Talk:Edward Furlong/Archive 1

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

Filmography

"Remnants" (2012) and "Aftermath" (2012) are the same film. "Remnants" was the working title. 99.249.89.252 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Jolene Blalock

Where's the part about his relationship with Jolene Blalock? I was watching interviews of her on startrek.com today, and she refers to her boyfriend then at the time, this would have been the first season of Enterprise so 2001, and it was Furlong. I guess I can see why they separated seeing his trouble and the eventual direction she took with her now husband, but just thought I'd throw it in here.

Untitled

I've removed this statement from the article for now. Unless a source is provided for it, it is potentially libelous. Cheers! Raystorm 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It being potentially defamatory (and unsourced) precludes it from being on the talk page as well. And I have just edited on that basis. WP:BLP can tell you more. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

About 20 in AHX

Is he really that old in American History X? He's 29 right now and the film was taken in 1998. This means he was 21 but he more likely looks like 15/16. --84.113.3.151 10:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

wow I never realized that...yeah in the movie he doesnt look old enough to be a senior in high school, which is the oldest his character could have possibly been since his character attended high school...must have been the lack of hair.

It's probably because he's only about 5'6" that he seemed younger. (92.7.25.247 (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

He was 19 when it was filmed in 1997. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.14.77 (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Japanese Music Career?

Since I own the albums & a video tape (They were just too good to pass up... and by good I mean bad) I know he released at least two albums in Japan, but they're not mentioned here. Anyone have more details on his attempted music career?

evidence of Edward Furlong's music career: http://www.myspace.com/edwardfurlongforever this page is curently on the main page of this article! but for those that missed it! here ya are!

christ....did you see his pictures on there? what the hell happened to him.

A Home of Our Own

I saw Edward in this movie and fell in love with Shayne(his character). He was really good. It's just a waste that he doesn't star in any good film right now, he really have talent. Fleurbutterfly 19:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Awful Photograph

That is truly an awful photo. I don't have one to replace it, but good God. WCityMike 01:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It's brilliant. Hat's off to whoever added it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.108.184.76 (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ we need a better Photo 131.95.219.123 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

This has been mentioned on the Living Persons board. I will go ahead and remove it. A picture is not required and I think this one makes WP look bad. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

A picture from "Terminator 2: Judgement Day" would be best, since that is his most famous film. (92.7.25.247 (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC))
I agree, but see WP:BLPN#Edward Furlong for the discussion of why that's probably not possible unless someone can persuade the copyright owner(s) of such an image to release it under a license suitable for Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please change the Photo...its been a year since this discussion, isnt there at least a way to contact that uy and ask him for one??? Arent there any savy people out there? Takollar (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately he looks a lot worse than that now. There really needs to be a picture from the 1990s because that was the height of his stardom. (92.10.142.63 (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC))

March 2013 - removing the only (terrible) bio photo that we presently have stored on wiki commons

Surely we can rustle up a better picture. Tleaver (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

where is he now?!

at the end of the personal life section it states he was still in jail that evening in january. did he ever get out?! 77.99.212.29 (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


yes, the following morning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.85.139 (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

Per WP:DENY, please do not interact with socks of banned user HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Furlong has made clear in several interviews that he was never asked to play John Connor in the third movie. (92.7.5.190 (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC))

I don't think that contradicts what's currently in the article. Specifically, "he was not asked to reprise the role". So I think the article is correct as it stands. But more detail on this may not be a bad thing. And it is possible to use interviews as sources. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It used to say he was not cast, but the reality is he was never considered for the third film. (92.7.5.190 (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC))

Yes, my mistake, I now see you had already made the change from "cast to reprise" to "asked to reprise". Not having time to go through the sources at the moment, I'm fine with this... I will get back later if I see anything amiss. (From memory, there were certainly considerations of having him in the third film, they just never came to anything and may have been much earlier than any significant part of the casting process.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Mugging

Per WP:DENY, please do not interact with socks of banned user HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

It's been reported all over the net that Furling claims he was mugged on Skid Row yesterday (23 August). Some editor keeps removing this from the article but it is too important to be taken out. (92.7.0.136 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC))

"too important" - Furlong as John Connor in Terminator 2, mocking Sarah Connor.
Why, though, is this too important? Was he seriously injured? Was it an event that had a significant impact on his life or career? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 07:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It shows he's reached the lowest point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.0.57 (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OK... but which reliable secondary source (for example a major newspaper) has said that's what it shows? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Negative information

