'll think about it. Meanwhile, my official website has to suffice. I should live so long. JohnClarknew (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to write an entire biography on your website for us to cite it. You could, for example, write a correction to the People magazine piece. As for sources, It's hard to tell what needs to be sourced without checking every listed reference. But as a start, I see that the entire second paragraph of "Early career" doesn't have any footnotes. At the other end of the article, there is some recent material about a second marriage and a heart operation.   Will Beback  talk  21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've checked out your "as a start" question about the lack of footnotes in the second paragraph. Let's see now. How do I show I was in the MN? I could download a copy of my indenture certificate. Oh-oh, it's copyrighted. I already downloaded a copy of the ship's log of a round-the world voyage at the page Silver Line. An editor already deleted it. Copyright problems. Was I in rep in Ottawa and Toronto? How on earth do I provide proof of this? Canada does not provide a database for this kind of thing. The references to shows in the States is already listed under IMDb and IDBD provided under external links. Was I divorced from my first wife? Linked to her page (which is owned by the Wikipedia Foundation.) At the end of the article, do you want my medical records? Do you want my marriage certificate?

I've gone to the trouble of taking you up on this in order to show you that it is necessary to exercise discretion in the application of the Wiki rules. JohnClarknew (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It is typical for subjects of biographies to want to add unverifiable details, but that goes against the core Wikipedia requirement of verifiability. If there's no verifiable source for the assertion the subject worked in Ottawa, then we should leave it out of the article. When it comes to writing biographies, the main thing that the subject can bring is a familiarity with what has been written about them. Many people, especially in entertainment, keep scrapbooks of their press clippings.

As I wrote above, self-published material that isn't self-promotional and doesn't involve third-parties can be used. So if the subject wrote an autobiography and posted it on a blog, then we could it use it as a source for the job in Ottawa.   Will Beback  talk  05:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I point out to you that when a person about whom a page has been written, sees a mistake, or a misrepresentation that attacks their integrity, and edits it, they are AUTOBIOGRAPHICALLY editing it. The rules of Wikipedia, if exercised to the fullness of its possibilities, will cause this wonderful enterprise to grind to a halt, frozen by the application of endless pedantic sophistry. I don't think that this was what Jimmy Wales had in mind. His vision is a living thing. I know that's true, because I watched him the other evening being interviewed on Charlie Rose. JohnClarknew (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately autobiographical detail added directly to wikipedia (rather than via a verified source) is highly damaging to the integrity of the encyclopaedia - it makes us a primary source and much easier to subvert. With the greatest respect in the world; citing Jimmy Wales' names does not add weight to an argument :) The only way to be sure how he feels about this would be to see a direct comment (which is not unlikely - he does seem to keep an eye on BLP articles). In actual fact the rules apply even more strongly for autobiographical additions; if the result is stilted and incomplete material, then that is just what happens. With luck such issues will be correctly sourced and verified with time. Till then we do the best we can. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Photo

There's a new photo, with the caption, "Clark reunites with his kids after the funeral". However, there's no mention of a funeral in the article, so this is mysterious.   Will Beback  talk  06:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What? The Mail article is replete with mentions of the funeral! What is going on here? JohnClarknew (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue was that the source you mention was being used to support a completely unrelated piece of text. I can see no mention of the funeral in the article (which is the important bit :)). For now I have removed the onsourced material and added some text about the funeral based on that source. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the Wiki article, not the Mail article. Semantics again. Thanks for fixing it. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

War dodger?

