User talk:BMeloolahJayne

Help requested to remove false, harmful and potentially libelous information on living biography page

Hello,

My name is Melissa Fine and I am writing regarding the living biography of Marilyn, a singer, found at this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_%28singer%29

I am currently the only person authorized by Marilyn to write anything about his past, present and future plans, and am co-authoring his upcoming autobiography. I am more than happy to provide you with whatever credentials you require to confirm my title and involvement with Marilyn, and reassure your team that I am indeed working and speaking on his behalf.

Please understand that, while Marilyn is all too happy for this Wikipedia biography to reflect the flat-out truth of his life, there are way too many poorly sourced, misrepresented situations, pure gossip, and outright lies in this article to even begin to know how or where to simply “edit” it. This requires a complete rewrite from Word Go. I am more than happy to collaborate with anyone in order to provide the accurate information and, rather than a flood of quotes and tabloid headlines taken as gospel from the likes of Boy George and Gavin Rossdale, with literally nothing sourced from The Source, I would be more than willing to cite actual quotes from Marilyn as well as all the correct information. Absolutely none of what this article claims is Marilyn's current situation or “plans for releases to iTunes” is true, and that is but one of the many harmful and inaccurate statements being read by many as ″The Truth.” I, however, can and will set the final record straight either alone or with the assistance of any writer or editor willing to assist me in tearing this down and putting up a candid but accurate biography.

I apologize as I am new to Wikipedia, and am in urgent need of assistance in finding the most efficient way to correct the misleading, false, and potentially libelous information contained on this site. I do recognize you have procedures and guidelines and am happy to learn them and comply, but simply respectfully request some help so that this matter may be resolved to our mutual satisfaction as soon as possible.

Thank you in advance. I look forward to working towards a verified, factual and unbiased look at Marilyn's career and actual upcoming plans.

Sincerely,

Melissa Fine BMeloolahJayne (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please Note: Information sourced form the subject is not regarded as reliable. Sounds silly, but would you believe a press release from a company about their latest wonder product? Have a look at WP:BIO, and WP:RS about reliable sources. Also, look at WP:COI which is about conflict of interest, which is when you write about yourself or a subject you are very close to. And, just in case, a look at WP:OWN mightn't go amiss. Remember too that promotion is not allowed, and a neutral point of view should be adopted (WP:NPOV), and that reliably sourced material should not be removed (unless you have better sources on your side...) without a discussion on the talk page. I'll leave a tag here as someone else might come up with a better explanation (probably will...), but I'll change it to an ordinary help as admin intervention isn't necessary here at present. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to what Peridon said... as it stands, the article is largely unreferenced, so there shouldn't be any problems caused by removing the inaccurate statements you've identified. Ideally, any information added to an article should be referenced by the use of <ref>[reference in here]</ref> tags. This will create a footnote at the bottom of the page. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Peridon, for the links and info. I shall give them all a good read right away. And thanks also to Catfish Jim and the soapdish for the additional information regarding the removal of inaccurate statements and footnotes. If I may clarify, neither Marilyn nor I are concerned with PR work here, and I do understand about the neutral POV. We only want this to actually be neutral and accurate. Much of what I have read is not only inaccurate, it is irrelevant to a factual biography and clearly meant to make Marilyn sound like a pitiful pauper begging off fans—NONE of which is remotely true or reflective of his status, state of mind, personality, or current creative projects. As I said, Marilyn is quite comfortable with the truth, the good and the bad, so long as it is correct. I am aware of the person who wrote this entry. He is, I am afraid, a truly obsessed stalker-type fan who somehow felt, to be polite, "slighted" when Marilyn declined to participate in his attempt to write this entry and, in fact, specifically asked that he did not write it. I believe this is what led to the inaccurate and tabloid-esque portrayal of Marilyn as the polar opposite of who he is, and if neutral is the goal, it is my belief that such an ugly and false portrait of Marilyn is far from neutral in tone. It is these items, as well as the out-of-context, incorrect, and irrelevant jabs at his character (which fly in the face of what a proper neutral encyclopedic entry should be) that I am eager to to correct. So I guess my question now, though I am sure it will be answered in the guides you have provided, is: am I able to simply edit, change, delete, etc. what is written as long as what I write is properly sourced, cited, and adheres to your guidelines?