Per WP:DENY, please do not interact with socks of banned user HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Somebody had tried to remove everything negative about Furlong, even though it was all sourced. I put it back, as it was POV to remove anything just because it did not portray the subject in a favourable light. (CoreyDavidson1974 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC))

I'm not disputing the accuracy of the information, but the sources aren't good enough for alleged criminal acts. As for the the tagging of my edits as possible vandalism..Did you call *moi* a vandal? -- Hillbillyholiday talk 03:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Removing almost half the article is vandalism, especially when virtually of all the information is sourced. I can find multiple sources for every incident mentioned just by doing a google search. Tmz might not be a well-liked source but it tends to be right about everything, it was reporting that Michael Jackson was dead for hours before the news was finally confirmed. (CoreyDavidson1974 (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC))
Not just TMZ, you got The Sun and the Daily Mail and all manner of shitty celebrity sites to support deeply personal information. If as you say there are multiple sources for the information, then use the reliable, non-tabloid, non-blog ones.
Also, you tagged my revert as 'vandalism' again, after I quite clearly expressed my displeasure at such an accusation. I will revert you once more. If you are troubled by my approach, I suggest you ask an administrator for a second opinion. -- Tabloid Terminator

I have looked through the sources and many of them are perfectly fine. Furlong is not exactly a major celebrity so his antics probably aren't going to be reported by the BBC or the Telegraph. Do not revert again until you have consensus for removing so much information from this article. (JacksonTylerFan (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC))

Ha, if you keep creating new accounts as this rate you'll surely reach 'consensus' in no time. Policy dictates:

Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

-- Hillbillyholiday talk 14:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Only some of the information was sourced to tabloids. If you vandalise this article again I am reporting you to an admin. (JacksonTylerFan (talk) 14:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC))

"Only some of the information was sourced to tabloids." Oh dear, if that's what you think, then you've just admitted that you have knowingly restored non-RS sources about contentious personal matters. Go call an admin if you want, I'm going to revert again. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 14:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Child star?

Was Furlong really a child star? He was already a teenager in T2. (AndrewStreeton (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC))

Valid question. Teenagers are generally considered children until they reach (in most places) the age of 18, at which point they are still teenagers but not children.
They don't always appreciate the label, though. Oddly enough, in the USA I've heard the term "kids" used to refer to people in their mid-20s (by their elders), but I think I've seen some UK kids comment things like "I'm 13 now so I'm not a kid". I think there is or was a Canadian comedy show entitled "the kids in the hall" whose principals were in their 20s. You're as young as you feel, perhaps.
But older people (and encyclopedias?) tend to go with the legal child/adult distinction - if someone is not an adult, they are a child, technically speaking anyway.
(The slight weirdness in the casting, or perhaps the script, is that the script says John is 10.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

November 21, 2012 incident

It needs to say that Furlong was charged with inflicting "corporal injury" on November 21, 2012, as this was a major reason why he received a jail sentence in January 2013. (GavinEsler (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC))

abuse of (blp + ref rules) to "whitewash" bio

hello;

there are certain users, who have been active on this article recently, who have chosen to remove LONGSTANDING & PROPERLY REFERENCED material, using spurious arguements.

THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE

blp rulescruft is not a license to whitewash biographies.

have restored the inappropriately removed material.

EVERYTHING in the "personal life" section of the article is common knowledge, reported in multiple sources.

if the above-mentioned users REALLY want to drag this out, we can go to dispute resolution right now, & maybe we can take a look @ what else the involved users have been "tidying up".

consider yourself warned.