I removed some commentary per BLP that makes it appear he was a war dodger. Unless this is well covered, notable, undue weight, NPOV, whatever, I would leave it out. --Threeafterthree (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I served in the British Merchant Navy as an officer for 3 years during the Korean conflict. We were sent into Communist China (first western ship at the start of the conflict). So far from dodging the draft, I felt I'd done my bit. The MN was raised to quasi-military status, as I'm sure you know. JohnClarknew (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for page protection

I don't want to initiate this myself, but would perhaps Will Beback and other admins who are familiar with the content, consider giving this page page protection? It will be subject to ongoing harassment because of controversy, and it seems to have arrived at some sort of stability. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well semi-protection is only usually granted for ongoing IP vandalism - which we are not seeing here. And full protection is only really granted for cases where there is edit warring and ongoing contentious editing - again which we don't seem to be seeing. If you really feel the need for page protection then try WP:RFPP, but I am not sure it will be granted --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

My biggest problem is with User talk:Memphisto. He is tremendously biased against me in his editing of the page. I have asked him to discuss here before editing, but he refuses to do that, and we are close to an editing war. That should be avoided. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autobiography states that "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community. Editing a biography about yourself should only be done in clear-cut cases." My edits are neutral, the bias in this article is P.O.V. contributed by JohnClarknew. Memphisto (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"Not allowed" or "Strongly discouraged", which is it? I claim exception, because of the unusual elements in this case. I have been interviewed by the press on more than one occasion, always on the front steps of my house after they knock on my door. They ignore mitigating facts, unwilling to give up on a juicy story.

Like it or not, Wikipedia is used as a reference by the press. First place they go to, usually at the top of their Googling research, and because it is a written record, they cannot ignore it. The facts don't make my wife look too cool or blameworthy, nor my kids. I wish this had all remained private, where it belonged. Thanks to money-hungry lawyers, the filings got picked up, first by the National Enquirer. You have only to read reader comments at the bottom of all the press reports. Readers are unwilling to give me a break, because they are told nothing about the green card scam, or about Lynn's longterm lover. My behavior becomes understandable, seen in context. And it's my goal for the article to provide that verifiable context. Lynn's career is honorable, and her fans are legion, and I helped to make it that way. Her career was mine too, and I was proud of our work together. I've tried to let the article reflect that. That and the truth, because unlike her, I have a life to lead... JohnClarknew (talk) 23:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First, we're here to write the world's encyclopedia, not to right the world's wrongs. Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, while giving necessary respect to living people.

Second, the reason that biography subjects are strongly discouraged from participating in editing is that they normally cannot maintain an objective distance from the topic. There's no indication that that's been possible here.

Third, it's a bit rude to assume that anyone who sees problems with this biography is motivated by their love of Lynn Redgrave. Many experienced Wikipedia editors have worked on dozens or even hundreds of biographies, including those of people they've never even heard of before. Autobiography problems are not unique to celebrities.

Lastly, I believe that John Clark produced and directed a play about the personal history of the Redgrave family. To profit by exposing ones private matters and then to object to the loss of privacy seems a bit inconsistent.

In summary, I think it would be best if we all pay close attention to WP:BLP and WP:AUTO, and to the rest of the core policies.   Will Beback  talk  00:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

My dear Will, I have every faith in the 1741 current administrators, and you are one, who are able to act in the fairest way. I don't have faith in all of the millions of users, logged in, anonymous and otherwise, some of whom do terrible things to articles on a whim. As for the play you refer to, it was about a dead member of the family, and dead celebrities lose their right of privacy, and mostly don't have it when they're alive too. But I am not a celebrity. Different rules. But it did not stop my (ex) wife from referring disparagingly to me in her last Broadway outing, her last play Nightingale last December. [3] I hope you realize that the papers do indeed use Wikipedia biographies when preparing their celebrity portraits. Would you have them banned on the basis that this is an encyclopedia, to be used by scholars only? I think not. I think that Wikipedia succeeds because it has gone far beyond the boundaries of scholarly research. It is what it is, and the WP community is proud of its huge and wide utility and usefulness by all and sundry throughout the world. Righting wrongs? Why not, if the free propagation of knowledge does that too. I'd say that the founders would probably agree. JohnClarknew (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have faith in all of the millions of users, logged in, anonymous and otherwise, some of whom do terrible things to articles on a whim; with the greatest will in the world. Tough. There are a number of people watching your biography, any vandalism or BLP violations should be dealt with fairly quickly. Protecting articles because you are concerned about some uncertain future character assassination is not per our core policies :) However, if you have genuine concerns about the articles future please contact WP:OTRS. The newspapers may well use WP for it's research; unfortunately that does not make it a place for you to right wrongs you feel have been propagated against you. The article in it's current form seems fairly measured, verified and balanced (with some work still needed); we can only work with already published material. We are not a primary resource. Everything on this page should be available from other sources directly (and we will try our best to use balanced sourcing and drop any marginal or tabloid junk) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There's always the option of stubbing it. Do we really need to report on so many details anyway? Encyclopedia articles should be dull. Maybe we should make this more like a resume. Born, school. Work. Married, divorced. We're not required to mention all of the details that appear in single sources.   Will Beback  talk  11:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