Again, thank you for your assistance and your patience as I familiarize myself with the way in which Wikipedia works. BMeloolahJayne (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Remember that wikipedia is collaborative so anyone can and may write in that article. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 18:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Ebe123, I appreciate your input. Of course, before I write anything, I will give the guides Peridon suggested a close read. I'm really not here to step on toes. While I understand that anyone can write anything in the article, does that also mean anyone can and may delete and change anything in the article, so long as the edits/changes are, of course, properly cited and written with that neutral voice and verifiable Encyclopedic tone/style? As an example, this is but one of the issues I have with this article:

Boy George and Marilyn moved into a squat in Kentish Town, a suburb of London. Boy George claims they were later chased out by a neighbour who tried to break down the front door with an axe because the neighbour was attracted to Marilyn, whom he assumed was a woman and later found out was a man. Also according to George, in his autobiography Take It Like A Man, Marilyn once attempted to seduce David Bowie at a nightclub venue called 'Legends', but was rebuffed.[1]

Now, while George was of course part of Marilyn's history, and Marilyn has no problem with referring to their friendship, I fail to see what these quotes from George's book add to an Encyclopedic biography about Marilyn's career. I've not shown Marilyn these particular quotes, but I do know, regardless of what George wrote in his book, that David Bowie and Marilyn were friends prior to George and Marilyn ever meeting. More importantly, however, I don't see how any of this is actually relevant to an Encyclopedic entry. It's better suited to a page on Perez Hilton's website. These are the kinds of harmful character “jabs” I am talking about, and this entry is riddled with them. I would think the space would be better utilized discussing the musical contributions Marilyn made during what was a truly pivotal point in the evolution of the music industry; his successes, as well as those that weren't so successful; his presence and influence on the elite scene from what was, at the time, Ground Zero for a cultural and fashion revolution that would ultimately sweep across the world and define the look, sound, and style of the entire 80s decade; the global work and notoriety he gained as a much sought-after catwalk model for some of fashion's elite designers and shows, etc. etc., etc.

Instead, here's another example from the current entry:

On a promotional tour of Australia in late summer 1984, Marilyn was pictured in The Sun newspaper sporting a black eye. A brawl had erupted in a bar, and Marilyn had been punched by a local man. He cancelled all engagements and returned to England.

Again, that is tabloid-quality reporting and is also inaccurate. Is it not more relevant to an Encyclopedic entry to mention verifiable information such as his tremendous success in Australia, the fact that he went to Australia on a promotional tour and was met by 600 photographers, was the lead story throughout Oz, and that there was such a public cry for him from his fans that he continued sitting for many Australian satellite interviews for several months after he left the country?

Even regarding the reference to his relationship with Gavin Rossdale, the writer of this entry loosely paraphrases Gavin's supposedly clear statements to Details, but fails to mention Marilyn's response to Gavin's disappointing depiction of their five-year romance as a one-night “experimental” fling, which appeared in In Touch magazine.

And as far as his plans for the future, not only is the iTunes release information absolutely and completely false, as Marilyn is the sole writer and owner of all of his material, there is no mention of his upcoming book, which I am co-authoring, the fact that he has been diligently working on writing new songs, and that he has plans for a new album to coincide with the release of the book next summer.

I can't emphasize this enough, Marilyn is an extremely candid and forthcoming person and would have no problem with a proper entry that discusses any aspect of his career or personal life. What both he and I do strongly object to is a so-called Encyclopedic entry that reads more like the nasty quips Boy George is famous for. Indeed, much of this current entry would be far more appropriate on the biography page for Boy George. Again, the failure of Taboo should rest solely on Boy George's shoulders, as it was his venture. Marilyn—or rather a depiction of Marilyn created by George, was simply another character in the musical, played by actors in London and on Broadway. Mentioning that a character based on Marilyn was part of Taboo, is, of course, perfectly fine, but to go so far beyond that as to comment on the reviews the show got, when Marilyn had absolutely nothing to do with it, seems ridiculous in this context.