Lx 121 (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Your threatening tone does not create a collegial atmosphere. Your article edit summary establishes a WP:BATTLEGROUND: "...want to see 'contentious material'? bring it on, arbitration, here we come..."[1] Did you really want to issue this kind of challenge to fight?
This biography has seen the attentions of a number of sockpuppets and drive-by contributors who have added gossip and innuendo which is too often poorly sourced. Banned editor HarveyCarter was at the root of much of the trashing of Furlong here; his material was largely purged by User:Hillbillyholiday in mid-July 2013. Persistent sockpuppets came here such as Appalling Alan, CoreyDavidson1974 and JacksonTylerFan, not to mention all the anon IPs starting with 92.xx, which indicate HarveyCarter in action. Editors such as myself and Hillbillyholiday have been working against the sockpuppets, trying to follow BLP policy.
Your two recent restorations taken together have added a couple of unverifiable (dead) sources:
  • http://www.classicscifi.com/index.php?option=com_csfactor&Itemid=0&actor=Edward+Furlong This URL was used for two different driving violations on September 25, 2001.
  • http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jxSy8KT-GJ07MPCv7rXqqE0gY-3g This URL was used for the reason and the date of divorce from Rachel Bella.
  • You used a reference from thesmokinggun.com which cannot be used for its unreliable commentary, and also cannot be used for its primary sources if those sources violate BLP, which in this case they do.
  • You used a reference to Worstpreviews.com which is dirt-dishing site wholly unsuitable for BLPs.
  • You used references from Zimbio.com, Rumorfix.com and Starpulse.com which are just gossip sites, not appropriate for BLPs.
  • Your reference for Furlong saying that his singing album was "the exact opposite of rock" and "a bad mistake" is just an old 2008 search query made at uk.eonline.com/celebrities/profile/index.jsp, which is not a reference at all. If you search online for the phrase "the exact opposite of rock", and limit your search to the year 2008 and before that, then the only two sources you will find are an English language blog from 2002 and a Japanese blog from 2008 which quotes it. Blogs cannot be used for contentious material in BLPs.
So you have chosen to deliberately reinstate the work of various editors including sockpuppets. This means that the work is now yours—you own it. Too bad it was such poor work, strewn with unacceptable references. You should examine each of the sources yourself and rewrite the biography, trimming the bad refs and any text based on them. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • dear binksternet; from your response i take it that you do not wish to go through dispute resolution on this matter?

as regards my "tone", you & your friend hillbilyholiday have camped out on this article for months; you have scrubbed out all the "negative" material (i.e.: the ENTIRE "personal life" section), & then repeatedly prevented other people from restoring either the text, or ANY of the information it contained.

none of this content is "contentious" OR "disputed", it was all WIDELY REPORTED common knowledge. there were COURT HEARINGS, there were POLICE REPORTS, there is even a video clip of furlong joking about his time in prison.

citing blp policies IS NOT a cover for this kind of action. you didn't just change a few lines, or go item-by-item challenging references, you DELETED THE ENTIRE SECTION about his personal life. if that's really where blp is at these days, then it's time for the whole wp/en community to have a great big rfc about the whole blp "project".


AND you 2 have done everything possible to shut down any opposition, including "closing" discussions on this talkpage & crossing out OTHER USER'S COMMENTS, citing "sockpuppetry" as your justification. which, by the way is a WP:BULLSHIT rationale for your particular action. evidence of sockpuppetry DOES NOT automatically moot or nullify EVERY edit/action undertaken by the "offending user". points raised by them in discussions still have to be addressed on their merits, especially when other users become involved; we don't do "damnatio memoriae" @ wikipedia.

AND it is inappropriate to shut down talkpage discussions about such actions, sockpuppeted or not, ESPECIALLY when you are involved in the actions being discussed.

as an experienced user you should really know better than that; hence my "tone" in response.

it is not helpful, or in accord with wikipedia policy, to "sanitize" blp's by removing everything negative about the subject without regard for fact (or to support other users doing so); the rules about references are NOT intended to cover or justify such actions. if you are in the habit of doing this regularly, i politely suggest you re-think that.

i'm not going to "scour" your edit history; quite frankly, i can't be bothered. i don't like spending my edit time on "behind-the-scenes" stuff; i don't even like working on blp's because of the tendency towards long drawn-out discussions (or star trek, or current events, or anything else where the conversation/drama flies hot & heavy on the talkpages). i just happened to re-visit this article & was surprised to find half its content was missing...

moving on, i note your edit to add references to the "personal life" section; i take this constructive edit as a peace offering which i acknowledge & accept; i'm willing to leave it at that if you are.

Lx 121 (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The situation right now is that there are multiple references in the article which are very low quality, too low for BLP. These must be fixed in whatever way seems appropriate, such as replacement with better refs, or deletion of the poor refs and any dependent text. Are you interested in taking on this responsibility? Binksternet (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Pinging User:Lx 121... Please let me know whether you are willing to sort through the references and text on this article. Binksternet (talk) 01:19, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I see you are working on other articles and not answering here, so I will fix the BLP problems myself. Binksternet (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

hello; i'm sorry, i am here now. but as i said, i do not want to spend all of my editing time in discussions. i will try to check & reply once every 24 hours, time permitting.

as regards the sources, why don't you list the ones that you consider dubious?