IMDb does that very well now. Suggesting WP biographies should be stubs? Try that on, say, Lindsay Lohan. 201 references, 15 archived talk pages. And that's so far. Do it, test your theory, (but not here, please) and see what happens. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback is referring to situations where dubious/under-sourced/contentious biographies are sometimes stubbed to remove all of the elaborate material - which can then be added back in over time in the usual way. Think of it as a reboot. I don't think that's really a worthy option here - the material doesn't appear to be very contentious (the only disagreement in content is by the subject). It could do with some copyediting and extra sourcing. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

the only disagreement in content is by the subject. That is not true. An editing war is ongoing with Memphisto who makes changes deleting legitimate content which he considers detrimental to Lynn Redgrave's reputation. For example, he includes several obituaries which properly belong on her page, not this page. I do not edit out content critical of me. Far from it. Please check the history of the page. Meanwhile we should all, users and admins alike, re-read the contents of WP:DR. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the objection to using Redgrave's obits as a source for this article.   Will Beback  talk  20:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged"

I think it is now time we now sought an undertaking from JohnClarknew to STOP editing the John Clark (actor/director) article, as per the guidelines in Wikipedia:Autobiography. He could continue to make suggestions/contributions on the talk page, and then leave other editors to decide whether to implement them in the main article. Memphisto (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinly disguised - beware

It is clear that what is really going on here is CENSORSHIP. Memphisto (and possibly others hiding under a hood of anonymity), incorporating a strict and narrow interpretation of WP rules, use the opportunity to suppress this person's constitutional FIRST AMENDMENT right of FREE SPEECH. JohnClarknew (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, ok, it's not a good idea to cite first amendment here.... it's just not cricket :) I'm struggling to see the POV issues in the article; Memphisto's edits seem constructive - he is removing unsourced material per BLP policy. If you have specific issues relating to removed content then why not raise them directly rather than using generalities. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 13:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Read the history and the tons of material above and below, for ******'* sake. He's impervious. And we're not playing games here. JohnClarknew (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You really do need to raise specifics though; I see nothing on this talk page by Memphisto which is problematic. I see nothing wrong with his edits to the article from the perspective of a newcomer to the biography; but if you raise specifics we can discuss them. and we're not playing games here; I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds worryingly like a threat - again behavior that will win few favors here. Ultimately this biography is subject to identical rules as any other bio on WP - which means verified sources, avoidance of primary sources for anything beyond factual information and neutral language. It is worth pointing out that WP deals with verifiability not truth. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 14:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

