Jump to content

Talk:Mark Bunker/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Travolta autograph

Just to clarify. Mark Bunker held no signs, and, as far as I know wasn't directly threatened, but was a few feet away filming the protest. A third protestor, wearing a Xenu costume was working the other side of the street.

Before the incident with the "professional autograph hound", a Travolta representative appeared at the front door area of the theater and announced that Travolta would not sign autographs "...because of that sign", and suggested that the crowd fix the "problem" themselves. Apparently after some consideration of the implications of calling for mob violence, the rep returned and announced that "naturally, it's perfectly legal for this person to be protesting here, and he wasn't suggesting that anyone do anything violent".

Most of the crowd was merely confused by the entire exchange and never hostile. The "professional Autograph Hound" was the only person to show animosity of any kind.

Zinjifar (Joe Lynn) —The preceding comment was moved by Raymond Hill from the article to the talk page on 21:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

"Wise beard man"

A funny new meme - but you need to find a reference to it in a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source before you can stick it in the article. Cirt (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the youtube link of him saying it good enough?--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No. See my comment above of what would be satisfactory, re: secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 11:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Update, secondary source
  • Masters, Kim (February 7, 2008). "'Anonymous Wages Attack on Scientologists: The fight started when the Scientologists tried to get a video of Tom Cruise off the Internet". Morning Edition: Digital Culture. National Public Radio. Retrieved 2008-02-07. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

There you go!  :) Cirt (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Good secondary source for bunker article: Toronto Star 202.161.71.161 (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added some information from that source to the article, but do not know how to reference. If someone could add the reference, that would be appreciated. 121.44.227.79 (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Revert per NPOV and BLP

Can you please explain why you feel these policies negate mentioning the attacks that WBM has received from COS? 121.44.227.79 (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, did you have a WP:RS/WP:V secondary source for this? Perhaps I just did not see it, but it looked like a WP:OR violation, no? Cirt (talk) 05:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It is from the Toronto Star article linked above. There is a whole section on Mark Bunker in it, which contains the info about his harassment by the COS. 202.161.71.161 (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but having its entire own subsection seems a bit like too much undue weight. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Could it not be mentioned in relation to the mention of him starting XenuTV?

"In response to his criticism, he has been picketed by scientologists"? 202.161.71.161 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

References

The reference to the emmy he got does not exist the reference is a bio on Lena' Lewis makes no mention of an emmy or Mark Bunker as a matter of fact KUSI has no mention of Mark Bunker anywhere on it. And i dont think that using Mark Bunker's personal web site should be used as a reference —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot Action Man (talk • contribs) 07:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Added the info back in with a cite to a secondary WP:RS/WP:V source. Cirt (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Overcite

Repeating the same references over and over again at the end of each sentence is a little much. Most of these can be combined and pushed to the end of the paragraph. AndroidCat (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In topics such as this one that can be contentious, I tend to rather have cites at end of sentences. Plus - when the article gets expanded more, if there are only cites at ends of paragraphs it becomes very confusing to try to parse which cite at the end of paragraphs goes to what info. Cirt (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I do sorta think that the first 3 cites in the subsection Work in television aren't really that great, could be better off just using the cite to Toronto Star in that sentence. Cirt (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Neopets

Viacom bought Neopets, which is owned by several prominent scientologists. Worth mentioning? klosterdev (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, not really - unless that is discussed in some sort of conjunction as related to Mark Bunker? Cirt (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Viacom was the company that sent the copyright infringement notice to YouTube that resulted in the shutting down of his channel. klosterdev (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Sounds pretty tangential to me. Cirt (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Birthday

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPxbN1njYls&feature=related May 23 1956 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.218.91 (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS/WP:V source? Cirt (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Birth place

I am not a regular editor of Wikipedia, but in this video, Bunker himself says that he was born in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Just thought I'd help out by adding it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywSabB8LqnI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.106.65 (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Emmy Award