Lx 121 (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I was thinking you were willing to go the distance on this one, with dispute resolution in mind. No problem with me if you have no time for that.
I just reverted your addition of the ethnic heritage of Furlong. The source is a blog and not reliable. Binksternet (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
that was me "being nice", because i thought we had worked things out. my mistake. Lx 121 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"the photo"

we have exactly 2 photographs of the subject;

anybody got a VALID REASON not to use the better of those 2 pics?

& i don't mean WP:I don't like it, & i don't mean binksternet's WP:Bullshit arguements about copyright @ commons (which he is losing), & which are somewhat irrelevant in any case, as the image would qualify as WP:Fairuse, even if it were copyrighted, which it is not.

because right now, what i see is binksternet & demiurge1000, who are "camped out" on this article, & have a history of blocking any "unfavourable" material being added here.

(demiurge1000 spent a year fighting to remove the other photo; he lost)

(& if anybody wants to challenge my assertions, regarding the history of these 2 users, PLEASE let me know, i have edit-history links standing-by... )

right now, as i see it, the people who support using this pic include:

the uploader/person who added it in the first place.

me.

the anon-ip who re-added it (not me; spi if you want to, wp:idgaf)

& then about half a dozen OTHER USERS who edited the page, while the pic was up, WITHOUT removing it.

the people in favour of removing are binksternet (who started a bullshit DR @ commons to "justify" taking it down.

& demiurge1000, nonmmos, & liz.

NONE OF WHOM has offered a more valid reason for removing it than "discuss on talkpage".

&, given the lack of previous interest shown by several of these users (not counting demiurge1000), in working on this particular article, the question of WP:Canvassing does come to mind...

SO, here we are;

does ANYBODY have a VALID reason from removing the photo?

let's roll...

Lx 121 (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • You've been told over and over, and reverted by numerous editors. You are going to get yourself blocked. Wikipedia isn't TMZ or TSG. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
please note: TMZ or TSG is an ESSAY; it is not policy, it is not a guideline, it is somebody's OPINION. citing it is merely repeating that opinion as one's own or showing personal agreement with it. it carries NO FURTHER WEIGHT than that. Lx 121 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
HELLO; as i said, i wasn't the one who added the photo in the first place. you need to examine the edit history more carefully.
if you are trying to make some kind of "blp" arguement; i invite you to please state it MORE CLEARLY.
furlong's arrest is NOT in factual dispute.
that the photo is in fact of e. w. furlong is NOT in factual dispute.
the photo in question IS NOT from a tabloid (not that that is a valid reason to remove it), it is the product of the LA County sheriff's dep't.
we have EXACTLY 2 PHOTOS of the subject, & this picture is BETTER than the lede; it is also significantly more recent.
SO; with all due respect, i don't see what basis you have for your position, other than WP:I don't like it.
wanna go through dispute resolution & see who "wins"? ^__^
Lx 121 (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The image is in bad taste, and it is not necessary for the reader to understand Furlong's arrest. Binksternet (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you serious? How can you possible call a a straight forward photograph "in bad taste"? It makes no sense at all. The image at the top of this page in which has a distinctly goofy expression is a far more obvious candidate for the description "bad taste". Paul B (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: that the copyvio "dispute" filed by binksterenet @ wmc has been RESOLVED (long since). the image is pd-gov-ca; exactly as it said on the license TEMPLATE.

that removes the only (semi-)legitimate reason for removing the picture.

therefore, restoring image.

Lx 121 (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


this link is for User:Demiurge1000, to help them to understand the actual blp policies: Wikipedia:BLP#Images Lx 121 (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

For those not keeping track, re: consensus

Supporting inclusion of the mugshot

Opposing inclusion of the mugshot

  • User:Binksternet -- multiple reverts/removals of the image (among other reverts of material from the article, added by various users; removals frequently overturned); tried to have the photo removed from commons, using a very weak copyvio arguement; failed.
  • User:Demiurge1000 -- multiple reverts/removals of the image (among other reverts of material from the article, added by various users; removals frequently overturned)
  • Very happy to be counted amongst such august company! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • User:DD2K -- one comment on the talk page, 2 reverts to remove the image

it should also be noted in passing that User:Auric, who works on the article regularly, has edited the page both with & without the photo; without taking action to add or remove it. so at least one neutral, who presumably doesn't see any problem with inclusion of the image.