and we're not playing games here; I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds worryingly like a threat. Please read your comment about "cricket", above, so you understand better and think better before you write. Meanwhile, let me point out to you that when you approach 80 years of age, as I am, you are mostly retired and thinking about your name and what you leave behind. You guys, do you have day jobs? Assuming you are part of the work force, how come you have all day to work on Wikipedia, making "corrections" to selected people's work? JohnClarknew (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean about games :) It was meant as a friendly way of saying "that's not how we do it here" (see this). It's an English/Australian expression. Sorry. As to the rest; calling our motives and our time commitments into question is also not a great tack - please raise specific issues so we can discuss those instead. In terms of you are mostly retired and thinking about your name and what you leave behind; I sympathise with this. However it is not WP's place to give you a legacy, and it is definitely not a place for you to write that legacy. Rather than this somewhat irrelevant aside why don;t we get back to discussing the problems you feel exist with the current article? --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that you and Mephisto may be implicitly colluding. This is from you on Mephisto's talk page: Regarding your last edit; per BLP policy (at least as I read it) sources by the subject can be considered authoritative about factual things on themselves. The last ref you removed supported only factual stuff - what do you think? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC); (good work otherwise btw :) it's slowly taking shape) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This may be getting sinister. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Colluding? Sinister? John, I was commenting on his recent edits and making a suggestion (which was that the reference he removed as a primary source could probably remain as it supported only factual details - per policy). To which he agreed. The extra comment was a thumbs up to let him know I felt that the rest of his edits looked like improvements. Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks directly at editors. If you want to make substantial accusations of collusion then please feel free to open a case at one of the noticeboards (e.g. WP:AN/I might be a relevant place). I have asked you about three times to stop casting aspersions against other editors and instead to talk about actual issues you feel exist in the biography. If you won't do that how can we discuss them? I've tried my best to remain patient but unless you start to discuss issues directly instead of attacking editors then I think this conversations has run it's course :( --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, another attempt to do just that. Tom, are you so naive as to think that newspapers/periodicals/websites don't exercise POV? The NY Times is Liberal, so is the LA Times, as is CNN, right? The Daily Telegraph and Fox News are considered to be ultra Conservative. As for their attitude towards celebrities, they push their POVs too, supported by their chorus of fans. I've written about it here. It is because of this that I need the page to be balanced in its media references. BALANCED, does leave a truthful legacy, from my point of view. That is what I want, and I mean to get it. You may not like the use of the word "legacy". Call it a collateral result, if you prefer. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while some bias does exist, they are widely considered reliable sources here on Wikipedia. For various reasons; but mostly because they are third party, relatively non-partisan etc. I don't see any way round the sources; anything you have written directly fails as a reliable source for anything beyond factual non-contentious information (that could be verified as factual in other ways) - such as your national service. Any opinion you have is just that - opinion. In terms of your marriage it is problematic to rely on yourself for an account because it risks introducing opinion/falsehood as fact. We work really hard to keep POV, tabloid rubbish and defamatory information out of biographies and I think so far that has worked well here! Tom, are you so naive as to think; just another reminder - please avoid personal attacks. It is because of this that I need That is what I want, and I mean to get it this sort of attitude will get you nowhere here (think "I want never gets"). It is the very reason why writing auto-biographical material on WP is so hard and highly discouraged. You are inherently biased in favour of yourself; it is hard to overcome such natural POV. Biographies are not shining lights on the subject, they are not here to build your legacy, they are here, on WP, to record the verifiable (using WP:RS's facts about your life - be they good or bad. On the other hand I am having a hard time figuring why the biography upsets you - it seems factual, pretty positive etc. It could do with more focus on your work and achievements and less focus on the Lynn, but apart from that it is a pretty balanced legacy from what I can see! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to communicate with you reminds me of something I learned in my MN days - never take a piss off the stern into a following wind. Perhaps I should have read this before creating the page. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hooray more abuse. Well, if you will not open a constructive debate I cannot help you any further, sorry. Good luck. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 07:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance. Someone please tell me what stage we are at? Memphisto (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Why delete Lucy Komisar's review?

Lucy Komisar, a notable investigative reporter and Broadway play reviewer (she's a member of the Drama Desk, the organization of New York theater critics, writers and editors since 1998) wrote this review of Nightingale. It is headlined “Nightingale” is Lynn Redgrave’s less-than-completely-truthful memoir of women’s lives. So you deleted it, and substituted a favorable review. Why, may I ask? Well, I think there is room for 2 reviews, just as you inserted 2 obits. I intend to put it back. JohnClarknew (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Favorable in what way? Memphisto (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1