The award is referred to simply as an "Emmy Award". The organization, "Pacific Southwest Emmy Awards", is not the name of the award - it is a chapter of the main Emmy Awards awarding organization. -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky situation. Technically speaking, you seem to be correct. Yet, "Emmy Award", in most people's eyes, means Primetime Emmy Award, and nothing else. So if we write "He's an Emmy Award winning person" when he did not in fact win a Primetime Emmy Award we are misleading our readers, even if it is not our intention. Explaining the situation seems to be best, and that would be too complicated to do in the lead. So I actually agree with you in removing the award in the lead completely, and let the article itself make the distinction. Writing that he is an "Emmy Award" winner without any prior explanation is not acceptable. --Conti|✉ 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Alright. I have added further descriptive text info to the lede, per WP:LEAD. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
That looks fine to me. Usually the lead shouldn't get into details like that, but there's not much else there, so it's not that there's too much text. :) --Conti|✉ 19:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Grayfell (talk · contribs), I don't see how we can accept a self-published boast. There must be a better source, if it's true. Wiki never accepts a person's enumeration of his own awards on other pages. I should have put this explanation in my edit notes. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, looking at it closer, I can see that. If the only source mentioning the award -a regional Emmy, as the above comments correctly emphasize- were Bunker's blog, then I would 100% agree with you. As it is, I only agree maybe 75%. I hate it when stuff like this is only sourced to primary content, and it happens way too much. However, this isn't at the puffy level of the Stevie Awards, and the regional Emmy is one legitimate part of why Bunker is notable. Since there are two other (not ideal) sources this seems like it could potentially be an acceptable supplemental source. I think the regional Emmy is worth mentioning, but Bunker's blog only barely mentions it, so I've removed it again. I do think it arguably falls under blpselfpub, but at the very least it's not an WP:ELNEVER and can be considered. It's a potentially usable source for some content, but you are right, it wasn't really serving a purpose here. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Self published sources

@Grayfell:, The web site tonyortega.org is self published. WP:SPS: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." The bold is in the original. There are no exceptions listed. Why have reverted to include this source? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are exceptions listed: the very next paragraph after SPS is WP:ABOUTSELF. This is an interview with Bunker being used to support a non-controversial, minor, non-promotional detail of Bunker's project which is entirely relevant. I see no problem here. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I get it that you see no problem. The web page is self published and the word "insignificant" does not appear in the policy. If the crowd sourcing supports the statement, why is the second source needed? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I never said anything about "insignificant". The source is usable under ABOUTSELF. Having a redundant source is desirable when the other is a rolling-post. Trying to remove a link on a technicality seems like WP:BURO. Grayfell (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Do not characterize my motives, and I will not characterize yours. I understand Never to mean never, as a rule that applies to all cases, without fudge room. It seems that the authors of the policy intended to preclude the possibility that I might publish an "interview" with Hillary Clinton on my personal web page, and present that as a source for Wikipedia. Self published is self published. This is a third-party source about a living person, claiming to have the information direct from the living person. According to WP policy, this has no more credibility than a gossip columnist's statements about his whispered conversation with Hollywood star. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
One of the requirements of ABOUTSELF is that there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. I do not see any reasonable doubt that Tony Ortega (journalist) interviewed Mark Bunker. Both are otherwise relatively obscure journalists with a shared history of covering Scientology. There is no whispering involved. Here's how Bunker's own site describes it: There is no better source for news about Scientology than Tony Ortega's blog... followed by more gushing.[1] Casting doubt on its authenticity seems like a stretch which overlooks all relevant context. Grayfell (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but WP:ABOUTSELF refers to self-published sources about the self, not to self-published sources about other people. I do not object to the Bunker's own publications about himself. I object to exactly what is prohibited: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people." Bunker is the living person. Ortega is the person publishing on tonyortega.org, hence tonyortega.org is a "third-party source". And tonyortega.org is self-published, with no peer or editorial review. And that is what is not permitted. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
It's an interview by a journalist being quoted to fill-in and support a minor, non-controversial detail. The spirit of these policies is being honored, and even the letter is at worst, debatable. You have not put forth a valid reason other than WP:BURO to objection to the source. Please stop wasting time on this. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
That situation is covered and nixed by the rule above: "...even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." This is clearly a violation of the rules, not an edge case. This is smack in the middle of don't-go-there land, already considered and rejected by dozens of other editors in years past when they wrote the policies. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@Grayfell:, I have posted the question to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#TonyOrtega.org.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Bunker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Bunker/Archive_1&oldid=786380057"