Lx 121 (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You can put me in the oppose camp. What's the point of the mugshot anyway? A mugshot, by definition, is an unflattering , negative depiction of the subject. Absent a very good reason for including the picture, I think we should leave it out. Now I see LX_121 asking for a reason NOT to use the picture in the above thread. I'm sorry, but if "why not" is your best reason for inclusion, I'm not on board.--Atlan (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
respectfully no; "by definition" a mugshot is a picture taken of someone when they are placed (or being held) under arrest ("mug" as slang for "face"). there is no inherent aesthetic good or bad, to this type of photography. the only purpose is to show the subject's appearance accurately.
the subject of this article was arrested REPEATEDLY over the course of 2013-14, charged, jailed, plea-bargained guilty. ALL of which is mentioned in the article. image serves to illustrate said section of the article.
ALSO; the mugshot is one of only 2 images we have of the subject, & it is the better picture of the 2; it should probably be used to replace the lede, but binksternet & demiurge1000 have been blocking that...
Lx 121 (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You explain the meaning of the word "mugshot", but without the connotations. A mugshot is very much a "picture taken by police after you've been arrested" in everyone's mind, not a "picture to most accurately display the subject's appearance". That's what matters most here, the negative connotations. This is not John Wayne Gacy, where I think the mugshot quite accurately captures the essence of the man and where the mugshot is, quite rightly so, the lead image. In both the cases of Gacy and Furlong, the mugshot tells the same story: This guy is messed up. The difference, is that Gacy was irredeemably so, and Furlong is not. Perhaps someday, Furlong will have messed up so many times that we can reduce him to the image of a man taken into custody by police, but that is, in my opinion, not today. --Atlan (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
with all due respect, your above arguement fails NPOV, & fails it badly.
our job is to report the facts, accurately & verifiably. all this lovely, subjective, emotional crap about "captures the essence of the man", "reduce him to the image of a man taken into custody by police", etc. is EXACTLY WHAT IS WRONG WITH "BLP" @ wikipedia. if this is what passes for a reasoned arguement in the BLP section, then it is long past time when the rest of the community should get involved & clean-house, to clear out all the accumulated the blp-cruft.
you have completely failed to address either of my points: i) that the image is factual & relevant, & ii) that WE ONLY HAVE 2 PICTURES OF THE SUBJECT, & the mugshot happens to be the better of the 2.
all you are offering to support you position is a bunch of subjective pap about how you feel about (not) using the mugshot. please offer a better, more coherent agruement, focussing on wikipedia POLICY & GUIDELINES; nothing in what you have written even attempts to address the arguement on that level.
I 'm sorry if that seems harsh, but really, if that's the best you can do, you DON'T HAVE a valid arguement for your position; in terms of wikipedia policy & practices. all you are doing is stating "how you feel", & you are (at least) the THIRD person who has failed to provide a decent arguement for your position opposing use of the photo. i'm really getting tired of debating people who haven't got a single valid arguement for their position, & just keep saying "nonono", with their fingers plugged in their ears (metaphorically speaking).
Lx 121 (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you get the impression that I too, am saying "nonono" to you with my ears plugged in this discussion? Because I don't see much reason to go on if that is how you feel. I will also note that you have arrived at that conclusion after only 2 back and forth posts between one another.--Atlan (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think changing the lede photo to the mugshot is, at this time, not appropriate. Furlong is still more known as an actor, and the lede photo should demonstrate that. Just because the mugshot is better quality does not mean that it is, in context, more suitable. Contextually, the mugshot would belong in the legal problem section if consensus is there for its inclusion (and I am neutral on whether the mugshot should be included as a whole).- Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 06:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Aerosmith video?

Didn't he also appear in Aerosmith's video for Livin' on the edge?--92.114.148.141 (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

latest "dispute"

we do not remove sourced material; especially when it is not factually disputed.

Lx 121 (talk) 03:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


update:

since when is Entertainment Weekly "not a reliable source"?

& since when is "Daily Mail" considered a legitimate rationale for deleting material?

please provide links to the relevant WIKIPEDIA POLICIES? because i seem to have missed it when those things were decided by community consensus, & it seems to me that those sources are pretty extensively "in use".

Lx 121 (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

for reference, here is a list of sourced material that user:hillbillyholiday has removed from this article:

Revision as of 07:07, 22 November 2015

List of sources inside - Stop this
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=691800891&oldid=685739446

Lx 121 (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:22, 14 July 2013

List of sources inside - Stop this
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=564248420&oldid=564059551

Lx 121 (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:27, 14 July 2013

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=564248962&oldid=564248420

List of sources inside - Stop this
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

will add more dates later, afk Lx 121 (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


See WP:BLP and note that when half a BLP is "rap sheet" stuff sourced to "celebrity gossip" sources, it is likely that too much weight is being given to the rap sheet. I would point out, inter alia, that the Daily Mail is RS except for celebrity gossip. Some of the other sources used for the rap sheet here are worse. Collect (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this really a WP:RS? And this? (Two picked out at random) I'm also a bit confused about use of the Daily Mail. Is it in the "in list" or the "out list". At the moment is seems to be both. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

is this really a reliable source?