And what about the perfectly ugly reference to Marilyn begging for computer money on MySpace? I can assure you, if there is even a speck of truth to that, which knowing Marilyn's character I highly, highly doubt, it was in all likelihood taken out of context here; for all I know, it was actually more of a joke between Marilyn and his friends or fans, as he does have a loyal fan base and goes out of his way to give a personal comment or touch to each of them. And that's IF this so-called “official” site even existed. Still, I find it hard to believe, but even if it were true, how is that possibly relevant to his contributions to music, pop culture, or the facts of his life in general? These kinds of comments are read, believe it or not, even by people within the music industry, and as Marilyn is currently moving out of his state of semi-retirement and is actively working on projects, it is actually potentially damaging to his future career. And again, for what? How is it even relevant? On this point, I will ask Marilyn what the details of this rumor actually were, but either way I emphatically believe it does not belong on a biography in any kind of Encyclopedia, wouldn't you agree? Not to mention the fact the only source for this entire claim is footnoted as “Marilyn's Official MySpace blog.” First, I do not believe Marilyn ever had such a site, as his personal site is “TheMrMarilyn”. Second, isn't it inappropriate to refer to a website such as MySpace? He is currently, personally, most active on his YouTube channel, where he regularly interacts with his fans, but I certainly would not quote (nor would he want me to) anything posted on a social networking site for a proper Encyclopedic entry.

Obviously, Ebe123, you see my numerous concerns and frustrations with the entire piece, and if you think I'm out of turn or flat-out wrong in any of my points, please, truly feel free to tell me. Neither Marilyn nor I are interested in using Wikipedia as a platform for a press release or a place to plug or sell anything. We wish to see, however, an accurate, neutral, fair, and well-sourced Wikipedia entry, as we acknowledge and value the trust people have in Wikipedia's unbiased and factual information. I'm so sorry for being so wordy here, but truly, this in its current state is simply unacceptable to us, and I would think it would go completely against the ethical and reliable reputation Wikipedia enjoys with so many millions of people who are seeking factual information. My plan, as of now, is to rewrite the entire entry from top to bottom, including quite possibly the photo, as I am certain there are many much more recognizable and representative photos of Marilyn's unique look, that Marilyn himself owns and would be more than happy to provide to this page. While I recognize anyone else can simply come in and rewrite me, I would like to think that, in the end, the overall vision and commitment to excellence that is Wikipedia will win out and a truly neutral, well-cited, and complete entry would be the goal of all who are involved for the correct reasons, rather than those who wish to use Wikipedia to fulfill their own juvenile and obsessive agendas.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read this, and again, I welcome any assistance, comments or guidance you have to offer.

BMeloolahJayne (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Melissa. Yes, anyone can edit. Material about living people should be sourced before inclusion, so people shouldn't be adding information without a source. The difficulty with celebrities is that there is a lot of material out there. In your example, an editor could legitimately add "was pictured in The Sun newspaper sporting a black eye. The Sun reported that a brawl had erupted in a bar, and Marilyn had been punched by a local man. He cancelled all engagements and returned to England.' <ref>The Sun, 12 May 1984 <ref> because it is a fact that the Sun said this. If it is wrong (it is The Sun after all), you could add "Marilyn's agent issued a statement that....." with a reference of where the statement is available, or maybe where another newspaper referenced the statement. In some cases, WP:UNDUE will be a help - not every trivial piece of gossip is worth repeating in the encyclopaedia. So, you could argue it is sufficient to say that the tour was cancelled.

The important thing is to discuss changes on the talkpage of the article, and only use published sources (don't have to be online, but they do have to be published). That will avoid any trouble, and improve the article no end. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Also be aware of a potential for WP:COI(Lihaas (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)).