Entertainment Weekly

is this?

USA Today

this?

Salon.com

or this?

Daily Mail

how about this?

Toronto Sun

this?

LA Times

this?

News.com.au

this?

Sky News

not picked out "at random"

with all due respect, Lx 121 (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

All I did was trim for weight and delete some really bad sources, though I am sure more could have been removed without harming this article. The DM is usable for most claims of fact but not for celebrity gossip - nor are most sources usable for gossip. Collect (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
that seems like a VERY' convenient way to eliminate sources. i'd like to see the relevant WP on suitable sources for "celebrity gossip" AND WP on use of the daily mail, please? Lx 121 (talk) 22:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
You need to step away from this article before you are topic banned. You have now disrupted multiple venues for years about Furlong. I don't know what it is that has you so obsessed with this particular subject, but he deserves BLP considerations as much as every other article. Stop it. Dave Dial (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
try this on for size, this article is my "test case" for whether "BLP' is worth my time & attention, & it has failed. BLP is a wasted effort; the rules are a joke, even by the standards of the wikipedia "process".
as regards the second part of you comment, which btw borders on a personal attack, this subject deserves an article that is ENCYCLOPEDIC, informative, & useful; as ALL BLP's should be. if you feel that i am somehow not adhering to this standard, please INDICATE WHERE i have failed to do so.

AND i have "stepped away" from this article (& from wikipedia), for several months; NOW the same problem user' "hillbillieholiday", has RESUMED their game of stripping out negative content, YET AGAIN.

FOR AT LEAST THE THIRD TIME

Lx 121 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd strongly advise you to have a look at the archives at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for what's been said about the Daily Mail. Your comments here, "with all due respect", come across as a little hysterical. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
well then, the community needs to make a decision here; about whether the daily mail is or is not' a "RS"; because it seems like the problem some users have with it, has to do with the STYLE of certain articles @ the daily mail, not the accuracy or reliability of their content. & that needs to be discussed. either the DM is "in" or it's "out" as a "reliable source"; we do not "cherrypick" on the basis of wp:i dont like it.
Lx 121 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Maybe the community needs to make a decision about your approach to editing collaboratively. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
"maybe" a whole LOT of things need to be discussed by the whole wikipedia community; quite frankly, i'd welcome a good "blow-out" community-wide conversation, about everything that's wrong with "how things are done" @ wikipedia, these days. Lx 121 (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

...& with all due respect, i take it that i have proved my point, about the user STRIPPING LEGITIMATE SOURCES from the article? if not, there is lots more! ^__^ Lx 121 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

"With all due respect" you've proved you are demanding complete ownership of the content of this article. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
no, i'm just applying WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS to this article, when it comes to verifiable facts about the subject, & the inappropriate removal of valid material by certain other users. i'm sorry if that bothers you but, with all due respect, you haven't put forward one single, solid agruement in favour of your position, in the entire time that we've been having this debate; & having failed on "RS" claims, now you're just reaching for anything you can think of.
& btw, what exactly does your new complaint about "ownership" have to do with the discussion about VALIDITY OF SOURCES? ever hear of the chewbacca defense? Lx 121 (talk) 06:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

& here we go again, Again, AGAIN...

SAME USER

hillbillieholiday

SAME PATTERN OF BEHAVIOUR

wait until everybody goes away, then start stripping negative content from the bio, claiming spurious rationales, or not at al.

for what is AT LEAST THE THIRD time.


AND

the last time this happened, we had a big "blow-out" discussion involving MULTIPLE USERS.

consensus, such as it was, was to RESTORE certain of the content that this user had removed.

NOW hillbillieholiday, is back, stripping it out AGAIN.

& AGAIN.

& AGAIN.

do the "rules" mean ANYTHING here?

Lx 121 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


collecting diffs of user hillbillieholiday's REPEATED content-stripping of negative material about the subject, for the record

5 sequential edits by the user on 29 jan 2016, removing 4,500+ characters; multiple sections, multiple sources

List of edits inside
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=702239465&oldid=697048947

followed by 2 reverts, restoring these cuts, on feb 8, 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&oldid=703950794

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&oldid=703952056

PREVIOUS ACTIVITY

user removed 8,100+ characters on 2015-11-20, over the course of 8 edits

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=691569990&oldid=691499872

2015-11-13

user removed 4,700+ characters, november 13, 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=690458279&oldid=690400409

2015-10-27

user removed 2,700+ characters, 27 october, 2015

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=687808644&oldid=685739446

same user, same removal of content unfavourable to the subject; same spurious or nonexistent rationales; either the multiple" sources for the point of contention are all "unreliable", or the user simply feel that the material is "unnecessary"

more to come...

2013-08-10

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=567953502&oldid=567937875

2013-07-17

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&diff=564739584&oldid=564668944

2013-07-14

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=564248962&oldid=564059551

Lx 121 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


so, you have nothing to say about the substance of the dispute? no attempt to defend your removal of all that content, YET AGAIN? AFTER it was "settled" last november? Lx 121 (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd strongly advise you to have a look at the archives at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for what's been said about the Daily Mail. Your comments here, "with all due respect", come across as a little hysterical, yet again. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
& with all due respect, yet again you are completely ignoring the dozens of other sources that were removed by this user; for your convenience, i shall repost some of them from above just for you:

sources removed from this article by hillbilliesholiday:

Entertainment Weekly

USA Today

Salon.com

Daily Mail

Toronto Sun

LA Times

News.com.au

Sky News

& here are the sources you have removed, today:

removed by martin "because it's not a reliable source"

List of sources inside
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,314950,00.html |title=A Path to Disaster |publisher=EW.com |date=1994-04-15 |accessdate=2013-12-09

removed by martin "because it's not a reliable source"

http://www.zimbio.com/Tragic+Child+Stars/articles/21/Tragic+Child+Star+15+Edward+Furlong

removed by martin "because it's not a reliable source"

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/01/eddie-furlong-edward-furlong-arrested-broke.html |title=Edward Furlong of 'Green Hornet' arrested, broke, staying home - latimes.com

removed by martin, because the Daily Mail is "not a reliable source"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2044390/Terminator-2-star-Edward-Furlong-ordered-pay-15k-child-support.html |title=Terminator 2 star Edward Furlong ordered to pay $15k in back child support

removed by martin, because the Daily Mail is "not a reliable source"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2044390/Terminator-2-star-Edward-Furlong-ordered-pay-15k-child-support.html |title=Terminator 2 star Edward Furlong ordered to pay $15k in back child support

removed by martin, "because it's not a reliable source"

http://uk.eonline.com/news/378936/edward-furlong-charged-with-misdemeanor-battery-for-allegedly-shoving-girlfriend |title=Edward Furlong Charged With Misdemeanor Battery for Allegedly Shoving Girlfriend

removed by martin "because it's not a reliable source"

http://www.eonline.com/news/378704/mug-shot-of-the-day-edward-furlong-isn-t-impressed-by-latest-arrest%7Cpublisher=E! Online|accessdate=January 15, 2013

removed by martin "because it's not a reliable source"

http://www.hollywood.com/news/Edward_Furlong_Arrested_Domestic_Abuse/48202640 |title=Edward Furlong Arrested for Allegedly Pushing His Girlfriend

removed by martin, because the daily mail "is not a reliable source"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2263106/Edward-Furlong-pleads-guilty-latest-battery-charge-arrested-THIRD-time-domestic-violence-months.html

Lx 121 (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


& here are some wikipedia articles ABOUT all of these "unreliable sources"

Daily Mail

Hollywood.com

E! (redirect from Eonline.com)

Entertainment Weekly

Los Angeles Times

Livingly Media (redirect from Zimbio, Inc)

how "unreliable" is that?

with all due respect, again, Lx 121 (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I think your repeated re-posting of material, umpteen times over and over again, is wasteful of time and effort. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
with all due respect, you are the one who keeps REPEATING yourself; over & over again.
you keep posting the same failed arguement about "weak & unreliable sources"; you've done so 3 TIMES now. i post the material to disprove your position, you ignore it completely, then later you come back & MAKE THE SAME ARGUEMENT ALL OVER AGAIN.
don't blame me for that; you're the one who keeps on doing this. i'm just not letting you get away with it.
Lx 121 (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Publications are not "reliable" just because they have Wikipedia articles. We wouldn't generally use Fortean Times as a source, for example. Your repeated lists of disputed edits and removed sources here come across as mindless ranting. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


  • still haven't had enough eh?
ok then; FIRST
here is a quick wiki-search on use of "fortean times" in wikipedia articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&search=fortean+times you will find that the source IS in fact used on articles which are RELEVANT to the subjects that it covers, & on articles relating to the publication itself.
SECOND, i ask you YET AGAIN which of the following sources, removed by you & hillbillieholiday are you claiming are NOT "RS"?

Daily Mail

Hollywood.com

E! (redirect from Eonline.com)

Entertainment Weekly

Los Angeles Times

Livingly Media (redirect from Zimbio, Inc)

& why? please provide explanations of why you feel the sources are not RS? i have asked you this AT LEAST 3 or 4 time now, & i am still waiting for an answer from you.
THIRD i'm sorry that you find arguement based on fact & logical reasoning to be "mindless ranting", but as you seem to be incapable of providing ANY effective counter-arguements, & you just keep repeating yourself, THEN complaining when i repeat the same responses to your same weak arguements, i don't find your opinions to be of much weight; with all due respect. Lx 121 (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
ENOUGH already. --Hillbillyholiday talk
your off-site spam-link has no meaning to me, & NEITHER OF YOU HAS ANSWERED (or even addressed) THE QUESTION 'which of the above are "not RS", & why?'; also, i thought you were "stepping back" hillbillyholiday? so what happened to that? Lx 121 (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Lx 121, what do you mean exactly by your comment "still haven't had enough eh?" Martinevans123 (talk) 11:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
the lines of text immediately following the section you quoted should make the answer to your question obvious, but just to clarify it for you: "are you STILL trying to argue your 'RS' claims?" because if you are, then i could re-post the list of some of the sources that you & h.b.h. have removed as "not RS" again, & then you could completely ignore it all over again when i RE-ask you to validate your non-RS claims for those sources, for what has to be at least the 4th or 5th time... Lx 121 (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Instead of carrying forward your huge WP:BATTLEGROUND agenda and copying out lists of disputed items time and time again, why not open a new thread to examine each item or event you think should be added to this article, and then suitable sources, if they exist, can be discussed and agreed on, as appropriate. Oh, and if you start each of your sentences with a capital letter, it may be easier for people to understand what you're writing. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
And the same goes for the anon BT ip editor who geolocates to Bury St Edmunds in Suffolk, who edited here and then, less than five hours later, here. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

(outdent) Most of the sources, from a glance, look fine. What is the problem here? Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think some sources were rather dubious to start with, and Hillbillyholiday may be able to shed more light on that. But the overall issue seems to be one of WP:WEIGHT - the fact that every minute detail of his private life has to be included. Overlaying that, however, there is a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality whereby every removal must be immediately reverted wholesale, with an ever-growing list of sources, repeated many many times over, WITH PLENTY OF SHOUTING. And then, just to add interest, we get an anon ip from Bury St Edmunds popping up and joining in the reverts. If additions could be considered here, topic by topic, or paragraph by paragraph, some sensible compromise might be reached on the basis of considered consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, apart from the Daily Mail, the other sources seem fine to me. The WEIGHT argument carries more.... weight LOL. I guess my question may be, is Furlong now more famous as an actor, or as a former actor with a number of very public legal and personal problems? Maybe some of the content is ok to keep, in a trimmed down state, but it should certainly not overwhelm the rest of the article. How do we find a balance between putting it all in or deleting it all? Kindzmarauli (talk) 21:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Child star?

He was already 14 when he became famous. (213.122.144.30 (talk) 09:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC))

Yes, that's considered a child.--Atlan (talk) 09:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
But the child actor article makes a clear distinction with teenage actor? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 09:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
He was a teen idol, not a child star. At 14 you can legally have sex in some countries. (213.122.144.30 (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC))
According to Wikipedia "teenage actors" are aligned with "child actors" but are not a component sub-set. I don't see why he could not be a teen idol as well as a teen actor. But I don't see what having sex at 14, "in some countries", has to do with this. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
That definition of child actor is unsourced and seems to be made up (the child actor article isn't very well put together). The dictionary definition is simply "an actor who is a child".--Atlan (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I think "teen actor" is more accurate than "child actor". Maybe an article is also needed for the former term. "Teen idol" looks ok to me, although was he much of an idol? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
A lot of people had posters of him from T2. None of his subsequent films did much business though. (213.122.144.76 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC))
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Furlong/Archive_1&oldid=815311968"